A model is simply and economic view of reality or a simplistic view. By understanding certain models of power structure one is better equipped to understand the institutions of that government system. Although it is important to understand these political models of power, one must take these models of power with a grain of salt because after all, all models are biased. There are a multitude of models that could be used to describe any economy, government, society, or culture. When one sifts through the vast number of political models and theories of American government, there are three major models that stick out. These include: Pluralism, Elitism, and Economic Elitism. Each of these models is similar to the other in one or two ways, some more than others, but in essence each is multifaceted and develops a genuine and individual view of the way the American government is run along with its institutions.

            Beginning with Pluralism, the most deceiving of all the models of power, there is a large number of characteristics that need to be identified and speculated. Regularly in a right wing pluralist system of government the system will experience or will have experienced high levels of popular support for the government and all of its major institutions, a wealthy country with a large middle class, a history of political struggle, a sophisticated industrial base, relatively high income when compared to the rest of the world, and a high level of consumer goods and services which are being purchased. In a Pluralist system it is also said that the masses make the majority of the decisions through voting on different aspects of the government (i.e. those who run the government and what is done in the government regarding development of new laws and or policies. Pluralist governments also experience large amounts of citizen political leaders, be it governors, council members, presidents of institutions, streetlight coordinators, etc.; all of which is said to be in reach of the average Joe, as long as he or she has a will, a desire and passion for being a part of the system and serving the masses. Not only is there a diversity of jobs in the ranks of political leaders, but in a pluralist model there also tends to be diversity in race, gender, age, and wealth as well. This assures that all races, genders, ages, and levels of economic well-being are all represented equally and are given a fair chance to run for a position as a political leader. This basically restates the fact that Pluralism is a vivacious supporter of the American Democratic process and all the benefits that come with it.

            Next one must observe the Elitist model of power which is extremely opposite of the previously discussed Pluralist model. While the Pluralists discuss the importance of Democracy among the masses, the Elitist mode of power actually denotes a completely opposite perspective. In the Elite model of power it is stated that the government is run mainly by a small group of people, the elites which comprise about one hundred eighty thousand to two hundred thousand people, rather than the masses such as in a Pluralist Democracy. In the Elite model of power it is said that the elites not only control the bulk of the corporate assets, the financial institutions, the mass media, universities, and think tanks, but also the decisions that are made concerning laws and governance. In the Elite model of power the citizens may be under the assumption that their vote counts for something, while in reality the elite few are just pushing candidates that they want through for voting anyways; this seriously limits the democracy of the voting process. Also, the changes that take place in the government or society will only occur when the elites approve of it. Although the elites may battle on certain differences that they have with each other concerning contradictory opinions, the primary belief is that the elites own the system and they want to secure it for the future. Because of this, when this system is threatened, these elites lay down their differences, circle the wagons, and protect the fort. In the Elite model of power, the government is either stuck with a narrow minded self-serving group of elites who are only seeking to benefit from their positions or the much more preferred enlightened elites who are content with assisting in accomplishing whatever is in the public’s best interest.

Finally we discuss the Economic Elite model of power. This model is extremely similar to the elite model. The main difference between the two is that the elites in and economic elite government are actually the capitalist fat cats who run the big businesses. A Capitalist is one who owns his means of production (i.e. slaveholders, owners of large modern day corporations, etc.) and makes profit from them. As the Industrial Revolution rolled into England and produced mechanisms to complete the entire production process faster and at less cost it eliminated almost all jobs involving wool textile production. The economy had to compensate for this and replace the jobs somehow. This lead to a new class which would watch over the machines and make sure nothing backfired: the working class. The working class is normally lower class to upper middle class and is not regularly seen as being upper class. In this era, the working class usually did the dirty work unlike a noble or capitalist who would be calling the shots. In modern days however, the term “working class” is no longer derogatory and encompasses nearly everyone in the society while the capitalists still call the shots in an economic elite modeled government. These economic elites have mass control over the decisions that are made “democratically” in the same ways the elites did in the elite model of power. For example, the economic elites determine who they are going to be donating money to through the screening of the possible choices of candidates. While the big business elites make all the decisions for the masses they also lull the public into a false sense of importance. The masses believe they have a choice and help decide on factors of their governance; while in reality they have close to no influence on the matter whatsoever.

If I personally were to choose one model of power to represent the U.S. government I would most likely stick with the Economic Elite Model. This is because I feel that the corporate fat cats run this government whole-heartedly. For example, when the U.S. economy collapsed in early 2007, the banks and automotive companies were bailed out by the government. This only seems plausible to me if I take into consideration that the banks and automotive companies are the biggest of big wigs. These corporations are the ones pumping millions of dollars into government campaigns in order to support their candidate so that he or she will win the election. Look at Goldman Sachs for one; Goldman Sachs stimulated the campaigns of both of the winning presidential parties for the last two elections and also promoted Clinton during his election period. These Economic Elites are ruling our government with the money we are paying them; the masses are helpless and defenseless, put at the mercy of the hand of the economic elite. Of course the class struggle doesn’t make it any better either. While the fat cats are driving our economy into the ground its near impossible for a middle class working class citizen to advance into a position of power which would be considered useful in changing around the government policies/institutions. 

In conclusion, the three main models of power all contain characteristics that apply to every government. In fact, I think it would be safe to say that no government in the world is based solely on one model of power. All governments must pull qualities from each of the models to come up with their own form of mind controlling and deceptive system. Unfortunately, America’s system seems to be the worst of all and there doesn’t seem to be much that I or any of my fellow citizens can do about it.

Unfortunately for the powerful elites, changes in society have meant that power, prestige and money are no longer necessarily directly correlated. Indeed, there are examples of the poor and those once considered second class citizens having become rich because of some dislocation in the wages-reward equation. That is why, when for example rap stars show their success in wearing extravagant clothes and jewellery and so forth, they are regularly denounced as having ‘poor taste’ or ‘no class’ and so forth. In just the same way, any member of the working classes who, after a moment of success, chooses to drive a car similar to those of the upper classes, then he or she is considered to be acting above the right station in life and to be betraying lack of refinement. The message is the same in all such cases, only the powerful elites and the upper classes are permitted to demonstrate these appurtenances of wealth and privilege.

To make up for the inability to wear crowns and swords on a daily basis, therefore, the elites have worked on creating the concepts of good taste and refinement as a means of demonstrating their superior sensibility and to signal to others of the same class their membership of that group. On a practical basis, this has involved developing reasons why some representatives of a class of cultural or physical product is superior to others in ways which are not immediately obvious to all people. In some cases, good taste is based directly on the self-evident merit of the item considered: Shakespeare is demonstrably better than just about anyone else, for example, but in other cases (as in advanced wine-tasting or in architecture, quality of skiing or conversation), the decision is almost entirely based in intangible assets and subjective opinions. There is, after all, a long tradition of comedy based on people trying to convince others of a higher class that, through trying to copy the manners and habits of the elites, that they too can be considered members, only for the genuine elites to reject them immediately and obviously through some crass error or oversight.

Pluralists focus much of their theory on functionalist ideas. They mainly attempt to portray democratic explanations for how our societies work or functions. Elite theorists on the other hand tend to challenge much of pluralists ideas. They claim that democracy is a “myth” and does not exist at all in our society.

Pluralist theories tend to reject Marxism theories of economic determinism and believe that the state should be expected to provide for the health and welfare of its citizens. Ideology in pluralist terms is simply using persuasion and compromise not coercion and manipulation like Marxists. There are 3 main types of pluralism; Elite pluralism, Community pluralism and Classical pluralism. Elite pluralists believe that all types of elites have different influences and keep to the idea of the central elite. Community pluralism focuses more on the local community and only looks at what are considered real campaigns. This means that they then neglect the larger issues of power though and seem to have too much of an idealised view of their own local community. Classical pluralists believe that power is dispersed so that any interested individual can influence the decision making. They tend to ignore the inequalities in power altogether. All types of pluralism though seem to only see the power of decision making in a simplistic view which doesn’t show the whole big story (the metanarrative). Neopluralism tends to be a more sophisticated and up to date version of pluralism. It is also more critical of the level of democracy in our society. Grant (1989) also argues that there are only insider and outsider interest groups and that the state actually decides itself that the positions of influence go to. Insider groups tend to have regular contact with the government both in order to bring about pressure for charge and to supply the government with information. For example Amnesty International. Outsider groups tend to focus on a single pressing issue such as environmental concerns but may not be powerful enough or have enough financial resources to gain the attention of key people within the government.

Elite theorists generally challenge many of the ideas that pluralists hold. Elites are small groups that may exist at the top of any social group be it state, government, community or tribe. Various debates exist in sociology as to the power, authority and influence that such elite groups hold. There are two main types of elite theorists; Classical elites and Radical elites. Classical elites hold the view that equality is impossible in political terms as humans are unequal in terms of skills, intelligence and wealth. This theory sees only them, the elite, as natural and this is a very cynical view to have. Machiavelli (1527) says that elites use two types of power they rule through force and rule through legal means. Effective leadership according to him should mimic the traits of two different animal’s i.e. the cunning of the fox and the strength of the lion. He calls these qualities combined with courage and boldness. Mosca argues that the elite rule is natural, inevitable and normal. He was strongly influenced by Machiavelli in his works and suggested that elite rulers are different and separate from the masses because they possess special characteristics such as very good organisational skills which greatly contribute to them becoming powerful and successful leaders. Radical elite theorists are in favour of democracy (whilst classical elites are very fearful of it). They are similar to Marxists except that the elite nature of society that they talk about is not actually based around class. They tend to describe a more complex social reality, making them more believable but their empirical evidence has never been very conclusive. C. Wright Mills (1916) is a radical elite theorist who argues that unelected elites are the ones who dominate American society. These unelected elites are based around the military and the government and tend to share the same social background as them. The power elite offer influence and power in a relatively stable set of elite positions. Hunter (1953) identified in Atlanta, Georgia a narrow group of elites who were exercising power over the masses of people living there. They only make decisions to benefit themselves and others like them. He studies groups involved in a communities decision making processes in order to identify the existence of local elites who, taken together ruled over large sections of the city. Their interests were also always business orientated which made it difficult for people to stop them seeing as they were so very good at what they were doing.

Both pluralist theories and elite theories have their problems. For one neither perspective seems to have much strong evidence to support their claims. The writers of elite theories have also written over long periods of time and this has meant that their ideas have become fragmented and have changed. An example is Mosca who later changed his negative views about democracy arguing that the election process was a vehicle for the circulation of elites he earlier wrote about. There also differences between functionalists and pluralists such as the fact those functionalists make collective decisions for the whole community. Pluralists however tend to look at competition and compromise within the consensus system. This view is supported by Dahl.

Before I opted to write about this issue I thought instead of giving a journalistic, scholastic standpoint to the issue. I would attack it from the heart of this phenomenon. I have decided to show the acts of deceit and fraud from the viewpoint of the perpetrator.

I will show the motivation behind the lottery scam involving Jamaicans and United States citizen which has increase the national revenue obtained from remittances but has fomented a rise in violence and murders within the city of Montego Bay and given birth to a new, young vain elites, whose mantra is “get rich or die trying”.

Some people look at the young people in Jamaica that are perpetrating these acts of debauchery, criminality and fraudulence as indolent, depraved youths, lacking ambition, morality and sense of accountability. But few people have ever seen the gully sides of Jamaica. Few individuals know that sixty percent of Jamaican males live on less than sixty dollars a day that is less than a United States dollar. A great number of Jamaican males are illiterate, unskilled and unemployed.  

Few persons could survive the living conditions that many Jamaicans survive within daily.  The rich have always wondered how the poor live the way they do and continued to survive and generate some sense of happiness, fulfillment and satisfaction. It is because they have learned to be content with their plight. They have to accept their quandary before it destroys them.

Apparently the current youth generation does not have that level of patience, tolerance or acceptance.  Youngsters will not accept that they should be poor because their parents are not wealthy. They have become disillusioned with the decrepit state of the economy, the exploitation, corruption and governmental maladministration of politicians and the abuse and incompetence of the police force. The young men have decided that they need to find a viable alternative that will give them the desirable lifestyle that they see on television and hear about. The youths concocted the international lottery and sweepstakes scam.

A scam that would lead to a rise of youthful millionaires living like the biblical prodigal with hefty bank accounts and mansions: a new cadre of elites with a ghetto swagger and the arrogance and net worth of fortune five hundred CEOs. Youths as young as sixteen years old are becoming millionaires overnight, driving Chryslers, Range Rovers and Jaguars. Young adults from the inner-city are becoming the new elites. They have earned the right to be called the best in society. A society that they know very well honors and grade individuals based on their socio-economic status.  They know that being poor is far more socially repulsive than being a criminal or a drug lord.

In fact the illegal characters in the society are lauded more than the law abiding citizens. Poverty in itself is a crime and the youths from the ghettos know that. A criminal is granted more respect than a poor man.  A poor man is disrespected, stared up on with social derision and contempt by those who are often only a few notches above them on the social ladder.  

 The lottery scam and sweepstakes scheme provided a venue for social upliftment at the expense of innocent Americans. According to some fraudsters, what they have taken from the Americans is peanuts compared to the great way in which their lives have been improved. In the fraudsters mind, scams are necessarily evils. According to one scammer “it is the greedy individuals who are jeopardizing the business by bilking people…we do not bilk we just take a little for sustenance and we move on”. According to this scammer, people cannot be satisfied with the little that they procure. He says that this is the stimulus behind the crime and violence stemming from the lottery scam.  “Some individuals need to be taught that they cannot try to outwit the system and steal from us” Now that is what I call a twisted, warped sense of justice and morals.

Poverty is made to be situation that youngsters should be ashamed of.   When you tell a man that you are poor, he assumes based on the notions of our capitalistic society that your destitution is due to your lassitude, lack of ambition and vision. Few bystanders consider that the plight of the have not is far more sociologically and economically strategic than what meets the eye. 

On the other hand, there are individuals who possess aptitudes, resources and opportunities for advancement and have chosen to allow torpor and negative factors to stymie their progress. Even so the poor and their progeny will live in poverty because they cannot afford to send their children to school because education is very expensive and above the financing of many Jamaican parents. They cannot afford to buy medicines to aid their family members because medication is unaffordable.

This is what the young scammers see before they choose a life of crime and decadence. It is very debilitating and pitiful to know that your mother will die because you cannot afford to send her to the doctor or that you are looked down on as inferior because your parents cannot afford to send you to college. Imagine being disrespected and despised by others because you were born in a particular community or your parents are impecunious. Scammers simply want to beat the system to a better life for their family and friends with minimal effort.

They do not want to take the legitimate road because it is long and hard. They want an easy way out. Some have become very disenchanted by the Jamaican economical system and society and resign that they will never be able to make it to the top by means of the straight road. The church offers little or no solace for the economical times. The people have lost interest in god and religion because praying does not alleviate their quandary.  In fact the pastors are more concerned with building their congregation than with the traditional duties of the churches within the Jamaican communities.  My dad once said that I should stop going to church because for a brilliant scholar, my church have never offered me any form of assistance. In fact at the end of a sermon, I often feel worst than I did when I came in due to the religious interrogation my conscience was subjected to and feelings of disillusion due to being made to feel substandard on my quest for eternal life in God’s celestial home by my pastor.

Jamaicans have come to realized that politicians are far more interested in power and wealth accumulation though increase taxation and exploitation of the labour force than they are in the welfare of the public. The elite distance themselves from the poor and pretend as if the suffering of the lower classes is happening on another planet and not on the outskirts of their salubrious communities. A morose ambient clouds the Jamaican demography.

This issue was not meant to excuse the behavior of scammers nor do I advocate fraud and financial crimes. I do no moralize or support acts of deceit, fraud and extortion.  The issue was geared at exposing the socio-economical and psychological factors behind perpetrators of scams. 

This is wondrously when the people are vibrantly filled, with substantive hope, as is seen through their inventing, exploring, achieving, conquering, etc.  A spirit of greatness, moreover, pervades the land as its possessors manifest the rightfully confident thrill of truly loving and grasping challenges, even if only for the exhilarating sake of mastering challenge qua challenge itself; these are the presumed halcyon days of a civilization confident and, consequently, readily filled with superb confidence of its own desirable future.

When a nation or empire is in its assumed declension stage, however, there is then a growing plethora toward exhaustion of those who have finally gained the requisite wisdom, meaning the philosophers and others more closely called soothsayers; they are those who, insightfully, do know the unfortunate direction of present and expected future events that necessarily do bode ill for any possible attempts to revive a truly solid spirit of political, social, and cultural hope; few are they who, vigorously and openly, proclaim vehemently the initial beginnings or genesis of a considerable civilizational renaissance just about to take off for the politico-economic, socio-cultural, etc. stratosphere of notable achievement. 

When all true hope appears to be either fully lost or nearly so, on the other hand, then it becomes the intriguing case that so many people come to then realize things and considerations, with a clarity and profundity, previously unknown when prosperity, affluence, and pride had obscured sober visions of the deeper truth; that depth-filled truth, that harsh reality confronted manfully, had a hard time coming into proper and requisite view for many people.

But now, when it is already, probably, much too late to substantially reverse direction, a transparency, a most compelling confession, of a supposedly important political, cultural, and/or social revelation of a tremendous magnitude occurs; this is consciously formulated, somehow dramatically and vividly, at this rather disappointing point in time; thus, one is, proverbially and respectfully, reminded of the asserted, aforementioned flight of divine Minerva’s wise owl.

The USA has, as many believe, reached that dreadfully significant point in that its historical zenith is seen to have been mainly passed and, now, the fundamental nadir of the various realities confronted present a predominantly gloomy prospect foreshadowing the coming disaster.  And, this sort of thinking is now crescively widespread, even among those highly prominent commentators, talk show hosts, and pundits who may publicly claim to remain still quite fundamentally optimistic about the future, about the truly celebrational epic that was, by definition, the United States of America.

For instance, Rush Limbaugh, upon reflecting on the matter of South Carolina’s Gov. Mark Sanford’s social interlude with his mistress, in knowing that his political career would probably be, thus, totally destroyed, has commented, interestingly, that Sanford may have concluded that all hell was going to break loose in the fairly near future, meaning in this country; so, this Southern leader of the Republican Party had rationally decided to get as much gusto out of life, as fast as he could, due to his then personal knowledge of the dire catastrophe ahead. 

Was he, thus, seized by a Spenglerian pessimism, (as is such a public figure as, e. g., Patrick Buchanan)?   It may be true.  Now is, therefore, a time truly worthy for much intense reflection upon the errors committed that have, thus, contributed to the noticeable decline of the Republic.

Of what substantial value is a possibly brilliant career in politics, if certain chaos and anarchy are to be the horrid forces to be sadly confronted, during a prolonged or unpredictable national disaster of a quite terrible magnitude?   Few are there who, longingly, do aspire greatly to preside over the destruction of a once-purportedly, great national patrimony spoiled, both integrally and thoroughly forever, by vile ideological excesses, inclusive of corrupt, massive, interventionist, governmental spending programs gone wild; the national debt has, moreover, and will further skyrocket toward once unimaginable heights, with the later massive inflation to come, as is now being logically anticipated. 

And yet, more than all that, America’s domestic leadership elites, cultural, political, educational, etc., are, by and large, mainly degenerate swine who only think about themselves and have no real concern for posterity or the national patrimony, meaning beyond their own relations at best; thus, potential for genuine recovery does not appear to be realistically possible nor, in fact, substantively plausible given the above presented and argued context of a genuine loss of affirmative faith in the Republic and its then manifest suffering; this is in this perilous era fraught with much danger; there is, moreover, a quite discernibly pervasive Godlessness among the movers and shakers, the power brokers and players, rancid intellectuals, shallow-minded academics, etc. of this much afflicted nation.

The demonstrably effete elites, after too many generations of self-indulgent affluence, have ended up adopting nihilistic and selfish attitudes; this is by which to simply self-justify their own inbred arrogance, sense of superiority, corruptive snobbery, etc.; and, moreover, they are so well satiated by excessive promiscuity, enervated by much aesthetic nonsense, filled, eventually, with ennui, etc. and now headed, need one add, eventually toward a surely much deserved self-extermination through birth control, sodomy, drugs, etc. 

Of course, the continuing decline, for a respite, may achieve a temporary “plateau” with the election of a fairly conservative Republican President in 2012, as when, e. g., Constantine had slowed down the still inevitable fall of the Roman Empire.  But, history, of course, knows of this scenario already.

And, later, St Augustine wrote his The City of God to help provide some consolation to those Christians and others who had feared greatly that the destruction of Rome, the Eternal City as it was called, may have meant the simultaneous finish for the entire world, as it was known to them, of course.  He had properly reminded Christians, then and for all time, that the only true eternal city was Heaven, not this fallen world; and, therefore, the solely appropriate worship was meant for God, not the State. 

This present minor article can, in its rather limited way, help to simply alert people, today, that there will be, in fact, life lived after the termination of the (former) Republic, as it is, thus, hellishly transformed into a social-democratic State on a (degenerate) European model, of course. 

To return to the larger aforementioned point, noted failure of the spirit of the American ruling class can be seen, for instance, in terms of the quite inferior politicians that were offered, to the public, in the national election of 2008; the very best that the Republican Party could offer did not really inspire enough of the conservative core of that party to come out and enthusiastically vote for the candidate obviously desired by the country-club/yacht-club, upper-crust Republicans, as was, thus, so correctly noted by Buchanan and others.

But, much more related to the position noted, of the further degradation to be seen, is the plan to legalize approximately 30 million illegal aliens who will permanently change the nature of the USA, as it rapidly slides toward the basic approximation of a Third World nation, having both an increasing and crescively permanent underclass; this result is clearly desired by the effete elite who do need a ready supply of servants to attend them and their needs.

The parallels with Rome’s fall added to Alvin Toffler’s (author of the books: Future Shock and The Third Wave) idea of the acceleration of history factor add very dramatic weight to most of Edward Gibbons’ reflections concerning the decline of that empire, which are frightening and uncanny parallels, e. g., inflation, a permanent proletariat/underclass, barbarian invasions, the cancerous growth of bureaucracy and statism, overextended military commitments, etc. regarding the USA; the spiraling downward of this country cannot, apparently, be functionally stopped and the  still purported doctrine of “American exceptionalism” is, now, thoroughly being put to its severest test of all.

The Latin Americans (meaning mainly illegal aliens), for example, entering massively into America, are quite similar to the Arian Christian and pagan barbarians who, more and more, could not be properly assimilated, Romanized enough, to articulately participate in the truly advanced society, culture, and civilization that was Rome; the basically same condition is now, to all intents and purposes, essentially true for this declining country, with its truly decadent multiculturalism, degenerate diversity, racist affirmative action requirements, etc.  This superbly illustrates, therefore, the ancient saying that: “Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.”

One easily confirms this needed understanding, moreover, by reading such important recent and provocative books as James Kalb’s The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command.

What, however, literally took centuries for Rome regarding its long collapse is now, because of the acceleration of history factor, occurring more quickly in America, meaning within the scope of just decades of time; of course, a New Constantine, such as, e. g., Bobby Jindal, can arise, being that he is a convert to Christianity (finally, to Roman Catholicism), as was, eventually, the original Constantine; Jindal could forestall, though only for a time, what must inevitably, one supposes, happen given the course of events concerning this nation, since at least the 1960s. 

However, in any eventuality, intelligent people ought to logically prepare now for the dark age ahead by strengthening themselves, especially morally and spiritually; establishing contacts with local people for much needed networking, and doing whatever is practical and possible concerning the viable creation of localized infrastructures as a requisite and safe counterpoint to the general and progressive breakdown of the outside world.

One might hope, furthermore, that the religious institutions may come in the fill the growing gap of competence and responsibility that must occur as the hyper-centralized and massively centralizing governmental establishment, the Federal government, Big Government, caves in on itself.   Political hypertrophy, in addition to other matters, was one of the important reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire because their own attempt at Big Government had also failed; thus, certain aspects of history, in terms of the observed principles involved, make for the repetition of historical melodrama.

After all, the merely human instrumentality of (modern democratically despotic) government can only really do a few things, at best, pertaining to solid attempts at governance; but, many things, as in a social-market economy, piled ceaselessly upon a continuing growth of many more things can only be done badly, increasingly so, as history has, time and again, vividly demonstrated in empirical terms of reference; the shift in thinking has been from a consideration of a theocentric to an anthropocentric order of reality, meaning that, for most people, Man is now made the true measure of all things.

The vain ideological pursuit of utopia, the supposed awaited heaven on earth, however, can only lead, at the clumsy and often corrupt hands of imperfect human beings, to a hell on earth; as was well known even to that “nonconformist” socialist, George Orwell, this is not, of course, what the collectivists ever expect, though this is always, unqualifiedly so, what they do then genuinely only deserve for their quite often Satanic efforts on this planet; nonetheless, what has substantially resulted is the basic growth not of Big Brother statism but, rather, a Big Mother regime so intent upon bureaucratically regulating and controlling, monitoring and investigating, the lives of the people as intimately as possible; thus, it is the revealing thought that who says socialism, says bureaucratism.

It can be appropriately said, of course, that America had its great glory and was, indeed, a most brilliant civilization that offered great opportunities for real success to many millions of people of diverse colors, creeds, etc. well beyond that of any other country in the entire recorded history of this world; vastly tremendous technological, military, and scientific triumphs are, splendidly, to be worthily included, in this soon-to-be postmortem estimation, that must fairly encompass, as instances, victories in two world wars, the Moon Landing event of 1969, space probes to the outer planets and beyond, and much else. 

At a minimum, it is, surely, true that the 20th century was then so rightly called the American Century, which may well end up being looked back upon as the past Golden Age of the Republic.

But, the always much greater, highly more significant, past achievement of America had been its (later failed) attempt to institute a responsible understanding of liberty under law and the sense of self-government of a people in terms of a free, limited, constitutional, republican government that was once held in sacred trust by the people of this nation; the generation that had led the American Revolution and established the Republic was one of the most remarkable generations in the entire history of mankind; it was truly the greatest American generation, not the people who happened to have fought War World II, as often now alleged.  Why is this statement purposely given as such?

Above all others, George Washington had, ever magnificently, refused completely to do what many lesser men would have just, normally and expectedly, have so willingly done; he gave up all of his vast power freely and just tried to go home, though he was, thoughtfully and righteously, called back into needed political service by his ever grateful country, what had been once thirteen disunited colonies that had, finally, become a proud nation.

Washington alone, among the truly greatest of men in the entire history of this world,  ought then to be forever justification enough for the fundamental entirety of the notable justice and resolve, necessity and glory, behind the Revolution; it is this ultimate great patrimony that these present and inferior generations of Americans have just frittered, have simply squandered, away toward the terrible and expected future destruction of anything, the last vestiges, that may be left of republican government qua requisite governance. 

It is important to remind people, since it is no longer taught correctly in the schools these days, that a republican government, which is not, by definition, a democracy, is only meant to be a representative government, a representative republic, as was the exact case, e. g., with the original US Constitution; moreover, an actually written constitution is truly meant, by definition, to be for only a delimited, circumscribed governmental structure, unlike countries having unwritten constitutions, as with Great Britain, that can be infinitely flexible and, thus, expandable concerning endless degrees and kinds of political powers and prerogatives, of such a State, in this world. 

Thus, it is definitely an oxymoron to ever speak of a democratic republic, representative democracy, or a republican democracy because such odd terms are clearly inherent contradictions, as by definition.  A democracy, in its proper understanding, admits of no representation whatsoever because the people, the citizens, are to directly exercise their rulership by voting; thus, 51% of a vote decides any issue in terms of a true democracy. 

If representation is, thus, involved concerning the voting to be done, then it is an obvious representative government that does exists, not a democracy; a republican government, therefore, incorporates the specified constitutional powers of and acts by and through the elected representatives of the citizens; the people in and of themselves, therefore, do not rule.

These forever important political facts were known, of course, to the colonial leadership that became the later revolutionary figures, who had, among other compositions, written such things as The Federalist Papers in which, for instance, democracy gets there openly denounced unreservedly as being a terrible form of government; among the ancients, the great Aristotle, e .g., knew that it was a form of tyranny.  

The Revolutionary War generation, especially the Founding Fathers, were not really demigods, as is, sometimes, said in praise; but, they were, it can be fairly said without any exaggeration, genuinely a group of extraordinary men who rose above the ordinary ranks of the majority of the people of that era, on either side of the Atlantic Ocean, at a minimum; that was this nation’s ultimate claim to justified fame that had ended up, among other consequences, attracting immigrants from around the world to its shores hoping for a better future for themselves and their children and further descendants.

The New World of America was always to be, thus, extremely different and better than the Old World of Europe and its then rejected ways; in general, what existed as a social contract society was, therefore, held to be much better than a social status society in the European manner; today, a once more fluid social pyramid is to be substantially replaced, by ideological dictate and collectivist fiat, by one that will try to politically, culturally, socially, and, especially, economically exist as if poured in solid concrete for all time.

What is, sadly, occurring with the predominant majority of the Americans of today is a manifest form of idolatry, meaning making the worship (social justice) greater than the god.  Because social justice is deliberately cut off from overall religious signification and its integral vital meaning, the democratic-collectivist State, in the social status-oriented manner of the European social-market economy, meaning the ideological myth of everybody living at the expense of everybody else, provides the modernist ideology of secular materialism and with it, ultimately, degenerate nihilism, as if it were, in fact, an earthly form of glory; there is to be the ersatz religion of the worship of deified Man as offered by the reified State in a postmodern, post-moral world.

A terrible reversion and disgusting retrograde movement is, thus, happening by which tyranny gets celebrated as not a form of slavery under a euphemistic title but, supposedly, a truly new righteousness, ideologically supplied with appropriate propaganda; this was the fear, in the early 19th century, that was interestingly expressed by Alexis de Tocqueville in his notable book, Democracy in America, in Part II, in which he had coined the now justly famous expression: democratic despotism. 

The fame of the democratic ideal had spread both in America and Europe; and, many people thought that it would be all political glory to boast of how democratic a government could be, forgetting what history had taught, as was known to the Founding Fathers, about those democracies that had existed in earlier times.   But, democracy, especially when headed toward a postmodernist secularization of the society and culture, does not assure success.  In addition, such things as the notable and empirically observed might of the USA, measured in many terms of reference, cannot itself by itself guarantee any permanently secured form of (supposed) temporal success. 

Moreover, the tremendously united technological-economic-military infrastructure all together cannot insure survivability, as is noted in such interesting recent books as Christopher A. Preble’s The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free.  With all of its remarkable and past fame and glory put together, therefore, America will still, nonetheless, eventually pass away, in time; moreover, entire empires and mighty nations do, as ever necessarily, both rise and fall in history. 

But, as an aspect of reality, the disheartening level, e. g., of politics offered, in this nation, is disastrous to behold; this is as both the conservatives and the liberals/leftists wish to diffuse their ideological passions among the populace.

Passionate politics is a true synonym for such ideologies as Communism, Nazism, and Fascism in that the leaders and followers are both supposed to be extremely filled with an inordinate intensity of desire to establish a utopia on earth, in the name of their particular ideological fixation, of course.  But, this excessive fascination with terrible extremes of feeling versus thought, reflection, and contemplation is not limited to only the normally most prominent examples of their kind, as was true of the 20th century, in particular.

The vast majority of the advocates of conservatism, in this country, explicitly demand that passion be involved in the central doings of quite passionately committed politicians and citizens who, one can easily guess, have a true passion for politics; one hears this often resoundingly said, for example, by such notable, public conservative figures such as are Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and many others. 

On a wide variety of profound issues, due to opposed principles on philosophical, political, and moral grounds, this too, however, is an obvious issue where the traditionalist right solidly rejects and stands adamantly against conservatism’s views on the subject of passion and its specific application to politics.  The classical mind, meaning the cognition of the traditionalist right, thus, properly rejects the thinking of the conservative mind.

Conservatism in America, on this matter, once again supremely proves itself to be a form of liberalism in that modern politics, basically embraced by conservatism, is opposed to classical politics, which is, on the other hand, rightly upheld and admired by the thinking of the traditionalist right.  Passion is part of the firm basis of modern politics, which is the lust for modernity, meaning modernist political cognition as was firmly supported by, e. g., Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, J. S. Mill, Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others. 

In contrast, Aristotle taught, in line with what is called the perennial philosophy, classical political philosophy, as was also properly understood by such philosophers as Leo Strauss, that passion and, moreover, a known man of passion were said to be always automatically, axiomatically, disqualified from participating in politics.  What, however, specifically is meant?

No passionate man, Aristotle insisted, should ever be allowed to exercise political power, due to the excessiveness of such emotional and/or psychological impulses held that can then logically corrupt or derange his thinking and any consequent actions.  Passion, thus, bespeaks a mind and will unfortunately afflicted with what today is recognized as ideological ardor that can and usually will then deform the ratiocination or cognition of anyone who puts abstractions before the humble realities of human beings. 

Concerning this important matter, moreover, Limbaugh and many other very prominent conservatives have, repeatedly, publicly, and vehemently insisted that conservatism is definitely an ideology geared for passionate action in this world; but, among other serious defects, it logically leads to the destruction of actual and needed statecraft and statesmanship.   

A statesman, in sharp contrast to a mere politician, has a disinterested regard for politics, which does not mean a lack of interest; politics, in terms of true statesmanship, is then to be a logical and proper extension of ethics as ethics is a requisite part of morality; but, politics, when rashly conducted at the most base level, gets reduced to who gets what, when, and how much; not surprisingly, the bold champions of such a debased and often ideologized  politics, therefore, do easily achieve their raw expectations of fame and glory, money and power, in this fallen world.

And yet, one sees clearly, as the poets have knowingly said, that all fame is fleeting; and, as theologians acclaim, all (true) glory is God’s.

He had tried, valiantly but mainly uselessly, to seriously warn his fellow academics, the cultural elite, and other people that, especially in and by the 1960s, he had correctly perceived that America was definitely on the sad road to recreating the basic situation of a disintegrating, declining Weimar Republic-style country.  The nation’s future was to be filled with gross nihilistic rot, unless a true change in course would come.

This political philosopher had firmly become very convinced by what he had keenly and cogently observed, including his advanced philosophical reflections upon the often hard realities of political life when put under excessive stress.  Terrible results were to be produced, increasingly, by favoring subjectivism and relativism as principles of thought and cognate action.

In addition, this wise scholar had studied and revealed the viciously evil consequences of what necessarily happens when leadership elites become, basically or mostly, enthralled to modern political philosophy in ethically and morally vile terms of Machiavellianism (the ends justify the means) qua power politics supreme, inclusive of all Realpolitik.

He disturbingly saw the increasingly pervasive degeneracy of the dominant elites, the broadly growing and aggressive nihilism of the academics (e. g., applied deconstructionism in nominalist cognition, etc.), the indifference of almost all the most influential intellectuals, and, moreover, the steady decline in needed ethical and moral vigor of the political class itself.  He, thus, quite presciently foresaw the many dangerous and destructive, decadent and degenerate, parallels shockingly growing between the USA and Weimar Germany.

This country’s continuingly massive decline into a libertine kind of horrid sexual license with, e.g., the successful sodomite-liberation movement, ever-expanding access to pornography through the internet, cable/satellite TV, etc.; abortion as a “constitutionally” instituted and affirmed secular sacrament; artificial contraception and divorce seen as just merely normal parts of an assumed and sanctioned domestic reality.

The former leading to socially and culturally acceptable levels of demographic sterility; and, the latter is highly productive of both serial polygamy and serial polyandry, on a much tolerated grand scale no less. Illegal drug usage, particularly marijuana, has greatly flourished; and, tens of millions more freely abuse numerous prescription drugs; millions of children, of course, are, e.g., regularly put on Ritalin.  A drug-saturated culture already, in effect, generally exists as such, as can, thus, be surely recognized.

In short, what had once been mainly the abnormal or very aberrant counterculture of the 1960s has substantially been absorbed, in fact, into and made to easily exist as the now acceptable mainstream of today’s American culture and society; Weimarization, to all substantive intents and purposes, regarding the functional and operational mainstream reality now existing, has essentially become the basic norm, including extensive and culturally-promoted public licentiousness, as during the cursed days of the collectivist-oriented Weimar Republic. 

Of course, the Leftist fanatics do not see their ideological fanaticism, which they regard as just a normal way of seeing reality, as ever breeding any fanatical or dangerous attitudes in other people.

These were the kinds of things that had upset Strauss so greatly and provoked him into trying to sound a good warning, which was due to his having once personally experienced such terrible conditions in Germany.  And, for that brave effort and especially his adamant defense of classical political philosophy as the only true political philosophy worthy of the name as such, he was, basically, marginalized by most of academia, by even being called, e.g., a Fascist or worse. 

Strauss had tried, mostly uselessly, to let many people know about the degenerate and nihilistic consequences of charging into a kind of full-blast modernity by very enthusiastically celebrating relativism and, by logical extension, modern political philosophy qua Machiavellianism.  Even George Orwell had well warned about the PC-language revolution occurring, meaning whenever (dishonest) ideological thought unfortunately replaces plain honest speech; see his book titled: 1984.

Today’s extremely pervasive PC thinking/language, which is obviously cultural Marxism, would have been thoroughly welcomed by the collectivists and progressives during the era of Weimar Germany; for instance, typical use of “Ms.” instead of Miss or Mrs. is absolutely emblematic of this ideological reality, as is calling American Indians by the deliberate misnomer of “Native Americans,” which is, in fact, an ideological fiction as well as being so greatly PC; it is as erroneous as was calling them [American] Indians.

It has been, e. g., well known in anthropology and archeology, for over the last 30 years at least, that the first inhabitants in both North and South America were likely of Caucasian ancestry, as was, e.g., Kennewick Man; this is a part of what is called the “New World Entrada” controversy; however, the skull and other remains were summarily ordered, by the Clinton Administration, to be thoroughly destroyed to prevent any future examination of that particular evidence. That particular archeological site was, thus, physically demolished permanently, so as not to disturb the Native Americans.

Nonetheless, as other prominent examples, both the Meadowcroft Rock Shelter located in Pennsylvania and, even more definitely, the more highly validated site of Monte Verde, Chile scientifically explode the earlier beliefs of the Clovis-first Culture assertion.  Peoples, different races of them, from Europe and Eurasia came across the Atlantic, on the same kind of ice bridges or travelled along many coastal water routes, to reach both North and South America; this was before the Clovis peoples had arrived or, at least, somewhat before that extensive general time period.

But, Americans are still ideologically supposed to always persist in the polemically tendentious use of the glorified term “Native American” for all the present tribal peoples who would be best historically referred to as the tribal peoples, which is, in fact, not being at all disrespectful.  However, cultural Marxism categorically, ideologically PC thinking as cultural Marxism, always forbids the honest speaking of genuine truth in this country; and yet, this will still wildly encourage societal and cultural chaos, incivility, vulgarity, atheism, and degeneracy.

Another suitable parallelism, however, with the Weimar Republic can be rendered.  Although America has not necessarily (meaning officially) lost in Iraq or Afghanistan, the continuing duration of such unresolved conflicts can create the seeming impression, in the public mind, of (basically speaking) lost wars; in politics, political perception is often and, quite usually, greater than the mere empirical reality.

In times of great human crisis regarding politics, it is more the case that the perception, in effect, becomes the assumed and mainly accepted political reality.  Thus, America, for instance, was not ever actually defeated in Vietnam, meaning militarily (as the Communist Vietnamese leaders mostly admitted after the war); but, a basic defeat had yet occurred, nonetheless, regarding a definitely lost war.

Few people today know that there are more parallels between the USA and the Weimar Republic that would be normally suspected; each sought to maintain, proportionate, of course, to the nature of each situation, a welfare-warfare state; in 1922, the Weimar Republic (1918–1933) had signed the Treaty of Rapallo (with its secret provisions) with the Soviet Union by which it was able to expand and train both the Wermacht and Luftwaffe on Russian soil, thereby necessarily negating the intended antimilitaristic effects of the  Versailles Peace Treaty and other such political agreements and decisions.

These were intended to, of course, cripple German military power forever.  But, America also wishes to maintain an ever expansive welfare-warfare state with its invasive bureaucratization of national life; this is by which citizens are made to feel smaller and smaller as the State becomes bigger and bigger; for those who profoundly think and know the honest truth, therefore, the future looks rather quite ugly indeed.

As yet another issue as example, it is almost totally unknown today that the horrible eugenics legislation of that ill-fated German government was taken over by the Nazis and ideologically extended in the racist cause of Nazism; logically, it then gave a deservedly bad name to eugenics, though the spirit of that true aspect of the Progressive Era Movement in America, of the early 1900s and into the 1930s, still exists with, for instance, the radical defense of abortion-on-demand; almost all of today’s ideological eugenicists, for instance, fully support abortion and artificial contraception.

To all of the above horrors of what Weimarization means, Strauss thought that people, even in America, were under the so dangerous illusion that “it couldn’t happen here” as the elites in Germany had once supinely and absurdly thought — prior to the Nazi regime, Nazi Germany in full power. 

He had too well remembered how so many among his fellow educated, sophisticated, cultured Germans had assumed that such an unimaginable tyranny simply could not ever come about in such a truly cultured, civilized, progressive, modern, super-industrialized, intellectually-advanced nation, as was Germany [America] thought to be.  They, as a kind of political mantra, had then repeatedly said: It couldn’t happen here.

Strauss, in knowing much history and political thought, and intimately remembering the Weimar Republic, ended up trying to alert the leadership elements, especially any of them that considered themselves to be intellectually or academically oriented, about how tyranny can come about in any country, meaning when the correct circumstances would exist.

This is, especially, true after vastly terrible sociocultural and socioeconomic conditions are brought into being that can psychologically and morally disorient and confuse millions of people who, through intense despair, look for any form of temporal salvation and, of course, a willing leader to supposedly lead them out of the horrific mess: Adolf Hitler.

Strauss, fortunately, was under no psycho-ideological illusion, as is often brought about by absurd progressive cognition, as to how such “unthinkable” things then do become, under massive duress and acts indicative of systemic crisis within a nation, quite thinkable and, through intense acts of repeated provocation, empirically doable.  Sweden now has 54% of its GDP encompassed by its government; by next year, the US government will have about 65% of the GDP and this is fairly projected to grow further.  But, can the national economy actually sustain this situation, meaning as it turns into full-scale Weimarization (with no presumed end in sight)?

Massive spending and debt creation, as is favored by Obama and the Democrats, can lead to a hyperinflation — if taxation does not try to radically damp down on this matter, in a vicious politico-economic cycle, by which the crippled private sector of the economy will be essentially destroyed; the emergent tones of a democratic despotism, of having effective rulership in place by one major political party, will help to, thus, accelerate the disaster to come, if nothing stops this course of events effectively enough or better.  Until then, no supposed national economic recovery will ever be in sight, regardless of any false assurances coming from the present cult figure acting as the President.

But, moreover, should the noted, provoked, rampant inflation come to appear, to the general population, as mainly or totally unchecked by the government, conditions may very well tend to increasingly look too much like the devastating super-inflation of Weimar Germany. This is a truly grave potential danger not to be just lightly dismissed, as being “unthinkable” or simply impossible, only because the elites might not now wish to believe in a coming great disaster. 

Uninformed people, lacking historical knowledge, may still wish, nonetheless, to casually say, with an ignorantly blasé attitude, that it simply can’t happen here. Those people, it has been well said, who chose to ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.

Although there still exists a fairly hard-core of Straussians who, thus, do wish to continue the intellectual efforts initiated by their mentor, they are too few in number; moreover, most of them appear to have sadly gone over to the “dark side” of what Strauss had to say, meaning as to the deformations of politics seen, e.g., in the manic lust for earthly power and influence.

Even good principles can, of course, still be wrongly contaminated and perverted by bad men determined to ruthlessly pursue power at all costs, even to inevitable national destruction.  [A student of Strauss, Allan Bloom, wrote the highly interesting book with a very deliberately provocative title: The Closing of the American Mind.]

Admittedly, most people, even in the early 1930s, were still involved with the belief in Progress as a kind of God term, though World War I should have rationally convinced them otherwise, as it had taught, e.g., Max Weber* that he was wrong about any inevitable progress.

On the other hand, if one were to go back and supposedly have a conversation with, say, Lord Acton and tell him that by the early 20th century, starting in the 1920s in Italy and 1930s in Germany, there would be millions of people giving the Caesarian salute to a “fearless” leader, he would just have laughed at such a truly preposterous and highly ridiculous notion!

Today’s American people, however, have absolutely no rational excuse whatsoever as to be totally ignorant of what can, in fact, happen here.  Perhaps, someday, many people will then crescively come to rightly honor Leo Strauss for courageously giving the needed clarion call of warning, though it is doubtful at best.

Unless, therefore, something incredible happens to turn the tide of historical events in an absolutely positive direction counter to tyrannization, Strauss, if he were alive, would easily recognize the situational Weimarization of America as becoming truly inevitable.

For what is essentially occurring is the slow destruction of a once mighty nation in this world; but, its passing away is being done not with any fantastic expectant bang, as T. S. Eliot knew, only a whimper.  And, even a minor controversy, such as, e. g., what is now happening to the talk-show personality known as Mike Savage who has been totally banned from Great Britain, is only a merely slight sideshow in a much greater, larger contest of total power.  Savage is just a tiny, proverbial pawn on a truly gigantic and expansive chessboard.

Admittedly, a democratic despotism will help, for a while, to generally support the effective tyrannization of this country until a master of events, a fearless leader, emerges from much resulting chaos and anarchy to take command of the situation.  God help America.

_____________________________________________________________________________

*Weber had once sociologically proclaimed routinization, bureaucratization, and rationalization as three of the real and vital keys to an improved, progressive world of advanced civilization to be positively guaranteed by such good things being operational and, furthermore,  their societal and cultural advancement to be used for enhanced enlightenment; by 1918, he then fundamentally regretted that he once had any belief in routinization, bureaucratization, and rationalization; this is because these had contributed, he had sadly concluded, to more successfully bringing about World War I and, moreover, contributing very significantly to its many extreme horrors. 

And yet, e. g., in almost all current Sociology textbooks, his quite definite change of mind on these and other important subjects is almost never, if ever, mentioned.  This is, logically, fully in line with PC thinking, of course.

• Literary ploys to confuse readers.
• The use of lies to confuse readers further.


• The use of the good name of Socrates to confuse even further.


• Aristocratic prejudice.


• Tyrannical use of power to keep education for the children of the oligarchy.


• Censorship of Literature Works of Art and Music.


• Anti-democratic prejudice.


• A misuse of the word “justice” or “righteousness”. (Gk. Dikaiosun?)


• The theory of the “forms” or ideas.

The Republic is a tract, it is designed to persuade people. In this it seems o have succeeded except with some scholars among whom are Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper. The latter writes of, “the spell of Plato”. It certainly seems that he has had generations of politicians, particularly those of an oligarchic persuasion, under his spell.

Using literary ploys is not unusual. When writing a story they can be used legitimately. When trying to persuade they may be tools of subversion in the hands of the skilled. Plato was a writer of great skill. He uses the esteem Socrates is held in to lead his readers down a dubious road of Socratic dialogue. Some scholars see works like the Crito and the Apology to be early works of Plato where we have the real Socrates. The one under review is, it is claimed, a later work. Certainly there is a difference between the Socrates who goes round the city questioning everyone he meets, including slaves, and the Socrates whose twisted argument with Thrasymachus seems out of character. (Book One) He is also out of character with the man who would only educate the children of the guardians and have them never to be able to acknowledge their biological parents. Contrast his own solicitude for his own children in The Apology.

Another ploy is that we are easily misled by sympathizing with the apparent gentleness of Socrates and the crudeness of his opponents, particularly Thrasymachus. The others we meet in the dialogue, Glaucon and Adeimantus are really there as stooges so that we find ourselves, with them, agreeing, “Yes Socrates, of course Socrates.” Any reader must stop immediately at such words and ask what it is that Plato is inviting us into agreeing with.

Socrates imagines a small city of farmers and suggests to his companions that this would have no culture of any worth. It would be, in his words, a “city of pigs”. He develops from this the need for luxuries, and from that the need for all sorts of craftsmen and because of the increase in population the need to “take a slice of our neighbor’s land and so, the need for an army and an even bigger city. This is hardly justice for those neighbors who are to lose out. Nor are a few farmers incapable of the arts of civilization. Plato is determined that justice shall be seen in a state (polis) not in individuals. That is why the lengthy exploration of the subject where Socrates shows every definition put up by his friends is at fault.

In Book two the idea of the division of labour is introduced as is the idea of the need for a professional ruling class. This is based on what some refer to as the “founding myth” but which is in fact “the founding lie”, (pseudos). This is that God has introduced different metals into the natures of people. There are men of gold, of silver and of bronze and iron. The latter are the laborers, the people who do the dirty work, for even the “perfect” Guardians who have a “vision of the Good” need people to clean up after them and to cook their meals. Those with bronze are the craftsmen, traders and other professionals.

The two classes, silver and gold, are the Auxiliaries and the Guardians proper. The Auxiliaries are the police and the army and also need to stick to one trade, that of skill in weapons. The longest education is for the guardians who have to be men and women of intellect and wisdom while also, presumably, having the courageous spirit of the auxiliaries. To justify the need for these Plato uses an analogy of guard dogs who are also intelligent in that they warn off or attack strangers but not the family they serve. Readers will find this somewhat wanting but if we are to justify a Hitlerian ruling elite as the Nazi Party they too have their dogs of war, the Army, the SS and the Gestapo. These are really the Platonic elite of the ‘righteous’ polis, fitted to the modern state.

If we are to talk about education then we must believe that the state,s greatest and most valuable resource is its people. Therefore all the people need, and ought to have, the best possible education which the state, or private enterprise, together with parental guidance can give them. How that is to be done and what it consists of is beyond the scope of this paper.

In Book three we have presented to us the need for more censorship. Stories of the Gods who behave worse than the most depraved humans are to be banned as are songs other than in the Dorian and Phrygian modes. In other words we only allow Rule Britannia and Pomp and Circumstance to be played. Plato considers education to be of supreme importance and is to be fully under the control of the Guardians of the state. This makes it to be what the guardians want it to be and no one dare question that. This is not education but indoctrination. We have seen a similar situation in the Nazi state with its Hitler Youth and in the Stalinist state with its Young Pioneers. Both had the same aim, that of fitting young minds for complete obedience to the leader or party secretary, as the case may be. Education, on the other hand, helps the young mature into open, independent, self-controlled and wise citizens of the state, able to take part in the life of that state and to off well thought out opinions in the courts, in the parliament, or on the field of diplomacy. None would be guilty, if properly educated, of dogmatic certainty but, with humility would be able to admit to having failings for “to err is human”. Only tyrannies run by megalomaniacs want to the young to become rigid copies of themselves, forced into the mould of their totalitarian thinking.

These arguments are continued in Book Four while in Book Five we find that Plato wants his Guardians to be protected from all forms of distraction such as love of one’s spouse or one’s children. Children are never to know their biological parents but to respect all adults of a certain generation as mothers and fathers. Equally the parents are not to know who their children are but to treat all as theirs which in effect means, the state’s.

Instead of marriage there are to be special times for mating organized as a lottery, by the guardians. It appears as a lottery but in reality this is fixed. Again the analogy of dog breeding is used so that Plato seems to think that the Guardians will know which are the best of the men and women and see to it that they only breed together. Those who miss out are to see this simply as “the luck of the draw”. One can only imagine the mistakes, resentments and opportunities for corruption in this system. If ever there was a formula for disaster it is when the state starts to mess about with human sexuality and family life. The Nazis tried it so did the communists. In the Soviet worker’s paradise it meant a complete breakdown threatened. The Nazi experiment also turned out to be a tragedy as well as a disaster, with emotionally broken children starved of love.

In spite of all the Darwinist, Hitlerian and Platonic comparisons with the breeding of domestic animals it has to be understood that humans are not animals. We are far more complex and, inspite of behaviourist claims, we have the rare gift of language and the capacity to deal with abstracts which animals do not. Breeding experiments are bound to turn out a calamity, most of all for the subjects of those experiments. The very basis of these ideas is false, perverted and grotesque. Who, for instance, is to decide and to dictate who or what is “the best”? Who is it who decides whether Nigel or Napoleon is to be the pattern? Is George Eliot to be reckoned as “better” than Mrs. Pankhurst? For that matter how many parents have children which are exact clones of themselves? Even identical twins have remarkable differences and who can say how and to what degree nurture plays a part in moulding the potentialities in our genes?

To show how closely modern totalitarianism has followed the Platonic pattern we may consider the following quotation from Mein; Kampf. Discussing racial purity Hitler wrote. “The Weltanschauung which bases the State on the racial idea must finally succeed in bringing about a nobler era, in which men will no longer pay exclusive attention to breeding and rearing pedigree dogs and horses and cats, but will endeavour to improve the breed of the human race itself.” In the next chapter he returns to the theme and again could be paraphrasing Plato. “A Weltanschauung which repudiates the democratic principle of the rule of the masses and aims at giving this world to the best people, that is, to the highest quality of mankind, must also apply that same aristocratic postulate to the individuals within the folk community. It must take care that the positions of leadership and highest influence are given to the best men. Hence it is not based on the idea of the majority, but on that of personality.” (Mein Kampf, trans Murphy 1939. pp.228, 248)

That this idea was not simply Hitlerian raving but was taken seriously by the leadership of the party and was taught assiduously to the young, may be seen from this extract from a speech to the Hitler Youth by its leader Baldur von Schirach. “We Germans are not prepared to undergo these mutations like the lower animals, like unthinking cattle. Quite the contrary, we must control and encourage these changes. We must help them. Before other races, which are decadent or even completely degenerate, we must reach that state of the prefect and complete human animal, the Superman!” (Other Men’s Graves, Neumann London 1965, p7) The idea of the Superman comes straight from Nietzsche, but whether the Nazi use of the term was exactly what the Philosopher meant is a matter for debate.

Plato was something of a quisling in the fully democratic state that was Athens at the time of the Peloponnesian War. Being descended from kings he clearly despised the democrats and, when Athens was defeated in the war with Sparta, he tended to see all things Spartan as good. His state is modelled on that of the Spartan form of government which was a racial and military oligarchy. In Books eight and nine he argues that the individual exists for the state and not the state for the individual. He argues that, only in the perfect state can man find perfection. All this is based on his idea of the forms. By which he seeks to justify this state tyranny of an educated oligarchy. In fact his Guardians, in spite of long training, are not educated at all, for education makes people better. We could hardly call it education if it corrupted them. No educated person wants absolute power over others. Educated folk know their own faults and failings and would shun this exercise of despotism. They might agree with Mill that, “if all the world but one were of one opinion, the world would no more have the right to force him to change his view, that he, had he the power, would have the right to force the world.” Plato does try to justify it by saying that the Guardians take office, not for love of power but because they cannot bear their state to fall into the hands of lesser men who were incapable of wise guidance.

The despotic and disastrous rule of the thirty tyrants after the fall of Athens was led by Plato’s uncle Critias. Under them there were executions of political rivals and the attempt to put down the democratic party by force. Arbitrary justice was meted out by kangaroo courts and informers were encouraged. This Plato would have seen as an attempt to cleanse the state of all subversion.

That the Spartan ideal did not in fact exist is evidenced by the readiness of the Spartans to be corrupted with and by riches. They proved themselves to be far more corrupt than even the worst of the Athenians many of whose richest citizens considered it a privilege and a religious duty to pay to beautify their city with magnificent buildings.

The forms are what give rise to the material things in this world of sense. They are the “essence” of the things in the physical world. The form of the Good is rather like God in that it gives rise to all that is good. This sort of reasoning is a bit like Anselm and his “ontological argument” for the existence of God. To try to understand it is rather like picking up water. The moment you think you have some in your grasp, it all slips through your fingers and you have lost it. Plato, like Marx, suggests that there was a “golden age” and that human society has degenerated since then. What is needed, he suggests, is that kings should be philosophers and philosophers kings. These, he insists must have a vision of the good. However this is only explained by a series of analogies. The Cave, the Divided Line, and The Sun. There is no such thing as an “essential table,” though there may be absolute goodness and truth, though not in the world of men, nor ever can be while humans are in control.

One can more easily argue that all humans, brain damage apart and even that does not rule out the possibility, have it in them to be philosophers. Why, therefore, one might ask, should not all be kings? That is that all have the potential to take part in the political life of the state. Academic success is not guarantee of anything but knowledge. It does not ensure that the winner of a quiz show can use that knowledge by processing it and applying it. Understanding (intelligence) and wisdom are not guaranteed to quiz show winners, nor to academics; any more than is common sense. The latter is another way of understanding wisdom. One needs to add that measurements of I.Q. are highly suspect and debatable.

Popper has called Plato”s system “Historicism”. This is any grand overall plan to reform society instead of a piecemeal tinkering by trial and error with each generation, by democratic discussion and argument, working out what is best for them at their time and in their place. Popper includes the Judeo-Christian system among Historicist ones but I disagree.

A final criticism is that, like all tyrannical systems, Plato believed that human nature, being subject to corruption, needs to be controlled. The democratic system, which also includes the Judeo-Christian system recognizes human frailty and is willing to admit that people, particularly politicians, can be wrong and that, therefore, a dialogue is necessary. Control comes from within by the enlightened individual over himself or herself. Plato clearly thinks that perfection is possible and that his Guardians, by their breeding and their training are the best of men and therefore qualified to rule.

“Better is he that has control over his own spirit than he which takes a city.” This is not an idea to which Plato is likely to have become endeared. It is, however a better basis for a stable state than one ruled through fear of the Guardians and their “dogs of war”. Self control is a virtue the democrats of Athens would have recognized. Indeed so would the oligarchs though they would only only have applied it to the character of the aristocrat. They had a word for it, “sophrosune”. A little thought will show that the idea must imply virtue and not vice. Such a person who is self-controlled can never knowingly do evil, though we have to add, without strong misgivings and feelings of guilt. Alas we are human, all too human.

That the Platonic state is a tyranny is clear from the arbitrary exercise of power by the Guardians. This is the power of life and death with no safeguards at all. Because the Guardians are held to be the best then, as magistrates they have the authority to condemn me to death without appeal and without a defense. The judgment of the magistrate is final. Here is what Plato puts into the mouth of Socrates in Book Three. “then the healing art such as we described it, coupled with the art of dispensing justice in this fashion, you will ordain by law in the city: These will care for those of the people who are naturally good in body and soul, but if any are not, those who are not so in body they will leave to die, and those who are naturally bad in soul and incurable they will certainly themselves put to death?” “The best thing that could happen to them,” he said, “and the best thing for the city.”

Here again we see the Hitlerian doctrine that there are those in society who are judged to be unfit to live because they do not fit in with the doctrines taught by the founder of this system. Such is a tyranny when anyone thinks he must be right and those who disagree with him are either stupid or criminal. The Nazi state was not the only such tyranny. Russia under Lenin and Stalin was similar as was China under Mao Tse Tung. The present time has seen many more similar men and women who came to believe that they alone know what is best for their people and so ought to be obeyed. To go down this road is to travel with increasing rapidity to cloud cuckoo land.

We might finish with an extract from Pericles:

“Our constitution is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people. When it is a question of settling private disputes, everyone is equal before the law; when it is a question of putting one person before another in positions of public responsibility, what counts is not membership of a particular class, but the actual ability which the man possesses. No one, so long as he has it in him to be of service to the state, is kept in political obscurity because of poverty….We are free and tolerant in our private lives; but in public affairs we keep to the law. This is because it commands our deep respect….Our city is open to the world….This is because we rely, not on secret weapons, but on our own real courage and loyalty….The Spartans, from their earliest boyhood are submitted to the most laborious training in courage. We pass our lives without all these restrictions, and yet we are just as ready to face the same dangers as they are.”

An educational system worthy of the term seeks to encourage all its citizens in their particular skills, and in the generality, wisdom is within the reach of all. People should be free to choose what they do with their lives and to make their own mistakes if necessary. They should only suffer public disapproval if by those mistakes they injure others. The use of the jury system and the independence of the judiciary from the government ensures that too much power cannot rest in the hands of the few, for “power corrupts’ as Lord Acton has stated. Among the poor, the lowly and the less fortunate there may be many “mute inglorious Miltons.” No society which wants true nobility and excellence (arête-virtue) dare neglect the great potentials which are often undetected among the masses. The arts, if allowed to flourish, and are not restricted by censorship, bring health to a nation or a people. However, here too there must be checks and balances so they are not perverted to become agents of corruption, nor of propaganda.

Though there may be specializations in the arts and sciences, in technology and in entertainment, there are skills to which we all may attain. These are in politics, so all ought to have a say in how they are governed and so ought to be educated to be able to understand the laws and to speak out for themselves, to listen to others, to criticize and to be criticized. Wisdom is not a specialized skill available only to the few.

Plato considered knowledge only to be the key to wisdom. Indeed he seems to suggest they are one and the same. It can rather be argued that knowledge has to be ordered and selected, to be put together in order and then to be applied. This too takes skill, a skill which we may designate as Wisdom when it is applied to the matters of the life of the state which is a rule of thumb definition of politics. It is interesting that both the Ancient Greek and Hebrew languages have words which are usually translated, understand or intelligence. They mean, literally, “set in order” and Latin has similar words, “intelligo” and “cogito” which mean much the same thing.

In a Post Modern situation it is difficult to argue about absolutes since so much verbiage has been thrown up reconstructing and reconstructing that we get lost in the sociology of knowledge and its related subjects and ramifications. However, a consideration of the language of ethics shows that it is difficult, if not impossible, to talk meaningfully without resorting to absolutist terms. Plato talks in absolutist terms in his doctrine of the “Forms”. On the other hand in real terms everything is under the control of the Guardians and so is actually relative to what is best for their view of things. Notice in our own times the eroding of the jury system, habeus corpus and the Bill of Rights together with the increase of the central power. Is it that present day politicians see themselves as Guardians, brought up and educated as they have been under the spell of Plato?

To read:

• Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, in two volumes.


• Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy.


• Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War. (The Funeral Oration-Pericles)


• John Christopher, The Guardians.


• Hans Peter Richter, I Was There, and Friedrich.


• Peter Neumann, Other Men’s Graves.


• A. Hitler, Mein Kampf.