Chaitanya Jyothi Museum Opening, 2000

RAMANAM
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.  Amen.

Countrymen,

ORBIS NON SUFFICIT
SOLUS DEUS SUFFICIT

On 06 November 2014 I posted under title The Triple Thread Of Life.

This post comprises improvisation upon a theme
created as a thesis by a student
of my acquaintance.

Hegel said that the truth is the whole.

Heisenberg said that the whole cannot be understood.

Gödel said that nothing can be completely proven.

Wherever, whenever you see two things interacting, a third thing is interacting with the two you see.  Dialectic is two-way communication between three parties, only two of which can interact physically simultaneously.  But the whole phenomenon comprises one thread of three strands, one communications phenomenon comprising three actors, three persona.  So, never settle for the two actors you see.  Expend most effort to find the one you do not see before you start trying to cognize and describe what is going on in any specific phenomenon.

If so-called professors, so-called clergy, and so-called journalists labored under this presumption, the poor old world would have far more rest in quiet than she does.

Consider the discipline of political philosophy.

Change is universal and constant.  Political philosophers study and describe general responses to three impulses which all experience as universal and constant: the impulse to cause change, the impulse to resist change, the impulse to manage change.

Political philosophers recognize three types of general response to these universal and constant impulses: democratic response, oligarchic/monarchial response, and republican response, respectively.

These responses, in turn, condense to forms of government the generality advances one way and another to protect themselves from assault by internal or external aggressors and to regulate their affairs fairly: Democracy, Oligarchy/Monarchy, or Republic, respectively.

These responses and the forms of government by which they corporealize political philosophy comport with academic rubrics: Socialism (cause change, Democracy), Conservatism (resist change, Oligarchy/Monarchy), and Liberalism (manage change, Republic).

The discipline of political philosophy, therefore, studies and describes three primary schools of thought regarding human organization; Socialism, Conservatism, and Liberalism.

Before describing the schools, first, a description of political philosophy itself.

With tools from the discipline of political philosophy, an observer can assess the nature and viability of a nation under observation.

The etymology of the phrase, political philosophy, is instructive.  The word political derives from Greek polis, meaning city.  In modern usage, polis is expanded to mean state.  A polite, or citizen, is a member of the city/state about whom a government extends physical and legal protection.  On behalf of polis and polites, politikos, statesman, operate mechanisms of government — mechanisms belonging to/owned by polis and polites — entrusted by polis and polites to their care and wise practice.

A dialogue in this case exists between three elements: individuals – polites – a group or society, geographically and ethnographically specific – polis – and statesmen – politikos – those entrusted by polites and polis with stewardship of their sovereignty and communications.  These three elements form a nation.  The nature and character of a nation as expressed through its diplomatic, information, military, and economic tendencies, is communicated by one or more of these elements of the nation through the extant form of government: democracy, oligarchy, or republic.

Now, a summary of schools of thought identified by academic political philosophers.

First, Socialism.  Socialism removes the individual from the social construct.  Socialism accepts the existence of a governing body, but individual freedom, value, and ownership of property are not present, and citizens are not equal under the law.  The state is the only and total expression of the collective society (polis) and the only legitimate persona.  It controls power, communications, modes of thought, and means of production.  Thus, Socialism, which starts out promising ribbons, rivers, and rainbows, ditches the polites, absorbs all into the polis, and confers on the politikos plenary authority in all matters whatsoever.

Second, Conservatism.  Conservative political philosophy, in unison with Classical Liberalism (see below), accepts the existence of a governing/stewarding body, individual ownership of property, and equality of citizens before the law.  However, whereas Liberalism welcomes an often raucous dialogue between the polites, polis, and politikos, Conservatism knows that such a dialogue can and more than occasionally does produced chaos, death, destruction, and ruin.

A polis which has lost its institutions has lost its sovereign freedom, security, communications, and perhaps existence.  Conservatism is skeptical of any activity that could destabilize functioning institutions, including internal rebellion, a coup, irresponsible freedom of speech and publication, involvement in internal affairs of foreign states, and demagogues conjuring mob (demos) rule.  Private ownership of property is encouraged by Conservatism because it is natural and it maximizes internal rest and quiet, which maximizes puissance at self-defense, and mitigates internal poverty.

Third, Liberalism.  Liberalism derives from the word, liberty.  This is simple enough on its face.  However,  following the publication of Das Kapital by Karl Marx in 1867, Liberalism split into two schools of thought now known as Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism.  Both accept that a government is necessary to regulate the affairs of the polites and polis.  Liberty is not anarchy.  Both accept, at least rhetorically, that citizens are equal under the laws of the state.  Liberty is in and for all, not reserved for some.  Both accept, at least rhetorically, individual ownership of property.  Liberty is not collectivist.

The fundamental difference between Classical and Modern Liberalism is their estimate of government’s role in respect to equality.  Classical Liberalism argues that government is obliged permanently to generate and fairly regulate an economy — means building out, producing, does not mean making money, getting rich — wherein all citizens have equal opportunity to access freedom, religion, wealth, property, and so on.  Modern Liberalism invokes the power of the government to compel that all citizens have equal distribution of freedom, wealth, property, et cetera.  Modern Liberalism is collectivist, does not accept individual ownership of property.

Modern Liberals advocate, for example, welfare and redistribution to ensure all citizens are on equal material footing.  Moreover, Modern Liberals argue that government should compel (nudge, in their bespoke moments they call it) redistribution to favored groups and deny distribution whatsoever to disfavored ones.  (Shades of Stalin: food, and kulaks in Ukraine and elsewhere.  Recapitulated of late by Maduro of Venezuela.)  Both Classical and Modern Liberals embrace a robust dialogue between polites, polis, and politikos.

This dialogue however, can lead to individual, societal, and government upheaval, a phenomenon Liberals assume the overall social/governmental system is designed to withstand.  Modern Liberals consider upheaval a feature, not a bug.  Classical Liberals have interest in ensuring that the theory of the system’s design resilience does indeed preclude its destruction through upheaval.  In other words, Classical Liberals are solicitous of the system’s welfare and perpetuity in a way similar to and parallel with Conservatives’ efforts to the same end, and for the same reasons.

Recapitulating now, we observe:

1- That the interest of academic political philosophers is general responses to three universal and constant urges: the urge to cause change, the urge to resist change, and the urge to manage change.
2- That academic political philosophers finds three types of responses to these urges: democracy, oligarchy/monarchy, and republican.
3- That these responses cause to exist three types of government: Democracy, Oligarchy/Monarchy, and Republic.
4- That academic political philosophers study and describe these outcomes under three academic rubrics: Socialism, Conservatism, and Liberalism.

Now we add a concluding observation:

5- The three urges which seduce the attention of academic political philosophers not only are universal and constant, they also are concurrent and interactive in ways and to effects that are unexpected, paradoxical.

Life is one triple thread.

Βασιλεία του Θεού
Kingdom of God

Update 1: Helen Lamb: The Cryptoleftists of Conservatism, Inc.

Update 2: Sebastian Gorka: How President Trump Broke The Left

Update 3: VDH: Autopsy Of A Dead Coup

Update 4: Amir Taheri: Mullahs Masquerading as Patriots: Will it Work?

Update 5: Wars We Were Never Meant To Win

Update 6: A Modest Proposal: Deluge The Woke

Update 7: Elite College Presidents Are More Race Realist About IQ Than Is the Public

Update 8: Michael Anton: The Flight 93 Election

Update 9: Julie Kelly: After The Coup Is Gone

Update 10: Fellowship Of The Minds on George Soros

Update 11: VDH: The Case For Trump

Update 12: Bruce Bawer: Anti-Americanism: As German as Apple Strudel

Update 13: Ryan Cooper: The real problem with an independent run for president

Update 14: Pax Mongolica

Update 15: Selwyn Duke: Rallying the Troops, Globalist “Intellectuals” Warn That the EU is “Coming Apart”

Update 16: Maxim Samorukov: Escaping the Kremlin’s Embrace: Why Serbia Has Tired of Russian Support

Update 17: Spygate: The True Story Of Collusion

Update 18: Jonathan Cole: Politics, Theology and Religion in Jihadist Violence

Update 19: Pentagon warns of global power play behind Chinese projects such as Belt and Road Initiative

Update 20: Obama And Clinton Gun Running Operation: Government Watchdog Uncovers Proof Of Criminality

Update 21: Michael Doran: Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy

Update 22: Edward Ring: Attack Of The Watermelon People

Update 23: Ludwig von Mises, Socialism, 1922:

In fact Socialism is not in the least what it pretends to be. It is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build; it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership of the means of production has created. Since a socialist order of society cannot exist, unless it be as a fragment of Socialism within an economic order resting otherwise in private property, each step leading towards Socialism must exhaust itself in the destruction of what already exists.

Update 24: Jacob Nordangard: The Elite Technocrats Behind The Global ‘Great Reset’

Update 25: Seth Hancock: World Economic Forum: The Great Enslavement

AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA