The U.S. Is Not A Democracy — It Never Was

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

Source - World Truth TV

By Gabriel Rockhill

Want inner peace? Let go of these 9 beliefs

1. “I need to be doing something right now.”

This is an incredibly subtle belief that most of us don’t even realize we are holding onto. It stems from our obsession with productivity and achievement, and it manifests as a constant, itching discontent.

Though our ego tricks us into believing we need this feeling to get things done, when we can let it go we see a lot of our anxiety dissolves and our relaxation deepens. We’re also much more likely to enjoy what we need to do without the constant internal pressure of feeling that what we’re doing in this moment is never enough.

2. “When I get what I want I will be happy.”

This is another cliche that I’m sure most of us are aware of. But despite acknowledging that we don’t need to get anything to be happy, it’s easy for us to get caught up in the chase.

To overcome this, we need to be mindful of when we have the feeling that we need something before we can be happy. When we see we’re doing this we can practice letting go of that need, even if only for a brief moment. The more capable we become at doing so, the more we will naturally experience happiness in the present, and the less our minds will fixate on ideas of the future for fulfillment.

3. “Finding inner peace is difficult.”

This is another myth that gets in the way. Many of us feel that we are far from inner peace, and we idolize those who seem to have found it. Because of this, we unconsciously believe that it’s a long way away from where we are in our lives, and we need to go on a long journey to find it.

Maybe we’ve read books that suggest that fundamental change in how we feel or act takes years of difficult training or some sort of pilgrimage. But often it is letting go of the belief that what we want is so far away, and understanding that when you stop striving so aggressively you will start to see the calm you’re looking for. It is this process of turning your beliefs upside down that becomes the journey in itself.

4. “If I express my emotions honestly people will think I’m weak.”

We’re often taught, as we grow up, to keep a lid on our emotions. This is common for responses that are considered socially inappropriate such as anger, fear, and sadness. Though in many ways we’re also taught to limit how much we show our positive emotions such as joy and excitement. This leads us, in adulthood, to believe that honest expression will be met with disapproval by others.

The irony in this is that as everyone is dealing with the urge to be authentic, those that actually do so are often met with respect and admiration.

5. “If people knew the real me, they wouldn’t like it.”

This is similar to the issue we have with emotional expressions. We hide certain aspects of our personality, defining ourselves publicly by what we show and privately by what we’ve hidden. The reality is that you are a lot more than either of those stories, and people will gravitate toward the real you because they appreciate honesty.

6. “I should be happier right now.”

In our culture, we fixate too much on social comparisons between individuals. When we don’t feel good, we look at what we have and feel guilty for not being happy enough. Or, we look at what we don’t have and wonder why we’re not as happy as the next person. Happiness isn’t something you need to have all the time; it comes and goes, like any experience, but it’s not a prerequisite for being human.

7. “Not being the best me isn’t good enough.”

There’s been a huge movement in the last twenty years toward personal development. Though a lot of these ideas are healthy, they can be driven by toxic motives. Most people don’t feel they need to better themselves out of a genuine need to improve their community, but out of the feeling that they’re not good enough in the first place.

When you can strip yourself of this idea you’ll soon realize that the chase to being your best self is infinite and anxiety-inducing. You’ll see that you can love and appreciate yourself now, as you are, without needing to be someone else before feeling okay.

8. “I owe the world.”

This is a tough one and is related to the feeling of needing to be your best self. Though gratitude is important, it doesn’t mean we should walk around with the feeling that we’re in debt to the universe. We see this when people pathologically try to prove their worth to others. When we let go of the deep feeling of debt and obligation, we can then really start to give people what we have to offer.

9. “There was a time in my past that absolutely sucked.”

Often we become so identified with bad times in our past that they get in the way of us enjoying the present. We define ourselves with these past experiences and feel they we need to share them with everyone we know before they know the real us. But when we come to realize that they are far less significant than we initially thought, we stop feeling like imposters and we let old memories fall away.

SHOOTER IN VEGAS MASSACRE WAS A LONGTIME FED

More than 48 hours after the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history, police still don’t have a motive for the horrific crime.

But a more complete profile of the killer is beginning to emerge.

Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter who killed 59 people at a country music festival Sunday night, worked over a 10-year period as a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service, an IRS agent and a defense auditor.

A spokeswoman for the federal Office of Personnel Management told the Associated Press Tuesday that Paddock’s employment included two years as a mail carrier from 1976 to 1978.

That was followed by a six-year stint with the Internal Revenue Service until 1984. And then he worked 18 months as an internal auditor for U.S. Department of Defense.

The latest revelation suggests the U.S. government should have an extensive file on Paddock, who not only worked directly for the government for nearly a decade but then worked another year-and-a-half for federal weapons contractor Lockheed Martin.

What do YOU think? Does the FBI know more than it’s telling about Vegas attack? Sound off in today’s WND poll

With his institutional knowledge of how the federal bureaucracy works, Paddock was anything but the typical mass shooter. He would have been able to cover his tracks in the planning stages of his attack.

The Islamic State, or ISIS, has doubled down on its claim of responsibility for the attack, saying Paddock had converted to Islam in recent months and become a “soldier of the caliphate.”

But given the rapidly degrading status of ISIS, some analysts believe it could be entering a new phase where it is willing to risk credibility in its propaganda messages in exchange for a short-term boost in its prestige among Islamic terrorists worldwide.

In other news, leaked photos of the scene inside Paddock’s hotel room at the Mandalay Bay Resortappeared to show a note on a small table near the shooter’s dead body. As of this report, no details have been released about the contents of the note.

Photo reportedly shows Vegas shooters body after he killed himself in his hotel room Sunday evening

Video everywhere

Meanwhile, Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo says his office has partnered with the FBI on the investigation but still has not come up with a motive for the shooting.

Lombardo said at a Tuesday press conference that Paddock had set up cameras both inside and outside his hotel room, with at least one placed on a service cart in the hallway.

“I anticipate he was looking for anybody to take him into custody,” he said. “The FBI took all digital and electronic evidence into custody and is evaluating.”

Lombardo said he did not know if Paddock transferred any of the video he captured to any third parties in the U.S. or overseas before taking his own life.

“We’ve completed our investigation at the properties, three separate locations in Mesquite and Reno, at the hotel and the suspect’s vehicle,” he said.

An additional five handguns, two shotguns, electronics and “a plethora of ammunition” were found Tuesday on top of the approximately 30 guns uncovered Monday.

Ammonium nitrate fertilizer, used for bomb making, was also found in Paddock’s vehicle.

The sheriff confirmed earlier reports that at least one of the rifles was modified with a “bump stock” device used to speed up the discharge of ammunition. Paddock had enough ammunition “to continue shooting a lot longer” than the nine minutes he fired on the concert goers but was engaged quickly by police and private hotel security.

The sheriff said his agency learned from studying other active-shooter operations, including the one at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, that it’s better to go in quickly and engage the shooter than to wait for an army of police to arrive and seal off a perimeter.

The sheriff said the quick police action saved dozens of lives that potentially could have been snuffed out by a man with such firepower at his disposal. He had 17 guns and at least 1,000 rounds of ammo in the hotel room.

Girlfriend back in the spotlight

The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department tweeted this image of a woman, Marilou Danley, who is sought for questioning regarding the investigation into the shooting in Las Vegas. Officials ask that anyone with information call 9-1-1 (Photo: Twitter)

Also in the spotlight during the Tuesday press conference was the shooter’s girlfriend, Marilou Danley. Her location is now confirmed to be in the Philippines, and Lombardo called her “a person of interest” who has not necessarily been cleared of charges as was widely reported Monday. She will be thoroughly questioned as soon as she returns to the U.S., which is expected later this week.

Ammonium nitrate, found in Paddock’s car, is the same substance Timothy McVeigh used to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City in the 1990s.

Danley will be asked about any knowledge she may have of this substance as well as other weapons used in the attack, and any plans her boyfriend may have shared with her.

In the weeks before the shooting, Paddock wired up to $100,000 to the Philippines for unspecified reasons, possibly to Danley or her family.

Danley may also be asked about her trips to Japan, the Philippines and Dubai in the Middle East.

Paddock did not have a Facebook account, which makes him unusual, compared to other 21st century mass shooters and terrorists.

“I assure you this investigation has not ended with the demise of Mr. Paddock,” Lombardo said.

Marilou Danley in Dubai (Photo: Facebook)

When asked if the shooter’s motive had been determined, the sheriff said: “No. We are making progress, but I don’t have complete answers yet. I anticipate substantial information coming in over the next 48 hours.”

Paddock continued shooting for approximately nine minutes.

“The world has changed,” Lombardo said. “Who would have ever imagined something like this? I would have never imagined it.”

He said some victims were shot “outside the venue,” and others were shot in the venue but continued to run away and died “several blocks” from the venue.

All but three of the 59 victims have been identified, Lombardo said.

“This individual was premeditated, it was preplanned extensively, and I’m sure he evaluated every one of his actions,” Lombardo said. “I pray that a citizen who sees something says something. A citizen sees things and thinks it’s trivial, ‘Oh, I don’t want to bother the police.’ We ask you to bother the police, because housekeeping and other individuals could have seen something,” but none of them reported anything unusual about what they saw in the room.

It’s important, he said, because, “I don’t know that there won’t be future prosecutions.

“Did this person get radicalized, unbeknownst to us? And we want to identify that source.”