חדשות וירוס TV - מהדורה 784 • 'מלחמה פסיכולוגית' PSY-WAR - חלק ד' • 15-08-2023

- - - לא מוגה! - - - 

עכשיו למהומה היום בתיאטרון הקאמרי, ההצגה המלך חייב למות עם כרמו ורמי ברוך,

הופסקה בשל קריאות מהקהל שטענו שמדובר בטקסטים פוליטיים נגד ראש הממשלה.

החצי השני הבאת הפילוסופים.

אתה חושב שהטיביסטים לא פילוסופיים?

לא, לא, לא, לא, לא, לא, לא.

בבקשה, אדוני.

ג'ורז' וושינגטון היה מבחינת הוספות,

ג'יימס מאליסון היה מבחינת הוספות,

תומאס ג'פרסון היה מבחינת הוספות,

במיוחד, ג'פרסון, שהיה הכי דמוקרטי של בלה,

לא היה במדינת הפילדלפיה.

הוא היה הממשלה של פרנס,

והוא קיבל את הרצי הרציונות רדיקליות מהפורנציה הפרנציה,

שזה לא מנסה להם את אנשים כמו אלוציין או המלטון.

ההחלטה האמוריתיתית באמריקנית

אז הולכת לבחורות האלה,

היא ג'פרסונאים דמוקרטים נגד פדרלס,

והליטר שלו, עד שכשהוא נגד בי ביור, היה אלכסגנר המלטון.

אפשרי, קלאס קולורס, ובשהורת קולורס.

אמיוחד יפירסון היה, במיוחד,

חושב רדיקלי חושבים בזמן שלו.

ברור,

ההצלחה של הדמוקרטיה,

שהורים חושבים חושבים שכל אנשים הם קיימים אלפים ומקורסים בהם,

היא הצלחה רדיקה חושבית.

And although Jefferson would not have applied it to women or to indians or to blacks,

nonetheless, in all those cases, those words would come back to be very serviceable for those groups and pushing civil rights and civil liberties forward in the United States, from where Jefferson's statement left them.

The problem with the declaration of independence was that once independence was gone from Britain,

and the question became one of the governance,

how were these former colonies of Britain to govern?

What led immediately to the Knessetutial Convention in 1987,

where a series of uprisingies by debtors,

essentially,

not just in Massachusetts,

the most famous is the Knessetutts, the Shaze רבליאן in 1986.

The American state was founded largely to get the Ohio Valley, largely to cross the Appalachians.

The American, that is the constitution,

to organize an army and money in order to conquer further lands more to the west.

That is the origin of the U.S.A.

But to do that, the slave masters are not going to do the fighting, what they will do is hire poor people to do it.

But when they don't pay the poor people, if they didn't pay Daniel Shaze,

then Daniel Shaze takes matters into his own hand in 1987 and goes to the courts and shuts down

the courts because the courts. The courts were beginning to foreclose on the grounds שדניאל Shaze and the other veterans from the American War of Independence did not have the money to pay back.

The riots were happening throughout the 1980s and they were sufficiently scary from the point of view of people with property

that they had to do something about it.

And what they did about it was,

essentially, overthrown the articles of the federation and it's still a much stronger,

much more able government to protect the property interests that were in dire threat from the people,

quote, unquote. This was in any leadus,

you could almost say,

kudeta,

אף פעם שזה לא היה כלום סנטרל רב ללונג' a kut against a kut.

They were really trying to set one up and protect it against a majoritarian interest,

especially economic interest, especially property interest,

and especially threats from people who didn't have much.

The first thing that they did when they got to Philadelphia in 1987 was they locked the doors.

The only reason we know what happened behind those closed doors were that people like James Madison kept extensive notes.

The constitution of the American constitution was formulated primarily by James Madison.

He's the major framer of the constitution and he wanted to overcome what

he's what he called the tyranny of the majority. He said that the primary goal of government is to ensure that the opולנט

are protected from the majority.

So therefore, he designed the constitution in such a way that as he put it,

the wealth of the nation

will be in charge.

The more responsible set of men,

those who sympathize with property owners and their rights,

and the system was designed that way.

The power was the power in the Senate, which was the least representative body and it was the wealth of the nation.

In fact, it's still is.

The house of representatives,

which is more democratic,

the theory was given much less power and the powerful executive is also supposed to represent the wealth of the nation.

In Madison's defense,

one should say that he was really pre-capitalist in his mentality.

He assumed that he assumed that the wealthy would be what he called benevolent

gentlemen who would not be concerned with their own interests,

but with the benefit of the people.

אדם סמית, who proceeded him,

it was much more realistic.

He pointed out that the principal architectes of policy,

mainly the merchants and manufacturers in his day,

they ensure that the policies are designed so that their own interests are protected,

no matter how

grievous the effect on others, including the people of England.

It's rather interesting to compare Madison's thinking,

which founded this country,

with the first major book on politics,

namely Aristotle's politics.

Aristotle surveyed many kinds of systems and decided

that of all of them didn't like any of them, but he said of all of them, democracy is probably the best.

But he said that democracy is a problem.

And it was the same problem that

Madison noticed centuries later.

He said if in Athens,

everyone had a right to vote,

the poor majority would attack the property the rich,

insist that it would be divided,

and he also felt that it was unfair.

But Madison and Aristotle hadו החלטות לסדרות.

החלטות לסדרות את התחלות מדינות היתה שהיא לסדרות את הדמוקרטיה.

החלטות של אריסטלס היתה להסדרות את האווירות.

האחרות של המדינות הלאומיות היו נקראו האנטי-פדרליסטים,

אך הטרם לא נכון.

המחלקות הכי גדולות הן מוצרות על מיוחדות יותר לוקליזם,

עם סיסטמם דמוקרטי יותר.

ביל רייטס,

הראשון בין הממברות של הקונסטרציה,

הן היו החלטות שהחלטה של הפדרליסטים היה בשלושות הקונסטרציה

לסדרות את הדמוקרטיה.

אז

החלטה הדמוקרטית של הקונסטיטוציה,

שכן, של חברי הכנסת,

הייתה נפגת מעל גבולות.

היא לא נפגת מפילדלפיה בכל כלום.

היא נפגתה ב-1791 ונפגת מעל גבולות על הקונסטיטוציה

בשיטה הכי גדולה בכל מקוםות האמירה הלאומיתית בשביל השבילה.

גם עם החלטה,

יש לנו סיסטמם,

שאתה יודע,

הוא לא סביר ליידוד מבחון של חייליוניות הממשלה וחוברות בעלי בחיים.

נעים אותה רחוק,

הוא טרמבל מספיק את החיילים של הגבולות.

החלטה היא כלל ספר מעציות למהות משחקות בשיטה לחברות בעלי חייליונות הממשלה,

ואני אוהב לומר על אפלוס על אנטי-ממשלה בינתי,

על גבולות האלה.

were significantly more partial to democratic elements in the society and to the rights of ordinary people.

Then were the significantly more ili is the federalists.

If the greatest legacy of the anti-Federalists was the bill of rights, their dream of direct democracy was not to be.

At the time,

many dissidents made predictions for what they believed would come to pass as the new nation grew and flourished.

The natural course of power is to make the many slaves to the few,

one anti-Federalist road.

Another objected to the new government because the bulk of the people can have nothing to say to it,

the government is not a government of the people.

The men of fortune would not feel for the common people.

An aristocritical tyranny would arise in which the great will struggle for power,

honor and wealth.

The poor become a parade avarus,

אינסולנס,

and oppression.

In short, my fellow citizens,

it can be said to be nothing less than a nasty stride to the universal empire.

A significant model for both the Federalists and anti-Federalists with the Iroquo,

who had created a highly sophisticated and democratic federation of self-governing units.

In stark contrast to European forms of government,

the Iroquo-OECD had the ability to immediately remove corrupt leaders.

Women played a significant role in decision-making.

Everyone was permitted to participate in debate and policy formulation.

The native Americans were exceedingly democratic in the way they are.

Now, society is perfect.

When you make comparisons, you see that,

they were sometimes small, but sometimes 30,000-40,000 people and more in a large confederacy that operated on a basis of mutual respect.

mutual respect that developed out of experience because if you didn't treat people equally then they were going to give you trouble.

The societies were exceedingly collaborative,

but they were also exceedingly individualist.

The individual was honored, but the values were collaborative because you had to get along.

Everybody was included in every decision that affected them.

The elders, obviously, were honored.

They knew more.

You listen to your elders, but everybody had a say.

You have an extremely participatory society and as it moved up to larger, with a great deal of descent,

so if you had a large number of people,

and if they would be in a federation, the village would decide for itself.

The tribe would then decide,

but the individual villages would have to decide.

Then the tribes in the federation, their representatives would meet.

But they wouldn't decide for everyone.

They'd have to have the consensus of local people.

So if there wasn't a consensus already, they would have to go back and discuss it.

So that to the extent that there was representation,

these were representatives, who were truly representatives.

They would have to go back. They wouldn't keep their positions unless they consulted people.

And they knew that. Even if they had the authority to make a decision,

people would go elsewhere and not keep them as leaders if they didn't listen to them.

And they didn't treat them.

In large, you had a much more

participatory society and even on the larger, more representative level,

who representatives באמת צריכים לדבר על ההחלטות שלהם.

אירונית, הוא נכנס לזה כפרימיטיב וסוויג,

נדיב אמריקאים,

שהם באמת קיימים סיסטמם הרבה יותר דמוקרטי שלהם של איזו גבוהה מאשר כל נשיאה ציבילית בעברית.

אבל הם מודלים אנרכית,

כמו שהם סיסטמטים יותר דמוקרטיים המשמעותיים של האנטי-פדרליטים,

הם לא נכנסים לידיונות של מדיסון אליטי.

In Republic and Parliamentary democracy alike,

citizens would be reduced to passive observers.

They would be allowed to pick and choose which individual made decisions on their behalf.

But they would not be able to make those decisions themselves.

Returning to the period after the first world war,

we find widespread support amongst intellectuals from Madison's Elיטas interpretation of democracy.

According to Walter ליפמן, the public's function in politics was to be interested spectators of action,

but not participants.

Yet, ליפמן perceived a problem.

New technologies and communication and transportation had awakened

millions of disenfranchise people to a new world outside their towns and cities,

while traditional,

economic,

political and social structures remained in place.

Something had to change.

But rather than to advocate structural changes in societies and institutions,

ליפמן suggested that propaganda re-adjust the public mind.

It has essays on democracy in the 1920s,

which you have to call it progressive essays on democracy,

he was a Wilson Roosevelt,

Kennedy liberal in the American sense.

He says that the majority are simply incompetent.

They are ignorant and

out�רים, in his view, that's the majority of the population.

And to allow them to participate in decision making would be a complete disaster.

So therefore, we have to design means

to ensure that what he called the Responsible men,

of whom he was of course one, are protected from the roar and the trampling of the beasts,

the ignorant.

...and he devils.

And he devised a number of methods.

ליפמן called it Manufacture of consent.

We have to Manufacture the consent of the ignorant and metals and outsiders.

Mass of the population and the huge public relations industry was developed at the same time.

They are the people who managed and controlled the marketing exercises that are called elections in the United States.

They are marketing exercises and they are well aware of it.

Apparently, we have all been wrong.

It is pronounced Calיפורניה.

Ladies Ladies, the governor of the great state of Calיפורניה!

So, for example, in the last election, 2008,

the advertising industry gives a prize every year for the best marketing campaign of the year.

2008, they gave it to the Obama campaign, who beat out commercial competitors.

The idea is we market candidates the same way we market toothpaste or life-style drugs or auto-mובילים.

-כן, זה עוד מעט להשוות להם הרבה כסף.

ובאמת,

אובמה

גדול מאוד מעטמת מקיין ולא בגלל התוצאות פופולריות,

הוא הגיע בפנאנציאליות הפיננציאליות.

הוא היה הכנד שלו,

ו... והפליטות שלו פנאנציאליות פנאנציאליות הפנאנציאליות.