4

Progressivism Leads to Genocide

Progressives are all about good ideas and change – to implement their good ideas – for the good of their people and for future generations.

More specifically, progressives are all about enforcing good ideas and change.

Progressives believe that government can do anything they think it needs to do … but only for a good reason – of course. For example, we are “all in this together,” and “it takes a village,” so your every word and action affects others, who thus have the right to regulate your words and actions – whenever it’s a good idea.

Progressives believe that government should never restrict free speech … without a good reason – of course. For example, progressives obviously can’t tolerate any speech that undermines progress – whether that speech is in the workplace, or the schools and universities, or in the media.

Free speech is a concept that refers to absolute free speech for everyone, and thus, anyone who would restrict free speech – for a good reason – doesn’t believe in free speech at all. If you don’t believe in free speech for everyone, then you don’t believe in free speech at all.

The progressive position is no different – in principle – than that of every authoritarian government in history. Every authoritarian government says it needs the power to implement any good ideas for the benefit of the people and for future generations, and that it would only restrict freedom for a good reason.

Of course, progressives point out how they are not as oppressive – in practice – as those authoritarian governments – but that is my whole point. In practice, they are not as oppressive …

yet.

Progressives are different than the most oppressive regimes because they don’t have that much power yet, but progressives already scapegoat others and express hate regularly. Progressives also commit as many atrocities, both directly and indirectly, as their power allows.

The story of David Reimer is one of countless direct atrocities. Whereas, the poverty, crime, and disease resulting from government dependence in the African American community is tantamount to millions of indirect atrocities. But let’s not get sidetracked.

If progressives don’t really believe in free speech – the most important of all freedoms – then progressives certainly don’t really believe in any other freedoms. Therefore, under progressivism, government power can only grow, until eventually, nearly everything imaginable is either prohibited or mandated … and every opponent has been neutralized – for the good of the people and for future generations … of course.

Therefore, progressivism, like any form of fascism, champions unlimited government power.

However, as progressive government inevitably fails, it has the incentive to find a scapegoat, and more importantly, it has the power to find a scapegoat.

When a government with unlimited power needs a scapegoat, we are talking about genocide. The most famous example is the progressive movement led by Adolf Hitler, which tried to clean the gene pool by removing “inferior” Jewish genes. Consider the confessions of those progressives who were the hands-on perpetrators of genocide itself. The executioners understood that they were monsters, but they had selflessly made the personal decision to sacrifice their own humanity for the good of their people and for future generations, and thus they felt they were perhaps the most noble of all progressives.

The eugenics (cleaning of the gene pool) by the progressives in the Third Reich is not some aberration. Progressives in the US, such as George Bernard Shaw and Margaret Sanger, were open advocates of eugenics. I am still not sure why Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton said during her 2008 Presidential campaign that she was a progressive modeled after Margaret Sanger, but now we know why Hillary always did make our skin crawl.

To be fair, any form of unlimited government would only reluctantly engage in genocide. For example, the progressives of the Third Reich first tried relocation, and the progressives under Chairman Mao first tried reeducation camps. The progressives in the US first tried lobotomies and sterilization, and today they are first resorting to forced psychotherapy and forced medication.

In the future, if progressives have both the necessary power and technology to enforce gene therapy, then their final solution will no longer be traditional genocide. In the future, the final solution of progressives will be compassionate genocide. Progressives will first remove our “reactionary” genes, like those that cause independent thought, skepticism, and self-esteem, and then they will remove those genes that make men and women different and those genes that make black and white people different … and then they will be done.

The ultimate goal of progressivism is to kill the soul of humanity, but make no mistake, if progressives cannot kill the soul of humanity, they will kill those individuals who carry the soul of humanity.

I submit that genocide is the worst thing imaginable, and therefore, unlimited government, whether it is progressivism or any other form of fascism, is the worst thing imaginable.

Perhaps you think genocide is worse than unlimited government, but sooner or later, genocide and every atrocity imaginable, is guaranteed with unlimited government. Therefore, unlimited government results in genocide as well as every other atrocity imaginable, and thus I further submit that whatever you think is worse than unlimited government, is itself guaranteed with unlimited government.

Once we understand the reality of unlimited government, we understand that freedom is always better.

The Promise of Reality is Freedom.

Jim
 

Click Here to Leave a Comment Below 4 comments
Walking Green - August 29, 2011

Please desist, you are giving free thinkers a bad name! I can't remember reading more faulty logic. First you set out erroneous definitions of some else's beliefs and then you explain why they are in error. Your process is classic and unethical Public Relation techniques of " naming, claiming and faulty framing". It is the essence of propaganda.

Also, while it's usually held that speech is the determiner and measurement of freedom, negotiators know and leverage letting the opponent expend all of their energy on speech. Most importantly to the measurement of freedom, you only find out what the true extent of your freedom is when you act. Why? Because "sticks and stone will…you know the rest.

Talk is cheap and usually ineffectual…governments know this…they often give 'em their soapbox. That's why Americans are so docile. They talk all the time. We should have let the South secede (our behavior was akin to forced marriage) we still have the lingering resentment and affront to deal with…of course as history played out, there would have been no United States super power to counter balance Hitler….then there really would have been no end to genocide.

Ideology isn't worth the energy it takes to propagate it if it hasn't shown real world results (communism and fascism are the most prominent failed examples). When forces in the "greater world" pool power by capitalizing on group-think, who answers the sheer force of their "might makes right"…when good men act alone, they are at the mercy of bad men acting en-mass.

Say we could initiate a truly Libertarian country (could we even call it a state under its very definition?)…by what mechanism would you defend it at a moments notice. Without some formal governmental structure that enlists guaranteed group defense, wouldn't such an undertaking remain continually vulnerable to other forms of government? If every form of social contract is slavery, what recourse is there when individuals with malicious intent violate another weaker or unprotected individual? Will someone intervenes on their behave? Who would that be if all individuals go their separate way with no formal intermediaries or organized enforcement of principle of fair play?

All other forms of governance to date, at least have a track record, dismal as some may be, proven as failures in others. Does Libertarian-ism? And if not,why? Surely there have been a good enough number of believers/adherents that an implementation would have been tried by now.

There are no simpleton answers in a complex and human world, as humans are hard-wired to cooperate in social groups (evolutionary forces favored survival of cooperative hunters), sometimes the best means of maintaining the sanity of the group and avoiding group-think is an imperfect system of methodical decision making.

Get back to me when you have a working model. Best to you in your efforts to improve the lot of average humans.

Reply
Jim - August 31, 2011

@Walking Green,

What incentive would I have to mischaracterize anyone who agrees with my positions? Therefore, given my absolute support for free speech, I would only expose those who oppose free speech – in principle or in practice.

I am especially sensitive to those who oppose free speech in principle. Of course, those who oppose free speech in principle usually believe that they support free speech.

Such cognitive dissonance is possible because 99% of media, government, and academic content promotes the idea that government can and should implement any good idea. For example, even when the media promotes the legalization of marijuana, they are simply claiming that criminalization is a bad idea – and never that government should have no power to criminalize marijuana.

I understand the cognitive dissonance of progressives because when I was much younger, I also thought that the government did, and should, have the power to implement all of my great ideas (a.k.a. The Fatal Conceit) – but I simultaneously thought that I was a strong supporter of individual liberty.

As an independent thinker, I was able to overcome this kind of cognitive dissonance suffered by progressives. Therefore, I submit that most of my work, such as this article and my poll questions, are therapeutic for progressives and other assorted fascists.

Reply
93e599da-6759-11e1-9b4b-000bcdcb8a73 - March 6, 2012

I find your words here insightful and wish more people could understand what you've written here. What it seems progressives don't understand is that popular speech needs no protection and thus the founders wouldn't have felt the need to enshrine free speech in the First Amendment but rather because they knew that unpopular speech or even offensive speech needed protection thus why we have the First Amendment. I would go further than you did in regards to the dangers of unlimited government. An unlimited government..even a conservative one would be a danger to us all and should be opposed just as strongly as fascist or communist ones. Power corrupts as they say and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What concerns me with regards to free speech is the recent assault on Rush Limbaugh. Whether or not any of us agree with him on what he says..he has a constitutional right to say it even if it offends. If we fail to support his right to free speech then everyone's free speech rights are in danger. I remember a saying I heard, from Star Trek the Next Generation of all places, where Captain Picard quoted "with the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied chains us all irrevocably." I believe that outside of voluntary agreements made..I owe my fellow man absolutely nothing. It's why I believe in John Galt's statement of "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine." Keep up the good fight.

Reply
Jim - March 7, 2012

Everyone already knows that unlimited conservative government is bad, but for some reason, nearly half of the people can't see the danger in unlimited progressive government – so that is the real threat.

Reply

Leave a Reply: