Such a prescient, beautiful sentiment.

Wednesday, 22 February 2017

What Is The establishment?

A Question Posed Recently.

I must fess up here that the name "Establishment" is a frequent one to be found on this blog. So I feel it is past time I addressed this complex and inscrutable concept. My first consideration perhaps the manner of the way past social structures might be perceived in the context of "Establishment" and touch on the possible manner such a word ever came about.

One such thought is that it lay in the idea of an established order. One such as in the old feudal system n which the powerful, rich landed gentry held huge wealth, power and sway both socially and politically. Land ownership, serfdom and domestic service all played a part in a system for centuries accepted as "that's just the way things are". 

However the natural injustice of this "order" could only survive through overarching power over others and a compliant acceptance, enforced by the threats of starvation if rebelled against. It is probably a reasonable assumption that this cosy, comfortable status quo could not remain when a degree of power shifted, via the industrial revolution, into a new world of an expanding labour market and competition for labour with the old feudal farming needs.

Added to that competition was the rapid rise of trade and industrial wealth carved out by entrepreneurs, inventors and men with inbuilt talent and acumen to seize opportunities across the globe. An Empire also in need of workers and management skills, hitherto confined to farm managers and tenant farmers. 

Thus evolved a new world ready and willing to make inroads into the lazier parts of the aristocracy. Suddenly the cosseted easy life of inherited privilege was less able to fend off the "nouveaux riche" now beginning to match the wealth of the hitherto elite "establishment". Capitalism and banking were about to become "ennobled" both in power and literally peerage elevation via the power of massive wealth.

So to our present day. A list of perceived "Establishment" figures and actual such members of that elite are possibly two different animals. The more brash, narcissistic folk would, iin my view, include the likes of Branson. A character never really able to hold sway and power as much as he would wish. The same goes for Kiddy fiddler Brazil loving Mandleson. That wannabee list full of wealthy but if ever powerful, only briefly.

Here virtually all politicians in The West have but a flirtation with membership of elites. Money alone certainly doesn't cut any dash. The Kinnocks, Ecclestones, Bliars and so on certainly have great wealth but power over us all, not really. So who are "They"?

I see bankers right up there. The Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and others ever more secretive and hidden. With the possible exception of Putin, most political figures of the West are too transient, smug and weak in the face of the movers and shakers mentioned. We once could include the influential from the media but that power, in the face of internet people power is waning, hopefully forever.

Then there are the very, very rich Soros types. Their reach and cunning their skill set for influence and rule over others. To witness their fury, over Brexit and POTUS Trump, a joy to witness, for all of us ashamed to be part of their global consumerism, as a weapon for control. many regard Donald Trump's wealth as an automatic entry ticket to the "establishment" but I argue he either turned them down or bridled at the rough treatment they all used against him. Not least those cretinous Clinton traitors. Along with Uncle Tom Baz.

Three final limbs of my take on a modern "establishment". Corporations, gangsters and civil servants. The EUSSR unelected bureaucrats belonging to two of the aforementioned and future office holders in those corporations they cuddle up to as unelected new age aristocracy.

One factor I regard as singling out those with most power over us is their hidden privacy and secrecy. The UK Civil Service Mandarins chief among the most shadowy. All of them with a genuine claim to be part of "them" is their anonymity, as a rule. It certainly is extremely rare, even for Soros, to be in the public eye. 

However their shameful lust to rule over the rest, like all established orders throughout history, will always be overtaken in the future. Maybe one day by genuine democracy and people power. I feel that the history of the Knights Templar a fascinating one for all human behaviour. One where wealth and power evolve for the benefit of a few. Good intentions really do have a sell by date and a diversionary path to an unimagined and hellish consequence!

Are they due for reincarnation?  Dump the spin, the essay is a good read.


  1. Thought provoking post there Rightie.

    A hierarchy gains power by having a hold over the vast majority of people, the hierarchy are not in for money just for the sake of it but they need it and lots of it, that money is what they use to get and keep power and position, its power they crave no differently to some drug addict desperate for the next fix.

    That need for power has never changed from an age long before Christ, its what drives the wrong people forward, pitiful human trait it is because those who seek power are in almost all cases the people who should never be allowed hold it.

    What can the rest of do about this, little really in reality for most of us except use our votes wisely and otherwise ignore the powerful completely which will get under their skin, which amazingly happened in 2016 in both Gt Britain and the USA, was that a portent of things to come, is the present set of power addicts going to find they are no longer wanted, we can but hope.
    What we can do is to try to live our lives outside of the groupings they want to label us with, live within our means so we get off the credit fuelled train of material gain from birth to death, be happy with our lot, step off the greasy pole at the level we are happy with.

    Perish the thought of becoming like them, noses deep in the trogh, desperate to gain a spoonful of power for ourselves to lord it over our own tiny irrelevant domains.

    There is great happiness still to be found in life, there is someone out there for everyone, the someone who is right and worth having will love you for what you are in your heart, not for the position you hold or the wealth you might display.

    There is no true happiness in emulating the Bransons Clintons Blairs of the world, unless you are like those shallow people, worshippers of mammon (power).
    They can buy their hangers on and media chums, let them, ignore those too.

    They and their type, and their apprentices in the peculiar and increasingly deviant world of celebrity are best avoided and completely ignored, ignoring is quite easy to do simply by no longer reading or watching the MSM, their propaganda arm.

    If they don't exist in your life they have no power over you.


  2. The question of who constitutes the 'Establishment' has been running around my thoughts for quite a while. I'm sure it's not the Bransons and the city bankers whose million pound bonuses we have been trained to boo and hiss in a kind of "two minutes hate". I imagine that these supposed 'elites' are ordinary proles who have been permitted to earn more than the rest of us 'commoners' and 'useless eaters'.

    George Soros is a different matter - a billionaire who funds all manner of trendy leftist 'causes' and can stir up much of the youth and other educationally and emotionally under-developed people into supporting the very causes of the ongoing collapse of their society.

    George Orwell, writing circa 1940, remarked on how the "Left" have adopted a "mechanically anti-British attitude". We saw this just yesterday in the Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election, where, despite an approx 70/30 split in favour of 'Brexit' in the referendum, people chose the seemingly rabidly anti-Brexit Labour candidate.

    I agree with Judd that we must use our votes wisely, but after the Stoke result - on a turnout of 36.7% - I can't see that happening. There is going to have to be suffering on a massive scale for people to wake up and then they will likely vote for something even worse.

    The next best thing is to hold the party-faithful - i.e. compromised - politicians to account. I have tried to do this, but these people are like brick walls; their minds seem concreted around to keep out any views which go against their core indoctrination/delusions, then there is the inclination to safeguard their chances of promotion and so they never, ever admit to the disastrous policies of internationalism and political correctness, never mind challenge them.

    My last meeting with politicians was a few weeks after last year's Scottish Parliamentary elections in which I spent about 45 minutes (as much as I could take) in the company of an SNP MP and a brand new MSP from the same stable.

    My Christian beliefs were absolutely ridiculed by these people. The MP claims to be a strong Christian, much like a Tony Blair 'Christian', I expect. My MP even claimed that the Bible is wrong and that he is right. Hubris doesn't come much greater and the dangers are obvious.

    Said MP has previously intimated how little influence he actually has. Practically all MPs have no real power. This might be a good thing, as most are intellectually and morally-challenged, but it renders the few decent ones impotent.

    But here in Scotland, we don't need George Soros to fund our leftist lunatics because the SNP does that very effectively. Via the delusion of "independence" ruled by a Brussels elite, the SNP has successfully manipulated nearly half the population into accepting this new union in favour of the 1707 Union, which baled out our forebears financially and with whom we depend for most of our trade.

    I'm going off at a tangent now, but suffice it to say that politicians are not the Establishment as much as they are their useful idiots, like the fake charities; the specially-chosen government panels who report the desired, pre-determined 'advice'; the media barons; the assorted 'experts' who, like the politicians, are nearly all sympathetic to the Establishment's internationalism, political correctness, secular humanism, fake environmental and human rights issues which are merely devices so that the UN can compile an increasing amount of international 'laws' to keep expanding global government.


  3. continued...

    So, who or what is the Establishment? Historically, it may always have been a few people concerned with using any means to consolidate control and wealth, although I imagine that there were more genuinely altruistic 'elite' members of society in centuries past than today.

    We see what the bigwigs do today via their 'Foundations'. Whether it's the Ford Foundation or Bill & Melinda Gates or the Clinton Foundation or George Soros's Open Society Foundations, the agenda is much the same: leftist subversion of nation states through fake human rights and environmentalism to increase moral relativism and impose global rules and control populations, both numerically and literally.

    But again, I don't think that these very useful idiots are the Establishment hierarchy. The real global 'elite' could well be linked to Rome. When one peels back the Vatican onion, Satanic skeletons seem to be exhumed from the dust of history. Where more useful for the Antichrist to rule the Earth from?

    So, Satan is the head of the global Establishment, I would say, and the 'high priests' are probably people we have never heard of and who pass instructions down to the various organisations, especially the UN and EU and most probably the Freemasons, people like Soros and the Clintons, the many compromised churches (e.g. members of the World Council of Churches) and the usual candidates like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Club of Rome.

  4. Q/ Daddy daddy what will President Trump do after he's done being president ?
    A/ Well son he'll probably go back to his previous job, running a successful business that provides jobs for several thousand people.
    Q/ Is that what Mr. Obama did daddy ?
    A/ Yes son, he went back to being a left wing rabble rouser.

  5. Thank you one and all for the comments. I suspect we may revisit this again ere long.