updated Tuesday July 9, 2024 after the results of the legislative elections in France
Electoral systems are no longer able to respond to the desire for democracy expressed by a large majority of citizens in countries called a democracy. Citizens who feel abandoned, misunderstood, abandoned by elites who only seek their profits and their political careers, ultimately abandon themselves to extremist parties, especially on the right.
Europe is particularly affected by this drift of political life towards the extremes. But the United States is also no longer able to accept the practices of traditional political parties and the representative voting method inherited from the past which no longer corresponds to current needs by maintaining the primacy of the influence of the religious conservatism of the Puritans of the Ancestral Anglo-Saxon establishment and amendments taken after Independence to satisfy the control of slavery in the Southern statesand which have never been repealed since.
Hence this quote from Ludwig von Mises that we remember and which runs through the legislative electoral campaign of 2024 in France following the dissolution of the National Assembly by the President of the Republic.
The threat of the arrival of the far-right party in government is agitating the country, since this party has never tried to get us out of the current political, economic, social and security crisis.
This shows the level of the current political debate and through these kinds of quotes, the attempts of certain citizens to put forward the essential political debate to correct the errors committed in 1789 by refusing to re-establish a democracy after the destruction of the flourishing medieval period by the king of France in order to develop royal absolutism and the centralization of power.
Among these attempts to return to a serious political debate capable of getting us out of this political crisis and this threat of a new civil war, this assertion by the economist Ludwig von Mises poses a damning observation. However, it must immediately be clarified that Von Mises defended liberal capitalism and criticized socialism but certainly in a very naive way as we will see because obviously either he ignored or he voluntarily concealed the fact that fascism, Nazism, socialism and communism have the same origin with of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy keen to defend its claim to want a world government to maximize the profits of its ruling elites while creating and controlling its own political oppositions.
Von Mises presents himself as an activist for capitalism but without understanding how it works and without knowing the processes used by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy to direct its opposition and thus divide people to better submit them to its world government.
“It is important to understand that fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships.”
Ludwig von Mises
This economist understood what was happening except that he did not explain why or, to defend liberal capitalism, he was careful not to say more. We will show that socialist dictatorships are indeed the work of Anglo-Saxon bankers and leaders of the Puritan sect who say they are predestined to govern the world with its elites.
This assertion by von Mises, however, remains useful for reopening this old debate between a democratic republic and a republic which uses the representative system. Here we repeat our comments published on fileane.com.
because socialism levels down, impoverishes and allows people to be better controlled.
The same men and the same international firms financed the Russian Revolution, Roosevelt’s “New Deal” and National Socialism, the 3 “socialisms”.
Each time, these political maneuvers reinforced the dependence of states and people on the financial oligarchy which found colossal profits through two world wars.
because he wanted to transform capitalist enterprises into mutuals and cooperatives.
The seniority of the workers should allow them to be partners in the capital and management of their companies. Which amounted to transforming private ownership of the means of production into common property to manage our common goods. The social misery of industrial development was thus eliminated as was the capitalist system itself.
Adolphe Thiers refused to put this proposal to the vote of Parliament once the 1864 law on commercial joint stock companies had been passed… by the socialists of Pierre Leroux who were thus betrayed by the French business bourgeoisie.
It is time for this demand of Pierre Leroux to be taken up by current politicians with that of full money, without debt, which is at the center of an economy managed by the common property of the citizens of a democratic and no longer representative republic.
extract of :
We are at the switching point of social political thought in the years 1840-1880. It is not surprising that high finance plunged Pierre Leroux into oblivion and put Marx on the pedestal, continuing the maneuvers of Proudhon and Hugo in 1848.
Proudhon’s slogan “property is theft” is an indefensible legal enormity. The complementarity between the three forms of property has certainly been prohibited in France since Friday October 13, 1307 and the beginning of royal absolutism, but it exists and has been used in all the most flourishing civilizations with common property.
Yet Marx in 1848 used Leroux to crush his rival Bakunin.
In 1871, after Leroux’s death, Engels wrote that scientific socialism is German and that it continues the work of Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen and therefore without Leroux.
In 1912, everything became clear with the words of Lenin who declared that in 1848, French socialism was nothing more than “a blissful reverie”.
And Lenin, whom Marx ranked among his worst students, was chosen by Jacob Schiff, banker of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy, to lead the Russian revolution of 1917, after the failure in 1905 of another student of Schiff, Trotski.
Each time, high finance identifies and selects the authors, the most mediocre thinkers capable of the worst enormities to exclude those who write and defend proposals contrary to their interests.
It’s fair game for those who defend their power, of course, but this is what we’re talking about here: eliminating this high finance from power and putting back in place what has been banned, pushed aside, plunged into the oblivion to make citizens ignorant.
These partisan political ideological disputes impoverish political debate and divide citizens, which reinforces the power of the elites who run the capitalist economic system. The rich pursue their profits without difficulty and on fileane.com, we have shown the processes they use and how they direct and finance the wars which bring them miraculous profits impossible to achieve in peacetime.
The current political debate obviously takes up this essential question of the redistribution of wealth produced by the work of all and the extremist political parties put forward recipes whose common sense borrows from ignorance and political, economic and social incompetence.
it is the first political act when a social group changes power or takes power to exercise it itself in a democracy.
gathered around Georges Sand and their friends in their approach to original Christianity before the intervention of the Roman papacy, wanted to reestablish common property managed by the group itself in participatory local direct democracy with the municipal assemblies which manage our common goods as during the last flourishing period in Europe, the medieval period with the time of cathedrals, the knightly orders and the knowledge of the temples on the banks of the Nile saved and transmitted by the Benedictines.
But the revolutionaries of 1789, like Leroux and his friends, did not rediscover the functioning of the “time of the cathedrals”. Victor Hugo, it seems, will later understand this and he will travel the country to contemplate the cathedrals and in particular to write about the mysteries of Paris and its cathedral.
Obviously, the destruction of the Templar protectors of the flourishing medieval period since the wealth remained on site, allowed the monarchy to develop royal absolutism by capturing this wealth with collective property managed by the king and his representatives. System of power resumed in 1789 under the intervention of Abbot Sieyès in the Constituent Assembly.
It is the system of power defended by the Roman papacy and the Western monarchies which in reality was adopted by the French Revolution. This will cause a serious political conflict between supporters of democracy serving the people and supporters of a system of representative power without direct intervention by citizens in the government of the republic.
In 1790, private property made sacred in 1789 in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (article 17) following the ideas of Rousseau, with the Le Chapelier law and the Allarde decree, made it possible to develop private property means of production for the benefit of the new business bourgeoisie and then industrial capitalism.
Anglo-Saxon bankers use this private property of the means of production and confiscate it through the dogma of the separation of elites capable of ruling the world according to their divine principles.
Opposite them, in France, it was Pierre Leroux and his friends who were the first to clearly oppose them by returning to the common property of the first Christians, as with the Egyptians and then the Benedictines. Except that they did not declare it as clearly and that they were silenced first by the Roman papacy even if after 1307, it had quickly rehabilitated the order of the Temple without however taking up this solution to change the political foundation of monarchies and restore common property. Then the new business bourgeoisie after 1789 could only oppose this threat of seeing its brand new private ownership of the means of production disappear.
which does not address this political choice between forms of ownership, to once again develop the choice of collective ownership but no longer within the framework of monarchies but within the framework of the system of centralized communist power and led exclusively by the communist party or by socialist parties whose scientific rationalism does not refer to Christianity.
This risk is controlled by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy which finances and directs the various communisms throughout the world, taking care not to say that to eliminate communism without necessarily returning to capitalism, there is the French solution of returning to common property of the first Christians and the Egyptians just like that of the first peoples, that of the time of the cathedrals, etc.
Some people realized this and said it clearly well before Ludwig von Mises:
Otto Von Bismark, Chancellor of Prussia, following the assassination of Lincoln:
“I fear that foreign bankers will completely dominate the abundant wealth of America […]they will not hesitate to throw Christian states into wars and chaos, in order to become heirs of the whole earth”
“The final battle of Christianity will be fought around the problem of money, and until this problem is resolved, there cannot be the universal application of Christianity” Honoré de Balzac.
But Balzac speaks of money without specifying its form of ownership: the full currency which belongs to citizens uses common property, as in the medieval period. Or collective property as with Lincoln’s “Greenback” dollar in 1862. Or the Treasury Bonds used in France from 1944 to 1973 to rebuild and modernize the country without debt.
and a return to complementarity between the three forms of property: private, common and managed directly by the social group, collective and managed by citizen representatives.
So partisan political quarrels develop “changes” in the liberal capitalist system: modifying the tax system, the electoral system, labor law, the constitution without of course even touching a finger on the confiscation by our elites of the choice of form of property to better distribute the wealth produced by the work of all.
The most flourishing civilizations have used the complementarity between the three forms of property to develop an art of living
This is the whole political debate between democracy and a system of representative power. Does it still exist in France?
Is it out of ignorance or is it prohibited by supporters of the representative system who do not want democracy?
A coalition of losers to bring down the winner. It is a denial of democracy.
Power systems function in this way to preserve the place of their rulers and to ward off applicants. They are closed, locked, like our constitutions since the first one in 1790. Instead of the system of representative power chosen in 1789, there was already at that time in the debate in the Constituent Assembly the political project of a democratic republic, without a representative electoral system.
Sorry that in 2024, so many millions of French citizens don’t know. Admittedly since 1790, this knowledge is forbidden, but our professor of Constitutional Law during his first hour of class in the first year had nevertheless explained it well and presented the solution: all the changes of constitutions and political regimes in France since 1790 took place after wars, political crises with civil unrest, the constitution of 1958 not escaping this custom with the events of Algiers.
The French republican custom to change political regime is to go through the streets with or without guns because our political leaders abuse constitutions and representative systems that are closed, blocked. France is not a democratic republic but a system of representative power at the service of the business bourgeoisie and the neo-liberal capitalist system led by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy. There is no point in coming crying after with pretexts of denial of democracy, when since 1789 we have not been in a democracy, unless we want to reach the height of ridicule.
“Citizens who nominate representatives give up and have to give up making the law themselves; they have no particular will to impose.
If they dictated, France would no longer be that representative state; it would be a democratic one.
The people, I repeat, in a country that is not a democracy (and France cannot be), the people can only speak, the people can only act through their representatives.”
Sieyès, founding father of representative government in France, speech at the Constituent Assembly in 1789.
For further explanation:
New
When presenting his latest book in France: Bureaucracy, the author multiplies the interviews that have the gift of questioning us by the level of imprecision and confusion of the analysis presented. Henceour responses on a few points that we have selected. Extract from the interview given to Libération on 16 October 2015 Let’s stop with […]
New
Published on 21/10/2021 à 10:56 by France Soir.Author(s): Moufid Azmaïesh, for FranceSoir Compel the world’s population to submit to the dictates of private interests under the pretext of “public health. On September 22, Langemann Medien published on his YouTube channel an interview – viewed nearly 500,000 times to date – with a young mathematician and […]
New
Document: Before delving into the many specific benefits of hemp cultivation, it is important to emphasize that hemp is the ideal source for achieving a wide range of objectives set out in the European Green Pact. This agreement is a set of European Commission policy initiatives aimed at making Europe climate neutral by 2050. Hemp, […]