America Has Never Been a Democracy, Nor Was It Ever Intended to Be One

Another wonderful comment by the great Francis Miville!

There is a problem with American identity: its founding mythology, its Constitution which is supposed to be the result of an Enlightenment-Inspired humanistic democratic republican revolution against a colonial empire. This can be understandable in as much as most scholars tend not to know too much was the real Enlightenment movement was: a movement of the filthy rich of their times who wanted first and foremost to do away with the various particular and limited rights many rather modest or middle-rank people had inherited from the Christian Middle Ages on a caste-basis most of the times.

American-style slavery was the epitome of the ideals of Enlightenment as applied to political economy, and if you care to have a look, you will see that the bulk of the clientele of those ideologues were the slaving classes on both sides of the Atlantic. But the problem now is that the truth about 18th-century Enlightenment cannot be sold due to popular hope worldwide.

Another big identification problem stems from the very word “democracy”: in ancient Greek, it did not mean at all the modern ideal (not the reality) of a government held in check by the commoners’ right to depose tyrants and vote down laws felt as abusive, it never meant government of the people by the people for the people, it meant government by a single governing party (dêmos, from verb daiomai, I divide, I take apart, like the Latinate word party which is related to the very partire meaning taking apart) Eastern European style (minus any form of social ideal however mendacious) or by a closed-access class, and moreover it meant that this ruling party or class had or felt no responsibility towards greater good but cared for their group interests only as a gated community is managed.

It was not different from the modern concept of oligarchy. The ancient concept of oligarchy was rather government by a team so small that everybody knew who did what and who ordered what: as soon as the elite, while comprising no more than 1 or 2%, was just big enough for the power it exerted to be anonymous and without any real possibility of influence from any single individual within it, it was called dêmokratia, and especially when the real leaders preferred to keep their identity secret thanks to the anonymous crowd they manipulated at will, which was the case in Athens, whose symbol of the owl meant that very ideal of secrecy and shady dealings.

When such a ruling class or body felt responsibilities towards the greater good, the regime was no longer called a democracy but a timocracy (government according to honor fostered by personal contribution to the greater good): timocracy was a government of takers and givers, a democracy of takers only, and if you check on ancient Athenian mentality, it considered any form of productive work (poiesis), even the production of poems, a dishonor (another gross insult was demiurge, which meant nothing more than a productive artisan at the city’s disposal).

Greek had a word to denote the right of the commoners to vote down tyrants and bad laws, it was called laodicea (the common people judging), but the city that used this system existed in Phrygia only, in Asia Minor, not in Greece proper, who had too high an opinion of themselves as a superior kind over all humans to stoop down to such a regime. In the 18th century most scholars still knew more or less what real Athens was about in the Classical times, a government where the rich and well to do were told by no one they too had duties towards a higher political or moral authority. The partisans of “democracy” just wouldn’t admit to being compelled to practice the same religion as was needed to keep their inferiors in line.

That was the real meaning of “democracy” under Jefferson’s pen. The ideal sold thereafter to the European commoners was meant as a propaganda trick for useful idiots only, exactly like the worst aspects of totalitarian Marxism later on. That is the identity problem I would like to terminate as regards America.

In a certain sense, I want that country to turn officially fascist – that would be actually more in tune with the real Founding Fathers’ will. This country should no longer be declared to owe its existence to the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution, nor even to the Mayflower Pilgrims – neither describe its real essence in the ears of most.

The US should officially declare that it owes its existence as the first White predator political entity on the American continent to the Viking invader Eric the Red. All Americans should idealize the conquering Viking as their ideal ancestor, thanks to whose blood and example the Wild West could be conquered as a prelude to the imperialistic conquest of the whole world.

America did not appear on the map devising a perfect constitution for the human gender; it appeared as a reality of the soil of its continent as an enterprise to genocide all Indians and all other all-too-romantic bums of that kind to make room for slaving plantations furnished with Negroes and Irishmen.

The main difference with Nazi Germany is that Nazi Germany postulated that the Germanic race was the only worthwhile and successful predator in the world and could propagate only through physical breeding. On the other hand, America postulates that the Viking predator, apart from having ideal blood, has even more value as the most perfect example anybody in the world can follow as a model of self-transformation into a monster, though some races like the Viking-descendant Wasps and some Jews are statistically nearer that ideal type than others.

The US should officially declare itself to be the fatherland of all predators of the world, and of all religions having declared war against common humanity. Any delinquent in the world committing vicious acts of predation or betrayal against their community of origin (as the Vikings were for instance, and as the Jews were according the American Protestant ideal of what a Biblical Jew should be) should be considered a de facto American citizen.

LBJ used to say, in order to justify his policy of desegregation and the temporary establishment of his Grand Society, that the real reason for his move was for the elite to be able to roll back America to official racism and segregation. This was badly needed prelude to get the White Trash ready for a future in which they would be prepared to jettison all human rights and accept a dictatorship together with an Indian-style caste society in exchange for their only real dearest right, that of knowing that however hard they have it, Blacks will have it ten times as hard as servants of the lowest of their own servants, as quoth the Bible.

And I think that time has come. Ideally, the future official religion of such a country formed during or after a second Civil War to come as a revenge for the first should be some form of Hinduism, with the Jews being the Brahmins, the Vikings being the Kshatriyas, and the contemporary Indians being the Vaishyas.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under American, Amerindians, Ancient Greece, Antiquity, Blacks, Civil Rights, Colonialism, Culture, Democrats, Europe, Europeans, Fascism, Germany, Government, History, Irish, Jews, Left, Marxism, Modern, National Socialism, Nazism, North America, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Sociology, US, US Politics, USA, Whites

24 responses to “America Has Never Been a Democracy, Nor Was It Ever Intended to Be One

  1. Jason Y

    It’s more a democracy than it seems. Politicians care about votes! For instance, the Democrats give welfare for votes, but they don’t give a rat’s ass about the poor in other lands – as noted with the Haiti thing.

    • Some argue that democracy hasn’t died in America on the basis that even though the people’s will and wishes count for nothing as the politician only care about their donors’ opinion, these multi-billionaire donors invest more of their money than ever to have their politicians court the people’s vote and convince them of adopting their views, which is damn true. If it were a real dictatorship, no such amounts of money would be invested in electoral campaigns. That argument is fallacious in many ways. Even though reductio ad Hitlerum has gone trite these days, it must be noted that the Nazi Party invested more money and resources than ever in having all people vote for them in more multitudinous ceremonials (consisting in single-choice consultations) than ever after all other parties had been suppressed and the very word of democracy turned into an epithet to qualify any regime in the world deserving to be bombed. The same observation applied to China during the Cultural Revolution : Mao’s dictatorial power called for frequent and constant approval by the whole of the people as a way to threaten enemies at home and abroad, it was a constant mustering for war. A dictatorship’s characteristic trait, as opposed to for instance a legitimist monarchy or a mild conservative authoritarian regime, is never to be satisfied with its present level of control over people’s lives and minds, and to look always for more avenues to enforce unanimity and intimidate the dissident or the tepid. Electoral campaigns are actually far more spectacular than they used to be in the past because they are propaganda pageants, not electoral campaigns proper, they were not meant for that even by the times democracy seemed to try seriously to convince America of its existence and usefulness. Electoral campaigns American style already were actually inspiring dictators abroad as way to manifest their power, never other peoples to manifest their opinion or demonstrate against their oligarchy. Electoral campaigns American style have always been a contest of the most able persons to espouse the oligarchy’s will and give it a form, like musical events which always happen to align all the possible talents that may magnify a certain genre (generally identified with definite private or special interests that impose a theme never to depart from). There never was any semblance of democracy in the US (anyway the world itself in classical Greek as well as under Jefferson’s pen never meant but secret-service-abetted plutocracy exerting its power in a way as anonymous as possible so as to prevent spying from without and make naming the enemy impossible even to name and pinpoint from within : in that very specific sense America is more and more a democracy but not yet as much as Democratic Republic of Congo or the late Democratic Republic of Kampuchea) but there was a time that arch-oligarchical system allowed for I wouldn’t say free but somewhat freer debate like let us say the Renaissance Italian Republics of Florence, Venice, Genoa, or the financial Republic of Holland under the Stathouders : this can happen as long as such a Republic, though imperialistic, has had not too much pretence to go global (or pose as an ideal model for the whole world like Napoleonic France) but only to predate and grow. But during that time general debate was freer electoral campaigns were most opposite and opposed to it (and vice-versa : free debaters feared electoral campaigns like political police) : too much thinking always made your voice sound like a traitor’s as the parade drew near your home. The campaigns are dictatorial events by essence, they testify even less of the presence of any democracy than Carnival in Rio, corrida in Spain, or spartakiades in Late East Germany. American political campaigns are actually military musters and hunting parties against dissident voices.

      • Yee

        Foreigners should talk about historical events and figures they’re familiar with, not bullshit about China and Mao…

        If you want to find examples of dictators, try the US backed ones in Latin Americas and Southeast Asia, and Taiwan was under martial law rule for decades before the 80s.

        Mao was never a dictator, and he never “constant mustering for war”. In Mao’s time, both the US and the Soviet Union threatened to nuke China. The US military stationed in Taiwan and South Korea, sending spy planes over China non-stop; the Soviet Union lined up a million men at our border. Talk about “constant mustering for war”, try US and SU.

        Chiang Kai-Shek was the dictator of China. Even a US war correspondent, Jack Belden, said so. Of course, US propaganda wouldn’t let you know that, because Chiang was backed by the US government.

        • Mao not a dictator? Rather an avatar you would say? I am not talking here about a leader’s good or bad intentions towards the people, I am talking about a leader’s hunger for total power as opposed to a climate of free discussion and to the hope for common people to influence power and Mao’s was a historical record of the kind. I for one would have been probably among the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution (and would still be hadn’t the event killed so many innocent poor), especially witnessing what the US and their Trotskyte Left allies were to become, but Mao had no use for what he called bourgeois democracy and the only method he knew to short-circuit bourgeois democracy was a state based on and a people engrossed in the religious cult of a personality like his.

        • Yee

          Cultural Revolution was a revolution against the intellectuals and the ruling figures. And do you know where the cultism in the CR came from?

          The aforementioned war correspondent Jack Belden, saw in 1948, 20 years prior to the culture revolution, the potential harm intellectuals could do.

          “Li …. was that entrancing combination of man of action and intellectual. He had a grave, quiet manner that engendered trust. I often thought that if men of this type gained control of the Communist movement – and the question of power has not yet been completely settled among the Communists – then there would be little to fear from it. If the pure intellectuals gain the upper hand, then cultism may rule China.”

          In a country with 90% peasants, 80% illiterates and a very long history of intellectuals becoming ruling class, Mao didn’t launched cultural revolution for more power, but to shape a new nation.

          The upheaval was messy and brutal, but it wasn’t for “a state based on and a people engrossed in the religious cult of a personality like his”, but to break the hierarchy, from intellectuals to the superstition, clannish, tribal powers at grassroot level that bonded the people tightly. Mao changed the mentality of Chinese people.

          Ask the Indians if passing a law could break the hierarchy in India.

        • Mao and the Chinese people had no choice but to muster for a world war ready to burst and destroy the world at any time, it is impossible for any nation however humble and picayune to survive otherwise as long as the United States of America and / or Israel exist on the map. Without the Cultural Revolution China would have fallen back into American-controlled Manchu-like benign-neglect based oriental despotism with some form of cultural marxism having taken the role of taoism, and using mass misery as a Heavens-given boon to secure stability. Without a people kneaded through and through by the Cultural Revolution China would be exactly as Henry Kissinger and so many others would have loved it. Henry Kissinger and so many others did visit and court that country just afterwards but the brightest among them realized they had lost the initiative of the game for good : a coloured revolution is impossible in China, the people are vaccinated against anything of that colour. America’s demise at China’s hands is not of matter of if but when. Please don’t fall for the constitutional trap : America’s founders are not the Founding Fathers nor even the Mayflower Crusaders but Eric the Red’s marauders.

  2. TRASH 2


    On wasted Tax Money:

    I knew of a US army personnel (No names) who evacuated Marcos-he later married a Filipino woman and retired to the Philippines (As his pension was too modest to get by in the US).

    He recalled Imelda hacking gobs of spit on American GI’s as she was pushed into the US aircraft for Hawaii. Though her life was surely saved she was furious.

    He was forced to address this woman as “Ma’am” as she was sent to Hawaii to live out the rest of her life at the taxpayers expense.

    “Why bother?” I asked him.

    Why not let her be killed by People’s Power?

    “When we support a dictatorship we have to stand by that position.”

    He kept a low profile in Cebu as the 26 year old soldier who had forced her onto the plane-though now 51. So his name will stay with me.

    Imelda had by then returned to the Philippines by then.

    I agree with you, Yee. The US should simply say fuck these morons and let these primitive savages rise and fall because they are too stupid to run a country.

    Latin American dictatorships have caused US streets to be torn apart by various paramilitary gangs-MS-13, Cubans deported by Castro, Colombian cocaine dealers. Even the refugees who are decent people have to be provided for at enormous cost.

    China and Soviet Union have also exported (And Lord knows why we have taken) their worst criminals because it is hard to be a criminal in China or Soviet Union and they become super-criminals in the US where punishment is a joke to them. China does not have to cope with the Italian-American mafia; our country on the other hand has to spend millions on Task Force Divisions to battle Triads and Tongs in Chinatown.

    As for Taiwan, I think if they voluntarily seceded to China than Americans would be relieved. It would be the resolution of a headache.

    In short, the US has been half-bankrupted by Mestizos running rampant over natives in Latin America and the Philippines. The Spanish should have simply kept those countries and let them be their headache. Let Taiwan go the way of Hong Kong.

    On a fundamental level, the average American agrees with you because you make perfect sense. While US streets are rocked with violence in high schools our tax money goes to “probes” into drug wars in backwater shabby countries like the Philippines.

    • Yee


      Obviously, the US ruling class has a different opinion about how the world should be run than average Americans. And honestly, not every American is as cynical as you.

      The rich control media ->
      media control public opinions->
      public opinions control politicians,

      this is how democracy is supposed to work. It’s a slightly different version of church, priests and the followers.

      • TRASH 2


        I am not going to share the name of the US soldier but indeed he is cynical. After the US backed the sort of woman who spits on US soldiers and smears feces in the airplane toilet (Aged 50 something) in anger at having to be evacuated (At tax expense) from the mess she made of the US-backed regime.

        Years later, a retiree on a military pension so modest he is better off with his Filipino-American wife in the Philippines, he has to keep a low profile because she and her son return.

        No tax payer’s compensation for him. He is discharged from the military with a bad back at 31. He works installing cable. His Filipino wife works at a bus station.

        Finally, in middle age, he returns. Marcos’s son remembers being pushed on aircraft with her mother. He is now in a minor political seat. The American GI keeps a low profile, hoping ghosts stay in the shadows.

      • TRASH 2


        “Cynical”. We’ve been in Afghanistan for 17 years and Iraq amounted to a disaster for the region from Germany to Uighur-land Western China.

        No matter how many jingoistic films are made in Hollywood depicting Chuck Norris knocking terrorists off like cans on a fence, the reality does not reflect Stallone taking over Burma.

        As for the American public themselves who are attempting to earn low wages as inflation rises and landlords running the White House are blackmailed by illiterate porn actress who have sex with drug addicts for a living…they are as backward as peasants in pre-Collectivist China when the Shanghai Prostitutes and Landowners ruled the roost.

        • TRASH 2

          YEE CR: A Cynical Take

          The Urban-Rural divide has not changed that much from Pre-Communist China to the US where the Northeast and the West Coast are resented for exuding tremendous intellectual/financial power that manifests itself on an imposition over the poor interior.

          This ISN’T THAT DIFFERENT from the era of Shanghai-based traders and petty officials cruelly indifferent to Chinese interior poverty.

          One region or social class ignores and imposes tributes upon a downtrodden poor peasant mass until the system collapses.

        • Yee

          You don’t realize the difference between pre-Mao China and the modern US regional or social class resentment.

          Chinese at that time didn’t have resentment, but awe and fear for those have more power. They had the mentality more like the lower caste Indians, being kept docile by hierarchy. They had mental inferiority. At least Americans have the sense of equal right to feel resentment.

        • For your information Indian untouchables have never felt fear and awe before the powers that be nor been kept docile : the reason why they have been declared untouchable is the fear for their subversive vibrations to contaminate the whole of society including their own beloved. Brahmins and others despaired so much about them that the only thing to do was to declare them non-human. Most untouchables did believe in their own power to wreak havoc by their mere presence and quite a few of them traditionally sell black magic services.

      • TRASH 2


        The media has hijacked every political system at one time or another for one reason or another.

        It is not strictly a capitalist feature.

        • Yee

          True. But there’s still the tiny difference of whether people believe it or not. Chinese people know newspapers or TV or books can’t be trust totally, does American people realize this?

          At least the communists are honest about propaganda, because they have a “ministry of propaganda” in the government structure, can you imagine the US admit there’s propaganda exist in your country? But of course it exist.

  3. TRASH 2


    You are correct about the cult of personality. A great deal of this in the 20th century was a result of new mediums for propaganda-the mass reach of television, radio, print journalism at that time. It could be one reason why a variety of dictatorships in the 1990’s tried to suppress the internet, which dismantles the collective reach of the non-interactive media over the mass.

    If you compare society today to the 1990’s you realize that the mass media is simply no longer able to exert that sort of opinion.

    I’m not debating whether or not Mao or Goebbels were cults of personality.

  4. TRASH 2

    YEE Free Press and Discord

    The US media simply reverberates what various groups feel about one another to remind the other of the urban-rural discord but is more or less an organ of capitalism driven by consumption.

    Porn is a feature of Capitalism’s dark basement-any poor woman with $2000 can hire a crew and camera to make money displaying her worst fantasies; males with freakish reproductive organs can protect their earnings under “free speech”.

    Rural Americans of course object to all of this. The ugly grunting of blacks bragging of murder and violence and the pornography and urban depictions of rural degeneracy.

    • Yee

      All these appear because it doesn’t harm the interests of the ruling class, perhaps even help them. Let the masses fight among themselves.

      The capitalist media just has a different way of controlling dissident opinions than the Communist ones. Both are controlled for sure.

      • TRASH 2


        The masses fight among themselves by dint of the squalor, violence and deprivation that arises in a winner-loser system based upon supply/demand economics.

      • TRASH 2


        Ruling class controls-gates, walls, private security (As oppose to underpaid and overworked police), geographic distance, non-Centralized government, safer streets and schools, real estate prices, gasoline prices, regional concentration of wealth.

        In the capitalist system the poor are essentially overwhelmed by daily life. They live in single parent households because the poor and ignorant reproduce young. Sexual perversity is everywhere. Streets are unsafe after 5 PM and sometimes in broad daylight people are attacked by anti-social young men whether for amusement or profit. Drugs are everywhere because it is an inelastic economy with steady demand from people seeking a cheap vacation. I could go on and on but you get the idea.

  5. TRASH 2


    I lived in India for a few years on the gutter-level (Had an affair and then a vicious power-struggle with a Brahmin female boss etc.)

    India is now such a capitalist society that anybody with money is doing business with anyone with money.

    Brahmin are fairly intelligent as a group and this might be the reason why they are successful but also the British gave them a head start by using them as administrators.

    In South Indian they were simply expelled like the Jews in Spain.

    Many low-caste Indians converted to Islam or Christianity and no Brahmin is going to be allowed in their place of worship.

    Hands down the Gujarati merchants have the power in India.

  6. Pingback: Америка никада није била демократска, нити је икада намеравала да то постане – СРБски ФБРепортер

  7. Frito Pedejo

    Our founding fathers meant America to be a republic, not a democracy in the sense people thinks so, as it was enough so during the earlier parts of our history. but over time, our political system did achieve more democratic features e.g. direct election of senators,direct elections in presidential primaries, elections of vacant congressional seats,etc. So maybe the United States can be best seen as maybe a democratic republic.

    • The US started out as a group of corporations owninzg land supplying resources and agricultural products to Europe. Even the flag of the US is a copy of East India Company’s.

      A Republic is a democratic system where the head of state is not a monarch. Canada and Australia are not republics because the head of state is still the Queen of England. Some republics are socialists such as China.

      In UK, which is not a republic, the majority in the House (Parliament) forms the government. Usually the leader of the majority party is appointed Prime Minister. The Senate is the House of Lords. Which until recently were not elected but appointed.

      In Canada and Australia, like UK, the majority in the House (Parliament) forms the government, the Senate is appointed not elected. The Queen is represented by the Governor General.

      The Governor General is largely ceremonial. The Senate is just a “sober second thought” without real powers. All legislations are from the House. In a sense true representation of the population.

      The US political system seems less democratic partly because of the electoral college which gives smaller states a bit of say in the presidential election and the senate system, where every state has two senators no matter how populated. California has 37 million people and Wyoming has 550,000 people. Both states have 2 senators. Each California senator represents 18.5 million people but still has one vote in the Senate. A Wyoming senator represents 225,000 people and one vote in the Senate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s