3 ms·

"The real culprit is democracy's false promise that it can do anything to change this. Ultimately the masses will only take action if food or shelter is at risk

"The real culprit is democracy's false promise that it can do anything to change this. Ultimately the masses will only take action if food or shelter is at risk." Democratic Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. The entire existence of the American System was against the European oligarchy and for the establishment of American aristocracy (the founding brothers weren't saints, they were monied land-owning aristocrats). The real problem is that the oligarchs in the City of London have continually subverted the American System and entangled us abroad (triple entente, anyone?), and have corrupted all our branches of government. The American Constitution, if we actually followed it, provides mechanisms to deal with problems such as this. Namely, the idea of equality under the law. Ah, but the justice system is corrupt to, up to and including SCOTUS. Please stop conflating democracy with our Constitutional Republic, and also stop vilifying a system that is not in it's proper state, eg, you essentially imply that democracy is a fad because it's been shown to not work, when if fact it has worked in some cases so well that it became a threat to the oligarchs and they actively subverted it. Our problem is the oligarchs, not the system itself.

fineIllregister 12y ago
The point of the branches is to prevent corruption. Saying “if we actually followed it” is like saying cyanide would be healthy “if it wasn't lethal.” There is no intrinsic, “proper state” of a constitutional republic. If the Constitution did not permit the current situation, then it did not prevent it. Thus it has failed.
- arca_vorago 12y ago
  "If the Constitution did not permit the current situation, then it did not prevent it. Thus it has failed." This will be the justification used to dismantle the idea of American national sovereignty then. I see your point and am trying very hard to understand, but I always understood that the constitution was something that needed protection, hence the various oaths of office, not that the constitution was expected to simply stand on it's own structure. It was designed such that the various branches of power would cancel each other out. The bankers realized they could buy all the branches, including the fourth estate, and I think it is the people who are sworn to defend the constitution who have failed, not the constitution itself. Your outlook scares me that it may be more widespread than I previously realized.

fineIllregister 12y ago

The point of the branches is to prevent corruption. Saying “if we actually followed it” is like saying cyanide would be healthy “if it wasn't lethal.” There is no intrinsic, “proper state” of a constitutional republic. If the Constitution did not permit the current situation, then it did not prevent it. Thus it has failed.

arca_vorago 12y ago
"If the Constitution did not permit the current situation, then it did not prevent it. Thus it has failed." This will be the justification used to dismantle the idea of American national sovereignty then. I see your point and am trying very hard to understand, but I always understood that the constitution was something that needed protection, hence the various oaths of office, not that the constitution was expected to simply stand on it's own structure. It was designed such that the various branches of power would cancel each other out. The bankers realized they could buy all the branches, including the fourth estate, and I think it is the people who are sworn to defend the constitution who have failed, not the constitution itself. Your outlook scares me that it may be more widespread than I previously realized.