Key issue is democracy. It seems most Clan members agree on the idea now that democracy is to be understood int he terms from which it emerged, rather than the principle of elections as a means to fair distribution of power. Compare what Zoot says in the first video to what Capable says in Democracy 2.0
, that "democracy has only ever truly existed where it wasn't needed, certainly where there existed no need for a concept of democracy -- if the people place themselves first they simply act, and secure by constant effort that society which is really theirs, however most people prefer not to put on such an effort and would instead like to participate in pre-established society, trusting its maintenance and administration to others." Both interpretations point to the idea that democracy function on two levels: B, in the minds of those who aren't being represented as a system that ensures fair representation, and A, in balancing power between actual interests, as for example a Congress functions, but also the first democracy itself, which was only open to the most wealthy, 'pentekosiomedemnoi', let's say the highest tax scale, a democracy of those who are happy to burden themselves. (Reminds me of the Nietzschean Camel, which is his first form of nobility).
I suppose that we are establishing our own democracy, a philosophical society, with he aim of securing and enhancing the power of its members. The Philosophers are people bound in loyalty, not some arbitrary form of brotherly love but the shared love of a similar thing, a kind of western oversoul, related to the ancient democracy but in archaic ways that we can not fully trace yet, except the one among us who have gone beyond a point of no return into history, and is our deepest well of ... 'mystery' as it was known back then. This depth is invaluable to the joy that philosophy is - depth which as often finds ways outside of writing as within it. Nazdrovje.