Indictment of the Democratic Party

December 4, 2020

The century long battle between socialism and freedom is no longer an abstraction; it isn’t a far away fight, one whose arrival is a paranoid thought, nothing to be seriously concerned with. To think otherwise isn’t conspiratorial, nor is it unfounded. When we hear the S-word, there may be many images that come to mind: fraudulent elections, censorship, corruption, genocide, if not romantic idealisms of worker solidarity. Predominantly, economic organization takes the mantel as the center of this vision, but any review of the 20th century’s legacy would surface a lot more than simply centralized economic power.

The greatest trick socialists and their proponents have played is to convince everyone that its dangers don’t exist, and are not an insidious specter that when, left alone, won’t nestle its way into the universities, Congress, and eventually a large enough faction of the American population; they succeed when their smiley-faced words, like cutely wrapped gifts, play on peoples ignorance hiding the fact that nothing underneath the wrapping could ever be a noble pursuit.

What is really meant when we use the S-word? It’s significance has been its lifelong flirtation with globalism, big government, censorship in the guise of ‘hate-speech’ laws (that nevertheless directly conflict with the First Amendment), economic centralization, and identity politics. None of these are specific to socialism, and for much of human history some of these have manifested in plenty of ways. Identity politics, for instance, which is a means of ‘tribalism’, isn’t some 21st century child of 20th century academics that sought to push a social justice programme. It’s a tribalist instinct that has been as much a part of the human tendency to create an ‘us vs. them’ mentality, enacted in every pre-civilized society and each one thereafter. What has made Western Civilization unique, in this regard, is that this tendency has deliberately sought to be quelled with the founding tenets of modernity. Modern man, of the last 300 or so years, a beneficiary of pre-Enlightenment and Enlightenment philosophers, heralded the reality that there can be innumerable differences between a people that would have once been a condition and justification for violence and war. The hallmark of the West is that we have coexisted peacefully, people from all over the world, at various times, and have continued to strive and adapt to that excellence, that we may be worthy of it. But this is not a natural tendency of humankind. It is far easier to ostracize, denounce, condemn, and hate anything different than what one would understand; in premodern times, that would amount to war and killing. The West is losing this touch, and has been for a very long time. Consider this tribalism in action:

“During Hurricane Harvey, legions of partisans took to Twitter to cheer the fact that Texas was being punished for being a “red state” or for voting for Trump or simply for being Texas. Put the asininity of such expressions to one side. There could be no more human response than to think a terrible storm was sent to punish your enemies. All that was missing was an offering to Baal or Thor of a hundred oxen” (Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West, 65).

We can come back to this tribal tendency and how it’s natural force is eroding America’s Republic; as well as respond to the desire for big government, and how its actions resemble the likes of primeval gangsters heading agricultural societies. There’s no shortage of modern day, real-world instances of the government, as though they were stationary bandits, threatening everyday working men with unreasonable seizure of their assets and wealth, but that’s a financial exposition we’ll come back to in the future; but for now, we must ask how this socialist appeal, with its flirtations of the above concepts like big government, identity politics, economic centralization, has found a cozy home in the American psyche.

On its face, this ignorance is evidentially due to miseducation, a severity that has been neglected, and an institution abandoned to anti-American ideology: most students do not even know how the world works because they are never taught; that is, until they get to college and learn about the world and money from a bunch of Marxists who, intellectual, persuasive, and pandering as they are, know very little about the national history and financial literacy they claim to teach. There’s a running joke: if you want to learn how to hate life, go to college. Unfortunately, it’s no longer a joke. The irony is that these academic institutions decry the unjust economic systems designed for ‘exploitation’ and yet keep the Starbucks industry afloat with the middle-income and comfortable students they teach as they collect their money, drown them in debt, for degrees no one ever had the courage to say was worthless.

These students are then called ‘educated’ by their uneducated parents, who also don’t know anything about economics, because not only do they work like dogs for a check, taxing themselves for the benefit of the elites that they vote in, somehow maintaining that those elites are both the issue with society but also their saviors who will make their lives better, but they never had anyone teach them any otherwise; So when we have a generation ignorant, and taxed, of their money, unable to teach their children, that child’s education is molded by the only economics available to them, Marxism. Suddenly, there’s a language to tell them how to feel about the world, shaping their perception with the only education they’ve been provided.

This miseducation isn’t the only reason the old and young that vote for ‘progressives’ who push for socialist practices, do not, and perhaps will not, realize its dangers. Even those with upper-middle class positions vote for their policies, for this kind of economics. (It’s assumed that with higher economic positions there’s a need of knowledge of how to keep that that money, but this isn’t evident all of the time). It’s true that both financial classes within the middle and working classes invite higher taxation with the appendage of social programs, and ‘free’ education and health insurance. These are only superficial wants and only important as they’re representative of the logic that undergirds the impetus to believe that those things would bring about what they are trying to accomplish in the first place, that everyone is cared for. Such a desire isn’t unnatural; in essence, it’s tribal— “everyone must work for each other otherwise they must be against each other. No exceptions.” After all, it does explain why America has fractured between those who fundamentally disagree with the tribal tendency and those that welcome it as a ‘common’ good— a ‘good’ for whom, we still have yet to see, and the former of those which are hunted as though we all aren’t a civilized people, but regressed back to the days when bandits ran loose wreaking havoc on whomever stood in their way, plundering their wealth in the form of food or money, or even not so long ago when the Italians, Soviets, Chinese, Germans, and Cubans imprisoned, if not wholly executed, their dissidents, as though difference of thought suggested savagery. In fact, sameness of thought suggests savagery; at the minimum, conformity most certainly is the precondition for the maintenance of a tribe.

When it comes to money, this logic would imply higher taxes, preferably on the most wealthy to “do their part” on behalf of the greater good; but most times, it really means that, even if not that, the middle and working class would gladly pay it up. This does confuse me. It would seem sensible to cut the state and federal governments as the arbiter of one’s own money to invest, as though they knew better, in necessities such as education, healthcare, and social ‘programs’ (if we should use that word to encompass a broad spectrum of charitable associations). But, being against a high-taxable income, where one then purchases these necessities for ones own family in their own best interest, is considered a grave evil. But this does appear logical considering no good investment has ever come out of governments when they were in control of peoples money for those peoples supposed interests. What I see today are politicians that have made tens of millions from being in office, while the average American lost their job, needed to work two, being taxed ridiculously high on a virtually nothing paycheck, which is being put into more of these ‘feel-good’ ideas that don’t work, who are then convinced it’s rich peoples fault for exploiting them, not making the connection that it’s actually thee politicians they elect who are working in these elites’ interests— to outsource your jobs, inflate your pay, tax the hell out of you— convincing you that they’re on your side so you vote for them, so they can keep you in check with your economic ignorance and mismanage your money in programs that failed in their bureaucratic mess that they call “scientific”, while masquerading as champions of social justice, when in the decades they have retained office, the most they can do to circumnavigate around their failures is point at their opposition party and blame them for the policies that they themselves have pushed.

The Democratic Party fits this elitist description. But what do they have to do with socialism? Since the early 19th century, the party retained its values in racism, and what would become in the early 20th century, ‘progressivism.’ First, the party’s racism was philosophically cemented in firebrands like James C. Calhoun, the American statesman, senator, political theorist of South Carolina and Vice President for Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams. He, like many progressives today, believed that American history is ‘white history.; that the Declaration of Independence did not extend to blacks; indeed, the idea of there being ‘unalienable rights’ granted to each human being by God, unable to be taken or granted by any other, they did not agree with. To believe in Natural Law and Natural Rights would be to logically advocate for the abolition of slavery, spearheaded by Christians and Republicans that believed the practice to be abominable by the Law expressed in the Declaration and upheld in law, within the Constitution. As Jefferson himself wrote in 1778, in a proposed bill to ban the importation slaves, in which he hoped would bring about its “final eradication.”  Secondly, the progressivism espoused by the Democratic Party was also espoused by the social scientists— that is, to say, the eugenicists, racial biologists, of which the discipline of sociology was built upon Auguste Comte, the social philosopher that coined the phrase “survival of the fittest”— This is no coincidence. (To be clear, sociology’s respectability as a field, let alone a science, has been tampered by its incestuous relation with the pseudo-science of identity politics, and its self-centered, self-imposed importance on its educational role in social issues as it relates to history, of which is grandiose, revisionist, and embarrassing at very best. For a field studied by some of the most intellectual minds that academia has to offer, their tolerance for research conducted in a sewer wouldn’t be imagined to be more expensive than a degree in something perhaps more useful than the study of facts molested with lies.)

Social scientists believed that people could be shaped through society for the benefit of said society. What this translated to, around the world, was the “Bureaucratic Ethos”. It’s defined by Charles Wright Mills in The Sociological Imagination as an “Illiberal practicality”, or a “bureaucratic social science.” If the goal of social science is social progress, then bureaucratized, meant progress was administered. The administration is of the state, as it was in practice in the Woodrow Administration in pursuit of the progressive vision; but more often, as it is today, the state is an appendage of special interests (less is there an administration expected to hold power, assuming, if democracy is in tact, it can even be ‘allowed’ to exercise its power in a way that doesn’t bend to those special groups). For a long time, it mattered little what party of the Executive power held office because this ‘progress’ was maintained in both: these chameleons were the old Democrats and rhino Republicans of neoliberalism and neoconservatism; in other words, domestic policy was joke, but warmongering for the profit alignment of manufacturers within the private sector, freer markets and trade deals made at the expense of American jobs, taxpayer dollars, and energy independence, while the American middle class shrunk was the least of any corrupt politicians concern. As of 2016, in its great divorce, the Republican Party is no longer beholden to this ‘neo’-duality, resulting in the ‘social bureaucracy’, institutions of that prevailing order to fight back. (The discrepancy within both parties can be formulated as such: for the Republicans the like of which belong to The Lincoln Project, are hardly conservative; though they may claim to be Republican, they are such only insofar as they like less taxes— they may be proud of their newfound status as both rhino’s and globalist bastards. On the other side of their coin, conservatives are reignited within culture— we’ve lost too much ground as this nation begins to cannibalize in its own self-inflated egoistic, false scientific nonsense. That which does not protect the interests of our nation, economic or otherwise, has no place in the dialogue of an American leader. We may serve no country but our own. For the Democrats, they face another internal dilemma. There is pushback between what are now called moderates and the socialist wing. Nevertheless, these groups are one and the same: so long as the moderates bend to the social issues being pushed, the language, the rhetoric, the endless pandering, they can carry on exploiting this nation to pursue their lobbyers’ interests in foreign markets.)

It might be argued that the Establishment of the Democratic Party is not representative of its more radical faction— the Illhan Omars, the Bernie Sanders’, the AOCs. But the radicals grew from the party’s own moderation, effectively allowing its infiltration: the radicals no longer needed the social institutions and the executive branch; it already has the social institutions, now it’s time to levy their administrative hand. Such is already being suggested by leaders within the party in the attempt to control the economy and health sector, which proved convenient as they politicized policy and language, narrative and fact, as they have done in academia, media platforms, and their credible puppets that mouthpiece the subscribed positions. Before we get into how this has all been done, we must make a note: it’s important to wonder whether the radical faction is imploding the party. The implosion wouldn’t be visible in an obvious way, not to itself. Representative Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) was recorded in the Democrat Caucus call, post-election, as she expressed her frustration over the fact that Democrats lost seats they “shouldn’t have lost” in the 2020 election. NY Representative Max Rose is another example of a Democrat openly pushing back against the radicalized language associated with the party. It’s currently unclear whether constituents within the party will do the same; when the constituents begin to speak that language, clearly voicing their support through voting for the policies that are bred from them, it’s only a matter of time before the moderates are weeded out too.

The radical wing, now here forth to be known entirely as the Democratic Party, is compiled of both wealthy elitists, including those that made their riches while in office, and the socialists. It doesn’t matter very much for the special interest groups, the Establishment, or whoever else the left calls for exploitation, whether its socialism or capitalism. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could be as popular as she likes, as genuine and authentic as she may be, and as ignorant as she pleases, because these groups are the are the enemy they’ve gotten Americans to vote for this election. They fight for your social issues, speak your fluid and ever changing politically correct language, they regurgitate in recycled rhetoric the headlines, the self-hating race books, the enslaving policies; they’ll concede you the right to protest— as long as it isn’t against them—to assault, riot, execute; they’ll grant you the right to censor, fire, reprimand ideational opponents; they’ll legislate the right to police socially undesirable language; and more. In other words, the Democratic Party has become the tyrannical appendage of the masses, a reactionary agent with no qualm to legislate, mandate, prohibit, or redact at the expense of freedom with no basis other than smiley-face feel-good masks (no pun intended). As they have grown more powerful, richer, and more cozy in their bureaucratic nook, how have you benefitted?

The world has been characterized by increasing censorship; lockdowns; the war on businesses; a toxic marriage with insolvent programs; reprimand of political opponents; anti-transparency and dishonesty across all areas of news, the political motives of that news, and marriage with that media to uphold narratives, to the extent that there’s the refusal by that media to cover anything that is detrimental to their cause, but who will put the effort to place that thing with a stamp of illegitimacy to excuse their refusal and proceed to deceive the American public; consequently, the sound bites, like little pamphlets of emotive propaganda, designed to stir us up a little, with expediently omitted details and glittering rhetoric, whose authority and tactics to manipulate context is as concerning as the Anti-Fascists newest ad.

Then, a particularly significant problem that is best expounded on its own elsewhere, there’s the authority of the Federal Reserve to print money while deliberately holding it from circulation. This creates hyper-inflation when money chases ever-increasing prices; the Fed setting up ‘negative interest rates’ is a tandem solution along with doing away with physical cash. Hopefully, the latter does not come into fruition, though the former isn’t necessarily ‘negative’ in affect, and either can occur alone without the other. But to assume the severe, these interest rates coupled with eliminating physical cash cuts the bank out of the equation, which then renders the value of the dollar worthless. Buying property, for instance, would be valueless, because the exchange of money between a private citizen and the centralized Fed would render neither a profit nor loss; effectively, what this signifies is the devaluation of the dollar, which is a danger to financial wealth, but most imprudent is the besotted transformation from financial currency to social currency. In a world without hard money, paperless and valueless, and without banks, then a central administration, in position of the Fed, if not the Fed itself, is stopped at nothing to then qualify who gets what according to its own arbitration; in other words, our relationship to the administrative state becomes binding.

It’s an impending disaster whose implications for our freedoms (and privacy) is sobering and dark. To be clear, the Federal Reserve isn’t affiliated with any one party. What America is facing with its financial conundrums is being experienced around the world. How the Fed effectively deals with these issues are not matters the public is better uninformed of. The program to manage these dilemmas will have lasting impacts, on policy and then on our day to day lives. The decisions that need to be made by the Fed will not be without discretion, but we’d be fools to believe they will be made in our best interests. Despite governing bodies’ lack of control over this economic beast, that does not mean they cannot either aid or mitigate this potential disaster. As mentioned above, its logical conclusion is the constant surveillance of finances through the direct relationship between the citizen and state.

This reality is not far away, it’s not a specter of the imagination. Because the world is seeing this potential problem, it must deal with it. For globalism, that means collaboratively. The effects of this dilemma paves way for partisan ambitions; it’s one of the many areas within the policy itself, and how its effectuated by the politics around it, that demands public attention.

But here we’ll turn to current events that foreshadows a reality where man is beholden to the logic determined by the state, that determination entrusted to the state by its constituents: entrustment of this type, if this were a singular event, is once upstream, i.e. that the power speak, to effectively make determinations is entrusted to be a voice for the people, with the idea that it’s by the people. In a way, yes, this is a voice by the people; but almost immediately exchanged is the publics freedom to determine for themselves. It isn’t that this grant of power means there is no power retained in the public that gave it up— actually, the power is never excavated from the hands of the masses. Yet, immediately proceeding from the exchange the state serves, not solely as the mouthpiece for those which it governs, but as the determinate voice for those it now rules. It is reminiscent of the Dictatorship, Marx speaks of when referring to the subsumption of power conglomerated in a state once, just once, bestowed upon by the working masses.

II. To what extent has the Democratic Party been an imposition to the civil liberties of private citizens?

Again, the Democratic Party has constituents, i.e. those that vote them in; it works with its constituents to secure, through positive feedback, each’s motive and to legitimate whatever process necessary to do so. This isn’t untrue for politics as a whole; how far the means go to secure the ends is the chief concern against corruption. When the party politics bleeds into the private lives of the public, that they’re constitutional rights are infringed for the pursuit of some vision of the collective good by those with ideas wholly incompatible with a free nation, one needn’t look farther than her own body to see the hands of the state as arbiter. And this truth is visible to all constituents of the party included: it’s the philosophy that justifies their vision, not its reality. So today, as the Democratic Establishment orders their states for another lockdown (“non-essential” businesses and schools closed once more) mandating that Thanksgiving be skipped (an American tradition devoted to Thanks and Family, of which many families participate in good faith) and Christmas, an ‘unlikely possibility,’ there seems to be an overwhelming belief that their powers extent to making such demands as to who or how people may celebrate their holiday. But consent of the participants to one another supersedes prohibition edicts from the state to the governed, each and every time. Governor Newsom, of California, issued a mandate limiting gatherings, travel, requiring a mask on between each bite or drink, on the condition that each individual is distanced 6 feet apart, if the food or beverage is within a single-serve disposable container; singing, chanting, shouting, or playing music or wind instruments is discouraged. It’s almost comical to believe this is real. A judge from California also ordered earlier this November that strip clubs may reopen, while a lawyer, who represents churches that were not allowed to reopen is protesting this as a “constitutional travesty.”

Death is often used as an excuse for these lockdowns and mandates. It’s the smiley-face feel good policies that do no benefit to the public. With domestic violence, suicide, and crime rises to alarming rates, as well as the economic hardship wrought by these failures, the Democratic Party has been more than an imposition to the civil liberties of citizens. The defense Democrats’ constituents make, in favor of their party’s choices, make their policies no less Orwellian.

It isn’t merely a defense of continued lockdowns that are impositions, if not entirely unconstitutional and unscientific; it is the quasi-scientific and pseudo-morally righteous motives used to justify these policies that have been unable to excuse their severity experienced by those deemed ‘nonessential’, as though a government could ever claim who is and isn’t ‘essential’ without substituting freedom for false security.

Though poverty has increased, businesses permanently closed, and livelihoods no longer subject to ones own will, Democrats can only continue to defend their philosophy if they complemented its policies with government assistance, which they refused to negotiate. However, stimulus had been passed three times before with the necessary hand of the Executive branch, that bypassed a House too stubborn to negotiate its the extent of its aid. But it’s here that Democrats cease logical recourse for their unfounded beliefs: as their elected party failed to provide stimulus; failed to speak out against super spreaders (as long as these were events, the likes of which were appropriately affixed to their agenda); failed to effectively manage the spread even with enactment and compliance; and failed to provide the science they claimed in support of their prognoses, there seems now no vindication for their continued proposals that have cost families ever seeing their dying loved ones; cost them their work, savings, income, businesses; cost their children education; cost lives by suicide and domestic violence; therefore, as there exists no reason that has not been already tested by time and past attempts, one may ask what, really, is the goal, and if not that, the consequence of these failures? Certainly the consequence, if not also a goal, was a demolition of the global economy. But we’ll spare the melodrama. There’s an amateur conflation here between Democrats and globalists; yet, while latter isn’t the former, the economic strategy of the former aligns with the latter, i.e. socialized nations like France, England, Germany, Canada. After all, the common defenses of this socialization is decrying America as in desperate need to ‘catch up’ to the rest of the ‘modern world’. Economics is just another area of conspicuous collaboration. The foreign policy of the impending Administration is evidential and premonitory.

Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, described what would become a controversial message, the opportunity that this pandemic has provided us:

“This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset. This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts, to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges… Last week our government committed more to investing in international development while supporting countries… uh, developing countries, on their economic recoveries and resilience.”

Questions appropriately derived from this statement beg, whose chances? whose challenges? and to whom is endowed the trust for its recourse?

Share.

With all this rampant censorship, we rely on our readers to spread our content.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin

Submit a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Get curated news!

Subscribe

* indicates required
What topics are you interested in?