Plutocracy tends to install SLAVERY FOR 99%… Or maybe it’s 98% (the percentage of non-Nobles in the European Middle Ages). Plutocracy, as a concept is much more general than considering the color of the skin, or other origins, as the primary value of an individual. Generally the interpretation of “plutocracy” is the rule of the wealthy (from associating Pluto to wealth, and kratia as power). So plutocracy is usually interpreted as a society where money can buy anything and everything… from power, to freedom, health and happiness.

Obama and others have woken up to the fact that “300 years of slavery” have left a mark in the USA. “The legacy of slavery… discrimination in almost every institution of our lives… casts a long shadow, and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on,” the president said“We’re not cured of it. And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public. That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not.”

Yes, indeed. It goes much further than that, all the way to the root of human ethology. Slavery itself has roots in the organization of English AMERICAN society. It appeared there exactly in 1619. Slavery had been unlawful in Europe, per Frankish law which was nearly a thousand year old… in 1619!

The mentality of masters and slaves is all over the USA. To this day. This is why the USA is different from Europe.

Road Not Taken: New France Failed Out Of Goodness

Road Not Taken: New France Failed Out Of Goodness

Road not taken: New France was supposed to offer civilization to the Natives. What for? said the Masters. And the Masters proceeded to exterminate all those who could not master them, including the French.

Yes, masters and slaves were all over Europe too, and a war was fought about that from April 1792 (general attack by all European plutocrats against the French Constitutional Monarchy) until June 1815 (Waterloo). Superficially the plutocrats won. But there were a number of revolutions in the Nineteenth Century, and the French Republic got re-established. In the end, anti-plutocratic principles of 1789 came to rule the United Nations after 1944.

So what is the Plutocratic Principle?

That the best way to organize society is for the haves to rule, and exploit, no holds barred, and sky is the limit.

The idea that Plutocratic Rule is best, is already found in Aristotle. Thanks to his intimacy with the world’s mightiest men, that’s how Aristotle destroyed democracy. Aristotle thought monarchy was the best organizing principle of society. He conveyed that idea authoritatively to a number of very close friends and students. Among them the Macedonians Antipater, Alexander and Craterus, who were like family.

As a result, Direct Democracy has been buried for 23 centuries, and counting.

The liberty for the haves to exploit was optimal for the quick conquest of the Americas. It’s a success story. Who can argue with success? Philosophers? Deep thought? That’s why they are not welcome, in Plutocratic quarters.

The conquest of the Americas, fundamentally, was a military operation.

The French tried to make it into something else, an ethical operation, helped with a bit of fair trade. This moral calling arose from the discovery of Canada by Jacques Cartier. The next attitude the French explorer and commander found, to his dismay, was that many American Natives were actually hostile to the invasion of their land by Frenchmen. So it was decided, and it became a tradition, to use a light touch for the colonization of North America by France: it had to be made with the approval of the Natives, in particular the Hurons.

It worked splendidly.

The Hurons got civilized, Christianized, they built farms, grew and prospered. French “Coureurs de Bois” established fair trade all over Canada and the West, to Colorado, and beyond. They fraternized with the Natives, married them, had children.

It worked splendidly, until English plutocrats showed up, the “West Country Men“.

Those investors (including the English King) had refined the Plutocratic Principle in Ireland. It involved lining up roads with human skulls, to enlighten the Natives about what resistance untailed.

Against the Plutocratic Principle, Civilization contend in vain, if it does not go to war.

The French state insisted that only individuals of the highest morality be allowed to visit Canada. And that was with a return trip in mind. Women were carefully interrogated and inspected to make sure that they would not use their charms liberally.

The English plutocrats and their agents (the Iroquois) defeated the French, and annihilated the Iroquois.

Even before this, it became clear that Native Americans and Africans made excellent robots to help conquer the land, so, propped by the Plutocratic Principle, they introduced slavery. And soon there were much more slaves in some states than white masters.

Slavery was defeated by Lincoln.

But its root has not been. It has not even been detected, let alone condemned.

The Plutocratic Principle is better at war. To win a war, an army, a country, needs to act as one large body with just one brain. This is why the Fascist Instinct is crucial to a world conquering primate such as the genus Homo: E Pluribus Unum. The Plutocratic Principle is a generalization, to society, of the Fascist Instinct.

At some point, the human tendency to over-exploit the land has to be kept in check: thus the Dark Side. In the Americas, as anywhere in the world, this involved massacring people, to keep the numbers down.

But genocide is still something else: it reduces cultural diversity.

The Interest of the Dark Side has been, ultimately, sustainability. There is goodness in the Dark Side, on the level of the genus Homo. It protects against termination of the genus.

However, nowadays, the technological powers at our disposal are so great, that one cannot give free rein to the Dark Side. Let’s suppose that American Natives had nuclear bombs instead of horse and tomahawks: trying to massacre them may have been counter-productive to the English Colony.

Similarly, all out war against the biosphere through “climate change” and acid ocean, will turn out just as good as it did for the dinosaurs.

The Dark Side, the very success of the Plutocratic Principle in the USA, are leading us to a collision course with reality. We are now at war with physics.

Thus the Plutocratic Principle has to be jettisoned now. That means that the USA should strive to be more like Europe, and less like its old exploitative self. In turn, that may teach some emerging superpowers, such as China, that the Plutocratic Principle is counterproductive.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , ,


  1. brodix Says:


    We think of reality as an organism, not an ecosystem, because we are organisms. From monotheism to the universe as a singular entity, we are trained to think of everything as one set.
    We sense that connectivity of everything, but then our minds, which function through reductionism, infer this unity as a unit. Then the vast majority of people coalesce around this premise, because to do otherwise would be schizophrenic. It is very much like that our minds are many voices talking amongst themselves, but then this sense of focus builds and all falls in line, as the many become one with the strongest expression.
    Nature though, is not one unit, but many entities and they come and go. Like tsunami waves, some grow much bigger than the rest.
    If you wish to counter them, you first have to understand that they too are both good and bad. Humanity is itself a plutocratic tidal wave across the earth, but we wouldn’t be having this discussion if it hadn’t built the current Tower of Babel.
    What for instance, is the relation between the organism and the ecosystem?
    Consider it in terms of time; The organism goes from start to finish. Birth to death. While the ecosystem points to the future, not the past, moving onto new generations, species, forms, as it sheds the old.
    Think of this in terms of a production line; The product goes from start to finish, as the process points the other way, consuming raw material and expeling finished product.
    So then what powers this plutocracy you find intolerable?
    It is that it controls the circulation system of the economy and consequently the society built on that economic foundation.
    Now the reason capitalism is supposed to be such a resilient system(and democracy as well) is because it is supposed to function as an ecosystem, in which all the competing organisms rise and fall according to their strengths and weaknesses.
    Yet the medium of money in which they operate is fundamentally designed to extract rent for the service of providing this financial liquidity.
    Now there was a time when people would enslave others to extract their economic value, but it is much more pleasant and friendly to simply have this siphon inserted into the system of circulation by which they cooperate with one another.
    The problem is that all individual entities go through a life cycle, even if they are all powerful, because if they have no natural adversaries or limits, then they cannot control and moderate their own growth. Then they start to lose that focus of the individual and the voices in their head(s) start arguing with one another. Taking sides and undermining the other voices and eventually it breaks down.
    Which is to say that nothing escapes nature. Everything reaches the end of its line.
    The problem is that there is no alternative. We are all that force rising up and being defined by that which limits us, whether it is external conflicts pushing in, or just our limited efforts against eternity and infinity.
    We just build up these bubbles of explanation and paint over the holes to make them whole. If we tried to keep a fully open mind, those voices would just wash over us and few are strong enough to silence them, so we shut out what we can and make peace with the rest.


    • brodix Says:

      Which is not to say that when the current bubble busts, there won’t be opportunities. When the big tree falls, there is much sunlight for those not crushed by it.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      We think of reality as an organism, not an ecosystem, because we are organisms.”
      It seems to me that the native Americans from First Nations pretty much agreed they were interacting with an ecosystem. Read Sitting Bull and his colleague from the American North-West were clear that way.

      “Monotheism” too is just about Abrahamism. All other religions seem polytheist. The success of Abrahamism is directly imputable to its promoters, generals (Constantine, Muhammad).

      Progress, and regress, are not about the voices in the head, and being strong enough to have them wash over. Our ideal ought to be different from that of sand dwelling worms watching waves wash out.


      • brodix Says:


        The problem is the absolute isn’t an ideal from which we fell and seek to return. It’s the elemental state from which we rise and to which we fall.
        It would be nice to have humanity living in harmony with the nature of the rest of the planet, but how do you get there, if not by fully understanding all the processes at work and how to sustain equilibrium.
        An interesting article on criticality.


      • pshakkottai Says:

        Hi Patrice, I agree with you. Hinduism, in its original form, is free from polytheism, idol worship and fallacy., in its original form, is free from polytheism, idol worship and fallacy., in its original form, is free from polytheism, idol worship and fallacy,” a quote from a blogger I saw somewhere.

        This assumes polytheism,idol worship and fallacy are inferior to monotheism and vacuum worship. I can claim superiority to polytheism and idol worship.Ancient Greeks,Romans and Indians had ZERO Religious-wars. A very big advantage! I do not understand what belief fallacy represents. Let it pass. Hinduism has lots of gods and even more goddesses, each in charge of different aspects of the divine.Why is it wrong? What is wrong with worshipping the goddess of liberty which stands for the concept of liberty? Or, the goddess of time as Kali,dark and young, always in the present, both future and past being dark?

        The pair Saraswathi and Brahma, represents art and science and creation. The pair Shiva and Parvathi represent destruction (cell death) and life (Energy) .
        Vishnu the protector and Lakshmi the goddess of prosperity represents a modern state, kingship and economy in the old days after the invention of agriculture.

        In my opinion, idol worship is highly civilized and collective worship to be a jealous sky god remotely far from humanity who demands unreasonable loyalty and cruelty to those who don’t believe in him, absurd.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Partha: This deserves a lengthy, and approving reply. The connection between the metaphysics of the fascist king-god, and the mess we are in, are not pointed out enough.
          I will try to write a comment amplifying this, and graft me on my latest blast against banksters… Both subjects being related…


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: