The Progressive’s “Scientific” Road to Mass Murder

The Progressive’s “Scientific” Road to Mass Murder

–Joe Bakanovic

 

If he is allowed to control society, history has proven that the Statist will always push society in the direction of mass murder.  Like it or not, the American Progressive movement is a Statist ideology.  It is nothing more than a different term invented by Wilson to sell the ideas of Fabian Socialism and Marxism to the American people.  As such, it carries with it the same potential threat to society that Communism and Fascism carry in Europe.  They may go by different names, but they all have the same father and they all look to the same solutions to their perceived problems.  Americans had best wake to the fact that we are not so special as to be immune from this threat, or its consequences.  Lest we forget, it has already shown itself on our shores in the past – several times.

To show how the thought process that leads to the same atrocities that we’ve seen in European and Asian history are alive and well within the modern American Progressive movement, I present some more of what the Left thinks, and why.  You may find this interesting, and it is worth your time to read it.  Remember, this is from a leader of the Progressive movement who has been openly endorsed by the majority of the Progressive figures in the political arena today, and whose ideas are currently being furthered by those Progressive politicians.  That means this is “official” Progressive ideology/doctrine.  From George Lackoff’s  Little Blue Book:

“To discuss political language is to discuss morality and policy.” (pg. 9)

“All politics is moral…A failure to use language linking values to policies is a failure of the democratic process.” (pg. 13)

“But values are not universal.” (pg.13)

[ NOTE: he equivocates here: blurring the distinction between morality and values to the point where the reader becomes confused as to which is which and what he means when he uses the two words.  Lackoff appears to use the words interchangeably, leaving the perceptive reader to assume this equivocation is intentional, but there is the strong possibility that the man honestly does not understand the difference. But the reason this is important soon becomes apparent  because, if “values” is understood to be equivalent to “morality,” then what follows this citation has only one logical conclusion.]

“A liberal will thus never persuade a thoroughgoing radical conservative [i.e. a conservative who actually believes and lives their principles], because moral differences that determine personal identity are deep, residing in brain circuitry that is long-lasting or even permanent.” (pg. 13)

“Each moral system is represented in the brain by neural circuitry.” (pg.14)

[NOTE: this assertion rests on Lackoff’s supposition that everything he is saying is based in proven science. He cites “cognitive brain science” on page 1,right after he states the necessity of scientific understanding to understanding his book in the opening paragraph.  The problem is, none of his assertions are supported by modern science. In reality, science has actually proven the exact opposite.  Whether Lackoff is aware of this or not is unknown, but, either way, Lackoff is assuming the reader will accept his assertion of scientific “proof” and, therefore, his arguments.  If this is allowed, then Lackoff succeeds in laying the “scientific” rational for the elimination of those who cannot be “cured” of their harmful “neural circuitry.”]

“Language is not neutral.  Every word is defined in the brain through frame-circuits.  These characterize both moral values and particular issues that make sense only in terms of moral values.” (pg. 15)

By now, I hope you are starting to understand that Progressives hold to the notion that they can control your moral values by controlling the language you use.  They believe that, if they can just phrase things correctly, they can then train you to think in a way that will cause you to conform to their political goals.  Lackoff essentially says this, as well as states those political goals:

“If you lack the right language, you lack the ideas that determine the public debate, that shape public opinion, and that determine elections.” (pg. 62)

[NOTE: notice that, to the Progressive, an idea is contained in the word: the word is not used to communicate the idea.  This is why the Progressive routinely changes the definitions of words to suit his needs at that moment: because – for the Progressive — words have no set definitions.]

“What we are trying to achieve in this book is a neural alternative that is open to important truths: the central role of the Public in American life, the overwhelming power of corporations in our public life, the predatory nature of privatization, the disastrous reality of human caused global warming, and the powerfully negative effects of extreme conservative policies on women’s lives.” (pg. 48)

However, Lackoff also states that the conservative world view threatens the Progressives’ goals and, thus, represents a threat to democracy and the survival of mankind:

“Extreme conservatism is an opposite view.[to Progressivism]  Its political and social implementation would be a threat to what American democracy has brought us, and it is a threat to human government everywhere.” (pg. 47)

“It is dangerous [extreme conservatism] and it hides truths that are crucial to human well-being, not only in America but throughout the world.” (pg. 48)

 “The result is that the harm inflicted [by the conservative family model] on children in the family is spread throughout our nation and the world.” (pg. 52)

 “Smaller government” as defined by extreme conservatives is a stranglehold on our freedoms and a serious threat to our society.” (pg. 66)

“The effects of extreme conservative public discourse over decades, but especially within the past decade, is right now having disastrous effects.  It shows up in the nasty political rift in Congress and in state legislatures, where moral complexity is no longer allowed.” (pg. 48)

That last phrase is crucial to understanding the real and present danger of the Progressive mindset.  Throughout his book, Lackoff argues that “complexity” changes morality, what is right and what is wrong.  Lackoff believes that most American would agree that murder, theft, lying and harming innocent people are immoral, but he says these are “oversimplifications.”  Instead, Lackoff says these things may not actually be immoral.  For Lackoff and the Progressive mind, it all depends on what they call “the complexity of the situation.”

Personally, I believe this is because of the deep-seated self-centered nature of the collectivist mind: it cannot see past its own needs and desires.  Consequently, whenever the rights of other people conflict with the collectivist’s wants and desires, the situation suddenly becomes “gray” and the collectivist starts to “rationalize away” the rights of the other person(s).  But, because we are all born with what Jefferson called a “latent spark,” or a moral compass that cannot be totally silenced, the collectivist instinctively recognizes their wrong and seeks to justify their personal self-interest.  In other words, they feel the need to wrap their greed and selfishness in the appearance of morality, so they appeal to the good for society: they claim to be concerned with the “greater good” over that of the few or the one.   And that is where the collectivist runs smack into the rationalization of mass murder, and Lackoff even lays the groundwork:

“Even though Americans may be in agreement on almost the full range of issues in oversimplified cases, there are always details of specific cases and implementation that lead inevitably to ferocious disagreement.  What constitutes murder?  Theft?  Harm? Lying?” (pg.26-27)

And there is your threat from the American Progressive: there is the same justification they – the Progressives – used to segregate the military under Wilson, to start genocide against the blacks under Sanger and Planned Parenthood, and it is the same justification argued today by Lackoff in trying to make the case that conservatives represent a threat to society and that this threat cannot be “cured.”

Let me ask you something: remembering that the same people being discussed in this video are now in the White House (it’s true, look into it), tell me if you do not see the consistent application of this same thought process in all Statist thinking from Marx forward represented in this video (watch the whole 3:09 minutes):

If you want to learn more about this, watch this 9:20 minute video from a 1982 CBS documentary (note: at about the 6:20 mark, you will hear the term “days of rage.” This was the original name that was supposed to be applied to OWS before it acquired the title OWS.  When you watch the video, you’ll see the connection between the days of rage in the video and the modern OWS campaign, and that should also enforce the connection between the people who planned BOTH!):

If you do not know and understand history, you will be at the mercy of those who do — which is why Progressive erase and change history.

2 thoughts on “The Progressive’s “Scientific” Road to Mass Murder

    • I’ll go you one better. Start digging in to the backgrounds of both Ayres and Valerie Jarret — including their parents. Get back to us with a post on what you find. 😉

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.