Progressives, Liberals, and now Progressive Again

Woodrow Wilson, America’s 28th president, rejected the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution’s system of the separation of powers. This philosophy is known as Progressivism.

“All that progressives ask or desire,” wrote Woodrow Wilson, “is permission — in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.”

John Dewey and his followers, argued that we needed a broader conception of liberty than the one maintained by laissez-faire negative-rights libertarians. The key idea can be summed up in a quote from Anatole France: “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.” Basically, the idea is that the freedom to starve because you have no food is not a meaningful freedom at all, because it does not maximize your autonomy or allow your to realize your potential, which were important goals in classical liberalism.

Thus Dewey argued that we should recognize positive liberty as well as negative liberty, meaning that e.g. just as we ought to recognize a right to live without someone killing you, we similarly ought to recognize a right to live without dying due to lack of food. Thus American Progressives advocates that the government should play some role in the economy in order to give people autonomy and enable them to pursue their own happiness, along the lines of the “responsiveness” part of the Progressive philosophy. Thus Americans liberals still try to achieve the goals of classical liberalism, but they sometimes do it through Progressive means.

The Progressives rejected God given rights as naive and unhistorical. In their view, human beings are not born free. John Dewey, the most thoughtful of the Progressives, wrote that freedom is not “something that individuals have as a ready-made possession.” It is “something to be achieved.” In this view, freedom is not a gift of God or nature. It is a product of human making, a gift of the state. Man is a product of his own history, through which he collectively creates himself. He is a social construct. Since human beings are not naturally free, there can be no natural rights or natural law. Therefore, Dewey also writes, “Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology.”

The Progressive presidents advocated a very interventionist foreign policy, since they were motivated by the desire to help people as much as possible, even people abroad. Liberals still share some of this impulse, and are willing to support limited American military intervention in circumstances of extreme humanitarian crisis. But mostly their foreign policy views were taken from classical liberalism, so they they’re antiwar for the most part.

Progressive are totally silent about their widespread support for the theory and practice of eugenics. As Princeton University economist Tim Leonard has chronicled, “eugenic thought deeply influenced the Progressive Era transformation of the state’s relationship to the American economy.” Despite the fact that this monograph favorably cites progressive hero Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for his famous dissent in the economic liberty case Lochner v. New York (1905), the authors make no mention of Holmes’ notorious majority decision in Buck v. Bell, where Holmes and his colleagues (including Louis Brandeis) upheld the forced sterilization of those who “sap the strength of the State.”

Today it is the Progressive that laud Margaret Sanger and champing the slaughter of babies, which, btw the way are mostly black, Let’s read a few quotes:

“[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children… [Women must have the right] to live … to love… to be lazy … to be an unmarried mother … to create… to destroy… The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order… The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

No, that was not taken from Hitler. That’s a quotation from the patron saint of the feminists and Hillary Clinton. And the above words were not a one-off moment of insanity. There’s more where those horrendous thoughts came from.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

“Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
“America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934

Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.
April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108

Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.

In any case, when contemporary liberals call themselves progressive, they’re hearkening back to their intellectual predecessors. The Progressives hijacked the Democrat Party early in the 20th Century, as they were doing it they stopped calling themselves Progressive and started referring to themselves a Liberals. We can thank Hilary for the label coming back out in the open, she said that she was proud To call herself a Progressive.


Yes, We Protest Shell Oil with Products Made from Oil. Duh. Now Join Us. Not!

They came in automobiles fueled by oil, wearing clothing made from oil, to protest oil, in kayaks made from oil. Then they tweeted their photos on phones made from oil and drove home. Share the irony.

They came in automobiles fueled by oil, wearing clothing made from oil, to protest oil, in kayaks made from oil. Then they tweeted their photos on phones made from oil and drove home.
Share the irony.



Yes, We Protest Shell Oil with Products Made from Oil. Duh. Now Join Us.

Hey, kids. Let’s dispense with this pernicious meme, which we’ve all been seeing across the social medias, real quick. It goes like this: BUT THEY’RE PROTESTING OIL DRILLING USING KAYAKS MADE FROM PLASTICS HURR DURR. Someone even made a meme-image and tweeted it at me.

(a) As Harvard historian Naomi Oreskes told The Nation when asked about the “but we all use fossil fuels” argument: “Of course we do, and people in the North wore clothes made of cotton picked by slaves. But that did not make them hypocrites when they joined the abolition movement. It just meant that they were also part of the slave economy, and they knew it. That is why they acted to change the system, not just their clothes.”

(b) As Chair K.C. Golden tells me, speaking by phone from today’s rally at the Port of Seattle: “We all get that we’re part of the fossil-fuel economy. No one’s trying to be sanctimonious about it. We’re not going to make the transition overnight. We don’t need to blame ourselves for living our lives. We don’t need to forsake all fossil-fuel usage tomorrow. We need to put one foot in front of the other toward a clean energy future. This is an echo of the fossil-fuel industry’s attempts to get everyone to blame themselves… That’s exactly the fossil-fuel industry’s game—to make us internalize that weak point of view… I mean, I drove [to this weekend’s flotilla protests] in a ’76 Chevy pickup. It’s not about blaming or shaming or telling people they can’t live their lives. It’s about telling Shell they can’t lock us into this catastrophe anymore.”

(c) Some kayaktivist named Ansel Herz says, “If someone—or, say, the planet—is getting beaten up with a baseball bat, is it immoral to use a baseball bat to fight back? Inanimate objects that come from our inescapable oil-based economy are inanimate. They can be used for good or bad. We’re using them for good, to move the economy away from oil and stop climate change. Fucking herp derp, people.”

Let us consider his point serratum”

The Divide, America Political Fault Lines

We are a nation divided as this map shows:



Our divisions lays along two fault lines it seems: Comparing the 2010 mid term election results’ map at the lower left above to the population density to the right you can see that the higher the population density the more likely it was to go Democratic, conversely the lower the density the greater probability it would go for the Republicans.   Then compare the mid term election results’ map to the percentage of poor families receiving TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) the higher probability of it going Democratic.

Thus from studying these maps one can see that our opinions seem to be formed by where we live, dividing us along the lines of Cities verse Rural, and welfare receiver verse those who have to pay for the welfare.

Why do you suppose that this is?  And which side are you on?



Photos copyrights unknown.


In searching for historic documents related to the New World Order I came across this collection that I had never seen before. For those of you who believe this New World Order talk is  something new,  here are some docs you may want to review. This clearly shows that the elite have had a plan in place for well over 50 years.  Their plan was to erode national sovereignty piece by piece, until the citizens of this country willingly hand over their sovereignty to this One World Government, New World. They state that new enemies need to be identified, would this be  the “war on terror”? Is that one of our new enemies  that we need bigger government to protect us from?  How about this, in searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, they came up with pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, and famine, would fit the bill.

 (unfortunately not all of the pictures will fit on the pages.)

It’s all here; they have time on their side. Here is their long term plan that they have been implementing for years and years. We shall start with the Congressional Record of 1940, entered on  Monday, August 19th. The information speaks for itself:


In the April 1974 issue of the Council on Foreign Relations journal, “Foreign Affairs”, Richard N. Gardner wrote a section of this issue entitled, “The Hard Road To World Order” (pp. 556-576). He goes on to state that the house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up, among much more.. The following scans are from a University Library:

Now, I’ll jump back to the 1940 Congressional Record…

n addition, there’s a famous quote online from James Warburg on February 17, 1950:

On February 17, 1950, CFR member James Warburg (banker, and architect of the Federal Reserve System) stated before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “We shall have one world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent.” Again, the media remained silent.

Taking a step back, let’s look at the first publication of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1922.

From here, I’ll shift focus to the famous “Club Of Rome”,who’s members include Al Gore, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Henry Kissinger, Tony Blair, George Soros, and many more.. These are some excerpts from their 1992 report entitled “The First Global Revolution”…

The following is an article located in the FBI Vault file From 1970, discussing The Council On Foreign Relations & Agenda:

Interestingly enough, this FBI vault section on the CFR has 222 pages of documents, most of which are letters from concerned people and as far back as 1950. I think J. Edgar Hoover must have spent crazy amounts of time responding to all these, and I would guess that he only took the time to respond to a few!

The following is from the 1953 California Legislature’s Eleventh Report: Senate Investigating Committee On Education…

Finally, I’ll wrap this up with the issue surrounding the late Congressman .

“Many of you have seen a recent thread on the late Congressman in an airing of Crossfire from 1983, where he openly discusses the elitist group and much more (and subsequently “died” months later). If you listen closely, he mentions “The Schlesinger Manifesto”, a slang term given to an article appearing in the 1947 May-June issue of The Partisan Review. The article was written by Arthur Schlesinger, a professor and historian who later became “high in the councils” of the Kennedy Administration. This article was inserted into the U.S. Congressional Record 14 years later in 1961.” First, the broadcast:

Now, the document he mentioned: The Schlesinger Manifesto…

And, for those of you who are still with me, well done and I hope this information is helpful.

Counter arguments to: How to ruin Christmas: A holiday guide to arguing with conservative relatives

WEDNESDAY, DEC 25, 2013 07:45 AM EST

Holiday rule #1: Never, ever argue politics. But if you must, here’s how to beat your right-wing relatives

Go here for the original article at Salon.

While I am not a conservative on the political slidebar without a doubt I am to the right of Pareene.  I will be inserting my comment, counter arguments if you will, in red.

Happy holidays, fellow soldiers in the War on Christmas. It is the time of year when many Americans are expected to spend some time with people they are related to. Maybe some of the people you are related to listen to talk radio or read Twitchy. [I only time I lessen to talk radio is when I am driving from here to thar, to and fro, and I have never heard of Twitchy until today.  That aside, what he in implying here is that conservative do not think for themselves, and without talk radio they would have no opinions about anything.]  That doesn’t have to be a problem — as always, the first rule of arguing politics over the holidays is never ever do it ever — [Now this is pure  bullshit, the Progressives go out to pick a fight ever chance they get, consider the hype about talking about talking about signing up for ObomaCare over the Christmas and New Year’s week to make my point] but if some things come up, and you want to have your say, perhaps you need some help countering the easily digestible sound bytes of the conservative media machine. Here is a guide.

It has only been a few weeks since the last holiday argument guide, [These guides are nought but talking points they want their fellow travelers talking about] but in those weeks the right has moved on from criticizing the nationwide launch of a complex series of health insurance markets to … complaining about the persecution of a homophobic [homophobic is the label they put on anyone who disagrees with their agenda to make being queer as normal as being strait] television character and making fun of a stock photo model. So let’s move on with them, I guess.

The Duck guys have been silenced by liberal fascism

Well, let’s just get this bit out of the way: No, the First Amendment does not apply to private corporations [they got this right, the 1st Amendment only applies to government actors], like A&E Networks. The “Duck Dynasty” guy has a contract with a corporation that allows them to suspend or fire him if they feel like it. That’s how private contracts work, and private contracts are what modern capitalism is built on. A&E felt that the best thing they could do from a business perspective is suspend the duck guy after he said a bunch of offensive things. Sorry, if that makes you mad, you are mad at the free market, not liberals.  [To start with there has not been a free market it in America in over a hundred years, thanks to the Progressive law enacted such as the creation of the FEDs, EPA regulations, (I know Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but it was in response to the lies told by Rachel Carson about DDT in “Silent Spring,”), but I regress, as much as A&E has the right to fire anyone who does not fulfill their terms of employment, the audience has a 1st Amendment right to express their displeasure, and to boycott if they so desire.  And it was a progressive who set this whole ball of wax into motion.  Scott Gurney the Duck Dynasty’ creator who sent Phill over to GM for that interview.  He played a “gay-for-pay” meth addict who acts in erotic videos “The Fluffer” .  

How I do not know for sure but I reckon that Gurney, know how Phill would answer, let him go into the lion’s den, hoping that he would end up with everyone laughing at his backwards opinions about queers.

Maybe you think Phil Robertson’s remarks — essentially that butts are gross — are in fact a brave statement of an endangered point of view. They sort of are! But much of America has decided that that particular point of view deserves to become an anachronism, and they did not come to that conclusion because the liberal media has silenced those who argue that butts are gross. In fact it is quite easy to hear variations on that sentiment, from prominent political and media figures who are under no threat of being silenced. But the message just isn’t resonating anymore, because it’s stupid.

It is resounding with a lot more people than Pareene wants to admit to. Considing the percentages of the following groups thinking that gay sex is always wrong:

54% of those born in the 1940-1950 period, 65% of those from the East South Central region of the country, 77% of those believing that the Bible is the literal word of God, 72% of Protestant fundamentalists, and 51% of males.

Other groups in which a majority believes that gay sex is always wrong include: 52% of male Democrats, 60% of male Republicans, and 63% of African Americans, including 58% of African-American females

It is also maybe worthwhile to remember that in addition to his sophisticated musings on sexuality, the duck guy effectively endorsed racial segregation and Jim Crow.  Now this is nothing more than a blatant attempt to link the drive for queer rights to the blacks struggles for their civil rights.  By invoking the lynching of a black 16-year-old, Freddie Moore, in Labadieville, Louisiana  on Monday, Oct. 9, 1933, there are trying to draw an equivalence with their inability to get married any place they deem proper.   Well it just won’t wash. This attitude far outweighs the one Pareene impliesin spite of their great effort to sell the idea,

It is actually the case that there are a lot of potential and actual problems with a system in which employees can be punished by their bosses for the expression of certain beliefs outside the workplace. But just as celebrities don’t have the same reasonable expectation of privacy that normal civilians are supposed to enjoy under the law, they also can’t expect the same freedom to express unpopular or controversial opinions without fear of economic reprisal. [Seems to me that Phill’s opinion is not near as unpopular as both Pareene and Gurney had hoped that it would be.  The only one, as far as I can tell, who think his expression of his beliefs are controversial are GLLAD and LGBT supporters.] I mean, if your wealth and status depend on appealing to the broadest swath of Americans possible, most people would tell you to avoid controversy. (It is obviously also possible to have fame that depends on the generation of controversy, and it seems like the duck people might switch over to that line of work sooner or later.)  [Obviouly the Duck People do not need GLLAD and LGBT supporters, and in spite of their attempt to ridicule their beliefs their popularity has only increased.]

But let’s think about these duck guys, this Robertson family with the television show that millions of people watch. Maybe this is the north enforcing its cultural hegemony at the expense of an innocent southern man, tarred as a bigot and kicked off his own television show just for saying what he thinks. But if you are southern, maybe you should think some more about the Robertsons and their television show and what message it sends to the rest of the country.  [There is no doubt in my mind that they are sending the correct message to the rest of the county, consider this:  In their State of the Bible in 2013 report, the American Bible Society reveals an overwhelming majority of Americans own and believe what the Bible says. Eighty-eight percent own a Bible, Eighty percent say the Bible is sacred and 61 percent wished they read it more. Pareene, GLLAD and LGBT should consider getting in step with the rest of Americans instead of trying to make everyone believe that they have the only true light.]

The Robertson family is a gang of college-educated millionaires pretending to be backwoods hillbillies. [Neglecting to tell you that it was the success of their duck call, which works,  else  so many would not have bought them to make them millionaires]  The beards and camo are literally costumes. [So what?] Before they had a television show they were clean-shaven yuppies in polo shirts and cargo shorts.  [When they got the money to do what that wanted to do, they did what they wanted to do.] The Robertsons are performing a pantomime of southernness, and it is making them even richer than they were before. They are performing for a nationwide audience that is probably not mostly southern, and that is definitely not mostly rural and southern. No one on reality television — especially in this era, when it’s more staged than ever — is being their authentic self. [I do not know the truth of that one way or the other.] That’s not in and of itself a problem; entertainment is entertainment. But the Duck Dynasty guys are essentially doing a hillbilly minstrel act [As I recall minstrel act were a very popular entertainment.], filmed and aired by a network jointly owned by the Hearst Corporation and Disney. Maybe that doesn’t offend you. But for much of America, these people are the most prominent modern representatives of white southernness, and the duck guy just confirmed for them the stereotype that white southerners are bible-thumping bigots with twisted racist delusions.  [I know of no one who has to watch them, I have never seen an episode, not my cup of tea, but my neagbhor Frank, two houses down, does not miss a showing, even the reruns.  He would love nothing better than to have the money to live his life in the same manner, but he has not built the better duck call that has the world beating a path to his door, so he lives it vascurly through “Duck Dynasty”.

What I think is that when Scott Gurney created  ‘Duck Dynasty’ it was with the intent to have American laughing at the clowns’, Bible thumping, rednecks as fools worthy of condemnation.  Then when it became obvious that was not going to happen.  They were laughing because they found their antics funny, and in many ways identified with them and their expressed religious beliefs.  That is why, imo, that he let them go to GQ for the interview, and get the show, which is not doing his cause any good, kicked off the are inspite of how much money it is making for A&E.

Pajama guy represents the death of masculinity in the Obama era plus he is gay lol

What is even wrong with you that you are so obsessed with a stock photo model. He is a guy in a stock photo. Get over it.

Wear pajamas. Drink hot chocolate. Talk about getting health insurance. #GetTalking.”  

That sound like a call to arguing politics over the holidays to me if there ever was one.

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of “The Rude Guide to Mitt.” Email him at and follow him on Twitter @pareene

If you live by the tweet you most assuredly can die by the tweet.

If you live by the tweet you will most assuredly can die by the tweet.

What did Kirt do to piss her off so bad that she wants him never to work again? He he said things of which she and her Progressive attack machine do not approve.

Kirk Cameron defends anti-gay diatribe: I should be able to express myself without being accused of ‘hate speech’ 

Friday she tweeted  “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!”  And before the plane landed in Aficra she was fired.

She had this to say:

“Words cannot express how sorry I am, and how necessary it is for me to apologize to the people of South Africa, who I have offended due to a needless and careless tweet. There is an AIDS crisis taking place in this country, that we read about in America, but do not live with or face on a continuous basis. Unfortunately, it is terribly easy to be cavalier about an epidemic that one has never witnessed firsthand.

She was a PR executive for the Internet giant InterActive Corp., which owns popular websites like,, and Vimeo. Wonder if they ignore her advice and let her work again?

No such luck I fear for the Progressives do not tolerate dissent, nor do they tolerate diversity of opinion, nor do they allow anyone to say or think anything out loud (as Justine Sacco has just found out) that is not their canon. And as Phil Robertson learned, even stating belief in the basic tenants of Christianity will bring swift and certain retribution from the Progressives cultural inquisition to lop off any head that so transgress.

If you live by the tweet you most assuredly can die by the tweet.  (Metaphorically)

Published in: on December 23, 2013 at 19:23  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,