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.
Welcome to the Democrats' "Great Reset" (or as Dementia Joe calls it, Bidenomics) — where you own nothing and better look happy about it (Dems won't tolerate uppity Bible-thumpers and freedom-minded folk!), and the racial segregationists own everything and expect the peasants to obey. Or, as Hanson concludes, the policies of today's Democrats are identical to those who attempted to rig the 1860 election against Lincoln: "erasing ballots, defying federal laws, fixating on race and racial privileges, and catering to a one-dimensional medieval economy and caste, amid a growing underclass struggling with neglected infrastructure, poor schools, and growing poverty." On the Democrat plantation, the more things change, the more they stay the same!
Hanson's dissection of Democrat behavior sure does put Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum (a corporate club for global governance) and all the Western politicians who sing the same "build back better" tune into proper perspective, doesn't it? Oligarchs didn't just begin conquering the world yesterday; global empire has always been their focus. Democrat plantation owners told their slaves that they'd "own nothing and be happy," and Klaus and his Marxist globalist pantheon of central bank thieves, propaganda-spouting bureaucrats, and transnational corporate parasites have retooled those same antebellum policies in order to resurrect a future of financial masters and debt-controlled slaves.
is worth remembering that many global observers believed Confederate Democrats would be victorious in the Civil War. They had wealth, status, privilege, and a valuable crop exported around the world. They had the backing of international merchants whose fortunes depended on American slave labor (much as international corporations depend on Chinese slave labor today). They had a sophisticated and aristocratic culture that haughty elites preferred over the bourgeois attitudes naturally incubated in the manufacturing towns of the industry-laden North. They had transnational bankers willing to back their play for secession and independence (in return for a new financial foothold on the North American continent).
Furthermore, Confederate Democrats were steeped in esteemed history, social traditions, and political power. After all, one of the principal justifications for the creation of an Electoral College in the Constitution was to mitigate Southern political power (four of the first five American presidents were from Virginia, analogous to how politicians from California and New York dominate national leadership positions today). Putting all these factors together, the odds that nineteenth-century Democrats' plantation system (or what the WEF globalists call their "Great Reset" new world order) would prevail during the Civil War were quite high. 
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.
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.
For the first time in over a century, a majority of Americans realize that they have been hoodwinked and that today's "climate change" communism is just another iteration of a King Cotton economy. The "woke," "progressive," "DEI"-obsessed coalition of Marxist globalists are nothing more than plantation masters who hide behind "politically correct" platitudes while buying and selling slaves.
The question for 2024 and beyond is this: will we continue to see a resurgence of popular support for the very things that were once taken for granted in the United States — private property ownership, dependable forms of money immune from central bank manipulation, impartial due process, and respect for free speech? If so, then we have a real chance to end the Democrats' "plantation world order" once and for all. That is what makes this "awakening" great.
J. B. Shurk
No comments:
Post a Comment