Money meets the Mafia

The corruption, treason, and Mafia-like tactics of government may be finally surfacing.  They appear so widespread as to be incomprehensible to the average American.  Kash Patel refers to this behavior as "American gangsters."  Steve Bannon interviews Patel in this video.

Government is a criminal enterprise.  That is its nature and has been since its earliest implementation.  That statement is independent of time or place.

Power always corrupts those entrusted with it.  Not everyone is as susceptible to corruption.  Nor is it limited to a particular political party, culture, or geographical area.  Government, perhaps necessary as an overseer, always deteriorates into a pillager of wealth and freedom.

Man is driven by self-interest.  That is our nature and not necessarily a defect.  Adam Smith eloquently explained how this characteristic, in a properly constructed environment of norms and rules, served humanity by increasing wealth, producing better products, and making life easier.  Unfortunately, the institutional constraints and legal framework of freely and properly functioning markets do not exist within government.  Concentrated power and unconstrained self-interest produce inevitable exploitation. 

Rules, regulations, and proscriptions are designed to limit self-serving behavior.  However, these are ineffective when those who enforce the rules also benefit from ignoring them.  A two-tiered system of justice develops.  Rulers do things that the ruled cannot.  Violations not seen by the ruled become ruler perquisites.

Power is a cancer that eventually destroys everything it touches.  For those holding this power, the rest of the country exists for them.  Those not in power exist to be plundered.  Pretend concerns for freedom and well-being are necessary to protect the scam and plunder.  Rulers ratchet up these pretensions around elections.  Voters who believe they are in control are like lambs being led to slaughter.

If there were no elections, lip service to government myths would be unnecessary.  However, totalitarianism is harder to sell than a government "of, by, and for" the people.  So long as people believe this myth, change is unlikely.

Elections are now meaningless because of blatant cheating.  Apparently, the myth of democracy is important to maintain, but not with the risk of losing a fair election. 

The myth of democracy and a constitutional republic is useful for the criminal cartel.  But fair elections apparently are not as important as the risk of losing an election.

Elon Musk, through his acquisition of Twitter, states that he has the information that reveals corruption between multiple government agencies and the media.  While he has promised to release this information, such bravado is not without cost.  Is he willing to risk everything for his principles?  Consider just these factors:

  • Mr. Musk has benefited from government subsidies.  How much his past and continued success depends upon this relationship is moot, but clearly, alienating his founding patron is not without risk.  If his success depends on continuing government financial support, is it reasonable to expect him to jeopardize this?
  • Even without government financial independence, can Musk survive if he is considered an enemy of the State?  Could he not easily be crushed by anti-trust or other regulatory attacks?
  • As a foreign-born American, Musk understands the importance of freedom.  He speaks of it eloquently.  But what cost is he personally willing to pay to defend it?
  • The government is a monolithic force capable of destroying anyone, even Musk.  Is he willing to risk bankruptcy and poverty for this fight?  Is he willing to risk physical harm, even assassination, for his principles?

We still do not have the full details on President John F. Kennedy's assassination.  That was about 60 years ago.  Government was not nearly as powerful back then.  There is no one still alive to be punished by a complete revelation of the details of this crime.  Blame for incompetence, cover-up, etc. is not embarrassing for the dead.  Governmental involvement would be.  Is that why we still don't have answers for this presidential assassination?

I have no answers regarding the Kennedy apparent "cover-up."  I point to it only as a concern for anyone who does not play ball with the powers that be.  Sixty years ago, it was not nearly the force that it is today.  Yet it may have been involved then in something unthinkable.

Take heed, Elon.

Monty Pelerin blogs at

Image: PxHere.

If you experience technical problems, please write to