Did Civil Rights Hide Plutocratization?

A train which passes by, may hid another one, charging the other way. Did obsessing about the Civil Right Movement hid the on-going Plutocratization which is flattening humanity, worldwide?

Did celebrating Obama’s brownish (fauve!) color as a great victory, prevent a proper analysis of the dramatic situation? To this day many a “liberal” (say, Krugman) celebrate obsessively Obama’s minuscule advances, which the Republican Congress will revert in five minutes, within a few weeks.

Even American “liberal” politics is to the right of the French Front National. It was not always so.

(The FN accepts the French welfare state, including single payer national health care, whereas most “liberals” from the USA do not, as the charade six years ago with Obamacare, demonstrated: when Obama proposed “Medicare For All”, democrats blocked him.)

A commenter (Aravis, an observant Jew) in Scientia Salon said that the USA was a good place, see how bad a place France is (France has a “fascist” National Front, many Americans like to pretend). This is fairly typical for what passes for reasonable opinion, in the USA. Bad mouthing France is a most honorable occupation, in the USA. Decades of Rand ranting, and the like, is the reason why.

Ayn Rand is a famous anti-philosopher, read by tens of millions of Americans. (Why so many? Excellent propaganda pushed her onto the masses.)

“Rand” was an outright racist, who extolled frantically the oligarchic principle (a few “Atlases” hold civilization up; whenever they shrug, civilization collapses). Rand was not her true name. Not American born, she came from Eastern Europe, the land of racism unchained, and discharged her venom all over America. She thought Indians deserved no rights, so I don’t see why Jews like her complain when the Nazis gave them no rights. Here is Rand ranting about the Natives:

“[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using…. What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their “right” to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.”

France is the other republic, the one whose Constitution is from the same year (1789), as that of the USA. Yet, that French Republic functioned without killing (nearly) all the natives, without stealing (nearly all) their land, and without slavery (the Merovingian Imperium Francorum outlawed slavery in Europe by 650 CE, about a millennium before the Americans re-established it in the Americas).

The fascization of American politics started thanks to Nixon and McCarthy, in the early 1950s. Intellectuals were suspected to be “commies”, trade unions were broken thoroughly in invisible ways. Jesus helped with fascization: “In God We Trust” was passed by Congress in 1954. (Closely related to the SS “Gott Mit Uns”.)

Simultaneously, the Civil Right Movement was highly successful to give people of color the rights they had in the United Nation Charter (after all, the USA had ratified it!)

The United Nation Charter was an evolution from the principles of the French Revolution of 1789. Not so much from the Constitution of the USA (or some British Constitution, which still does not exist, to this day!).

Thus an explanation of the anger of so many American intellectuals against France. All too many of them are still closet racist, or something similar (to spare the Public, and my ears, I will not roll out statistics; however, some ethnic, and, or, religious groups, are still massively over-represented in universities of the USA, and still massively discriminating, to preserve their monopoly).

On the face of it, the “Civil Right Movement” ought to have been nothing important: Great empires, founders of the present civilization, the Greco-Roman, and its successor, the Imperium Francorum, were not racist. So how come the USA was? How come one is presenting as progress what the Romans found already natural, 2,000 years ago? (1)

Official racism in the USA was extravagant, an outlier, a sort of rage only inferior societies doomed to annihilation have engaged in (2). Killing about 3% of the population of the USA (the “Civil” War, actually the most uncivil civil war known, this side of Rwanda), fixed the problem. In part.

Deluded aggrandizement of the “Civil Right Movement” was a distraction. What was as necessary as flushing a dirty toilet, giving people their rights, was made into a glorious obsession, and constant over-celebration. Obsessing about Civil Rights that the USA had already signed on, and enacted, is why the stripping of the Banking Act of 1933 (so-called “Glass-Seagal”) could be done under Clinton, without anybody noticing.

Clinton could just play the saxophone, as if he were some jazzman (implicitly “black”), and everybody applauded, while Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan, Lawrence Summers, were deconstructing social justice, and organizing the greatest heist in the history of humanity, and soon to spread it over the entire planet (except China, where banks are not the government, but, quite the opposite, under tight government control). (The saxophone was actually invented by a francophone from Belgium, but never mind.)

The Civil Right Movement unwittingly turned into being used as a cover-up for something much more dangerous: plutocratization.

Civilizations have flourished, because of capital large enough to muster great armies, which, in turn, defended cities (that’s where the “civis” comes from).

However armies function according to the Fascist Principle (one mind, one body), which gives them body, soul, and power. The army is no democracy, but the point of a lance.

Thus the army which makes the civilization possible is in danger of falling into a few hands (like in North Korea). Moreover, capital grows proportionally to itself, so those hands who control the most capital, especially if it is invisible, will become richer faster.

Hence all civilizations are at risk of becoming plutocracies. What’s a plutocracy? An oligarchy so vicious, it rules not just with money, but with demonic means. Historically, most societies were plutocracies. Human beings, though, are (evolutionary) made for democracy, instead of taking their order from “The Lord”.

The impressive reforms away from plutocracy by the Roosevelts and Eisenhower have been rolled back. Many people made a career to help with this roll-back. One ought to call them plutophiles. Randians are typical plutophiles: Alan Greenspan, a loud admirer of Rand, did his utmost to destroy the separation between banking and theft. Plutophiles spend their time seducing plutocrats, that’s their career.

Naturally in 2008, half the plutocrats got all the money the other half had stolen from banks, and the public was asked to replenish the stolen banks, hence the deprived thieves. So here we are. Plutocratic, also known as “financial derivative”, trading is 12 times world GDP.

This roughly means that the plutocrats have twelve times more money to play with than the rest of humanity. It makes even pretend democracy completely unsustainable. It also means that this cancer, plutocracy, born in the USA, has gone metastatic.

Patrice Ayme’

1. Yes, Rome had French (Claudius born in Lugdunum), Spanish (Trajan, Theodosius), Balkan born (more than half a dozen, including Constantius, Domitian), African (Septimus Severus), or even Arab, emperors.
2. Sparta is an example of a racist society which self-annihilated. Whereas Athens kept being influential for centuries: that’s where the future emperor and philosopher Julian went to study. Although Julian died from combat or homicide in 363 CE, the Gallo-Romans, and Franks, who had elected him, pursued in the Athenian spirit, and so does yours truly. By then, Sparta had imploded. Athens was the model of the “open society” (which Pericles celebrated). It is now a thriving megalopolis, and, as a city of the mind, her progeny is the United Nations. Sparta’s racism is buried everywhere, except in the likes of Arabia or Iran.

Why USA Is Gunning For Guns

Abstract: DOES THE USA HAVE HUMANITY AT THE POINT OF A GUN? The obsession 70% of Americans have with shooting other Americans is the most violent violation of Civil Rights imaginable. That’s why they want it. The will to shoot others is worse than the will to enslave them. Who would profit from such a mentality? How did it come about? Why is the pro-gun obsession progressing in the USA, in parallel with the progression of plutocracy?

This essay explains why plutocracy pushes guns onto society. It opens new perspectives sure to make the nasty scream, and reveal who, among us, deep down inside, overflow with nastiness at heart. It may shame the majority whose action enables child killers (see teachers financing Assault Rifles makers).

Guns in the USA against all and any reason, but the most abject, is not just an Americano-American problem. Life at the point of a gun imposes, in the world’s leading nation, a mentality of privileging violence over reason, and hatred over empathy. That mentality, in turn, is forced onto the rest of the planet (say from movies, universities, opinion, diplomacy).

The Grossest Propaganda Works the Best

Most legislators in the USA are millionaires, and that’s not from their salary! But by doing exactly what their plutocratic masters want them to do. And one fundamental lesson to legislate is: France Bad, Guns Good.
[See note.]
The gun mentality plays the central role in the greenhouse-acid seas disaster: no nation has been so keen to block meaningful action as the USA. The most influential right fanatics who insist upon making the USA into a gun society are those who want plutocracy and maximal fossil fuel burning. Everybody is afraid of them. Letting them shoot their way through civilization, the most basic humanity, and common sense, is not how matters will improve on this planet. (But, of course, making things worse is exactly what they want, and that’s why they caress their warm guns.)

Those who have little time can read my main thesis immediately following (the rest of the 5,000 words of the essay just buttress that main thesis by going into the nitty-gritty, including the direct implication of plutocrats):
***

Main Thesis:
GUNS ARE NOT JUST ABOUT SHOOTING PEOPLE, BUT ALSO ABOUT SHOOTING DOWN LOVE, REASON, By, And While Embracing The Very Mood That Enables Cruel & Violent Masters To Reign:

Possessing guns to kill people with, is about imposing one’s own violence as the ultimate arbitrage. Many Americans claim to view this as the ultimate expression of the American sense of freedom. Call it the freedom to inflict carnage.
The mood dominating the present USA depends upon commoners accepting violence as an overriding principle, and guns symbolize that. Instead of trying to understand things, the way Europeans have learned to do, not knowing enough to know any better is erected as definitive, glorious, all-American.
So right from the start gun advocates are tied in to the worst of man, the Darkest Side, when thoughts are only directed towards murder. Getting them out of that spiral of horror means giving them the courage, and knowledge to recognize that they have made a pact with the devil: their souls, against the orgasmic feeling a warm gun give them. They represent, they have made into an idolatry, the worst of man.

Moreover, gun fanatics succumb that way, not because they are free, but precisely because they are slaves, not because they are courageous, but because they are cowards.
The preceding is not insulting, but objectively descriptive. Insults claim what is not. An accurate depiction is not an insult.
If I describe a garbage pile, that I am contemplating, it’s not an insult. If I describe an angel as a garbage pile, it’s an insult, to the angel, and to reason.
By turning innocent little children regularly into garbage, the gun advocates of America are insulting humanity, as they claim to have the freedom to make holes into children. All the more as gun fanatics cover it all by holier than thou inanities. This essay will come up will plenty of reasons to justify the preceding, turning what precedes not into insults, but into faithful representation of what is.

A plutocracy is not a civil society. Thus, to have a plutocracy, one needs, first, to have a society that is not civil. Guns help to achieve this lack of civility indispensable to plutocracy. This is why the plutocracy insures, through the mass media enough mind control to make sure that, in the USA, people attack each other like rats in cage, with the biggest weapons they can find.

Through its control of mass media, and unending repetition, of the same lies and idiocies, the plutocrats have made the citizens of the USA believe half a dozen absurdities about gun ownership. The result is exactly what the plutocrats wanted: a society where everybody is afraid of everybody, and where the most basic human right, the right to life, is violated. Once the most basic civil and human right is violated, other violations shall easily follow. Such as having the richest and nastiest pay no, or very little taxes. Yes, my point is that the gun problem is just one aspect, part and parcel, one more way to help enable plutocracy.

More subtle, the trite idiot thoughts supporting massive gun usage have made people deeply stupid. The cowards blurt:”We have to defend ourselves!” and grab a gun. Never mind if children get killed. It sounds good to them, so they believe in it, all the more since the rest of them also bleat that way. However, statistics and observations contradict the argument that they have guns to defend themselves. Actually they have guns to kill themselves. Not only are they sadists, but they are also suicidal narcissistic masochists. (The lunatic at the primary school still had hundreds of rounds, but as the police closed in, he killed himself, proving the point that his fundamental mission was to take out his despicably low life. This is typical.)

In the USA, keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. Never mind! They believe in it! It’s all about faith! Gun and God! Gun is god, and bullets make the only points they can understand.
Gun ownership is not about reason, it’s all about the opposite. Gun ownership is about violating reason: the more one says guns are for defense, and the less true it is, the better! Thus the little minds learn that reason is irrelevant, that what their masters, the plutocrats they venerate, told them, is dominant.

Thus, symbolically, Civil and Human Rights, and reason itself, are exhibited as secondary to what gun fanatics have been told to believe in, namely their right to murder. And they have been told that, again and again and again, by big money, all over the media they control, by the wealthy ones who devise the American discourse. That is all what the plutocrats want their commoners to believe.

Conclusion: A guns totting society is scared, divided, prone to violence against itself, stupid, and, having no time or inclination to establish a class consciousness, cannot organize itself against cruel abuse, as it is too busy dodging bullets. What a better place to establish plutocracy, which is vigilantism writ enormous, for the benefit of the few? And if small people are small vigilantes, is not it natural that the plutocrats employ armies of lobbyists and politicians, let alone body guards and private enclaves, to, well, defend themselves, too?
It goes without saying that the internal violence of the USA comes out externally, and that is why the USA has sabotaged all efforts against heat trapping industrial gases, in the last 30 years.

Interestingly, the same situation exactly, of violence unchained, brought down the Late Roman empire, when plutocracy mutated into the feudal order. Not a coincidence.
Now for the details.
***
Patrice Ayme