To understand the leftist elite, one need only realize that the reason the military was called to remove 50 migrants from Martha’s Vineyard was not that the leftist elite living there could not afford to take care of them, but that the leftist elite considered taking care of migrants to be beneath them. 

Some of the initial words used in the mainstream media to describe these migrants (words that have since been scrubbed to the extent possible – you can still find them on YouTube) included ‘filth’ and ‘refuse.’ These are words used to describe someone considered sub-human, and while the leftist elite in Martha’s Vineyard would never call migrants that when the migrants are 2,610 miles away (that is the distance between Martha’s Vineyard and San Diego) when the migrants are dropped off where the leftist elite live, that suddenly is how the leftist elite view them.

We heard similar language out of Chicago and New York, as buses of migrants arrived.

The brilliance of sending migrants by the busload to places like Chicago, New York, Washington DC, and Martha’s Vineyard is that it exposes the hypocrisy of those who pretend to be morally superior to the rest of us. These are ‘sanctuary cities’ or ‘sanctuary states,’ and the word ‘sanctuary’ is defined as ‘a place of refuge or safety.’

It is easy to call a location ‘a place of refuge or safety’ when that place is 2,610 miles from the people it is a sanctuary for, but as soon as the people these places are sanctuaries for actually arrive, we find out how these moral superior leftists really think.

And it turns out they are not moral at all…

The leftist elite who live on Martha’s Vineyard, in The Hamptons, and in other such areas, have a better idea (collectively at least) what the policies they call for cause, and you will not find them applying those policies to themselves.

Similarly, whenever I hear that ‘conservatives only care about the rich,’ or some other such thing, I remind myself that at least in today’s world most of the rich are on the political left. As such, if conservatives are ‘for the rich,’ we do a very poor job of pursuing our interests.

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that conservatives are for the ability to get rich, whereas liberals are for the ability to stay rich. This is why conservatives try to reduce taxes charged on income, and try to remove artificial barriers to advancement.

During the era of the Robber Baron, when taxes were low and regulations were rare, there was an old saying: “three generations from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves.” With but a few exceptions, this was how it worked – someone in shirtsleeves (working clothes) would become rich, their kids would live off the spoils, and their grandkids would be in shirtsleeves again – all the wealth having been spent.

There was a tremendous amount of economic churn in that era. Getting rich did not mean staying rich, and everyone had the opportunity to achieve and succeed, no matter where they came from.

Somehow, as we reached the cusp of sharing the American Dream with all Americans, instead of extending the gift of liberty to those who had previously been oppressed, we added shackles to those who had previously been free, and the era of ‘Big Government’ was born.

Now the politically connected get the spoils, and ‘we the people’ are increasingly left out in the cold. As the wealthy eliminate cheap and reliable energy sources, being ‘left out in the cold’ will become more and more literal. Having achieved the zenith of wealth accumulation, the already rich now want the last piece of the puzzle: absolute control. Access to energy and to food will be used to keep the masses in line.

Those who already are rich make their money on investment income, which is to say that their wealth grows based on interest paid to income that has already been earned – in many cases income that was inherited rather than earned by the person enjoying it.

Taxing income makes it harder for anyone else to become rich, ensuring that those who are already rich get to stay on top of everyone else. Rather than expanding their income and going back to shirtsleeves, the wealthy are politically connected, and can use transfer payments (tax dollars) to stay wealthy in perpetuity. These people are becoming a new noble class of Lords and Ladies, albeit without those titles (perhaps they will take different titles?).

Removing licensing requirements makes it easier for people to make money through income. Lower minimum wages make it easier for young people to get a start – such that they can rapidly move up the income ladder.

Expensive and onerous licenses and regulations benefit established players, led by those who are already rich, at the expense of everyone else.

Ask yourself who is for more licensing and more regulations. Ask yourself who is for higher income taxes. The answer to those questions will tell you who favors those who are already rich, rather than favoring those who are not rich, but who may aspire to be.

The left, by extension, loves poverty, which is why they enact programs designed to make poverty easier to live in while simultaneously making poverty harder to get out of, aka the ‘War on Poverty,’ which Milton Friedman more aptly named ‘a War on Black People.’

The War on Poverty did not only affect black people, of course. It hurts poor people across the board. But its effect has been very damaging in our inner cities, which were primarily black at the time the War on Poverty was announced.

Today, after more than 60 years of the War on Poverty, the resulting lack of economic opportunity has kept three full generations of inner city men with little more than crime to sustain them (women can get welfare if they have a child and no man in the home).

Milton Friedman predicted that after three generations, crime in the inner cities would be viewed as normal by those who committed it, and the police would be viewed as an occupation force attacking people – in many cases black men – for doing petty things that it is now socially acceptable to do.

George Floyd represented the moment when Milton Friedman’s prediction came true. The resulting riots and lawlessness – he predicted that more than 60 years ago.

We do not reap what we sow. We reap what our parents and grandparents sow, and for more than sixty years our parents and grandparents have been sowing the seeds of our civilization’s destruction.

We are either going to reverse course, or we are in the end days of our civilization. At the end of the day it is as simple as that.

When Western Society falls, as seems increasingly likely and increasingly near, the resulting dark age will be a magnitude worse than what came after the fall of Rome.