NY Times Mocks “Rural America” Mocked for “Vaccine Skepticism”

This hatred for the country class by the likes of Krugman, Sulzberger, Soros, , Schwab, Rothschild and the rest of the loony Left mirrors that which the Bolsheviks of revolutionary Russia had for the “kulaks.”

Picture
Politically, rural America is increasingly a world apart.

DECEMBER 21, 2021
(Headlines of past 2 years)

NY Times:

* Faith, Freedom, Fear: Rural America’s Vaccine Skeptics
 * Rural America’s Covid Problem
 * Coronavirus Spreads to Rural America
  * Why Rural America’s Digital Divide Persists
 * America’s Red State Death Trip
 * Getting Real About Rural America
 * H.I.V. Is Coming to Rural America. Rural America is Not Ready

The elitist denigration of America’s country / rural class — aka “Rural America” — has long been a journalistic staple of the (((city-slickers))) at Sulzberger’s Slimes. After Trump’s unexpected victory of 2016, there was talk of disenfranchising his country supporters by abolishing the electoral college in favor of the straight popular vote — a deliberate subversion of the Constitution which would leave heartland folk politically disenfranchised as urban Demonrat voters overpower them in presidential elections.

After Stupid-19 was launched, “Rural America” was attacked for not embracing perpetual lock-downs, mask-wearing and “social distancing.” And now, in response to the “vaccine hesitancy” of folks in “Rural America”  we notice the malicious Marxists at the Manhattan Madhouse on 8th Avenue are again launching snobbish cheap shots at the good and Godly people of Thomas Jefferson‘s “Rural America.”

In all nations and in all ages — virtue, religion, tradition, hard work, family, self-reliance and love of liberty have always been more deeply-rooted in rural / agricultural regions than in the big cities. Much like typhus, the metaphorical “lice” of corruption spread much easier and faster in the crowded financial centers than in the open spaces where people work hard for an honest living. Indeed, whereas Alexander Hamilton and, decades later, Karl Marx favored the cities; Jefferson, (the main Father of the Declaration of Independence & 3rd President), once wrote to James Madison(the main father of the U.S. Constitution & 4th President):

“I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get plied upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.”

In “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Jefferson wrote:

“Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which he keeps alive that sacred fire, which otherwise might escape from the face of the earth. … The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.”

Tell it, Mr. President. Tell it!

Picture
Thomas Jefferson & James Madison — The two Virginians — primary authors of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution respectively —  understood the importance of a thriving rural class as the true foundation for morality and liberty
Picture
The anti-family degenerate control-freak Karl Marx, on the other hand, was pro-big-city.

The content of the Slimes articles listed above — all from the past few years — is as offensive as it is inaccurate. How is it that the journalistic hyper-sensitivity manifested toward the delicate feelings of “the Jewish People,” Asians, “people of color,” queers, trannies, alien invaders and even child-sex monsters is suddenly discarded when it comes to spewing raw, ignorant bigotry at the rural country class? Though none of the above-referenced pieces preach overt hatred, the patronizing “looking-down-their-hooked-noses” condescension is apparent. The spin, though not blatantly stated, is unmistakable to a semi-discerning reader: — Rural folk are not “educated” …. rural folk are xenophobic …. rural folk are obsessed with guns — rural folk are homophobic .. rural folk refuse to “follow the science” of Stupid-19 — and rural folk remain prudishly anti-“sex education” in the face of sexually transmitted diseases… and, of course, the bottom-line, quoting Paul Krugman(cough cough) — the author of two of the three articles listed above:

“Rural America is also pretty much the only place where Donald Trump remains popular.”

There it is! The true Globalist Bolshevik motive behind the relentless attacks against the true America: Those damn, rebellious, backwards-ass, “fly-over country” rubes, in spite of our Fake News barrage, continue to support Donald Trump — even though he “lost” the election!

Of course, in that oh-so-typical narcissistic psycho manner which these (((slicksters))) are notorious for; Putrid Paulie preemptively rebuts the expected objections to his anal analysis by feigning empathy as he assures “rural readers” (does he actually believe he has “rural readers?”)  that what he just said is not really what he just said:

“I’m sure that some rural readers will be angered by everything I’ve just said, seeing it as typical big-city condescension. But that’s neither my intention nor the point.

Ok, Paulie. That’s very gracious of you. I’m sure that Billy-Bob, Jethro & Bubba are quite moved by that clarification (rolling eyes).

Picture
Picture

In accordance with UN “Agenda 21” and “The Great Reset” Klaus Schwab (cough cough) and & Paulie Krugman (cough cough) want all the rural folk disarmed, chipped and then herded into easily controllable and easily corruptible cities.

Picture
Election 2016: Trump won rural counties in red — Killary won the urban counties in Blue.
Picture
The Electoral College system blocked the crowded cities from dominating the rural voters. Though Killary won the popular vote (due to fraud), Trump still won the election.
Picture
CBS TV’s Jewish-produced “Beverly Hillbillies” made mockery of southern rural folks. It’s all connected.

This barely-veiled hatred for the country class by the likes of Krugman, Sulzberger, Soros, , Schwab, Rothschild and the rest of the loony Left mirrors that which the Jewish Bolsheviks of revolutionary Russia had for the “kulaks.” The kulaks were those Russian peasants who — after Tsar Alexander‘s emancipation of the serfs in 1861 — became independent enough to own a farm and hire labor. For years after the  Bolshevik revolution, the conservative kulaks resisted Lenin’s, and then Stalin’s forced agricultural collectivization schemes. Millions of kulaks — as well as millions of non-land-owning rural Christian conservative Russian folk — were exiled, starved, arrested, tortured, raped and murdered by the hate-filled Jewish-run Checka and its secret-police successor organizations. This program was openly referred to as “de-kulakization” — an earlier and far more comprehensive version of the ongoing South African Farm Murders.

Make no mistake about it. If odious semi-human scum such as Krugman — notwithstanding his pathetically feigned and apologetic qualifiers for his “rural readers” — had his way, a modern-day Cheka would be unleashed to kill off and urban-herd many millions of America’s rural “deplorables” too — albeit more humanely — maybe.

Picture
A Soviet parade under the banners “We will liquidate the kulaks as a class” and “All to the struggle against the wreckers of agriculture”
Picture
Soviet propaganda poster stating “Oust the kulaks”
Picture
Red Monster Felix Dzerzhinsky formed the dreaded terroristic Cheka.
Picture
Under his command, as many as 90,000 Bolshevik Jewish agents killed and, in many cases, sadistically tortured countless millions of rural Christian Russians.
Picture
Killary Rotten Clinton — who wants to abolish the electoral college and go to urban-driven popular vote only — made this overtly bigoted comment during the 2016 campaign: 
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, 
you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the
 basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it.”

Central Banking as an Engine of Corruption

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

thomas jefferson vs. alexander hamilton

Much has been written about the famous debate between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton over the constitutionality of America’s first central bank, the Bank of the United States (BUS). This was where Jefferson, as secretary of state, enunciated his “strict constructionist” view of the Constitution, making his case to President George Washington that since a central bank was not one of the powers specifically delegated by the states to the central government, and since the idea was explicitly rejected by the constitutional convention, a central bank is unconstitutional.

Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton notoriously responded by inventing the notion of “implied” as opposed to enumerated powers of the Constitution.

George Washington signed legislation creating the BUS not because of the strength of Hamilton’s argument but because of a shady political deal. The nation’s capital was being relocated from New York to Virginia, and Washington wanted the border of the new District of Columbia to abut his property at Mount Vernon. In return for a redrawing of the district’s border, Washington signed the Federalist’s legislation creating the BUS.

America’s first central bank was borne of a corrupt political deal, but that particular act of political corruption pales in comparison to what Hamilton and the Federalists really had in mind. As Murray Rothbard wrote in The Mystery of Banking (p. 192), Hamilton and his political compatriots, especially defense contractor/Philadelphia congressman Robert Morris, wanted

to reimpose in the new United States a system of mercantilism and big government similar to that in Great Britain, against which the colonists had rebelled. The object was to have a strong central government, particularly a strong president or king as chief executive, built up by high taxes and heavy public debt.

An especially important part of what Rothbard called “the Morris scheme” was “to organize and head a central bank, to provide cheap credit and expanded money for himself and his allies.”

Hamilton was Morris’s Machiavellian string puller in the Washington administration. As explained by Douglas Adair, an editor of The Federalist Papers (1980 Penguin Books edition, p. 171),

with devious brilliance, Hamilton set out, by a program of class legislation, to unite the propertied interests of the eastern seaboard into a cohesive administration party, while at the same time he attempted to make the executive dominant over the Congress by a lavish use of the spoils system. In carrying out his scheme … Hamilton transformed every financial transaction of the Treasury Department into an orgy of speculation and graft in which selected senators, congressmen, and certain of their richer constituents throughout the nation participated.

What Adair is talking about here is how Hamilton went about nationalizing the old government debt. New government bonds were issued and the old debt was to be cashed out at face value. This plan “immediately became public knowledge in New York City,” wrote John Steele Gordon in Hamilton’s Blessing (p. 25), “but news of it spread only slowly, via horseback and sailing vessel, to the rest of the country.” Thus, a tremendous arbitrage opportunity was created for the New York/Philadelphia political insiders like Robert Morris and his business associates. This was the first instance in US history of political insider trading.

The political insiders, including many members of Congress, immediately swung into action to purchase as many of the old government bonds as they could from unsuspecting Revolutionary War veterans for as little as 2 percent of par value. As historian Claude Bowers described the scene in his book, Jefferson and Hamilton,

expresses with very large sums of money on their way to North Carolina for purposes of speculation … splashed and bumped over wretched winter roads…. Two fast-sailing vessels, chartered by a member of Congress … were ploughing the waters southward on a similar mission. (p. 47)

Among the men who became instant millionaires were “leading members of Congress who knew that provision for the redemption of the paper [at face value] had been made,” wrote Bowers (p. 48).

Upon observing this caper, Hamilton’s political nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, came to understand that Hamilton was intentionally creating a system of institutionalized corruption in order to buy the political support in Congress for his party’s big-government mercantilist/imperialist agenda — the very kind of political system the colonists had waged war against. In a February 4, 1818, essay (in Thomas Jefferson: Writings, pp. 661–696), written long after Hamilton’s death in 1804, Jefferson recalled what Hamilton was up to: “Hamilton’s financial system had two objects. 1st as a puzzle, to exclude popular understanding & inquiry. 2ndly, as a machine for the corruption of the legislature” (emphasis added).

With regard to the latter “object,” Jefferson explained that Hamilton

avowed the opinion that man could be governed by one of two motives only, force or interest: force he observed, in this country, was out of the question [note: this was pre-Lincoln]; and the interests therefore of the members [of Congress] must be laid hold of, to keep the legislature in unison with the executive. And with grief and shame it must be acknowledged that his machine was not without effect.… Some members [of Congress] were found sordid enough to bend their duty to their interests, and to look after personal, rather than public good.

Jefferson then described the very same scene mentioned above in the quote from Claude Bowers:

The base scramble began. Couriers & relay horses by land, and swift sailing pilot boats by sea, were flying in all directions. Active partners & agents were associated & employed in every state, town and country neighborhood, and this paper was bought up at 5 and even as low as 2% in the pound, before the holder knew that Congress had already provided for its redemption at par. Immence sums were thus filched from the poor and ignorant.

“Men thus enriched by the dexterity of a leader [Hamilton],” Jefferson wrote, “would follow of course the chief who was leading them to fortune, and thus become the zealous instruments of all his [political] enterprises.”

But the political power created by such graft was only temporary, said Jefferson. “It would be lost with the loss [i.e., retirement or death] of the individual members [of Congress] whom it had enriched.” Therefore, Jefferson reasoned, “Some engine of influence more permanent must be contrived.” This permanent engine of corruption, said Jefferson, “was the Bank of the U.S.” A central bank, once established, would be very difficult to destroy, and would inevitably become a permanent source of financing for political bribery and manipulation. How prescient.

Jefferson concluded that “Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption,” with a central bank being the financial centerpiece of the corrupt regime. He arrived at this conclusion based on observing Hamilton’s behavior as Treasury Secretary, as well as a personal conversation involving himself, Hamilton, Secretary of War Henry Knox, President John Adams, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph in 1791, the year the BUS came into being.

Jefferson recalled how President John Adams said of the British constitution, “purge that constitution of its corruption, and give to its popular branch equality of representation, and it would be the most perfect constitution ever devised by the wit of man.” To which Hamilton objected,

Purge it of its corruption, and give to its popular branch equality of representation, & it would become an impracticable government; as it stands at present, with all its supposed defects, it is the most perfect government which ever existed.

Hamilton was “so bewitched & perverted by the British example,” wrote Jefferson, “as to be under thoro’ conviction that corruption was essential to the government of a nation” (p. 671). Hamilton viewed “his” bank, the Bank of the United States, as being absolutely essential to his Americanized version of “the most perfect government which ever existed.”