Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 15:01:02 -0400 From: bb748@freenet.carleton.ca (Milton Kleim) "AMERICAN DEMOCRACY": PARADIGM VS. PRAXIS By Milton John Kleim, Jr. "The path of least resistance makes rivers and people crooked." So said an unknown wise man. This maxim distills the main fault with a modern "demo- cratic" society, for the mass, given a choice, will always choose what they _want_ rather than what they _ought_. Applied democratic theory fails because it is based upon false premises: that all humans are equal, which they are not; that all humans are rational, which they are not; that all humans are wise, which they are not; and that all humans are virtuous, which they are not. Democracy the paradigm is at best an illusion, at worst a conscious fraud. Either way, the concept and associated ideologies are simply tools in a contem- porary form of witchcraft: statecraft. The criticism of Nationalist writer Adolf Bartels written during the Weimar Republic (a society with ominous para- llels to today's America) still stands true today: "Democracy...the supposed foundation of the perfected People's state, is...only a mask behind which the...international plutocracy conceals itself." [1] Wise men founded America upon a base of noble, idealistic principles, suited for a People that had leadership which kept vigilant to defend the Republic against hostile elements, both external ones, and perhaps most importantly, those internal, tyranny's "fifth column." Soon after America's founding, those internal forces, particularly merchants (who are forever like fire: necessary but often dangerous), and other elements not intentionally hostile to the infant Republic, began the long process of undermining those principles. A love of money displaced idealism as the forefront guidance, and was to be en- forced by a new constitution to supersede the power structure the financial elitists claimed rightly was "inefficient" -- for their purposes. Plato's descriptions of democracy foreshadow America's present wallowing in a peculiar form of that socio-political scheme. Plato stated, "...a society cannot hold wealth in honor and at the same time establish a proper self-con- trol in its citizens." [2] American society indeed holds money as an idol, with the expected consequences. Because an artificial form of competition, the pursuit of ever-increasing material wealth (and through this, hedonistic pleas- ures), grew to become the premiere "American Ideal," the moral solvency our society required was eroded. As Plato predicts, citizens will lose self-con- trol, and go "all out" to acquire wealth. Today's "American Way" encompasses extreme individualism and what may be called "present temporocentrism" -- "live well now and to Hell with future generations." "Insolence they call good breeding, Anarchy freedom, Waste magnificence, and Impudence a manly spirit," Plato attributes to "democrats." [3] Americans trample on great Ideals and traditions in their mad pursuit of egotistical self-gratification. Insolent and impudent are apt descriptions of the "American mentality," and largely un- restrained freedom to satisfy lusts -- spiritual anarchy, a form of tyranny -- and wastefulness are two things most Americans adore. If Americans are told that "some pleasures should be sought and valued as arising from desires of a higher order, other chastised and enslaved because the desires are base," the typical American will denounce such wisdom, "shaking his head and declaring one appetite is as good as another and all must have their equal rights." [4] Un- bridled freedom without commensurate responsibilities has been the "hole in the dike" -- the absence of adequate common civic self-discipline and responsibili- ty -- which enabled perfidious and criminal elements to secure the reins of power. Though the "mainstream" media and other ideological information distribution channels claim only totalitarian regimes are "Machiavellian," we must ask, would Niccolo Machiavelli have reason to make similar observations of "our" government as he did of his? Surely not, those whose view of the world is generated by television would say, for "our" government is "free" and "demo- cratic," and "democracies" govern by "principles." Indeed "democracies" govern by principles, specifically _one_ principle _all_ governments embrace: to do that which is conducive to the ruling Establishment's objectives. While Machiavelli dealt with a single individual, a "prince," in modern times the "prince" has been superseded by a virtual living _entity_, with enormous, terri- fic power, power undreamt by rulers of Machiavelli's day. In politics, might makes right. Politics is the science of managing or con- trolling people, and a government or power structure must exercise its sover- eignty -- claimed monopoly on power -- or it will wither and be replaced by another power structure. "Democracies," as "Western" States call themselves, and "dictatorships" (what the so-called "world community" labels those states they wish to see destroyed) differ in motives for, not in the methods of, exer- cising power. All power structures and systems, regardless of their propaganda to the contrary, are generally prepared to do whatever is necessary, no matter how corrupt or cruel, to enforce their sovereignty, even if such a challenge is merely symbolic. A ruling power "should...disregard the reproach of being thought cruel where it enables him to keep his subjects...obedient." [5] That the State will not tolerate even passive (but open) defiance of its plans and purposes has been made clear on many occasions, including in recent years the murders of "tax protestor" Gordon Kahl of North Dakota, "White supremacist" mother and young son Vicki and Sam Weaver of Idaho, and the children and adults of the Branch Davidian community (expectedly, universally termed a "cult" by the controlled media) in Texas, all killed without mercy by State Security Police (the BATF, CIA, and FBI being America's versions of the Soviet Union's GRU, KGB, and MVD). None of these victims had engaged in the least violent offense, yet they had to be "made an example of," for as Machiavelli long ago pointed out, terror discourages similar seditious beliefs among those aware of and opposed to tyranny. Fortunately, the latter incident has caused widespread awareness of the existence of the "unthinkable." In retrospect, Waco will be- come the focal point of American history, just as Auschwitz has been made the focal point of world history by the Establishment. At Waco, the mask of democ- racy fell away, revealing the ugly countenance of brutal tyranny to those pay- ing attention. In the words of an ordinary American, "the Waco thing really woke me up. They went in there and killed women and children." [6] Establish- ment commentators declare Orwell was erroneous; on the contrary, he was right on schedule. _All_ modern governments claim to be "of, by and for" the People. Never- theless, "rights" taken for granted by citizens are mere words unless the Peo- ple have the ability to neutralize sovereignty, which, contrary to the sophistic myth of "popular sovereignty," they do not possess. Neutralization of sover- eignty means that the People under its natural leaders can successfully subvert the monopoly of power wielded over them, and use force to protect those arti- ficial constructs known as "rights" when government goes berserk. Wise vision- aries, believers in the Lockesque attitude toward resistance to illegitmate government, being rightfully wary of the new system of 1789 demanded the citi- zens be accorded written guarantee to keep and bear arms, for force (or fear of its use) alone can maintain the other "rights" claimed by the People. Unfor- tunately, despite our slogan of "land of the free and home of the brave," hed- onistic lifestyle has sapped the moral strength our predecessors treasured to such a degree that, as De Tocqueville observed, "democrats" love "equality" more than liberty. Americans are learning late that a land in which only the police have free access to firearms is more than likely a _police_ State. Bureaucrats will do anything to insure that their careers flourish in Ameri- can politics, but the System has no qualms about disposing of a "public fig- ure," for all are expendible in the System's ongoing march for power. We can take into account the examples of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Nixon en- gaged in a rather petty criminal act of spying on his partisan opponents, un- derstandably attempted to bury the matter, and was destroyed on that pretext. On the other hand, Clinton, who has certainly bribed many potential enemies, and has "suicided" some opponents to protect his career (Vincent Foster being one victim), remains President. The primary factor in the outcome of these cases involves the investigation and scrutiny they were (or were not) accorded. This demonstrates the influence of the "fourth branch of government," the Es- tablishment media. The development of mass communications accelerated the decadence which demo- cratic notions of social phenomena foster, and such technology has been master- fully put to advantage by the American Establishment. The State has benefitted from mass media as thoroughly and effectively as Dr. Goebbels' ministry but- tressed Hitler's government. Television, which is perhaps the most effective weapon ever created, has been wielded with incredible skill by self-serving manipulators. Using television and the secondary organs of print media and cinema, the _illusion_ of benevolent popular rule has been maintained in the minds of tens of millions of Americans, and not many have ever properly criti- qued this most pervasive component of the System. The media is not specifically _government_ controlled, but rather it is owned and operated by and for the same clique that "owns and operates" the government. Few have ever asked a thoroughly enlightening question, outlined by British historian George Pitt-Rivers half a century ago: "We may consider whether it is better...that the Press should control the government, or...that the government should control the Press." [7] Networks and publishing com- panies responsible for nearly all television programming and most newspapers and magazines are held by a handful of _unelected_ men who have powerful social ties to and economic interests with their colleagues throughout the Establish- ment. The expense of mass media effectively puts a group of idealists out of competition with the Establishment media, and makes possible near total control of public opinion. Comprehensive countermeasures against _undesired_ dissent ("sanitized," managed dissent is a useful outlet, and the "capitalizing clown" known as Rush Limbaugh is in the forefront), primarily in the form of a state ideology -- a spectrum of "permissible" thought, just like _1984's_ "goodthink" -- have enabled the Nation's masters to secure the cooperation of the masses. The dynamics of mass psychology and "thought leadership" (to borrow Mao's term) are central to American statecraft, and proper application of their principles and techniques are indispensible for the present regime's continued rule. To consolidate his power, and to resist the unprecedented onslaught against German culture by Jewry, Hitler soon after assuming the chancellorship imple- mented _gleichschaltung_ -- "coordination" -- which restructured German so- ciety, fusing the NSDAP with the German State, and reorganizing all key insti- tutions in conformance with the state ideology. A much more subtle but none- theless effective process of "coordination" has occured in America. Today, it is proper to say that the American Establishment _is_ the State and the State _is_ the Establishment. All key institutions are structured to consolidate power for the State, though the fusion of state and other institutions is more de facto, than de jure as in the Third Reich. The two-party state offers the electorate "choices" in the form of Estab- lishment-approved candidates, and the voters select from opportunist-profiteer A, or opportunist-profiteer B (in certain key races, the controlled media will publicize an "independent" opportunist-profiteer C, both to "stack the deck" against the less favored candidate as well as to strengthen the myth of "free and fair elections"). Whomever commands the institutional backing of the Estab- lishment, and hence tremendous resources, almost invariably wins, for without Establishment media publicity, a candidate has about a snowball's chance in Hell of victory. The two-party state has overcome a major weakness of one-party states: focus of dissension. One-party states cannot avoid concentration of blame for polit- ico-economic ills on the symbol of all that is bad: the Party, and therefore the State. A two-party state deflects criticism to the presiding faction, maintaining public respect for the state's opposite "hand," while the other is temporarily (due to the public's short attention and interest span) in dis- favor. "The Democrats did it!", and the Republicans take the reins, yet the course remains the same. "The Republicans did it!", and the polarization shifts. In this the State adheres to Machiavelli: the master should seem to be "the embodiment of mercy, good, faith, integrity, humanity, and religion" [8], and must "avoid such courses as would make him hated or despised." [9] Be- cause "one of the surest safeguards...against conspiracy" is "not to be hated or despised by the body of his subjects" [10], it is imperative to maintain in the minds of the citizenry that "the State's not evil, it's just those corrupt Democrat (Republican) politicians!" American foreign policy is most illustrative of the actual policies and principles of the Washington Criminals. Even the terminology used is reveal- ing: Saddam Hussein is a "dictator," but Boris Yeltsin is a "president"; Muammar Al-Qathafi is a "thug," but Li Peng is a "premiere"; Pieter Botha's administration was a "white minority government," but Israel's government is "our faithful ally." But, bolder revelation of the American government's "dedication to freedom" is provided by chronicling actions. Washington init- iated what should properly be called the "War to Guarantee Israeli Supremacy in the Middle East and the Continued Flow of Oil Profits" against the People of Iraq because that Nation's "dictatorship" had occupied the "democracy" (in reality, a brutal absolute regime) of Kuwait. While America's masters strang- led both Black and White South Africans to sanction the government for "human rights violations," they cooperated on friendly terms with Red China, immedi- ately after the Tiananmen Square massacre, and worse, supported not the staunch "Americophile" Dr. Mangosuthu Buthelezi, but rather the openly Marxist and convicted terrorist Nelson Mandela. While the Arab world was, and _is_, our natural ally in the Middle East, the American government sacrificed billions to ally with Israel, despite the fact the IAF suddenly and deliberately attack- ed USS Liberty in 1967, slaughtering dozens of helpless sailors. Though the Eisenhower regime used _Voice of America_ to coax Eastern Europeans to revolu- tion against an oppression the American State was directly responsible for imposing, the heart-wrenching pleas of the Hungarian Freedom Fighters were ignored in 1956. [11] The American People were maneuvered into a war against National Socialist Germany, because Hitler allegedly wanted to "take over the world," while the State allied this Nation with an ideology which had before Hitler's birth proclaimed its intention to do just that, and with the ideolo- gy's chief servant, the USSR, a state with a regime that had _already_ murder- ed millions in manners at least as brutal as the German military's massacres. Even more incredible, the Roosevelt and Truman administrations collaborated with the maniac Stalin to enslave and condemn to death millions of Central and Eastern Europeans whom brave American soldiers had just fought and died to sup- posedly liberate. And still more unconscionable, the State's cooperation with Bolshevik Russia and "Eastern Bloc" states continued throughout the "Cold War" (a concept ominously reminiscient of Orwell's "war" between Oceania and Eur- asia), during the Vietnam conflict resulting in "trade agreements" which per- mitted American goods and technology to help kill Americans soldiers in South East Asia. [12] All these policies and actions harmed or at very least did not benefit the American majority and the commonly celebrated (though now largely substanceless) American heritage of justice and liberty, but they _did_ bring power, profits, and/or fulfillment of the Establishment's long-range goals (i.e., so-called "globalism" and "free" trade, which will facilitate virtually unlimited accumulation of wealth in the 21st century). America is in a transitory and metastable phase of its existence. Discon- ent is at an all-time high, for social and economic problems once easily masked can no longer be as traditional measures of escape and avoidance begin to fail for "Joe and Jane American." There are no more quick, relatively easy solu- tions to right our capsized society, as problems are much more firmly seated and pervasive today and the "standard" remedy of economic crisis, manufactured antagonism against a phantom threat, is now essentially impractical, except as a purely psychological device to bolster support for the State ("a wise prince...ought to...promote hostility...in order that his greatness may be en- hanced by crushing it." [13]). If the masses can be pacified adequately through clever statecraft, then America will move in the direction its masters have willed it to. The Tyranny of Money will tighten its grip, and the monster envisioned in the nightmarish "New World Order," a world superstate, with mil- lions of complacent, intoxicated "consumers" to be sheared while unconsciously revering Big Brother, will be our dark future. America has two possible destinies. The paths are not "rule of the People" or dictatorship, for we already have a form of the latter. The choice is be- tween the malevolent Tyranny of Money, and the aforementioned ends it seeks, or a benevolent authoritarian regime that will restore justice, true progress, and true prosperity to this once-great Nation. The "experiment" in "participa- tory government" has failed, at least for the time being, and a Platonic-style "guardian" elite to offer America strength and positive direction thorugh sound leadership (as opposed to the present charade substituting for leadership) must develop much further out of its infancy. Only a regime of sincere leaders that can rightly secure the trust and faith of citizens with the former's strength of spirit and authenticity of vision is capable of resurrecting America from the "useful chaos" of "democracy" which has served the objectives of self-ap- pointed kings well. If the Establishment cannot dramatically raise public confidence in the System and stem the ever rising tide of intense discontent among the masses through more fantasy "elections" (new faces, same disastrous agenda), more essentially empty promises and "contracts," more obfuscation and meaningless debate about irrelevant issues, and most importantly, assuring a continuous supply of "booze and ball" (today's equivalent of "panem et circenses"), then a _true_ alternative, not a Ross Perot-type "alternative," shall manifest itself despite the managed press' blackout. As the gap between media illusion and daily reality becomes unavoidably apparent for more and more Americans, the masses will be driven closer toward this alternative, a "last hope" against the complete end of their cherished lifestyle. Who are these potential "guardians," these leaders who will emerge to lead a second American revolution? And what will be the nature of that coming revo- lution? The leaders are those men and women of courage and honor who dare speak out against "popular opinion" at the expense of personal prestige and opportunity and in the face of the State's "iron heel." They are individuals who have rejected the plastic "heroes" of sports and "entertainment," and embrace the virtues so lacking in most Americans, virtues without which America could not have attained its great heights of the past. They are people William Pierce said will "stolidly endure whatever the State sees fit to inflict upon [them]," while they educate by example and prepare until "it is time to revolt...to unleash all the furies of Hell on the State until it yields." [15] The "tip of the iceberg" of these cadres of _genuine_ patriots -- not "sunshine patri- ots" and "patriots for profit" (ala Rush Limbaugh) -- is already raising the ire of the Establishment. [16] As the "American Dream" becomes an unattainable goal or fading slim opportunity for the vast _majority_ of young American fami- lies, not because of "changing times" but because of treachery, a select few will hear a call to help in the great endeavor to guide the way to a brighter future. Men and women ready to pledge "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" in defense of liberty still exist. Sadly, James Mason is correct in asserting "the System will never correct itself; it will never permit anyone or anything to correct itself; it will never tolerate or allow the development of any true, alternate system to com- pete legally against it; nothing of a positive or partial nature can be accom- plished while the System stands; [and] those who embark upon a course which runs contrary to that which the System has determined must understand they em- bark on a life and death struggle." [17] We cannot know the future, but we can be assured the emergence of a new era, a "third republic" in America, will not be for the timid and cowardly. The re- birth of America will be a clash of Ideals, a conflict between value systems, between ideologies, between a Vision of Light and a Vision of darkness. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: #1: Bartels, p. 124. #2: Plato, p. 280. #3: Plato, p. 285. #4: Plato, p. 286. #5: Machiavelli, p. 54. #6: Farley, p. 49. #7: Pitt-Rivers, p. 8. #8: Machiavelli, p. 58. #9: Machiavelli, p. 59. #10: Machiavelli, .p. 60. #11: David Irving's work about the revolt of the Hungarian People against a brutal tyranny is unique and shocking. And, as expected, it is rare due to deliberate suppression. #12: Antony Sutton, a former reseacher at the Hoover Institution, assembled a master work on the history of Western capitalist support for their suppos- ed "enemies," Marxist states. Reading his work was one of the most liber- ating things I have ever done. #13: Machiavelli, p. 70. #14: William Pierce, Ph.D, a former professor at Oregon State University, is the author of the infamous revolutionary novel, _The Turner Diaries_, and is founder and chairman of the leading White resistance organization in the world, the _National Alliance_. #15: Mason, p. 17. #16: For a short, very incomplete, and slanted introduction to the subject, see Farley. #17: Mason, p. 51. ===== Works Cited: Bartels, Adolf. "The Struggle of the Ages [January 1920]," in _The Weimar Re- public Sourcebook_, pp. 123-124. Edited by Anton Kaes, et. al. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Farley, Christopher John. "Patriot Games," in _Time_, December 19, 1994, pp. 48-49. Irving, David. _Uprising!, One Nation's Nightmare: Hungary 1956_. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1981. Machiavelli, Niccolo. _The Prince_. Translated by N.H. Thomson. In, _The Harvard Classics_, volume 36. Edited by Charles W. Eliot. New York: Col- lier & Sons, 1965. Mason, James. _Siege: The Collected Writings of James Mason_. Edited by Michael M. Jenkins. Denver: Storm Books, 1992. Orwell, George. _Nineteen Eighty-Four_. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1949. Pitt-Rivers, George Lane-Fox. _The Czech Conspiracy: A Phase in the World War Plot_. London: Boswell, 1938. Plato. _The Republic of Plato_. Translated by Francis Macdonald Cornford. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Sutton, Antony. _Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development_ [in three volumes]. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1968-1973. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A paper submitted to Political Science 465, Modern Ideologies, Winter 1994, St. Cloud State University.