Arnis Luks recently interviewed Alan Moran about: the Murray Darling Basin Pan & Power Generation VI
Arnis Luks recently interviewed Alan Moran about: the Murray Darling Basin Pan & Power Generation VI
Arnis Luks interviews Wallace Klinck and Robert Klinck from Canada about: Dialectics and Deception Part 2
The “polarising narrative” to produce monopoly
The recent bushfires in Australia are a polarising event. The opposing views are (one) of “environmental sustainability” and the other (two) a mixture of Conservative, free enterprise and centralising authority.
Our Prime Minister is advocating a national standard for cool weather burns to reduce the fuel load. No doubt any new law will contain all the Agenda 2030 requirements for UN mandated Environmental Sustainability. Also a mining magnate is identifying fuel loads as the cause of the recent fires.
Both points of view, environmental sustainability and free enterprise are valid. Conserving our natural environment is very important. National parks, wildlife reserves, water courses are all valid areas to protect. From the other point of view, reducing fuel loads, allowing farmer’s livestock access to national parks, allowing people access to these vast public resources are also valid.
The media reports are attempting to polarise our thinking (either or) into one or the other camp. The answer, or the truth of the situation, I believe is more attuned to validating both points of view in tension (both and).
Rampant industrialisation is the scourge on the environment. It is exploitive and destructive. China is buying up Australian farmland and industry in order to guarantee supply for itself, because so much damage is being done to the environment there.
The end position of rampant industrialisation is perhaps best reflected in the nuclear industry. Toxic waste is produced that the nuclear industry is unprepared to bio-remediate until it is inert. This legitimately should be incorporated within the real cost of production. Recently South Australia was in discussion about allowing a nuclear waste dump in the outback. This was firmly rejected by the people of South Australia.
I have read reports of where rust bucket ships have been purchased to place nuclear waste in, and these ships have been scuttled off the coast of Africa. The outcome being that the fishing grounds have been destroyed and the locals have reverted to piracy in order to provide a sufficiency for their families.
Excessive, or disordered individualism places ‘personal gain’ at the expense of the ‘greater good’.
Perhaps the most accountable environmental steward is the farmer. He is balancing the good management of his soil and the best condition of his livestock with the inordinate financial pressure being imposed upon him. The most recent scourge has been the 500% increase in the price of water. On top of that is the escalating price of fuel and electrical energy. He is in no man’s land and we are witnessing his deconstruction – de-kulakisation of Australia.
Instead of being protected by Policy Outcomes, the farmer is exposed to the bloody mindedness of both exploitative profit (individualism) and calls to be an environmental steward of his property. His previous situation was one of being allowed access to national parks to run livestock through, subsequently reducing the fuel load and providing a regular source of food for his livestock, and full and unfettered use of his lands to produce a profit. It was a win-win.
Deliberately, the Prime Minister’s response to the fires has been one of reinforcing monopoly, a further increase of centralising control of our natural resources by insisting on a ‘national’ standard of cool weather burns instead of ‘local management’ from known circumstances, while also giving no relief to the farmer from exploitative charges for stock food, water or energy. The national parks, wildlife reserves and water courses are owned by all of us, not just the exploitative monopoly who may be making the biggest donations to all the political parties.
Prince Charles has called for a new economic model. Douglas Social Credit is the only economic model that balances the opposing forces in equilibrium, holding environmental stewardship and capital under the ‘economic democracy’ (ethical) equilibrium.
London: Prince Charles has pleaded with world leaders and businesses to rapidly shift to a new economic model that revolutionises the interaction between nature and global financial markets and saves the planet from “approaching catastrophe”. Ref: https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/prince-charles-pleads-for-sweeping-new-economic-model-to-avert-climate-catastrophe-20200123-p53tw9.html
Douay-Rheims Bible – The Parable of the Two Debtors
Luke 7: 39-50 And the Pharisee, who had invited him, seeing it, spoke within himself, saying: This man, if he were if a prophet, would know surely who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him, that she is a sinner.
And Jesus answering, said to him: Simon, I have somewhat to say to thee. But he said: Master, say it. A certain creditor had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence and the other fifty. And whereas they had not wherewith to pay, he forgave them both. Which therefore of the two loveth him most? Simon answering, said: I suppose that he to whom he forgave most. And he said to him: Thou hast judged rightly. And turning to the woman, he said unto Simon: Dost thou see this woman? I entered into thy house: thou gavest me no water for my feet. But she with tears hath washed my feet; and with her hairs hath wiped them. Thou gavest me no kiss. But she, since she cane in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint. But she with ointment hath anointed my feet. Wherefore, I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less. And he said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves: Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman: Thy faith hath made thee safe. Go in peace.
Recently we see our Prince Harry abdicating. His first speech since this occurrence highlights the inordinate pressure the mainstream media had played on them both to come to this decision. https://youtu.be/55OQ7aC7hW4
Kingship, kinship is one of service. The relationship between the monarch and the people is one of service, duty, and mutual love and cooperation.
Extract from “The Crown”: “. . . the title and position are just the trappings. The essence of your DUTY (that which is DUE) is loving, protecting, serving and supporting her.”
‘Her’ of course was the future Queen Elizabeth II, the Duke’s young wife.
There was recently some suggestion that “royalty” may be a trade-able commodity rather than a position of service and duty. Poor choices can be made by anyone at any strata-level of society. Placing myself under the same microscope of critique, the first word I must look at is “trespass”. This word alludes to much more than just “debt”.
Proper leads to property, response leads to responsibility. Has my response with the use of property at my disposal been of the highest standard? With the limited authority (within clearly defined bounds that I operate), has my response been within the bounds of that authority, have I been a good steward? There is a higher law.
The role of kingship, kinship, work together as community. There is so much more to Monarchy than just the law. Pork barrelling has recently been observed leading up to the last election.
Being drawn to the historical record of the 1936 abdication of Edward VIII, the ALOR NewTimes Journal recorded (accurately) some little known circumstances around the inordinate pressure the then King found himself in. The crisis then, was all generated by the mainstream media. England and her dominions were not in a state of apprehension, but rather, loved their king. The firestorm created by the mainstream media painted a completely false narrative. Over a two-week period they destroyed him. The record is there and available in our archives here: https://alor.org/Storage/New_Times/index.html 18 December 1936, Page 6.
The microscope of conscience brings out all that is hidden into plain sight.
The meek shall inherit the earth – we can get it wrong in so many ways. The road is narrow.
ALOR operates on the principles of service and duty.
Arnis Luks interviews Yves Potvin from Canada about: Agenda 2030 vs Douglas Social Credit
Today my thoughts have been around moral boundaries. Is it a necessary thing? Should it be considered outside of the church?
About 1905 there were pronouncements in France of legal and political separation between church and state. The attentive few were quite aware of the ramifications. Pope Pius X, in the encyclical Vehementer Nos, clearly lays out some of these.
The Christian religion, by the promulgation of a law, was being replaced by the religion of atheism.
Observing this separation of the Christian church and state over the past 115 years, secular society has been drifting, steadily and unrelentingly, towards cultural collapse. The moral code, written on men’s hearts, sets boundaries of acceptable behaviour. This is reinforced by scriptural guidance. The natural law undergirds all of this to foster “that which works best”. Moving away from this anchor, cultures drift like flotsam in the surf.
Extract from Social Credit Philosophy by M. Oliver Heydorn
16. Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God, the things that are God’s (Matthew 22:21)
A successful society will embody one of the key principles of Ramiro de Maeztu’s functionalism **: every authority must operate within clearly and correctly defined limits and no authority should have any more power or privilege than is necessary for the adequate carrying out of its due function in favour of the common good. “An expert is essentially a servant of policy, and we all know what comes of ‘a servant when he ruleth’ ”. It must also be possible to hold every authority personally responsible for the use of the powers entrusted to him.
The Principle of the Incarnation
After considering these basic premises an obvious question imposes itself: if the worldview underlying Christianity is true, why is it often claimed that Christianity has failed? Douglas made a startling contribution both to the future betterment of civilization and to the survival and ultimate vindication of the Christian religion when he pointed out that what is, perhaps, the most important principle of the Christian worldview is all too often neglected: And the Word was made flesh (John 1:14); it is the truth taught by the doctrine of the incarnation. The worldview of Christianity must be applied through proper mechanisms if the truth of that worldview is to be effective in securing worthwhile results on the practical plane:
The speech of the Earl of Damley in the House of Lords on July 10, 1946, affords an outstanding instance of a little recognised, but formidable problem. Perfect in form and manner, it was a moving appeal for the replacement of Power Politics by the Christian Ethic and the Golden Rule. Where, it may be asked, is there any problem in that, other than one of wholesale conversion? Let us, in order to elucidate the difficulty, compare Christianity to the Theory of Thermo-Dynamics, and assume, for the purposes of the argument, that all the essentials of that theory were widely known two thousand years ago.
It is not difficult to imagine that those who grasped the implications of it might say “Here is the key to a better society. Here is the title deed to a leisure world. Disregard all else, and apply thermodynamics.” Remember that we are assuming that James Watt was still to be born. And the world at large would have said “This man says the magic word is Thermo-Dynamics. Crucify him.”
Now the fact, which ought to be patent to anyone, is that it is the Policy of a Philosophy which is important (because it is the evidence of things not seen); and that Thermo-Dynamics means nothing without Heat Engines, and Christianity means nothing without the Incarnation. You cannot drive a dynamo with Boyle’s law, or the ”Queen Elizabeth” with Joule’s Equivalent. This country is not now the Policy of a Christian Philosophy, and before it can again, as an organisation, put into practice successfully those Christian principles, for which Lord Damley pleads, it must understand their application through proper mechanisms – not so simple a matter as he would appear to think it is. Failing that, “the children of this world are, in their generation, wiser than the children of Light.”
Christian principles must find their expression in the policies and methods that individuals and associations adopt so that reality’s inherent potential for goodness might be released and the divine plan for creation fulfilled. Barring this, no amount of sentimental rhetoric, public appeals, ceremonies, and campaigns, or even prayer will succeed, by themselves, in ensuring that the divine will can and shall be done here on earth as it is in heaven. Seeking, respecting, and obeying the Canon in all morally sound fields of human endeavour is one of the greatest forms of divine worship as it renders manifest something of the divinity in this world of time and space… ‘And the Word was made flesh’.
Antitheses to the Christian Worldview
Another method of throwing light on the content of the Christian worldview, and hence the ‘philosophy’ which serves as the basis for Social Credit, is to identify what that worldview is not. There are a number of anti-Christian worldviews that are active in the modern world and they, in various combinations and to various degrees, have thoroughly displaced Christianity as the foundational ‘philosophy’ for public policy. If the authentic Christian Weltanschauung is substantially true, then alternatives which deny any of its basic premises must be false:
l believe the whole philosophy of the modern world is essentially unreal. Never before have we been going through such an orgy of calculated delusions raised upon a conception, which is consciously vicious, of what is important to the world; and up to a certain extent it succeeds.
The anti-Christian worldviews which Douglas regarded as false or ‘unreal’ go by various names in his writings: ’collectivism’, ‘dialectical materialism’, ‘freemasonry’, ’Puritanism’, ‘Calvinism’, ‘Whiggism’, ‘Prussianism’, ’(Talmudic) Judaism’, etc.
There can be no hope of combining the Christian religion and the worldview it inspires with any anti-Christian religion or worldview and no hope of combining financial, economic, political, and cultural policies that are consonant with Christianity with those that stem from anti-Christian sources.
Both philosophies [i.e., the Christian and the anti-Christian – OH] have a policy and these policies cannot live together. The Founder of Christianity was quite unequivocal on the question. ”l came not to bring peace, but a sword.”
Since Social Credit is grounded on what is, in fact, a Christian basis, it must be clearly understood that Social Credit philosophy and Social Credit policy are fundamentally at odds with both collectivistic methods of organizing society (e.g., communism, fascism, socialism, and National Socialism, etc.) and with their ostensible opposites that are grounded in an excessive and/or disordered individualism (e.g., anarchism, libertarianism, classical liberalism, and neo-liberalism, etc.).
** De Maeztu, Ramiro. Authority, Liberty and Function in the Light of the War. London: George Allen & Unwin LTD, 1916.
This year I have taken a stern perspective on liberalism. While Marxism is openly preached at our universities and seminaries as the ‘philosophy of choice’ there is the administration of “the dictatorship of the proletariat” to take into account. How will the slaves be administered and under what philosophy?
We have recently seen (2018) the declaration of the Chinese president for life, and more recently manoeuvring in Soviet Russia to achieve the same outcome. I interpret both events as declarations of “rule by the oligarchs” (laissez-faire). The Nexus of communism and capitalism come together in the Communist regimes. But what of the free West?
Modern liberalism, (which my original ‘incorrect’ thoughts were orientated towards conservatism and freedom), is rooted in laissez-faire capitalism. Teaching institutions such as the London School of Economics, Stanford Business School and Harvard Business School promote liberalism, liberal-democracy, laissez-faire capitalism – as the philosophy of choice. Both philosophies are rooted in atheistic communism – both devoid of any moral anchor, winner takes all dominance-hierarchy philosophy. Both are collectivistic methods of organizing society (e.g., communism, fascism, socialism, and National Socialism, etc.) and with their ostensible opposites that are grounded in an excessive and/or disordered individualism (e.g., anarchism, libertarianism, classical liberalism, and neo-liberalism, etc.). (thx MOH)
Under closer examination, diagrammatically, these two philosophies are the yin and yang of totalitarianism. We see the outworking of this dialectic by Marxist lecturers openly promoting revolutionary activities from within our taxpayer funded universities, while a series of Conservative (liberal) governments appear incapable of responding to this except by imposing more totalitarian policies. This is the strategy (dialectical materialism), appearing to be ‘one thing’ while ‘producing another’ – by their fruits.
The most recent examples are in regard to the ‘Ecologically sustainable forest management‘ policy (which is communist green orientated) condemned by conservatives because of the recent fires, while they (the conservatives) are the ones in government administering the very same centralising policy. The increased friction is revolutionary and destroying our community spirit (culture).
Freedom must have responsible and moral anchors to be held in balance. You can describe it as a natural law that is observable.
Political leaders ‘not held’ to account become tyrants. Political leaders ‘held’ to account become servants. Holding our political and religious leaders to account can only occur and emanate from free, moral and responsible individuals, otherwise it is hubris.
The natural law is also observable in our economic system. Rampant industrialisation, (un-harnessed exploitation), does not have a moral anchor and is against the natural law. Good husbandry (natural law) calls for a return to the soil. The book “farmers of 40 centuries by FH King” promotes permanent agriculture by maintaining, or even improving, the soil fertility. Modern chemical farming is no better than mining of the topsoil. The end result is increased desertifcation.
It is the outworking of the philosophy of atheistic materialism. The dialectic practised here is: Greens promote ‘sustainable environmentalism’ while the Conservatives espouse ‘free enterprise’, both practicing monopoly capitalism that destroys the soil. The observable outworking of policy is monopoly – totalitarianism.
Manufacturing is no different. Industry has gone offshore to the cheapest labour source, with man only as ‘economic unit’. The purpose of production there is to provide ‘work’ and ‘profit’, not to provide a sufficiency – consumption. The homelessness situation, especially obvious in the post industrial centres of United States, could easily be dealt with. The individuals who experience homelessness, could be the available workforce to build homes. The raw materials are certainly there. The technology is certainly there. But the observable policy is lacking. The outworking of existing policy is the sustaining of the military-industrial-complex (power). People don’t count.
This is observable with the “parades” in the atheistic-Communist nations which only ever display military might. There is no art or culture to speak of.
The architecture in all totalitarian countries is bleak, dark and foreboding. There is no expressions of the uniqueness of the creative spirit. Architecture and art, along with prose and other forms of literature in the west is becoming base, crude and ugly. The creative spirit, most obvious amongst a free people, is lacking.
Man, as creative spirit, created in God’s image, naturally wants to participate in creation. Whether it’s in the garden, building a cupboard, or writing some prose, all are expressions of this creative spirit.
Douglas, in a flash of inspiration, saw the inherent flaw in our financial economic system. 100 years ago he wrote his first book “Economic Democracy” to set the stage.
Likewise Nikolai Tesla in a flash, saw the potential of ‘rotating magnetic fields’ caused by an oscillating (alternating) current. This set the stage for the modern electrical power grid.
In our thoughts are images, or emotions. The words from this text form images in your mind. If I write the word “joy”, and you ponder the thought, it may produce images of laughter, close friendships, getting something just right, experiencing life’s many challenges. You don’t actually place the sound of the word or the shape of the letters in your mind to know what I am talking about. It is the thought.
Language, writing and especially facial expression, all transfer thoughts between people. Animals cannot do that.
We are so much more than “matter in motion”.
The light of hope is going out in South Africa – Jenni Russell
Corruption is now so rampant and entrenched that it threatens to bring the state to its knees
I have always returned from South Africa aghast, anxious but ultimately hopeful. It surely can’t become too corrupt or inefficient, I think. The triple forces of capitalism, democracy and a free press will prevent it. Rotten politicians can be replaced; crooked state employees and the individuals paying them off can be exposed. Too many people and profitable businesses have an interest in keeping the state functioning, the trains running and the lights on for it to fall apart.
This year, as in the last, the lights are literally being switched off, and I’ve lost that confidence. For the first time I fear the country may be sliding towards irreversible decay. Corruption has siphoned so much money from the state and twisted so many people’s motivations…
You Cannot Get Figs from Thistles by Arnis Luks
Today’s leading press (MSM) articles attempt to redirect attention away from the ensuing chaos in the major Communist nations. The situation in South Africa and Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) is one that Conservative Western politicians, with significant assistance from high ranking religious leaders, played a critical and decisive role in the demise and subsequent handing over of these nations to atheistic communism. ‘Eminent persons’ were encouraged (under the auspices of the United Nations), to pressure South Africa and Rhodesia to capitulate to communism (majority rule). Now both nations suffer communist dictatorships collapsing under their totalitarian juggernaut.
The sad history of Russia and China is where Western industrial and political leaders were instrumental in the demise of both these ‘once free’ nations. Withdrawing military support to Chang Kai-shek while simultaneously providing military hardware and technology to the Soviet Union ensured the fall of China to communism. In the league archives you will find authors such as Carroll Quigley, Anthony Sutton, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, all recording the plight of the people of these nations being handed over to communism as deliberate policy.
Paul Keating Riding Roughshod Over China’s Aims
Peter Dutton Suggests Cancelling Welfare of Climate Protesters
Both these headlines show a consistent policy of centralising power. Peter Dutton, through the existing (supposedly) Conservative government, could easily stop the indoctrination of impressionable young people in universities, by withdrawing finance to the tune of hundreds of millions of Australian taxpayer dollars. Rather, he chooses to promote their continued indoctrination to move us closer towards the police state.
The Conservative and Labour governments are responsible for literally millions of cameras being placed around Australia to monitor us. This thing called power, especially totalitarian power, is held precariously, generally from the barrel of a gun. While the guns are not out in Australia yet, the other compulsion – ‘income and employment prospects’ – are used for daring to speak out, refusing to vaccinate, and now protesting against policy. The dialectical conflict is used to promote increased civil tension.
Freedom cannot be separated from responsibility. Moving Australia away from totalitarianism is only possible if sufficient numbers of individuals choose daily to exercise their freedoms and insist upon them.
Ron Owens, who regularly writes for the ‘enough gun’ website, recently reported in an excellent article reprinted on our blog here: https://blog.alor.org/index.php/ron-owens-thoughts-for-the-week, that a farmer, Liam Sheahan, chose to face legal prosecution and received a fine of $100,000 in order to save his farm from the ravages of bushfire. Also, another farmer, Michael Baker faced fines and costs of nearly $1 million, again, in order to save his farm from the ravages of bushfire. Both families appear vindicated and should be exonerated as a consequence of the recent fires.
Freedom doesn’t end with the ballot paper, it is an ongoing battle against tyranny. Our politicians are of no higher calibre than the totalitarians in the Communist regimes. They will yield to human frailty just as readily. Power must be vested at the feet of the individual. The yellow vests in France, the ongoing demonstrations in Hong Kong, the call for another referendum in Scotland, are all indicators of resistance towards tyranny that need to be emulated by Australians to preserve and reinforce our own freedoms. This means that your vote must be exercised in one form or another every single day. Whether it’s talking to your neighbour, insisting on speaking to your representative, writing letters to the media, producing your own pamphlets and distributing to your neighbourhood, or standing on a street corner on a box and speaking your mind, all are parts of exercising freedom. And like all muscles must be used regularly, every day if you can.
The only power that can overcome totalitarianism, is the power of the individual exercising their freedom every single day. Freedom with responsibility are are held in equilibrium by morality.
The More Things Change, The More They Remain The Same – French writer Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr
Russian Pres Vladimir Putin today announced, in his annual address, a constitutional overhaul, that would allow him to remain supreme leader for life – demonstrating again, the great human frailty.
In March 2018 the National Peoples Congress of China approved the removal of the two-term limit on the presidency effectively allowing Xi Jinping to remain in power for life.
The Communist world dictatorship continues unabated.
Reading history books of the Cromwellian revolution in Britain, this fragile thing called democracy is not easily held onto. Human frailties will always get in the way.
In Australia we continue the exaltation of our Prime Minister to such dizzy heights that he can’t leave the country for a moment. He must be in attendance to handle all situations which is a completely false narrative. We have an army of bureaucrats, officials, ministers and industrial, community and military leaders who could easily handle virtually any situation. We have this picture painted by the propaganda media that the only person capable (in his personal superman outfit) must always be in attendance to save the nation.
This narrative painted by the propaganda media is to further justify the communist world dictatorship.
Freedom with responsibility is the antidote to dictatorship. Hiding behind the secret ballot are the seeds of dictatorship. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can always be assured of Paul’s vote. Socialism (Communism) relies on this frailty – envy. In fact Communist propaganda uses all human frailties to achieve its purpose.
The other day I wrote about my exhausted and constantly overexcited adrenal. “If only they would leave us alone”.
Freedom must be fought for and won by each successive generation or it will be lost.
England, the birthplace of the Westminster limited constitutional system, has a colourful history of tyrants and dictators, whether they be revolutionaries like Cromwell, or dictatorial monarchs like Henry or John. In fact, King Charles 1st as monarchical dictator, laid the ‘seeds of the Cromwellion revolution, with his refusal to allow parliament to function, nor he representing the people.
Wrestling power from the dictator – devolution – has been something that has had to be done many times. Russia and China, and other dictatorships (whether political, theocratic, or more recently technocracy), will all have to learn this lesson: “freedom” only ever exists when the individual is morally responsible.
So to start!
Active resistance towards tyranny is the first. I recently received an email in regard to individuals who resisted tyranny. They received significant ‘fines’ as a consequence of their resistance but have quickly been vindicated by the consequences of the recent fires. The fines won’t be returned because that would be an instant acknowledgement of a wrong done by the bureaucrats (fascists) in charge.
The yellow vests in France, the ongoing demonstrations in Hong Kong, the call for another referendum in Scotland, are all indicators of resistance towards tyranny.
A federal system in Britain would go a long way to appeasing the calls for independence. We, unwisely, have a federal system but don’t insist on utilising it at every opportunity.
Management of parks and public lands should be a local issue. By handing power of management to central government we don’t accept personal responsibility, in fact we avoid it. This is what is lacking. The Murray Darling Basin Plan is another example of handing power to a central authority instead of being managed locally. Constitutionally the whole MDBPlan concept is unsafe. The states are under such significant financial emasculation that they dare not move outside the box for fear of reprisals. Federation (especially the powers vested in the state) must again be fought for or it will be lost to a dictatorship.
This may sound quite dramatic but it is a realistic appraisal of the predicament we, as a nation, find ourselves in.
In Switzerland their system of federalism rotates the role of Prime Minister every year. The position of prime minister is given no pre-eminence among the federal council. Their communities are regularly consulted using the referenda system. Vesting powers solely at the feet of the ‘President for life’ may be worth ‘reconsidering’ for these dictatorships in light of such reliance on the integrity of a single individual. Power should be disbursed as much as possible.
Constitutional authorities may argue against this position. That in itself is a healthy sign. Open debate, argument and discussion are vital to a free people. This is why the stifling of free speech, which has been a policy of all major parties for at least 30 years, must be actively resisted and overcome. Ideas, debate, consideration, running the experiment, are all part of being a free people. Freedom doesn’t come from handing power to a “dictator for life”, it is lost.