[Micul eseu al lui Francis Parker Yockey are la baza
un principiu metafizic existent in toate doctrinele
traditionale: "josul" nu poate legitima "susul", nici
nu-l poate explica. In plan politic, poporul nu-si
poate legitima conducatorii, nu in mod serios,
profund... iar acolo unde lucrul acesta se incearca se
ajunge la simulacrul politic al Puterii cotata la
bursa sondajelor de opinie, nevoita la randul ei sa
faca tumbe de circ pentru a-si pastra iluzia
legitimatatii...

Sigur, Francis Parker Yockey nu este nici primul nici
ultimul care se intreaba: cine decide ce anume decidem
noi? Cine stabileste ce avem voie sa alegem? Cine ne
prezinta caii pe care pariem noi la derbiul politic?
Pentru ca un lucru e sigur, nu ni se prezinta TOATE
obtiunile, si aceasta e din ce in ce mai vizibil...]


In the matter of "elections" which had a vogue of
almost two centuries during the life of Western
civilization, both in Europe and in its spiritually
dominated areas elsewhere, an important law of
political organisms is shown. 

In "democratic" conditions... occur the phenomena
known as "elections." It was the theory of "democracy"
arising about 1750 that the "absolute" power of the
monarch, or the aristocracy, depending on local
conditions, must be broken, and this power transferred
to "the people." This use of the word "people" shows
again the necessarily polemical nature of all words
used politically. "People" was merely a negative; it
merely wished to deny that the dynasty, or else the
aristocracy, belonged to "the people." It was thus an
attempt to deny the monarch or aristocracy political
existence; in other words, this word implicitly
defined them as the enemy in the true political sense.
It was the first time in Western history that an
intellectualized theory became the focus of political
happening. Wherever the monarch or aristocracy were
stupid or incapable, wherever they looked backward
instead of adapting themselves to the new century,
they went down. Wherever they took over the theories
themselves and interpreted them officially, they
retained their power and their command. 

The technique of transferring this "absolute" power to
"the people" was to be through plebiscites, or
"elections." The theoretical proposal was to give the
power to millions of human beings, to each his
nth/millionth fraction of total existing political
power. This was of course impossible in a way that
even the intellectuals could see, so the compromise
was "elections" through which each individual in the
organism could "choose" a "representative" for
himself. If the representative did something, by a
satisfying fiction it was agreed that each little
individual "represented" had done that himself. 
In a short time it became obvious to men interested in
power, either for themselves personally, or to carry
through their ideas, that if one worked previously to
one of these "elections" to influence the minds of the
voting populace, he would be "elected." The greater
one's means of persuasion of the masses of voters, the
more certain was his subsequent "election." The means
of persuasion were whatever one had at hand: rhetoric,
money, newsprint. Since elections were large things,
disposing of large amounts of power, only those who
commanded corresponding means of persuasion could
control them. Oratory came into its own, the Press
stepped out as a lord of the land, the power of Money
towered above all. A monarch could not be bought; what
bribe could appeal to him? He could not be put under
the usurers' pressure—he could not be sued. But party
politicians, living in times when values became
increasingly money-values, could be bought. Thus
democracy presented the picture of the populace under
the compulsion of elections, the delegates under the
compulsion of Money, and Money sitting in the seat of
the monarch. 

So the absolute power remained—as it must in any
organism, for it is an existential law of every
organism that: The power within an organism is
constant, and if individuals, groups, or ideas within
the organism are diminished in power, some other
individuals, groups, or ideas are increased in power
by that amount. 

This Law of Constancy of Intra-Organismic Power is
existential, for if a diminution of power in one place
within does not pass elsewhere within the organism,
the organism is sickened, weaker, and may have lost
its political existence as an independent unit. The
history of South America from 1900 to 1950 is rich in
examples of triumphant revolutions against regimes
that stripped them of power—which then moved to the
United States of North America, and as long as that
condition continued, the country in which such a
revolution had occurred was a colony of Yanqui
imperialismo. 


'Jewels are stones, but cannot be found everywhere; the sandal tree is a tree, 
but does not grow in every forest; as there are many elephants, but only one 
king elephant, so there are human beings all over the world, but the real human 
being is rarely to be found.' (a sanskrit poet)








__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn. 
Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4F6XtA/_WnJAA/E2hLAA/DXOolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

Sageata Albastra e cea mai mare tzeapa a transportului public! 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/protest-ro/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Raspunde prin e-mail lui