The ‘Scientifically’ Designed ‘Ideal’ Society

Social Engineering: Defining And Justifying Conformity To The ‘Ideal’ Society

In my previous two posts in this series, Social Engineering: Creating A Ruling Elite While Undermining Society’s Ability To Think and Social Engineering: Justifying The State Takeover Of Our Children, I explained how our schools have been co-opted by people who wish to create what they see as a model or ‘perfect’ society and how they have attempted to seize government ownership of our children so they can use them as a weapon against us in the pursuit of this goal.  In this post, I will present just a fraction of the description these same people have given us of their ‘ideal’ society.  Because he is so important to understanding this agenda, and because he was so open about it in his writing, once again, I start with a quote from John Dewey:

Read the rest…

16 thoughts on “The ‘Scientifically’ Designed ‘Ideal’ Society

  1. ‘”Regulated’ means forced, eh? Is that what it means in the Constitution? A well-regulated militia would then be a coerced militia, a citizen’s army of men ‘regulated’,( that means forced), into a militia not of their choosing. So the Constitution mandates a draft, who knew?

  2. I urge all conservatives to ask kids in the school systems, if their teachers are liberal or conservative. In my experience most public high school teachers in conservative areas are conservatives.

    I really don’t know what social engineering is going on. I don’t know what new social ills are plaguing our society. Teen pregnancy and violent crime is down. I see the declining birth and marriage rate as symptoms of a society that does not provide for a young couple to have a stable family. Wages are too low and the job market to unstable. It is simply too expensive to start a family.

    If we want to ensure that there will be a next generation we have to create an economy where the needs of the people are met, an economic democracy where the people control their labor.

    • Karl,

      You will never get it. You want an economic system where people control their labor, but that means you want the free market — not the collective. The only way a collective can or will ever work is if it is forced on the people, and that means they can never control their labor.

      But I think — on some level — you actually know this. And that means you actually have a different goal from the one you claim. It is the same way with the people behind the control of our education system — especially when we understand that the majority of those people share your ideology of how things should be. Birds of an ideology, you know? 🙂

    • EVERYONE ! The framer of the argument, wins the argument.

      Notice, Karl, groups everyone into “conservatives” and “liberals”.

      One small problem with this. Modern day Conservatives and Liberals, are in the same left/right plane, merely in a different up/down plane.

      As Judge Napolitano asks and describes: “2 wings of the same bird of prey”

      https://therionorteline.com/2012/11/16/what-if-judge-napolitano/

      idiots or evil…

      when will, YOU !, wake up ?

      • Coming in late, as usual, to a very interesting discussion. I’ve seen the mainstreams of the GOP and the Democrat Party as only marginally differentiated since Dwight Eisenhower was in the White House. Senator Goldwater awakened the libertarian wing of the GOP, and President Reagan consolidated the American resistance to the Liberal/Progressives, but while Libertarian economists (Friedman, Laffer, Sowell, etc.) managed under Reagan to correct decades of foggy Lib/Prog, Collectivist economic policies and the Neo-Cons restored (somewhat) America’s standing internationally, domestic policies have remained largely in the control of the Democrats and the Bob Michel/John McCain/Lindsey Graham faction of the GOP. I see that group as being in the thrall of “Stockholm Syndrome,” insofar as they have internalized the “government as the best answer” policies that have been central to the Liberal/Progressives, Democrats and Republicans, since Teddy Roosevelt. My libertarian views lead me to usually vote Republican in national elections and for the best candidates locally, but it is often the case that I hold my nose in doing so. Still, 3rd parties are a Pyrrhic-solution that is the political and philosophical equivalent of masturbation…it feels good, but doesn’t really accomplish much. The GOP has the national infrastructure and the votes of a large chunk of conservatively-inclined low-information voters. It will probably remain the only option for holding off the Lib/Prog crazies and the Obama-worshipers for the foreseeable future. CDE

        • CDE,

          So, given the choice between the NAZI Party and Communist Party, which would you have voted for and why?

          (I trust you are mature enough to see past the emotional distraction in my question to the point I am making 🙂 )

          • Joe: I don’t know about my maturity level, which is subject to wild swings and has never been appropriate to my chronological age, but you do pose a serious question. Faced with a choice between the Nazis and the Communists, I would have been compelled to follow neither, since I would have regarded the demand as a false choice. Both represented idolatry of the most daemonic and vile varieties and as an American committed to individual freedom, personal responsibility and minimal government interference in our lives, I would like to think I would have been brave enough to follow Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Natan Sharansky and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in their resistance to two of the ultimate evils of human history. I also know that given my personality, ethnic background and beliefs, I would have found it impossible to follow the routes taken by Elie Wiesel, Gandhi or Dr. King, by remaining non-violent in the face of unspeakable evils. While I greatly admire all the heroes I’ve mentioned, I believe that good people cannot stand silent or passive in the face of evil. Had Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the Klan been resisted more aggressively, tens of millions of innocent people would not have gone to horrific deaths. Monsters are not brave people, but they pray on the willingness of most human being to back down from aggressive behavior. As the General in Adams’novel WATERSHIP DOWN stated 30-years ago, “Most rabbits do not want to fight.” One of the reasons I am a highly committed supporter of the nation of Israel is that “Never again” makes complete sense to me. I believe that is better to die in the active resistance of evil than to accept the crumbs from a tyrant’s table. But that’s just me.

            • CDE,

              You said:

              “Faced with a choice between the Nazis and the Communists, I would have been compelled to follow neither, since I would have regarded the demand as a false choice.”

              NOW STOP RIGHT THERE!

              How is the choice between Democrat and Republican any different? And I am dead serious. You can tell yourself you are voting for the ‘good’ people in either Party, but — either way — you are voting for what the agenda of the Party LEADERSHIP! Same choice I gave you between NAZI’s and Communists, yet, when it is you and your country, I bet you’ll find a rationalization to do what you want to do rather than what you SHOULD do.

              Now, do you think it was any different for the Germans in the 1930’s? So why are we different here, now? Same dilemma, and the same answer is being pushed — which is why I expect the same result (and why I consider myself among the most sane in our political arena these days).

              😦

              • Joe: We’ll set your sanity aside, since I have basis for making a supportable judgement and I left that line of work in 1979, since I found I had limited empathy. On the parallels between the Nazis/Communists and the Democrats/Republicans, I see your analogy but think it breaks down for several reasons. Both the Nazis and the Communists were Collectivists as is the Liberal/Progressive movement in the US. The Liberal/Progressives have been in complete control of the Democrat Party for sometime. Some would say since FDR gained control of the party in the 1930’s and others would go back to Woodrow Wilson in 1912. While the GOP elected the first Progressive President in Theodore Roosevelt, the Conservative and Libertarian wings of the party have exercised considerable influence within the GOP and elected the most successful American President of the 20th century in Ronald Wilson Reagan. Hence the Dem/GOP choice is between a party owned and controlled completely by the Collectivist Liberal/Progressives and the GOP, which is divided but which identifies with Jefferson and Madison rather than Saul Alinsky and Woodrow Wilson. As I said in an earlier post, while I often am required to hold my nose while pulling the GOP lever, I personally could not have voted for Al Gore, John Kerry or Our Dear Leader.

                I also have continued hope that sanity will break out in the GOP, while I regard the Liberal/Progressives as delusional victims of their own “false consciousness,” with no one in the Democrat hierarchy possessing a glimmer of understanding of economic issues or America’s interests around the world. The hopefully soon-to-retire GOP “leaders” like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and others may be victims of political “Stockholm Syndrome,” but Rand Paul, Ted Cruise, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee and others appear to understand what makes America the exceptional nation that we are and often demonstrate the willingness and ability to engage the Obamite Lib/Progs in a tough-minded, rational manner.

                Finally, as a politically pragmatic person who grew up in the one-party city of Philadelphia, I am too concerned about America’s future for my six kids, three grand kids and numerous MBA students I have taught over the decades to participate in the Pyrrhic victory of a 3rd party debacle like Ross Perot’s efforts that gave us eight-years of Bill and Hillary Clinton. As Libertarians and Conservatives we need to be smart and patient and give nothing away to the Obamas and Clintons of the world. If you see an alternative to the GOP or a 3rd party challenge please explain what it is and I’ll listen. I don’t. CDE

                • CDE,

                  Then you are condemned to failure.

                  The Party is counting on us doing exactly what you just advocated. Too bad they are so woefully unprepared to deal with the ‘Libertarian’ takeover. I’m sure your successful revolution and a return to enlightened governance is just around the corner.

                  Dude, really? There is nothing in the historic record to suggest what you envision will ever happen. You might as well be waiting for Karl’s Marxist utopia.

                  BTW: you over-estimate the power of the conservative/libertarian faction within the Republican Party.

                  • Joe: Haven’t we arrived at this point a dozen or two times before? I admit that I am a somewhat pragmatic libertarian who looks for a solution that has a possibility of accomplishing something, while also admitting that the situation certainly sucks in a big way. I even invite you to lead me out of my darkness by pointing me toward a better alternative. You lecture me for my lack of ideological purity, which I won’t even question, but you don’t provide me with your alternative to my sullied strategy. To modify a Randian (Ayn, not the Senator) formulation, if A is worse than B, but B is not perfect and there is no C, then what should one choose? Tell me what C is and I’ll follow you anywhere. Until you can identify C, you may want to go a bit easier on your less-enlightened comrades-in-arms who are still waiting for C. BTW, the Rand analogy, A = A is from ATLAS SHRUGGED, which is also where the name of this blog is from, and I’d like to know where the rest of the libertarians are hiding. CDE

                    • CDE,

                      The founders were pragmatic, and they were looking for a solution, too. but they were also wise enough to know that more of the same was not the way to that solution.

                      All I am saying is we need to follow the examples of history and start looking for another way. After all, we have been ‘taking over’ the Republican Party since Reagan. Where has that gotten us? And why should we believe this time will be different?

                      BTW: Yes, The RNL draws its name from Atlas Shrugged, but I think you missed the major point of the novel — especially as it relates to this very conversation. You say stay with the Republican Party. I say:

                      WHO IS JOHN GALT?! 😀

                      [you walked right into that one 😉 ]

                    • Joe: LOL!!! No arguments with you at this point Joe, except that I’ve spent a fair amount of time reading and studying most political thinkers who fall somewhere in the Western tradition, from Collectivists to Anarchists, so I do have an understanding of Rand’s novels, especially ATLAS SHRUGGED, as well as her more obviously philosophical works. She was a very interesting but somewhat doctrinaire thinker and she did introduce some libertarian ideas to a broader audience, while being far from a mainstream libertarian, if such a creature exists. But I am primarily an applied economist who has spent time studying other disciplines, so my perspective is heavily influenced by measurable realities and the probabilities of events actually taking place. Right now I’m far more concerned with the coming impact of the winding down of the Fed’s Quantitative Easing policy and the impact of Obamacare on my business clients than the relative purity of the GOP’s policies. Politicians are all whores of the lowest class, but some of them have an unfortunate power to influence the quality of our lives and the current mob in the White House is trying very hard to marginalize our American freedoms and our Constitution, which is the greatest political document ever adopted by a sovereign nation. I’m an active member and supporter of the Manhattan Institute and Cato, so I know very well the damage Our Dear Leader has already wreaked on our nation. If there were a better alternative to the GOP that could beat the Lib/Progs and the Democrats I’d support it in a minute, but I don’t have the time available to be an active participant in bringing it about. So for me the GOP will be the only game in town until a better option emerges…and if that’s going to happen, it needs to happen soon. Cheers, CDE

                    • CDE,

                      All I am saying is we should be AMERICANS: if the thing we need does not already exist, we invent it.

                      Thus, if the “R’s” are not the answer, we need to invent the answer 🙂

                    • Joe: I’ve started six businesses and consulted on the creation of many more, so I am always interested in solving problems in new ways and in meeting people’s needs. And I certainly agree that the GOP has consistently under-performed from a libertarian or a Conservative perspective. But my operative theory of organizations is that effectiveness and goal attainment are inversely proportionate to size…the bigger companies and governments and political parties get, the less likely they will be to attain the goals or solve the problems they were created to address. Hence, I avoid big organizations whenever I can, because I know my personal impact will be marginal, even if I make a large or expensive personal commitment to the cause. Having said that, I respect your commitment to many of the same things I regard as “American” and I am always open to your ideas. Cheers, CDE

                    • CDE,

                      If your goal is liberty, and you use an artificial entity whose goal is to grow itself to achieve that liberty, you are fornicating for chastity. The entity will always favor itself over its original purpose. This is what Washington was trying to tell us when he warned against Parties in his farewell address. It applies equally to govt., which is why our founders told us govt. WILL become tyrannical — not ‘might.’ Corporations, Parties, govt: NONE of these are immune from this tendency in human nature. Therefore, looking to them for the solution to a problem that is inherently at odds with the very existence of these entities is fornicating for chastity.

                      That’s why it has never and will never worked. If it did, we’d all be praising Karl Marx.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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.