In the annals of The Bulletproof Patriot lie several previously published articles which have asserted, with whatever evidence was available at the time, that modern, social and economic Progressivism is not the pure, innocent, person-focused movement that so many seem to think.  Rather, Progressivism is simply a sister ideology to the old relics of the past, namely Soviet-style Communism, albeit retreaded to impart a "very American [1]" feel to what is somewhat popularly regarded as a modern, lively, and altruistic social movement.

The re-branding of the Progressive movement has lead to its widespread adoption and acceptance, particularly among those who consider themselves socially conscious.  Bastions of such consciousness lie in the usual places - colleges and large metropolitan areas (particularly New York City and Los Angeles), although the movement has successfully entrenched itself into mainstream social and political thought.

Despite strenuous efforts to cleanse the movement of its past sins, the old relics of Stalin, Mao, and (a little less directly) Hitler, have so deeply stained the underlying fabric of Progressivism that they can no longer be completely obscured by flamboyant and distracting social jestures, a la the "glitter bombing" of politicians as we have recently observed [2].

The Communist stains of the Progressive movement have bled through in recent history in the form of the Occupy Movement [3] and such Progressive-oriented rallies as the Ed Schultz-sponsored "One Nation" rally at the Lincoln Memorial on 10/2/2010 and the upcoming "Take Back the American Dream" rally, sponsored by Van Jones, the self-described Communist turned Progressive, and former Obama Administration Green Jobs Czar [4].

As TBP has previously reported [5] [h/t PJ Media], the Occupy movement has been publicly supported by such radical organizations as the American Nazi Party, the Communist Party USA, the government of North Korea, the Revolutionary Communist Party, Socialist Party USA, Industrial Workers of the World, CAIR, the Communist Party of China, Hezbollah, the International Bolshevik Tendency, Anonymous, White Revolution, the International Socialist Organization, the Marxist Student Union, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, and the Party for Socialism and Liberation.  (If you don't believe me, click the link above - all of these are duly referenced back to the original sources which speak clearly for themselves.)

With the Occupy movement poised to explode the moment the ground thaws this spring (the "99% Spring [6] [7]"), Anonymous declaring war on Israel [8] and Christianity [9], and supposedly "mainstream" Progressive organizations embracing both, it is becoming more and more important for Americans to recognize the present dangers of the radical Progressive movement, as the movement will be upon us from all directions if things continue at this pace.  Add to that the European (and American) debt crises, the national elections this fall, and brewing unrest inhabiting all facets of society, and you wind up with something of a perfect storm.  Bottom up, top down [10].

Under the guise of normalcy, even major media figures have managed to align themselves with the radical movement without attracting attention.  National Progressive radio host Thom Hartmann (who has previously equated the modern "States' Rights" movement with racial segregation), who can be heard on any number of Progressive radio stations nationwide, also hosts a show entitled, "The Big Picture" on RT News [11].

RT is the re-branding of the government-funded and sponsored propaganda network formerly known as Russia Today [12].  The aim of the RT network, according to their own website, is to offer projects which "are specifically tailored to accustom the international audience with the Russian perspective [13]."  It should come as no surprise that Thom Hartmann, a dedicated Progressive, stars in a show recorded and produced by a Russian government-funded "news" organization.  To the best of my recollection, I have never heard Hartmann express to his radio listeners that he also stars in a show on a network dedicated to "accustom the international audience with the Russian perspective."

I would suspect that we will begin to see more and more of this as the radical Progressive movement begins to rise in acceptance, despite the relative lack of knowledge about the foundations of the movement, as the actors increasingly feel vindicated and welcomed by a largely unprepared populace.

Nevertheless, the stain of Communism continues to shine through and can be easily identified by anyone who knows what they're looking for.  Take, for example, the following - a depiction of the official state emblems from the Soviet era and their modern Communist counterparts:

If the similarities aren't obvious, allow me to make it clear:

While the hammer and sickle are the most widely understood symbols of international Communism, the red, five-point star is the common theme.  The red star as a symbol of Communism began in the early days of the Soviet Union, although the specific source (likely Trotsky or the Bolsheviks) is disputed [14].  Although red stars have appeared throughout popular culture and have various meanings, the presence of the red star is a nearly universal theme of Communist propaganda:

The disease of Communism ran so deep throughout the last century that it stained the Socialist movement that succeeded the Soviet era and which, to a large degree, continues to persist even today:

Even in supposed "main stream" organizations such as the AFL-CIO the red star of Communism persists - where it doesn't, the red field almost exclusively takes its place.  While Socialism has taken a back seat to some degree, largely due to the negative reaction most Americans have to the mere thought (and the reason President Obama and his supporters strenuously deny their Marxist and Socialist tendencies [15]), Progressivism has taken a front seat as the movement supportive of the radical agenda.  Progressivism, too, has been unable to shake the Communist stain:

The red star of Communism is much more closely associated with Progressivism than the average Progressive will lead us all to believe.  It's about time we start keeping our eyes open, as the new Red Menace is beginning to crawl back out into the open and is begging to be exposed.

Our generation must be the one to eradicate the Communist disease, in all of its forms.  If we fail to deal with Communism head on, liberty and freedom aren't the only things that will be lost - if history is any guide, millions of lives will be lost in the name of "social justice" and "equality [16]" as well.

In love of liberty,

The Bulletproof Patriot

<>

  • blogger Blog this!
  • digg Digg this post
  • facebook Recommend on Facebook
  • google_buzz Buzz it up
  • linkedin Share on Linkedin
  • stumble Share with Stumblers
  • twitter Tweet about it
  • rss Subscribe to the comments on this post
  • print Print for later
  • Gloria

    Thanks on your marvelous posting! I really enjoyed reading it, you might be a great author.
    I will ensure that I bookmark your blog and definitely will come back
    very soon. I want to encourage you to ultimately continue your great writing, have a nice evening!

  • Willis

    Hey! This is my first comment here so I just wanted to give a
    quick shout out and say I really enjoy reading your posts.
    Can you recommend any other blogs/websites/forums that deal with the same topics?
    Thanks a ton!

  • Karl Bonner

    The fact that you're paranoid about a new Communist era in face of endless facts that suggest otherwise, shows just how fundamentally desperate the right wing is to discredit its opponents.

    • http://www.thebulletproofpatriot.com/blog M.A. Weimer

      TBP prides itself on basing articles posted here upon multiple sources, routinely cited throughout every post. The post you have commented on contains 16 such citations. None of this suggests paranoia.

      Where are these so-called "endless facts" you claim bolster your complaint? For such a brazen email claiming support by an insurmountable mountain of evidence to the contrary, one might have supposed that you would list at least a single of these "endless" facts.

      Smoke and mirrors - such is the bane of Progressivism, and I am not the least bit shocked to see it pathetically used as an affirmative defense yet again.

  • Lenin the great

    long live Bolshevism!

    • TheBulletproofPatriot

      Woo hoo! Revolutionary communism for everyone!! Only 100 million murdered by government, but that's a small price to pay for universal suffering and mediocrity!!

  • eastedie33510

    Return America to smaller government, free markets, right to bear arms and free speech before it is too late. Impeach Obama criminally now!!

  • RedDawn

    haha i am from german and the unreasonable fear of communism is funny are there really people who belive this shit

    • TheBulletproofPatriot

      Please pull a bag over your head and shut your brain completely off. Oops... you beat me to it.

  • http://tech-zilla.com/ TechZilla

    I'm a Marxist, and none of those groups represent my ideology or worldview. BTW what you may know as "cultural Marxism" isn't marxist, it was created by academic hacks who needed to find a new ideology or lose funding. It's properly known as "post-modern critical theory", examples include critical race theory and critical feminist theory, Marxists strongly reject all as garbage... . except since nobody knows anything about Marxism, you can smear us as feckless Social Liberals.

    • TheBulletproofPatriot

      Congratulations - you're yet another unique thinker who isn't perfectly described by the mainstream understanding of your underlying sociopolitical philosophy. Seems to be an awful big stretch of whining for someone belonging to a group of similar political thinkers who depend on categorizing people into neat, little classes (such as Proletariats, for example). At the end of the day, call it Marxism, Socialism, "Proletariat"-ism, "feckless Social Liberalism," or whatever righteously indignant bumper sticker title fits this decade; Marxism's fundamental philosophy relies on the natural existence of classes and observes the struggles between them, with the goal of leveling the playing field by eventually coercing society to fit into a supposedly "classless" structure in which everyone behaves as a happy Sunday night television family from the 1960's simply by virtue of caring for their fellow man and their loss of private property.

      Marx himself referred to this ideal as communism, so if you have a problem with this general description I'd suggest investing in a shovel (not one mass produced by a private enterprise, mind you), digging up his grave, and giving him a piece of your mind for however long he'll listen.

      Until then, the comparison I have made between the modern incarnation of Progressivism as a stained, societal scourge emanating from the late days of Marxism, in which both claim to perfectly represent societal class warfare and work to reduce the individual to a bumbling, mediocre mess incapable of surviving without the generous assistance of his overlords, remains both apt and accurate. At the end of the day, Marxism/communism/socialism/fascism/Progressivism all lie somewhere on the "totalitarian" end of the spectrum and constitutional libertarianism (in its many forms) lie just shy of the "anarchy" end of the spectrum.

      The best government is that which is closest to those it affects and which meddles with their lives as little as necessary to impart a social structure in which each person is secure in his own liberty and subject to the consequences of his own decisions.

      • http://tech-zilla.com/ TechZilla

        Congratulations - Your yet another wingnut whom purposely conflates concepts for your ideological convenience. You smear and label people who actually understand ideology for the goal of dismissing them to your target audience. Marxism proper hasn't been mainstream since pre WW2, and is not taught to most US college graduates. You'd know this if you asked actual marxists, and hint... they are not in academia or the media.

        Let me be perfectly clear, Critical theory REJECTS class struggle. Without class struggle, there is no Marxism. Nationalists believe in "class-cooperation" mediated by the state, again in clear contradiction of Marxism. You don't understand anything about any of those ideologies, and thus you can't even properly define where your own ideology fits..... thus you simply lump them all in two categories,

        1. Good

        2. Bad, AKA Marxism.

        late days of Marxism? You mean when those academics rejected Marxism to create their new theories?
        You conflate the actions of governments with ideology, they are not inherent in the slightest. How you implement is different, from why you implement. You can be Libertarian and Marxist, and faced with the obvious record of "representative" government, only the corrupt or naive would advocate heavy state involvement.

      • TheBulletproofPatriot

        There is certainly room for discerning the difference between the intent and the political implementation of a particular philosophy, and perhaps you are the outlier from the talking heads who isn't advocating government mediation in everyday life in order to mandate "equality" at every turn. Although you haven't said so, the thought of being both libertarian and Marxist is technically compatible in the sense that government leaves people to their own devices (liberty) and certain groups of people freely choose to behave in a sort of classless or "class-cooperation" society. I have no problem with that, so long as it isn't forced on any unwilling participants.

        There does seem to be an ongoing theme of those interested in the various forms of large government involvement in daily life to believe that "if only WE implemented it, this time it would actually work," despite a long history of failure. I have a hard time coming up with a good, modern example of broadly implemented small-"c" communism that hasn't resulted in either 1) the direct oppression of the people by government, or 2) the outright murder of dissidents who are blamed for somehow preventing the harmonious establishment of the idealistic Utopian state. I have previously opined that the reason for this is that such ideologies attempt to force unnatural order upon humanity, which is filled with individuals rather than classes. A decent percentage of individuals will always seek to break free of the mediocrity of the status quo, and any sociopolitical construct that is successful will seek to harness this natural behavior for the good rather than suppress it at the barrel of a gun, which is largely how the modern implementations of communism have gone.

        A similar case could be made for the small government types, such as myself - there will always be those among us seeking to pit us against each other, create competitive classes, and use the conflict for their own power. Those motivated by power aren't interested in the underlying ideals of the libertarian-type believers. That's how you wind up with a system that over the course of 223 years (1791 - 2014) goes from limited, well defined federal governance to corporate cronyism and power-hungry corruption at virtually all levels.

        That said, I'm quite clear where my own ideology fits, and if there is a question (I can't imagine there would be considering I've been publishing in this forum at length for quite some time now), perhaps it bears asking. My personal philosophy is simply one of maximum freedom and the protection of individual rights. You are free to behave however you'd like so long as you don't infringe upon the liberty of anyone else.

        Perhaps even a Marxist could agree.

Site News

TBP supports the Convention of States project to call an Article V convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution to limit the powers of the federal government.

425532 visitors
Subscribe to updates!


Archives
Categories