This article was written as a public response to a reader's comments regarding my recent common use of the label "Communists" to describe the Progressive movement in the previous post, "ThinkDumbass: Center for American Progress knows their readers are morons [a]."  While I would normally post a reply publicly in the comments, this response wound up becoming quite lengthy and is probably more useful as a post by itself.

--------------------------------------------------

Sir,

You've known me long enough to understand that I rarely mince words, although in this case when I labeled the Center for American Progress a "herd of degenerate Communists," what I really meant to say was a "collection of deceptive 1920s left overs who were (and may still be) infatuated with Benito Mussolini but who aren't intellectually honest enough to describe themselves as radical Fascists or Communists."  Simply saying a "herd of degenerate Communists" seemed to make the point much more succinctly.

I would note, as well, that this was not designed as an insult.  The fact that it came across as insulting is the fault of the Center for American Progress, as they are, in fact, a herd of degenerate Communists.  My words capture their nature perfectly.

The larger problem here is that there is now a broad movement to render the principles and ideals of Communism acceptable to Americans by passing them off as some sort of innocent, socially conscious, tolerant, inclusive, and altruistic domestic order.  Communism is not, as you say, an economic system - if it is, perhaps we should inform Marx immediately, as according to him it was a method of redefining the social order into a classless and homogenized society for the principle purpose of "liberating the Proletariat [1]."  In order to accomplish this, private property and personal ownership are gone, individual freedoms of expression and faith are gone, and economic success is gone, all replaced by a supposedly benevolent government, which has historically wound up murdering millions to keep the populace in line.  After all, a system which seeks to homogenize at any cost absolutely must dispose of the dissenters, who by their very nature will seek to distinguish themselves and rise above.  That's human nature.  It's also the reason that Communism has failed every time is has been attempted, with a sea of bodies in its path.

If Communism is simply an economic system which hasn't been successful (but might be if only we could implement it correctly next time), then there would be nothing to worry about.  Just don't bother asking the 100 million people who were murdered by Communism over the course of the last century alone [2].

Don't bother going to check out China, where the internet is monitored, commerce is strictly controlled by the State, religion is regulated, and speech is limited.

Don't bother with Cuba, which has been stuck in poverty for 60 years and is still losing people to escape (by boat to Florida).  Definitely don't ask the defenseless victims of Che Guevara, Castro's personal executioner, who were murdered in cold blood on behalf of the Communist revolution [3].

Don't bother looking at North Korea, which in its grand display of Communist superiority determined to erect the world's largest hotel (the "Hotel of Doom") in 1987, due to complete construction in 1989.  The grand display of superiority sat unfinished with a rusting crane on top for 24 years - a gray, empty, concrete monstrosity, while the people of North Korea starved to death - the perfect symbol of the Communist legacy.

Definitely don't bother with the Soviet Union (and its survivors), which murdered millions of farmers [4] (and launched the word "gulag" into the global vernacular) to hand the farms over to the common man to work on behalf of the State, and eventually wound up controlling East Germany, the country that produced the Trabant, a vehicle that went down in history as one of the biggest showcases of the lie of Communism and central planning, which I have previously noted [5]:

The People’s car, the Trabant, had several notable features that gave it a significant competitive socially conscious advantage over the capitalist produced vehicles of the time:

  • The Trabant had a 2-stroke, 26 HP, 0.6 L engine which achieved an impressive 34 mpg.  This was important as it balanced out the equally impressive and highly desired blue smoke, noise, and generally “piece of crap”-esque reputation 2-stroke vehicles had.  The American-made Corvette, of course, only offered an 8-cylinder, 245 HP, 5.7 L engine which achieved a measly ~20 mpg.
  • The Trabant offered a gravity-fed “fuel sloshing” system as an alternative to the multi-port fuel injection system of the Corvette.
  • Earlier Trabant models had no fuel gauge, which was probably intentional to keep up the physical fitness of the driver (who rather than driving had to get out every so often and check the dipstick to measure the amount of fuel in the tank).  The Corvette offered a standard fuel gauge, along with numerous other gauges to monitor engine performance (but apparently had no concern for the driver's aerobic condition).
  • The Trabant’s fuel tank was also located under the hood and required a 33:1 or 50:1 fuel to oil ratio to be measured out prior to filling the tank.  The Corvette ran on regular unleaded, hate-filled murdering capitalist blood/gasoline.
  • The Trabant had a lead time of up to several years after order.  The Corvette could be purchased off the lot or custom ordered and delivered within a matter of a few months.
  • The Trabant had resulted from a program intended to produce a three-wheeled motorcycle (but not the kind that Che drove when writing his "Diaries [6]").  The Corvette was born from the barely known and usually widely laughed upon American Muscle Car era.
  • The Trabant was sleek, compact, had a body made from recycled paperboard and whatever fibers the state-owned factories had thrown out last week, and just generally screamed “chicks comrades love this car.”

Back to the point - modern American Progressivism, in its truest nature, is an extension of the radical Communist and Fascist movements of the early 20th century.  The difference is simply that those who thought the country couldn't be steered into such a radical change overnight broke off into a slower, more gradual march towards the exact same end - a slow, progressive march.  Have you ever stopped to ask yourself, if I'm so Progressive, what am I progressing towards?  Utopia?  A world where the little man (proletariat) is equaled with the business creator?  Some level of personal success?  (I sure as hell hope not, you Capitalist pig).

You mention being called a "liberal," which is interesting because it brings to mind an excellent insight into the Progressive movement - in the 2008 Democratic primary debates, Hillary Clinton was asked how she would describe the word "liberal" and to explain whether or not she would use the term to describe herself [7].  She answered:

You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it’s been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we’re working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that’s the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.

Clinton is correct that the word "liberal" originally meant that you stood for freedom - actually, it meant that you stood for liberty, but the point is the same.  America is the only country in the world where "liberal" is associated with the Left.  Everywhere else, "liberal" means that you stand for individual liberty - in America, the conservatives and libertarians are the classical "liberals."  Of course, America is also the only country which has a uniquely Progressive movement that has completely destroyed the meaning of "liberal."

When the word "liberal" was trashed, the word "Progressive" was adopted.  Even today, "Progressive" is beginning to become a dirty word, and so I would expect that we'll eventually see yet another word taken to wash away the old stain of Progressivism.  The problem is, no matter how many new white sheets you put over the movement, the old stains of Fascism and Communism eventually soak right through.  At some point, they'll need to "drop the radical pose for the radical ends [8]," a phrase uttered by Van Jones, President Obama's former Green Jobs Czar, who is a self-described radical Communist (but who today uses the name "Progressive" to slip beneath the radar).  It's also the reason that Bill Ayers, the unapologetic, Pentagon bombing, Weather Underground leftist radical mentioned needing to exterminate 25 million people if Communism was to succeed in America [8a].

To see the impact that the cover of "Progressive" has had on the ideals of Fascism and Communism (and Naziism, which stood for the National Socialists and is ignorantly associated with the Right by the people at the Center for American Progress, incidentally), one need only look at some of the established principles of the modern Progressive platform:

Citizens have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work.  The right to work is ensured by the organization of the national economy, the steady growth of the  productive forces of society, the elimination of the possibility of economic crises, and the abolition of unemployment.

Citizens have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of  capacity to work. This right should be ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees at state expense, universal medical service for the people.

Citizens have the right to education.  This right is ensured by universal, compulsory elementary education; by education, including higher education, being free of charge; by a proposed system of state stipends for the overwhelming majority of students in the universities and colleges; by instruction in schools being conducted in the native language if not English, and by the organization in the labor force of free vocational, technical and agronomic training for the people.

In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

Each of these four principles was pulled with slight revision from the 1936 Soviet Constitution, Articles 118, 120, 121, and 131 [9] and also mirror several similar principles presented as demands by the German Marxists in the Communist Manifesto of 1848 [10].  There are other "rights" in both documents which are conferred upon the People by the State, which history has shown never held up - dissenters were murdered whether they had "complete inviolability" of their person or not.  This is in stark contrast to the rights of Americans, which are endowed upon the People by their Creator [11], and loaned to the government at the consent of the governed.

Make no mistake - the active members of the Progressive movement, who actually understand what they believe (and why they believe it), are absolutely, without question, Communists.  They just lack the intellectual fortitude to acknowledge it.

I'm happy to acknowledge it for them.

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
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.

392294 visitors
Subscribe to updates!


Archives
Categories