Tom Woods: The Establishment’s Job

Twitter

H/T Gregory Hood

Very concise:

“It’s the job of the Establishment to confine the range of debate within narrow limits, to designate certain opinions as acceptable and others by implication as “extreme,” and to trick the public into thinking every presidential election — invariably between Establishment Candidate A and Establishment Candidate B — is the “most important of our lifetimes,” etc., when in fact the basic contours of the regime remain the same no matter what.”

The two major parties only disagree on an extremely narrow range of policy questions and even here their disagreement is more WWE-style smoke and mirrors and exaggerated personality clashes for morons ginned up by the media than anything else.

The “mainstream” is the establishment consensus that the two major parties agree on and this is far more important than the areas on which they purportedly disagree and which are marked off as the limits of “acceptable” politics.

Anyone who operates outside the boundaries of the official two-party cartel which controls the system is labeled, stigmaized, and marginalized as an “extremist.”

“Power” is the ability to set the ground rules of “mainstream” public discourse: so, for example, because Jews are now the wealthiest and most powerful ethnic group in the United States, what is called “anti-Semitism” became taboo after 1945.

“Racism” became taboo after 1965 when blacks were coopted and integrated into the American establishment. “Morality” in the United States is nothing more than the political hygeine of the dominant economic interests and social groups.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

8 Comments

  1. How about resetting the ground rules to:

    ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. Antiracist is a code word for anti-white.

  2. HW:

    Great synthesis and clarity expressing an important idea. As always of course. I wish I could do that, and I hope disaffected conservatives and others who need to see it see it.

    Speaking of Gregory Hood and the mainstream kabuki show, your comment reminded of Greg’s review of the Starz show Boss.

    Kelsey Grammar plays the mayor of Chicago. The show’s concept is depicting how high-stakes political power really works in terms of appearance versus reality. There are many great lines that get across this idea. In one scene, Chicago’s power brokers are shown deciding who is going to be the next governor of Illinois. It’s clear the peoples wishes’ are totally irrelevant. It’s also clear to two candidates for governor are irrelevant. The behind the scenes deal-making is what matters and what will be decisive. After some discussion, the top broker declares “what we need is the illusion of change. Change on the outside, continuity on the inside.”

    That pretty much sums up American mainstream politics. Highly recommended for all anti-system dissidents.

  3. This talks of two parties that disagree—

    But is it one party —selling the same agenda in two different ways:

    Immigration is sold as “helping oppressed” to the “democrat identified,” (who often receive program funds or dispense money as administrators, etc. Or population replacement is justified as “cheap labor” if speaking to the crony-capitalist-military identified, who like that justification for replacing the american population.

    Either way—- justifies the continued destruction of the American founding population, its influence, voice, values, economy, self-described historical narrative, etc.

    What if someone said Japan MUST become majority African by 2040, and Africans will run Japanese government, because Africans are CHEAPER (“cheaper labor”)

    What if someone said South Africa should become Chinese and Chinese run black African areas of South Africa by 2035 because Chinese are CHEAPER?

    No where else on earth is the argument being made that a population should be replaced BECAUSE another is CHEAPER, and no where else is a country’s POLICY TO REPLACE THE EXISTING population with another ethnic group, justified by saying the other ethnic group is CHEAPER.

    Many are CHEAPER than Japanese. (Japanese have a very advanced economy). Is it ok to replace all Japanese with a CHEAPER color in a few years?

    There is always SOMEBODY CHEAPER than whoever is in a place, (all things being relative).

    If one black African TRIBE –say Zulu— is CHEAPER than another –say Hutu— Why don’t we take the CHEAPER Zulu and just move them into where the more expensive Hutu are, and “use them in that area,” instead of Hutu?

    See? The U.S. is the only place on earth where the argument is made that the population can be replaced by ethnically different people WHO HAPPEN to be CHEAPER. Only there, are white wages taken and used to import a different ethnic groups, saying it’s because they are CHEAPER.

    So, the article does not sound very “mantra.” One party— different justifications for making a new ethnicity in a country (genocide of the other one) using the justifications of “oppression” (democrat) or “cheaper” (neo-con).

    Japanese are not paying taxes to import a CHEAPER population to live where they used to.

  4. This is better—

    Obviously it is only one Agenda, marketed and sold in however works. But that’s not the point.

    The point is: nowhere else on earth is the Agenda the replacement of the population, no matter how it’s justified. No one is non-Japanese by bringing them in to work in the Japanese government and replace Japanese, justifying it by saying the non-Japanese are “oppressed.” No one is bringing non-Japanese into Japan by saying the “newcomers” happen to be CHEAPER.

    If that happened, how long would it take any sane Japanese to catch onto this, and to realize the point was to make Japan become non-Japanese? How long would it take any Generational American of the founding stock to catch on, if other ethnic groups were brought under whatever pretext, like being “oppressed” or “cheap” that seemed to curb vocal resistance?

  5. “‘Morality’ in the United States is nothing more than the political hygeine of the dominant economic interests and social groups.”

    Nailed it, HW. Good work.

Comments are closed.