10 June 2014

The slime that goes by the name of Progressivism.

Larry McDonald lays it out.

Trevor Loudon keeps the lists. The John Birch Society has seen it clearly all along. Fred Siegel lays out the arrogance and utopian thinking of the ruling class.

This stuff is beyond arrogance: If you can't quite get with the program under socialism, well, George Bernard Shaw, has the solution for that:

In THE INTELLIGENT WOMAN'S GUIDE TO SOCIALISM AND CAPITALISM, Shaw proposed that under Socialism 'you would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner.
Well, ok. What's not to like about that? Maybe George had a companion political vision to "Pygmalion."

And for Bertrand Russell, definitely one of our superior people, a little "population control" is not problem at all:

Population can be kept from increasing....Perhaps bacteriological war may prove effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full....A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a (socialist) world government....
Your reasonably intelligent skeptic might happen to note that the "stability" to be achieved through mass killing was for Russell to be decided on and initiated by socialist world government. And the socialists love to ridicule the John Birch Society for its adamant opposition to socialism and globalism.

And Dennis Cuddy also has the scoop on Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells:

Wells had even written a book in 1901 titled ANTICIPATIONS, in which he acknowledged that the men of the New World Order 'will not be squeamish either in facing or inflicting death....They will have an ideal that will make killing worth the while.'
Who isn't in favor of a little worthwhile killing? Or maybe a lot?

And no look into the sick soul of the Princes of Socialism can be complete without recalling these sentiments (1932) of Stuart Chase, one of the intellectual fathers of the New Deal[1]:

I sympathize [with] the first, the direct and single-minded attack [Red Revolution]. I believe it to have been necessary and inevitable in Russia. It may someday be inevitable in this country [United States of America]. I am not seriously alarmed by the sufferings of the creditor class, the troubles which the church is bound to encounter, the restrictions on certain kinds of freedom which must result, nor even by the bloodshed of the transition period. A better economic order is worth a little bloodshed.[2]
So, on what basis would an honest person assume that there isn't a profoundly evil side to socialism and to all those who dream of a "rational" solution to the problems of mankind? The beautiful people don't think of the problems of mankind but rather of the problem of mankind. All hail to abortion, birth control, and periodic "cleansings."

And compulsion.

Encountered perfection firsthand.
While a student in Paris, Pol Pot said he wanted to create a perfect democracy when he returned to Cambodia. God preserve us from people who think they know what the perfect society is. Their words and actions condemn them. They are anti-life and care nothing for liberty. They want power and in 10,000,000 ways they've warned us how they will wield it. Think Nazi holocaust, Soviet holocaust, Chinese holocaust, Cambodian holocaust, Cuban holocaust, and N. Korean holocaust. But, no. Even that ghastly record isn't enough to wake people up.

It seems.

Notes
[1] Fabian Freeway. High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A. 1884-1966. By Rose L. Martin, Western Islands (1966), p. 255-56.
[2] Quoted in Martin. Id., p. 257.

H/t: to The republican Mother for the McDonald video.

No comments: