Click on the Republic Broadcasting Network banner above and show your support for the RBN pledge drive - now in progress!
Did you realize March 1st was the world’s first
The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power
By Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad
—Keith Thompson of The San Francisco Chronicle Book Review
"Spells out at length the dangers of becoming addicted to another's authority in any sphere of life."
—London Times Literary Supplement
"A thorough, wide-ranging analysis of the way power has historically been maintained...Purports to be no less than a diagnosis of what's wrong with the world and how, not merely to fix it, but to save it. Its thesis is elegant and nearly unlimited in its ramifications...[Shows that] authoritarianism is not merely a political phenomenon. It's part of the way we think."
—The New Mexican
"Discusses how authoritarian leaders manipulate followers and why people surrender to them."
"Provocative and thorough....Unmask[s] the countless manifestations of authoritarianism in our contemporary culture. Cover[s] vast territory...rais[es] all the vitally important questions...It should definitely be placed in the hands of anyone who has been, or is, or contemplates becoming involved with a guru or cult."
"Don't be deceived by the title. The Guru Papers is about much more than cult groups. A profoundly important critique of the covert authoritarianism of most religions...and of such cultural values as unconditional love, addiction, and twelve-step programs...Thought-provoking and radically important...Extraordinarily rich and complex...[It]can make an important contribution to [changing the old paradigms] if enough people...take it to heart and mind."
About the Author
Joel Kramer, the author of The Passionate Mind, did post-graduate work in philosophy and psychology and was a resident teacher at Esalen Institute (1968-1970). He is a pioneer and legend of modern American yoga whose evolutionary vision of yoga freed it from its authoritarian roots, re-visioning it for the West.
Diana Alstad, a Woodrow Wilson Fellow, received a doctorate from Yale University in 1971. She taught in the humanities and initiated and taught the first Women's Studies courses at Yale and Duke. She envisioned the Yoga of Relationship and developed it with Kramer.
Devilvision: The World's New Wireless Grid
The theory being presented to advance Communitarianism is that Capitalism and Communism were two necessary, conflicting, temporary stages in human social development. From this clash, a fortunate synthesis is supposed to emerge when the whole world will descend into chaos and all the sides of every conflict will surrender to one single ideology. Communitarianism pretends to be that final synthesis in the Hegelian-Marxist dialectic.
Of course, there is no synthesis. This Communitarianism is really just a form of Communism, being offered with a different gravy in order to please modern tastes. It is also a way to present Communism, which is intrinsically evil as Pope Pius XI wrote in Divini Redemptoris (1937), as equal to Capitalism, which is not intrinsically evil. The last two Popes have been spreading this myth also, pretending the two systems are equally bad, causing confusion in the Catholic faithful. Even many conservative and traditionalist Catholics are falling for this ruse. The winner, of course, is Communitarianism, and all the socialist variants that lead to it or support it.
This seems to be the old battle plan to achieve the world domination in a new form. For example in the European Union, which is a partial realization of this universal plan, the "generals" in this sham battle between Communism and Capitalism are recruited from Europe’s secret societies and brotherhoods, who can all be grouped together under the metaphorical tarpaulin of the Illuminati (Philip Jones).
Obama reading The Post American World by communitarian Fareed Zakaria
Much of the ideological base of the EU agenda can be found in the works of Count R.N. Coudenhove Kalergi, justifiably regarded by many as the "godfather" of the European Union. It began with the publishing of his manifesto Paneuropa (1923), which presented the idea of a unified European State. It was he who suggested Beethoven’s hymn as the EU’s national anthem, and played a large part in the design of the EU logo with its 12 stars symbolizing the 12 tribes of Israel. Count Kalergi mentioned in his autobiography that he had been financed by the Rothschild’s, and in the U.S., by Paul Warburg and Bernard Baruch.(1)
Count Kalergi’s vision was an Europe controlled by a small group comprised of the top plutocracy of Europe. In fact since the end of WWII, the major dynamic behind the movement has come not from the European side, but from the eastern seaboard “establishment” families, such as the Rockefeller’s, Harriman’s, Morgan’s, Dulles’ and Bush’s.
The goal was to promote unlimited “freedom” for their own special interests – the freedom to grab and loot any or all of the world’s resources. This is what is touted today as the full globalization of the world markets. The project is enforced by organizations like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations.
The role of usury
The chosen economists first needed to structure an illegitimate money power without any public mandate drawing its strength from usury and the distorted capitalism of the monopolies. They did this of course, with powerful centralized systems like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Among the important sources of the great power in the 20th and 21st century we find big money, and the root of it, an immoral and illicit usury, that is, the manipulation of economy to lend money at disproportionate interest rates.
Philip Jones gives us an example: “Since the 1980s, banks and lenders have seemingly been falling over themselves to lend money. Now, as we try to ride out our present woes, we are told that money is scarce. Why is it scarce? Because the same people who were lending it so willingly, are no longer doing so. … In this way, millions of people have been enticed to sign their freedoms away for the promise of a new home, car, kitchen or bathroom.
"Then when the times was right – which is now – they started calling in unpaid loans, manipulating prices, raising interest rates and destroying jobs and manufacturing production in the process. Then, with the people in fear for their existence and terrified of what the future might bring, demanding naively that something be done, they come up with the solution they had planned all along: More centralization of bank ownership, State and corporate mergers through ‘government buyout packages and the call of a uniform across the board single currency not only for Europe, but for the whole planet.” (2)
Kalergi's successor as head of the Paneuropean Union was his disciple Otto von Habsburg, who poses reading a Kalergi's book
What is the result? The middle classes emerge so badly damaged from this situation that their economical power base no longer exists. It is how the socialist leveling process enters the system.
The subversion of culture
This has been achieved through a diabolical program of culture distortion, promoting subversive genres of popular music, ever more degrading and perverse forms of pornography, theater and cinema that distort reality and show an inverted and corrupted ideal of what is natural and moral.
Homosexuality is promoted to break the model of marriage according to the natural law, and every kind of decadence is encouraged.
The media gives total support for cultural corruption
In short, a people’s healthy culture, based on the law of God and developed by Christian Civilization, is replaced with universal forms of entertainment contrived to instill revolution and perversion on a mass scale.
Satanic looking rock stars and immodest and openly immoral single mother movie stars are touted as role models for the youth. This undermining and subversion of the culture is openly promoted and encouraged by the media, also controlled by the Communitarian plutocracy bent on the centralization and uniformization of every aspect of society.
1. Read more about the Count, and the connection of the recently deceased Otto von Habsburg, who succeeded him as president of the Pan European Union, in “The Mount Pelerin Society,” The Synarchy
2.The EU Communitarian Agenda, 9-24-2009
The Babel Tower Governing Europe
A Façade for the Global Lodge
Socialism and Gnosis
Distributists Misleading their Audience about Capitalism
Critique of Capitalism from an Organic Perspective
The Harmful Mentality of Borrowing Money
What to Do with the Surplus of Currency
A Distributist Manifesto Strongly Spiced With Communism
- protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and some include through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
- government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
- a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.
It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.
(web application hybrid)
negative and positive rights
Philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between negative and positive rights (not to be confused with the distinction between negative and positive liberties). According to this view, positive rights permit or oblige action, whereas negative rights permit or oblige inaction. These permissions or obligations may be of either a legal or moral character. Likewise, the notion of positive and negative rights may be applied to either liberty rights or claim rights, either permitting one to act or refrain from acting, or obliging others to act or refrain from acting. However, this article and most literature discusses them as applied to the latter sense.
To take an example involving two parties in a court of law: Adrian has a negative right to x against Clay if and only if Clay is prohibited from acting upon Adrian in some way regarding x. In contrast, Adrian has a positive right to x against Clay if and only if Clay is obliged to act upon Adrian in some way regarding x. A case in point, if Adrian has a negative right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to refrain from killing Adrian; while if Adrian has a positive right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of Adrian.
Rights considered negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery. Rights considered positive rights, as initially proposed in 1979 by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak, may include other civil and political rights such as police protection of person and property and the right to counsel, as well as economic, social and cultural rights such as food, housing, public education, employment, national security, military, health care, social security, and a minimum standard of living. In the "three generations" account of human rights, negative rights are often associated with the first generation of rights, while positive rights are associated with the second and third generations.
Some philosophers (see criticisms) disagree that the negative-positive rights distinction is useful or valid.
Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group—a government, for example—usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action of another person or group. In theory, a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder. In the framework of the Kantian categorical imperative, negative rights can be associated with perfect duties while positive rights can be connected to imperfect duties.
Belief in a distinction between positive and negative rights is usually maintained, or emphasized, by libertarians, who believe that positive rights do not exist until they are created by contract. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists both positive and negative rights (but does not identify them as such). The constitutions of most liberal democracies guarantee negative rights, but not all include positive rights. Nevertheless, positive rights are often guaranteed by other laws, and the majority of liberal democracies provide their citizens with publicly funded education, health care, social security and unemployment benefits.
When positive and negative rights conflict
|This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2008)|
Rights are often spoken of as inalienable and sometimes even absolute. However, in practice this is often taken as graded absolutism; rights are ranked by degree of importance, and violations of lesser ones are accepted in the course of preventing violations of greater ones. Thus, even if the right not to be killed is inalienable, the corresponding obligation on others to refrain from killing is generally understood to have at least one exception: self-defense. Certain widely accepted negative obligations (such as the obligations to refrain from theft, murder, etc.) are often considered prima facie, meaning that the legitimacy of the obligation is accepted "on its face"; but even if not questioned, such obligations may still be ranked for ethical analysis.
Thus a thief may have a negative obligation not to steal, and a police officer may have a negative obligation not to tackle people—but a police officer tackling the thief easily meets the burden of proof that he acted justifiably, since his was a breach of a lesser obligation and negated the breach of a greater obligation. Likewise a shopkeeper or other passerby may also meet this burden of proof when tackling the thief. But if any of those individuals pulled a gun and shot the thief for stealing, most modern societies would not accept that the burden of proof had been met. The obligation not to kill—being universally regarded as one of the highest, if not the highest obligation—is so much greater than the obligation not to steal that a breach of the latter does not justify a breach of the former. Most modern societies insist that other, very serious ethical questions need come into play before stealing could justify killing.
Positive obligations confer duty. But as we see with the police officer, exercising a duty may violate negative obligations (e.g. not to overreact and kill). For this reason, in ethics positive obligations are almost never considered prima facie. The greatest negative obligation may have just one exception—one higher obligation of self-defense—but even the greatest positive obligations generally require more complex ethical analysis. For example, one could easily justify failing to help, not just one, but a great many injured children quite ethically in the case of triage after a disaster. This consideration has led ethicists to agree in a general way that positive obligations are usually junior to negative obligations because they are not reliably prima facie. Critics of positive rights implicitly suggest that because positive obligations are not reliably prima facie they must always be agreed to through contract.
Nineteenth century philosopher Frederic Bastiat summarized the conflict between these negative and positive rights by saying:
|“||M. de Lamartine wrote me one day: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program; you have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first half." And, in fact, it is quite impossible for me to separate the word "fraternity" from the word "voluntary." It is quite impossible for me to conceive of fraternity as legally enforced, without liberty being legally destroyed, and justice being legally trampled underfoot.||”|
According to Jan Narveson, the view of some that there is no distinction between negative and positive rights on the ground that negative rights require police and courts for their enforcement is "mistaken." He says that the question between what one has a right to do and who if anybody enforces it are separate issues. If rights are only negative then it simply means no one has a duty to enforce them, although individuals have a right to use any non-forcible means to gain the cooperation of others in protecting those rights. Therefore, he says "the distinction between negative and positive is quite robust." Libertarians hold that positive rights, which would include a right to be protected, do not exist until they are created by contract. However, those who hold this view do not mean that police, for example, are not obligated to protect the rights of citizens. Since they contract with their employers to defend citizens from violence, then they have created that obligation to their employer. A negative right to life allows an individual to defend his life from others trying to kill him, or obtain voluntary assistance from others to defend his life—but he may not force others to defend him, because he has no natural right to be provided with defense. To force a person to defend one's own negative rights, or the negative rights of a third party, would be to violate that person's negative rights.
Other advocates of the view that there is a distinction between negative and positive rights argue that the presence of a police force or army is not due to any positive right to these services that citizens claim, but rather because they are natural monopolies or public goods—features of any human society that arise naturally, even while adhering to the concept of negative rights only. Robert Nozick discusses this idea at length in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
In the field of Medicine, positive rights of patients often conflict with negative rights of physicians. In controversial areas such as abortion and assisted suicide, medical professionals may not wish to offer certain services for moral or philosophical reasons. If enough practitioners opt out as a result of conscience, a right granted by conscience clause statutes in many jurisdictions, patients may not have any means of having their own positive rights fulfilled. Such was the case of Janet Murdock, a Montana woman who could not find any physician to assist her suicide in 2009. This controversy over positive and negative rights in medicine has become a focal part on the ongoing public debate between conservative ethicist Wesley J. Smith and bioethicist Jacob M. Appel. In discussing the case of Baxter v. Montana, Appel has written:
Medical licenses are a limited commodity, reflecting an artificial shortage created by a partnership between Congress and organizations representing physicians—with medical school seats and residency positions effectively allotted by the government, much like radio frequencies. Physicians benefit from this arrangement in that a smaller number of physicians inevitably leads to increased rates of reimbursement. There's nothing inherently wrong with this arrangement. However, it belies any claim that doctors should have the same right to choose their customers as barbers or babysitters. Much as the government has been willing to impose duties on radio stations (e.g., indecency codes, equal time rules) that would be impermissible if applied to newspapers, Montana might reasonably consider requiring physicians, in return for the privilege of a medical license, to prescribe medication to the dying without regard to the patient's intent.
Smith replies that this is "taking the duty to die and transforming it into a duty to kill," which he argues "reflects a profound misunderstanding of the government’s role."
To Shue, rights can always be understood as confronting "standard threats" against humanity. Dealing with standard threats requires all kinds of duties, which may be divided across time (e.g. "if avoiding the harmful behaviour fails, begin to repair the damages"), but also divided across people. The point is that every right provokes all 3 types of behaviour (avoidance, protection, repair) to some degree. Dealing with a threat like murder, for instance, will require one individual to practice avoidance (e.g. the potential murderer must stay calm), others to protect (e.g. the police officer, who must stop the attack, or the bystander, who may be obligated to call the police), and others to repair (e.g. the doctor who must resuscitate a person who has been attacked). Thus, even the so-called "negative right not to be killed" can only be guaranteed with the help of some positive duties. Shue goes further, and maintains that the negative and positive rights distinction can be harmful, because it may result in the neglect of necessary duties.
James P. Sterba makes similar criticisms. He holds that any right can be made to appear either positive or negative depending on the language used to define it. He writes:
What is at stake is the liberty of the poor not to be interfered with in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs. Needless to say, libertarians would want to deny that the poor have this liberty. But how could they justify such a denial? As this liberty of the poor has been specified, it is not a positive right to receive something, but a negative right of non-interference.(emphasis added)
Sterba has rephrased the traditional "positive right" to provisions, and put it in the form of a sort of "negative right" not to be prevented from taking the resources on their own, albeit creating a conflict with the traditional negative right of private property. Thus, all rights may not only require both "positive" and "negative" duties, but it seems that rights that do not involve forced labor can be phrased positively or negatively at will. The distinction between positive and negative may not be very useful, or justified, as rights requiring the provision of labor can be rephrased from "right to education" or "right to health care" to "right to take surplus money to pay teachers" or "right to take surplus money to pay doctors".
- Claim rights and liberty rights—a different distinction, orthogonal to that between positive and negative rights
negative liberties and positive liberties
"It follows that a frontier must be drawn between the area of private life and that of public authority. Where it is to be drawn is a matter of argument, indeed of haggling. Men are largely interdependent, and no man's activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'; the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others."
Two Concepts of Liberty
Two Concepts of Liberty was the inaugural lecture delivered by the liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin before the University of Oxford on 31 October 1958. It was subsequently published as a 57-page pamphlet by Oxford at the Clarendon Press. It also appears in the collection of Berlin's papers entitled Four Essays on Liberty (1969) and was more recently reissued in a collection entitled simply Liberty (2002).
The essay, with its analytical approach to the definition of political concepts, re-introduced the study of political philosophy to the methods of analytic philosophy. It is also one of Berlin's first expressions of his ethical ontology of value-pluralism. Berlin defined negative liberty, as the term "liberty" was used by Thomas Hobbes, as the absence of coercion, or interference with, agents' possible private actions, by an exterior social-body, and as a comparatively recent political ideal, which, Berlin later writes, re-emerged in the late 17th century, after its slow and inarticulate birth in the Ancient doctrines of Antiphon the Sophist, the Cyrenaic discipleship, and of Otanes after the death of pseudo-Smerdis. In an introduction to the essay, Berlin writes:
"As for Otanes, he wished neither to rule nor to be ruled — the exact opposite of Aristotle's notion of true civic liberty... [This ideal] remains isolated and, until Epicurus, undeveloped... the notion had not explicitly emerged".
Positive liberty may be understood as self mastery; and includes one's having a role in choosing who governs the society of which one is a part. Berlin traced positive liberty from Aristotle's definition of citizenship, which is historically derived from the social role of the freemen of classical Athens: it was, Berlin argued, the liberty in choosing their government granted to citizens, and extolled, most famously, by Pericles. Berlin granted that both concepts of liberty represent valid human ideals, and that both forms of liberty are necessary in any free and civilised society.
- "liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question: 'What is the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons'."
For Berlin, negative liberty represents a different, and sometimes contradictory, understanding of the concept of liberty, which needs to be carefully distinguished. Its later proponents (such as Tocqueville, Constant, Montesquieu, John Locke, David Hume and John Stuart Mill, who accepted Chrysippus' understanding of self-determination) insisted that constraint and discipline were the antithesis of liberty and so were (and are) less prone to confusing liberty and constraint in the manner of rationalists and the philosophical harbingers of totalitarianism. This concept of negative liberty, Berlin argued, constitutes an alternative, and sometimes even opposed, concept to positive liberty, and one often closer to the intuitive modern usage of the word.
Teacher of Adam Smith
Politics, Government, and Law in the Universe
Essential Cannabis Hemp Oil Making Tutorial Using Safe Countertop Distiller & FROZEN Alcoholvideo tutorial
The Power of RAW Cannabisvideo tutorial
Post Industrial World Order
The Myths of Zionism
By John Rose
The Society was organized as a non-sectarian entity. The following was stated in the Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society, "Article I: Constitution":
Let's make a comparison between an organization and a society. Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) have argued that creating a state is not a top-down exercise, in those times described as a given by God. A society is the result of a social contract between citizens, who prefer handing over some natural rights to a government rather than a state of nature in which everyone has to fight for their own survival. As Hobbes stated, life without a social contract would be "nasty, brutal and short."