I have to hand out sincere kudos to Tucker Carlson. His opening salvo for 2019 was one for the ages. It was a broad-ranging, fifteen-minute rhetorical tour de force.
Tying together Mitt Romney’s vulture capitalism, unchecked immigration, political corruption and the destruction of the middle class family, Carlson laid out a story that if everyone took off their ideological blinders for a few minutes (myself included) would see as simply a horror show.
Carlson’s thesis is that the American family is disintegrating. He’s right. But it’s not just America. It’s everywhere globalism has been the watchword of public policy, ie. Europe as well.
The Yellow Vests in France began protesting over a rise in diesel fuel tax to support climate change initiatives and has morphed into a full-blown revolt against globalism, neoliberalism and French government institutions.
It is the next stage of the dreaded populist uprising of Hillary Clinton’s ‘deplorables.’ And it’s jumped borders. This is the kind of color revolution I can support, not the fake ones ginned up by oligarchs like George Soros.
But what I found interesting was how Carlson was tying together all of the strands of public policy decisions which has created this web of perverse incentives we live under.
In short, globalism has gentrified the cities and impoverished the countryside. Rural job prospects are gone in many areas, not just in the U.S. but also in France and Italy and Greece, etc.
But, at the same time the cost of living through excessive financialization of the economy in the cities has reached a point where middle class workers live like ants to survive the crushing expenses.
This is what the Yellow Vests are protesting about in France –and now Canada, Taiwan, Belgium and even for a brief moment, the U.K.
The only ones #winning in this environment are the ones who print, direct and disseminate the money — the Mitt Romneys, the Jamie Dimons and the Nancy Pelosis.
And if you notice any time someone proposes something rational about changing this dynamic they are denounced as ‘reactionary’ or ‘threatened’ or, in the worst case, ‘populist.’
This, to me, signals that this dynamic, this process, hasn’t been an accidental confluence of factors. That its not the unfortunate consequence of garden variety corruption of our political system but something far more sinister.
It was designed policy.
Which brings me back to Tucker Carlson. As a follow up to his first rant Carlson went off of Rick Wilson, a picture of vile punditry if there ever was one.
This is the next stage of the attack on rural America. First it was destroy their ability to live a stable life, raise children and pass wealth down through the generations.
Then it was import the worst people from the rest of the world, zip code targeting immigrants to flip certain states to destroy potential revolt through the ballot box.
And now we’re into the vilification stage, the dehumanization stage. This is the foundation our leaders always lay before going to war with someone.
In the past it’s always been some group of evil brown people across the ocean.
Today it’s the deplorable, ten-toothed white people who are too stupid to recognize why they need to be exterminated.
Hillary’s ‘basket of deplorables’ rant lost her the election, but today it is animating a large swath of the country to hate Trump voters, not just Trump.
So, that when the inevitable collapse of this system occurs it will be blamed first on Trump accompanied by the insufferable cries of “I told you so” and then on Trump voters.
Make no mistake, this was policy. This was the point of the long march through the institutions. And the collapse that is coming, that everyone on Wall St. and K Street are preparing for, needs a scapegoat.
Meanwhile, the real solution stares us in the face and if we want to avoid this outcome, we need to stop ab-reacting to the words people say and look for the reasons why they are saying them, the meaning behind them.
In a world saturated with communication, we are engaging in a stunning lack of it. As I touch on in this video, I don’t begrudge Carlson his rant against market capitalism being a religion. I know there’s a person there who is asking the right questions and is looking for solutions.
Because if we start talking to each other again versus at each other we may just figure out who was behind all this in the first place.
I’ve got my yellow vest, do you?
Please support the production of independent and alternative political and financial commentary by joining my Patreon and subscribing to the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter for just $12/month.
I also have my Yellow Vest.
I suggest this started with the first era of the Progressives: The time of Theodore Roosevelt and the most evil Woodrow Wilson. Especially Wilson, who championed these ideas that changed our nation forever:
1. The Central Bank, which made it possible for the government to borrow on a large scale;
2. The Income Tax, which (along with the Federal Reserve) drew all economic activity toward Washington, DC, separated the people from their income, thus stealing their productivity as everything was financizlized through the issuance of government debt;
3. Legal Tender laws, which forced everyone to use this currency that was really government debt, instead of real wealth;
4. The direct election of Senators, which made the states mere appendages of the central government instead of independent entities. It turned the Senators from representatives of their state’s legislatures into a second group entirely beholden to the populace.
The final nail in the coffin was accomplished in 1933, when Franklin Roosevelt issued EO 6102, which stole the people’s gold and forever made them indentured servants to the government via Federal Reserve Notes (which most people believe are real money, when they are really debt).
I didn’t fill in all the blanks, but this includes many pieces to the puzzle.
I also thought that Tucker’s segments on Friday were excellent, and approached these points from another perspective.
Kevin, Yes you filled in many of the blanks I summed up with “the long march through the institutions.” Thanks, you are absolutely correct these are important events.
I got my vest 4 weeks ago. Now, late on a Saturday night, I’m installing products from “Uncle Mike’s”. What are YOU doing?
Already had my vest as well. I chose Tactical Taylor for the completion of my ensemble. Uncle Mike’s is good but I chose to color coordinate my garments.
Good stuff! :)
The coming conflict will be fought between the Marxist City States and the Rural American Remnant. Choose wisely X X soj51.org
Tucker said something that just got under my skin, and I couldn’t let it go. I watched the video 3 times, and still couldn’t get past it. His comment that marriage in rural areas is declining because ‘women don’t want to marry a man who makes less money than them’ is still a problem for me. I’d have to see the studies to believe what he said was true. I don’t doubt that marriage rates and births are declining in rural areas, but I seriously doubt what Tucker said is the true reason. Women want to get married and have kids, it’s embedded in our DNA – that’s not the problem. And It’s pretty easy to find a guy to date, but finding a man who qualifies as “marriage/father material” is not so easy. Men, in general, mature much slower than women. Tucker even admits later in the segment that we have a real problem with ‘kids, mostly boys, getting high all of the time’. Regardless of the economy, every town needs teachers, nurses, and dental hygienists, jobs that are typically held by women. So women in rural areas statistically might make more money than men, but I think more importantly, they are also more intelligent, educated, and more responsible than the men. If he’d said that women don’t want to marry men who are dumber than them, I’d have completely agreed with that.
I think you are making Tucker’s point here. Men feel most useful when they are providing for a family. Women feel most fulfilled when they have children. The money angle is simply another way of saying “women don’t marry men they don’t respect.” and a man that cannot make enough money to take care of his family is one that isn’t respectable.
Even if you agree with the words, the sentiment and the meaning are far more important. Will some women settle for a lesser man? Of course. Does that lead to lasting, fulfilled relationships? Not as often.
You must log in to post a comment.