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

Authored by Gabriel Rockhill via Counterpunch.org,

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.

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.

Comments

chunga zorba THE GREEK Fri, 12/15/2017 - 23:47 Permalink

I'm familiar with the theory that in a republic there is no such thing as mob rule and that representatives are elected to do the right thing no matter what pressure comes from the mob.The problem we are faced with now is, in practice, these "representatives" do the wrong thing pretty much all the time, at every opportunity, and have really made a habit of it that spans decades.

In reply to by zorba THE GREEK

J S Bach chunga Fri, 12/15/2017 - 23:49 Permalink

"Nope, and it was never a republic either."I beg to differ, karenm.  The Founders patterned our Constitutional Republic upon the highly-respected Roman model.  The big difference was that OURS had the tenets of Christianity backing it.  It worked pretty well until Lincoln usurped his presidential powers by denying the southern states their innate right to secede from the union.  Shortly after this travesty, a wave of "persecuted" (((alien usurpers))) from eastern Europe began arriving on our shores who immediately began a program of undermining our Republican principles.  They corrupted our media, our money, our morality, our system of justice, our demographics and the very idea of republican governance.

In reply to by chunga

Eager Beaver bobcatz Sat, 12/16/2017 - 00:19 Permalink

Blibidy blobidy bloop, who gives a poop. The US isn't a democracy, big news. It's not a Republic either. It's a confederacy, a federation between the several States, or at least, that's what it WAS, before the Founding Faggots led their little coup d'etat and overthrew the legitimate government under the Articles of Confederation in 1789. If I could go back in time, and put a bullet in George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, Governor Morris, and the rest of the "Federalist" scum, I would do it without so much as a blink. Good fucking riddance, loyalists, and your Jew masters. Libertarians are hopeless romantics, and more dangerous than a rabid liberal, foaming at the mouth for socialism.

In reply to by bobcatz

Escrava Isaura Déjà view Sat, 12/16/2017 - 03:09 Permalink

J S Bach: ….OURS had the tenets of Christianity backing……. corrupted our media, our money, our morality, our system of justice, our demographics and the very idea of republican governance. Christianity, which started as Catholic, Jesus was catholic, has been the religion of the oppressor since the 4th century when the Romans took over Catholicism. There’s nothing more corrupt than Judeo/it takes two to tango/Christian philosophy. Don’t take my word for it. Look at its history. And now. Judeo/Christian deprived future generations ‘humanity’ of any hope of a future.  
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
 

In reply to by Déjà view

bluez Escrava Isaura Sat, 12/16/2017 - 06:06 Permalink

This is from an initial portion of a book I am presently writing, to be published somewhere on the Internet.Actually a real democracy would be a really great thing. All the people would study just enough about the issues to elect other people who would study the issues full-time and make sound decisions. However, as things stand today (and in all the past), the people never really get to elect anybody, but rather they merely get to choose between two bosses who are mere tools of a cabal of shadow government pirates. Anyone who has "gone to the polls" a few times has to eventually become at least dimly aware that at the end of the day their nominal participation has, 99% of the time, counted for absolutely nothing.So, since they are all but completely powerless, it is totally irrational for ordinary citizens to devote any of their valuable time to any serious study of any political issues. Other than as a sort of casual hobby, it is a foolish waste of your time to do that. So the ordinary citizen cannot be faulted for being effectively oblivious to the true nature of the various political issues.Under the terms of the present U.S. regime, which uses single-selection voting (also absurdly called "plurality" or "first past the post" voting), the elections for members of the House of Representatives, and perhaps for the presidency, would have significant potential to provide voter power if the voting systems were structured in a proper manner. But as things currently stand, they most certainly do not. And this disaster is completely due to the existence of something called the "spoiler effect". As an obvious example, consider the 2000 presidential election in Florida between George W. Bush, Al Gore, and Ralph Nader. To many people, Nader was seen a a great candidate, while Bush was seen in a light not unlike how Hillary Clinton appeared in 2016, a clear abomination. Yet many voted for Gore, since to do otherwise would increase the risk of a Bush election (although Bush won anyway, and we had 9/11, social lockdown, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.). So the existence of this spoiler effect means that we cannot have any realistic choices except between two bosses pre-selected by the shadow government pirates.I have discussed the strategic hedge simple score voting method in many places. With this you get to give, say, between 5 and 10 votes to each of as many candidates as you prefer. This would destroy the two-party system. Obviously the common voters must vote strategically since the shadow government pirates will always operate strategically.The whole "voting systems" / "election methods" field is a gigantic mess, sprawling over at least 100 pages of Wikipedia, for example. And I have written hundreds of pages about this subject. The insane complexity, futility, and  excessiveness of the various odd methods, "criteria", and whatnot proposed by this "industry" amounts to a conspiracy. It always treats extremely consequential elite interest elections just as if they were merely casual hobby club elections.In reality, elections are not primarily contests between individual candidates -- They are contests between common voters and shadow government pirates -- And this is just what the election methods industry always completely ignores.For instance, one division of the election methods (or "social choice") industry called "FairVote" has convinced the U.S. Green Party to throw its entire weight behind a very well-advertised election method known as "IRV" (a.k.a. "ranked choice voting"). This "IRV" sounds wonderful, yet wherever it is used the common voters always lose and the shadow government pirates always win. And it's very worthwhile to note who provides the funding for FairVote:http://www.fairvote.org/financialsThis should not be surprising.

In reply to by Escrava Isaura

HillaryOdor bluez Sat, 12/16/2017 - 08:11 Permalink

Literally this is some of the stupidest crap I have ever read.People don't even educate themselves for things that actually matter, like gaining skills to create value and have a career.  Instead they go to college thinking the certification is more important than the education.  Education is now basically free on the internet, but look how full the colleges are.  You must be retarded and anyone that reads your book must be retarded. The U.S. Is Not A Democracy, It Never WasGood! Let's keep it that way.  It's already far too democratic for my tastes.The solution is not a republic.  It's not a monarchy, not socialism or democracy.  The solution is the same as it always was, anarchy.  We don't need rulers.  Free people can set their own rules voluntarily.

In reply to by bluez

Oldwood HillaryOdor Sat, 12/16/2017 - 08:53 Permalink

We organize for collective protection. All organizations have leaders. Leaders lead not by consensus but by intimidation of force and or intelligence.It's a competitive world regardless of what great Utopian thinkers might say. The names we create for our systems of self oppression are irrelevant. We remain fearful and insecure in a world intent upon eating us....as we should well be. We make our choices and live (or die) with consequences. Buck up.

In reply to by HillaryOdor

HillaryOdor Oldwood Sat, 12/16/2017 - 09:39 Permalink

Nobody mentioned any utopia.  This is a common fallacy of anti-libertarians.  I don't know where it comes from but it comes off as desperate.  A privatized society or free society is not a utopia, just better than a nation state.  It is, I think, vastly superior by every measure, but it's still not a utopia.  It's just that the state does enormous damage to our actual potential as a society.There are all kinds of leaders that lead by consensus and not by force.  This is the difference between the public sector and the private sector.  Nothing you have said corresponds to an extant ruleset governing the possibilities for social organization.  It is only the current ruleset that humans tend to accept.  It's just a manifestation of your own fear and subsequent deference to authority (perversely called the public sector).  I don't know why you are scared.  The only thing that scares me is the state.  We do not need a public sector.  We can form voluntary private organizations as we have throughout history.  There is no rule that says we can't do it for protection.  In fact people with money already do this all the time and it works spectacularly.  If not for the moral hazard of the state we would all do it instinctively.

In reply to by Oldwood

Oldwood HillaryOdor Sat, 12/16/2017 - 10:02 Permalink

So private sector does not naturally seek to dominate through control of resources? Government claimed the power of antitrust to protect us from this Monopoly of control. Freedom allows a largely unrestricted drive to domination, with many battles bloody and destructive. Government was intially created from freewill and freedom, it foundation premised on that preservation, only to now realize that those "freedoms" have ultimately manifestation themselves with this tyranny of democracy, each group within fighting to preserve their freedoms from consequence through control of the powers that be.....and there is ALWAYS the powers that be.

In reply to by HillaryOdor

HillaryOdor Oldwood Sat, 12/16/2017 - 10:41 Permalink

No this is state propaganda.  Monopolies arise from government intervention, not free markets.  There is always competition and potential competition restraining monopolistic behavior.  Firms which are first movers in new markets can get large market shares, but they do so by efficiently satisfying consumer demand, which helps everyone, the poor most of all.  This market dominance is always temporary also, as other efficient actors will enter the market.  On the other hand the list of state-enforced monopolies is very long indeed, and state intervention is always permanent.  Sure a patent will expire, but the patent system will never go away.Freedom does not lead to literal battles.  Listen to yourself, using the language of state devastation to attack liberty, in a desperate defense of the state.  I'll never understand it.Government was intially created from freewill and freedomThis is the result of government schooling.  It's very sad.  Regardless of what intentions there may have been, I'm interested in actual results since that's what affects me.Yes there will always be the powers that be since you and those like you refuse to let go of that assumption, and you will always outnumber the rest of us.  There's that pesky Pareto principle again.  Power comes from coercion, which means the state.  It does not come from a free market.

In reply to by Oldwood

Eager Beaver HillaryOdor Sat, 12/16/2017 - 10:47 Permalink

Too few people realize that the United States of America pre-existed the Constitution. All they do is lap up the fairytales we're taught in school, and never probe history for the real story. Enough of the writings of the time exist today to do the research, if anyone really cared. But it's a lot easier to accept the indoctrination from Government schools, maybe read an article on ZeroHedge, or watch a YouTube video or two, and then pretending their "educated", dump their load of intellectual diarrhea into the comments section of such articles. You are excluded from my ire, HillaryOdor, you seem to understand our history, and you have the right conclusions. Anarchy is the only way, which is not Libertarian, in my book. America was founded in ANARCHY, not as a rebpublic. There were leaders that existsed from 1620 to 1789, just not as a dictator, emporer, king, or president, but as local leaders. This goes back to the ANARCHY of our forebears, the germanic tribes of Europe, not the Romans or the Greeks. Our system of protection came from the English militia standards, our selection of leaders and resolution of disputes from the Thing and the Folkmoot.

In reply to by HillaryOdor

GoinFawr Eager Beaver Sat, 12/16/2017 - 21:22 Permalink

"There were leaders that existsed from 1620 to 1789, just not as a dictator, emporer, king, or president, but as local leaders"so a"society free from central government and based on voluntary associations of self-governing communities and worker-run enterprises"(?)lol, that's commie talk, from the guy who invented it:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin

In reply to by Eager Beaver

Oldwood HillaryOdor Sat, 12/16/2017 - 11:37 Permalink

Whenever in history have we been without the powers that be?That is your Utopian vision. Some modern amalgam of a fairytale prehistoric existence. Our technology makes domination assured, especially when you consider human historical behavior.But hey, Marxist have always believed? that they could breed a new humanity through the use of dictatorial force, culling and propaganda, after several generations. The ultimate anarchist dream. An ungoverned ant hill of mindless drones working on autopilot for the good of the state, the collective, the "people". After all, the only thing required to maintain an ungoverned society is universally accepted values. Get on board or get off, the only two choices they will give. Look around.

In reply to by HillaryOdor

HillaryOdor Oldwood Sat, 12/16/2017 - 12:35 Permalink

If you want to say my utopian vision is a world without you and people like you worshipping authority, fine you can call it that.  I know it won't be a utopia.  You can redefine words however you want, since you really have no idea what you're talking about.  But I do agree we'd be much better off without you.  Perfect society? No.  But much better without state apologists?  Absolutely.  We'd be getting rid of the biggest source of the problems in the world.

In reply to by Oldwood

Final Authority HillaryOdor Sat, 12/16/2017 - 13:10 Permalink

I had to log in to upvote you.If men and women would take the time to understand the Organic Laws, all four of them, the liberty lovers in America would begin to learn how to protect themselves, their families and their property. It is impossible to operate a machine well when you do not understand its design or how it functions.Here is a good place for them to start: http://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmatter/organiclaws&edition=prelimHe… is another great resource for those who prefer freedom to servitude:https://organiclaws.org/

In reply to by HillaryOdor

Singelguy bluez Sat, 12/16/2017 - 08:13 Permalink

You need to find better drugs. Under a real democracy, the majority would vote for their own self interest, not the best interest of the group, or the nation. They would vote for lower taxes, and bigger benefits with little regard to who or what will pay for it, which would make a real democracy unsustainable. After a series of bitter infighting or even civil war, the majority would finally come to realize that the only way forward is to appoint an “arbitrator” to make the decisions. It then morphs into a monarchy, an empire, or a republic until such time that the majority forgets how chaotic a real democracy was, and then the cycle repeats itself.

In reply to by bluez

HillaryOdor Singelguy Sat, 12/16/2017 - 11:15 Permalink

You must be off your own meds if you think a direct democracy would ever vote for low taxes, or even that low taxes are somehow a bad thing.  The natural order is for the majority of people to be poor, relatively speaking compared to the most productive among them.  It's the Pareto principle and it's everywhere.  The top 20% will have roughly 80% of the wealth.  You can't change that but to make it worse.  People everywhere and always vote to steal from the productive to fund their own idleness and call it fairness.  That's why every democracy on the planet has a progressive tax system.  But it doesn't actually flatten the wealth distribution curve.  It usually steepens it.  It creates a nouveau riche class of bureaucrats and politicians.  It simply shuffles people around the wealth curve so that political parasites who have never in their lives produced anything of actual value go nearer the top and they push productive people further down, thereby hampering real productivity and wealth generation, and yes despite popular sentiment it actually does trickle down, or was it you who made that smartphone in your pocket widely available for under $1000.  No it was some evil profit seeking rich person who has benefitted you.  This process of theft and destruction of productivity is such a big win all of the highly educated people the world over are clamoring for more of it.  There's your democracy in action.

In reply to by Singelguy

TuPhat Escrava Isaura Sat, 12/16/2017 - 09:20 Permalink

The author has no understanding of the constitution or the government that was set up in this country.  His article is not worthy of further comment.  You, Escrava have no understanding of religion and want to denigrate everything that is Christian without knowing that Christianity is not all one religion there are many different faiths and tenets.  The Romans took the Catholic church and made it part of their government.  It has not been a real religion since that day and you are not wrong to dislike that.  You don't seem to understand what the protestant reformation did.  Some of the churches that came out of that are good and some not so good but they are not catholic.  The founding fathers were not catholic but they had a firm belief in a supreme creator and an understanding that governments are inherently bad.  They did their best to establish a rule of law rather than a rule of man.  The author strains himself to try and make us believe otherwise just like your posts try to protray all religion as bad.  You fail as usual.

In reply to by Escrava Isaura

cryingfreeman Escrava Isaura Sat, 12/16/2017 - 10:55 Permalink

Jesus was NOT Catholic and neither was the Apostle Peter; Catholicism, is a system of mother goddess worship, the Babylonian pagan religion with all the deities renamed as "saints".You think Jesus would advicate praying to idols? Prayers for the dead? Purgatory? Denial of the imputation of Christ's human righteousness for positive justification?You plainly, painfully don't know what you're talking about.

In reply to by Escrava Isaura

Escrava Isaura cryingfreeman Sat, 12/16/2017 - 14:41 Permalink

Catholic means universal. Universal churches where all the Christians, basically the poor get together to pray, to find solutions, and so on. Then, the oppressors took over Christianity and it became a fraud with all its fanciness. However, the poor remained catholic while the oppressors hate poverty and labor.   So, thank god jesus is not alive, or he would have a fit. Or, maybe he will when he arrives on a horse with wings, meaning a flying horse.    
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
 

In reply to by cryingfreeman

Scanderbeg J S Bach Sat, 12/16/2017 - 02:41 Permalink

Well said J.S. This article is typical of the type of subersion (((they) like to peddle. I used to be skeptical of views like yours but I've recently been reading Kevin MacDonalds work.  Anyone who honestly examines the issue cannot deny that Jewish influence perpetuates hostility and criticism of Western culture and is actively undermining it. If White Christian men cannot simply name the Jew then they have no chance against these Semitic Groups who have such highly developed group evolutionary strategy and cohesion.  Mass Immigration, Multi-Culturalism, Atheism, Democratic Socialism, Feminism, Post-Modernism and the prepondorence of Envioronmental Determinism in Anthropology all have their roots in Jewish infiltration of Academia in the beginning of the 20th century and accelerating after WW2.  They have taught our people to hate themselves and have also co-opted the political right through hyper individualist libertarianism and (((Neo Conservatism))). 

In reply to by J S Bach

lincolnsteffens Scanderbeg Sat, 12/16/2017 - 12:01 Permalink

Sorry to burst your bubble Scanderbeg  but most Jews today are not a Semitic people. The early Hebrews were tribal groups in the ME the same as Arabic peoples of the region still are today.Many of the early Hebrews became travelers and merchants on the silk road ranging from China to Western Europe. As these wandering Jews traveled over long distances taking months and years, they eventually married women throughout those regions. This intermarriage so diluted the Hebrew gene pool that successive generations lost their Middle Eastern physical characteristics as well as language. Modern Hebrew is a 19th century conglomeration of disparate languages and dialects that use the ancient alphabet symbols. A significant percentage of Jews today are of white central and eastern European origins.This thread is one of the best discussions I have seen on ZH for a long time. It has become fight club for mud throwers.The Republic principals as enumerated in the US Constitution are a contract between people to establish a government. That contract organizes government and its authority in multiple ways but of primary importance is that government was established to abide by the contract and aid people in defense of their stated Rights. Unfortunately big money, the law profession and easily corrupted legislators have conspired since American independence to gain absolute subjugation of all those not at the top of the food chain.It is important that people of different religious groups not fall into the trap of demonizing each other as this is one of the most powerful ways for the divide and conquer rulers to maintain their power.

In reply to by Scanderbeg

Scanderbeg lincolnsteffens Sat, 12/16/2017 - 18:59 Permalink

My comment is not meant to demonize any particular individual or assign blame to everyone in a particular group but simply to state that Jewish influence has been instrumental in the radical lefts infiltration into American politics, Academia and popular culture.This is undeniable. As for Jewish racial identity it IS distinct from Indo European groups minus some Inter Marriage amongst Ashkenazim with Europeans during the Diaspora. Jewish identity is both ethnic and religous but primarily the former as evidenced by Blood Tests administered by the state of Israel for the right of return. Additionally, if you cannot see the obvious cultural differences between most whites and Semitic groups like Ashkenazim I don't know what to tell you other than to pay closer attention. They are clearly more organized, cohesive, have strong collective identity and in group preferences.

In reply to by lincolnsteffens

MEFOBILLS J S Bach Sat, 12/16/2017 - 02:52 Permalink

The author conflates Patriarchy with Oligarchy/Plutocracy.   They are different things and have different names.Patriarchy is a system chosen by history, because it works:http://katehon.com/1180-patriarchy-the-natural-foundation-of-eurasian-s… Patriarchs have feeling for their subjects and feel burdened with responsibility; Oligarchy extracts rents for self aggrandizment. Also, Freedom has limits.   Some call it Free-dumb.  Patriarchs can stop free-dumb civilizational destroying things like homosexual/feminism/cultural communism.  Democracy, as a weak form of government, is easily subverted by money power - hence plutocrats push the democracy free-dumb narrative.  And yes our ((friends)) are heavily represented as pushing democracy, feminism, and homosexuality narratives.  Christianity is in alignment with Patriarchy.

In reply to by J S Bach

ConfederateH ThirdWorldDude Sat, 12/16/2017 - 08:26 Permalink

I never talked about the "right way", you seem to think that is something only you can determine.Improving it means putting your blood sweat and tears into that land.  If it is so much land that you cannot utilize and improve it, then clearly that is not "your land".That is the problem with nomadic claims to land.  Just because your ancestors passed over some remote meadow does not make it "yours".

In reply to by ThirdWorldDude

lincolnsteffens ConfederateH Sat, 12/16/2017 - 12:15 Permalink

"lasting value" to whom, ConfederateH? It is a typical winner's egocentric mind set that his value system is always right and "others" are always inferior or disgusting. Your statement of "If you don't improve it, it is not yours." is offensive and shallow showing a predatory inclination in your thinking.To the native "savages",  Europeans were the savages, invaders, liars, thieves, murderers... "Walk a mile in my shoes." is not a valueless concept.

In reply to by ConfederateH