Why have the Majority Of Americans become so very much in favor of Feudalism?

[truedelphi]

Yet even as this Majority scoffs as those who are awakening, much is going on. Some of it is on the surface, but some lies within what Carl Jung would consider to be the Collective Unconscious.

Given the history of this nation, with its Founding Fathers laying out how each citizen has an inalienable right to freedoms, and then those freedoms are fully detailed in the Bill of Rights, why are so many around us willing to become feudal serfs inside an Oligarchy?

In the economic domain there is much activity as the governments of the world, with few exceptions, attempt to profit at the expense of the people. Here also, however, The Shift of Consciousness is being experienced by the Powers That Be. (One example of this "Shift" is in those who have been so very much a part of the Occupy Movement. Anyone following this movement was enheartened to notice that Occupy Sandy did more for the people afflicted by Hurricane Sandy than the Red Cross or even FEMA!)

The old models are not working and as these old models fail, the Elite must develop new schemes to convince the people that they should support their governments and the rich FIRST, rather than consider their own needs. (One such scheme is of course, the "Fiscal Cliff.&quot All this is feudalism in its death throes, in my opinion.

The awakening of the human individual to the truth of the matter naturally allows even those who are slaves to the system to consider a different perspective. It allows a bit of Light to come in, in a quite literal fashion. The argument that "monarchies," some of them off in the Middle East, and one massive Monarchy of a Corporate Cabal here in the USA, which includes various insidious members of the Political Class, that these monarchies must be supported by the greater population -- this argument is losing coherency, for example. The idea that humans should be separated into classes according to income is losing credibility.

There is a great equalizing effect in this Post-Shift Environment that sees the great virtue and utility in achieving a consensus in economic matters that supports the
highest good for all participants.

Discuss as you will...

[truedelphi]

1. Also consider this -

The economy in the US is kept afloat through the creation, sale and use of armaments. As
those of us who are awakening, attempt to create new models for the economy and work to
see that we begin to retool the economy for the creation of prosperity, our defense contractors,
for example, will be pressed into creating machinery to improve the lives of its citizens. The citizens
must demand this, however, for these agreements to create the weapons of war rather than
inexpensive, self-supporting housing modules for the people, for example, are the bargain in
which your political leaders choose self-interest over the welfare of the people.

[RKP5637]

2. This, has become a nation of tribes as the citizenry sorts about the tribes trying to find that one

which suits them best, often I think, for monetary gain. Hence, we have a fractured nation. I am dubious that it can be 'glued' back together. Old institutions are failing because they have succumbed to greed in an egregious capitalistic system.

And money has power, and money rules and confines others, hence, most just talk. And, the control mechanisms for mass obedience to "the system" become more honed and entrenched each day.

And why don't the masses wake up, because a little suffering each day is said to be good for "the cause," but in effect that cause is financial oppression of the masses for the few. And that's the way it sadly works. That, is what we have become. And what about violence, ... it's a symptom of the decay underneath.

[RKP5637]

3. None responded much, but I thought this was an excellent OP!!!

[flying rabbit]

5. Agree, good replies too. k&r

[Moonwalk]

4. Americans have always supported Feudalism--really. Because they have a religious belief...

that they can become its king rather than its serf. You seem to forget, by the way, that in the 1790's only male property owners could vote. And most of the revolutionary leaders believed that only a gentleman (a rich landowner) should be president--hence, even as they screamed for freedom from kings, the wealthy and powerful in the U.S. supported a system that would keep only American aristocrats (landed gentlemen) in power. In half the U.S. slave ownership was legal up till 1865 (feudalism), and plantation owners lived and acted like aristocrats. In 1860 Prince Edward (who would be King Edward VII) visited the U.S. and both old money and new money society went crazy over him. This started a movement that lasted up through the early 1900's of marrying off rich American daughters to impoverished British aristocracy. Because being rich wasn't enough. The uber-weathy also wanted a title.

Which is all to say, Americans have always had a split personality, an inferiority complex if you like, since the break with Britain. Half the time they've held it as superior that "anyone" can be president, and been leery of those who seemed to aristocratic and snobby (see Mitt Romney). At these times, they've wanted the U.S. to seem very democratic and homey--like Clinton, a down-home boy from Arkansas. Other times, they have wanted a more aristocratic type of president--a mythic king to symbolize the U.S. as being aristocratic in the most mythical way--like Kennedy and Camelot. Handsome, rich, elegant, enlightened, saving the world.

It's this mythic side of the aristocracy that we can't let go of--because we have a religious faith that we can have it. Make it real. After all, American doesn't just promise that anyone can be president, but also that anyone can be rich. And rich = aristocrat. Romantic shows/movies for women are all Cinderella stories, where the poor girl marries the rich bachelor (or, in some instances, literally a prince). And Americans have always been gah-gah over the British royal family, and shows like Downton Abby that perpetuate the myth of Noblesse Oblige--that feudalism can not only work, but be the best system for everyone.

Our mythos, memes and such came from being originally British. And our win over the British was with the help of the French--an aristocracy we didn't object to at all (though Jefferson--a plantation owner--was happy enough to see the revolutionaries cutting off aristocratic heads; ironic that). Like I said, split personality.

Americans support feudalism and always have, simply, because they believe the myth that anyone can become the king (read "The Great Gatsby" by F. Scott Fiztgerald to understand this imbedded psychology better). As they all want to be kings, they refuse to acknowledge that upholding such a system is actually to their detriment and against what democracy is really all about. And as faith in this myth is always of benefit to the wealthy, there is never any reason for those in power to point out to those not in power that is it a myth.

[RKP5637]

6. Extremely well said!!! We live in a myth and some call it the "Matrix." n/t

[daleo]

9. Even when they realize they will never be rich, some still choose to see themselves that way

I think for some people, supporting a rich aristocracy becomes part of their self esteem, even after they realize they will never make it to the top, or anywhere close. It's a species of magical thinking, whereby psychological nearness substitutes for their realistic place within the class structure.

[RKP5637]

11. I've often wondered if there is linkage between the 'religious faithful' and those

that are 'rich aristocracy faithful' in their support for both. To me, both have an element of magical thinking. And both often a form of punishment in being sinners and/or poor. To me at least there is a linkage, for example, we deserve this punishment bring it on. It really becomes somewhat the Stockholm Syndrome. The ...... work ethic .

[Moonwalk]

17. Stockholm Syndrome is a great way to put it! But I wonder if it isn't simpler than that...

...Human beings like to feel in control. So they identify with those who seem to be in control (successful and with everything they want). And thus, as in Stockholm's syndrome, they identify with the criminal who has control, and view those trying to remove that person, the one in control, as the enemy. Even if the aim of removing that person is to actually restore control to everyone else.

It's perhaps less similar to religious faithful than to religious cults with that central, controlling leader who insists that the world outside is chaotic and dangerous, only the cult a safe haven. If you want to remain in that safe haven, you must do as he says. We see this most especially with Foxbots. Getting their news from nowhere else, they become like members of a religious cult, sure the world is chaotic and dangerous and only Faux knows how to keep them safe. It's been shown that if you get such a person to stop watching Fox for a while, watch some other news instead for a bit, then a week or so later show them Fox they'll see it as extreme rather than reasonable as they did before. You effectively have to deprogram them.

[RKP5637]

18. Quite true! Thanks! n/t

[Moonwalk]

15. Agree entirely. It's the trickle down mythos, right? The kindly king will trickle down his....

--wealth, greatness and such on down to his servants. It is a kind of magical thinking central to us humans and not exclusive to the U.S. (read Remains of the Day for a brilliant examination of this sort of psychology), which is why democracy has to keep fighting against it. It's like when fans cheer on star athletes and teams, vicariously winning through them. The downside of this, of course, is that such magical thinking requires that we look the other way when the one we serve fails or falls down or does wrong (see: "The Emperor's New Clothes&quot . We have to pretend they're innocent no matter how evident their guilt, otherwise we not only lose that vicarious hero we were living through, but, vicariously fall with them. So we end up supporting systems even if it is demonstrated that they don't work (like trickle down economics).

True democracy is a hard thing. It is counter-intuitive to how humans want to think because we, first, have to decide who will represent us rather than letting the strongest (meanest, biggest, etc.) tell us that who will represent us. Second, we have to elect people to represent us on more than our usual, simple inclinations--not just because they're elegant, handsome, rich, successful and therefore, we think, must be worthy. We have to actually listen to them and see if they have good ideas and know how to do the job. We have to be employers, not employees--they work for us, not vice versa. Last, we have to accept that once they do represent us, that they are not magical representatives--we have to trust them as our man/woman in the field making judgement calls we can't, but they aren't infallible, and we can ignore them because they *are* our representative. If they look bad, we look bad (see George W. Bush--the British can disavow any embarrassment by the royal family as reflecting on them because said monarch was forced on them. Not so the U.S.; we picked our president and therefore he reflects on us). We have to keep our hand in when it comes to democracy.

Democracy takes work. A lot of work and energy. No wonder that feudalism is so much more tempting. It's far easier to just assume that there are people "born" to rule and we don't have to bother with elections; that said aristocrats will do all that's needed and right and trickle on down their wealth. If everyone just blindly trusts them and lets them do what they know how to do.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. Excellent post! And you're right...

Americans (again, particularly right wingers) believe the myth that anyone can become king. It shows a level of fantasy and illiteracy that astounds. The "American Dream" has been a very successful and heinous piece of propaganda. Right wingers continue to promote it, and their followers continue to believe it, like children who believe Santa Claus is a real being. Right wingers I've talked to cheer on this idea like so many cheerleaders.

[Moonwalk]

16. True! We saw it this time around in their "We Built this!" motto. As if every individual can....

...make themselves whatever they want to be without any help from anyone. All they have to do is want it and put their nose to the grindstone. And if it doesn't happen, if it doesn't get built, it's their fault. Most horrific of all, whoever did get it built--never mind how--must be a superior person deserving of a leadership position, no questions asked. It's why the GOP is always putting up men who have done well in business for office; and why they try to make Dem candidates without business experience seem suspicious--as if business experience = good, honest leader. Yet business experience certainly didn't make Hoover or G.W. Bush a good, honest presidents (G.W. wasn't an good honest businessman either); and lack of business experience didn't make Lincoln, either Roosevelt or Eisenhower bad presidents.

It's Frankenstein monster thinking tacked together from the worst aspects of the Puritan work ethic and the most extreme Randian objectivism. The successful man gets to hoard all the credit for his success and claim superiority and leadership status because of it; the person who fails or needs help is shunned and viewed as worthless.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

20. It's Frankenstein monster thinking tacked together from the worst aspects of the Puritan work ethic

I love that phrase. It describes perfectly what American right wingerism is about.

[truedelphi]

40. Your sentence:

"It's Frankenstein monster thinking tacked together from the worst aspects of the Puritan work ethic and the most extreme Randian objectivism." really truly is a work of art.

[deutsey]

30. Excellent post

To it, I would only add my suggestion that you include Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" alongside "The Great Gatsby."

If you've never read it, don't be fooled by the sanitized versions of it like the movie with Bing Crosby in it. Twain's book is a savage critique of the American ruling classes and their aristocratic aspirations, as well as capitalism, religion, and the ignorance and passivity of common people. The narrator, Hank Morgan, is the very essence of the split personality you're talking about: he's a small "d" democrat who favors the French Revolution while at the same time uses his Yankee ingenuity and ambition to rig Arthurian England so that it becomes run like an authoritarian corporation with himself as its CEO (he becomes known as "The Boss," the real power behind the king).

It doesn't end well at all, neither for Hank nor for the society he tries to create: a bloody civil war that ends with mass slaughter, the general implosion of society, and Hank completely losing everything, including his mind.

[Recursion]

7. People are in favor of leasing land in return for armed service?

I haven't seen any motion in that direction. What are you thinking of?

If anything, I've seen greater and greater emphasis placed on money, and money was always the bane of feudalism, and what killed it eventually.

[truedelphi]

23. For some in our society, it is worse than

Last edited Wed Jan 2, 2013, 07:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Leasing out the plot of land from the king. At lest then, you have a connection to the land, and to nature.

Right now, we have an entire segment of society that is leasing out their bodies to the military so they can be blown apart by IED's.

Or sleeping in their cars at night, and hoping to find some job, any job, that will let them buy a few groceries.

[reformist2]

8. Deep down, most people still think the rich are actually job creators?

It's sad, but I think it's at the heart of the problem why most people are reluctant to see big changes in the economic system.

[jp76]

35. Innovation creates jobs

I understand the argument that the rich create jobs. The fallacy in that line of thought is that rich people are more capable of creating jobs, but they aren't necessarily more inclined to do so. They may generate more business for people that have jobs, but unless there is a marked increase in the number of rich people, the level of services they consume is unlikely to create (many) jobs.

Rich people may provide investment funds for companies, but unless the industry is new, you're still looking at a generational shift where newer employees are simply replacing retirees in the industry, once again for a very low (if any) net gain in the number of jobs.

I believe that the real job creator is innovation and creativity. Personal computers didn't become huge because everyone had to have one, they were a new product and created a new market. People got around before cars, but it was an innovative means of travel and it created a new market (several, actually). Cell phones are the most recent industry to ride the wave of innovation.

Drug companies create new products fairly often, but have to charge inflated prices for drugs before the patent expires to both (1. pay for the research for both the successful and unsuccessful products, and (2. make a profit. Granted, the profit may be excessive (I honestly can't speak to the number), but they understand and are driven by the need for innovation.

It is due to this that I support green energy initiatives and believe gains in that area will ultimately overcome the failures we have experienced to date. Nobody gets things right the first time, there will be failures along the way, but I believe innovation in a such a huge market (we ALL use energy) can become a huge job creator. We just need more research or a paragim shift in the way we think about getting our go-juice.

I think I've talked myself out of the word innovation, actually...let me say invention, rather, the creation of something entirely new.

[Jim Warren]

10. Push comes to shove

damn the poor and working class, the "middle class" will always side with the oligarchs hoping to maintain status quo.

[Moonwalk]

21. Actually, the "middle class" has historically wanted to do more than maintain the status quo--

--they usually want to move up. And they're happy enough to use the poor and working class as stepping stones to do that.

To be fair, however, the middle class can also be the class that supports the poor and wants to help them come up. The job providers and the ones who change unjust laws. They can be the liberal minded side and adverse to the rich. But over the last twenty years the oligarchs have brainwashed everyone into believing that they can magically be rich if they're willing to blame each other. And so even the usually level-headed middle class weren't seeing clearly. Obama's overwhelming election over Romney shows, I think, that everyone is waking up from this opium dream to the reality. Which is that they had it good at middle class and that the oligarchs are playing everyone for suckers.

[Odin2005]

12. Everyone thinks they will be the baron lording it over the serfs.

[Doctor_J]

14. Hate Radio and Fox "News"

[get the red out]

28. Along with the Religious Right

[cali]

19. your premise is a fallacy.

that people find themselves caught up as feudal cogs in the oligarchy is not the same as being amenable to such.

And aside from that, your op is really garbled stock phrases signifying little.

Post-Shift environment is just gobbledygook.

And what are you actually trying to say in this paragraph?

"The awakening of the human individual to the truth of the matter naturally allows even those who are slaves to the system to consider a different perspective. It allows a bit of Light to come in, in a quite literal fashion. The argument that "monarchies," some of them off in the Middle East, and one massive Monarchy of a Corporate Cabal here in the USA, which includes various insidious members of the Political Class, that these monarchies must be supported by the greater population -- this argument is losing coherency, for example. The idea that humans should be separated into classes according to income is losing credibility."

It's really nonsense. word salad. New age crap about some rising world enlightenment of the people.

[OxQQme]

22. Wow cali, can you say pessimism?

What do you envision for the future?

An awakening to a different perception of the world around ones self would be a post-shift environment.

And, kindly, describe the difference between 'caught up in', and 'amenable'.

Using the arms industry from an employee's pov as an example.

Or 'marriage'.

[cali]

25. amenable to indicates volition

caught up in doesn't.

Your vague description of "post shift" environment is exactly what I meant by new age nonsense. I presume that your referring to a mass different perspective and implying that that of and itself changes the environment. Without action, I don't buy that it can.

[truedelphi]

33. Before the action, there is the dream.

And then of course there must be action.

You defeat your own premise - the Arab Spring uprisings were not merely a vastly different perspective - they were actions. That happened to become relevant enough that those activities became the day to day concerns of our President, of our State department and Congress, and of course, the people who live in the Middle East.

Here are several articles that show the activity. And just as Rome was not built in one day, and just as the Irish did not get their independence from Britain by their Easter 1916 uprising, so too this will be on going, possibly for decades.


September 24 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/us/politics/arab-spring-proves-a-harsh-test-for-obamas-diplomatic-skill.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In many ways, Mr. Obama’s remarks at the State Department two weeks ago — and the ones he will make before the General Assembly on Tuesday morning, when he addresses the anti-American protests — reflected hard lessons the president had learned over almost two years of political turmoil in the Arab world: bold words and support for democratic aspirations are not enough to engender good will in this region, especially not when hampered by America’s own national security interests.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/category/arab-spring/

11:53 AM ET
#####

Two articles below this line and URL mention: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/category/arab-spring/
Article OneEgypt's deeply flawed draft constitution

By Isobel Coleman, CFR

Isobel Coleman is a senior fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy and director of the Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy Initiative at the Council on Foreign Relations. This entry of Democracy in Development originally appeared here. The views expressed are her own.

Egypt’s constitutional assembly pulled an all-nighter last week to hastily approve a controversial draft of a new constitution. However, the constitutional battle is far from over. Yesterday, protests rocked the country, and a crowd of some 100,000 people staged a so-called “last warning” demonstration near the presidential palace against President Morsy’s heavy-handed tactics. In addition, hundreds of journalists marched on Tahrir and at least a dozen of the country’s independent newspapers did not publish to protest against Morsy’s “dictatorship.”

The battle now moves to December 15, when Egyptians are slated to vote on the constitution in a national referendum. Liberal and secular opponents of Morsy, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the draft constitution are urging widespread civil disobedience to derail the vote; on the other hand, the Brotherhood and its allies are portraying a “yes” vote as crucial for restoring stability to the country and moving forward. Given Egyptians’ weariness of nearly two years of political paralysis and economic dislocation, the Brotherhood’s arguments for stability could easily carry the day.

FULL POST
####

Off the same CNN web page

Article Two: Changing Middle East looks depressingly like what it replaces

By Danielle Pletka, Special to CNN

Danielle Pletka is the vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. The views expressed are her own.

This small war between Hamas and Israel will pass. The just announced ceasefire may be sustained. Or Israel may move from aerial bombardment to a ground incursion, which will deter Hamas from relighting the fuse for some time. But not forever, because Hamas exists only to fight with Israel. It has no other purpose. Those who counter that Hamas governs need only look at Gaza to understand that governance is far from Hamas’ aims or abilities. Will this late 2012 battle end differently for the Palestinians? Advance a two state solution? Heal the ills of the Palestinians? Allow Israel to live in peace and security? No.

Another question: Will the realignment of the Middle East to an order more congenial to Hamas matter? Clearly, Hamas believed that with its Muslim Brotherhood brethren at the helm in Egypt and the new spiritual leader of the region’s Sunni Islamists at the helm in Turkey, this adventure would end differently. Of course, Hamas’ hope was not to destroy the state of Israel. Rather, it was to gain the upper hand in its endless and fruitless battle against Fatah for the Palestinian political mantle, ideally with the wind of the Arab world’s Islamist revolutions at its back. That won’t happen either. Egypt’s Mohamed Morsy and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan are willing to lend rhetorical support and a few visits to Gaza, but they’re never going to do anything substantial for Palestinians because they neither care enough about actual Palestinian people nor wish to queer their pitch with Europe and the United States.

[truedelphi]

24. Well, the populations of entire nations

Are described by that word salad. It is certainly not those populations fault if their Arab Spring revolts resulted in the same ol', same ol'. The fact that the status quo remained was in large part because of how the USA helped see to it that dictatorial rule stayed in place, even if the ruler now had a new face and new name.

[cali]

26. oh please. How, specifically, did the US see to it that dictatorial

rule stayed the same in Egypt, for example? And how is it not the 'fault' of the Egyptian citizenry that they voted for an Islamic based Constitution? -assuming that the voting process wasn't corrupted.

I think it's a huge leap to claim that the Arab Spring is the result of some vague "post shift environment".

[JReed]

27. The pin holding the whole machine together

is the reality that a substantial bloc of Americans hold the sentiment _ it isn't logically developed enough to be called 'belief' _ that there is nobility, morality and strength in sacrificing oneself to private financial profit, even if it's the profit of others.

We cling to a belief that accumulating wealth is the result of diligent adherence to a system of morality, justice and fairness. It is, by definition, religion. We believe that our military, police, and some politicians are out to nobly protect this system, so we pay them obeisance. We denounce those who disagree as, very literally, heretics, traitors, weaklings who would deprive others of their deserved reward.

If this pin can be pulled _ if a critical mass of Americans can comprehend that private institutions can oppress as effectively as 'public' ones, and that our State religion of 'work-ocracy' is cynically being used as a tool by the wealthy, the whole machine will fall apart in an instant.

[Mojorabbit]

38. +100 nt

[ck4829]

29. Because they believe that despite the fact that most of them will live paycheck to paycheck...

They will be that one person who will luck out and become a billionaire and that things like taxes, an infrastructure, and a safety net are the things getting in the way of that.

[bongbong]

31. It pre-dates economy

It's human nature. Worship of the Alpha of the tribe/group/etc.

Anybody who thinks we are NOT just a bare step up from blind instinct-obeying beasts needs to get an edumacation.

[jp76]

32. Bill of Rights mistake

To address "and then those freedoms are fully detailed in the Bill of Rights" - that statement is dangerously incorrect.

The Bill of Rights was never an exhaustive list of rights. It was an active defense of a few rights most likely to be deprived the people by the government.

The argument against the Bill of Rights, because it might come to be viewed as an exhaustive list of rights, was well documented. Hamilton was very much against it.

We all have the right to do anything that does not deprive another person of their rights or damage the Earth irreparably.

[truedelphi]

34. That is a decent critique of my "Globalization" effort

I am often guilty of "globalizing" and this is a good instance of it. Thank you for critiquing me.

Perhaps it would be better to state that the Bill of Rights details some of the more important rights that are inalienable to the existence of any citizen.

And of course, since Nine Eleven, most of these rights have been stripped away. And our President refers to our Rights as mere traditions, as when he mentioned that he would not be employing the NDAA and its section 1021. He said he would not employ the power these laws gave him, out of "respect for this nation's traditions."

I would argue that the civil rights that are inalienable to my being are not traditions, but rights.

It makes me nervous when any elected official states that they are only traditions.

[librechik]

36. defeat

I wish I were more optimistic but if the global oligarch haven't won by now (and I believe they have) they will win eventually. They are inhumanly powerful, and humans are a weak force against them. Especially when our "democratic" representation is mostly on their side. Remember, a million more dems voted in 2012 than voted for Repubs. Yet THEY are still in charge.

[truedelphi]

37. However,

Some twelve million people stayed home from the polls in 2012, who had turned out in 2008.

And newly registered voters in Calif. are pursuing the "decline to state" arena, or else becoming Greens. That percentage was 27% last year. IF the trend continues, eventually Democratic Party Gate Keepers like Di Fi will have to start accommodating more truly progressive idealists or risk losing.

[librechik]

39. hope you are right

can we really continue this insanity into the future? Something has to change. Can't see the path yet. Don't foresee any change till long after I'm dead (i'm 60)