Was Karl Popper Right To Blame Plato’s Concept Of The Philosopher King For The Rise Of Totalitarianism In The Twentieth Century?

No.  Popper’s argument (like many of his disingenuous political arguments) was an attempt at deflection from Popper’s factions.   His contribution to science not withstanding.

The reason for the rise of totalitarianism in the west was the moral legitimacy given to statism by the Marxists, Socialists, Keynesians and Postmodernists, and later the neo-Conservatives.

However, the Marxists, and all Marxist derivatives I just listed — like Popper, exemplified by Popper’s own systemic use of platonic truth (analytic, unknowable truth) and platonic existence (three words theory) — were Cosmopolitan (Jewish) theorists.  Not Greek or Christian (Anglo, German, or French) theorists.  

The Cosmopolitans, whether Marxist/Socialist/Postmodern/Feminist, or Libertine (Misesian/Rothbardian) or Neo-Conservative (Straussian), all sought — through false, elaborate philosophical justifications, all reliant upon loading, framing and overloading (elaborate suggestion),  and the argumentative technique of Critique, that was developed over the centuries for the purpose of scriptural interpretation — to create a world safe for Cosmopolitans by advocating for authoritarian universalism. 

This technique was accomplished by uniting Kant’s rejection of anglo meritocratic empiricism in favor of rational (hierarchical) authoritarianism, then combining it with traditional Jewish religio-moral authoritarian arguments.

Jewish thought is structured as a totalitarian system of indoctrination, under the threat of ostracization, using the concept of an angry god,  to create a religious, moral, and rhetorical school, identical in purpose to Plato’s proposition for legal, rational, and historical school reliant upon law for punishment. 

But unlike western traditional aristocracy (or Plato’s version of it), the Jewish school of thought advocates dual ethics (moral inequality) whereas Plato and western aristocratic ethics advocate equality under the law, but merely argue for meritocracy because of differences in virtuous character and ability. 

The evidence is clear, and we can trace the origins of authors in each of the cosmopolitan political movements, covering the all three axis of the political spectrum, through development, until they are later adopted by a minority of christian and western public intellectuals, and used by the academy to replace the church, using the cosmopolitan deceptions, to advocate for the state, rather than fulfill the church’s role as an opponent to the state.

But in both the origin of the ideas, in the distribution of the ideas, and the disingenuous advocacy of the ideas using the new media available in the 20th century. the totalitarianism of the twentieth century was caused by Jewish Cosmopolitan authors, in not only the socialist (left) but also the conservative (neo conservative) and libertarian (libertine) political spectrum. 

Conversely the rise of the desire for statism among western conservatives is a defensive reaction to the expansion of the of the state by the cosmopolitans. 

Westerners rely upon testimonial truth, juries, science, reason, law, universalism, merit, and the blanace of powers as a prevention against the rise of authority.  These properties are the inverse of jewish cosmopolitan thought.

During the enlightenment, when the franchise (democracy) was extended to all, each sub-group in europe attempted to justify its cultural strategy, cultural ethics, and cultural philosophy, as the dominant one for universal use. 

The marxist/neocon fallacy won because it was possible to use the media, democracy, redistribution, advocacy for immorality, to overturn the balance of powers, overturn meritocracy, and justify the state as a vehicle for implementing immorality that has resulted in the destruction of the west, and the western family, and the western ethic.



Leave a Reply