Well it's over. Whatever happens from this point forward, we are certainly in a new era of history.
I was writing as much last year, in anticipation of this, knowing it was about to happen, but now I am only one of many thousands saying these words.
So it is incumbent, if my statement has any meaning at this point, to remind people of what I meant when I first said this, and why I was so sure of it last year and last spring, and why I am so sure of it now.
By Establishment, I mean the international, and eventually global, system of political, financial, and personal relationships that formed the power structure of America, and eventually the world, in the wake of the Allied victory in the Second World War, and which came to dominate the world in the second half of the Twentieth Century, and which became increasingly unstable after the turn of the Millennium.
Moreover, by that term I refer, especially in the early years, to specific nameable individuals who formed the nucleus of power around which this structure was consciously organized and preserved.
This kind of system was unique in human history, and it did not arise spontaneously, but was the fruit of many years of planning by individuals who cooperated to create exactly this kind of power structure. The individual who planned and organized the original birth of the Establishment at the end of World War II were varied in character, but shared many similarities in their philosophies of the world.
Nevertheless, it is fair to assert that the Establishment as it came to exist in the late 1940s, and carried forward for the next seven decades, reflected in large measure the character of the individuals in whose care this system was entrusted by fate and by design.
As I've mentioned before, the Establishment can be described in many ways, but I think without argument one must assert that it was enormously successful. The fact that the second half of the Twentieth Century is regarded as one of American dominance, characterized by a global peace, eventually yielding to a pan-globalist "New World Order" of international cooperation, is the irrefutable proof of the success of the design of the Establishment.
To believe that this all came about by the chaotic zigzags of history is, in my view, one of the ridiculously naive notions that one could hold. Yet this is the view often proffered to the common people. I have friends who assert this. I don't try to correct them. I just nod along as they tell me I'm foolish for saying the things I do. I realize it's very difficult to explain certain things, so usually I don't try. That's what writing is for.
The Establishment failed at this point in history because it could no longer be sustained. The original genius that created it, for whatever combination of good and evil one can ascribe to those people, is long gone. We have been living in the last wave of people who knew the original founders, and who shared the life experiences that formed their vision.
Mostly in recent years the Establishment has been running on sheer inertia, and the cooperation of millions of people simply doing what they see is their duty, their role, their job, to preserve it, even as they can't quite articulate it exactly as that.
But now it is over. The Establishment was not the first "world order," just the first of its type. It won't be the last. It's fall doesn't mean that human nature will change. It doesn't mean that will live automatically in either a dystopia or a utopia.
It just means the Establishment is over, and is never coming back. For some folks, that's a huge trauma.
Showing posts with label establishment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label establishment. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
The Embittered Hour Has Come
And I will friend you, if I may,
In the dark and cloudy day.
--A.E. Housman
I haven't blogged much about politics lately. In part I took August off, thinking there would be ups and downs after the conventions, as there always are. Then in September I watched things unfold, and nothing that happened changed my views and predictions of how things would play out in the election.
But now it is time to give an update. My prediction for the election remains the same: Trump in a landslide. I know hearing this will anger many of my friends, if they are reading this, but that is what I see.
In normal times, that's all there would be to the story---a simple election prediction. But we are not in normal times. We are approaching, and indeed have entered, one of the most extraordinary episodes in the history of civilization. What is going to happen over the course of the next 26 days and beyond is going to be unprecedented in its scale of overturning and smashing the thought paradigms in which most of Americans have lived for most of their lives.
It is going to be very chaotic. The prediction I have repeatedly made---that "many are going to lose their minds." Well, this is what I was talking about. We're at the threshold of that moment. Many people, including people I know, are going to have an extremely difficult time coping with what is about to unfold.
Perhaps I'm fooling myself to think I am emotionally prepared as well, but I feel I have been preparing for this moment for at least 11 years, and perhaps much longer.
If I'm wrong about all this---that the election plays out as a normal one, with maybe some ribald scandals to sauce it up---then I'll eat my words on November 9th, no matter who wins the election. But that 'is not what I see happening, so I share the message with you, my dear friend. One last warning of the approaching maelstrom in the era of Normal Times.
Friday, April 1, 2016
The Thirty-Year Decline of the Establishment
The disintegration of the Establishment, accompanied by its apparent ballooning in number to encompass entire sectors of the economy, did not happen overnight. This year in fact marks what could be put forth as the 30th anniversary of the slow slide of the Establishment from the height of its power in the late 1980s until the present situation.
The year 1986 in particular stands out because it saw the death of the last great unifying figure of the Establishment, the man who had presided over its creation at the end of World War II. After his death, and of other key individuals, what followed was typical of the period following the death of any great historical figure, or in any great enterprise: his heirs, however well trained and intelligent, were not quite up to keeping the empire together.
Although loose in structure, the Establishment was very hierarchical on the level of influence from one individual to another. It is based on a corporate model, or a law firm. Ultimately there must be a small group of people who are the leaders. Within that circle there may ultimately be one to whom the others turn to, to be the ultimate arbiter of opinion on any decision. One reason that the Establishment worked so well in those days is undoubtedly because it impeccably followed these rules. It was seen as a matter of life and death, to do so.
The death of the founder of the Establishment left a void. Fortunately there was natural successor to the founder, one who had been groomed for many years for this role. By the time of the death of the founder, there was hardly anyone to challenge him in this regard.
But although well-born and well-trained, he was never quite up to maintaining the stability of the Establishment over time. Who can blame him? It was almost an impossible task, given the historical reality of how the Establishment was created, and the historical changes that were underway. Moreover the new "heir" made a series of mistakes which accelerated the downfall of the Establishment from its hold on power.
Among other things, he was already deep into politics on a national level, and in his new role, he tried to become both leader of the Establishment and also the President of the United States. When he succeeded, among other things he naturally inspired political opposition from within the Establishment itself. Thus the Establishment broke apart into two main political factions, one of which was led by him and his family, and the other of which was led (at first) by the widow of the original founder.
This was completely predictable according the rules of the founder, namely that the insider-leaders must remain as apolitical as possible (all the while embracing party politics as an unfortunate necessity).
The year 1986 in particular stands out because it saw the death of the last great unifying figure of the Establishment, the man who had presided over its creation at the end of World War II. After his death, and of other key individuals, what followed was typical of the period following the death of any great historical figure, or in any great enterprise: his heirs, however well trained and intelligent, were not quite up to keeping the empire together.
Although loose in structure, the Establishment was very hierarchical on the level of influence from one individual to another. It is based on a corporate model, or a law firm. Ultimately there must be a small group of people who are the leaders. Within that circle there may ultimately be one to whom the others turn to, to be the ultimate arbiter of opinion on any decision. One reason that the Establishment worked so well in those days is undoubtedly because it impeccably followed these rules. It was seen as a matter of life and death, to do so.
The death of the founder of the Establishment left a void. Fortunately there was natural successor to the founder, one who had been groomed for many years for this role. By the time of the death of the founder, there was hardly anyone to challenge him in this regard.
But although well-born and well-trained, he was never quite up to maintaining the stability of the Establishment over time. Who can blame him? It was almost an impossible task, given the historical reality of how the Establishment was created, and the historical changes that were underway. Moreover the new "heir" made a series of mistakes which accelerated the downfall of the Establishment from its hold on power.
Among other things, he was already deep into politics on a national level, and in his new role, he tried to become both leader of the Establishment and also the President of the United States. When he succeeded, among other things he naturally inspired political opposition from within the Establishment itself. Thus the Establishment broke apart into two main political factions, one of which was led by him and his family, and the other of which was led (at first) by the widow of the original founder.
This was completely predictable according the rules of the founder, namely that the insider-leaders must remain as apolitical as possible (all the while embracing party politics as an unfortunate necessity).
The Postmodern Delusion of the Late Establishment Period
On Tuesday, the lumbering forces of the Establishment gather in Wisconsin, the official birthplace of the Republican Party, in order to try to preserve their reign over the American people.
Their goal is very straightforward. They have to stop Donald Trump by beating him there, and if possible, doing it in such as way as to deny him any delegates from the state. Anything short of that will be a disastrous loss. This is their only hope to keep him from amassing enough delegates to overwhelm the convention on the first ballot. After they stop him in Wisconsin, they must stop him as well in a few other critical states (notably Indiana on May 3). If they can do that, they they have a chance to beat him, and if they have a chance to beat him, in their mind, they will beat him.
What is perhaps most amazing about this situation is how short term the thinking of the Establishment has become.
Just as how the Establishment was originally a term applied to a tiny clique of people guided by just one person, but has now become expanded to include many thousands of people acting spontaneously in a marvelous example of group-think, so has the planning window of the Establishment collapsed. It has gone from a time frame that spanned generations into the future into one that now looks ahead to its very survival over the next few months. Arguably the two phenomena are closely related.
The system is fighting for its life right now, so they will do anything to keep alive, no matter if it is part of a long-term plan or not. Yes, there is still a long-term plan for achieving certain goals, but now none of that matters, at least until after the election (which they are certain will end in way they want). For the time being it is "say anything, do anything." They will even embrace a candidate they despise, and have no intention of allowing into the presidency, in the name of short term expedience. In the old days, this scenario would have been unimaginable. It never would have gotten so far, or even close to it.
It is truly that dire for them. Anything short of complete power means they would feel powerless. This is because they have no solid rational basis for their power, even in their own minds, other than the fact that they currently hold it. If they lose it, it will be lost for good. There is no putting together the egg shells again. They would have to fight for power and influence again on the same terms as everyone else, and simply put, they don't know how to do that. The genius that allowed that to happen originally is long gone. They have long since sunk into a degeneracy of inertia, of believing that by pronouncing "truth", they make it happen in reality (what I call the Postmodern Delusion).
Of course what they would like us to believe is that the dire state of their predicament is also the dire state of our situation. That is, they would like very much for everyone to believe that if they go down, then we all go down.
Their goal is very straightforward. They have to stop Donald Trump by beating him there, and if possible, doing it in such as way as to deny him any delegates from the state. Anything short of that will be a disastrous loss. This is their only hope to keep him from amassing enough delegates to overwhelm the convention on the first ballot. After they stop him in Wisconsin, they must stop him as well in a few other critical states (notably Indiana on May 3). If they can do that, they they have a chance to beat him, and if they have a chance to beat him, in their mind, they will beat him.
What is perhaps most amazing about this situation is how short term the thinking of the Establishment has become.
Just as how the Establishment was originally a term applied to a tiny clique of people guided by just one person, but has now become expanded to include many thousands of people acting spontaneously in a marvelous example of group-think, so has the planning window of the Establishment collapsed. It has gone from a time frame that spanned generations into the future into one that now looks ahead to its very survival over the next few months. Arguably the two phenomena are closely related.
The system is fighting for its life right now, so they will do anything to keep alive, no matter if it is part of a long-term plan or not. Yes, there is still a long-term plan for achieving certain goals, but now none of that matters, at least until after the election (which they are certain will end in way they want). For the time being it is "say anything, do anything." They will even embrace a candidate they despise, and have no intention of allowing into the presidency, in the name of short term expedience. In the old days, this scenario would have been unimaginable. It never would have gotten so far, or even close to it.
It is truly that dire for them. Anything short of complete power means they would feel powerless. This is because they have no solid rational basis for their power, even in their own minds, other than the fact that they currently hold it. If they lose it, it will be lost for good. There is no putting together the egg shells again. They would have to fight for power and influence again on the same terms as everyone else, and simply put, they don't know how to do that. The genius that allowed that to happen originally is long gone. They have long since sunk into a degeneracy of inertia, of believing that by pronouncing "truth", they make it happen in reality (what I call the Postmodern Delusion).
Of course what they would like us to believe is that the dire state of their predicament is also the dire state of our situation. That is, they would like very much for everyone to believe that if they go down, then we all go down.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
The Genesis of the Establishment
The peace at the end of the Napoleonic wars yielded one of the most famous examples of leverage in world history.
There were many victors present at the Vienna conference, because so many nations had participated in the alliance against Napoleon. There were many agendas that had to be balanced. But historians agree that one nation came after from the conference with exactly what it wanted, which in fact was the key to world mastery in the coming century, and the conditions for creating a whole new world economy.
The victors at the conference, being almost entirely continental in orientation, essentially allowed Britain to gain a military monopoly over the high seas. This amazing development, which was hardly challenged by other nations at the conference, ended a period of approximately three centuries during which the various European powers had struggled over control of the oceans in the age of sailing ships. In the end, Britain had come out on top, having put down its last rival, which was France.
In the decades that followed, the British monopoly on the high seas turned out to be a massive boon for world economy of all nations, not just Britain. The ability of single naval force to patrol the oceans and to keep them free of piracy, among other things, provided the stage by which world trade could explode in volume, right as the industrial age was taking off.
For all its other drawbacks, the Victorian era (especially the latter half of the century) is regarded as a period of great liberalization and stability, with advancement of openness and prosperity broadly across society, including the rise of a large middle class in many nations. It also provided the circumstances for the rise of populist awakenings and democratically inspired revolutions across the western world.
The triumph of the British Century is due to the fact that Britain had been wise early enough after the Napoleonic wars ended to know that its military position alone, even at sea, would be insufficient to sustain this situation over the long term. Thus began a century long era in British politics and statecraft known as the Great Game, which can be interpreted as saying that they were looking for the best forms of leverage in any situation over time, to maintain their position at the top.
Not surprisingly, one of the first things, if not the first thing, that the British obtained monopoly over, in order to sustain their military power, was mastery over capital, via the formation of a new global banking system that was based on gold and centered in London.
Of course, this would also provided the means by the which the new American elite, in the second half of the century, could most easily join with their British counterparts ultimately to create a unified Anglo-American ruling class.
There were many victors present at the Vienna conference, because so many nations had participated in the alliance against Napoleon. There were many agendas that had to be balanced. But historians agree that one nation came after from the conference with exactly what it wanted, which in fact was the key to world mastery in the coming century, and the conditions for creating a whole new world economy.
The victors at the conference, being almost entirely continental in orientation, essentially allowed Britain to gain a military monopoly over the high seas. This amazing development, which was hardly challenged by other nations at the conference, ended a period of approximately three centuries during which the various European powers had struggled over control of the oceans in the age of sailing ships. In the end, Britain had come out on top, having put down its last rival, which was France.
In the decades that followed, the British monopoly on the high seas turned out to be a massive boon for world economy of all nations, not just Britain. The ability of single naval force to patrol the oceans and to keep them free of piracy, among other things, provided the stage by which world trade could explode in volume, right as the industrial age was taking off.
For all its other drawbacks, the Victorian era (especially the latter half of the century) is regarded as a period of great liberalization and stability, with advancement of openness and prosperity broadly across society, including the rise of a large middle class in many nations. It also provided the circumstances for the rise of populist awakenings and democratically inspired revolutions across the western world.
The triumph of the British Century is due to the fact that Britain had been wise early enough after the Napoleonic wars ended to know that its military position alone, even at sea, would be insufficient to sustain this situation over the long term. Thus began a century long era in British politics and statecraft known as the Great Game, which can be interpreted as saying that they were looking for the best forms of leverage in any situation over time, to maintain their position at the top.
Not surprisingly, one of the first things, if not the first thing, that the British obtained monopoly over, in order to sustain their military power, was mastery over capital, via the formation of a new global banking system that was based on gold and centered in London.
Of course, this would also provided the means by the which the new American elite, in the second half of the century, could most easily join with their British counterparts ultimately to create a unified Anglo-American ruling class.
Saturday, March 26, 2016
The Heidi Game
Ted Cruz's public actions betray those of a man who does not consider himself an insider, but very much wants to be proclaimed as the adopted scion of the Establishment. By far he is not the first man to be in those shoes, and sometimes in the past they were filled by men who through pluck and marriage, were successfully at establishing their family lines as future members of the ruling class (although they themselves remained as junior insiders).
But Cruz is not even there yet. He is yet an outsider. He has had to hustle to get where he is, including adopting Texas as his home, a method of legitimacy used exactly the same way by the Bush family. But he is not trusted by them, and it is too late in life for him to become a true insider member of the elite. He has certainly given his children the opportunity to marry into the high elite, however, which is the traditional way in which junior families ascend to higher status. The key is that it must play out over several generations.
For this and other reasons, Cruz is reminiscent in his career of Richard Nixon, another outsider who was semi-adopted by the elite but never allowed to become a full member. Nixon's fate (ignominious downfall at the hands of the Establishment itself) should be a reminder of what happens to those who are not fully in the circle of power, when they are no longer useful to the Establishment.
Cruz's best play so far has been his marriage to Heidi Nelson, who is a fully-made insider (of junior rank), and who has played all the right cards in her life to become a member of the circle of power. In the Establishment eyes, she would make a far more acceptable candidate than her husband.
In some ways she is the perfect Republican counterpart of Hillary Clinton---the last one standing, holding up that wing of the Establishment.
But Cruz is not even there yet. He is yet an outsider. He has had to hustle to get where he is, including adopting Texas as his home, a method of legitimacy used exactly the same way by the Bush family. But he is not trusted by them, and it is too late in life for him to become a true insider member of the elite. He has certainly given his children the opportunity to marry into the high elite, however, which is the traditional way in which junior families ascend to higher status. The key is that it must play out over several generations.
For this and other reasons, Cruz is reminiscent in his career of Richard Nixon, another outsider who was semi-adopted by the elite but never allowed to become a full member. Nixon's fate (ignominious downfall at the hands of the Establishment itself) should be a reminder of what happens to those who are not fully in the circle of power, when they are no longer useful to the Establishment.
Cruz's best play so far has been his marriage to Heidi Nelson, who is a fully-made insider (of junior rank), and who has played all the right cards in her life to become a member of the circle of power. In the Establishment eyes, she would make a far more acceptable candidate than her husband.
In some ways she is the perfect Republican counterpart of Hillary Clinton---the last one standing, holding up that wing of the Establishment.
The Sanders Play
From the beginning of the campaign, the Sanders movement has had the character of a typical modern insurgency, one that garners up to a third of more of the base of support of its party, based on fresh new ideas that appeal to the college crowd and intellectual set. Previous examples include Eugene McCarthy, Jesse Jackson, and Ron Paul.
Such campaigns serve the Establishment well by field testing the ideas and (to use the modern jargon) memes that will ulimately steer the demos of controlled democracy toward suppporting the correct insider candidates. This phenomenon and strategy of the Establishment is sometimes derisively called sheepdogging.
Sheepdogging, to adopt the term for now, is absolutely necessary for the continuation of the Establishment. This is because the Establishment, being elite guardians removed from the demos, cannot intuitive understand what motivates the people. The Establishment depend on insurgencies to create and reveal the popular will in a continuing evolving fashion.
The media is designed to feed themes back to the people, and to amplify the trends of the moment towards an overall goal of societal conservativeness (as opposed to social conservativeness), which is simply the idea that no matter what else happens in society and the world, the Establishment will still be in charge.
In the mind of the Establishment, this process of co-opting populist themes is proof that their system does indeed "serve the people," since it must necessary discern and harvest the raw emotions of the people on a continual basis, and refine these energies in the interests of stability of the (otherwise fragile) global postindustrial world.
Such insurgent campaigns as the Sanders movement are welcome by the Establishment precisely because they are "doomed" in the traditional sense, in the candidate never had a chance to get close to the real levers of power.
Many fail-safe mechanisms have existed over the decades to prevent such a thing, with modern radio and television media being the most powerful mechanism.
Like clockwork, the supporters of these failed candidates go back to the endorsed Establishment one, and their energy is used to feed the stability of the system. They grumble about it, and some even stay home on election day, but nevertheless they vote based on the idea that their side's candidate is "infinitely better" than the insider candidate of the other party. Electoral "trinket issues" are dangled for support, based on the rhetoric of the insurgency. After victory, a few of them are enacted to satiate populist cravings in issues that Establishment cares little about, or actually endorses.
The 2016 election is a little different, however, because the Establishment is hard pressed to the point of crumbling. The normal fail-safe mechanisms that would have prevented insurgent candidacies apparently are greatly weakened. Specifically the media feels impotent to force the demos of each party to rally on the consensus insider pick.
In the Republican Party the situation has gotten so bad that the Establishment is on the verge of being driven out of power completely (something that is unacceptable to them, and that they will do hardly anything to stop). That the Establishment has had to turn to a man they do not trust to be their standard bearer is indicative of their desperation.
The revolt in the Democratic Party has been more traditional so far. Initially Sanders was a perfect sheepdog during the phase in which his candidacy could be dismissed by the media. But the Establishment is quite weak in the Democratic Party as well, and the crumbling of the Republican Establishment has accelerated the process among the Democrats.
Sanders supporters sense this, and believe with good reason that there is a real chance for an overthrow of the party control. They see what is happening in the Republican Party and tell themselves why could it not happen in their party as well.
As long as the media is kept off guard, and in a state of being unable to declare the consensus winners, then everything is still up for grabs.
Thus the bar for Sanders to continue is very low at this point. He barely needs to win any states---just stay competitive in most of them. The goal would be to deny Hillary an outright majority consisting only of her bound delegates.
Even if she goes into the convention with a majority, Sanders and his supporters will likely not concede, based on the idea that they can yet convince enough party superdelegates to change their minds.
Given that Hillary is likely to keep her delegate lead all the way to the convention, the only viable way in which this strategy will work is that if Hillary can be disqualified as a candidate. As the convention nears, and as the media does its best to try to put forth the message that Hillary is the certain victor, enormous pressure will be on the Sanders supporters to find a way to make Hillary unacceptable. If they can pull this off, then there will be little or nothing to stop a Sanders-backed takeover of the Democratic Party at the convention. He can freely pick someone like Elizabeth Warren as a VP, and (according to his supporters), they will triumph over any Republican, Establishment or otherwise, in the general election.
The supporters of Sanders sense victory is very close for them. It simply depends on disqualifying Hillary in the minds of enough people, so that ideally she steps aside and lets Sanders win.
We are probably past the point of no return, in regard to a graceful end of the Sanders campaign in which the energy of his movement is channeled back into the Establishment-backed candidate. If they must, of course, Sanders' supporters will suck it up and vote for Hillary in the end. After all, they still believe in the Establishment.* They just want to run it.
* (as seen by how much they yearn for a restoration of it within the Republican Party).
Such campaigns serve the Establishment well by field testing the ideas and (to use the modern jargon) memes that will ulimately steer the demos of controlled democracy toward suppporting the correct insider candidates. This phenomenon and strategy of the Establishment is sometimes derisively called sheepdogging.
Sheepdogging, to adopt the term for now, is absolutely necessary for the continuation of the Establishment. This is because the Establishment, being elite guardians removed from the demos, cannot intuitive understand what motivates the people. The Establishment depend on insurgencies to create and reveal the popular will in a continuing evolving fashion.
The media is designed to feed themes back to the people, and to amplify the trends of the moment towards an overall goal of societal conservativeness (as opposed to social conservativeness), which is simply the idea that no matter what else happens in society and the world, the Establishment will still be in charge.
In the mind of the Establishment, this process of co-opting populist themes is proof that their system does indeed "serve the people," since it must necessary discern and harvest the raw emotions of the people on a continual basis, and refine these energies in the interests of stability of the (otherwise fragile) global postindustrial world.
Such insurgent campaigns as the Sanders movement are welcome by the Establishment precisely because they are "doomed" in the traditional sense, in the candidate never had a chance to get close to the real levers of power.
Many fail-safe mechanisms have existed over the decades to prevent such a thing, with modern radio and television media being the most powerful mechanism.
Like clockwork, the supporters of these failed candidates go back to the endorsed Establishment one, and their energy is used to feed the stability of the system. They grumble about it, and some even stay home on election day, but nevertheless they vote based on the idea that their side's candidate is "infinitely better" than the insider candidate of the other party. Electoral "trinket issues" are dangled for support, based on the rhetoric of the insurgency. After victory, a few of them are enacted to satiate populist cravings in issues that Establishment cares little about, or actually endorses.
The 2016 election is a little different, however, because the Establishment is hard pressed to the point of crumbling. The normal fail-safe mechanisms that would have prevented insurgent candidacies apparently are greatly weakened. Specifically the media feels impotent to force the demos of each party to rally on the consensus insider pick.
In the Republican Party the situation has gotten so bad that the Establishment is on the verge of being driven out of power completely (something that is unacceptable to them, and that they will do hardly anything to stop). That the Establishment has had to turn to a man they do not trust to be their standard bearer is indicative of their desperation.
The revolt in the Democratic Party has been more traditional so far. Initially Sanders was a perfect sheepdog during the phase in which his candidacy could be dismissed by the media. But the Establishment is quite weak in the Democratic Party as well, and the crumbling of the Republican Establishment has accelerated the process among the Democrats.
Sanders supporters sense this, and believe with good reason that there is a real chance for an overthrow of the party control. They see what is happening in the Republican Party and tell themselves why could it not happen in their party as well.
As long as the media is kept off guard, and in a state of being unable to declare the consensus winners, then everything is still up for grabs.
Thus the bar for Sanders to continue is very low at this point. He barely needs to win any states---just stay competitive in most of them. The goal would be to deny Hillary an outright majority consisting only of her bound delegates.
Even if she goes into the convention with a majority, Sanders and his supporters will likely not concede, based on the idea that they can yet convince enough party superdelegates to change their minds.
Given that Hillary is likely to keep her delegate lead all the way to the convention, the only viable way in which this strategy will work is that if Hillary can be disqualified as a candidate. As the convention nears, and as the media does its best to try to put forth the message that Hillary is the certain victor, enormous pressure will be on the Sanders supporters to find a way to make Hillary unacceptable. If they can pull this off, then there will be little or nothing to stop a Sanders-backed takeover of the Democratic Party at the convention. He can freely pick someone like Elizabeth Warren as a VP, and (according to his supporters), they will triumph over any Republican, Establishment or otherwise, in the general election.
The supporters of Sanders sense victory is very close for them. It simply depends on disqualifying Hillary in the minds of enough people, so that ideally she steps aside and lets Sanders win.
We are probably past the point of no return, in regard to a graceful end of the Sanders campaign in which the energy of his movement is channeled back into the Establishment-backed candidate. If they must, of course, Sanders' supporters will suck it up and vote for Hillary in the end. After all, they still believe in the Establishment.* They just want to run it.
* (as seen by how much they yearn for a restoration of it within the Republican Party).
Friday, March 25, 2016
Always Win: the 2016 Presidential Race
Of the candidates left, we have one who is pure Establishment insider (Hillary Clinton), and three who are not (Cruz, Sanders, and Trump).
The supporters of both Cruz and Sanders believe in the Establishment and want it to continue. They simply want to reform it in their own image and to their liking. Trump represents an apocalyptic end to the Establishment, and is therefore the most unacceptable of the three.
Ideally, in the Establishment thinking, Jeb Bush will find a way to be President in January.
This is how it goes: nothing is conceded to Trump ever. Every state must be contested, every delegate fought for until the very end. He must not gain the magic threshold of 1237 committed delegates. If he gains that number of bound delegates, it would still be possible to thwart him at that point at the convention, but it would not play out well. He must be stopped short of that, even if by one delegate. So we are going to have every primary be a big battle, all the way to California on June 7. It will be as intense as Iowa and New Hampshire, all the way down the line.
If Trump can be stopped even one committed delegate short, there will be a way at the convention to scuttle his nomination. This is just a fact. They will find a way to do it. They know how.
Cruz will not get the nomination. Having sold his soul to them (his plan all along), he will be used and thrown away by them, just as Rubio was. Another candidate can be picked at that point. Why go through all that trouble if not to put Jeb Bush back on the ticket?
Cruz's supporters are die-hard believers in the Republican part of the Establishment, so they will feel slighted from this maneouver. Almost certainly we are looking at a Bush-Cruz ticket, to propitiate them. Cruz will never be allowed any real power, however, as they don't like him and don't trust him.
Kasich did his role in winning Ohio. His reward is nothing---because they don't have to give anything, so they won't.
How does Bush win the presidency?
His opponent will be Hillary of course. Given recent electoral history, Hillary would probably beat him in a straight up contest, so she must be hamstrung. This is happening exactly with Bernie Sanders. Sanders is the best thing to happen for Bush all this past year, in that he is siphoning off legitimacy and support from Clinton, so that when all is said and done, there will be little enthusiasm for her.
Ideally Sanders' supporters will be so disgusted that they will urge him to run on a third party ticket, such as the Green Party. Why not?
In November, Jeb wins in a narrow election and takes oath of office in 2017. Obviously Jeb is not very enthusiastic about being President. But the Establishment (and especially the Bush family) is very enthusiastic about not losing the Presidency, and even more importantly they do not want to let go of either of the two major political parties. Jeb's election will be a defensive election for them, simply to maintain power.
The worst case scenario is Hillary beats Jeb, which an acceptable outcome. In some ways, one thinks Jeb would prefer that.*
Will any of this happen? I don't know. But certainly this is one of the possible scenarios that they have considered as viable. If yours truly can think it up, then surely they have done so already, and more. I know this because their motto is Always Win. That means never giving up. It means figuring out a way to take it from the other guy, just when it seems like it is over. One keeps fighting forever, looking for the last minute victory. Hillary earned her stripes this way in 2008 against Obama, and showed she is worthy as a successor to the line of the Establishment (the Democratic branch).
But it is too late really for all them. Even if it played out as this, and Jeb (or Hillary) found a way to win, it would simply mean that they volunteered to be the ultimate scapegoat as it all came crashing down around them.
*One thing that could really muck up the works, and spoil the whole plan at this point, is if Cruz's campaign collapses and Trump steamrolls the rest of the way into the convention while piling up more than enough delegates to win on the first ballot. If Trump can actually seize the Republican Party from them, you will see end-of-the-world kind of desperation from them. Likewise if Hillary were to collapse before the convention, and Sanders could somehow become the nominee, then he could beat Bush-Cruz in a straight up two-party election. Hillary can be allowed to collapse, but not until after she becomes the nominee. They cannot lose the party---either one.
The supporters of both Cruz and Sanders believe in the Establishment and want it to continue. They simply want to reform it in their own image and to their liking. Trump represents an apocalyptic end to the Establishment, and is therefore the most unacceptable of the three.
Ideally, in the Establishment thinking, Jeb Bush will find a way to be President in January.
This is how it goes: nothing is conceded to Trump ever. Every state must be contested, every delegate fought for until the very end. He must not gain the magic threshold of 1237 committed delegates. If he gains that number of bound delegates, it would still be possible to thwart him at that point at the convention, but it would not play out well. He must be stopped short of that, even if by one delegate. So we are going to have every primary be a big battle, all the way to California on June 7. It will be as intense as Iowa and New Hampshire, all the way down the line.
If Trump can be stopped even one committed delegate short, there will be a way at the convention to scuttle his nomination. This is just a fact. They will find a way to do it. They know how.
Cruz will not get the nomination. Having sold his soul to them (his plan all along), he will be used and thrown away by them, just as Rubio was. Another candidate can be picked at that point. Why go through all that trouble if not to put Jeb Bush back on the ticket?
Cruz's supporters are die-hard believers in the Republican part of the Establishment, so they will feel slighted from this maneouver. Almost certainly we are looking at a Bush-Cruz ticket, to propitiate them. Cruz will never be allowed any real power, however, as they don't like him and don't trust him.
Kasich did his role in winning Ohio. His reward is nothing---because they don't have to give anything, so they won't.
How does Bush win the presidency?
His opponent will be Hillary of course. Given recent electoral history, Hillary would probably beat him in a straight up contest, so she must be hamstrung. This is happening exactly with Bernie Sanders. Sanders is the best thing to happen for Bush all this past year, in that he is siphoning off legitimacy and support from Clinton, so that when all is said and done, there will be little enthusiasm for her.
Ideally Sanders' supporters will be so disgusted that they will urge him to run on a third party ticket, such as the Green Party. Why not?
In November, Jeb wins in a narrow election and takes oath of office in 2017. Obviously Jeb is not very enthusiastic about being President. But the Establishment (and especially the Bush family) is very enthusiastic about not losing the Presidency, and even more importantly they do not want to let go of either of the two major political parties. Jeb's election will be a defensive election for them, simply to maintain power.
The worst case scenario is Hillary beats Jeb, which an acceptable outcome. In some ways, one thinks Jeb would prefer that.*
Will any of this happen? I don't know. But certainly this is one of the possible scenarios that they have considered as viable. If yours truly can think it up, then surely they have done so already, and more. I know this because their motto is Always Win. That means never giving up. It means figuring out a way to take it from the other guy, just when it seems like it is over. One keeps fighting forever, looking for the last minute victory. Hillary earned her stripes this way in 2008 against Obama, and showed she is worthy as a successor to the line of the Establishment (the Democratic branch).
But it is too late really for all them. Even if it played out as this, and Jeb (or Hillary) found a way to win, it would simply mean that they volunteered to be the ultimate scapegoat as it all came crashing down around them.
*One thing that could really muck up the works, and spoil the whole plan at this point, is if Cruz's campaign collapses and Trump steamrolls the rest of the way into the convention while piling up more than enough delegates to win on the first ballot. If Trump can actually seize the Republican Party from them, you will see end-of-the-world kind of desperation from them. Likewise if Hillary were to collapse before the convention, and Sanders could somehow become the nominee, then he could beat Bush-Cruz in a straight up two-party election. Hillary can be allowed to collapse, but not until after she becomes the nominee. They cannot lose the party---either one.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
The Triumph of the Establishment
That the term Establishment has come to refer to so many individuals, all of whom have a large stake in the continuation of their order, is an indication above all that the Establishment was a successful operation.
We should not confuse the disorder at the end of its tenure as indicative of failure. Rather it is a sign of just how big and important the Establishment came to be, and of how many people bought into it, in the end.
It was so successful that the end of the Establishment is terrifying not only to the individuals within it, but to just about everyone else as well, even its severest critics. This is because the Establishment was able to embed itself so thoroughly in the process of normal stability, within the mind of the public. That is why the end of the Establishment looms so horribly in so many people's mind. They cannot imagine a stable, normal world, as they have come to expect it to be, without the Establishment continuing to exist.
History proves however that stability and normalcy, as we have come to define it generally in the West, is the exception rather than the rule. In our historical consciousness we all realize this, and thus the idea that our "special" stability could be revoked, and we would return to a more normal period of want and death, etc., surely drives much of the crazed fear that is happening, up and down the political spectrum.
Both major political parties are completely infested by the Establishment. They both are fighting with all their might to keep the Establishment in charge. So is all the mainstream media. So is almost all of credentialed academia.
Everyone is fighting to keep it going. Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans now fight alongside each other, back to back like two front lines collapsing on a Reich. It was not supposed to be this way, in the original plan. That's probably the only thing that the Establishment really ever failed at, was how to make itself eternal.
We should not confuse the disorder at the end of its tenure as indicative of failure. Rather it is a sign of just how big and important the Establishment came to be, and of how many people bought into it, in the end.
It was so successful that the end of the Establishment is terrifying not only to the individuals within it, but to just about everyone else as well, even its severest critics. This is because the Establishment was able to embed itself so thoroughly in the process of normal stability, within the mind of the public. That is why the end of the Establishment looms so horribly in so many people's mind. They cannot imagine a stable, normal world, as they have come to expect it to be, without the Establishment continuing to exist.
History proves however that stability and normalcy, as we have come to define it generally in the West, is the exception rather than the rule. In our historical consciousness we all realize this, and thus the idea that our "special" stability could be revoked, and we would return to a more normal period of want and death, etc., surely drives much of the crazed fear that is happening, up and down the political spectrum.
Both major political parties are completely infested by the Establishment. They both are fighting with all their might to keep the Establishment in charge. So is all the mainstream media. So is almost all of credentialed academia.
Everyone is fighting to keep it going. Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans now fight alongside each other, back to back like two front lines collapsing on a Reich. It was not supposed to be this way, in the original plan. That's probably the only thing that the Establishment really ever failed at, was how to make itself eternal.
Saturday, March 19, 2016
An Establishment of One
Now that the Establishment is crumbling, it is much easier to talk about and describe. Up until now, when one used this phrase, it was often not mutually understood in discourse what the term Establishment meant. This led to a great deal of misunderstanding.
But now everyone seems to understand what the term means, because the Establishment has become very easy to identify.
Apparently it means the individuals who comprise the "order" that is apparently losing its grip on power. The loosening of this power is resulting in a period of "world crisis," which marks the transition from one age to another. This is giving a lot of people a lot of anxiety, both within the Establishment and outside it.
So who is the Establishment? We can definitely include the following people, with very few exception: nearly all American politicians on the national level, including senior members of both major parties, as well as the people who give them money, including the large banks, as well as the apparatus of legal firms, etc., which facilitate this process. It also includes the intelligence community, senior military officers, members of globalist think thanks, and the part of Academia that supports all this. It also definitely includes all the large media organizations, and the people who own and operate them, as well as major media figures.
There are definitely other people in the Establishment, but the above list is a good start, I believe.
Notice the list includes many people in politics and in the public eye.
Notice as well that the number of people is very large.
All of this last part is very ironic, given that once upon a time, when it all started out, the idea of the Establishment was meant explicitly to be apolitical and outside the public eye.
Moreover, not surprisingly, the term Establishment was meant to refer to a very small group of people, and ultimately, if one took a poll of the insiders, the idea Establishment would have been embodied arguably in single individual, upon whose identity nearly all of them would have agreed.
But now everyone seems to understand what the term means, because the Establishment has become very easy to identify.
Apparently it means the individuals who comprise the "order" that is apparently losing its grip on power. The loosening of this power is resulting in a period of "world crisis," which marks the transition from one age to another. This is giving a lot of people a lot of anxiety, both within the Establishment and outside it.
So who is the Establishment? We can definitely include the following people, with very few exception: nearly all American politicians on the national level, including senior members of both major parties, as well as the people who give them money, including the large banks, as well as the apparatus of legal firms, etc., which facilitate this process. It also includes the intelligence community, senior military officers, members of globalist think thanks, and the part of Academia that supports all this. It also definitely includes all the large media organizations, and the people who own and operate them, as well as major media figures.
There are definitely other people in the Establishment, but the above list is a good start, I believe.
Notice the list includes many people in politics and in the public eye.
Notice as well that the number of people is very large.
All of this last part is very ironic, given that once upon a time, when it all started out, the idea of the Establishment was meant explicitly to be apolitical and outside the public eye.
Moreover, not surprisingly, the term Establishment was meant to refer to a very small group of people, and ultimately, if one took a poll of the insiders, the idea Establishment would have been embodied arguably in single individual, upon whose identity nearly all of them would have agreed.
Friday, March 18, 2016
The Rise and Fall of the Establishment
In the context of the crazy times, many people are using the term Establishment quite a bit lately.
Ironically, that's exactly the concept I spent many years researching, with my friend Thor.
Summed up in one big huge word, we were studying the Establishment. As it happens, the very word and concept as we know it was coined and adopted to refer to a specific group of individuals, some of whom I have already introduced to you via this blog.
The quest to understand these individuals and their actions in history led us down many rabbit holes, ones that stripped away our previous concepts and conceits about politics, America, and world history (and moreover about human nature).
It was a brutal quest. Thor wound up in the hospital for a year, and almost lost his life. I wound up roaming the country and the world as a digital vagabond. We are both still reeling from the effects.
Fortunately I was able to find answers, almost at leisurely pace, and having done so, I now feel at great peace, with an ability to stand aside of the craziness, and to empathize with those who are struggling with apparent disintegration of their world-reality.
Ironically, that's exactly the concept I spent many years researching, with my friend Thor.
Summed up in one big huge word, we were studying the Establishment. As it happens, the very word and concept as we know it was coined and adopted to refer to a specific group of individuals, some of whom I have already introduced to you via this blog.
The quest to understand these individuals and their actions in history led us down many rabbit holes, ones that stripped away our previous concepts and conceits about politics, America, and world history (and moreover about human nature).
It was a brutal quest. Thor wound up in the hospital for a year, and almost lost his life. I wound up roaming the country and the world as a digital vagabond. We are both still reeling from the effects.
Fortunately I was able to find answers, almost at leisurely pace, and having done so, I now feel at great peace, with an ability to stand aside of the craziness, and to empathize with those who are struggling with apparent disintegration of their world-reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)