First, let me establish a ground rule. The platform and agenda of the current Democrat Party is both anti-American and evil. I'm taking this as a given, but let me at least take a moment to frame it at a high level.
Firstly, the philosophical premise of the Democrat party, at least currently (it's long ago gone a complete reversal of the populist, freedom and limited government and states' rights party of Andrew Jackson) is based on literally non-American ideas: the collectivist approach of "general will" of Jean-Jacques Rousseau which was an important component of the Jacobin element of the violent savagery of the French Revolution. It's an important pillar of Socialist and Communist thought ever since, combined with the collectivism of Karl Marx; an Ashkenazi Jew (albeit from a family that had converted to Lutheranism) from Germany. Democrats eschew many of the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Freedom of religion is routinely curtailed in a twisted backward interpretation of the separation of Church and state clause to almost completely obliterate religion from any kind of public sphere, freedom of association is trampled on with anti-discrimination laws (the gay cake baking and wedding flowers incidents, for that matter, not only violate the 1st Amendment, but also the 13th), freedom of speech is routinely suppressed via "hate speech" laws and casual censorship. It's a running joke that the Democrats hate the 2nd Amendment and wish to repeal it (many have openly called for that; others are more subtle and merely want to cripple it while leaving the fiction up that it stands.)
Their big, authoritarian, re-distributionist government ideal, which in many ways has already come to pass is a dramatic curtailment of our freedom; the Founding Fathers started the Revolutionary War over much less—and is a repudiation of the entire point of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence. And more recently, their open and blatant corruption and cronyism is little better than a banana republic. At an even more existential level, their constant propaganda against heritage America and white Americans is just the icing on the cake; after everything that they've already managed to enact, they hardly even need to bother slagging us in dialog anymore; it's just piling on. Now that they actively agitate for white ethnic cleansing of our own country, however, it's reached a fever pitch. As Barack Obama said near the beginning of his first term, their goal is to "fundamentally transform America" and despite just an incredibly load of sophistry to try and apologize and rationalize that, there is no other way to see it other than that they reject America as it is and want to make it into something... well, fundamentally different.
Their evil is just as blatant as their anti-Americanism; their support of abortion, of nation-building abroad and red-lines and belligerent posturing against global rivals for power (otherwise known as genocide of Third World brown people) in places like Syria, Libya, the Ukraine and more is both literally murderous and tyrannical. Their staunch and unrelenting war on Christianity, their embrace of psychologically damaged ideas like homosexuality, transexuality, and their intent on shoving it in everyone's faces and forcing them to celebrate it, their indoctrination of children into the evils of big government, the abandonment of self-restraint or responsibility, sexual perversion, and more, the notion that anyone seems them as anything other than anti-American and evil is difficult for me to personally fathom. But since it's not, here's a few statements from the prophets that bear repeating. Keep in mind that Heber J. Grant was a very staunch opponent of Roosevelt in the 30s, almost taking it as a personal insult that the members of the church supported his "neo-socialism" and belligerent pro-war stance in Utah, and wrote several letters to the editors of Deseret News condemning that political doctrine. David O. McKay stated that Communism was considered "the greatest satanical threat to peace, prosperity, and the spread of God's work among men that exists on the face of the earth." Ezra Taft Benson was even more explicit, comparing "socialism-communism"—a label that he used deliberately to ensure that his meaning wouldn't be mistaken when Leftists changed their labels and pretended to be a different ideology because of a few superficial details—was an extension of Satan's plan in the pre-existence and that if any member of the church held such beliefs and had "second guessed" their first estate, they were in dire need of repentance.
Many leftist members of the church, especially those who were fans of Bernie Sanders, have tried very hard to minimize these statements and write them off as merely "the opinions" of various leaders of the church (all of the leaders of the Church for as long as we have recorded opinions of any of them on such issues, as a matter of fact) rather than doctrine. This may be true; because of the perversion of the 1st Amendment which prevents churches from commenting on political issues at risk of losing it's protected "Church" status with the IRS, the Church has very carefully maintained political neutrality officially. But their are so many applicable doctrines of the church that are at odds with the platform of the Democrat party that it's ridiculous to assume that it could be anything other than a massive rejection by the Church, by its doctrine, by it's leaders, and by the Lord himself, of the platform of the Democrats.
The implication here might be that the Republicans are, however, the part of Americanism and good. This is not the case at all. The Republican Party platform is dominated by the neo-conservatives, former Democrats who fell out of favor with the Democrat party when the platform started migrating away from war-hawk FDR style Democrats and got more heavily invested in the sexual perversions, women's lib, civil rights, and "invite the world" rather than the older "invade the world" (the neo-cons embrace both.) Democrats have since become hawks again; or rather, they are hawks when their own leaders are agitating for war (Obama, both Clintons, etc.) but pretend to be for peace when Republicans agitate for war, but the reality is that the Republicans are made up of Democrat elitists who merely feign a few social conservative positions to exploit the votes of conservatives. They rarely manage to do anything about these professed conservative positions while in office, but they can give them lip-service during election seasons like nobody's business.
And that's the real crux of it; it's the electorates that tend to favor the Republican party that is pro-America, pro-freedom, and pro-traditional, Christian values, not the party itself. And the electorate is pretty fed up with the betrayals of their party officials as this recent election made quite clear. The Democrat electorate, on the other hand, gets more of what they want in their party's platform; their disgust with their candidate this time around had more to do with her open corruption and cronyism than with her doctrine or platform.
So, although it's an imperfect and no doubt controversial metric, it's a "good enough" model to suggest that supporting the Democrat candidate for president is an act of anti-Americanism, pro-big government, and pro-tyranny while supporting the Republican candidate is an act of pro-Americanism, pro-limited government, and freedom. One could certainly argue that other parties (Constitution party, Libertarian party, etc.) better model this than the Republican party, but the fact that everyone knows nobody can possibly win from those parties means that their de facto support is very limited, even if support for their doctrines may be high.
My pet theory is that the 19th Amendment and women's suffrage was the end of Americanism and freedom from tyranny. Vladimir Lenin, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler all courted the woman vote and embraced women's suffrage, because they knew that they could convince women to hand over authority to them. Voting trends and exit polls have consistently shown that women favor big government and limited freedom, especially younger, unmarried women. It's my belief that these voters see big government as a kind of ersatz daddy/husband figure and because they are, by nature, more compliant and subservient than men, they are perfectly willing to lay their freedom on the altar of big government. Women's suffrage is therefore, the long, slow, fatal wound that killed our democracy.
And yet... in the wake of the most recent election, I'm forced to conclude that it is not as much of a factor as I thought. Look at the following data compiled by CNN. This is the relevant section:
White voters, including women, gave large majorities to Trump vs Hillary. This is also true if you break down the age of the voters; in all age brackets, white voters gave a majority, or at least a plurality of votes to Trump vs Hillary.
The data presented does not break down the data by race, sex and age bracket, and I suspect that millennial white women may have been the exception here, although again, I can only suspect, because the data is now shown.
On the other hand, what is very, very clear is that diversity is a much greater threat to America than women's suffrage. Non-Americans do not vote in America's interest. Once you pass the white rows, every other row goes to Hillary in big numbers; the black vote especially. Being an American is not merely a function of having American citizenship, American paperwork, or even of having been born and lived your whole life in America. American is an ethno-cultural designation, and the fact that vast hordes of non-Americans live in America and even have American citizenship does not make them Americans; their identity is to something other than being American. And, they clearly represent a threat to American institutions such as our cultural, legal and political traditions.
No comments:
Post a Comment