Tomorrow, President Donald Trump will be inaugurated - and what a slap in the face of our supranational elites he is!
Not that The Donald isn't a fairly elite sort himself, being a billionaire and all. Somehow, though, despite spending his entire life in the rarefied atmosphere of the super-rich, he has managed to obtain a level of understanding of ordinary folks that just about everybody else in his income bracket absolutely lacks - so much so that nearly all of them still don't have a clue, months after it was shoved down their throats.
We can't know exactly which of his promises President Trump will keep and which will get thrown off the dock, but from the furore over his cabinet appointees, it certainly looks like he'll at least give most of them a try. In one way or another, just about everyone he's nominated is dedicated to destroying the cultural transformation our ruling elites want to inflict on all of us.
Although the globalist elites claim that they're destroying all vestiges of national sovereignty and cultural identity "for our good" by erasing national borders to avoid future conflict, we believe that their real objective is to assume control of every aspect of our lives - as do millions of angry Trump voters.
To give the elites the benefit of the doubt, it may be that they sincerely believe that a nuclear-armed World War III is still our only other option. As they see it, the fact that they end up with supreme power over every "kindred, tongue and nation" is a justly-deserved tribute to their outstanding public service.
Large populations do not generally accept vast changes gleefully. As news filtered out about mass murder under communist regimes and other diverse tyrannies, we find it hard to accept our leaders' proclamations that "diversity" and "tolerance" are any good. The Wall Street Journal described a very small part of Stalin's program of murdering anyone who didn't accept his ideas how society should operate:
More than one million people were executed for political crimes under Stalin, while millions more were sent to the Gulag or were deported, according to Nikita Petrov, a historian at Memorial.
We can't shake the feeling that under Hillary, most of the people whom she called "deplorable" would end up accused of political crimes such as preferring Mr. Trump. Even the Washington Post regarded her ideas as a threat to religious liberty:
Speaking to the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Clinton declared that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”
Religious beliefs have to be changed? This is perhaps the most radical statement against religious liberty ever uttered by someone seeking the presidency.
Note that Hillary didn't say "have to change," she said "have to be changed." By definition, this means using force against people who refuse to change their beliefs in favor of government-approved views. She lost the 2016 election because enough voters saw the road she was taking and preferred not to go that way.
Recall that while the Industrial Revolution brought about a huge increase in availability of material goods to everyone, the new weaving and spinning machines were fought by the handcrafters who had previously made a living weaving and spinning by hand. These artisans, collectively called Luddites, correctly realized that the new factories would put them out of business. "Mom and pop" storekeepers who were bankrupted by Wal-Mart would understand.
As mass production spread, craftsmanship, where each artisan made different shoes, clothing, or other goods according to individual idiosyncratic skills and temperament, gave way to "interchangeable parts" where each item had to be identical to all the others. To their chagrin, the jobs themselves became the same mind-numbing repetition, with each individual worker just another meaningless, mindless, interchangeable cog in a vast machine.
The Industrial Revolution introduced the necessity of learning new techniques of "scientific management" to control such far-flung enterprises as railroads, oil refining, and other businesses which required that thousands or tens of thousands of people be organized to serve the common purpose of making profits for business owners. Charlie Chaplin's movie "Modern Times" showed the plight of a lone "everyman" who was forced to become just another cog in a great machine, which chewed him up and spat him out at its convenience.
The Industrial Revolution did lead to a massive increase in material output; our politicians saw how effectively "scientific management" increased industrial production and thereby material wealth. Although income inequality increased, this cornucopia of material goods clearly improved the lives of pretty much everyone.
Politicians came to believe that scientific principles, applied by enlightened elites such as themselves, would improve governance and make everyone's lives better. To their dismay, American citizens who had become accustomed to doing things in their own way weren't interested in being told how to improve their lives. People who watched "Modern Times" sympathized with the Little Tramp instead of supporting the bosses who were trying to erase his individuality in the service of The Machine.
This natural push to control the economy, which would have led to control of pretty much everything else, was exemplified in the United States by the government giving large grants of land to transcontinental railroads which were owned by politically-connected people. The Economist observes that granting concessions to desirable businesses was but the first step in assuming control.
The desire to meddle dates as far back as 1791. Alexander Hamilton then set out arguments for nurturing and protecting “infant industries”. ...
The irresistible urge to oversee parts of the economy meant that in the 20th century handouts turned to direct management. In part this was driven by national emergency. Woodrow Wilson, under laws passed to support involvement in the first world war, nationalized railways, canals, telegraph lines and arms production, and expropriated American subsidiaries of German firms. Franklin Roosevelt used the same law to shut banks briefly upon his assumption of the presidency in 1933.
My grandfather fought in World War I. To his dying day, he referred to the "Wilson War" because he believed that President Wilson had deliberately involved the United States in a European conflict to give him a pretext for seizing control of more of the economy. He believed that he was perfectly capable of managing his business affairs without advice from Washington, thank you very much!
Although it wasn't known at the time, history since then has shown beyond doubt that a free market economy is much more productive than a government-controlled economy, no matter how smart the bureaucrats are. This has been so well established that liberals no longer argue that government can run the economy better than the market; instead, they argue that "market failure" produces unfairness which they have to fix through government-enforced redistribution, administered by themselves while bureaucrats skim off the top.
My grandfather also believed that President Wilson's desire to turn American sovereignty over to the League of Nations was treason and was glad when the League failed. He also thought that if America had not become involved, World War I would have ended in a peace of exhaustion so that England and France would not have been able to humiliate Germany. This would have kept German resentment from bringing Hitler to power which led to World War II. My grandfather was every inch an anti-globalist who believed that American involvement in World War I had led directly to World War II.
Unfortunately for American liberties, a great many wealthy elitists shared President Wilson's one-world vision. David Rockefeller, grandson of John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil, wrote that he was proud of having worked against American interests in favor of "one world" and that he strongly favored diversity and cultural homogenization:
"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
... fundamental improvements in societies around the world, particularly in the United States, as a result of global trade, improved communications, and the heightened interaction of people from different cultures. [emphasis added]
David Rockefeller's Memoirs (Random House, New York, 2002) Chapter 27, pages 404 and 405
Mr. Rockefeller clearly saw the cultural desires of ordinary Americans as obstacles to his grand vision, and he wasn't the only one. Many quotes by past globalists which clarify their shared agenda have been collected at globalistagenda.com.
More recently, Hillary Clinton had no more respect for the common sense of common people than her elitist peers and predecessors.
During the fight over HillaryCare in 1993, Mrs. Clinton explained Democratic reasoning to then-House GOP Leader Denny Hastert. If Americans are allowed too much discretion over how they spend their health-care dollars, Mrs. Clinton said, “We just think people will be too focused on saving money and they won’t get the care for their children and themselves that they need.” “The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better.”
“The Outrage Arrives,” Wall Street Journal, Oct. 29, 2013, on line edition
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."
Mr. Obama presumed to tell us what temperature we may heat our homes to and what car we may drive because he was afraid that our choices might annoy other countries? Saying that we must subordinate our desires to other nations' norms is the same sentiment one-world globalists have expressed for more than a century. To whatever extent ordinary voters are aware of the opinions of foreigners, at best they simply don't care; more commonly, they are irritated at the presumption of furriners trying to tell good honest 'Mericans what to do.
More recently, the White House web site quoted Mr. Obama:
"And we can only realize the promise of this institution’s founding -- to replace the ravages of war with cooperation -- if powerful nations like my own accept constraints. Sometimes I'm criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral institutions. But I am convinced that in the long run, giving up some freedom of action -- not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests, but binding ourselves to international rules over the long term -- enhances our security."
- Barack Obama, UN General Assembly Speech, September 20, 2016
Mr. Obama shared President Wilson's dream of subordinating the American government to an international authority. Neither of them pointed out that many international rules forbid freedom of speech, parental choice in raising children, and private gun ownership, to mention but three of many cherished American liberties which are not found in "international rules."
The pro-Brexit vote, Mr. Trump's electoral success, and the rise of many anti-establishment parties all over Europe show that ordinary people are far less enthusiastic about globalism than the elites. To the extent that these people worry about World War III at all, they believe that the nuclear stocks which have enforced peace since 1945 will continue to work, so long as our leaders don't give them up or fail to maintain them.
If our leaders have been working towards globalism for so long, though, why is it only now that the voters have decided to do something about it? The next article in this series discusses some of the economic factors which amplified today's cultural and national unrest.
Over the past five years, the editors have been secretly working on a book that summarizes the fundamental viewpoints of Scragged.