> I wasn't reffering to the UK but that "the US establishment descends from the earlier Angloamerican establishment format"

They are from the same source.

> How long did the French vote on anything? The reign of terror begins almost immidiately, then power is transfered to Napoleon.

The reign of terror is the literal security state that was enacted after entire Europe's monarchies (entire Europe, basically) ganged up on France in order to crush the revolution. The grand-sounding name given to that specific measure as 'reign' of terror by mainly the British propaganda hides the fact that that 'reign' was limited to Paris, it affected the aristocrats, their surrogates and those collaborated with them and was at most 30,000 people. Even today, if your country is in an existential war and you collaborate with external enemies against your own country, you will get the same kind of treatment - every single democratic country has the laws to effect the exact same environment if its needed in what are called 'emergency laws'.

Also the French kept voting during the process.

"Power being transferred to Napoleon" is not the argument you think it is. Napoleon was a republican, he literally dismantled entire aristocracy and replaced the entire system with bureaucrats from among the citizens. The 'empire' facade he mounted was done to make Europe accept the new France and its system, as seen in the memoirs of who helped him mount that facade - by appointing ordinary citizens as nobility and calling himself 'emperor', he sought to remove the main motive of the European aristocracies for destroying France and the new system. But all of those were in vain, of course, for the aristocracy would never accept losing its power through non-violent means.

Despite that, Napoleon and the republicans were able to delegitimize and decapitate aristocracy, create and implement the civil law which is de facto basis of our modern egalitarian law and succeed in bringing about the state that today we know as the modern state.

Not ironically, after the aristocratic world order led by Britain won at Waterloo, they undid everything and brought monarchies, even absolute monarchies back. But the seeds of the revolution were planted during the earlier revolution and Napoleon's term, and there was no turning back - Napoleon succeeded in spreading and solidifying republican philosophy, and it finally came back in another wave of revolutions in 1848.

In contrast, the aristocratic elite in the US were unaffected by any of these. After the early founding fathers who subscribed to the ideas of the Enlightenment passed away, the system that was already built to facilitate the power of the minority was totally taken over by the old school aristocratic elite. Oligarchy with a different wig.

> Is this a joke? Or do you only consider western Europe as the rest of the world? (Even then you are wrong.)

Its not a joke. Despite parts of the ideals of the French Revolution and the modern egalitarian system that we have today were implemented in different parts of the world in different time periods by different civilizations, there has never been any period in history in which any society ever implemented and solidified the idea of equality and democratic governance. The French Revolutionary ideals and the declaration of human rights have been the first time the modern ideas were established.

> Well I'm both educated and interested

When I said that the post was intended for those who were knowledgeable in the topic, I meant what i said:

> But there was in the US never a title of aristocracy such as lord

Leaving aside that you did not know that in the pre-rebellion there was aristocracy with actual dukes and counts and their variety, you believe that being an aristocrat depends on having a title. It does not. The basis of the western aristocracy is property ownership. Without the accompanying ownership of the land, titles were and are meaningless. And not surprisingly:

> unless you simply mean the rich have power then your statement is wrong

Its that your existing perspective is wrong. Believing that just because a rebellion happened and de facto aristocratic titles were abolished does not mean the aristocracy just 'went away'. All the dukes, counts and whatever person who had a title before the rebellion kept their privileges and political power after the rebellion - what difference that the rebellion made was allowing the other equally rich to have the same footing with them.

If you think that 'rich having power' is a different thing than aristocracy - like you seem to do - that's where everything goes wrong. There is no difference in between a feudal lord that owned a dukedom and someone rich who owned a large part of a US state, before or after the rebellion.

And, even today its no different - owning a large part of a sector of the economy literally makes that person or persons de facto feudal lords of that realm in the system of capitalism, with all the feudal privileges included. This is precisely why the aristocracy never objected to the industrial revolution, and it is also precisely why the ultra rich strongly object any attempt to regulate corporate power or the wealth - it takes away their feudal privileges.

The modern Angloamerican system keeps alive the aristocracy. All but the feudal titles are lost, everything else stays the same. Even the 'justice of the peace' concept of English feudalism is kept alive through the common law legal system in which the judge plays the role of the local feudal lord, who can 'interpret' the law as he or she wishes, as opposed to civil law judges just being clerks who enforce the relevant part of civil law. Just the civil law vs common law analysis would easily demonstrate that aristocracy still lives in Angloamerica, but that's another large topic.

> "there never was an aristocracy in the US?" The colonies are not the US.

They are. The changes from the colonial system to the legal entity that you know as the US were not so drastic as you think - the colonies (later states) kept their charters, privileges and all the differences that they had. Their elite remained the same. Even when the weak federal government of the early period in which the federal government acted as a common defense and internal regulation mechanism was made into the predecessor of today's federal government by much more centralized changes did not change the situation - the earlier colonial aristocrats just transitioned into being national aristocrats.

> Did you know there were aristocrats in France before the revolution?

There were aristocrats before the revolution, there were aristocrats after the revolution. The French King's own brother, Prince of Orleans, was among the French parliamentarians who voted to execute the king. The difference is that the French Revolutionary government and the system that it created allowed no mechanism for any minority to be able to dominate the majority like the US system was, or gasp how the British system still is.

Hence the difference in between the Angloamerican world and the entire rest of the world that was expressed in the first post: Whereas the UK directly preserved its aristocratic systems and the power of the aristocrats and the US just dressed it in a different suit, the entire rest of the world follows the French Revolutionary paradigm of equality. And that lack of equality in the Angloamerican countries is the reason why the elite of those countries have the power that they have and think and act like how they do - aristocratic privileges.