Three Kinds of Establishment People

I think there are 3 types of people who push the Establishment Agenda.

In the 1st group are the SHILLS, those to whom it's like a religion, a belief system. They are drinking the KoolAid so to speak, but do not know or see the big picture. This applies to the people who are polarized on the left/right axis and vehemently and obnoxiously defend their positions. This group would include the Dan Rather types and the Sean Hannity types. They buy into the left vs. right illusion. Most “pundits” are in this category. I base my opinion on this book:

"Bias: by Bernard Goldberg:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9L9qIIuj4WMC&pg=PP1&dq=bias+goldberg&sig=5_jQzkPnt7AqZgAHuoZVWooolBw

He's a former CBS correspondent who got kicked out when he wrote an article about the liberal bias so prevalent in the major networks and the NYT. Too bad that in his book he obviously buys into the left vs. right illusion, simply pointing out that there are two ends on the axis, instead of catching on to the real picture.

The 2nd group of Establishment people, whom I will call the DELUSIONALS, are those who know the big picture, but justify defending what they’re doing, by believing it benefits mankind. Human beings inherently can come up with justifications for what they do, even though most others would consider what they’re doing as evil (for example, suicide bombers, Nazi soldiers, etc). The Clintons and the Bushes fit here, and the media bosses who hand down edicts on what to say, to the Dan Rathers and the Sean Hannitys. This book explains how human beings come up with reasoning to justify evil deeds:

"The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ws_HtuMoWHsC&pg=PP1&dq=science+of+good+and+evil&sig=6A7YBB9gJV6nPYVPltokjDPAdGE

The 3rd group is the smallest. I will call them the SOCIOPATHS. They are the true megalomaniacs, who don’t care about the welfare of their fellow human beings, and only care about increasing their own power, despite their being extremely wealthy. Note that sociopaths mostly don’t become serial killers. The percentage of psychopaths in positions of power in the business world is higher than in the general population (the Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison types). These types of Establishment people are the wizards behind the curtain. These are the people we don’t see. This book discusses how psychopaths can climb in the business world. Parallels can be drawn in the world of the power elite:

http://books.google.com/books?id=J9mvHW1eA14C&pg=PP1&dq=snakes+in+suits&sig=oYnGROu2QjK730kTKlTtWSaJgTw

The history of mankind has always been of hegemony. A group will always tend to rise up and dominate the rest. I think the US Constitution was an attempt to prevent it. Alas, it failed.

Everything I Want to Do is Illegal

Here's an interesting article by a farmer, showing how far we've come along, in terms of overbearing government regulations:
Everything I Want to Do is Illegal

I've written about this before, about the growth of bureaucracy and death of common sense:
There Oughtta be a Law

Are you a Liberal or a Conservative?

When asked why the nation is going in a direction they don't like, Conservatives will blame "the Liberals". If a Liberal is asked the same question, he will blame "the Conservatives".

I have met seemingly intelligent people on both sides of this argument.

If you identify with one of these 2 groups, did you ever stop and consider that you are being played against each other?

It's a trick question, an illusion. The same way that an illusionist will distract your attention away from what's really happening:

The Republicans and the Democrats, are together, pushing an authoritarian, socialist agenda.

Why Terrorism is not the Nation's Most Pressing Problem

I posted on what the Nation' s Most Pressing Problem is.
I will now say why I think terrorism is not the most pressing problem.

Colin Powell in his GQ interview:

GQ: Isn’t the new global threat we face even more dangerous?

CP: What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?

I found this post on an online forum, written by someone who writes better than me:

History and common sense teach that Powell speaks truth.

Since 9-11, 100,000 Americans have been murdered — as many as we lost in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq combined. Yet, not one of these murders was the work of an Islamic terrorist, and all of them, terrible as they are, did not imperil the survival of our republic. (ed: Bankruptcy would.)

Terrorists can blow up our buildings, assassinate our leaders, and bomb our malls and stadiums. They cannot destroy us. Assume the worst. Terrorists smuggle an atom bomb into New York harbor or into Washington, D.C., and detonate it.

Horrible and horrifying as that would be — perhaps 100,000 dead and wounded — it would not mean the end of the United States. It would more likely mean the end of Iran, or whatever nation at which the United States chose to direct its rage and retribution.

Consider. Between 1942 and 1945, Germany and Japan, nations not one-tenth the size of the United States, saw their cities firebombed, and their soldiers and civilians slaughtered in the millions. Japan lost an empire. Germany lost a third of its territory. Both were put under military occupation. Yet, 15 years later, Germany and Japan were the second and third most prosperous nations on Earth, the dynamos of their respective continents, Europe and Asia.

Powell's point is not that terrorism is not a threat. It is that the terror threat must be seen in perspective, that we ought not frighten ourselves to death with our own propaganda, that we cannot allow fear of terror to monopolize our every waking hour or cause us to give up our freedom.

For all the blather of a restored caliphate, the "Islamofascists," as the neocons call them, cannot create or run a modern state, or pose a mortal threat to America. The GNP of the entire Arab world is not even equal to Spain's. Oil aside, its exports are equal to Finland's.

Afghanistan and Sudan, under Islamist regimes, were basket cases. Despite the comparisons with Nazi Germany, Iran is unable to build modern fighters or warships and has an economy one-twentieth that of the United States, at best. While we lack the troops to invade Iran, three times the size of Iraq, the U.S. Air Force and Navy could, in weeks, smash Iran's capacity to make war, blockade it and reduce its population to destitution. Should Iran develop a nuclear weapon and use it on us or on Israel, it would invite annihilation.

As a threat, Iran is not remotely in the same league with the Soviet Union of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev, or Mao's China, or Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan, or even Mussolini's Italy.

And why would Tehran, which has not launched a war since the revolution in 1979, start a war with an America with 10,000 nuclear weapons? If the Iranians are so suicidal, why have they not committed suicide in 30 years by attacking us or Israel?

What makes war with Iran folly is that an all-out war could lead to a break-up of that country, with Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Arabs and Baluchis going their separate ways, creating fertile enclaves for al-Qaida recruitment and training."

Now listen very carefully to this interview of Judge Andrew Napolitano

The powers (wiretapping, Patriot Act) that the Federal Government are taking on, are the same as that of the former East Germany, to crush the individual grapes, to make the juice that is the collective. We are being turned into SLAVES, in the name of safety.

The means is FEAR; the goal is POWER; the victim is LIBERTY.

The crashing US Dollar

The US Dollar vs. Canadian $:






















The price of crude oil in US$:



















The Federal Debt:



















The Consumer Price Index:

















Now listen to what Ronald Reagan said about mounting debt and inflation:







What would happen if the US Dollar crashed and the nation went bankrupt? Perhaps, the adoption of the "Amero" will be proposed as "the solution". What's the Amero? It's to the North American Union, what the Euro is to the E.U. Here's a segment on CNBC discussing the Amero:




And here's a CNN segment discussing the North American Union. The NAU is to the U.S., Mexico, and Canada is, as the E.U. is to Europe. Pay attention to the mention of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the list of transnational corporations which are pushing for the legislation, dubbed the "SPP" (Security and Prosperity Partnership):

The Nation's Most Pressing Problem

..isn't the war in Iraq
..isn't some guy with a turban
..isn't some 3rd world nation that might develop one nuclear weapon

It's the nation's road to bankruptcy.
Every single empire in history has ended by going bankrupt:
book: Empire of Debt


I posted earlier that the debt per man, woman and child was $160,000, and the Compound Interest Paradox:
http://rabbit-hole-journey.blogspot.com/2007/08/debt-is-slavery.html

The US Government's Top Accountant, David Walker of the General Accountability Office, has been doing the lecture circuit to make more people aware of the issue. He has given up on trying to convince government on the magnitude of the problem, and has started talking to businesspeople and the academe.

The government fiscal burden per full-time worker, is $375,000! That is on top of one's personal debt (mortgage, car, etc). He explains that it is like having a $375,000 mortgage with no house.

Here is a segment from 60 Minutes about him and his message. It is 11 minutes long and pretty well done:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml

Here is his video presentation in 2 parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIgrxpp97OQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXr_Ga_n0pY

Why is the Federal government continually spending more and more, way beyond tax collections? Why is the Federal government borrowing more and more from the Federal Government, and from China, and getting deeper and deeper in debt? Why is the Federal government promising more and more in future entitlements that it can't afford? Why is the Federal government borrowing more and more, against our future earnings, and our children's future earnings? How can it possibly be sustainable?

How is it that few people even realize the magnitude of the problem?

The Left vs. Right Illusion

I've written about this many times, most recently in my last blog post:
http://rabbit-hole-journey.blogspot.com/2007/09/reps-and-dems-are-pushing-authoritarian.html

Here is an article I enjoyed very much:
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=left_right&refpage=issues
A more detailed article on the same topic is here:
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf
The above, a PDF file, is a very interesting read, highly recommended.
It's by G. Edward Griffin, an author I've mentioned earlier.

Excerpt from the first link:

"Would you rather be a Neoconservative or a Progressive? That is a trick question. The trick is in the fact that, although there may be differences between the rhetoric and short-term agendas of these groups, their long-term goals actually are the same."

The illusion of opposites has been a dominant part of the world's political landscape for over a century and it has been the primary reason for the advance of collectivism during that time.

In today's debate, the illusion of opposites has become a myth of gigantic proportions.

.. if there is any doubt of the similarity between the collectivism of Marx and the collectivism of Hitler, all one has to do is read Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf. The point is that, when the labels are peeled off and the underlying ideologies are examined, we come inexorably to the conclusion that every one of them is built upon the foundation of collectivism.

What are the elements of collectivism that are common to all of these seemingly opposite forces? Collectivists on the so-called Left and Right agree that:

1. Rights are derived from the state; (comment: i.e. not inherent in individuals and simply protected by the state)
2. The group is more important than the individual;
3. Coercion is the preferred method to bring about reform;
4. Laws should be applied differently to different classes;
5. Providing benefits (redistributing wealth) is the proper role of government.
It is sad that intelligent people with knowledge of this history still cling to the myth that they are opposites when it is so clear they are merely different manifestations of the same ideology.

Both “Left and Right” are ready to sacrifice freedom for the furtherance of their agendas. Both camps are willing to grant freedom to those who accept their political and social mores but do not hesitate to withhold it from those who oppose them.