AuthorTopic: 🗳️ The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was  (Read 918 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39219
    • View Profile
🗳️ The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
« on: June 07, 2018, 12:12:15 AM »
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/06/06/the-u-s-is-not-a-democracy-it-never-was-2/

The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
June 6, 2018 Posted by Addison dePitt


HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

One of the most steadfast beliefs regarding the United States is that it is a democracy. Whenever this conviction waivers slightly, it is almost always to point out detrimental exceptions to core American values or foundational principles. For instance, aspiring critics frequently bemoan a “loss of democracy” due to the election of clownish autocrats, draconian measures on the part of the state, the revelation of extraordinary malfeasance or corruption, deadly foreign interventions, or other such activities that are considered undemocratic exceptions. The same is true for those whose critical framework consists in always juxtaposing the actions of the U.S. government to its founding principles, highlighting the contradiction between the two and clearly placing hope in its potential resolution.

The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most successful public relations campaign in modern history. What will be seen, however, if this record is soberly and methodically inspected, is that a country founded on elite, colonial rule based on the power of wealth—a plutocratic colonial oligarchy, in short—has succeeded not only in buying the label of “democracy” to market itself to the masses, but in having its citizenry, and many others, so socially and psychologically invested in its nationalist origin myth that they refuse to hear lucid and well-documented arguments to the contrary.

To begin to peel the scales from our eyes, let us outline in the restricted space of this article, five patent reasons why the United States has never been a democracy (a more sustained and developed argument is available in my book, Counter-History of the Present). To begin with, British colonial expansion into the Americas did not occur in the name of the freedom and equality of the general population, or the conferral of power to the people. Those who settled on the shores of the “new world,” with few exceptions, did not respect the fact that it was a very old world indeed, and that a vast indigenous population had been living there for centuries. As soon as Columbus set foot, Europeans began robbing, enslaving and killing the native inhabitants. The trans-Atlantic slave trade commenced almost immediately thereafter, adding a countless number of Africans to the ongoing genocidal assault against the indigenous population. Moreover, it is estimated that over half of the colonists who came to North America from Europe during the colonial period were poor indentured servants, and women were generally trapped in roles of domestic servitude. Rather than the land of the free and equal, then, European colonial expansion to the Americas imposed a land of the colonizer and the colonized, the master and the slave, the rich and the poor, the free and the un-free. The former constituted, moreover, an infinitesimally small minority of the population, whereas the overwhelming majority, meaning “the people,” was subjected to death, slavery, servitude, and unremitting socio-economic oppression.


Founding Fathers: as plutocratic oligarchs, they harbored deep reservations if not outright hostility to the idea of genuine democratic rule.

Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of uneducated mob rule. For the so-called “founding fathers,” the masses were not only incapable of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the “subordination” so necessary for politics. When the eminent members of the landowning class met in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than “the filth of the common sewers” by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves—meaning the overwhelming majority of the population—were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President. It is in this context that Patrick Henry flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: “it is not a democracy.” George Mason further clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as “a despotic aristocracy.”


Ruling class collaborator Obama: a master public relations stroke—pure symbol and no substance— when the oppressors needed to recharge their legitimacy.

When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a “democracy,” there were no significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this is the third point, the use of the term “democracy” to refer to an oligarchic republic simply meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. This began around the time of “Indian killer” Andrew Jackson’s presidential campaign in the 1830s. Presenting himself as a ‘democrat,’ he put forth an image of himself as an average man of the people who was going to put a halt to the long reign of patricians from Virginia and Massachusetts. Slowly but surely, the term “democracy” came to be used as a public relations term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the people or demos. Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare.

In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its contemporary “democratic” publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly insist that a structural aristocracy is a “democracy” because the latter is defined by the guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections (procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained power over the governing of their lives. However, even this hollow definition dissimulates the extent to which, to begin with, the supposed equality before the law in the United States presupposes an inequality before the law by excluding major sectors of the population: those judged not to have the right to rights, and those considered to have lost their right to rights (Native Americans, African-Americans and women for most of the country’s history, and still today in certain aspects, as well as immigrants, “criminals,” minors, the “clinically insane,” political dissidents, and so forth). Regarding elections, they are run in the United States as long, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in which the candidates and issues are pre-selected by the corporate and party elite. The general population, the majority of whom do not have the right to vote or decide not to exercise it, are given the “choice”—overseen by an undemocratic electoral college and embedded in a non-proportional representation scheme—regarding which member of the aristocratic elite they would like to have rule over and oppress them for the next four years. “Multivariate analysis indicates,” according to an important recent study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, “that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination […], but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy.”


G. Washington overseeing slaves. A routine task of all white colonial masters.

To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been, a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power. Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically elected. It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy, grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries, attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries, and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. The record on the home front is just as brutal. To take but one significant parallel example, there is ample evidence that the FBI has been invested in a covert war against democracy. Beginning at least in the 1960s, and likely continuing up to the present, the Bureau “extended its earlier clandestine operations against the Communist party, committing its resources to undermining the Puerto Rico independence movement, the Socialist Workers party, the civil rights movement, Black nationalist movements, the Ku Klux Klan, segments of the peace movement, the student movement, and the ‘New Left’ in general” (Cointelpro: The FBI’s Secret War on Political Freedom, p. 22-23). Consider, for instance, Judi Bari’s summary of its assault on the Socialist Workers Party: “From 1943-63, the federal civil rights case Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General documents decades of illegal FBI break-ins and 10 million pages of surveillance records. The FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592 and used 20,000 days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate political organizing.” In the case of the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement (AIM)—which were both important attempts to mobilize people power to dismantle the structural oppression of white supremacy and top-down class warfare—the FBI not only infiltrated them and launched hideous smear and destabilization campaigns against them, but they assassinated 27 Black Panthers and 69 members of AIM (and subjected countless others to the slow death of incarceration). If it be abroad or on the home front, the American secret police has been extremely proactive in beating down the movements of people rising up, thereby protecting and preserving the main pillars of white supremacist, capitalist aristocracy.
Elections are run in the United States as long, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in which the candidates and issues are pre-selected by the corporate and party elite. The general population, many of whom do not have the right to vote or decide not to exercise it, are given the “choice”—overseen by an undemocratic electoral college and embedded in a non-proportional representation scheme…

 Rather than blindly believing in a golden age of democracy in order to remain at all costs within the gilded cage of an ideology produced specifically for us by the well-paid spin-doctors of a plutocratic oligarchy, we should unlock the gates of history and meticulously scrutinize the founding and evolution of the American imperial republic. This will not only allow us to take leave of its jingoist and self-congratulatory origin myths, but it will also provide us with the opportunity to resuscitate and reactivate so much of what they have sought to obliterate. In particular, there is a radical America just below the surface of these nationalist narratives, an America in which the population autonomously organizes itself in indigenous and ecological activism, black radical resistance, anti-capitalist mobilization, anti-patriarchal struggles, and so forth. It is this America that the corporate republic has sought to eradicate, while simultaneously investing in an expansive public relations campaign to cover over its crimes with the fig leaf of “democracy” (which has sometimes required integrating a few token individuals, who appear to be from below, into the elite ruling class in order to perpetuate the all-powerful myth of meritocracy). If we are astute and perspicacious enough to recognize that the U.S. is undemocratic today, let us not be so indolent or ill-informed that we let ourselves be lulled to sleep by lullabies praising its halcyon past. Indeed, if the United States is not a democracy today, it is in large part due to the fact that it never was one. Far from being a pessimistic conclusion, however, it is precisely by cracking open the hard shell of ideological encasement that we can tap into the radical forces that have been suppressed by it. These forces—not those that have been deployed to destroy them—should be the ultimate source of our pride in the power of the people.

 
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
 Gabriel Rockhill is a Franco-American philosopher and cultural critic. He is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Villanova University and founding Director of the Atelier de Théorie Critique at the Sorbonne. His books include Counter-History of the Present: Untimely Interrogations into Globalization, Technology, Democracy (2017), Interventions in Contemporary Thought: History, Politics, Aesthetics (2016), Radical History & the Politics of Art (2014) and Logique de l’histoire (2010). In addition to his scholarly work, he has been actively engaged in extra-academic activities in the art and activist worlds, as well as a regular contributor to public intellectual debate. Follow on twitter: @GabrielRockhill 
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Palloy2

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 6097
    • View Profile
    • Palloy's Blog
Re: 🗳️ The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2018, 01:10:58 AM »
By the same token Great Britain is not a democracy. No one votes for the King/Queen, the House of Lords, the Prime Minister and Judges.  Not everyone is entitled to vote for Members of Parliament.

And yet Great Britain IS a democracy. So USA is too.  Both are plutocracies.
"The State is a body of armed men."

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39219
    • View Profile
Re: 🗳️ The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2018, 01:29:34 AM »
By the same token Great Britain is not a democracy. No one votes for the King/Queen, the House of Lords, the Prime Minister and Judges.  Not everyone is entitled to vote for Members of Parliament.

And yet Great Britain IS a democracy. So USA is too.  Both are plutocracies.

Neither the FSoA or Britain sound very democratic to me.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: 🗳️ The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2018, 03:55:29 AM »
By the same token Great Britain is not a democracy. No one votes for the King/Queen, the House of Lords, the Prime Minister and Judges.  Not everyone is entitled to vote for Members of Parliament.

And yet Great Britain IS a democracy. So USA is too.  Both are plutocracies.

Neither the FSoA or Britain sound very democratic to me.

RE

My limited readings on the topic lead me to believe that Switzerland has a government where voting counts a lot more than most others.

I really love that law over there where if you get 100,000 signatures for a proposal there has to be a national referendum on it. That is my reason for the statement and something that seems quite attractive to me.

Offline Palloy2

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 6097
    • View Profile
    • Palloy's Blog
Re: 🗳️ The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2018, 06:04:15 AM »
Quote
RE: Neither the FSoA or Britain sound very democratic to me.

It is democracy itself that sux.
Only a small percentage of people follow what is happening in any depth, yet everyone gets to vote .
"The State is a body of armed men."

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: 🗳️ The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2018, 06:32:30 AM »
All oligarchies suck. And ALL governments are oligarchies. QED.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Karpatok

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 1427
    • View Profile
Re: 🗳️ The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2018, 07:07:50 AM »
All oligarchies suck. And ALL governments are oligarchies. QED.
So the logical conclusion to that is that all governments suck. And that being the case, that there is no ideal government; what is the alternative? Law of the jungle? Anarchists paradise of chaos? Wars of all equal slime bags against all? Total usurpation of everything instead of partial by the strongest criminal elements? Oh, I get it. We are already there because the criminals do not have equal rights. Moor victims. That makes me soo sad. Boohoo.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39219
    • View Profile
Re: 🗳️ The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2018, 07:34:39 AM »
The truth lies in the words of Mayer Amschel Rothschild:


The money supply of the world isn't controlled by voting.  It's controlled by an oligarchy of banksters and it doesn't matter to them who you vote for or what the politics are, right or left.  Money is a system of credit, and for your money to be worth anything, it has to be accepted into the system of credit run by the International Banking Cartel.  Once you fall out of grace with them, your currency will quickly hyperinflate.  See Zimbabwe, Venezuela, etc.

Anyone who goes into politics quickly learns they will get nowhere without money, and so they end up as pawns of the people who control the money.

You can't break this system with voting.  You can't vote away the money from rich people.  They don't give it up without a fight.  You need to wait for the monetary system to collapse, which it is well on its way toward doing.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: 🗳️ The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2018, 10:12:54 AM »
All oligarchies suck. And ALL governments are oligarchies. QED.
So the logical conclusion to that is that all governments suck. And that being the case, that there is no ideal government; what is the alternative? Law of the jungle? Anarchists paradise of chaos? Wars of all equal slime bags against all? Total usurpation of everything instead of partial by the strongest criminal elements? Oh, I get it. We are already there because the criminals do not have equal rights. Moor victims. That makes me soo sad. Boohoo.

The least amount of government as possible would be my answer to the query. And I could implement it immediately by making all political jobs public service only from dedicated civilians, no pay, rather than the pile of corrupt worthless scuzz balls that rule over us for perks pay and privilege who consider us useless eaters.

Before you laugh, there was a time when we were free and citizens ran the country for sustenance pay because of the honor of being chosen by your fellow citizens to represent them.

Offline Karpatok

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 1427
    • View Profile
Re: 🗳️ The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2018, 11:06:45 AM »
😠😳😅😅😅😅

Offline Karpatok

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 1427
    • View Profile
Re: 🗳️ The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2018, 11:10:35 AM »
You know what? It's a stupid statement. Who gives a fuck really?  Democracy never really existed anywhere. And who would want it but bums and losers?

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
The U.S. 🍌 is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2018, 11:32:02 AM »
 
Excellent article. Thank you, RE.  :icon_sunny:

And yes, of course the U.S. was never a democracy. If you have any doubts, just look at the ORIGINAL Constitution and, to add plutocratic insult to injury, all those "Amendments made along the Orwellian mindfork way.

The Constitution is a pro-slavery document

Much has been written about the Revolution being, at it's core, an attempt to immunize the colonies from the "disturbing" (to Jefferson -he was furious years later when Haiti obtained independence and violated even the good parts of the constitution by authorizing to give the French plantation owners money and weapons to quell the rebellion - , many other founding fathers and their wealthy friends) move in England at the time to outlaw slavery

The industrial revolution and how the elite parasitic modus operandi called "capitalism" benefited massively from mass production is the main historical influence that led to our polluted world and the cruel poverty wage structure of today.

The mass production factories created a new type slavery without the pejorative connotation of being race linked but it was still slavery.

When enslaving African Americans was no longer cost effective due to farm machinery, new ways to enslave them and the poor whites as well as any other ethnic poor had to be invented.

After all, the elite did not like one bit the idea that the increased efficiency of a laborer could provide that laborer with more free time and a better life. The 1% had conniption fits thinking about all those people out there having the time to sit, think and figure out how TBTB were gaming them.

No, the elite developed a plan to "keep em' busy". The guilt trip sermons from pulpits all over America went out after the Civil War to demonize leisure and glorify "nose to the grindstone" work as being "God's Will". Few evils in human behavior exceed that of the act of conning people that trust you into willingly allowing themselves to be exploited based on the claim that it's what the are OBLIGATED to do because the person IN AUTHORITY speaks for GOD. There is a special place in hell for these elite predatory capitalist water carrying apologists that wear the cloth.  >:(


Factory owners displaying their "work ethic"

The elite's "work ethic" includes years of "sabbaticals", "learning experiences", "naval gazing" and "introspection" that translate to long stretches of time doing absolutely nothing productive. I think that's wonderful and should be available to all of us as a means to a healthier and happier mindset. That's why the elite do it. For them to then turn around and unleash their propaganda water carrying lackeys solemnly mouthing the "don't be lazy, work your fingers to the bone for us" bullshit on the populace is the epitome of duplicity.

It is said the word "saboteur" derives from the Netherlands in the 15th century when workers would throw their sabots (wooden shoes) into the wooden gears of the textile looms to break the cogs, fearing the automated machines would render the human workers obsolete.

Notice how the word "saboteur" has a negative connotation. This shows who controls the historical narrative. I believe the Dutch laborers weren't just concerned about obsolescence; they were concerned about controlling how much they got paid for their labor.

Mass production was the beginning of a massive concentration of wealth by greedy machinery owners that refused to pay equitable wages.


This is what "Capitalism" is really all about. It is sold as free market this and that but, in practice, it is nothing but elite parasitism.

When the English gentry wanted to corral the peasants into working in the factories, as well as use more of their land to grow sheep for fleece free from peasant interference, they came up with a pack of thinly justified herding mechanisms (Enclosure Laws) that stripped the peasants of their ability to live off the land.

The peasants were not buying the con that working in a factory was a better deal than living off the land. They had to be forced.

They knew damned good and well that the factory owners were not going to pay decent wages or provide adequate working conditions.

Today, all this disguised tyranny called capitalism is festooned with gooblygock terms like competitive advantage and arbitrage along with a plethora of terms from the crooked imaginations of bored economists but it continues to be about elite parasitism.

In the financial area the vampire proboscis is usury but that is not the whole story by a long shot. Patent law is another huge part of RHIP that was NEVER there to protect inventors UNLESS those inventors were from the upper class.

The bottom line is the control of the populace for the power, profit and pleasure of the TPBT.

Quote
Enclosure

In English social and economic history, enclosure or inclosure[1] is the process which ends traditional rights such as mowing meadows for hay, or grazing livestock on common land formerly held in the open field system. Once enclosed, these uses of the land become restricted to the owner, and it ceases to be common land. In England and Wales the term is also used for the process that ended the ancient system of arable farming in open fields. Under enclosure, such land is fenced (enclosed) and deeded or entitled to one or more owners. The process of enclosure began to be a widespread feature of the English agricultural landscape during the 16th century. By the 19th century, unenclosed commons had become largely restricted to rough pasture in mountainous areas and to relatively small parts of the lowlands.

The process of enclosure has sometimes been accompanied by force, resistance, and bloodshed, and remains among the most controversial areas of agricultural and economic history in England. Marxist and neo-Marxist historians argue that rich landowners used their control of state processes to appropriate public land for their private benefit.

This created a landless working class that provided the labour required in the new industries developing in the north of England. For example: "In agriculture the years between 1760 and 1820 are the years of wholesale enclosure in which, in village after village, common rights are lost".[2] "Enclosure (when all the sophistications are allowed for) was a plain enough case of class robbery".[3]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-3"[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

The following video tells the real story of capitalism's birth and growth through the power the elite obtained in the industrial revolution, how the poor were demonized as being "lazy" for attempting to avoid the horrors of factory work by staying and living off the land. They had to be forced, along with their children, to do so.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/l0nM5DU4ADI" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/l0nM5DU4ADI</a>

The only proper economic system that humans should engage in is the egalitarian socialism that the early Christians engaged in as shown in the Book of Acts in the New Testament. The Apostles were the top dogs but they received no special privileges and had to work as hard as anybody else.

The elite despise egalitarianism so they invented all sorts of euphemisms for tyranny like capitalism, as well as 20th century Soviet Communism. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. They all end up with a few reptiles in the catbird seat making life miserable for the rest of us.

That is one of the reasons why, in my articles on Renewables, I am adamantly opposed to scaling up renewable energy sources into centralized power generating facilities UNLESS they are nationalized.

Privatization of centralized power leads to pollution and illicit profits which are then used to buy the government. Decentralized renewable power generating facilities provide stable, secure and long term jobs free from the feast or famine fun and games so favored by predatory capitalism.

Capitalism REQUIRES an insecure labor force so they can be fleeced and set to fight against each other for jobs. Sustainability eliminates all this tyranny and returns the proper view of human existence that everyone should be entitled to a decent lifestyle.

The 'cog in the wheels of industry' view of humans and their labor as commodities is WRONG and has must be rejected by civilization.'Creatively destroying' human quality of life for profit is good psychopathic criminal behavior, not good business.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 11:36:37 AM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: 🗳️ The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2018, 11:44:29 AM »
The Founding Fathers of the USA did NOT believe in democracy. And the so-called "Representative Republic" they founded ONLY REPRESENTED LESS THAN 10% of the population. IOW, the UPPER CLASS was the only cohort being REPRESENTED.

That is called an OLIGARCHY.

And then it just got MORE oligarchical. 


Quote
Alexander Hamilton QUOTES

Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy  , but in moderate governments 

The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact. The people are turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right. 

Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will.

To all general purposes
we have uniformly been one people, each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection.  

It's not tyranny we  desire; it's a just  ;), limited, federal government.        

Alexander Hamilton
Quote
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.  There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.  John Adams

Agelbert NOTE: If you haven't figured it out the code language about the word "people" and the word "we", let me spell it out for you. The phrase "We the People" in the hallowed documents of the founding of the USA had NOTHING to do with the "PEOPLE" mentioned in the above quotes about democracy and it's allegedly self destructive "extremes". The word "WE" is defined as the CITIZENS, a tiny subset of the "people", NOT the "turbulent" subset of the "people". These fellows knew how to spin a yarn, didn't they?

Also, the alleged "certain" cause of the "failing" of democracies is an interesting point of selective lack of knowledge among these Founding Fathers back then.

The fact is that the common historical CAUSE of the downfall of any attempt by we-the-people on earth, in any country, to institute a democratic form of government back then, and to this day, is NOT what the Founding Fathers were crying crocodile tears about. THAT IS, democracies DON'T "commit suicide", unless you want to call it SUICIDE BY oligarchy COP! 


Consequently, there is only one thing to be said for much of the erudite, polished, stirring, colorful, heart string pulling, loyalty inducing, patriotic oligarchy self serving prose by the Founding Fathers then, and most people that claim the USA is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people today (SEE BELOW).

Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: 🗳️ The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2018, 11:46:14 AM »
Luther Martin: Representative for Maryland and dissenting Anti-Federalist. Was shocked at the attempt by the elite to overthrow the existing government in secret in 1787, and swore to tell the people what Washington, Madison and Hamilton were up to. The rich were terrified of the people screwed by Hamilton's bank bailouts and after Shay's Rebellion almost saw Philidelphia captured by angry citizens, they were ready to instal a police state.

Martin warned we were ill-advised to install a President King who would plot against the people in concert with the Senate: He said we were crazy to put men into a chamber for six year terms instead of the current one-year terms; men who would no longer be paid by their states and move away from their constituents to a corrupt political city, and who could not be recalled for any reason by their state for misbehavior. He said we were going to lose our freedom under the reintroduction of a hated standing army and that we would suffer under the despotism of a Supreme Court with no citizen jury.

He stormed out and refused to sign the Constitution without a Bill of Rights, and broke the convention's signed oath of secrecy that Mad-Man Madison made everyone sign before being admitted. Martin went straight to the press and warned the people not to ratify this powerful central government with a crazy central bank and insane electoral college scheme designed to strip citizens of any meaningful representation.

Before this abomination was ratified, there were 2,000 representatives for the people: One rep existed for about 300 citizens. The Constitution made it one rep per MINIMUM 30,000 to 60,000 but CONVENIENTLY DID NOT STATE A MAXIMUM POPULATION PER REP!

That apparently wasn't good enough for the oligarchs as our population grew. So, shortly after 1913 a cork was put on the maximum number of representatives. Please note that ALL new voting groups from women to minorities to Native Americans got the "right" to vote AFTER the cork was put on the maximum number of reps.
           
NOTE: The 14th Amendment right to vote for African Americans after the Civil War became a cruel farce by 1876. The elitist Supreme Court twisted the 14th Amendment to give Corporations personhood as a cruel and cynical vicious slap to the original intent of the 14th Amendment. Even as blacks where being disenfranchised, the courts were busy giving corporations extra privileges along with the license to break the law with impunity called limited liability.

Now, in most states, there is only one rep for 740,000 citizens, and virtually ZERO chance of you ever talking to one. >:( :P

Source: the Actual Anti-Federalist writings...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Anti-Federalist

Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: 🗳️ The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2018, 12:12:51 PM »
All oligarchies suck. And ALL governments are oligarchies. QED.
So the logical conclusion to that is that all governments suck. And that being the case, that there is no ideal government; what is the alternative? Law of the jungle? Anarchists paradise of chaos? Wars of all equal slime bags against all? Total usurpation of everything instead of partial by the strongest criminal elements? Oh, I get it. We are already there because the criminals do not have equal rights. Moor victims. That makes me soo sad. Boohoo.

The least amount of government as possible would be my answer to the query. And I could implement it immediately by making all political jobs public service only from dedicated civilians, no pay, rather than the pile of corrupt worthless scuzz balls that rule over us for perks pay and privilege who consider us useless eaters.

Before you laugh, there was a time when we were free and citizens ran the country for sustenance pay because of the honor of being chosen by your fellow citizens to represent them.

It's a two edged sword. Less government works, as long as all the citizens are honorable people who sincerely consider how their actions affect others.

We, the real people, prosper when left alone, for the most part. The problem comes up when greedy people loot the commons, which is what tends to happen when there aren't clear rules laid down by somebody.

I'm torn on this. I need to be left alone. Charlie Koch needs someone to reign his insatiable butt in, and it's not happening.

What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
770 Views
Last post October 08, 2014, 02:12:16 AM
by Guest
1 Replies
234 Views
Last post July 24, 2018, 09:45:22 AM
by Eddie
82 Replies
17951 Views
Last post February 14, 2019, 12:00:25 PM
by RE