Democracy Propaganda

Justin Page Wood
Aug 30, 2009 at 1:06 AM

The federal government tirelessly claims Democracy as the foundation of American government.  Wrong!


Democracy has nothing to do with the 'success' of America. A bunch of greedy rich white people with guns conned a bigger bunch of greedy wanna-be-rich white poeple (whom they had oppressed in their native lands and promised not to any more if they would only help them kill the savages) to steal the greatest bounty of untouched riches and wealth the world had ever seen from the innocent owners of that bounty. America would have been a 'success' no matter which system it had operated under - for 500 years whenever they wanted anything they just had to dig into thier hoard of stolen goods to pay for it. Problem is they just realized the hoard is gone. Now they have to export thier 'democracy' so they can attempt to re-stock it.

's picture

The USA is not now, nor has it ever been, a democracy. It is a republic. If you want to get technical, it is a constitutionally-limited democratic republic. That means it is a republic, with some of the representatives being elected in a democratic process, and operaters under the motivations and restrictions of a constitution.

As the post images says, democracy is mob rule. Gangs are a democracy.

Get over the loss of land by the native inhabitants. How did this affect your life? How is going to affect your future? The smart outwit the dumb, the educated fool the ignorant, the greedy take from the altruistic, the powerful overtake the meek. That's nature. The best you can do is learn from the past and make a decision to do right by your morals. Do you want immortality or do you want stuff? Do you want to be famous or to be infamous? Do you want respect or do you want fear?

It was a cheesy movie, but paying it forward works much more than it doesn't. Just don't expect life to be fair, it is what you make it.


's picture

xero, about the stealing of the native's land: that IS important to know and to understand. He is just pointing out WHY exactly USA was able to get rich. Capitalism is a zero sum game because for somebody to get rich somebody else MUST gets poorer.  It is very important to know how the white people always get rich by going to land that dont belong to them and they reap everything from there and get rich.

's picture

It is important to know and understand, however, it is not important to dwell on it, and it is a falacy to use it as any motivation or justification for actions taken long after it was over.

Capitalism is only a zero sum game once all resources are explicitly owned. There are many more resources to be had in this world, so we are not yet to that stage. However, you can say that is true depending on what resources you are tageting (say, only American cash for example). And technically, due to the USA's fractional reserve system, there is an endless supply of cash (debt actually).  Every bank can create around 9x it's actual horde in debt that must be paid back, generally at the expense of someone else creating debt at another bank. You want to talk about corrupt, talk about the way banks create money.

"White people" do not always "get rich" by taking the land of others. In the US, some land was bought from the natives, some was taken by force. Taking property by force was acceptable at the time, though I still wouldn't call it moral. It wasn't always "whites" doing the taking either.  Most of Mexico and South America was taken by the Spanish and Portugese. The Middle East has been fought over by various ethnic groups for thousands of years. China continues to lay claim to several regions that have asked to be freed. Africa is currently in turmoil in almost every country by blacks taking stuff from blacks. Every major urban center, especially "ghettos" have this problem. The only real difference there is they're not getting rich or famous for doing it, nor are they taking enough to even justify the crimes against morality.

Yeah, the "whites" have gotten rich by physical conquest, but so has every other ethnic group in the world. The only difference is the "whites" (particularly the English, French, Normans, Greeks, and Romans) did it better than everyone else (except the Ottomans, they went nuts).

's picture

you "this is a republic, not a democracy" crowd are the worst form of sheople out there. no wonder you will never be free.

's picture

To tthe anonymous "right-wing retard" comment:

Do you think it's a waste of breathe to make the point?  It's really a matter of definitions. Most people think of a Democracy as being "Everyone gets a vote" - which always sounds good because it makes it feel like everyone's opinion is counted. 

Most people do not know what a Republc is, even though the Constitution is founded much more heavily on "republican" (lower-case) principles - That everyone's rights are protected from the majority.

It's the same issue with Capitalism. Most people view capitalism as an evil system based on accumulation of wealth at all costs, against social, environmental, and political boundaries, and without regard to private property.    In effect, the meaning of the word "capitalism" has changed by connotation. It's definition from roughly one hundred years ago is quite different.

So has the word "democracy" changed, at least by the average person's definition of democracy.

Has anyone here been to the National Archives in DC? All over the place it says "Democracy starts here."  It's where the Bill or Rights, Articles of Confederation, Constitution, and Declaration of Independence are kept!  And it's a federally-run establishment.  And it's completely a false interpretation of how our government is supposed to run, according to the Constitution. The closest thing we are "supposed" to have is a representative democracy.

So, "America is supposed to be republic" I think is correct.  It's supposed to be, but the way Congress works these days, you are right, it has turned into a Democracy - where the Majority of Congressional votes owns the Minority.  If there is no standard for voting (i.e. Article 1 section 8 and 9 of the Constittution) then a Republic does not exist, and a Democracy takes over.

And with a President that can declare Executive Orders without checks and balances is a hint of Monarchy as well.

The point is to remind people the Definitions of words.  No one knows what you're really talking about unless we clearly define: a Republic, a Monarchy, Democracy, Socialism, Capitalism, Corporatism, and the like...

Justin Page Wood's picture

A Republic not  a democracy?  You're playing with words?

Under a democracy, the majority can perfectly easily institute rights to protect minorities, out of altruism or the simple self-interest of the fact individuals in a majority may one day be a minority.  The proof of this is everywhere - like the UK which is democracy with a monarch as head of state, yet which provides human rights on a statutory basis, etc. 

That America fails in its democratic pretensions - not directly electing the president for example, is a reason for criticism, not claims for success! 

You don't want democracy?  LOL - what do you intend to do about it?

's picture

So no one here realizes that laws that "protect" minorities simply alienate them even more?  Anything that makes the distinction between white, black, Jew, or Arab is racist, and undermines the notion of "all are equal".  I don't want special treatment, and hatred can't be irradicated by causing more hatred.  We're breeding our own demise.  Democracy is NOT the same as a Republic.  Why add more laws when we have a perfectly good Constitution to live by that would work if we just ENFORCED it.

's picture

to justin wood

A Republic is simply "not a monarchy". It is a collectivist system where decisions are made by a group, and not an individual like in  a monarchy/dictatorship.  What kind of a republic it is,  is determined by which group has power. A Republic is good if it is democratic,  it is bad if it is plutocratic/theocratic/whateverelsecratic.

The fallacy of these "this is a republic, not a democracy" crowd is:

1. republic=good

2. democracy=bad

3.  republic/democracy are two seperate systems

4.  republic protects everybody's rights

5. in a democracy, 51% can take away the rights of the other 49%


In a republic, which is based on electoral/representative democracy and capitalism,  the top 1% (elites) control and exploit the bottom 99% (the people).  This is Plutocracy. Democracy is a class based system meant to give "the people" power and liberate them from the control of the "elites".


As far as capitalism goes, capitalism is a paradox. It is both a system and a process. The system is good for the consumer and bad for the capitalist because it forces competition, which produces highest quality goods for lowest price.  The process is bad because it goes through 3 stages.

1.  small business = lots of competition

2. small, medium, big business = lots of competition

3. big business = no competition

Big business eventually wins, forces everybody else out of business,  competition seizes to exist, capitalism self destructs and turns into monopolism.

The only institution which is capable of, and has a duty to prevent capitalism from going from stage 2 to 3 is the government. However business and politics must be seperated in order for the government to be able to do this. Under a dictatorship or democracy, this can be done. Under a plutocracy, it cannot be done.



's picture

True that,

You are right. A Republic is a system without a Monarchy.   

I think when libertarians say "Republic" or when Ben Franklin said "what system do we have" I think we imply a "Constitutional Republic"  which is a system designed to keep power out of the hands of a majority and protect the individual's rights, such as the three branches of government system. So, you are right, it is a fallacy to say we have a "Republic."

Also, in Capitalism, I don't understand how you jump from step 2 to 3.   From my understanding, a lot of big businesses continue to exist because of collusion with government.  A small but important example: big businesses have lobbied government to pass the Federal Law, the "American with Disabilities Act," passed about 2 decades ago. And ADA requirements  have slowly become more strict over the years. They require all businesses (big and small) to meet certain construction standards to permit disabled persons to access their building, arguing that it is the humanitarian thing to do. 

Big business can easily comply with these standards because it is a small number of their overall costs, while small businesses might spend 20% of their start-up costs trying to comply with ADA, sometimes making it impossible for a small business to open at all (A small 1000 SF business would need spend about 200 SF of space to comply with ADA alone in ramps, bathrooms, counter heights, etc).   These regulations greatly favor bigger businesse  over smaller ones.  

I think reasons like this are how "2" jumps to "3" in your example.

Justin Page Wood's picture


big business will swallow up med/sm business naturally, however this process is intensified when capitalists/big business take over the government.  Then, instead of "preventing monopolies" the government, under capitalist control,  "prevents competition".

Regarding Franklin's Republic,  yes it keeps "power out of the hands of majority", by keeping "power in the hands of the minority", which is even worse.

As far as "rights" go,  libertarians think that they are written in stone and that a republic will somehow magically protect them. Wrong.  What a right is, is decided by the government. In a democracy, it is soiety in general, in a plutocracy it is the oligarchy.

Individual rights are only able to be exercised by people in a society where collective rights are respected. Under a plutocracy, there are no collective rights, since they limit individual rights, which are absolute.

's picture