The Hill recently ran an article entitled, “America – The New Socialist Frontier” (link https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/425970-america-the-new-socialist-frontier). Whether you agree or disagree with the perspective of the article, there are a couple of things that I would like to point out about issues connected with this article.

Some newly elected legislators do have a socialist agenda. No doubt. What the article doesn’t talk about, though, is why they were elected by the voters.  In order to answer that question, let me first digress for a moment.

After World War II, many Americans believed in something that was referred to as The American Dream. Sure, there was a sprinkling of wealthy people in the country, but the vast majority worked very hard just to be able to support their families.  In a fairly short period of time, prosperity blossomed from sea-to-shining-sea.  The burgeoning American middle class was born. Opportunities abounded – capitalism was king and consumerism became the driving force in society.  Before long, the nouveau riche sprouted up seemingly everywhere.

After many years of prosperity, something unforeseen happened.  Class warfare. Why? Well, because not everyone shared in the spoils equally.  Of course, not everyone contributed equally either but that didn’t seem to stop the have-nots from complaining.  People had gotten accustomed to great prosperity in the country.  They could see it everywhere – in magazines, on TV and the movies and in advertisements, and so they wanted some of it for themselves.

A new age dawned. People become fat and lazy.  They no longer wanted to work hard to obtain The American Dream. Many didn’t want to work at all. They simply wanted the government to provide for them. Problem was that the government doesn’t grow money on trees. It’s is funded by the taxpayers.

So, a rallying cry inevitably went out to tax the rich. However, taxing the rich is not quite all it’s cracked up to be as The Hill article pointed out,“The philosophy of envy and siphoning from the rich appeals to a large segment of the population that does not realize that the definition of ‘rich’ is a spiral of devolution that eventually will reach every business and every individual who works for a living.” You may remember how President Obama’s definition of ‘rich’ with respect to tax increases kept spiraling down and down until at one point it was going to include the middle class.  In actuality, it’s even much worse than that.  When you look at the income distribution curve in this country, the only place that significant tax increases can really come from is the middle class. You can’t fund a socialist society like Ocasio-Cortez wants unless the middle class pays for it.  Increasing the top tax rate to 70% for the rich is a smokescreen.  It’s a mere pittance of what will be required. What she is not saying is that her Green New Deal will destroy the middle class which is actually a key objective of socialism.

This leads me to the political strategy of our newly-minted socialists. The key words that I quoted from the article are “every individual who works for a living.” The reason those words are key is that Ocasio-Cortez is appealing to a political base who does not work for a living or, at the very least, works but does not pay taxes. She is targeting the have-nots to get them to revolt against the haves; in other words political class warfare. It’s a smart strategy since it appeals to roughly half the people in this country who do not pay income taxes as well as to people who get paid some form of government assistance. The problem, though, as Benjamin Franklin pointed out, is that,When people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic.” Are you ready for that?

Socialism is superficially a very appealing concept. However, there has to be a group that implements the desires of the people, assuming that the people are smart enough to even make those kinds of decisions (which studies seem to show that they are not).  Even in a democracy such as America, you can see how flawed a process that can be. There always has to be a 1% whether they’re called kings, tsars, presidents or the corporate elites. So, tell me, who gets to decide who will be the 1%?  See the problem. The real issue isn’t whether it’s capitalism or socialism, it’s who gets to be in charge. Ocasio-Cortez wants to be the one in charge, to be the one who gets to tell you which personal freedoms you’ll have to sacrifice on the altar of socialism and to be the one to tell you how much in additional taxes you’ll have to pay. Now, that’s what I call a New Deal.

 

Epilogue

There’s a reason why communism has never worked.  Russia, Cuba and Venezuela should be a reminder to us all. The reason is that when there is no incentive for people to get ahead, there is no incentive for them to contribute either. Everyone has to share equally, right? Eventually, everyone does share equally because everyone is equally poor.  Well, not everyone.  We forget sometimes that regardless of whether a society has capitalism, socialism, fascism or communism, there always has to be a ruling class. There always has to be a 1%.

 

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money.”
– Margaret Thatcher

 

 

 

Advertisements

Nancy Pelosi may be presiding over the destruction of the Democratic Party.  There’s a long list of former core constituents who have been jettisoned by the DNC. No more liberals of the Bernie Sanders ilk.  Not to worry, though, since the nomination was stolen from Bernie many of his supporters were leaving the party anyway (#walkaway). No more unions, since the Dems previously sent those jobs overseas, particularly to China.  Now, with the fight over the border wall, the Dems will be losing Hispanic votes too since illegal immigration threatens Hispanics more than any other single demographic.

But wait, it gets worse. There is an internal revolt within the party which will result in a three-ring circus with respect to the 2020 Democratic Party nomination.  Many people will run and yet so few have any real prospects of winning.  They will literally eat each other up. It will be Pelosi’s job to keep the party from imploding as the various factions fight for power and in the process wreck the party’s chances for winning the presidential nod.

First, there are the far-left progressives with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the limelight, even though see can’t run herself. The progressives are backed by all the people who don’t work and want the government to support them.  There’s actually a lot of those what with half of all families with children receiving some sort of government assistance and they will certainly be a force to be reckoned with. Then, we have Tulsi Gabbard.  What a thorn she’s going to be.  Previously a Bernie Sanders supporter, Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran, is surprise… an anti-war candidate.  With the rest of the Democratic Party pretty much against the pullout of troops from Syria and Afghanistan, Gabbard will force the other candidates to justify their position of endless wars abroad. Believe me, Trump will be listening and profit by that dialogue.

And poor Nancy Pelosi.  She will be told to steer the party to a candidate that supports wars, which most certainly will not be Tulsi Gabbard. She will be left out ala Bernie Sanders.  As for foreign policy, the candidate will have to be on the Russia boogie man train.  That’s because so many inside The Beltway have sold out to the Chinese who are, in reality, the real threat to the country.  Meanwhile, Nancy just can’t help herself what with her confusion over the immorality of building a wall that she has previously been in favor of to leaving town on junkets during the government shutdown.  Congress is even talking about passing legislation (The Pelosi Rule it’s being called) to keep lawmakers in D.C. during any future government shutdown.

In the end, Nancy will be trying to manage the fringe lunatics on the far left who are against free speech and prefer communism to capitalism and the Deep State, including corporate titans such as Google, Amazon and Facebook as well as the military industrial complex.  Sounds like a trainwreck waiting to happen, if you ask me.

 

“When people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic”.   – Benjamin Franklin

 

 

William Barr is currently being questioned before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of the confirmation process of his becoming the new Attorney General.  The Democrats on the committee, like Kamala Harris, are all playing nice nice with him. That’s due to the aftereffect of the Judge Kavanaugh SCOTUS confirmation hearing, or more simply the Kavanaugh effect.  Therefore, expect that Barr’s confirmation is already a foregone conclusion.

Now, earthquakes have aftershocks but the Barr confirmation hearing has resulted in what I call a pre-shock. A big pre-shock is what happened today when Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller blinked.  By that, I mean that the Special Counsel did something totally out of character – he refuted a report from BuzzFeed that Trump instructed his personal attorney (Michael Cohen) to lie to Congress.

Here’s the backstory behind the BuzzFeed article:

  • BuzzFeed stands by their story which came from an admittedly unverified intelligence dossier.
  • One of the two BuzzFeed reporters who published the story hasn’t even seen the evidence that the BuzzFeed story is supposedly based on.
  • The other BuzzFeed reporter has been criticized in the past for claiming sources that he didn’t really have.
  • It was BuzzFeed that also released the now totally discredited “Steele Dossier,” the Russian collusion narrative.

So, why did Mueller make such a rare public statement when he never comments on ongoing investigations? Why, indeed? It’s what I call the Barr-effect.  His soon-to-be new boss is none other than William Barr.  Yes, that William Barr.  How would you explain to your new boss that you allowed a fake news narrative to remain publically unchallenged where it could be used as fodder for the impeachment of the President?

And that’s what I refer to as the Kavannaugh-Barr effect. It’s Beltway politics at its finest.

 

“In politics… never retreat, never retract… never admit a mistake.” –  Napoleon Bonaparte

         P.S. Or when you do retract, you bury it on the back page.

Pop quiz hotshot. What does Brexit, the Yellow Vest Movement and Donald Trump have in common?  The answer: Civil War.

In England, the British voted to have their country exit from the EU (Brexit). However, the Parliament and the British establishment have so far refused to let that happen.  Why?  Because they are aligned politically with the EU.

Comment:  Strange how Parliament called for the Brexit referendum and then when the election results didn’t suit them, they reversed course. Sure sounds like treason to me.

 

In France, the citizenry are in open revolt (the Yellow Vest Movement) against Emmanuel Macron and his government.  They thought that they were a free country.  After all, what was the French Revolution for? Didn’t it give them freedom from the ruling class?

Comment: Apparently not according to Macron, who told the French that, “nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism.” So, now over 200 years later the revolution continues.

 

In America, Donald Trump rode into power on the back of a wave of citizen dissatisfaction with their government.  Yet, two years into his presidency, he has been unable to fulfill many of his campaign promises. He can’t even get a little wall built.

Comment:  Well, apparently the Wall hasn’t been built because it’s immoral. As for the rest, the Deep State is ensconced on both sides of the Potomac (aisle).

 

There’s one other thing that England, France and the United States have in common politically.  They are all ruled by the triumvirate of The Vatican, the City of London and Washington D.C.  Bottom line: The powers that be will try to keep England in the EU by any means necessary.  Civil War rules the day.

 

 

“Our plutocracy, whether the hedge fund managers in Greenwich, Connecticut, or the Internet moguls in Palo Alto, now lives like the British did in colonial India: ruling the place but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; to the person fortunate enough to own a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension, and viable public transportation doesn’t even compute. With private doctors on call and a chartered plane to get to the Mayo Clinic, why worry about Medicare?” – Mike Lofgren, The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government

 

Natural News just ran an expose entitled “Environmentalists Are At War With Life on Earth” – see link below. The central theme of the article is this: “photosynthesis requires sunlight, carbon dioxide and water to function, yet climate change propagandists have now declared war on two out of those three inputs required to sustain nearly all plant life on our planet.”

As the article stated, war has been declared on sunlight through various global engineering initiatives, the latest of which has been dubbed “global dimming”, a topic I covered recently (Geoengineering – An Exotic Name For Chemtrails, December 19, 2018).  The goal is “to pollute the skies and diminish the intensity of sunlight reaching all plant life on Earth.”  The endgame is to cripple global crop production which will suffer greatly without sufficient sunlight.

Then, there’s the curious case of the war on carbon dioxide.  I say curious because carbon dioxide is the “single most important nutrient to support plan life – forests, food crops and ocean life.”  Yet, no less than Al Gore wants to restrict the production of carbon dioxide and many world leaders have called for so-called “carbon taxes” to prevent the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Wow! So, let’s restrict the amount of the most important plant life nutrient that can be put into the environment.

Note: Carbon taxes is a big part of the Yellow Vest protest in France.

While some people, no doubt, will consider this perspective to be very close to heresy, I feel that the article could have actually gone even further.  Point being that the article said that war has been declared on two of the three legs of photosynthesis. However, I would say that it’s actually all three.  You see there was no mention of the war on water, perhaps because it was considered beyond the scope of the article.  Many people are coming to realize that the technology, generally a combination of HAARP and chemtrails, exists to manipulate the weather, including violent storms.  For example, in Iran, lakes are turning into deserts and the lack of water is fast becoming a national security issue, not to mention having a devastating economic impact.  The Iran government has accused the United States of eco-terrorism through the use of technology to produce drought conditions in Iran (see link below). Supporting that idea is a statement by William Cohen, the then U.S. Secretary of Defense, who admitted that governments “are engaging… in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.”

Natural News also published an article on climate change (see link below) which is an interesting read and from which I have excerpted the following quotes:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All of these are caused by human intervention…The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” – Aurelio Peccei, founder of the Club of Rome

Comment: The real enemy is humanity itself? The elites underlying agenda is to eliminate the enemy – humanity itself. That’s why they have developed the idea that man is responsible for climate change. That’s why we have the Georgia Guidestones. Get people to believe that man, himself, is the enemy. The endgame is transhumanism. That’s why physicist Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk view artificial intelligence as the greatest threat to the survival of the human species. Actually, there are two major contributors to climate change.  The overarching cause is that it is driven by the natural cycles of the sun.  The second cause is that it is intentionally created by man. Intentionally, you understand.  However, it is not created by the average person or by his activities on the planet (e.g. production of consumer goods).  Rather, it is intentionally created by the elites, a created crisis, so that they can provide the masses with the solution.

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

Comment: I guess this amounts to as close to a public admission that the global warming science is phony as we’re going to get. The “justice and equality in the world” phrase means that everyone will be treated equally (ergo: no middle class). Of course, there will always be an upper class who the rules don’t apply to – like Al Gore flying around in his private jet.

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

Comment: Translation – We know we faked the global warming science. So, what? Keep your eyes on the ball (our agenda of total control).  It is the right thing for us (although not for the masses) and that is what matters.

If you are getting numb from all of this, I don’t blame you.  It is a lot to wrap one’s mind around.  If you’re one of those who touts climate change, I’m surprised that you’re still reading this. However, if you have an inquiring mind and want to understand this issue better, go research it yourself.  You certainly don’t have to take my word on it. Don’t believe the climate change pundits either.  They’re the ones who will tell you all about the supposed scientific consensus on the issue.  I said supposed. As William Casey, the then director of the CIA, said, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

The climate change movement is not based on science nor is it environmental in nature (no pun intended). Rather, it is a political tool of control.  Just another tactic of the Deep State.

 

“The climate change movement is a death cult. Their target is photosynthesis, the basis of all sustainable, complex life on planet Earth.” – Natural News

 

Links:

(1) https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-01-10-environmentalists-are-at-war with-life-on-earth-total-collapse-of-ecosystem-the-real-goal-of-climate-propagandists.htm

 (2) https://www.naturalnewsblogs.com/climate-change-a-stalking-horse-for-world-government/

 (3) https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/iran-accuses-u-s-of-using-weather-weapons

There’s a new breed of politicians loose in the country.  They are hell-bent on making America poor again (MAPA).  MAPA has overnight become the new MAGA.  Go figure.

When I was growing up, my parents (and their generation) were driven by the idea of the American Dream. The American Dream was sometimes represented by the picture of a house with a white picket fence around it. In front of the house was pictured a father, a mother, and two kids, a boy and a girl. Oh yeah, and a dog. That, for them, was the embodiment of the American Dream.  They simply wanted to work hard so as to provide for their families, and the government was there to provide an infrastructure of jobs and security towards that end.

Now, the world is headed in a totally different direction. MAPA has a radically new agenda. Some of the losers in this new paradigm are the very people that we should be caring for the most, veterans and the homeless.  In my day, veterans were treated more like heroes and the homeless…well, there weren’t hardly any. Certainly, there were no tent cities.

Under the banner of socialism, and social justice, the government will no longer represent its current citizens.  By that, I mean that priority will now to be given to new immigrants. No longer will there be a designation of “illegal immigrant” because the borders will be open and virtually everyone will be allowed in.

Oddly enough, another group of losers under MAPA are minorities and those people who had immigrated in the past. I know that may sound counterintuitive to some but the jobs that go to the new immigrants will have to come from somewhere (unless the new immigrants are going to go on the welfare rolls).  Not only will there be a loss of jobs for minorities, but the hourly wages paid for other jobs will be lower because of the competition from the new immigrants. That’s basic economics.  Of course, the new social programs will be funded by higher taxes, Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have already said so.  Ocasio-Cortez is currently promoting an increase in the top individual income tax rate to 70%.

Ultimately, what will all this look like?  For starters, population of the U. S. will soar. It could well double in just five years. Birth rates will go up sharply causing another upward spike in population. Will there be jobs for another 300-400 million people? Of course, not. Even a relatively healthy growth rate in the economy would add no more than 3 million jobs per year and certainly there will be down years and even recessions, or worse yet a depression.  And forget about how we’re going to house such a big influx of people. Tent cities will sprout up everywhere, including across the street from you. On the other side of the coin, businesses will move their operations to other countries as this will no longer be a healthy environment for them.  As a result, significant jobs will actually be lost.

There will be a resulting disparity between the number of people working and the number of people not working which will make it necessary to raise taxes even higher. In addition, high-income people will also leave the country causing a brain drain and capital outflows and there will be a complete collapse of the middle class.  The gap between the haves and the have-nots will widen even further, actually a lot further.

Welcome to the world of MAPA.

 

Epilogue

In the end, America will become not much better than a third-world nation.  Of course,without borders, there will be no nation because sovereignty is the result of having real borders.  Inevitably, ultimate authority will rest with the United Nations.  Hope you’re ready for Agenda 21.

 

 

“Ocasio-Cortez is a socialist, and she’s determined to give the voters exactly what they’ve asked for.  Free school.  Free drugs.  Free retirement.  And a guaranteed income for showing up to pretend jobs that are little more than adult daycare.”  – Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge

 

So much fuss over a wall. What is the average person suppose to make of it all? To wall or not to wall, that seems to be the question.

In order to understand this issue a little, one really has to look at what the politicians don’t say as opposed to what they do say. So for example, Democrats universally oppose the use of government funds for construction of a wall.  That’s their current public position as we all well know. However, what they don’t tell you is that they have either voted for a Southern border wall and/or publicly supported the financing of such a wall prior to Trump being elected. This group includes Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren, among many others.

As for Trump, he says that we have a crisis at the Southern border and that we must build a wall. That’s his public position as we all well know. Trump has mentioned several times that if the Democrats don’t give him the funds, he may have to invoke a national emergency. That’s closer to the real reason, but what does that mean?

Here’s what he’s not saying, though. It’s not about the money.  It’s not even about the wall, although politically Trump is committed to the building of such a wall.  The overarching reason is that the wall represents a rationale for the public to support the declaration of a national emergency.

So, why does Trump want to declare a national emergency? Well, technically he doesn’t have to as the United States has been operating under a declared national emergency due to an executive order which Trump signed back on December 20, 2017. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg, to wit:

  • The United States has been operating under a state of declared war since September, 2001, following the 911 attacks. This explains the strange questions that Senator Lindsey Graham posed to Judge Kavanaugh during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing; questions about military tribunals that would only be relevant if the United States was currently in a state of declared war.
  • On March 21, 2011, Barack Obama sent a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault against Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council.  This was an attempted explanation of why Obama committed American forces to the war in Libya without the approval of Congress.  Approximately one year later on March 14, 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified during a Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing and further explained that Obama’s actions were because the United Nations and NATO had supreme authority over the U.S. military forces.
  • On March 16, 2012, President Obama issued an executive order entitled “National Defense Resources Preparedness.” That executive order gave the President the authority to take over all of the country’s resources (e.g. labor, food, industry) as long as it is done for reasons of national defense.
  • On July 6, 2012, President Obama issued an executive order entitled “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions.” That executive order granted the President absolute control over all U.S. media, including social media, news networks and news websites.

If you’re not already in a state of shock yet, consider this. The President (any president) has at their disposal almost dictatorial powers as a result of the various executive orders signed by then President Obama.  In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2102 codified into U.S. law the authority of the President to imprison indefinitely, anyone, including American citizens, deemed to be a “terrorist threat” to the United States, without trial or due process. Anyone who the President deems is a terrorist, you understand.

And you probably thought that you were living in a republic.

 

Epilogue

The palpable panic inside The Beltway is because these dictatorial presidential powers have now been transferred from who the Deep State intended would be president, Hillary Clinton, to an outsider. The resulting chaos in Washington is…well, you can only describe it as Civil War.

 

 “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”  – George Orwell

 

There are three corporations that run the world.  No, I’m not talking about Apple, Microsoft and Walmart.  Oddly enough, it’s The City of London (financial district), The Vatican and Washington D.C. Yes, corporations one and all.

These three corporations have a number of things in common. For example, The City of London (also known as The Crown) is not part of England nor is it in any way affiliated with the actual city of London, England.  Sounds confusing, right?  Likewise, The Vatican is not part of Italy, but rather is a sovereign country recognized under international law.  It is run by the Holy See.  Lastly, we have the District of Columbia which is not part of the United States of America. Now, that may sound strange but it’s no stranger than the fact that the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service are not part of the U. S. Government.  If you think that the District of Columbia is part of the United States, I invite you to check out the Act of 1871.  If you do, it might surprise you to find out what else is a corporation.

All three corporations have their own laws and all three have their own independent police/military force.  The Vatican, for example, is protected by the Swiss Guards.  Then, there’s this: all three are home to a famous Egyptian obelisk, one of which is the Washington Monument.

Finally, all three have this in common… European banks.  Surprise, bet you didn’t see that coming.  For example, the Federal Reserve is owned by…European banks.  More or less, the same ones that have connections to The Crown and The Vatican.  What are the odds of that?  It’s a dirty little secret that you’re not supposed to know about…but, of course, now you know. By the way, who did you think ran the world?

 

“You can either be informed and be your own rulers, or you can be ignorant and have someone else, who is not ignorant, rule over you.”  – Julian Assange

 

 

The continued hysteria, at least in some quarters, over supposed Russian collusion in U.S. elections gets weirder by the day.  Case in point: The Los Angeles Times just published an article called, “Beware of Russian Bots Under The Bed.” Satire, no doubt.

Back in March 2018, Zero Hedge published an article entitled “As Russian Bot Narrative Unravels, Even Liberals Say Enough Is Enough” (see the following link for the full story -https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-03/russian-bot-narrative-unravels-even-liberals-say-enough-enough). The article quoted Rob Goldman, Facebook’s VP of advertising, who tweeted: “The majority of Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Trump and the election.”

Even the left-wing Washington Post noted that, “The U.S. political conversation is not and probably never was driven by Russian social-media bots.” Yet, the story has persisted in the mainstream media.

Nine months later we’re still talking about Russian bots. For example, the Senate Intelligence Committee recently released a report accusing Russia of depressing Democrat voter turnout in the 2016 elections. However, the real story was where the information for this report came from. The New York Times blew the lid off of the whole Russia bot madness in an article entitled, “Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics.” As the New York Times reported, the source of the Senate Intelligence Committee report was a non-governmental group called New Knowledge who, working with the Democrats, created fake Facebook groups and fake Russian bots in order to influence Alabama’s 2017 special election for the Senate in favor of the Democratic candidate. The New York Times also reported that New Knowledge, by its own admission, had boasted that it had orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore (Republican candidate) campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.”  RT very recently did a follow-up on the New York Times article which was entitled “The Russian bots Meddling in U.S. Elections Belonged to Democrat-linked ‘Experts’” (see the following link for the full story – https://www.rt.com/usa/447619-new-knowledge-russia-bots-scandal/) which linked the New York Times story to the election tampering of the 2016 elections and who was really tampering who.

I’m sure that it will be debated ad nauseam whether this whole affair was just another example of political dirty tricks or whether it actually broke election laws.  I’m also sure that going forward the Russian collusion story will not go away, even if there is no evidence to support it.  After all, the Russian bots are coming.

 

“Everyone I Don’t Agree With Is a Russian Bot – A child’s guide to media and government excuse-making for political failures”

                         – A Little Golden Book meme

There’s an ideological realignment happening in the country, unlike anything we’ve ever seen before.  Some people are moving further left politically, some further right and some are coalescing in the middle. Even minority groups are splintering in terms of their political allegiance.   This change in ideology can be seen clearly in both parties.  For example, Bill Scher wrote an article in Politico inviting Never Trumpers to become Democrats and, of course, you have the #WalkAway Movement where some Democrats are leaving their party. Strange stuff, indeed.

So, what is driving all of this?  Enter Amy Chua, author of the book Political Tribes. Chua’s book is mainly a critique of American foreign policy, but it has relevance within the country as well.  She argues that what she calls tribal affiliation exerts a powerful force on people’s political behavior and identity.  Here’s a couple of excerpts from her book:

  • Elites in the United States have either not cared about or been remarkably oblivious to the group identities that matter most to large segments of ordinary Americans, including people they are supposedly trying to help. Comment:  I agree. Just look at the tent cities that have sprung up in sanctuary cities that cater to illegal immigrants.
  • Occupy Wall Street, for example, was a movement intended to help the poor—but which did not actually include the poor. On the contrary, it was overwhelmingly driven and populated by the relatively privileged. Comment: I agree and the movement was organized by the elites (even though that may seem counterintuitive to some).

Her views more or less supports the long-held notion that people vote first and foremost according to race and religion.  However, something happened suddenly to our political landscape recently. While there have always been issues of race and religion in our country, there is a new element that has seemingly reshaped everything.

However, before I go there I think that it’s first necessary to define how people are currently aligning themselves politically. I believe that there are primarily three major political divisions within the country, as follows: the far left, the far right and the middle. The further left one gets on the ideological spectrum, collective rights are more important than individual rights and the further right you go, individual rights are more important than collective rights.  It’s pretty much as simple as that.  At the risk of oversimplifying, the far left is generally represented by people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Andrew Gillum and Beto O’Rourke and the far right typically by fundamentalist Christians. In addition, the far-left wants a large socialist government and the far right wants free markets (as opposed to the crony capitalism/fascism that we have today) and limited government.

Most everybody else is in a hodgepodge I refer to as The Middle including some liberals and some moderate Republicans, even though they have different political philosophies. They are all in the middle because they cannot find a home in the new political landscape. In a polarized world, you can have only left and right, up and down, on and off.

Why did this happen now, what’s driving it? I contend that none of this would have actually happened if Hillary Clinton had won the election, rather than Donald Trump.  First of all, this all came about way too fast and it started almost immediately after the presidential election.  Even revolutions take years to boil to the surface. Post election, it became commonplace to protest in the streets ala Antifa and no less than John Brennan, the former CIA director, called for open insurrection against the President by executive branch officials. Nothing like this ever happened under Obama.

In recent times, the Democratic Party has been dominated by its moderate faction.  When the liberals did win the party nomination, they lost the national election (e.g. Dukakis, Mondale and McGovern). However with Clinton’s loss to Trump, the door was opened for a movement within the party to the left, especially since a moderate had just been rejected by the electorate.  Further, one of the biggest takeaways from the election’s aftermath was the disenfranchising of Bernie Sanders’ supporters by the old guard of the Democratic Party.  As a result, the old guard within the party will now have to share power with the far-left and could well completely lose power in the near future.

The New York Times summed it up this way: “The dominant role of well-educated, relatively upscale white Democrats in moving the party to the left reflects the declining role of the working class in shaping the party’s ideology.” Of course, that begs the question as to what has happened to the working class which has been historically a standard-bearer of the Democratic Party.  The answer is that the far-left ideology no longer represent the values of the working class and they are increasing leaving the Democratic Party.  They are now in the group I call The Middle and they now may or may not vote Democratic, depending on the candidate and the specific election issues.  In moving left politically, the Democratic Party has taken for granted a big chunk of its base and its ideology now targets primarily millennials and minorities. The upstart of that is that the huge advantage that they enjoyed with black and Hispanic voters is diminishing due in part to the immigration issue and millennials, of course, will become more conservative over time as they age.

Hillary Clinton lost because she ran solely on her record (and on the record of Barack Obama). There was no specific message to the electorate in direct opposition to Trump.  Now the Democrats have a clear message which stands in stark contrast to Trump – open borders vs. immigration controls; populism vs. nationalism; socialism vs. capitalism; collective rights vs. individual rights (civil liberties). The thing is that the Democratic Party’s new platform of open borders, populism, socialism and the abandonment of civil liberties runs counter to American culture and history.  Welcome to the new Civil War.

 

Epilogue

Of course, the elites control both political parties and have orchestrated the us vs. them mentality that has become so prevalent today.  Their script is to create a crisis and then provide a solution to a non-existent problem. They don’t truly believe in ideology (not even their own).  What they want is to control the public narrative, by any means necessary. This kind of “warfare” has been around for many years, but has been severely ramped up in just the last two years. Unfortunately, few realize what is happening and that the divisions in this country, while very real, are not the true cause of the problem.  Civil war is merely a political tool of the Deep State.

 

“The term ‘deep state’ is not a conspiracy theory but a basic concept in political analysis. It simply refers to the self-evident and undeniable fact that there are people in power within America who were not elected (primarily the plutocrats, corporate media, intelligence community and military-industrial complex), and that those people tend to form alliances and collaborate toward agendas that benefit them.”  – Caitlin Johnstone