PostHeaderIcon Thoughts On The “Establishment”

In a number of past articles, I have been known to rail against the so-called “establishment” in a way that rather assumes that you readers automatically interpret the term exactly as I mean it. Of course, this may not be the case. So, I ask your further indulgence as I try to elaborate on the term, as I see it.

To begin with, I see a hierarchy of political influences that drive the thoughts and actions of the powerful, particularly, those we have given control of our government and its money machine. These are (most influential to least influential):

→ Position within the “establishment”,

→ Political party affiliation (Democrat, Republican, Other),

→ Economic philosophy (laissez-faire, socialist, etc.),

→ Sociopolitical philosophy (democracy, republic, monarchy, dictatorship, etc.).

In this context, I use the term “establishment” to mean that conglomeration of people and groups who are principally responsible for a governmental/economic system that operates the way it does for that simple reason that they directly benefit from it operating that way.

Historically, and for obvious reasons, an establishment will do whatever it can to maintain its power and position and will seek to destroy any person or thing that might threaten or even challenge that position.

Please note, from the hierarchy above, that an “establishment” operates above considerations such are party affiliation or economic/political philosophy. This means that any given member of an establishment may appear to advocate any party affiliation or economic/political philosophy when, in fact, their main priority is to continue the establishment by maintaining the status quo. This may help explain why we the sheeple are led to think we are voting out one party/philosophy in favor of another different one only to find that nothing of substance has changed.

As if the mere existence of an establishment were not trouble enough, around a century ago, the establishments in most of the so-called “western democracies” discovered the seductive appeal of the progressive movement. Thus, for most of the time since, the establishment has used progressivism to help perpetuate itself through a multi-pronged attack on republicanism:

→ First, through the intentional debasement of national currencies by replacing them with fiat currencies (currencies that have no tangible backing). Using fiat currencies, an establishment can enrich some while impoverishing others, at their whim, and without such obvious and objectionable devices as taxation.

→ Second, by redirecting educational systems away from teaching critical thought and good citizenship and toward social indoctrination and functional ignorance – especially of the history, governmental structures and economics of their own nations.

→ Third, by using the first two to create an ever growing cadre of dependents… people whose abilities toward self-reliance have been crippled such that they depend on government for their sustenance. And, not just any government – government operated by and for the benefit of the establishment.

→ Fourth, by using an almost constant state of military conflict to:

—-> Divert public attention away from the tricks being used to tyrannize them,
—-> Drive changes to the world political situation that people would not otherwise accede to,
—-> Promote a general feeling of outside threat to help make people feel even more dependent on government.

All things considered, this has all worked even better than its perpetrators expected it to. Indeed, in recent years it has worked so well that people are almost begging government to take their essential rights in return for some totally false promise of security. Individual dependency has soared to the point where over ½ of the citizens of the United States get a substantial portion of their sustenance from government.

However, even if millions of sheeple are totally comfortable with what is happening, the whole scheme has a fatal flaw. Supporting an ever-growing dependent class along with over-militarism requires the distribution of an ever-growing amount of wealth. But, whoops!! no government, no matter how genuine its progressive intent, can produce wealth. So, all that wealth must be seized from the shrinking cadre of citizens who remain able and willing to produce it. Ultimately, the total wealth available for the establishment to loot will be insufficient to pay the dependents (or, as aptly stated by Lady Thatcher, “sooner or later you run out of other people’s money”).

Sooner has passed and it is now later. And, progressive governments all over Europe and the Americas are increasingly unable to continue the expected payout. Worse yet, when they try to explain to the dependents that they are going to have to cut back, they are answered with riots, fire bombs and the like.

This is not the first time such a thing has happened. And, when it does, the establishment has but one final trick to play. It is called massive global war. And, what a wonderful thing global war can be. Many in the establishment get even richer during the wars while the poor sheeple who believed their lies and depended on their stolen loot, get slaughtered by the millions.

Is there a point to this tirade? I hope so. It is this… the future is still ours to decide, if we would only do so. As I write this, there are actually candidates for national office who, if given the chance, would begin to dismantle the establishment. The obvious first step is to drastically reduce the size and scope of the United States federal government. At its current size, power and ability to control the economy, massive corruption is guaranteed to persist.

If you are supporting candidates for any federal office whose platform does not include massive reduction in the size and scope of government, then you are supporting the status quo just as the establishment desires.

To date, I am aware of only 3 candidates for the GOP presidential nomination who have openly promised to discontinue entire departments of the federal government. Two of these (Paul and Johnson) are very specific as to which they would eliminate. The third (Perry) says he wants some elimination but has trouble remembering which departments that would be, casting serious doubt on his true intentions.

So, that leaves us with 2 candidates that the establishment, through their media lap dogs, have convinced most of you are either nutty, insignificant, haven’t a chance, “the Donald” doesn’t approve of them, or whatever other reason you should not give them the benefit of your consideration. If this continues as it seems it will, we are headed to yet another tweedle-dee/tweedle-dum election where you get to pick the establishment candidate of your choice and nothing substantial changes as a result.

In late November of 2012, when the elections are over and the dust begins to settle, please remember that whatever happens next was not forced upon you. Instead, it was YOUR decision that it be so.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

6 Responses to “Thoughts On The “Establishment””

  • Daedalus says:

    Troy stated, “no government, no matter how genuine its progressive intent, can produce wealth.”

    If the US government opened its own gold mine on BLM land, and produced gold bars, would it not be producing wealth? Note, I am not dealing with the efficiency of the process or the morality, but taking the statement at face value.

    The way you have described “The Establishment”:
    [I use the term “establishment” to mean that conglomeration of people and groups who are principally responsible for a governmental/economic system that operates the way it does for that simple reason that they directly benefit from it operating that way.

    Historically, and for obvious reasons, an establishment will do whatever it can to maintain its power and position and will seek to destroy any person or thing that might threaten or even challenge that position.]

    The first paragraph would apply even if all the members of Congress were “Ron Paul” types. They would also seek to maintain their their power and position, believing it would be of benefit to the country. They probably would not seek to destroy their opposition, but then, power corrupts…..

    • Troy says:

      Dae,
      Thanks for responding.

      You propose an interesting idea RE government exploiting OUR vast land holdings. However, I can hardly see a government run enterprise doing this. The long history of such enterprises suggests they would muck it up, most likely by wasting more wealth in the process than they would produce. Selling those lands to private enterprise does make a lot of sense though as it would convert them from wealth consumers to wealth producers.

      You are also correct in that even a congress of Ron Paul types (and the power brokers that surround them) would constitute an “establishment”. It would seem that some form of “establishment” is inevitable. The answer then is to insist on an establishment that operates to the mutual benefit of itself and we the sheeple.

      As for power corrupting, the obvious solution is to vastly shrink the power of government and the wealth that it controls. The more wealth and power are concentrated, the greater the corruption they create. We will never be totally free of corruption but we can move most of the power and wealth control back as close to the people as possible, making the inevitable corruption easier to detect and dismantle.

      As it is today, government has become so huge and complex that even those who watch it constantly have trouble seeing and understanding all that goes on.

      Troy

      • Daedalus says:

        I think you are correct on two counts, the government land , in general, should be sold off. I have mentioned, in other forums, that the proceeds could be used to retire the National Debt. There are some areas for discussion such as military bases, training areas and Federal buildings, some of which could be converted to long term leases.
        I was triggered in my response, by a phrase I hear a lot, That governments don’t produce wealth. They most certainly do, but not necessarily morally or efficiently in some cases. (One has to define wealth for a proper discussion of the topic)

  • Troy says:

    Dae,

    I define the creation of wealth as expanding the total value of the goods and services in an economy. We need to better clarify our positions RE the ability of government to create wealth. I well agree that government can seize wealth (which is exactly how it came to control all that land which, in reality, belongs to WTS — most of it having been seized illegally from its original owners or bought from other governments who did the seizing. Other than the ability to lease, sell or actually try to work the land itself, I find it hard to imagine how governments might create wealth. And, I do not consider leasing or selling to be the direct creation of wealth. Please note that I do not consider the transfer of wealth to be an act of creation. Wealth is created when some combination of work, talent and materials of lesser value are employed to create new/additional value in a good or service. For instance, turning iron ore, carbon and chrome into steel is a wealth creating act. Likewise, using that steel to fabricate any number of useful tools is a wealth creating act. Printing fiat currency and/or collecting fees, duties, taxes, interest, etc. transfer wealth from one pocket to another but they do not create new wealth. Indeed, such activities may facilitate the creation of wealth (such as loaning money at interest to an entrepreneur, or leasing government held land to miners, ranchers or loggers) but this is facilitation, not creation.

    It is very possible that I am looking at this myopically and missing the obvious (it would not be the first time!). Please offer some examples of the direct creation of wealth by government.

    Troy

    • ◄Dave► says:

      I think I get what Dae is getting at, Troy. If a entrepreneur can borrow some capital, buy some raw materials with it, employ some labor, and create a finished product that has greater value than the original capital, has he created wealth? I think so. Then, what difference does it make what the source of the capital is? A government can float a bond issue, build a bridge with it, charge a toll for its use, pay back the original bonds with it, and still own the bridge. That is a form of wealth the government never had before, and nobody got cheated out of anything in the process.

      True, a private enterprise could have undoubtedly done the same thing more efficiently; but would one have been willing to wait as long for a positive ROI as the government? Technically, the credit rating of the government is so much better, that the cost of borrowing the long-term capital would be much lower for the government, too.

      Even if the initial capital was confiscatory taxes, the value added in the construction of the road, bridge, building, military base etc. is arguably wealth. In many cases, the taxpayers were OK with their taxes being used to build the Interstate Highway system, dams, TVA, a strong well-equipped military, courthouses, etc. These are the wealth of our nation, and most were paid for by our ancestors. ◄Dave►

      • Troy says:

        I take your point. However, I don’t see capital as the basis of the creation of wealth. An often necessary ingredient, but not the essential part. Were capital the basis, then new wealth would flow out the doors of Fort Knox in steady stream. I propose that labor and ingenuity are the true basis and, further, that one can cite many instances where the two of these were used to produce wealth in the absence of capital. For instance, one can pan gold in the Sierras with no greater investment than a used pie pan that one might have rescued from a trash heap.

        I do not argue that capital improvements, financed with public money can be instances of wealth creation. However, inevitably, the actual creative act was done by private industry. I know we are in a grey area here but I still contend that government, as such, does not create wealth. In most of the instances you cite, a group of interested citizens could have gotten together, raised some capital, and contracted the work. Indeed, many of our early roads, bridges and public buildings came about by this very process. Even today, the government of the State of Texas is finding it can speed the building and maintenance of roads by giving up the government monopoly and letting private enterprise build them at private expense then recover their investments through tolls — another “new” yet very old idea.

        As to a standing army being an instance of wealth, we must discuss this in another thread.

        Troy

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links