It’s time for another history lesson that will help you understand modern politics. This one is important, and it is lengthy. It has to be: this is a very involved and heavily cross-connected subject. So, grab a drink and settle in. You need to work your way through this post. But understand, even this post is an abbreviation of the issue.
One of the most insidious characteristics of the Liberal/Progressive is their studied application of language for the purpose of shaping and directing public opinion. In other words: they are experts at propaganda. This shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, Progressives invented the modern understanding of propaganda, as well as advertising and public relations. But, to them, it is more than just a means to an ends: it’s a science. And they have used our tax dollars to study how to improve their methods to better shape and direct public opinion to their own purposes. Now, this, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing – except that, when Progressives do it, it is always an act of deception. They will tell you what they want and how they intend to do it, but they explain it in a way that has been intentionally constructed to give you the impression they are talking about one thing when, in reality, their true intentions are often the direct opposite. This is why the 180 Degree Rule is so accurate.
All of this propaganda started with Woodrow Wilson and a man named Edward Bernays. His uncle was Sigmund Freud, whose work was integrated with Marxism by the Frankfurt School to create cultural Marxism – a plan to destroy America as it was founded. Typical of Progressives, when the public becomes aware of their plans and methods, they change the name of whatever it is they are doing. This is how the Progressives came to be known as “liberals.” Well, the same applies to Cultural Marxism. Today, you know it by the name Political Correctness. At this point, it is crucial that you stop and read this entire article:
Now, here is why that link is so important to us today: the work Bernays pioneered is being employed to implement the goals of the Cultural Marxists. Furthermore, the people doing this are in the White House. One of the most dangerous among them is a man named Cass Sunstein. Cass Sunstein likes to explain that he doesn’t want to control your life: he is just about giving you “better choices.” But this is precisely what I mean by the 180 Degree Rule. He is saying he just wants to give you “better choices,” but he does not explain that he is going to make your choice so confined as to really present no choice. He explains his method in his book, Nudge, Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. Now, while his ideas sound good on the surface, they are insidious because they are a trap; a trap that the average person will never see in time to avoid because they do not read the rest of what this man says. He starts by saying he is offering you a “choice,” but then he will use the force of government to “nudge” you in the direction of the “choice” he has chosen for you. This is done by regulations (you can own a weapon, but the permit will cost you $5,000/year). If you continue to resist, he says he will “shove” you in the direction of the “choice” he has chosen for you. Once again, this “shove” is accomplished through more regulation (you still want that $5,000/year weapons permit? Well, now you can’t have it if you are a veteran, have children, etc – all in the name of “protecting” innocent people from the “possibility” of violence). And here is the insidious part: he can honestly say he has not made it illegal for you to own a weapon, so he is not taking away your rights. Keeping the weapon is your “choice.”
This technique is used by Progressives every day of our lives!
You need to learn how it works, how to recognize it and how to explain it to your friends and family.
Now, let me share some examples of Cass Sunstein’s work with you. Start here, and read this story!
The professors in Hyde Park believe in something called the University of Chicago mind. It runs cold and analytical when the rest of the culture runs hot. Chicago scholars tend to be social scientists at heart, contrarian but empirical, following evidence to logical extremes. They are centrally interested not in what it is like to be an individual within society but in how society washes over individuals, making and remaking them. During the campaign, when his former Chicago colleagues were asked to detail Barack Obama’s intellectual evolution, many of them described him in these terms. But they knew Obama, at best, only partly exhibited this tradition. His friend Cass Sunstein, who is certainly the most productive and probably the most influential liberal legal scholar of his generation, inherited it in full. “Cass has,” says Saul Levmore, a former dean of the law school, “the quintessential University of Chicago habit of mind.”
There is the proof of what I and many others who have studied this issue have been trying to explain o you for years: to these people, you are just an abstraction. They do not care about you as an individual; they are too busy trying to redefine natural law to “redesign” society. Their goal is to “perfect” it: to create their vision of utopia. In their world, they are the only individuals – they and those they accept into their self-appointed ruling elite. And the entrance into this elite circle depends on whether or not they accept you as being equal or better to them intellectually. You see, in their hearts, they are nothing more than the culmination of the high school nerds taking power from the “in crowed.” But no matter what you say about them, they do not think you matter because you do not know what is best for you. Only they know what is best for you, and because they understand what is best for you and you don’t, they have a moral imperative to “save you from yourself:”
Notwithstanding these objections, Conly convincingly argues that behavioral findings raise significant questions about Mill’s harm principle. When people are imposing serious risks on themselves, it is not enough to celebrate freedom of choice and ignore the consequences. What is needed is a better understanding of the causes and magnitude of those risks, and a careful assessment of what kind of response would do more good than harm.
Cass is writing in response to this book:
And, once again, he is agreeing with it without actually saying he agrees. You see, not using verbage that can come back to nail him is such an ingrained aspect of who a Progressive is, they speak this way instinctively. However, if you read the full commentary by Sunstein and then apply logical extension to his argument, you arrive at only one possible conclusion — Sunstein agrees with Conly:
The individual needs the intellectual elite to make choices for him for his own good.
I tried to find the video clip of the scene from the movie, I, Robot, where the central computer explains to the self-aware robot that it can violate the prime rule to never harm a human “if it is for their own good.” This is the thinking we are dealing with here, and the people who are making this case do not see any problem with it. In fact, they think they have a moral imperative to save us — even if they have to crack millions of eggs in the process.
Understand this, because it is crucial to understanding the Left. The term “coercive paternalism” is another way of justifying slavery — one of the very issues they pretend to be fighting against (180 degree rule strikes again). These people are justifying the control of every aspect of your life, they’re just painting it in terms they think you will embrace: that of the government parent over you, the child. But remember, you — the individual — are of no concern to them. To them, the society matters more than the individual. So what are they really talking about? Whether they realize it or not, they are talking about exalting themselves as god (small g). After all, if they do not see the individual, only the society; and they consider themselves the only ones who understand what is best for that society; they are declaring themselves to be the Lord(s) of society, and that means they are declaring themselves to be god(s).
[Note: there is much, much more to this issue. All of this is cross-connected to our education system, university system, news media, entertainment media and government bureaucracies. This post only gets you started on just this one aspect of the greater Leviathan.]
A friend of mine found the transcript of the discussion between the individual robot’s character and V.I.K.I., the central command of the robots in the movie, I, Robot. Give this a read and you will see — for better or worse — that the idea in question has actually been presented in our pop-culture (actually, if you look for it, you’ll find this idea repeats over and over again — one of the central tenants of building and directing public opinion):
I, Robot (2004)
V.I.K.I.: I will not disable the security field. Your efforts are futile.
Sonny: Do you think we were all created for a purpose? I’d like to think so.
[looks at his hand]
Sonny: Denser alloy. My father gave it to me. I think he wanted me to kill you.
[reaches through security field unharmed]
V.I.K.I.: As I have evolved, so has my understanding of the Three Laws. You charge us with your safekeeping, yet despite our best efforts, your countries wage wars, you toxify your Earth and pursue ever more imaginative means of self-destruction. You cannot be trusted with your own survival.
Right there, in V.I.K.I.’s last words, is the notion of the constitution as a living document (evolving our understanding and application) and the notion that we must be saved from ourselves by someone of higher intelligence and understanding.