1866 pro-Democrat political poster condemning the Republican party for freeing the slaves, which derogatorily portrays the (white) Republican candidate as an unattractive black man and states the Democrat platform is "for the white man," and the Republican candidate's platform is "for the negro."
When pointing out the historical facts about the political parties, one of the favorite specious rebuttals of Democrats is that the parties have traded places. Black leftists in particular love this argument, because it ostensibly justifies them supporting the same party that once owned African slaves, started a war to prevent freeing them, and continued to treat them like second class citizens for well over a century following the Civil War.
This sentiment is of course born of ignorance. At first glance, to the uninformed and benighted, it would indeed seem like the parties "traded places." 150 years ago it was the Republicans that wanted to help brown people, and today it's the Democrats that want to help brown people. Except this observation is predicated purely upon rhetoric as opposed to substance, and those who harbor it are invariably oblivious to such nuanced distinctions. Simply put the Republicans of the 1860s actually wanted to liberate the oppressed, whereas the Democrats of 2017 merely say they want to liberate the oppressed, from an illusory system of Republican subjugation that is almost entirely a psychological fabrication of the left.
When you look at actual deeds or policies, as opposed to words of the parties, one sees the Democrats engaging in the exact same conduct toward the same end it was 150 years ago. To the Democrat of 1817 the role of the black person in society was to perform the menial tasks deemed beneath the superior white aristocracy. Ask any Democrat today what the role of an illegal immigrant is and they'll openly concede it's to "do the jobs we won't do." The Democrats of 1817 also wanted their slaves to be included in the tally of their state's population, but did not want them being granted the rights of citizens. Why? Because representation in congress is predicated upon state population. Therefore including slaves in the tally would greatly increase the representation, and therefore power, of slave owners in government. Supporters of slavery even sought to propagate slavery into the western territories, flouting the explicit proscription of slavery in said territories by the Ordinance of 1787. Through such methods slavery proponents hoped to eventually gain opposition crushing majorities in the federal government.
These policies remain on conspicuous display in the Democrat party of 2017, which seeks open borders in order to flood the nation with millions upon millions of illegal immigrants, which are subsequently granted amnesty. The purpose of this is plainly the same as it was in 150 years ago. Millions of more people being admitted, and then made citizens, will drastically augment the power of the Democrat party in government, as not only will the vast majority of these immigrants vote Democrat, but they increase the population and therefore representation of Democrat states in congress. The more people they let in, who will assume the menial tasks once relegated to the African slaves the Democrats were forced to free by Republicans, the more powerful the Democrat party becomes. This practice of surreptitious social restructuring has always been on flagrant display in the modern Democrat party; e.g., Obama's dispersal of Muslim refugees, who will vote almost exclusively Democrat, throughout what are considered heavily Republican states. They won't make much difference today, but 50 years from now when they've multiplied 50 fold, they'll play a factor in eventually turning red states blue.
The American black whom they may no longer force to labor on their behalf, has been easily and utterly negated as a political force, brought back into the Democrat fold and kept a perpetual minority through a racist eugenics program (abortion) pioneered by racist whites. And this was done merely by offering, as opposed to imposing upon them, the very same things slave owners provided; free housing, food, and health care. Thus modern Democrats have achieved precisely what antebellum slave owners sought. A politically nugatory black populace that exists purely to maintain the Democrat power structure, by being included in the census (giving them the augmentation of representation they always wanted), and overwhelmingly voting Democrat (consistently over 90%) in addition.
The Democrat leadership today, just as 150 years ago, cares not for the consequences of these machinations; because they will never experience them. The aristocratic leadership of the Democrat party typically lives entirely sequestered, in gated communities (the big house), from its black constituency and the millions of illegal immigrants it brings into the country who live almost exclusively in their ghettos and barrios (the slave quarters). Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, et al., consistently live in mansions set well apart from the slums of their constituents. They venture to the latter only briefly, if at all, to promise more assistance (in exchange for votes) before promptly returning to their opulent domiciles. A few minutes of work, a few disingenuous proclamations to the dimwitted, ensures for themselves a life of perpetual privilege.
The fact is the Democrats of 2017 support the mass importation of brown people for the same reasons as the Democrats of 1857; cheap labor. And they'll often openly admit this (but are simply too stupid to realize it).
When expressing my opposition to illegal immigration in the past, I've literally had leftists reply with "Who's going to pick our oranges?" if we deport all of the illegals.
Democrats in 1857: "Who's going to pick our crops if the Republicans free all the Africans?"
Democrats in 2017: "Who's going to pick our crops if the Republicans deport all the Latinos?"
And perhaps the most baffling thing of all, is the halfwits in the GoP who support this policy of unchecked immigration followed by amnesty, as it doesn't benefit the Republican party whatsoever and serves only to assist the Democrats in their subversion of the Republic.
Perhaps the most damning refutation of the trading places argument, however, is that the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s was merely a reiteration of the Fourteenth Amendment (which might be called the civil rights act of 1868). Both were a result of the same circumstance, intended to serve the same purpose, with the support primarily coming from Republicans and opposition from Democrats in both instances. This alone immediately and overtly obliterates the farcical notion the parties traded places (particularly in regard to civil rights), and proves unequivocally that it's a product of abject historical ignorance among those that espouse it. The only other explanation is that they're aware of this, but deliberately choose to omit this fact (knowing it throws a massive wrench into their argument), which makes them guilty of deception. Period.
The fact is the Fourteenth Amendment was implemented because racist Democrats, following the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, were not treating freed blacks equally under the law. The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to compel them to do so. Likewise, the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s was a result of Democrats still refusing to treat blacks equally under the law a century later, and again intended to compel them to do so. The latter, just as the former, was proposed and primarily supported by Republicans and vigorously opposed by Democrats (who filibustered it for over two months).
So how have they traded places exactly, when the circumstances, the roles each party played, and their stated motives in the 1960s are essentially identical to that in the 1860s? The Democrats explicitly opposed any measure to elevate blacks to equal status in the 1860s just as they opposed such in the 1960s. It becomes rather obvious, considering this reality, that the trading places argument is what an historical ignoramus would conclude in all of five seconds of thought based purely upon Democrat rhetoric. The ignoramus observes that it's the Democrats that rhetorically support blacks today and concludes, "Well, they must have traded places." A flagrantly specious claim of the most farcically exculpatory sort. Any time you confront a Democrat about their party's egregiously racist history, they just make the asinine claim that the Democrats became Republicans, which not only absolves them completely of their party's racist history but allows them to take credit for the opposition's history of supporting liberty. Modern Republicans, nor even Antebellum Republicans, can take credit for freeing the slaves under this rationale, you see, because Abraham Lincoln and the Republican party were really Democrats. And any wrong the Democrats have done historically was actually perpetrated by Republicans.
There's also the rather conspicuous non sequitur, if not abject logical paradox, that necessarily results from this train of thought. If the Republicans and Democrats traded places in the 1960s, did they also trade places in the 1860s when the same type of legislation was proposed, and met with the same opposition from the same party? Did this swap only occur once, in the latter instance, or does it occur every time history proves to be decidedly inconvenient for the Democrat party? I'd wager the latter, given that Democrats consistently express profound historical ignorance, and engage in shameless historical revisionism in order to advance their agenda.
The trading places argument ultimately serves to once again illustrate that all leftist thought and argumentation is self-serving nonsense of the worst order.
No comments:
Post a Comment