Honest Question: Just who IS the ESTABLISHMENT?

wgadget

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
13,946
So I listen to AM radio most if the time when I'm driving to work, and I hear a lot of commercials. What's up with these WE WANT OUR PARTY BACK ads I'm hearing against the Establishment? I'm thinking they're affiliated with Grinch, but if Grinch isn't Establishment, who is?

I think part of the organized chaos is for the RNC to make people think Grinch and Santorum aren't Establishment, totally leaving out Ron, the only TRUE anti-Establishment candidate. I think the strategy goes along with the reason why Grinch and Santorum are vowing to stay in until the end.

What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
Global system of central banks pull and own their puppets strings? We are all in the same fix.

A while back I heard there were only seven nations on the world left without being part of the global controlled network of central banks. The list had Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya on it then. Now I think it is down to Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Cuba
 
Last edited:
So I listen to AZm radio most if the time when I'm driving to work, and I hear a lot of commercials. What's ip with these WE WANT OUR PARTY BACK ads I'm hearing against the Establishment? I'm thinking they're affiliated with Grinch, but if Grinch isn't Establishment, who is?

I think part of the organized chaos is for the RNC to make people think Grinch and Santorum aren't Establishment, totally leaving out Ron, the only TRUE anti-Establishment candidate. I think the strategy goes along with the reason why Grinch and Santorum are vowing to stay in until the end.

What do you guys think?

In a general sense when the average GOP voter refers to "the establishment" they are referring to the moderate wing of the party. That's what I have gathered from my experience and it goes back to many years of the "Rockefeller Republicans" being in leadership positions of the party.

Our wing tends to view anyone from the other three wings (moderates, social-cons, and neo-cons) as being part of "the establishment".
 
First you have to understand what the "establishment" is. Think of it as a club. You have the long term members who have carried the torch from those before them. It is the understanding of those torch holders to groom and mold the younger members to become future torch holders. These leaders of the torch emphasize the "benefits" of being in the club. Some of those benefits are keeping things intact that make them wealthy and give them unlimited perks. They emphasize the importance of never upsetting the cart or you will ruin it for all members. if you become a outcast and "trouble maker" you will pay the price and be rid of at all costs. So it behooves those that are part of the party to "play by the rules".

With that said. All of the leaders in the club have identified those that are loyal members and are ranked by their degree of loyalty. Your degree of loyalty within the heirarchy determines how much "support" you will receive when time comes for political positions or elective office. The more loyalty, the more support. I think you are seeing that now with Romney, Gingrich and Santorum. Each have in some ways or another have proven themselves to the establishment that they would carry the torch. But in some degrees, each one has proven the loyalty more than the other. I think the current status of ranking is Romney, Santorum and Gingrich. Gingrich has burnt a lot of bridges when he was SOH and the establishment is very leery of him in some ways, but he has proven in the past that he was a loyal lap dog on a lot of issues.

Bottom line don't be fooled thinking Santorum and Gingrich aren't establishment. They are, just in different measures. Understanding this paints a more clearer picture of why Ron is the "outcast" and marginalized.
 
It was so much wasier to point out the "Establishment" back in teh days of Boss Platt and Tammny Hall. They were very open about it. Today you have to look a bit deeper and notice who profits from the policies that run against liberty, and how the people they support keep getting elected. Even when "no one likes them" as it is with Romney.
 
I thin the establishment is a cliche, used to describe anyone that still follows a certain strain of thought within society: ply by the rules, follow the leader, conform, keep quiet as you've been taught to, never go against the grain, never think for yourself, respect authority, etc. Society at large is done following that ideology and so these candidates know this is who they must appeal to if they are ever going to have a hope at popularity, regardless of whether or not they are actually the real deal or not.

Ron Paul is the essence of being anathema to these ideas, hence his spontaneous popularity, they are trying their best as Tampa gets closer to do anything they can to marginalize and co-opt our momentum.
 
It is also worth remembering that an organization or system can act in ways that are not really supported by any individual within it, or at least by very few.
Nietzsche observed that two men together could be far more evil than one alone, because one could give an order without having to face the reality of its execution, while the other would execute the order and see the effects, but absolve himself of responsibility because he was just following the direction of another.
A few generations later and we see Steinbeck writing:
'The bank is something else than men. It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It’s the monster. Men made it, but they can’t control it.'
The same phenomenon, only scaled up a thousandfold. In a very real sense when you talk about The Establishment you are *not* talking about some set of persons - or at least, the persons in question are only filling roles that many others could also fill. You are fighting a system.
Another apropos quote (which I think I first saw in these forums): 'For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places...' (Ephesians)
 
Well, from my research, and being a Birch follower, i agree with the British aristocratic/royals being highly responsible and involved, with the overwhelming evidence that they HAVE BEEN for hundreds of years. All Britain ever was is an extension of the Roman Empire. The power players in their banking system, the elites and influentials, have always believed themselves to be the dominant race, and have proved it time and again with their scheme of 'divide and conquer', hundreds of years of occupation and take overs of countries, pitting countries against one another, funding both sides, and along with the US (once they co-opted the country), swooping in at the last minute as if they are the saviors. However, several factions are vying for this 'establishment' type of power in the grand scheme of things, and that would involve radical Zionists/Israel, many in top positions in European countries, all the splinter groups and fake organizations. The UN is basically the HQ of it all. Some have the same plan, some totally different, and they all don't see eye to eye on everything. Right now, you see IL seething to want to attack Iran, but both the UK/US wont let them, as just one example of that.

The establishment just isnt pinned down to the US, it is worldwide, therefore a lot more broad and more difficult to dissect or point the finger at any specific person. It pretty much grows like a 'borg-type' of collective. This is why the agenda in the middle east has not been easy for them...this all started in the 50s, and they still have not given up. Countries like Iran refuse to bow down and kiss the ring, and they never will, hence the endless demonization, false flag nonsense, war rhetoric, etc.

The UK controls the money, people, and IL controls most of the pre-war/covert ops and scheming. The US is basically caught in the middle, with sold out lap dogs who dont really care about the agenda of those two countries. Our congress/senate (90% of it--the neocons and brown nosers) only care about MONEY and what they can get out of it. They are all useful idiots and the real power players on the 'grand chess board' couldn't care less about them either. They want global dominion, always have, and always will, and they don't care a single bit about money, who has to die or how many die, nor how many of THEIR OWN even have to die. As long as the end result leaves them in charge, that is all that matters.

Trust me, when you do enough research, youll see this is pretty much the gist of it all. Its black vs white (not in the sense of race) but in the sense of dark and light, good vs evil. I know some people will think that sounds 'out there', but believe me, when you connect the dots little by little and get into the deeper history of it, you'll see it is nothing more than a spiritual war, or a 'holy war' of sorts.
 
It is interesting that establishment is no longer a dirty word, most likely due to the fact that even those who don't (yet) support Paul still increasingly recognize that there's clique in Washington that plays by their own rules and muddies up the process.

I remember I used to cringe when I heard Dr. Paul say that word back before he had some mainstream acceptance, but now even Newt is trying to co-opt it to play on people's growing distrust in the establishment players in Washington. Fortunately I think that's as far as the public takes it, because even though there does exist a network of real establsihment individuals (the politicians are more just pawns that take kickbacks), there's no need to take it past that for election purposes. The only thing that matters is removing their unaccountable power from our corrupt federal government, and that stops whoever from being able to use us as pawns so easily when they have to be accountable locally.
 
I guess my definition is a little more simplistic that most posted. To me the establishment are those that are in congress that do as Santorium described he did during the debate: Those that go along to get along.
 
Anyone who is actively working against Ron Paul is the establishment. The Fox fools, the GOP long timers, the neocons. the warmongers, etc.
 
The real establishment is the voting public that's become used to the notion that we can just print more money to fix any problem. The "Establishment" uses this to their advantage.

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” - attributed to Ben Franklin but source unconfirmed.
 
Global system of central banks pull and own their puppets strings? We are all in the same fix.

A while back I heard there were only seven nations on the world left without being part of the global controlled network of central banks. The list had Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya on it then. Now I think it is down to Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Cuba

Do you have a source on this? It's intriguing, but also sounds a bit convenient.
 
It is also worth remembering that an organization or system can act in ways that are not really supported by any individual within it, or at least by very few.
Nietzsche observed that two men together could be far more evil than one alone, because one could give an order without having to face the reality of its execution, while the other would execute the order and see the effects, but absolve himself of responsibility because he was just following the direction of another.
A few generations later and we see Steinbeck writing:
'The bank is something else than men. It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It’s the monster. Men made it, but they can’t control it.'
The same phenomenon, only scaled up a thousandfold. In a very real sense when you talk about The Establishment you are *not* talking about some set of persons - or at least, the persons in question are only filling roles that many others could also fill. You are fighting a system.
Another apropos quote (which I think I first saw in these forums): 'For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places...' (Ephesians)

Best answer. Respect.
 
Trust me, when you do enough research, youll see this is pretty much the gist of it all. Its black vs white (not in the sense of race) but in the sense of dark and light, good vs evil. I know some people will think that sounds 'out there', but believe me, when you connect the dots little by little and get into the deeper history of it, you'll see it is nothing more than a spiritual war, or a 'holy war' of sorts.

Agree 100%
 
The "establishment" is basically the two party criminal system put in place to give you the belief that your vote has a say. Hence, the Democrats and Republicans. Rush Limbaugh goes nuts whenever a caller calls in wanting to start a third party because he/she is fed up with the fake conservatives within the Republican Party. As everyone knows, nothing ever changes in D.C. It's just more of the same - more spending, more wars, more debt, more fraud, more waste, more welfare, a bigger police state.

Then above the two party system, there is something called the globalists and elitists that control those Party (behind the scenes). Around the world, these high power people are composed of about 6000 families. The bankers and MSM media are pretty much all included - those in charge.

This is why Ron Paul has an uphill battle to get elected. These globalists who control the system wouldn't be able to anymore. They know their GIG WOULD BE UP.
 
Establishment - those in positions of power that benefit from our current situation and therefore seek to prevent change. this usually comes organically - the desire for self-preservation or self-enrichment.

This is generally different from those who actually hold the strings (banksters, etc).
 
Back
Top