equality and brotherhood. Instead they choose to take as much
of the nation's wealth as they can possibly get away with, even
though other peoples' basic needs are not being met.
Even though most of us are richer than serfs of some other countries,
we are still serfs within our own society.
- When I see beggars on the streets, I see serfs.
- When I see lineups for grocery handouts, I see serfs.
- When I see people who can't afford dental, medical, or legal
services, I see serfs.
- When I see heads of households who are involuntarily unemployed,
I see serfs.
- When I see workers on minimum wage, I see serfs
- When I see working people who can't afford to buy a home,
I see serfs.
- When I see families who still don't own their homes after 20 years
of payments, I see serfs.
The bottom 90% have been sold, and continue to be sold a severely
distorted image of America through the media. The image of themselves
as a huge middle class simply does not concur with reality.
To assist in the illusion, the bottom 90% have been encouraged
to believe that doctors, dentists, engineers, etc., comprise the
"upper class". Not surprisingly, working professionals
have also been encouraged to think of themselves as the upper
class. The fact of the matter is that these working professionals
statistically fall into the bottom 90% of society. They may be,
relatively speaking, upper class compared to the non-professionals,
but in the overall wealth distribution picture, they are still
"working class" when compared to the "real upper
economic class". The average person who belongs to the bottom
90%, professional and non-professional alike, needn't blame himself
or herself for missing the boat, because the economic elite of
former generations used their power and influence to set up a
complex system whereby just enough wealth is doled out using tax
laws and tax shelters to produce just enough YUPPIES and comfortably
off people (like many of our "so-called upper class"
doctors, engineers, etc.,), to keep alive the totally erroneous
notion that these individuals constitute the upper economic class.
The secret, completely understood by the elite, is
that by providing a fairly comfortable living for the educated
professional, they could completely remove the threat
of widespread dissension, by appeasing the class of citizens
most able to spearhead a movement to upset Feudal conditions.
...Throw the family dog a steak, and you can rob the house
Recognizing the Feudal Aspects of Capitalism
For the most part, the non-professional's income just meets the
cost of a basic standard of living. Taxes, interest rates, wages,
and the cost of living are all monitored and juggled very carefully
so that government can tax away the bulk of income which exceeds
the cost of living. Non-professionals who form the bulk of the
bottom 90% are kept in check by the illusion that the upper class
is in view, but just out of reach.
The shocking truth is that American society is based on a FEUDAL
wealth distribution system, wherein the richest one percent are
equivalent to the Feudal monarchs, the next nine percent are
equivalent to the land owning aristocracy of Feudal times, and
the bottom 90% are still being exploited as serfs to supply cheap
labor so that the wealthy can exploit the nation's resources
for their own personal benefit. What's worse is that the bottom
90% have been successfully and cunningly kept ignorant of that
Anyone making less than $40,000 is relatively speaking one of
the SYSTEM'S WORK HORSES.
Anyone on minimum wage is a SLAVE WITHOUT CHAINS.
Any family bread winner not purposely unemployed is a VICTIM.
So many aspects of modern Western society trace directly back
to Feudal society, that an appreciation of our problems would
be incomplete with briefly reviewing how and why Feudalism arose.
The Origins and Nature of Feudalism
From the dawn of time, the strongest animal or animals within
an animal group have spearheaded the group's defense. Normally
this service is acknowledged by the rest of the group's members,
and rightly so.
But, while we can acknowledge indebtedness to our ancestors whose
success at "dominating" made possible our survival as
a species into the 21st century, it is important to keep in mind
the distinction between "domination" and "leadership".
By domination, I refer to the case where those in power abuse
their power to exploit those with less power than themselves.
Even back in our cave dwelling days, the need to cooperate for
survival sake probably kept domination within a group to a minimum.
Cave dwelling leaders almost certainly acted to protect their
family groups, and heads of family groups no doubt bonded together
to defend whole communities. However, as the danger posed by other
species gradually tapered off, the survival of the fittest quality
of "domination" should have tapered off as well. Unfortunately,
the trait persisted in the absence of predators.
Feudal monarchs provide an excellent example of this type of
domination. They certainly assumed absolute authority for the
defense of their empires. But as Lord Acton pointed out, power
corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Somewhere along the way, the power and responsibilities of the
role were abused to the extent that society's defenders took it
on themselves to extend their dominance to include ownership of
all communal assets.
At that point ... ECONOMIC FEUDALISM WAS BORN!
From defenders, they became rulers who personally claimed all
the communal property except that which they chose to give away
to buy loyalty. In effect they dominated their subjects in much
the same way as dictators do today. In order to maintain their
position of dominance, the monarchs divided their kingdoms into
feudal states and gave away large tracts of land within each of
these areas to relatives and trusted friends to gain their loyalty
and military support when needed.
To defend their new domains, these wealthy landowners assembled
armies, and built fortified castles, over which they ruled like
MINOR KINGS in their own right. Needless to say, the monarchs
only gave away as much land and delegated authority to the degree
they thought was necessary to ensure their own dominance.
In a similar way but to a lesser extent, the landed aristocracy
had to do the same within their own castles to also ensure their
continued domination over the subjects under their control. Throughout
the country, the social order was based rigidly on class differences.
Within the landowners' castle walls lived the landowners, their
relatives, and their most valuable subjects. (the law enforcers,
the merchants and the craftsmen) However, the landless peasants
were forced to live outside the walls where they served as watchdogs
in case of sneak attacks by the landlords' enemies.
Authority from the king allowed the aristocracy to exploit the
serfs by putting them all to work and then taxing away the fruit
of their labor. By making the landless peasants conform to a rigid
pattern of subservience, the aristocracy could use them to perform
any and every function that might enhance their own well-being,
while only minimally meeting the serfs' basic needs. In other
words, they used them in much the same way as their other beasts
of burden. After taxes, many subjects like the peasant farmers,
were left with only a minimum of food and provisions to carry
on their lives of servitude. The horses and cows usually ended
up with a greater share of the harvest than these poor clods.
Dust unto dust seemed to more accurately describe their fate.
So, if you belonged to the top 5 percent of feudal society, chances
are you had gold pouring out of your ears. If you didn't, it was
the equivalent of being dropped on your head at birth.
As the landed aristocracy grew stronger, the power of the monarchs
diminished, but both the monarchs and the aristocracy continued
to act as social parasites by taxing the serfs to the brink of
poverty, thus keeping peasants basically powerless and subservient.
Eventually though, to avoid a revolt such as the French monarchs
experienced, the ruling class had to introduce laws that appeared
to recognize some rights of the peasants. But despite the introduction
of democracy, the monarchs and aristocracy exerted their power
and influence in parliament to have legislation passed that ensured
their fortunes remained intact, which in turn kept most of their
Interestingly enough, there still seem to be quite a few class
conscious, and very wealthy Kings and Queens hanging on, who are
actually the direct descendants of the monarchs of feudal days,
and who seem to have kept their fortunes relatively intact. Queens
still reign in Britain, Denmark, and Holland, while Kings still
reign in Belgium, Spain, Norway, and Sweden. Although most look
on modern day monarchs as figureheads, their wealth and influence
must not be underestimated. Queen Elizabeth is still the richest
woman in the world. The South Africans and the Irish are both
actively trying to cast off the burden of Feudal overlords.
From English Feudalism to American Feudalism
America on the other hand chose not a monarch but a President
who can veto the will of a popularly elected Congress. Ironically
or not, George Bush is nevertheless the 13th cousin (twice removed)
of Queen Elizabeth.
In Western society today, billionaire power wielders determine
both the domestic and foreign policies, but they do so from behind
the scenes, and of course like the kings before them, they feel
justified in claiming as much of the communal wealth as they wish.
As far as the economic elite are concerned, national wealth is
not treated as communal wealth.
Many are the descendants of the great landowners of old, and of
the super wealthy merchant class. The distinction between these
two groups has largely disappeared, and we seem to be left with
a hybrid group which embraces international commerce, while holding
vast fortunes in real estate.