Ochlocracy (Greek: ὀχλοκρατία, okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is the rule of government by mob or a mass of people, or, the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning “the fickle crowd”, from which the English term “mob” originally was derived in the 1680s. Ochlocracy (“rule of the general populace”) is democracy (“rule of the people”) spoiled by demagoguery, “tyranny of the majority”, and the rule of passion over reason, just as oligarchy (“rule of a few”) is aristocracy (“rule of the best”) spoiled by corruption, and tyranny is monarchy spoiled by lack of virtue. Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term “mobocracy”, which arose in the 18th century as a colloquial neologism.
Some like to call it “mobocracy,” and the vast majority of Americans these troubling days seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is what democracy is supposed to be. Silver tounged politicians slithering their way to the top for decades have allowed this misperception to take hold, and Americans, today, are reaping the seeds of destruction they have sown. Perhaps this is why Donald Trump keeps winning. Say what you will about the man, but he knows what red blooded, flag waving Americans TRULY want to hear.
Given the sorry state of affairs the American population is in today, it may shock many to learn the United States is NOT a democracy at all. Article 4, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution clearly states the United States “shall have a republican form of government.” The American form of government, as required by the Constitution, is a democratic republic, not a democracy, despite what TV and Facebook may have been instructing the populace to believe. Americans are to elect leaders to represent them, yet what foreign communist usurpers have manged to entice them to do over the years, is castrate true leaders and replace them with spineless butt kissers.
The Founding Fathers warned, from the very beginning, that pure democracy is one of the worst, if not THE worst forms of government that can possibly exist. Pure democracy is simply the rule of the majority- ocholocracy. A constitutional republic is based on the rule of law, which protects both majority rule and minority rights.
“Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.”
The term “democracy” does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, or in any State constitution. The Constitution itself was derived from a collection of essays by some of the Founding Fathers called the Federalist Papers. Democracy is rarely mentioned in these essays, however there are a few places in the Federalist Papers where democracy is discussed– and not favorably:
On democracy, from Federalist Paper #10:
“… 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.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended….”
Spectacles of turbulence and contention… Is this not how the world views America today? Is this not the fuel behind ‘Jihadism’ itself? As Americans display and promote their lifestyles across the internet- as television broadcasts to all the world to see exactly how life is here, and how the people act here- can America really expect anything but hostility from foreign nations? Can a nation which chooses to elect the most obnoxious individual possible as president be respected in the international arena? Perhaps… but only if God be with us…
On democracy, from Federalist Paper #14:
“… The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.
To this accidental source of the error may be added the artifice of some celebrated authors, whose writings have had a great share in forming the modern standard of political opinions. Being subjects either of an absolute or limited monarchy, they have endeavored to heighten the advantages, or palliate the evils of those forms, by placing in comparison the vices and defects of the republican, and by citing as specimens of the latter the turbulent democracies of ancient Greece and modern Italy. Under the confusion of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic observations applicable to a democracy only; and among others, the observation that it can never be established but among a small number of people, living within a small compass of territory….”
Pure democracy only works in small groups. To take it a step further, I would venture to say that communism only works in small groups as well, such as a household. A family can be communist, as long as there is a strong mother figure and a strong father figure to manage the household. As such, it is not TRULY communism. It only appears to be so as long as the mother and father choose to forgive their children for their shortcomings.
The American government, therefore, was patterned after the dynamics of a family. The executive branch intended to represent a father figure, the legislative branch intended to represent the mother figure, and the Judicial branch to represent ‘God’ in the form of a balance between justice and mercy.
On democracy, from Federalist Paper #48:
“… In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter. But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions….”
Today, America allows the ‘court of public opinion’ to dominate the playing field. The wisdom of the ages has been swept aside. The chain of command has been desecrated. Pure liberalism and pure democracy have been allowed to take hold through the medium of the Internet. All precaution is being exhausted, and all jealousies are indulged. This was, of course, the plan all along.
Nothing makes the destroyers of America happier than to hear individuals on both sides of the political spectrum refer to its government as a democracy. Better still is hearing that the so called ‘New World Order’ is activly spreading democracy world wide. One only needs to examine the actions of persons such as former pot smoker George Soros to see what the actual agenda is.
What we know of as the Democratic Party was originally founded in 1828, tracing its roots back to the Democratic-Republican Party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. According to WikiPedia: “The term Democratic-Republican Party is the name primarily used by political scientists for the Republican Party or the Jeffersonian Republicans.” The first U.S. president who successfully ran as a Democrat was Andrew Jackson, who served from 1829 to 1837. The modern Democratic Party was formed in the 1930′s from factions of the Democratic-Republican Party, perhaps in an attempt to disassociate itself from its strong roots in the Ku Klux Klan. Or perhaps to conceal the party’s true intent.
The term democracy became commonly used during the Woodrow Wilson Administration, whose famous slogan “making the world safe for democracy” has since become a battlecry for the American legion. Wilson served two terms from 1913 to 1921. It was around this time that democracy was heavily sold as being synonymous with republicanism and representative government … it has been sold as such ever since.
One constitution where “democracy” appears numerous times is the Soviet Constitution of 1977. Additionally, the term democracy is commonplace in the writings of countless Marxist writers—such as Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Josef Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Antonio Gramsci, and many others. Marxian socialists make a distinction between what they call bourgeois democracy versus proletarian democracy, i.e. social democracy. But “democracy is indispensable for socialism,” as Max Shachtman wrote in 1943 in a piece entitled “Trotsky on Democracy and Fascism.” It is within the Russian society that pure socialism has been allowed to run rampant, and the stong male figure of Vladimir Putin has been able to thrive in its correction.
Communism is brought about in stages, and it all starts with promoting pure democracy. Vladimir Lenin once said, “The goal of socialism is communism.” But, as Ivor Thomas wrote in The Socialist Tragedy, there really is very little difference between socialism and communism in practice, despite some of the objections by modern-day Marxist theoreticians to Thomas’ conclusion regarding the ultimate failure of socialism-communism. Pure democracy is a form of collectivism—it readily sacrifices individual rights to majority wishes. In such a state, it is only a matter of time before a revolution will take hold and the dominant alpha male figure will prevail (such as Donald Trump).
At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Dr. Benjamin Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation by a woman who asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” Dr. Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.