What is establishment?

We have so many groups of people that state they are against the establishment. What exactly is establishment? I will bring up definitions, but I am not one of those that gives sway to the Appeal to Authority of a dictionary, I see plenty of lingual drift and the repurposing of words these days that I know a word can end up being treated as different than what the dictionary definition states. Furthermore, if I check multiple dictionaries their own definitions can differ between them.

The following is from dictionary.com:

I suspect when people say they are against the establishment they are referring to the bullet point number 4 in that group of definitions.

(often initial capital letter) the existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority (usually preceded by the):
The Establishment believes exploring outer space is worth any tax money spent.

Now another thing that comes to mind is that this is likely also what people are usually referring to when they say things such as "Fight the Man".

Yet what is it really?

If it is establishment then it seems it would be the norm within the power structure. So would it be the person that shows up for a four year term that is the establishment, or would it be the people that seem to be there regardless of who sits on the 4-8 year seat? Wouldn't the establishment more likely be the people that have no term limits?

If this is the case then unless the person sitting on the 4-8 year seat came from out of that group can they truly be called the establishment?

My impression of the establishment is that thing which is present and does not change. It is the power structure that is in place and though it may have a figurehead that comes out front every 4 to 8 years there are still those that are present outside of those terms. This can be senators and congressmen with no term limits. This can be supreme court justices with no term limits. This can be positions of authority within the various offices for law enforcement who don't really have term limits.

This can be in the lobbyists and the corporations they lobby for that exist regardless of who sits within the 4 to 8 year chair.

This can be the mainstream media that is controlled and owned by five corporations and they remain in power and influential regardless of who is in the 4 to 8 year chair. In fact, usually they almost are the main arm that determines who that person sitting in the 4 to 8 year chair will be.

So is fighting and challenging the person in the 4 to 8 year chair truly fighting establishment? If that person came from out of these other existing groups of no term limit people then perhaps it is.

Yet what if the media, the corporations, and those without term limits seem to be allied against the person in the 4 to 8 year chair? Wouldn't that seem to indicate that the establishment in such a case is against the 4 to 8 year chair person?

If that is the case then if you are working with the groups opposing the 4 to 8 year chair holder would you truly be working against establishment? In my mind and by my reasoning you actually would be working FOR the establishment.

Now in looking at this word establishment and giving a lot of thought to it. For it to be established I primarily would be looking at the things that remain. What is the status quo power?

I would also be considering what tools and techniques they have at their disposal that would let them remain in power. Laws are one way for certain. Creating loopholes for campaign financing (such as PACs), and opening the door wide for lobbyists is one way. Passing bills that benefit the corporations of those lobbyists and give the corporations guaranteed income, such as bills that force citizens to use and buy those corporations products and if they do not that is a crime.

Maybe just the idea of creating more and more laws overall would be appealing. Then they need for more and more attorneys increases as the law becomes more and more maze like and convoluted. Then think about those no term limit people and how many of them started out as attorneys.

What is an attorney trained in? Are they trained to tell the truth about their client, or are they trained to present their client in the best light and help them win? As far as I know it is the latter. So what happens when their clients are the lobbyists and corporations, and not actually the people? Do you think they will suddenly stop practicing their skills at convincing people their client is in the right?

We have a term for them it is called Lawyers, but that could also be changed to Liars. They can say they didn't lie, they just didn't share all of the information. This can change contextual information. As far as I am concerned that is still lying and a little semantic dancing doesn't change that.

Now consider that our no term limit people usually come from this occupation.

Consider that the 4 to 8 year chair holder also often comes from this occupation.

Is this a good thing?

Now one thing they have been good at is pushing for laws and regulations that clearly strip a lot of important aspects out of the education of the people. By doing this they become easier to steer, and less likely to think for themselves. The population becomes more and more herd like and fond of embracing bandwagon fallacies and jumping on the bandwagon.

They become more and more susceptible to propaganda.

So what happens when you throw labels at these people, and convince them those labels are bad? What happens when you tell them someone is establishment and you have convinced them that attacking establishment is bad? What happens when you convince them that erasing history is valuable?

What happens when it is the actual establishment that is telling them what to do, and who to attack?

What happens when the attackers use the tactics and actions of those that they supposedly are against?

What happens when history has been so edited that they no longer know what the label actually means and they just blindly march?

What happens when you are told how unfairly you are treated due to "race" and then they tell you to blame it all on one "race"? Does this sound like using racism as an excuse to be racist?

These are all things I hope some of the protestors on ALL sides and especially those that self identify as Antifa will think about.