J. B. Shurk has an essay today about the ... let's call it slavery ... that the authoritarian fascist far left wants to impose on the rest of us "little people." Interestingly, he sites an excellent article by Victor Hanson Davis that can be found here. I suggest you read it as background for this article. Shurk's article can be found at the American Thinker entitled Ending the Democrats Plantation World Order.
As 2023 comes to a close, two stories are receiving renewed attention: the unprecedented immigrant invasion at the Southern border and Democrats’ ongoing legal efforts to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. Neither story is a surprise, since Democrats depended entirely on the importation of new voters from foreign lands (usually third-world indoctrination mills for some form of Marxist socialism) and a series of partisan judicial rulings that legalized mail-in ballot fraud in 2020 to make habitually unpopular Joe Biden the most popularly “elected” president in American history. In risible contrast to Democrats’ effusive public adoration for “democracy,” judicial fiat has always been their preferred method for “ruling.” Those who prattle most about “saving democracy” desire nothing more than for black-robed authoritarians to “fix” elections before the public has even had its say.
Professor Victor Davis Hanson has written an excellent essay about how today’s Democrat “ballot banishers” emulate nineteenth-century Democrat efforts to ban Abraham Lincoln from the 1860 election — before their subsequent loss led them to reject that election’s results (which they had attempted to rig) and form a breakaway Confederacy. In comparing the Democrats’ election-riggers of today with those in the lead-up to the Civil War, Hanson finds no shortage of similarities. Just as antebellum Democrats rejected federal tariffs that affected the profitability of King Cotton and later nullified federal laws enacted to end racial segregation, Democrats today insolently repudiate federal immigration statutes by establishing unlawful “sanctuary cities.” Just as nineteenth-century Democrats obsessed over skin color, today’s Democrats do, too. Just as post-Civil War Democrats fought to segregate people by race, today’s Democrats embrace a “woke” collection of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” initiatives (further evidence that we have entered Orwell’s dreaded dystopia where words mean their antonyms) that segregate campus dorms, graduations, holiday parties, and “safe spaces” and reward people not for their meritorious achievements but rather for their racial composition.
Finally, Hanson takes a look at the Big Tech-dominated economies of today’s Democrat strongholds and sees a mirror image of nineteenth-century Democrats’ plantation society centered around cotton and slavery. While Democrats once expected the riffraff to call them “master,” today’s Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Bank “masters of the universe” are slave-owners in every way but name. Within the new technocratic plantations that Democrats have constructed, an extremely small class of elites possess wealth and political power, while everyone else struggles to stay above abject poverty.
Shurk goes on to paint the the Democrats in the years leading up to the 1860s as oligarchs who were afraid of a Lincoln administration because of the possible effect on profits from King Cotton. The entire Southern plantation economy was based on cotton exports, and the way that they produced that cotton was with slave labor. So they did what they could to rig the election of 1860 by removing Lincoln from the ballots in many places. Sound familiar? When the Civil War broke out, the Democrats had every expectation of winning. After all, they had international backing, wealth, status, not to mention international banking . What they didn't have was the industrial strength of the North
Ultimately, nineteenth-century Democrats’ “plantation world order” collapsed because it could not keep pace with the capital-accumulating effects and technological innovations unleashed by the wealth-creating dynamo of private property and free markets. When the Industrial Revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries took hold in the United States, Americans’ work ethic, rejection of aristocratic privilege, and embrace of private property regardless of class combined to propel the working poor into middle class trades. From there, the possibilities for economic advancement were limited not by one’s academic degree or family pedigree but rather by one’s frontier daring, penchant for hard work, and willingness to keep struggling.
If you ever find yourself in a rare books library that contains the travel diaries, economic notes, and social observations of visitors to America from its days as a collection of colonies all the way through the first part of the twentieth century, a common refrain you will notice is this: no other nation on the planet produced such astounding intergenerational social mobility. Only in America could the descendants of indentured servants become farmers, millers, shopkeepers, factory owners, industrialists, bankers, and statesmen in the course of a few generations.
What happened? Marxist socialism and other pre-“woke” mind viruses gutted the broad wealth-generating effects of private property ownership and its attendant rise in social mobility. A hundred and ten years ago in 1913, President Wilson (a Big Government socialist) and Democrats (along with “progressive” Uniparty Republicans) succeeded in legalizing a national income tax (through ratification of the 16th Amendment) and granting a private bank (the Federal Reserve) the centralized power to print and devalue American currency. It is no accident that oligarchs had to first legalize the theft of Americans’ incomes before they could then erect an inflationary system that enriched financial and political elites by draining wealth from poor and middle class Americans. America’s once-vaunted intergenerational social mobility subsequently collapsed. The Democrats lost the Civil War only to succeed in establishing their “plantation world order” nonetheless.
So, what to do? Shurk expertly lays out the state of the world today. Billionaire oligarchs, who have claimed for themselves the anointing of the gods to rule the rest of us seem on the verge of success. In their view, we have been designated as the serfs of the future. Our role is to serve our rulers. We, of course, in this role will have nothing, and we will be happy or else. We will eat bugs. For reasons that escape me, there are a lot of people who fall for the authoritarian fascist far-left's propaganda. What they don't realize is that they will be the first thrown up against the wall and shot. These are the ones described by Russian dictator Vladimir Lenin as "useful idiots." They have always existed. They want someone to take care of them. But that is not how it works.
What Shurk hopes, and I do too, is that more people come to realise that their lives are being turned upside down, that the idea of "climate change" is being used to steal the wealth of the middle and lower classes and reduce them to abject poverty. The oligarchs will use these people as serfs, to be discarded when they are of no more use. Moreover, it is by design. And members of both parties are in on it. The question remains, will enough of us wake up and will we do something before it is too late?
No comments:
Post a Comment