“Democracy, n.: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, [chaos].”

This document is a fraud and a hoax.

It is copied from Training Manual No. 2000-25 that was published by the then War Department, Washington, D.C., November 30, 1928. 'Democracy', is the biggest lie ever fed to the American people.

Or some over worked, un-supervised, un-educated officer in 1928 wasn’t paying attention to what he was writing or signing off on. But interesting.

Don't see much indication of it being a hoax. http://books.google.com/books...

When the government fears the People, that is Liberty. When the People fear the Government, that is tyranny. ~Thomas Jefferson Knowledge is power. Know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. The people have been conditioned for so long, they no longer question the motives of those elected to office or the powers that be.

Our current Democratic candidate i quote" We need to share the wealth" If thats not socialism what is. Pay attention America!

I haven't stopped smiling for nearly 10 minutes; if this doesn't show how language, thought, and philosophy have changed/evolved/digressed in less than a century, I don't know what else can. I'm sure Waffy-boy will have some inane comment concerning the non-validity of the comment; regardless, truth is truth -- and this is yet another notch against the ignorant philosophy of "Democracy". I will say it again, just for my buddy Waffy-boy, "We are a Republic, not a Democracy". READ YOUR HISTORY!

- A government of the masses. / The de jure U.S. was once a government of the individuals united - no longer. - Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. / The de jure U.S. was once a government that derived its authority from the individual sovereign in accordance with the God of Nature and Nature's laws - no longer. - Results in mobocracy. / The de jure U.S. was once a representative of the individual, eliminating mobocracy - no longer. - Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights. / The de jure US once recognized alodial freehold with perfect property rights. - Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. / The de jure US was once based on the premise of law with all legislature, judgments, and executions being in harmony therewith, negating government by deliberation, passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. - Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, [chaos]. The de jure U.S. was once a Republic that was the antitheses of a Democracy.

Joe, Los Angeles, said it well, thanks. The Jefferson quote he refers to is exactly right. The army manual quote is the best definition of democracy that I've seen.

If only the founders could see us now...

.. Which is why America is a REPUBLIC (democracy based on PRINCIPLES that GUIDE the masses).

There are no "principles" in a "Democracy" -- only the majority's choice of what will be. Majority rule, absolutely, with no exceptions -- this is Democracy. Whatever the majority decided to do at any one time, that is the only stipulation of legitimacy in a Democracy. While the majority can be "guided", this is not freedom; "guided" majorities end in groupthink, irrational individual choice (cultural choice theory), and loss of individual liberty. The supposition and education of good government must rest within the individual; groups cannot "reason", only individuals can (after all, there is really no such thing as a "group" without a culmination of individuals).

well yeah.......America was created as a "free republic" with a representative style government....not a democracy. However, decades of education established by hardcore socialists and communists in this country have been moving us to believe something false.

This truly points out the distinct difference between a Republic and a Democracy. This country was founded on the principles of the individual, not the narcissism of the masses - something today's society has forgotten and the schools are not allowed to teach. If Jim in Olympia would go back, read and study the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, he would not have make such a knee jerk comment. Then again, maybe he is one of the Hussein Oblind masses that wants to "spread the wealth around". No Jim, you cannot have what is mine that I worked hard to get by my own efforts.

As a younger man, more interested in cars and girls, and tired of books, I distinctly remember being at the old Navy Arms store in Ridgefield New Jersey, (now New Hersey), and picking up an old copy of the US Training Manual from among other dusty books in a battered cardboard box, thumbing through it and coming to the passage quoted here. Many times in ensuing years I had wished I had plunked down the few bucks for the price of that copy so as to reference that passage. IT IS NO HOAX as much as knee jerk responders, ( and with the 'knee' reference I'm being kind), like Jim in Olympia want it to be. God bless the internet, this site, The U.S. Army and the United States.

"I will now give the definition of the United States government for democracy, until it was changed back in the early thirties. The official definition was, and I quote the US Army Manual, 1928, quote, "Democracy: The worst form of government possible. Always leading to autocracy, tyranny, and slavery." In fact the Greeks had a name for the leader of a democracy. The name of a leader of a democracy, the proper name, is a tyrant. They first observed democracy in a place called Tyre. And they looked and saw the guy looked just like L.B.J. and they said, "He's a tyrant!" Tyranny is a synonym for democracy. The word has [the] exact same meaning. Democracy is the lynch mob in operation. Democracy says, "Whatever the majority wants it can have, ... whether it be moral or immoral. All you have to do is get the majority to support it and it's ok. Anything's ok if the majority supports you. If the majority wants to kill, killing's fine. If the majority wants to steal, stealing's fine. After all, the majority should rule!" Rule who? Oh, rule the minority. Obviously. Somebody's got to be ruled!" -- Dr. Stuart Crane
The above is a quote from Dr. Stuart Crane, an economist. This excerpt is a transcript of a small portion of his lecture, "Proofs of a Conspiracy", given in Southern California 1969. In researching this quote from the US Army Manual, 1928, I stumbled across Liberty Tree's web site and this thread of comments. I figured some of the readers may appreciate Dr. Crane's perspective. I am still searching for his source for his quote of the US Army Manual 1928. I presume it exists, and is accurate, since he was rather thorough in his fact gathering in many other instances from his several lectures.

The United States Constitution, Article 4 section 4 states: "The United States shall guarantee every state of the union a Republican form of governemnt". End of discussion. Democracy is 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on what to have for dinner. In a republic, the sheep and wolves first write a law that states that wolves will not be shot or trapped and sheep will not be eaten. Then they sit down and vote on what to have for dinner. Rule of law is supreme over the will of the majority. Minorities are protected from an abusive majority. All parties are equal under the law. That is the safeguard of a Republic over a Democracy.

this is ONLY THE FIRST OF TWO PARTS in the manual, people. the other half describes REPUBLIC. the point this manual was making is that there is a vast difference between the two. in 1928, when this was written, the ISS (formed in 1905) has been muddling the term. it became a euphemism for 'socialism.' the term democracy has no meaning. you must have the speaker DEFINE what he means by it, which is what this army manual was doing. now, go look up the next section of the manual, which is what AMERICA stands for. don't be ignorant. and read YOUR CONSTITUTION!!!

I think Jim is either ignorant or a liar. This is the truth. Google books has " Social attitudes of American generals, 1898-1940 By Richard Carl Brown " Which quotes the manuals. I think some old ROTC manuals have similar info. We've just been lied to for so long, folks don't know what to believe, so they just watch teevee, the worst option of all....

I am glad someone is getting the truth about democracy out.

The home grown communists in our government have had an agenda for at least the past 100+ years. That agenda was and still is to change the history of America, so that we Americans can become slaves to the New world order. I suggest you Google Norman Dodd and watch his video on Tax exempt foundations circa 1953. . .

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic ....... Any questions?

This document is a fraud and a hoax. -- Jim, Olympia You're a fraud and a hoax.

Orwell was correct. Jim you're a "prol." Another earth-shaker for you guys (if you don't already know) is the early Webster's dictionaries definition of "allodial title." This thread bears its beginning in 1928. Try a look at how things have changed since our country's birth, AND brith-right of ownership of the land on which you reside today. I know it shook my belief structure.

Furthermore, back when men-were-men, we had a WAR DEPARTMENT. WHY? 'Cause we're 'Mericans. But NOOOooo, not today. Today we have the Department OF Defence, not "at defence," not "in defence," not anything meaning actually doing something, but "of"-as in somewhere in the vacinity, ... but not quite. It used to be known as the Defence Department. At least they were willing to say that they would do something, if not attack. Oh, what's the use. Calgon-up!

Ooops, just read through and it looks like Mike from Norwalk beat me to the "alodial" punch. Kudos to you Mike.

This manual and reference to democracy is quoted in America in Midpassage vol II Charles and Mary Beard 1939 pg 568-569 p 2. This two vol set also gives a take on history that isn't being taught. Although they don't seem to lay blame on the Federal Reserve system, the banks are taken to task for their conduct with the munitions industry and other profit making business such as war.

Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I' ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.

The salient question is WHO wrote the 1928 Army Manual which is cited in this thread? The "definition" of democracy and republic used in this Manual was NOT an official determination made by our military. Instead, it apparently is a reprint of a section from something written by an obscure Chicago lawyer named Harry F. Atwood. It appears that the Manual is actually something written for citizenship training classes---although the Army connection to such subject matter is not readily apparent. The "1928 Manual" is the ONLY time such a definition was printed.

Additional information regarding the "1928 Manual": (1) Why would any American claim that our military is the final arbiter of "correct" definitions of political terminology? Since when have we adopted THAT attitude in our country? (2) The definitions used in that Manual were NOT authored by any military official. Instead, they were reprinted from a publication written by Harry F. Atwood. The Army Manual contains the following comment at the front: "This manual supersedes `Manual of Citizenship Training'. The use of the publication `The Constitution of the States' by Harry F. Atwood is by permission and courtesy of the author." (3) So, who was Harry F. Atwood? Why did the Army use quotations from his book? Did the Army use any other material? Why did the Army publish "Citizenship Training" materials? Here is what I have discovered thus far: Harry Atwood [1870-1930] was apparently a Chicago lawyer (based upon a comment I saw in a 1929 scholarly journal review of one his books). Atwood was opposed to "democracy" in its most pure form and he spoke out against all of the following: initiative, referendum, recall elections, direct primary, and the 18th Amendment to the Constitution (i.e. prohibition of sale, manufacture or distribution of intoxicating liquors). However, Atwood wrote something pertinent which everyone should ponder: One of Atwood's comments was: "Democracy is the `direct' rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success." So, Atwood made the very same distinction that was used by our Founding Fathers. Their concern regarding "democracy" was in respect to "direct rule" --- as opposed to representative or constitutional democracy in which the governed elect their representatives. Seen in this context, Atwood's opposition to referendum, recall elections, initiatives, and direct primaries also make more sense---because as a matter of principle, Atwood opposed "direct rule". He preferred the moderating influence of the slower and more cumbersome indirect rule via representatives elected by voters. Atwood wrote several books and pamphlets. However, I could find no listing at any U.S. library for the Atwood publication cited in the Army Manual by the title, "The Constitution of the States".. However, in 1927, Atwood's book entitled "The Constitution Explained" was published. It is possible that the Army Manual reference is a chapter title from that book. How and why did the Army select Atwood's writing for inclusion in its Citizenship Training materials? There is no evidence available at this time to answer that question. But let us ponder the obvious: The definitions of Democracy and Republic cited in the Army Manual are not official determinations made by the United States Army OR by any other military branch OR any branch of our government. Instead, they are simply the personal opinions of an obscure Chicago lawyer. In June 1952, the Army published "The Soldiers Guide, Department of the Army Field Manual", which contained the following: "Meaning of democracy: Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our government will be organized and run - and that includes the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the wishes of the people." So, if we are supposed to uncritically believe and accept as authoritative every definition or discussion published in an Army Manual then why not use the 1952 edition cited above? One last point: In the context of 1789, 'democracy' was often used as a term to distinguish between government run by monarchs (the norm) versus through popular election. Words can be defined so narrowly or so broadly that they lose all practical meaning. What did the word "citizen" mean in 1789? What did the word "voter" mean in 1789? What did the word "justice" mean in 1789? What did the word "freedom" mean in 1789? The gold-standard for definitions of words in the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary. OED provides the following definitions of democracy. It shows the earliest English usage of the word commencing in 1531. DEMOCRACY "1. Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In modern use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege." "2. That class of the people which has no hereditary or special rank or privilege; the common people (in reference to their political power)." Political extremists such as the Birch Society claim that our Founding Fathers distrusted and detested democracy but Thomas Jefferson and James Madison named the political party they founded the "Democratic-Republican Party". Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to I.H. Tiffany in 1816, which certainly contradicts the understanding Birchers et al regarding ancient Greek "democracy" versus what our Founding Fathers thought. With respect to the Greeks, Jefferson wrote: "They had just ideas of the value of personal liberty, but none at all of the structure of government best calculated to preserve it. They knew no medium between a democracy (the only pure republic), and an abandonment of themselves to an aristocracy or a tyranny independent of the people." Birchers like Robert Welch make much of the difference between a democracy and a republic but Thomas Jefferson (as shown above) used the terms interchangeably. To Kercheval in 1816, Jefferson wrote: "I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom." Hmmm---sounds like Jefferson harbored some animosity toward persons of wealth and how they might use their wealth for their own selfish interests instead of the commonweal. Does that mean Jefferson was a "socialist" in the Birch Society scheme of things? Birchers et al vehemently proclaim their belief in our "Constitutional Republic" form of government. The Ku Klux Klan also proclaims it devotion to our basic Constitutional principles. For example, see the text of the recruitment flyer most frequently used by the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan of Mississippi -- the most violent Klan in our nation's history. Among the reasons it gives for joining the White Knights are: "#8: Because it is a pro-American organization that opposes any thing, person, or organization that is un-American. #9: Because it is an organization that is sworn to uphold the lawful Constitution of the United States of America." The flyer also proclaims the KKK's devotion to: "Our governmental system is a Constitutional Republic, primarily designed to protect the Responsible Individual Citizens from all tyranny..." Obviously, GENERALIZATIONS are worthless. As discussed above, one can vehemently proclaim one's devotion to a "Constitutional Republic" while simultaneously enslaving an entire category of human beings and/or committing acts of barbarism against one's fellow countrymen. Consequently, the FORM of government should NOT be the primary concern. Instead, it is the UNDERLYING VALUES that require our scrutiny. Individuals and nations that genuinely subscribe to democratic values are indisputably more tolerant and more accepting of politically diverse ideas. Furthermore, they place more value upon human life and they more readily recognize the legitimacy of alternative viewpoints, as well as the need for compromise within society. Merely proclaiming one's belief in a "Republic" tells you nothing whatsoever!

This clearly shows what the evil ones have done to distort the truth in the last Century: We are NOT a Democracy! We are a Representative Republic, Which is why America is a REPUBLIC (democracy based on PRINCIPLES that GUIDE the masses). Democracy is 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on what to have for dinner. In a republic, the sheep and wolves first write a law that states that wolves will not be shot or trapped and sheep will not be eaten. Then they sit down and vote on what to have for dinner. Rule of law is supreme over the will of the majority. Minorities are protected from an abusive majority. All parties are equal under the law. That is the safeguard of a Republic over a Democracy. Quote-- Nolan, Eagar, Arizona This says it all.

The original text is available at the US Army War College, Carlisle PA. I have a complete photocopy from that source.