Forum Replies Created
-
Many times I have listened to
Capitalist finksfascists explain to me that what was the rule was then, and now is not then, and so they’ve changed the rule the other way. https://www.rt.com/news/602973-ukraine-us-kursk-antonov/ “US preparing to lift ban on strikes deep inside Russia – Moscow — RT World News”
It’s a long and detailed path, this History. A vast number of steps by degree, and by forgotten crimes, with many features, but I am reminded “in the beginning of the Imperial Period Rome followed the forms of the Republic”… But that was Rome.
In the relevant example before us to-day, ahem, we have a State with a basic law – the only binding that holds the regions and the peoples together. It may be that without the Constitution and the limits of power the “Free State” is held together only by the forms, by rituals, by quaint beliefs, no longer by Law…as you say, since 911…but that’s far too recent. I think it was Madison with respect to the 1787 Constitution who wrote that the amendments, those limits on Power, could easily be swept aside. The ratification of the 1787 Constitution, by the way, is questioned by serious scholars .
I am also reminded of the Master, who wrote > “If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” Since a “Free State” can know neither, it’s doomed, according to the Master, iiuc. It becomes a zombie. Blind too.
Has the State relevant here won any wars since 1812?
And war is illegal now, declared or not. Prohibited by Treaty Law, the UN Charter. War is permitted only under the agis of the UNSC or art 51 UNC. And there is no legal, or illegal, declaration of war. Dear, you wrote> ” One is not granted a right anywhere to interfere in your country’s wars with others. And we are at war.” I heartily disagree. There is no war, there is fighting and vast killing and murder, but we are not at war, not yet anyway. And is speech interference with a war that does not yet exist? If rights are granted, they’re not rights, but permissions. Crying “Fire” in a crowded theater, in the old interpretation, was given as an example of reasonably prohibited speech. But not if there really was a fire. Can mere speech even be an interference?
Because the forms are followed yet, a little, and because we see a big “crack down”, recognising that the “Free State” is shaking off what’s left, we note the German term for the process> Gleichschaltung. No doubt many will recognise that this term was in use in the period of World War Two, in certain parts of Europe. When, if, complete, the State will be free indeed. I am minded of the excellent piece you published on the rectification of names. 😉
Recalling Engels again, he pointed of the after every revolution the workers were armed, and that this condition was anathema to the new rulers, who promptly sought to disarm them. Indeed, many have pointed out that the natural right to free speech is secured by the next amendment. This too is, shall we say, rather effaced in effect?
And since a “Free State” (Engels definition) can only maintain the illusions and advantages of stability by mild force and peaceful behavior, and observing the reality that most of the world is formed in opposition, we may refer to Doctor Panarin’s map. However, in view of the bellicosity and emotions of desperation, and considering the nuclear reality, his map may seem unrealistically optimistic. >
