This is a “wonky” post. That means this will not be a short post, nor will it be easy to follow because it spans many decades and incorporates many interwoven aspects of Progressive ideology. Still, read it and understand it you must because, in just two short years, this will be the dominant ideology governing every aspect of your life.
In order help you understand the entirety of this post, I strongly suggest you read the entire post — including the links provided to support my argument. If you are to get the most from what I am trying to show you, try not to look for specific things you think you can use to “prove me wrong,” but focus on the central themes, goals and ideas instead. Notice how these ideas and goals have persisted throughout the various nations where they have been pursued for more than 100 years. Those goals have not changed from then until now – only the methods of implementation. This is what you are looking for: signs of the ideology that drives their actions. Once you learn to see it, you will more easily see the connections between their ideology and the programs that various national leaders have pushed until this day:
This starts with a simple understanding: there are many different branches of this ideological tree. We call them by many names: communism, fascism, socialism, and progressivism. But they all have one primary trait in common: whether secular or not, they are all humanistic in nature. By that, I mean they see man as being able to control and direct his own evolution and, thereby, shape the direction of human evolution. Inherent in this belief is the assumption that man can not only control and direct the natural laws of the universe, but that he can step outside of them: that man can master the natural world of which he is a part. What’s more, in most every case, you will inevitably find the people who advocate their ideas under these many different banners all point to “science” for the ultimate support of the righteousness of their stated objectives.
In fact, science directly connects Darwinism to Marxism. Marx directly and indirectly built his entire ideology upon the perceived bedrock of “science.” Today, Marx is even considered to be one of the founding fathers of the Social Sciences, but there is a major schism between Marx’s ideology and that of most empiricists – scientists who try to base their conclusions on what they can observe, measure and test. At the risk of drawing the ire of those Marxists who may read this, rather than allow himself to be constrained, Marx invented a concept he called “the dialectic,” which he constructed in such a manner as to free him from the limiting confines of the real world and all its universal laws. In short: Marx built his ideology on a fantasy that cannot be supported by actual observation in the real world. This apparent willingness to embrace a break with reality seems to be another common characteristic of the humanist ideology.
Moving forward from Darwin and Marx, we eventually encounter the Eugenicists. Simply put, eugenics is the deliberate attempt to breed perfection into the human race – often with overtly racist overtones. It is directly connected to Hitler’s Holocaust as well as Planned Parenthood. Eugenics started in the United States and led directly to the Holocaust, and it continues today. I contend that this is one of the driving forces behind the many political systems that can generally be described as socialistic in nature: because the mentality that allows one to think of humanity as cattle to be bred can more easily excuse the blatant immorality of whatever action(s) it deems necessary toward directing human evolution if it permits itself to think of humans, not as a collection of individuals, but as a single collective organism. This is also why most “social sciences” treat society according to an organic model, as though it is and behaves as a unique organic entity: because it makes it easier to overlook the morality inherent in dealing with individuals while, at the same time, making it easier to think of and treat society in pseudo-scientific terms.
This next part is where you have to understand how to identify this ideology, this mental state that allows another human to see the rest of humanity as cattle — a thing to be bread according to their own designs. Then you have to learn how this mentality has manifested itself as it has moved forward from its inception. At various stages since that inception, society has turned against those who harbor this mentality and against their goal of directing and perfecting humanity. Consequently, these people and their goals have been driven underground, but they have not gone away. If anything, they are even more powerful today than ever before because, now, many of them are actually in charge of and running the social institutions that govern and run our society. I have selected the following quotations and links to help you gain an understanding of how pervasive this idea of selective breeding has been, and how it has morphed itself so that it can remain hidden while still actively operating on society as a whole, starting from the founding father of the American Progressive movement, Woodrow Wilson:
Woodrow Wilson accomplished much in his two terms in office. Rarely mentioned, however, are his antidemocratic policies and racist beliefs.
Wilson is crucially important to understanding modern American politics. Heavily influenced by the thinking of the Fabian Socialists and the ideology to which they gave birth – the Communists – Wilson wrote of how he wanted to bring these ideologies to American society and our system of governance. Particularly attractive to Wilson was the notion of the “organic model” with which the Fabians and Communists approached the “science” of governance. But Wilson knew American would not accept these ideologies unless they were packaged and sold to them as something different, something more in keeping with the American ideal. So Wilson coined a new term for the ideologies of the Fabians and Communists and started to advance it here in the United States. He called it Progressivism. I have written extensively on Wilson here on the RNL. You can learn more here, here and here.
Now, Fabian Socialists are important because of how they think. Here is a clip from one of the most influential founding fathers of the Fabian Socialist movement, George Bernard Shaw:
This video will connect the eugenics movement to Planned Parenthood:
This connects the American eugenics movement to 1930’s Germany and the Holocaust:
This connects Darwinism to the German Holocaust:
Now, you need to understand that this pseudo-scientific approach to purposely directing the evolution of humanity requires a central control over society. This means democracies and free societies are not the optimal form of governance as they tend to be individual-centered and, thus, chaotic. If one is to control the evolution of mankind, one must also control all of society. This gives rise to the necessity for statist, or central control of society by a single, all-powerful governing authority. Here again, this is exactly what Wilson advocated, but again, he was aware that Americans would not accept such a form of government if it was proposed openly because it would mean openly opposing the constitution and rule of law. As a result, the Progressives started to look for subversive methods by which they could control society without making it obvious that they were doing so.
This first quote is by Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the [public] is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”
We should not underestimate the importance of Bernays. Before Wilson incorporated him and his work toward his designs on subversively controlling society, Bernays was primarily concerned with applying the emerging sciences of psychology and psychiatry to marketing. Bernays is the reason you drink orange juice for breakfast, but, ironically, he is also the reason so many women smoke. Before Bernays ran a successful women’s rights protest, it was considered taboo for women in American society to smoke. Today, the same Progressive ideology that led women to start smoking is using second hand smoke as a bludgeon to control the behavior of individuals.
But this driving compulsion to control people does not stop with Bernays, it only starts. Here are the words of a near mythical legend in American journalism, Walter Lippmann:
“The public must be put in its place, so that it may exercise its own powers, but no less and perhaps even more, so that each of us may live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd.”
The desire to control and shape people carried over to our public school system, a program of the earliest origins of the Progressive movement. Here are the words of John Dewey, the father of the modern American education system:
“Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”
“The teacher is engaged not simply in the training of individuals, but in the formation of the proper social life…. In this way, the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer-in of the true Kingdom of God.”
What you need to understand about Dewey when he speaks of the “true God” and “true Kingdom of God” is that he is not speaking about a Creator-god, he is speaking about man as god. Dewey was a secular humanist. I have written about him, too, and you can read more here, here and here.
But this is America, so Progressives had to find a way to allow Americans to think they were still free, and to even have areas of contention to which the Progressives could point and claim that these areas were “proof” that no one was being censored or silenced while they were doing exactly that: controlling political dissention by controlling what could be discussed, by who and with what language. Today, we call it political correctness, but George Orwell – a Progressive – explained it like this:
“At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is “not done”… Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.”
Finally, all of this – the subversion of all societal support systems for the directed purpose of the purpose of the central authority – was summed up by none other than Adolf Hitler, himself:
“In relation to the political decontamination of our public life, the government will embark upon a systematic campaign to restore the nation’s moral and material health. The whole educational system, theater, film, literature, the press and broadcasting – all these will be used as a means to this end.”
“It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of the nation, that the position of the individual is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole.”
Now, this is usually the point where skeptics will say I am spinning conspiracy theories and quoting people out of context. They will claim that Progressives do not want to do the things I claim they want to do. Well, I have repeatedly told you that, if you look, you will find that this is not only what they have in mind, but they will openly admit to it – you just have to understand their mindset to understand what the language they are using really means. First, Sigmund Freud, the uncle of Bernays:
“It is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggressiveness.”
If you want to understand how those words relate to controlling society, you need but read about “the 5 minute hate” in Orwell’s “1984.” Today, we focus society on hating ‘the rich” and “evil corporations.”
Next, we have Progressive thinker, H.G. Wells, who tells us that socialism is not only the inevitable way of the future, but that many individuals will have to be sacrificed to get there:
“… when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.”
And then there’s Friedrich Nietzsche, founding father of the humanist movement and mythical legend of the American political Left and self-appointed ‘intelligencia:’
“Socialism is the phantastic younger brother of despotism, which it wants to inherit. Socialism wants to have the fullness of state force which before only existed in despotism. … However, it goes further than anything in the past because it aims at the formal destruction of the individual … who … can be used to improve communities by an expedient organ of government.”
Just remember, it does not matter whether or not Neitzsche wanted socialism or not; what matters is the purpose to which those who do can turn his work. Finally, we return to Fabian Socialist, George Bernard Shaw, who explains in explicit detail what socialism means for the individual:
“I also made it quite clear that Socialism means equality of income or nothing, and that under socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly feed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.”
So, finally, it’s time to tie all of this together and explain how it relates to Obamacare. Just remember, we are not looking to explain and understand each tiny detail, but rather, to understand how the program(s) being advanced fit into the goals of the ideology. In this case, the goal is to control society by controlling the individual for the expressed purpose of consciously directing the evolution of mankind. We will start with this:
Now, does Obama actually mean he wants to let old people die rather than treat them? Well, as hard as it may be to believe and even harder to accept – YES! Again, we start here:
But it’s more than this. Abortion is being used to control both minority populations and the population in general by killing the unborn and promoting sexual promiscuity for the secondary purpose of facilitating the spread of diseases that cause sterility and death. You can start here:
If you look deep enough into this, you will find that there are people connected to the Obama Administration and his Progressive circle of friends who have advocated the use of additives to our public drinking water to sterilize large parts of the population. You will even find that George Bush, Sr. was connected to the implementation of China’s “one-child” policy. This notion that the world can only sustain 2 billion people is global, and it manifests itself in all sorts of ways. Obamacare is only one of them. But there’s more.
If you are under 25 or over 65, you do not deserve the same amount of care as those who are in the middle age bracket because society does not have as much invested in you (if you’re younger), or the potential return you could possibly provide does not warrant further investment (if you’re older). Where did I get this from? I got it from Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of Presidential advisor and now mayor of Chicago, Rom Emanuel. Ezekiel designed a system of governing your health care called ‘The Complete Life System.” Good old Zeek is also one of the primary authors of Obamacare.
Then there’s the matter of the “death panels.” The Obam Administration points to the Obamacare bill and taunts you, saying: “See, it’s not in the bill. The Republicans are lying to try to scare you.” Well, they’re right; it isn’t in the Health Care bill – it was in the Stimulus Bill!
The next time someone like me tries to tell you that Progressives will lie to you and use sneaky little tricks or word games to hide the truth from you, remember this, and remember where I have shown you admitting that they know they need to do exactly that to get you to go along with your own suicide.
But wait! There’s more. Do you remember me telling you that, if you look, these people will tell you who they are and what they want to do? Well, they already have. In this case, Obama advisor, Steven Rattner, writing in an editorial piece published in the New York Times:
WE need death panels.
Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.
So, by attaching every aspect of your life to Obamacare and the necessity to reduce costs so that everyone can “afford care,” they can and will control every aspect of your life. Michelle has already exhibited this tendency with her “nutrition campaign.” And what is the added bonus to all of this? If they can send enough grandmas home with pain pills, they not only save money on healthcare, they can save money on the reduced need for long-term social security and disability payments.
Admittedly, there will be people who will read that last article and claim that Rattner doesn’t really mean we need death panels. They will find ways to deny or defend all of the material I presented. Well, I say rattner said exactly what he meant, and that everything I have presented is an open and defiant admission of what these people want and how they plan to go about doing it. I believe it is part of their mindset: they are subconsciously compelled to brag about it because they feel they are so superior to the rest of us that no one but the others like them will understand what they are saying. And why shouldn’t they believe this? Look how many people buy their Progressive lies. But, ultimately, you have to decide what you believe. The only thing I would ask you is this:
If I am wrong about all of this, then why does it tie so neatly and seamlessly together?