Most "left wing," or Democrat leaders, openly declare that they are "progressive." Who would not want to be identified by "progressive" rather than "regressive?"
"Conservativism" is accused of being regressive. Those two ideologies should be polar opposites, but one only needs to examine their creeds.
"As a philosophy, it (progressivism) is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition." (Wikipedia; parentheses mine).
Advancement! Who would not want to advance? The direction for society to "advance" is away from the existing systems. The assumption is that the West particularly America has never been great and needs changing.
Those systems needing change are three: (1) those who own the land and factories and are the movers and shakers, (2) the clergy, or in the West - the Judeo-Christian doctrine, and (3) the direct labor - those who work the land and factories to produce.
Progressivism denigrates the first two while seemingly promoting the latter existence. The progressives call them (1) the bourgeoisie, (2) the religeous, and (3) the proletariat, respectively. All my comments are from Marx's and Engels's, The Communists Manifesto, which they wrote within its pages, is as well as a Socialist Manifesto.
Socialists call themselves "progressives" for a reason: They want to be identified positively for progress and advancement according to the definition. They want to be known to favor science, technology, social justice in the economic system, and humane treatment of the lesser classes of people. (They place most people - the masses - as lower class.) They have divided the entire population into three classes of people. The bourgeoisie and the religious have been identified as the enemies of the proletariat class. Most of the West, in the 1840s were proletariats. The author's own parents were proletariats.
As such, the author should be in favor of progressivism, should he not? Indeed, if it was what it is said to be, perhaps that would be answered, "yes." The problem is that progressivism is not progressive; it is the epitome of regressive - opposition to progressivism.
"Opposition" sounds so negative! The tactic of the progressives is the label non-progressives as "the opposition" and "the party of no!" Recent events in the West, and especially the United States, is that there is nothing "united" about the states! The tactic of Marxism is to divide and conquer, and at the present, the nation has not been as divided since the War Between the States. The idea that America was eve great flies in the face of progressivism. Their tactic is to ensure through propaganda that the people refuse to believe that the nation was ever great.
The basic tenet of socialism is that the proletariats have been exploited by property owners and industry. America could thusly never be great because some have always been exploited.
(The American term "worker" shall now replace proletariat in this commentary; they are those who physically produce things.)
The workers are identified as the lower class. For it to be the strongest of the three estates (see above), they must be the most numerous. Marxism is based on Darwin's "survival of the fittest" and the "fittest" are those who can multiply - grow their numbers. Why do progressives want immigration? To increase their power so as to change the balance power of the industrial and religious institutions. Since immigration alone does not change the balance of power quickly enough, socialism resorts to robbing people from the middle class (lower sub-class of the bourgeoise) to grow the lower class.
Progressivism is not for the middle class despite what they propagate. Their sole intent is to grow the lower class in order to breed antipathy. In the early 20th century, blacks were the lower class. The progressives forgave them their rebellion of 1861 and added them to the lower class alongside poor southern whites, In this century, progressives have even added the wealthy to their lower class, as prosperous homosexuals have been allied with progressivism, all of which Marx planned. Note that progressivism does not seem to include moral issues, but their antipathy to Christian Doctrine provides a place for the LBGT community. In reality, socialists don't care about the downtrodden, the immigrants, nor even LBGT's. They care about them controlling, and division is their tactic for control. Those who have been added to their working class are nothing more than victims.
What does progressivism offer? Two basic things: (1) a minimum wage of $15 an hour, and (2) sexual freedom. Who does not want a little extra money and the liberty to do as one pleases? Why are radical feminists progressives? Sexual freedom. Why do they favor abortion? Because the burden of another life interferes with sexual freedom? Progressives gain allies by tolerating, for a time, the appetites of those who they tag as "repressed." Abortion is even against their dogma of survival of the fittest, but they tolerate that for their purposes because it temporarily grows their numbers.
Progressivism uses all sorts of "tools" to grow their numbers. Women in the workforce (feminism) diminishes the responsibility of both parents to train and nourish their children. Progressives want women in the workforce, not to benefit them, but to allow progressivism to be ingrained into young minds. Their survival of the fittest increases when they can teach the young minds progressive thought.
They even use propaganda to remold young minds and often capture the older generation who are allured by remembering their youth. As such, the media is progressive; they infiltrated the entertainment industry and news while Edward R, Murrow was censuring McCarthyism, who by the way, turned out to be correct. America was then and is now even more profoundly Marxist! (Read the polls on their self-identification.)
How is progressivism regressivism? Why is it paradoxial? Marx believed that technology and initiative marginalized manual laborers. As only capitalists had land and could purchase machines, that it stole profits from those who previously had made their income from the work of their hands. Marx even hated that farms and manufacturing made profits because it only made the middle and upper classes more prosperous. Progressivism is against prosperity because it dimishes the numbers in the lower class.
Marxism is based on jealousy of those who are motivated and able to advance their class assignments. They despise initiative because it is against their dogma of survival of the fittest. Prosperity advances the working class and with less complainers, socialist power is diminished.
Using their own definition for progressivism, they are the most regressive ideology to ever exist but young people still flock to their scam.
The writer once was responsible for a new line of manufacturing automation with several automatic stations. An elite engineering force came in and evaluated the efficiency of the system. They endeavored to make each station of the system operate at the same speed and efficiency. That makes sense, doesn't it? All the people there bought into their analysis. One station was much different than the others. Everyone there agreed to make all the stations alike... but me! Why would I be against that? They were making all the better stations like the worst, but no one recognized that. That is what socialism entails; it desires to make each class like the least class. It desires that everyone perform manual work, with one exception - those who control the system become supreme in their notion of Utopia. Everyone does menial tasks and have little control, but the leaders. Progressivism is a return to the feudal system and workers get duped into returning to serfdom.
What has socialism to do with Christianity. Marx identified religion as the "opiate of the people." In other words, the hope provided by Christ keeps the eyes of Christians focused on heaven rather than this world. Christians are thankful for what God has provided, and look not to those who govern for provision.
Marx was as the Serpent; he tempted mankind with all sorts of fruit from his Tree of Philosophy. Like Adam and Eve who already had food provided by God, they desired the Serpent's fruit because it seemed so epicurean. They ate, and although they didn't know it, they immediately began to die. That, readers, is how cunning Marx - the Serpent - gets the masses to eat of "progressive" fruit. All the while, as the masses think they are progressing, they are regressing as the partakers are further enslaved and people even murder their young as only a few of the beasts do?
Not only are progressives regressive, but they have reverted back to types of Cain - they kill their own! Abortion is only one way they kill; Robespierre, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, and the others resorted to killing their opposition and their own revolutionaries! They claim to favor "survival of the fittest" but in the end, most of the people are not fit to survive!
Naïve people are Eve's. They innocently bite into the Marxist fruit. Others are Adams. They know the history of the fruit but partake of it anyway hoping for something better! The fittest of the species is the most naïve. Mankind has always fell for any of the wiles of the Devil.
No comments:
Post a Comment