“We are like chameleons, we take our hue and the color of our moral character, from those who are around us.” – John Locke.
John Locke, an investor in slavery as a business, surrounded by most evil racist plutocrats, would know about being a chameleon, morally speaking. Unfortunately, Locke is still viewed as having pretty colors. Meaning his deplorable mentality is still viewed as a worthy example [1].
In The Two Treatises of Government, Locke argued against absolute monarchy. The arguments for absolute monarchy and colonial slavery are similar. In arguing against the one, Locke argued against the other. Locke owned stock in slave trading companies and was secretary of the Lords Proprietors of the Carolinas, where slavery was constitutional.
So what is Locke teaching, overall? The meta message is that greed is everything, and hypocrisy is its prophet. It does matter what you say, insists Locke, as long as it hides what you do.
Resemble and mimic your environment, says Locke. Become a plutocrat (as he was) if the environment is plutocratic. So be a Nazi with the Nazis, Stalinist within the USSR, assassin, with the assassins, slave master, among slave masters…
Construction have been made to argue that Locke operated against slavery in extraordinary subtle and Machiavellian way, acting one way, to have the exact opposite effect. So he opposed the Stuart kings, fled to France “for his health” four years. Locke was party to what happened after the so-called “Glorious Revolution”. The English crown had determined that slavery was the source of imperial wealth. Locke’s advocates claim he did well, through his influence on some governor in Virginia, who discontinued the gift of 50 acres for each slave brought in (!). However the end result was that, in 1702, Queen Anne, daughter of James II, reversed that. Her glorious achievement was obtaining a grant to supply the Spanish empire with all its slaves for the next 30 years. The Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 granted Britain an Asiento de Negros (“agreement of blacks”) lasting 30 years to supply the Spanish colonies with 4,800 slaves per year. Britain was permitted to open offices in Buenos Aires, Caracas, Cartagena, Havana, Panama, Portobello and Vera Cruz to arrange the Atlantic slave trade. That contract, that asiento, made Britain the main importer of slaves to the New World by 1750.
***
Some will sneer that I am perverse, pernicious and exaggerated, in my pursuit of the depraved origins of the deplorable Anglosphere mentality… However, Locke’s being all things to all people regarding slavery, while fostering it in action, itself reflects a coherence with greed. Indeed Locke wrote:
“Government has no other end, but the preservation of property.“
Emperor Trajan, let alone Julius Caesar of the Gracchi, would have found this statement completely grotesque. Them, and a bevy of Roman statesmen. King Solomon, Cleopatra, or Charlemagne would have found Locke grotesquely small minded.
And indeed, Locke was a devoted Christian:
“The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter. It is all pure.“
Compare such childish naivety with the Fabliaux… written 600 years prior.
***
AFFABULATE WITH THE FABLIAUX, INSTEAD OF LOCKING MINDS WITH LOCKE:
Written between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries, the Fabliaux are erotic, satiric, cynical, upper class hating, and all observant poems at the root of the Western critical thinking. The Fabliaux start by explicitly evoking the possibility that all of Christianism, scripture itself, is… a deliberate lie (“Si scripture ne nous ment“). That, in 1100 CE…
The Fabliaux depicts priapic priests, randy wives, and cuckolded husbands in tales that would be shocking to Americans, to this day, should they read them…
The Fabliaux should be mandatory reading at some point in high school or college, because our civilization was born that way. Our civilization was not born from a traitor like Locke, ordering slavery on the basis of race… more than a millennium after the Franks outlawed the trading of slaves (that’s why there had been no more slaves in England since 1066 CE, when the Franks conquered England…)
“Du Prestre crucifié“ tells of a priest who, surprised by the suddenly home coming husband, disguises himself, in a back room, into Jesus on his crucifix, to avoid detection. The husband, suspicious of a relation between his wife and a priest, is out to avenge himself on anything reminding him of Christianism, and here is this magnificent, life size crucifix! So he emasculates the figure of Christ, the living priest mimicking his “Lord”, in taking it all as it comes for the greater glory of God. In all ways the priest is cut down to size.
This is how civilization was invented, not in the feeble bleating of the despicable Locke and his slave master friends, obsessed as they were by government as the enforcer of property.
***
So let’s be even more explicit in answering my own question.
In plutocracy, lying is at the core of mentality. Being Frank is the exact opposite [2].
Locke is taught not to elevate, but to lower. Lower expectations of what decent human behavior consists of. Being a reptile, says Locke and his followers, is best. Obsess about property: that’s what the government is for.
Most of my comments on the English American history of abuse, were blocked by the NYT, or delayed into oblivion, or then authorized, late… and then removed. The NYT pretends it blocks only comments lacking civility. Like Locke, its master thinker, the NYT lies: it reads comments, sentence by sentence, to see if they are compatible with what it, and its masters, want their readership to read. If not, the comment is delayed, or blocked all together. Just in 2021, I had hundreds of comments blocked.
This may sound very strange: is not the New York Times an advocate of CRT, Critical Race Theory? Well, yes, but THEIR weakened form of Critical Theory. Not my much more robust original.
Now this doesn’t mean that Locke never wrote anything valuable. Like Bob Dylan grabbing work from the obscure poet Beddoes, and common loquacious parrots, Locke said plenty of valuable things that he did not personally forge. However what counts is what he said was most significant, or what he did which was most significant, especially when concocted in an original fashion.
The method of faking one thing, or position, or behavior, so as to implement the opposite, thanks to devious logic, is the essence of Machiavellianism… not just that ends justify the means… Locke exemplifies this. A student of the method was Adolf Hitler: he campaigned extensively, election after election, for… defending minorities. Yes, extravagantly enough. Yes Hitler also campaigned against the Jews… and against “plutocrats” (often assimilated to Jews in his discourses… but not in his way of thinking). In the end, Hitler did mostly one thing: get all too many people killed and hurt (including Germans), for no good reason whatsoever. Same with Locke, with slavery: the overall effect, was to augment it.
Despising a slave master dissembler like Lock is not just a choice, a matter of taste. It is a moral duty… If one wants a world society which learns to reject the lies of the past, and mentalities comfortable with the lie industry.
Patrice Ayme
***
[1] Locke authored The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina (1669), which imposed hereditary nobility and slavery: ‘Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves …’ Second, they show that Locke owned stock in the Royal African Company, which ran the African slave trade for England.
Here are some samples of the establishment of this enslaving and genocidal plutocratic constitution:
“…establishing the interest of the lords proprietors with equality and without confusion; and that the government of this province may be made most agreeable to the monarchy under which we live and of which this province is a part; and that we may avoid erecting a numerous democracy, we, the lords and proprietors of the province aforesaid, have agreed to this following form of government, to be perpetually established amongst us, unto which we do oblige ourselves, our heirs and successors, In the most binding ways that can be devised.
No man shall be chosen a member of parliament who has less than five hundred acres of freehold within the precinct for which he is chosen; nor shall any have a vote in choosing the said member that hath less than fifty acres of freehold within the said precinct…. No man shall be register of a colony that hath not above fifty acres of freehold within the said colony…. No man shall be permitted to be a freeman of Carolina, or to have any estate or habitation within it, that doth not acknowledge a God, and that God is publicly and solemnly to be worshipped… No person above seventeen years of age shall have any benefit or protection of the law, or be capable of any place of profit or honor, who is not a member of some church or profession, having his name recorded in some one, and but one religious record at once….No man shall use any reproachful, reviling, or abusive language against any religion of any church or profession; that being the certain way of disturbing the peace, and of hindering the conversion of any to the truth, by them in quarrels and animosities, to the hatred of the professors and that profession… Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves, of what opinion or religion whatsoever…. No person whatever shall hold or claim any land in Carolina by purchase or gift, or otherwise, from the natives, or any other whatsoever, but merely from and under the lords proprietors, upon pain of forfeiture of all his estate, movable or immovable, and perpetual banishment.”
***
[2] Consider the spat about the ten year old submarine contract and alliance between France and Australia: the Anglosphere led by the malevolent Biden/US Deep State, have been lying through their media and other propaganda organs: French tech is inferior, France has no business in the Indo-Pacific region, etc. ; comments contradicting these were banned by the New York Times. They never see a lie that is too big… Even accusing France of collusion with… China and deserving her punishment…
Now I claim all of this friendliness to dissemblance, lying, scheming sophistry, lack of authenticity, and obsession with possession, can be attributed in part to the attitude of Anglospherical academia considering Locke to be an originator of “democracy” and the “liberal state”. In truth, Locke just gave a veneer of respectability to slavery, by contradicting it in a purely theoretical way, but pushing maximally to have it, once that veneer had been applied, to prettify it….
The same method that would duplicated and extended by that old racist and fascist, the Prussian Immanuel Kant, a century later. It all makes sense: Britain financed Prussia, as an attack dog against… France and her Franks…
Patrice Ayme's Thoughts 
What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!