Anyone remember when we used to have a representative republic in the US?

Welcome Deep Dives Government & Politics Anyone remember when we used to have a representative republic in the US?

Viewing 6 reply threads
    • #29399

      I am not entirely certain the USA was ever a representative Republic, or a Republic at all. In my eyes, it began as a somewhat aristocratic oligarchy, and became an aristocratic oligarchical empire. I mean… it’s even a vast territory of previously sovereign states ruled by a city state. Even if we wanted to say that the USA were originally a federated Republic, that most certainly changed during the Civil War. The USA emerged from the Civil War as a centralized state in which only an elite minority can take power. Then under McKinley, you can no longer argue that the USA is not an empire. The slaughter of the Philippine people, the conquering of several Caribbean states and their subsequent annexation all point to the imperial nature of US foreign policy. Then, with the Cold War, the military industrial complex was solidified and the USA completely left the gold standard ensuring that popular will no longer mattered at all. If people get too out of line, just kill them (Waco, Kent State, etc).

      Personally, I believe that any democratic system will result in a large and fascist government. I do not believe that any other outcome is possible. When politicians must be elected, they must also be funded. That funding will come from corporations looking for spoils, and the politicians will be purchased. The rise of MIC was an inevitability IMO, because the government was purchasing weaponry. The people who make that weaponry would absolutely look to purchase politicians to ensure that their gravy train never ever stopped.

    • #29407

      John Jasper

      *loud applause*

      That was a great answer.

      Let me add this:

      The whole point of the Constitution was to leverage the power of the independent States into a superstate in the hands of an elite. Of course, they couldn’t sell it on that basis but soon showed their hand once safely ensconced in power and over time, they gradually ratcheted up the tyranny using every trick in the book.

      The EU are using similar tactics to create the European superstate – it’s just a trade agreement but now we need an EU army!

      And even though we ignore UN resolutions that go against Israel’s apartheid regime, everyone’s jumping to implement UN agendas 21 and 2030 that will make us subjects of a globalist government that none of us ever asked for except to save us from problems that they created.

    • #29434

      Monica Perez

      Buck, have you read Our Enemy the State? Sounds like you already figured it out though! I have been noticing more and more lately how blatantly they act even without consent, beginning with Obamacare and now through solar radiation management and 5G, they just cram down laws on us and laugh–literally. You might also like Hoppe, Democracy the God That Failed – I fell in love with that book because I had concluded if I couldn’t have anarcho-capitalism, democracy was NOT the next best thing–Hoppe opens with that sentiment (the title gives it away!)…chances are you’re way ahead of me though and probably need to float a few book recommendations my way!!

      “Our Enemy the State”

      “Democracy: The God That Failed”

    • #29760

      I apologize for my absence. I recently moved and now have a family and stuff.

      I have read Anatomy of the State. It was well after I had made my conclusions about the nature of Democracy, power, and the military industrial complex. Mostly, I figured that out through a brief stint in the USMC and through the brave words of General Smedley Butler in War is a Racket.

      Many of my thoughts and opinions are also informed by history. There are certain rhymes that play out in civilizations again and again and again. In no particular order: Rome, interwar Germany, Constantinople, Karakorum, Enkidu/Ur, the Delian League, and others have all shown me that civilizations follow some very set patterns… and also lead to my opinion that history mostly teaches us that no one ever learns from history.

      My biggest book recommendation is The War State by Mike Swanson

      • #29765

        Monica Perez

        Congrats on the family!!!

        I can’t believe I never heard of that book! I will order it immediately!!

        As for patterns – quigley in tragedy & hope cites Toynbee as definitive on the subject but then I discovered Oswald Spengler who comes at it from a different angle – sounds like you observed a pattern on your own – I don’t know enough history for that myself – wish I did

    • #29769

      Thank you.


      Yeah. I like Quigley and I like Toynbee, but my main disagreement is that they take too much away from the individual. They’re only looking at aggregates. Quigley also ignores a few things that I feel are very important even within his own view of history. As an example, he says that there is a definite Eastern and Western European civilization with the USA on the periphery. I would vehemently disagree.

      So, the root of the divide between “East” and “West” in Europe goes back to the late Roman Empire. The West was conquered by German tribes, and the East kept on trucking. There were some loose relationships maintained between the two halves: church, trade, etc until sometime in the 500s. We know roughly what the timeline had to be because Emporer Justinian “reconquered” the West. This was short lived because of the first wave of plague. This was the true death of Rome the way we think of it. Plague. Quigley would say that somehow magically the West created a new civilization, and the East created a new civilization, but I do not believe this to be true at all. The selfsame civilization went two different directions. In the West people who thought of themselves as Romans created France, Spain, Italy, Romania, and so on. In the East, the Roman identity was somewhat put down by the Ottomans but it took time and the Sultan did hold the title Qayser-i Rûm which was recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church which survived the conquest. Much of the legal system remained in place for some time and only slowly did things really change. Bulgaria and Russia and Hungary and many other countries in Eastern Europe were Byzantine satellites. Some in Russia claim that Moscow is the third Rome.

      So, in both cases (East and West), we have people of the same nationality going about their daily lives after a plague wiped out a very large number of the population. They form new legal bodies that go to war and conquer each other, but for most people their daily lives change little. At some point, they become different civilizations because slowly the small things change with each individuals actions day by day. The split between the East and the West? A peasant lived much the same life in Czarist Russia anywhere in Germany or Italy or Spain until the mid to late 1800s. The real split was that France and the UK were industrializing before everyone else. The USA and Bismark’s Germany followed, and Germany freaked everyone out. For my $0.02, this is when the split really happened.

      In this sense, Quigley is serving more as a propagandist for the elite. “The East and West split was always there!!! TRUST ME!!! It’s not just that your rulers are paranoid about Germany and Russia building oil pipelines through the Near East! That has nothing to do with it! They are a separate and evil OTHER!!!!”

    • #29778

      Jack of Herts

      Industrialisation happened in the UK first, followed by Germany, Belgium and France. the UK had a massive lead – In 1840, British steam engines were generating 620,000 horsepower out of a European total of 860,000. The real split between the countries of East and West Europe was created by the systems of govt, law and the systems of raising capital.

    • #29779

      So, yeah the UK had a very big head start. They began the process of mechanization in the late 1700s, while the French came along in the early-mid 1800s. The Belgians were around the same time. The USA and Germany were really getting economically powerful in the late-mid 1800s (the USA obviously falling behind with an internal struggle).

      The issue is, continental law is and was primarily legalist in nature. Most of European law was still somewhat loosely based on the Corpus Juris Civilis until the first World War. Even the governments were largely the same (excepting France) with Royal families even being mostly blood relations to one another, enough so that Czar Nicholas was referred to as “Cousin Nikki” by Queen Victoria. The systems of raising capital were all of mixed market origin with some merchantilism, some free markets, and some landed-elite origins. This extended into the Ottoman Empire, and even into some European colonies still extent at the time.

      This arrangement really only started to change as Germany began gaining more and more economic power and starting modernizing and industrializing at a rapid rate. They started making deals to get oil out of the Near East, and started threatening English dominance. As gold and coal had been the power basis of the past, oil would be the power basis of the new, and Germany had to go.

      In Germany’s deperation, they helped foment a rebellion in Russia that created the USSR. Subsequently, in the second World War, the split between East and West was more easily made, but it was still mostly propaganda based. The USSR never had the power to challenge the USA. The only even remotely close call would be total nuclear war, which even then the USA would have easily prevailed. The USA had created a semi-fascist government at home that required constant enemies to run the MIC. The divide legally and economically between the USSR, the rest of Europe, the Anglosphere, China, etc is only one of degree not of nature.

      As such, my point that Quigley, while a good historian, served as a propagandist for the elite… imho stands.

Viewing 6 reply threads

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.