Plutocracy: Epigenetics, Not Just Wealth And Democide

CHOMSKY FINALLY AGREES WITH PATRICE AYME: AMERICAN DREAM DIED BECAUSE OF PLUTOCRACY… But Chomsky does not go as far as using the word. And that makes him, and his devoted followers, miss the EPIGENETICS OF EVIL. Thus they complain about the fleas, not the wolf carrying them:


America did not start as a plutocracy in the sense of an extremely wealthy class ruling. Jamestown was like that, but was it was a tiny hamlet fortress. Then England, wrecked by civil wars and revolutions, lost control of its American colonies until the 1700s. Attempts to make Lord Penn the ruler of Pennsylvania ended up in the American Revolution. Washington, Jefferson, and Al. were very wealthy and somewhat satanic, as they held slaves, but they were small fry relative to European plutocrats, who were much wealthier, and much more satanic.

And on it went. The Confederacy was to some extent a plutocratic revolt centered around the idea of buying, selling and abusing people as if they were chicken: it failed.

The first US billionaire was Carnegie. Carnegie was far left, advocating 50% tax on the wealthy, and punishing estate taxes. His widely advocated ideas brought a mood conducive to the passage of the anti-trust act under President Teddy Roosevelt. 

Inequality Fosters Plutocracy, The Rule, Not Just Of Wealth, But evil & Bad Genes

Inequality Fosters Plutocracy, The Rule, Not Just Of Wealth, But evil & Bad Genes

So when did the US democracy go bad? JP Morgan, a banker, escaped the anti-trust thrust.   Dr. Schacht, a German banker cum economist joined the Dresdner Bank in 1903. In 1905, while on a business trip to the United States with board members of the Dresdner Bank, Schacht met the famous American banker J. P. Morgan, as well as U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt. Schacht  became deputy director of the Dresdner Bank from 1908 to 1915. Meanwhile, when Wall Street collapsed in 1907, JP Morgan “bought all of it” (or at least a big part of it), bringing the market around.

By 1914, US plutocrats, and the racist president Wilson, conspired with the Kaiser, enabling the Kaiser to hope to destroy his enemy, the French Republic. That magnificent plot backfired on Germany when Great Britain declared war to the Kaiser within days of its attack on France.

But it did not backfire for the USA: the US supported the Kaiser for three years with ammunition components, etc., while the UK and France piled up debts to the USA. More exactly, US plutocrats made a fortune, while putting the UK and france in their debt.

In 1919, US plutocrats made it so that German fascists could have another go at the French Republic. Meanwhile, the US requisitioned giant amounts of German private property, then transferred that to US plutocrats, finishing the deal by burning the records of these transactions, in a highly convenient blaze. I am not joking: the cause of the burning of the Commerce Building on January 10, 1921 was never determined: rats, smoking were excluded, and electric wires kept new and perfect. The fire started in the file room, was all over in a couple of minutes, and lasted five hours.

In any case, the US became the de facto overlord of the so-called “Weimar Republic” (the official name was “Second German Reich”; Hitler changed it to “Third German Reich” in 1935). That enabled US plutocrats (some of them Jewish) to turn around the US antitrust law.

The symbiosis between Nazism and US plutocracy was total, including the latter giving birth to the former. Dr. Schacht was central in this (and that’s why he was judged and exonerated, as one of the top 24 Nazi war criminals in 1945 at Nuremberg).

To win the war, the US became, de facto, a sort of social democracy. It slowly went back to plutocracy when Nazi operators and collaborators such as the Dulles brothers, took control of the USA in the 1950s. A quick learner and follower, R. Nixon, became president in 1969, setting up the HMO system, while making an alliance with the Chinese dictatorship.

Ford, Carter, Reagan, ramped up the plutocratic pressure. The dam broke under Clinton, who actually dismantled the MOST IMPORTANT legislative piece of president Franklin D Roosevelt’s long presidency: the Banking Act of 1933 (“Glass Steagall”).

The Deep State, suitably plutocratized then established a number of evil corporations which were used as intelligence agencies (internally and externally). This is when Sheryl Sandberg was parachuted from the Treasury Department where she was the official girlfriend of Lawrence Summers (successor of R. Rubin, ex- Goldman Sachs chair) to Google and then Facebook (she will meet with Trump Wednesday).

Inequality grew.


Chomsky, A Crow On Its MIT Branch, Crowing Lugubriously:

That was for the causes. Chomsky started to condemn the “financialization” of the USA for the acceleration of inequality in 2013, under Obama (Patrice Ayme explained that it was caused by the abrogation of the Banking Act, already more than 10 years ago; Chomsky vaguely describes, Patrice explains…).

Here is Chomsky’s latest description: “The ‘American Dream’ was all about class mobility. You were born poor, but could get out of poverty through hard work and provide a better future for your children. It was possible for [some workers] to find a decent-paying job, buy a home, a car and pay for a kid’s education… It’s all collapsed — and we shouldn’t have too many illusions about when it was partially real… The so-called American Dream was always based partly in myth and partly in reality.” Chomsky said, noting that Americans are losing their hope due to “stagnating incomes, declining living standards, outrageous student debt levels, and hard-to-come-by decent-paying jobs.”

“The inequality in the contemporary period is almost unprecedented. If you look at total inequality, it ranks amongst the worse periods of American history… However, if you look at inequality more closely, you see that it comes from wealth that is in the hands of a tiny sector of the population…

The current period is extreme because inequality comes from super wealth. Literally, the top one-tenth of a percent are just super wealthy,”

Chomsky describes. One of my trusted commenters asked me recently what I thought of Chomsky. A philosopher is not just a botanist. A philosopher would explain. Chomsky also avoid to use the concept of “plutocracy”. He describes it, he describes how wealth, being powerful, grabs power.


Plutocracy, Epigenetics of Evil:

However, that comes short. Very short. Chomsky does not dare to cross the semantic Rubicon of calling it for what it is, the genetics of evil.

This is why Chomsky clings to the idea that the American Founders debated what is at stake now. Now, they did not: the Internet has changed everything, starting with the minds, the moods, hence the genes, or the genetic expressions, to be a bit more precise. We know that fishes in a changed environment, change genetically. Females can become not just males, but super males.

Plutocracy is not just the rule of wealth. We know, from studying epigenetics in other species, that animal behavior influences genetic, let alone neurohormonal expression.

The absolute power of enormous wealth does not just corrupt absolutely, it corrupts genetically.  

Complaining about the fleas is good, but seeing the wolf carrying them, better. Wisdom is not just about seeing, but doing it better.

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , , , , ,

16 Responses to “Plutocracy: Epigenetics, Not Just Wealth And Democide”

  1. John Mulhollan Says:

    where to begin? the south became republican. this party has always been racist. the politics of this party is the results justify the means. the means are to defeat the opposition. nixon, dirty tricks. and after that failure, the republicans learned the big lie works. “W” stole two presidential elections, and he was a draft dodger and a failed pilot who was a no show for the texas national guard. did i mention that his daddy was head of cia. and the “records” show that he showed up for a dental app.while in his service activity. and then comes spiro of the nattering nabobs of negativism. nixon loved him and he got a get out of jail free card? and ronald r came along and destroyed the uc university system, and that was the republican long sought and mission to destroy education. they want ignorance and the populace to be incapable of reason, a total misunderstanding of history and the literature of the english language trump is a narcissistic psychotic paranoid fruit cake, all the information is out there. too bad our people are deprived of education and are looking for the horisho alger story in their lives it does not exist and never did

  2. brodix Says:


    The mechanism is finance and the fact it is not given the degree of examination necessary to understand what are basic processes, is the real problem.

    For example the wikipedia page on the Second Bank of the US.

    Much as government is the institutionalization of the central nervous system of society and monarchy was a crucial phase in its evolution, finance is the economic circulatory system, the heart and arteries of the society and we are still in a fairly embryonic stage, sort of like the age of Louis XIV, for the formation of modern central government.

    The great economic flaw is we try to treat money as a store of value and not just as a medium of exchange, since one is static and the other is dynamic, like fat and blood.
    Consequently the power of this excessive money allows those in charge of it to function like a cyclone, siphoning all other value into their grasp. While these plutocrats might be amoral and selfish, they are still just riding an enormous wave, rather than having created it.
    Focusing on them only detracts from understanding the forces which allow them to be.
    We have to understand money is like blood. The body can only tolerate very regulate amounts, well distributed. Wealth should be stored as muscles and bone, i.e. a healthy society and environment, not as fat, i.e. a bloated financial system.
    The coming financial heart attack should not just be resolved with half measures, but a penetrating study of the entire dynamic.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      No financial system can resist a few well placed soldiers: that is a fact of history. Financial crashes mostly originates that way.

      Plutocracy, I tried to explain is a combination of the Evil Nature of Man (there is also a Loving Nature) and civilization. It does not necessitate money, just civilization.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Expressing evil, ruling with evil, is self-reinforcing. Why? because it enables cutting down the population, crashing it. Therefrom the deepest understanding…

  3. brodix Says:


    The most elemental dynamic in nature is the wave. No matter how complex the medium it is passing through. The alternative is a flat line. Biology has us all dying individually, so then it’s lots of smaller crests and troughs. We can’t push the population to infinity and we don’t want anyone with the power to decide how many should live, so fluctuations in the population are inevitable.

    The point about money is that it is accounting for reciprocity in large numbers, where in small numbers, we know each other well enough for reciprocity to be organic. Because we treat it as a commodity to be collected and not a circulation system to connect society, it allows those controlling it to rule society. It is not that complicated, but it will take a paradigm switch.
    We need to tame it and not let it be a god, but be a tool and then we will have a less atomistic society, where everyone’s economic umbilical cord is their bank account, rather than knowing and trusting others.

  4. SDM Says:

    The GOP drifted south with a racist message that identified with the anti-Civil Rights and racial sentiments of the southern whites and this played well in Appalachia extending far into the north among the white working and middle classes. And the south was solidly Democratic before the southern strategy of Nixon etc.
    The south has a long history of being plutocratic. Its policies have survived the Civil War and since have migrated north and west. The wealthy landowners /slave owners used race to keep the lower classes in place. At least the poor whites could feel they were better than a black slave. The south has always been anti-labor, ant-union, anti- social safety net. Madison addressed it as the desire of protecting the opulent minority from the majority,
    This mood/mentality suits well the plutocratic wealthy. They have been able to play this in pitting working class and middle class whites against other ethnic groups. Resentment against “the other” getting a chance or opportunity ahead of them (affirmative action, etc.)is a bone in the throat of many. Chomsky has identified this in some of his essays. No doubt that both parties have participated in fostering plutocracy, just a difference in style perhaps. Even FDR’s New Deal basically ignored blacks.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes.However, globalocracy has enabled plutocracy to progress under the cover of openess. This is a new psychological manipulation. And Chomsky has failed to detect it. Just as he has felt to detect the instrumentalization of Islam as a war machine against civilization. Instead he behaves as if we needed a liberation from civilization (in the sardonic line that ‘civilization must be defended’ is a moral flaw…).

      • SDM Says:

        Is not the plutocracy affecting the 99.9% just as much if not more than the .1%? The situation gives indications that the rest of the population has changed in a way that perpetuates the situation – a sort of skewed consciousness that is willing to accept the onslaught. The lack of any strong unified resistance is troubling. Perhaps the disinformation is too much to process correctly?

        • Gmax Says:

          That’s clear. It’ the main beef of Patrice against Krugman. For example against QUANTITATIVE EASING

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          The disinformation is massive inside universities and at the economist Nobel level. And that is a huge problem. I also disappeared from several search engines such as Yahoo and Bing. That’s deliberate (I used to be there for a decade)

  5. John Rogers Says:

    The anthropologist Gregory Bateson had an interesting observation. He said there is a Golden Mean between a scarcity and an excess of anything. For instance, if you have too little water, you die of thirst; too much and you drown. And similar results for food, oxygen, heat, etc.

    The one thing, he said, that people think this doesn’t apply to is money. Sure, no money and you die in poverty. But nobody seems to think too much money is toxic. He thought it was.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The famous biologist Claude Bernard got the idea of a perfectly balanced inner medium started around 1850…

      Milieu intérieur is the key process with which Bernard is associated. He wrote, “The stability of the internal environment [the milieu intérieur] is the condition for the free and independent life.”[8] This is the underlying principle of what would later be called homeostasis, a term coined by Walter Bradford Cannon. He also explained that:

      The living body, though it has need of the surrounding environment, is nevertheless relatively independent of it. This independence which the organism has of its external environment, derives from the fact that in the living being, the tissues are in fact withdrawn from direct external influences and are protected by a veritable internal environment which is constituted, in particular, by the fluids circulating in the body.[citation needed]
      The constancy of the internal environment is the condition for free and independent life: the mechanism that makes it possible is that which assured the maintenance, within the internal environment, of all the conditions necessary for the life of the elements.[9]
      The constancy of the environment presupposes a perfection of the organism such that external variations are at every instant compensated and brought into balance. In consequence, far from being indifferent to the external world, the higher animal is on the contrary in a close and wise relation with it, so that its equilibrium results from a continuous and delicate compensation established as if the most sensitive of balances.[9]

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: