Swastikas and Germany in the modern day...

[Skybird]

"A constitution like no other on earth"? And you wonder why I think that talking like this sounds supremacist a bit? You certainly did not mean to express that it is that bad, did you?

Have you ever cared to check whether it really is so unique - by comparing it to others? The German Basic Law, first 20 articles, for example? I did. And I disagree with the claim that the US constitution is so unique. The German one for example pretty much says the same things, and guarantees the same basic rights and freedoms. Or take the many French constitutions they have had, more than a dozen in two hundred years, they had more constitutions than there have been French republics, and currently they count it the Fifth Republic. But from late 18th century on, they also had the separate declaration of human and civil rights, which effectively guarantee pretty much the same as the German and American basic rights and freedoms. It has preceded several of those constitutions, and also precedes the current one, means: it is as binding as the constitution itself.

But by the end of the day, the abuse and exploitation, the bypassing and erosion of these basic rights is the same everywhere in the western world, in France and Germany and remaining Europe as well. America in no way is an exception there. I would claim that it also is inevitable in a democracy, for it carries the seed of its own destruciton within itself. the reason is power accumulation, democracy fostering and turning into socialism unavoidably, the forming of elites who monopolise their political and economic power, the destruction of money, and the pinciple of voter bribery that dominates democracy from all beginning on and turns everybody participating in it into a complice in crime. One of the early US presidents said that once people find out that they can vote their money, it will be the beginning of the end of the republic. The present proves his words to be visionary. Some days ago, the US High Court has ruled that money can buy political influence without limits, and not allowing that would be a violation of the first amendment. Well. The court certainly used another wording than I do. I only translate the obvious from Tryingtohideit into plain English.

I also want to remind of that in the founding era of America, the concepts debated amongst the intellectual elites on the Eastern coast, not really were originally American, but all based on and led further concepts forethought by French thinkers. It's often claimed that America were the cradle of democracy, well, not only have a I problem with democracy itself, but also with the historical truth of that claim. The US owes more to French thinking, than the other way around. For that reason, the spiritus rector of the project that led to the creation of the statue of liberty insisted already in the late 19th century, before the building began, that any memorial celebrating the American independence should be a joint project of the French and the American people.

Anyway, in the end, it all is just sheets of paper. What people do or not do, what the decide or not decide, what they chose or not chose, and what they accept responsibility for and what not, determines how events unfold and what path history follows. Paper does not blush, or as we say in German: paper is endlessly patient.

So are internet forums.