Discussion about this post

User's avatar
zuFpM5*M's avatar

I think it is really quite simple. My local US representative originally had a district with both an area of quite affluent population and another area with migrant farm workers and low income residences. He put his office in the town with the low income residents and spent a lot of time burnishing his credentials as a champion of the poor. Then there was a redistricting that split those two areas. Naturally, he decided to run in the very wealthy area.

This is what happened to the democrat party. Since the late 70s, US manufacturing has been destroyed and offshored. I believe this has been deliberate and purposeful, but either way it happened. At the same time, the wealth of Americans shifted upwards to an ever smaller subsection as more and more of the economy was involved in finance and investment. As the traditional industry blue-collar worker literally ceased to exist, the left in America was faced with a choice. They could continue to represent the less well off such as farmers, rural residents, lower paid office workers, transportation workers, retail workers, etc.; or they could realign with the financial elites. I don't say businessmen because increasingly business is a matter of stock manipulation thanks to the federal reserve. They chose to side with the financial elites, who were also more amenable to the overall globalist values of the DC elite than working class Americans.

So this reflects two problems: 1) laws and trade deals that destroyed our industrial base, and 2) the monetization of the US economy. Without actual business in goods, workers have little to no bargaining power nor sufficient numbers and are not an attractive political base. In order to restore manufacturing and industry to America, there would need to be a trade restrictive policy such as tariffs. Look what happened to the last leader that tried to erect some modest trade restrictions...

I say this as someone nursed on free trade and classic liberalism but with the recognition that a country whose only products are money, weapons and war cannot maintain the sort of freedom that relies on broad political enfranchisement as all the wealth will spiral towards the very top.

Expand full comment
Kimpeccable's avatar

I think there's a simpler explanation. The ruling elites have been planning their shenanigans for well over a century. They were able to keep their secrets hidden because most people did not have ready access to their information. With the beginning of public access to the world wide web in 1993, and the advent of mainstream social media a decade later--only 20 years ago!--new possibilities of unearthing hitherto hidden and classified information--and then publicly sharing that information throughout the world--became an undreamed-of reality. Prior to the internet, how many civilians knew about Tavistock, the granddaddy of all social engineering institutions, which since 1921 has been the biggest mind control exploit in the history of mankind? How many knew about the Cecil Rhodes Trust, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Committee of 300, the Bilderberg Group, Atlantic Council, etc.? Now that more people are catching onto the nefarious plans of the parasite class, they've had to up their game considerably. High profile individuals who depend on the system for their success, status, and cushy lives have to comply with the establishment narrative or risk excommunication. Not only can the system ruin your reputation, they can disappear you in the media and render you unemployable. No one wants to be a penniless pariah so they go along to get along. It's not rocket science. Mostly those who can afford to be marginalized by the system (because they have money) are willing to speak the truth regardless of negative consequences. There aren't many. The rest comply because their lives depend on it. And heroes are few and far between, anyway.

Expand full comment
527 more comments...

No posts