"In order to maximize compliance in a population, maximize their dependence"

 

That's the core sentence in an article by Jeff Thomas, who looks at the long history of oligarchy in the USA, and how it's now grown to the point of openly overriding the will of the people to take over the government.  He believes it'll soon progress to international organizations overriding national governments.  I'm not sure about that, but he makes a compelling case.

For many years, a handful of people have postulated that those who control industry, finance and governments are essentially the same people – a cabal of sorts that have, over generations, solidified their relationships in order to gain greater wealth and power, whilst systematically making things ever more difficult for the free market to exist.

But why should this be? Surely, corporate leaders are more ardently capitalist than anyone else?

Well, on the surface, that might appear to make sense, but once a significant position of power has been achieved, those who have achieved it recognize that, since they’ve already reached the top, the primary concern changes. From then on, the primary concern becomes the assurance that no others are able to climb so high as they have.

At that point, they realise that their foremost effort needs to be a push toward corporatism – the merger of power between government and business.

This is a natural marriage. The political world is a parasitic one. It relies on a continual flow of funding. The world of big business is a study in exclusivity – the ability to make it impossible for pretenders to the throne to arise. So, big business provides the cash; government provides protective legislation that ensures preference for those at the top.

In most cases, this second half of the equation does not mean a monopoly for just one corporation, but a monopoly for a cabal – an elite group of corporations.

This corporatist relationship has deep roots in the US, going back over one hundred years. To this day, those elite families who took control of oil, steel, banking, motor vehicles and other industries a century ago, soon created a takeover of higher learning (universities), health (Big Pharma) and “Defense” (the military-industrial complex).

Through legislation, the US was then transformed to ensure that all these interests would be catered to, creating generations of both control and profit.

Of course, “profit” should not be an evil word, but under crony capitalism, it becomes an abomination – a distortion of the free market and the death of laissez faire economics.

. . .

The Green New Deal is merely the latest corporate collectivist scheme on the list.

Corporate collectivism can be defined as a system in which the few who hold the legal monopolies of finance and industry gain an overriding control over all others, and in so doing, systematically extract wealth from them.

Today, this system has become so refined that, although the average American has a flat screen TV and an expensive smartphone, he cannot raise $400 to cover an emergency that occurs in his life. He is, for all practical purposes, continually bankrupt, but still functioning in a zombie-like existence of continual dependency.

This, on the surface, may not seem all that dangerous, but those who cannot buy their way out of a small emergency are easily controlled. Just create an emergency such as an uber-virus and that fact will be illuminated quickly.

In order to maximise compliance in a population, maximise their dependence.

As stated above, this effort has been in play for generations. But it is now reaching a crescendo. It’s now up to speed in most of the former Free World and those who hold the strings are ready for a major step forward in corporate collectivism.

In the coming year, we shall see dramatic changes appearing at a dizzying rate. Capital controls, migration controls, internal movement controls, tax increases, confiscation of assets and the removal of “inalienable” rights will all be coming into effect – so quickly that before the populace can even grasp the latest restrictions, new ones will be heaped on.

As this unfolds, we shall witness the erosion of the nation-state. Controls will come from global authorities, such as the UN, the IMF and the WEF. Organisations that have no formal authority over nations will increasingly be calling the shots and people will wonder how this is possible. Elected officials will increasingly become mere bagmen, doing the bidding of an unelected ruling class.

The changes that take place will be not unlike a blanket that is thrown over humanity.

The question then will be whether to:

a) give in to this force,

b) to fight it and most likely fall victim to it, or

c) seek a means to fall outside the perimeter of the blanket.

There's more at the link.

We can certainly see the drive by the powers that be to maximize our dependence on the state.  From the risible $600 "stimulus check" last year (since "enhanced" to what may be $2,000 in the latest proposal - all while giving hundreds of billions more to foreign nations and interests) to proposals for greater internal security measures against "racists" and "domestic terrorists" (who all, for some strange reason, appear to be former Trump supporters), the pattern is clear.  Make US citizens dependent on the state, so that they no longer argue with those who dole out money to them.  Make them afraid to stir up trouble, in case their lords and masters cut off the flow of largesse.  What's more, make as many laws, rules and regulations as possible to hamper those who are trying to remain independent and stand on their own two feet.  Force them to become dependent as well.  Remember "You didn't build that"?  That was all part of the plan.

We'll have to keep our eyes wide open, and watch for developments such as Mr. Thomas anticipates.  If we see them, we're going to have a stark choice.  Shakespeare put it neatly.

To be, or not to be - that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them.

Suffer under them, or end them?  We certainly won't be left to our own devices, "to sleep - perchance to dream".  The powers that be intend to rule, and they intend us to obey.  Will we?

I fear many will take the easy way out.  For the rest . . . only time will tell.

Peter