US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

a reply to: Gianfar

Neither.
I was hoping for some defenders of the Oligarchy to answer the questions I had listed.
Part of the reasons it exist are in the questions themselves.

When politicians are up for sale to the highest bidder, we all pay except of course the cronies.

originally posted by: jacobe001
a reply to: Gianfar

Neither.
I was hoping for some defenders of the Oligarchy to answer the questions I had listed.
Part of the reasons it exist are in the questions themselves.

When politicians are up for sale to the highest bidder, we all pay except of course the cronies.

Sure. In any system where people are represented by public servants, there will be influential groups of various ideologies who attempt to advance their agendas through those officials. It happens universally in all society. In a sense, the entire world is run by oligarchs under various regimes, ideologies and so forth. Some are tyrannical and others lurk beneath a shell of openness in the sense of public expression.

Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see any posts that actually defend the oligarchic system. Perhaps you could point out how that is being done.

originally posted by: Gianfar

Sure. In any system where people are represented by public servants, there will be influential groups of various ideologies who attempt to advance their agendas through those officials. It happens universally in all society. In a sense, the entire world is run by oligarchs under various regimes, ideologies and so forth. Some are tyrannical and others lurk beneath a shell of openness in the sense of public expression.

Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see any posts that actually defend the oligarchic system. Perhaps you could point out how that is being done.

A poster pointed out quite eloquently that you have basically 2 forms of government.
Republic and Oligarchy.

Be it Communism, Democracy, Monarchy and so on, all these tend to devolve into Oligarchies.

Our Republic is based on the rule of law in our Constitution which explicitly states that we elect Representatives to best represent us and then it was corrupted where Money=Freedom of Speech, shattering and infringing on the constitutional rights of millions in this country to be heard that do not have the money to buy politicians.



I only saw one so far defending the Oligarchy in this thread and he knows who he is.

a reply to: jacobe001


That makes sense. The framers of the constitution agreed that distributed ownership and the prevention of monopolistic wealth would be an empirical tenet of freedom and political stability. This is the prevailing state of affairs. Everyone I know seems to be indifferent to the overall scenario, except where it effects them as individuals. Its frustrating to discuss this topic in one's social circle, only to have it fed back as a complaint from an extricated reference point. Individualism is existential when people become so egocentric and selfish that they can no longer organize.

originally posted by: Gianfar


Our Republic is based on the rule of law in our Constitution which explicitly states that we elect Representatives to best represent us and then it was corrupted where Money=Freedom of Speech, shattering and infringing on the constitutional rights of millions in this country to be heard that do not have the money to buy politicians.

In my understanding of representative democracy, as I was taught it, by a life long West Virginia Trade Unionist mother and a moderate Army lifer states that we need to select representative that we respect and trust to represent our interests not necessarily our wishes. That in selecting representative we acknowlege that we don't have the knowlege or expertise to make valid decisions on many issues - but we trust (it's called a "Right of Decision") our represtatives to decide for us based solely on the wellbeing of their consituency.

They aren't to vote how we tell them - we vote for people who's judgement we trust and respect.

a reply to: Gianfar

Yes, but the supreme law of our land just put a price on our freedom and who can afford it. We lost everything except our retirement because we did not have enough money to save ourselves from the system.

I think every troop should rethink who and what they are fighting for. It is not for the freedom of their family. They are not high enough on the pay scale to buy freedom.

originally posted by: MOMof3
I was in the classrooms in the 50's and 60's. The teachers and preachers of that time all made us kids feel patriotic how we were a democracy and how we need to spread that across the globe. So, they lied by giving us a War Cry to rally around. I see it now. Sent my husband and brothers to Viet Nam with that War Cry.

I got hit with a lot of propaganda in the 70's and 80's, too. Never really questioned it for the longest time til just a few years ago when a few things forced me to investigate. Every country does it to some extent. I know that, when I traveled to the USSR back in the 80's, there was huge murals of propaganda, sections of road with Soviet banners hanging and even went into an entirely whitewashed church that was one big "worship the State" visitor center complete with a massive metal sickle, hammer and globe statue in its center. My best friend traveled years ago to the middle east and visited a school in Jerusalem where they were teaching the children how they'd won WWII.

Maurice Halbwachs, a sociologist, wrote a book back in 1925 on the nature of collective memory and nationalism. The basic idea is that a narrative based on history is created for the people within a nation through the sharing of memory (aka teaching) and enshrinement (the creation of public memorials). It's all quite deliberate. The Pearl Harbor memorial that I visited as a kid? It's purpose is to remind us of the story of why we entered into WWII.

The issue is that the narrative that ends up getting generated tends to be very one-sided and promoting the State's ideals. That's why a class will be taught to worship the Founding Fathers while subjects like what happened at Kent State may go without a peep. The Anti-War protests of the time may be discussed but it'll be coupled with being told that the troops suffered ill effects due to the lack of public support. Ergo, protesting a war is "not supporting the troops" when reality is that the troops wouldn't be there if the war hadn't been entered in the first place or if they were withdrawn from the action. That's kind of how it works.

Here's a wiki article on the subject of collective memory that you might find really interesting: en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: FyreByrd

Pretty close but there is one issue. The intention of forming a republic had everything to do with faction and not a lack of knowledge per se. If you were taught that in school, it was a pretty dubious lesson and doesn't actually mirror what was actually written in argument for a republic. I had to read the Federalist Papers in Poli Sci as an "eye opener" to what were the actual arguments for the way our government was established. It was surprising in contrast to what I had learned in school previously.

Federalist #10, written by James Madison, is the essay that covers the rationale of creating a republic as opposed to a pure democracy. The concerns that Madison expressed wasn't so much a concern for a lack of knowledge into the affair but instead, to prevent the assertions of majority faction within the government. Faction being defined as a contentious group within society so to simplify Madison's words--he feared mob rule.

On the subject of a pure democracy where each voted on the subject.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

In other words, Madison feared that factions would overtake the legislative government through a pure democracy and result in losses for another. Madison, also in Federalist #10, very specifically states that the greatest source of faction was the inequitable distribution of property. His argument for the creation of a republic wasn't so much that we wouldn't know how to vote but that, instead a small group who we vote in as "trusted" as you put it, would instead represent both the interests of majority factions and protections of minorities. In that sense, they were still intended to be beholden to our interests but with deference towards the minority interests as well.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.

The portion of the legislative branch that was meant to be the most representative of the majority interests was the House of Representatives. That's where "mob rule" was allowed to play and then, softened by pinioning its actions against the opinions of the Senate. Madison, himself, said that it was not perfect and could be prone towards corruption:

On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.

So this isn't "they aren't supposed to listen to us". They are supposed to listen to us still but simply soften what it is that we want to assure that it follows the "public good" and "best interests" of the State. Basically allowing faction to occur but while still in check and placed into a more moderate voice through representation in the republic.

Here's a link to Federalist #10, which I heavily suggest reading (and is also the source of the quotes above). Madison tends to write the longest sentences known to man but he also writes with enough of a voice and passion to actually really grasp his feelings on the subjects of faction, republics, and pure democracies.

www.constitution.org...

originally posted by: qwerty12345
It's supposed to be a Republic not a democracy to begin with.

Thank you. It's amazing how many people think we're a "Democracy."

We're doomed I tellsya. Just look at the "study" itself. Was the term "Representative Republic" used even once? I know that's not what we ARE anymore, but that's what we WERE and what we're SUPPOSED to be, no matter how many ill- informed numbskulls insist on calling us a Democracy.

Well, at least the lie to entice our kids into the military about "spreading democracy and freedom" is divulged.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Gianfar

Yes, but the supreme law of our land just put a price on our freedom and who can afford it. We lost everything except our retirement because we did not have enough money to save ourselves from the system.

I think every troop should rethink who and what they are fighting for. It is not for the freedom of their family. They are not high enough on the pay scale to buy freedom.

That makes sense. On all levels, from the general public to the Supreme Court, the presidency and the Congress, what I am seeing is something of a revelation in the historical time line of humanity. We have pretty good records of the past 3,000 years or so, of some great human societies which have risen and collapsed. These things happen in relatively short spurts on a 3,000 to 4,000 year time line, but within the reckoning of our personal time line, generations. We don't think about the future much when things are good. If the average person had gone deeper into the historical correlations I think we'd all be much better off as regards the idea of reasoning-self-interest. It takes many people to build a nation through personal sacrifice and many who make wrong decisions allowing it to become weak.

When considering determining factors in a historical context, there are several major factors somewhat unique to individual regional or world powers. But when we look at the social changes that precede these declines, we always see shifting value systems within the culture.

Jim Nelson Black, PhD (When Nations Die) identified ten factors of sociocultural changes in values that precede the fall of a nation; (1.) Increased lawlessness, (2.) Loss of economic discipline, (3.) Rising bureaucracy, (4.) Decline in education, (5.) Weakening of cultural foundations, (6.) Loss of respect for traditions, (7.) Increase in materialism, (8.) Rise in immorality, (9.) Decay of religious belief, 10. Devaluation of human life.

All of these signs are becoming more prominent, not only in my country but in others. And the world might be considered one nation in the sense of material interdependency within the global economy. When collapse comes, it will likely engulf the planet. The third world is dependent on trade with the superpowers and the super powers are dependent upon one another respective to their trilateral balance in the petroleum sector. A sector that will also suffer.

We see a slow decline in the value of the US dollar as a global currency, and we also see Russia, China, Brazil and several smaller up, coming nations turning toward a pool of currencies that will both replace the dollar and help it to collapse. Great loss of wealth in the US and for anyone caught holding US dollars. The third world nations are dependent on western trade and globalized manufacturing, so they will go too.

If people are concerned about the oligarchy, I'm sure that any financial system emerging the global depression will be much more of a beast.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: FyreByrd

Pretty close but there is one issue. The intention of forming a republic had everything to do with faction and not a lack of knowledge per se. If you were taught that in school, it was a pretty dubious lesson and doesn't actually mirror what was actually written in argument for a republic. I had to read the Federalist Papers in Poli Sci as an "eye opener" to what were the actual arguments for the way our government was established. It was surprising in contrast to what I had learned in school previously.

I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean by 'faction' but am thinking it's along the lines of 'tyranny of the majority'. Ihad to read the Federalist Papers too - but the stack of books was a foot and a half high and dropped it. And that is the argument for a repulic - to protect us from 'factions'.

I leaned this not in school but from my folks, as I stated, who spent years in post war Germany - my mother spoke German like a native and the Germans talked to her about what happened. Even before I was born they were worried about rank populism - the tyranny of the majority. That was the downfall of the Weimar republic and it was austerity that brought the National Socialists to power. History do repeat herself.


www.constitution.org...

a reply to: FyreByrd

Faction is Madison's lingo. I always find the word to be too close to fraction, lol, and start having visions of fractions popping through my head whenever I see the word, lol.

Faction can be either a minority or majority. It is basically a group of citizens who have a common idea of which they are passionate about to the point where they would trample on someone else's rights. The example that Madison used as the most durable cause of faction was actually those who do not have a great deal of property (the have-nots), who would trod upon those that do (the haves) for their property.

Historically, there are two very good examples of when the government was not protected against the effects of faction due to its republican nature and was complicit. The first would be the internment of Japanese-Americans citizens after Pearl Harbor during WWII. The second was when the US expelled numerous naturalized citizens without due process to Mexico during the Great Depression in the Mexican Repatriation under the claim that they were improving the US's financial outlook.

That's faction.

originally posted by: qwerty12345
It's supposed to be a Republic not a democracy to begin with.

Couldn't agree more.

a reply to: BlackboxInquiry



Who gives the representatives their power? Kids.laws.com explains the meaning of the Preamble to the constitution. I like this part and democracy is part of our government. The Representatives have given all the power of our constitution to the Oligarchy:

"Ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America: This last phrase of the Preamble is a powerful statement saying that the people made this document, and the people give the country its power." - See more at: kids.laws.com...

originally posted by: MOMof3
Well, at least the lie to entice our kids into the military about "spreading democracy and freedom" is divulged.

Yep. You would think the line of presidents and their backers above all people would know we are a representative republic but "spreading freedom and democracy" sounds so much better when it comes to dishing out propaganda.

That is why I will never be onboard with any future wars because there is no altruistic or moral agenda involved because it is all about control, wealth and power.

Take North Korea for example.
The propaganda they would put out would be saving the people in the work camps.
Then we would commence to carpet bombing the country and let god sort them talk about collateral damage lol

a reply to: MOMof3

Love you!!

originally posted by: qwerty12345
It's supposed to be a Republic not a democracy to begin with.

It was never a republic. Rome had an imperialistic Senate, which "governed" only through handling matters of doing their colonialist and imperialist ambitions. The Senators were wealthy elites of society that had extreme control over every single aspect of the Roman empire, and at the top of this system was the Emperor. If you are confused about this, just go watch one of the Star Wars movies. "The Empire" represents Rome, and "The Emperor" represents Caesar. What in the USA today they call "The Imperialist Presidency".

Somehow, this gets translated into books as "a Republic", or a "Republican form of government". As in, the Republican party, you know, the ones that seem like they want to drop bombs on the whole planet. In the Star Wars movies they initially called it, "The Republic". But what was it ultimately revealed to be in the Star Wars movies? It was a fake propaganda of an imperialist Senate.

That's also why you have the duality of the Yin Yang. The "Republicans" that take the name of "Republican form of government", and then take on the role of doing most of the imperialist and colonialism of the imperialist Senate, and the "Democrats", that take on the "Democratic form of government", and follow that it is a "democracy based on ancient Greece". The duality of the propaganda.

That is the actual form of government that it was designed as - ancient Rome's imperialist Senate, not a republic (because that's not what ancient Rome was), and not a democracy based on ancient Greece either.

The government was designed as a European, old world money, blue blooded, aristocratic plutocracy of wealthy elites of families of nobility, that consisted of bankers, aristocrats, and blue bloods, controlling and dictating from the inception. Based on an imperialist Senate, modeled after ancient Rome's imperialist Senate - not a Republic.

It then became an aristocratic kleptocracy, with the industrialization era, with the robber barons of the oil, steel, mining, rubber, and railroad tycoons, etc. - again controlled through the same European old world money families that consisted of bankers, Wall Street, aristocrats, and blue bloods, and the same "old money".

It then became a fascist corporatocracy - military industrial complex, pharmaceutical industry, big media, oil companies, utility giants, banking powers, Wall Street, "old money", nobility, blue bloods, basically all of the huge corporations, lobbyists, etc.

Finally, the natural progression from a fascist corporatocracy, is to a fascistic oligarchy. It could be explained simply as,


fascist corporatocracy = prior to 9/11/01

fascistic oligarchy = post 9/11/01


But just look around the world, it's just one of many dozens of countries that have the same type of government. Nothing unique about it at all.

a reply to: Red Cloak

Ben Franklin said it was republic and he was actually there.

a reply to: MOMof3

Yeah OK, so it must be true then...........