The radical leftists who are hellbent on recreating the world in their own sordid image do not even try to hide their aims any longer. They just come out and say what they want to do, and most of the sheeple simply go on with their lives, no questions asked.
Consider one ominous example of this. John Kerry, the 80-year-old Democrat, 2004 Presidential contender, and secretary of state under the Obama administration, recently appeared at a World Economic Forum meeting. In a panel discussion, he made it quite clear that things like freedom of speech and the US First Amendment stand in the way of the global elites implementing their radical changes. He said:
The dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing. It is part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue. It’s really hard to govern today. You can’t — the referees we used to have to determine what is a fact and what isn’t a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree. And people go and self select where they go for their news, for their information. And then you get into a vicious cycle.
So it is really hard, much harder to build consensus today than at any time in the 40-50 years I’ve been involved in this. You know there’s a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you’re going to have some accountability on facts, etc.
But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence.
So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change. Obviously, there are some people in our country who are prepared to implement change in a whole other way, but –
Wow. See one of the videos on this here:
Nice of him to spill the beans. The First Amendment is standing in the way of getting Kamala elected, of implementing their nefarious globalist agendas, and of silencing anyone they consider to be on the wrong side of history.
Kerry and Soros and Kamala and Obama and AOC and Schwab and a host of other politicians and elites are all singing from the same song sheet here: it is a dangerous thing to allow ordinary men and women the right to free speech. Indeed, they think our very thoughts are dangerous – thus the push for thought crimes and the like, along with all these dangerous misinformation bills being pushed throughout the West.
Thankfully there was plenty of pushback to Kerry’s remarks. Elon Musk quickly tweeted this: “John Kerry is saying he wants to violate the Constitution.” And Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said this: “John Kerry is correct. The 1st Amendment DOES stand as a major roadblock to them right now.”
Both these men can be quoted even further. At a recent Make America Healthy Again rally RFK Jr. said we must remember three things: “1) When you give a government a power, it will never voluntarily relinquish it 2) If you give a government a power, it will ultimately abuse that power to the maximum extent possible 3) Nobody ever complied their way out of totalitarianism.”
And Elon Musk said this on X recently:
Very few Americans realize that, if Trump is NOT elected, this will be the last election. Far from being a threat to democracy, he is the only way to save it! Let me explain: if even 1 in 20 illegals become citizens per year, something that the Democrats are expediting as fast as humanly possible, that would be about 2 million new legal voters in 4 years. The voting margin in the swing states is often less than 20 thousand votes. That means if the “Democratic” Party succeeds, there will be no more swing states!! Moreover, the Biden/Harris administration has been flying “asylum seekers”, who are fast-tracked to citizenship, directly into swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Arizona. It is a surefire way to win every election. America then becomes a one-party state and Democracy is over. The only “elections” will be the Democratic Party primaries. This already happened in California many years ago, following the 1986 amnesty. The only thing holding California back from extreme socialism and suffocating government policies is that people can leave California and still remain in America. Once the whole country is controlled by one party, there will be no escape. Everywhere in America will be like the nightmare that is downtown San Francisco.
Quite so. And of course, Kerry is just one of so many elites making these sorts of scary statements. Recall all the madness during the Covid wars with one politician after another, one “expert” after another, and one elite after another telling us what we must believe and hammering anyone who dared to take a different line.
As but one example, recall the words of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who had said this early on during the Covid hysteria: “We will continue to be your single source of truth… Unless you hear it from us it is not the truth.”
Sure Jacinta. You are the way, the truth and the life. Who else should we turn to? I discussed her and others in this piece from three years ago.
These arrogant elites are so full of themselves, and so contemptuous of ordinary citizens, that they are getting increasingly emboldened to declare that they alone are the sole arbiter of truth and error, right and wrong. They really think they are gods.
The left has long had this mindset. They think they know what is best for everyone, and we are supposed to just sit down and shut up, bowing to their every word. Sorry, but I ain’t buying it, nor are most folks. Recall what William F. Buckley once said long ago: “I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 members of the Harvard faculty.”
Another key thinker and writer who has spoken against the rule of the elites is Thomas Sowell. He has written on this topic often. Indeed, in a trilogy of works he does a superlative job in taking on the elites and their war of the hoi polloi. These are: A Conflict of Visions (1987); The Vision of the Anointed (1995); and The Quest for Cosmic Justice (1999).
I wrote about these important volumes in various articles, including this one.
Let me quote here from the second of these three very important works. In “Flattering Unction,” the first chapter of The Vision of the Anointed, he had said this:
The contemporary anointed and those who follow them make much of their ‘compassion’ for the less fortunate, their ‘concern’ for the environment, and their being ‘anti-war,’ for example–as if these were characteristics which distinguish them from people with opposite views on public policy. The very idea that such an opponent of the prevailing vision as Milton Friedman, for example, has just as much compassion for the poor and the disadvantaged, that he is just as much appalled by pollution, or as horrified by the sufferings and slaughter imposed by war on millions of innocent men, women, and children–such an idea would be a very discordant note in the vision of the anointed. If such an idea were fully accepted, this would mean that opposing arguments on social policy were arguments about methods, probabilities, and empirical evidence–with compassion, caring, and the like being common features on both sides, thus cancelling out and disappearing from the debate. That clearly is not the vision of the anointed. One reason for the preservation and insulation of a vision is that it has become inextricably intertwined with the egos of those who believe it. Despite Hamlet’s warning against self-flattery, the vision of the anointed is not simply a vision of the world and its functioning in a causal sense, but is also a vision of themselves and their moral role in that world. It is a vision of differential rectitude. It is not a vision of the tragedy of the human condition: Problems exist because others are not as wise or as virtuous as the anointed.
The great ideological crusades of the twentieth-century intellectuals have ranged across the most disparate fields – from the eugenic movement of the early decades of the century to the environmentalism of the later decades, not to mention the welfare state, socialism, communism, Keynesian economics, and medical, nuclear, and automotive safety. What all these highly disparate crusades have in common is their moral exaltation of the anointed above others, who are to have their very different views nullified and superseded by the views of the anointed, imposed by the power of government. Despite the great variety of issues in a series of crusading movements among the intelligentsia during the twentieth century, several key elements have been common to most of them:
- Assertion of a great danger to the whole society, a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.
- An urgent need for government action to avert impending catastrophe.
- A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behavior of the many, in response to the prescient conclusions of the few.
- A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes.
These are very valuable words indeed. And we know that the elites depend upon controlling the flow of information. THEIR words, and no one else’s, will be heard. That is why they are so cavalier about things like the First Amendment and basic civil rights such as free speech.
Although speaking in an earlier era, the words of Sir Robert Menzies in The Forgotten People (1942) are still fully relevant here:
All things considered, the worst crime of fascism and its twin brother, German national socialism, is their suppression of free thought and free speech. It is one of the many proofs that, with all their cleverness, they are primitive and reactionary movements. One of the first actions of the Nazis in Germany was to regiment the newspapers by telling them exactly what they could print. The result was that newspaper controversy came to an end, since all sang the same tune….
Fascism and the Nazi movement are both based on social philosophy which elevates the all-powerful State and makes the rights of the individual, not matters of inherent dignity but matters merely of concession by the State. Each says to the ordinary citizen, ‘Your rights are not those you were born with, but those which of our kindness we allow you.’ It is good to be reminded by Mill that this tendency is not confined to any one country.
Quite so, and today these tendencies are found in America, Australia, Europe and elsewhere, led by the like of John Kerry and Co.
