In the 1790s, two of the legendary Founders of the united States of America, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, formed one of the fledgling country's first political parties - the Democratic Republicans.
This party was dedicated to protecting individual rights, States' Rights and seeing to it that no one formed a central bank.
Almost immediately, problems appeared, but it was a deep ideological split over abolition of slavery that ultimately caused the party to break in two by the 1820s. The resulting Democrat Party supported slavery and wanted a central bank, while the Republican Party was dead-set on abolition of slavery and no central bank.
When people grouse that the Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin, they are, to a great degree, correct.
The Democrat Party is the oldest voter-based party on the planet, and one of the oldest continually operating parties ever. The number of individuals in the US who identify as Democrat significantly outnumber the Republicans. The wealth and power represented by the Democrat Party is enormous.
So why is a 230-year-old organization with that kind of pedigree literally doing everything possible to commit political suicide?
An organization with that kind of power and track record doesn't suddenly implode in the space of four years. It has survived and been reasonably successful precisely because it made smart choices at key junctures and was able to recruit millions of intelligent and pragmatic people over the centuries. This is not to say their choices were agreeable to everyone, but they were certainly enough to amass wealth and power and take over various aspects of the federal government in a generational flip-flop with its once-conjoined sibling. It was even clever and powerful enough to get the first black president to office, and nearly enough to get the first woman.
It seems that the Democrat Party's dramatic fall from grace began with the nomination of Hillary Clinton for president in 2016. From that point on, the Democrats have literally and figuratively been crumbling before our eyes, in a series of choices that defy reason or self-protection.
Hillary Clinton, by any objective standard, was a terrible choice. This has nothing to do with gender or race or any other shallow metric. She is a disagreeable human being - mean, calculating, duplicitous. She did not want the presidency for any ideological purpose - she believes in nothing but herself. She only wanted to enrich herself from the position, and ensure grade schools across the land would rename themselves in her honor.
It has been part of popular culture since the 1990s, that she and her husband lie, cheat and possibly even murder to get what they want. Even on TeeVee, her haughty insincerity ooze through the electrons. Any level-headed analysis would conclude that she stole her way to the nomination, and for that reason, voters rejected her, especially in the "fly-over country" that is American's conscience.
From the moment the Democrats nominated her, the foundation cracked and the pillars crumbled and the curtain in the sanctuary was rent in twain.
Following Clinton's loss, the Democrats took a series of decisions that, to an impartial observer, seem to belie suicidal tendencies. The years of harping on Russiagate in the face of contrary facts, with party leaders blatantly lying while hanging their reputations on those lies. The selection of Nancy Pelosi (again) as Speaker of the House, and her subsequent antics. The ill-advised impeachment of Donald Trump. The mind-numbing tap dances to distract from brewing scandals. The painful shilling of the mass media. The overt race baiting with Jussie Smollett, Bubba Wallce and many others. The astounding support for rioters and looters, and the destruction of major US cities and law enforcement agencies.
And for their latest performance, the nomination of a 5th-place candidate who is clearly suffering from mental incapacitation, and a running mate who withdrew from the primaries before a single vote was cast, and who is equally clearly disliked by key constituencies. To top off the circus, the Democrats mounted what is likely the most mind-bendingly amateur virtual convention imaginable. A high school media class could literally run circles around this embarrassing dog-and-pony show.
Rational people are left asking, with mouths agape, what in the hell happened to the Democrats?! If they were intentionally destroying themselves, they couldn't do a better job.
And there is the conundrum. One assumes that a party with a very long and storied past, with considerable assets and significant wealth and power could never make this many blunders for this many years and not know that they are destroying themselves.
In 1972, Richard Nixon trounced McGovern, taking 520 of 537 Electors., but four years later the Democrats won the presidency with Jimmy Carter, though that president would keep them out of office for the following three terms.
In 1984, Ronald Reagan nearly swept the Electoral College, with all but 13 of the 538 Electors. Many commentators asked if the Democrats were finished, and in fact they only held the presidency for four years from 1968, until 1992.
The Democrats fought back to relevancy every time, with Bill Clinton for two terms in the 1990s, and Barack Obama in the 2010s. This time, however, it seems that all hope may be abandoned.
There are three conceivable reasons that might explain this strange situation:
- The Democrat Party has been overrun by complete morons (possible, but let's discount this one for now);
- The Democrats believe they cannot win against Donald Trump and are saving their A-Team for 2024 (possible, but threatens control of the House and surrenders the Senate);
- Someone has given orders for the Democrats to immolate themselves (my choice).
The first option is possible, but highly unlikely. The party has the history, money and power to attract top political analysts and strategists. It seems rather implausible that the majority centrists in the party would allow the leadership to deteriorate this much.
The second option is plausible, but equally unlikely. Even if the leadership has abandoned the idea of beating Trunp, this strategy risks almost everything. They stand to lose control of the House, deepen their weak position in the Senate, surrender control of the Supreme Court (at least two replacements likely in the next four years), and completely unravels the Globalist agenda that has been built over a century.
The only scenario where this option makes some sense is to lull the Republicans into a feeling of complacency in the hopes they won't turn out to the polls, but a cost-benefit analysis of this strategy makes it an extreme risk, given all that's on the line for the Left.
The final option is the only one that fits all the available evidence.
If one makes the reasonable assumption that both parties are, at some lofty level, controlled by the same entity(ies), then one can also assume that the Democrats have been ordered to fall on their swords for a higher purpose. The question is, can we hypothesize a reasonable strategy where this would be plausible?
Over the last two decades, there has been a growing unrest and dissatisfaction with globalism and the rapid destruction of ethnic and cultural identity. In the US, it first appeared in 1996, with the Ross Perot campaign.
Ross Perot was a Texas businessman, who ran as an independent in 1992, and polled 19% of the vote that year. This was the strongest showing by a third party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, and the third highest in US history.
In 2012, Ron Paul, a Texas physician, announced his third run for the presidency. He consistently polled in the Top 3 of Republican candidates, but was blatantly snubbed by the media. Regardless, he had a large and fanatical following that drew thousands to an alternative rally during the RNC that year.
Perot and Paul revealed a large and growing hidden class of disenfranchised voters who were not happy with the globalist direction of the country, and who were now activated by Paul, who showed them just how large their numbers really were.
In the highest echelons of power, one can imagine a note of anxiety seeing these increasingly engaged and enraged voters. It was obvious that they were right wing, nationalistic and growing restless. They were obviously attracted to the Republican Party if a suitable candidate was fielded.
Donald Trump had name recognition, wealth, popularity, and ticked off all the talking points of the hidden voters.
Hillary Clinton preferred Trump as an opponent, thinking he was an easily beatable buffoon, but it's possible she was steered into that belief by her handlers. She was obviously unaware of the numbers of hidden voters, since she casually labelled them a "basket of deplorables." Again, we ask was she that unaware, or was she steered that direction? For all her faults, she is a canny political creature.
All of the foregoing is by way of saying that it is plausible that the true elite chose Donald Trump in order to defuse and channel the growing nationalistic fervor. Sacrificing a decade to preserve more than a century of work building the global systems is hardly out of the question.
After all, nationalist has surged in my locations across the globe and it is easier to mold and direct energy, than to stop it cold. With an extensive digital surveillance network, it would be easy to gather and use blackmail material, allowing them to regain control over a significant number of politicians, regardless of their bespoke positions. These elites could even surrender operatives like Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, since their type of honey traps were now obsolete. The Anthony Weiners of the political world were sexting all the data the elites could possibly use.
In the final analysis, it seems that the lofty Olympians have decided on a course of action that incorporates the current wave of nationalism into their long-term goals. They have issued marching orders to party leaders to throw the election, and even if the politicians are ignorant or unhappy with the arrangement, they have no choice, as all their secrets have been carefully cataloged in vast databases. The voters, of course, are inconsequential in any case.
If anyone has a better explanation for the abject insanity we see in the daily news feeds, there is a comment section below. I'd sure love to hear it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feel free to leave your own view of The Far Side.