#4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia
A Reference Library
Capsule: #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia reveals the origin and background of contemporary liberalism in America. Liberalism in its current form only really began in the late 1960s. It was preceded by a scattergun progressivism that didn’t have a specific ideological purpose other than “progress” toward a happy utopian state. Liberalism then turned progressivism into a paranoid ideology that refocused the effort into creating a safe utopian state. Contemporary American liberalism was born of a mother of progressivism and a father of paranoia.
Invasion of the Mutant Liberals
Focus: John Dewey nurtured progressivism in America for over half a century, only to have it suddenly mutate into unintended consequences – contemporary American liberalism.
Details: #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia is a history lesson in the ideology of liberalism. Over the past century until the beginning of today’s liberalism in the late 1960s, the predominant ideology of America can be virtually diagramed by the ideologies of the Presidents of the United States. Woodrow Wilson established progressivism as a governing ideology in the 1910s. Presidents Harding and Coolidge went back to the classical liberalism of the previous century in the 1920s. Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt again returned to progressivism, but mixed in a liberal dollop of the then fashionable Euro-fascism. Truman was forced to water his wine with much of the fascism introduced in the 1930s removed by congress in the 1940s. Eisenhower and Kennedy moved the needle toward classical liberalism even more, but with progressivism as still dominant. It was President Johnson in the 1960s that tipped the scale over to what we now know as contemporary liberalism. Presidents have come and gone since then, but liberalism has steadily gained steam, with only an occasional bump in the road.
Excerpts: ~What is now known as contemporary American liberalism began with arguably the most famous (I would argue infamous) educational philosopher of the past century, John Dewey. He was a progressive utopian dreamer who lived from 1859 to 1952 and is known as the “Father of Modern Education”, which is hardly different from saying the “father of contemporary liberalism”. … John Dewey was not a liberal by contemporary standards – he was not a complete paranoid. In other words, liberals today would probably not agree with John Dewey on many points, and he would probably be horrified with much of contemporary liberalism’s reactions to their extreme paranoia. Nevertheless, he is the father of contemporary liberalism. … Utopianism assumes that humanity and society can be perfected. This is what John Dewey believed, and liberals also believe this for the most part. … But Dewey thought that as society was perfected politicians would become less and less necessary as this new utopian society would naturally function with little governance necessary. This is the goal of an idealistic communist state where each person supposedly desires to work and live for the good of all at the expense of himself – no self-interest, only group-interest with little management necessary. … This, of course, is the first major contrast between Dewey’s utopianism and contemporary liberalism. Liberals are paranoid of anything that might provide resistance to achieving utopia, so government control is central to liberalism. Under liberalism, to reach utopia, limits must be imposed on a society. This of course requires a guiding hand – the hard rule of big government. … Liberalism demands an ever-expanding ruling class to coerce society in the ‘proper’ direction.~
Preface: The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is written for both contemporary American liberals and contemporary American conservatives – for the liberal (or progressive) as an exit counseling process with the purpose of removing the inherent paranoia that prevents them from seeing that in their core belief they are, in fact not a liberal, and for the conservative as a strategy for dealing with liberal acquaintances. (FYI, I am a Canadian – the implications of this are explained in the Introduction and #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments.)
[All citations are active number/letter codes. Code links beginning with an * indicate that the linked page has additional information for the topic at hand. Links without an * are cited for evidence of existence and reference only, as in a quotation or number or case in point. Citations validate my points so that you can trust my claims, and will often provide you with invaluable supplemental information.]
Written in first-person narrative to liberals,
but also for conservatives.
• Mini critical thinking exercise
~Our public education institution is like the mushroom farmer. It keeps the students in the dark and feeds the student manure.~ [cmbzd9s]
As you might have guessed, this essay is about the origin of liberalism in America. The liberal principles to be introduced have to do with a liberal’s view of society. Ask yourself this, American neighbor: Is the foundation of your belief system the equivalent to a classical liberal? Also consider this: As a principle, would JFK have preferred his government to direct each citizen’s life, or would he have preferred them to have the freedom to direct their own lives?ab
• The alpha-beta scale
To understand the Alpha-Beta Scale you need to understand this, American neighbor: Liberal ideology is about being seen to be right. Conservatism is about getting it right.
Alpha Liberal • Beta Liberal
• Transition •
Beta Conservative • Alpha Conservative
At the end of essay number three we discussed alpha and beta liberals, and touched on beta conservatives. I want you to understand these terms, as they will be our scale to judge your deprogramming progress as you proceed through this essay. The scale is a measure of agenda versus reason.
As you first picked up this essay you were either predominantly an alpha liberal or a beta liberal, American neighbor. We have already defined an alpha liberal as an aggressive groupthinker and a beta liberal as a passive groupthinker.ac
• The alpha liberal
Basically, alpha liberals enjoy being in charge of the agenda, whether it is the current President of the country or just some anonymous liberal telling a conservative to eff-off on an internet message board. They think of themselves as “high-information voters”, despite the fact that their information is generally only that which liberals share with each other. Exploring opposing viewpoints is beneath them. After all, what’s to explore? Conservatism is about evil and no one need get their hands dirty over that. The uber-liberal Daily Kos social website, of which I read often, is filled to overflowing with alpha liberals who are blindingly ignorant about the conservatism they think they are despising – they have a completely caricatured view of conservatism. Even when they watch Fox News or listen to rightwing talk radio their ingrained scoff response distorts what they hear and prevents them from accurately understanding the issues from a conservative viewpoint. They are at war with an army of straw men that Genghis Khan would fear (more later).
~A straw man … is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.~ [75l4l]
Alpha liberals also enjoy directing other peoples’ lives through manipulation and intimidation (they are the true progressive-fascists – remember we discussed progressive-fascism at the end of #2 Contemporary American Liberalism = Paranoid Delusion). At the top, alpha liberals decide which two lines are truth, and further down the scale lesser alphas promote and defend the two unequal lines declared as truth. Alpha liberals could care less about reason and reality – the agenda is the only thing. They are always on the lookout for convincing arguments that they can use to present their agenda issues as liberal truths – which almost always turn out to be liberalisms. They research issues to find supportive sophistic arguments for their agenda or they parrot other alpha liberal arguments.
If on occasion an argument actually agrees with reality it is simply a happy coincidence, but here is what is important to understand about alpha liberals and their arguments: They believe they are so right that they don’t need to legitimately prove it to themselves or anyone else. 800 pound gorillas could not be more irrelevant. In this sense they are narcissists. All they are concerned with is convincing everyone else to believe that their two chosen unequal lines are of equal length. Manipulation and intimidation is their game, and because they are convinced that they are battling evil with their own honorable motives, and that their beliefs are absolutely unimpeachable, they can manipulate every day and still sleep well every night without a hint of pause or regret. Alpha liberals are liberalism’s equivalent to Mussolini’s fascist Blackshirts squads, militia thugs used to intimidate his political opponents and voters. Alpha liberals enforce the progressive-fascism of contemporary liberalism through demagoguery, sophistry, manipulation, intimidation, and even violence when deemed necessary. Here is an example where a SWAT team was sent in like a Gestapo squad – it is truly horrifying that this could happen in America: [*mb6ok4d] (Evidence for the equivalent Blackshirts of liberalism’s progressive-fascism will be amply illustrated throughout the remaining essays – we’ve already witnessed some evidence of intimidation and demagoguery in essay #2.) Most liberals have at least a little alpha in them that occasionally surfaces, and sadly for many, manipulation defines their life.ad
300-word pages of text = 46
Reference citation links = 19
Recommended-reading links = 22
Profound insights = 14
Cover photo: Cover photo: U.S. Department of Energy photograph XX-35 APACHE
Cover background: SQUIDFINGERS [4rol8]
Copyright 2012 Jim Autio License Note: Although free, this essay remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied or distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. For fair use only.
• The beta liberal
All liberals have been or are beta liberals who blindly or knowingly support whatever two lines are defined as truth by alpha liberals. Beta liberals are basically yes-men. They are not brave. They can often see that the two chosen lines are not equal, but in their mind they have chosen their side and they will stick with it (playing stupid). They feel safe in numbers and protected by the herd who all nod their heads in unison.
One-on-one, some liberals when presented with contextual evidence and critical analysis will back down, but publicly, and privately in their own mind, they will again stick to their guns, feeling protected by the like-minded herd and scoff reflex. This is why I am confident I can counsel you out of your liberalism, American neighbor. It is just you and me – and you have to answer to yourself at bedtime each night. You will have to answer whether you wish to continue playing stupid with yourself. Or to be blunt – will you continue to lie to yourself?ae
• The beta conservative
The beta conservative is a step over the tipping point, American neighbor. Like both alpha and beta liberals, the beta conservative is also a result of societal conditioning. The balance of influences on their lives have reinforced their desire to direct their own life more so than any fear has been instilled in them to lead them to give over direction of their life to others. But because the beta conservative is still the result of societal conditioning, they may also add water to their wine, occasionally being fearful and accepting liberal positions on certain issues. The beta conservative may not fully understand the issues being discussed, and may fearfully accept an occasional two unequal lines as equal, but they are mostly willing to decide where they stand on which two lines are equal based on their own common sense. They are certainly brave enough to say no to the alpha liberals’ bullying assertions of two obviously unequal lines being equal. The beta conservative generally knows where their self-interest lies, and when they do they will defend their integrity (unlike the beta liberal who is much too fearful to stand up to groupthink). The beta conservative may not be able to argue many issues with alpha liberals, but they won’t be bullied into accepting the alpha’s two unequal lines as equal either.af
• The alpha conservative
The alpha conservative is at the opposite end of the scale from the alpha liberal. The alpha conservative almost certainly began as a result of some sort societal conditioning, but at some point in their life made a decision to research their ideological world view instead of just accepting what had been programmed into them at face value. He is the liberal’s worst enemy. The alpha conservative knows the issues because he has thoroughly researched them in search of truisms, refusing to draw conclusions outside the boundaries of his research. He is the one who takes out his pen and marks out on the edge of one card the length of the first alpha liberal line and then places the marks beside the second alpha liberal line to illustrate that they are not equal in length – liberalisms. This is the point where the alpha liberal scoffs and the beta liberal gets nervous, seeking protection in the herd. Feeling nervous, American neighbor?ag
• Groupthink = presumptions
The groupthink thought process is dominated by presumption. It is presumed that whatever the groupthink propagates must be correct. Even though their two lines don’t exactly match up, for a liberal that is not a problem, because despite the mismatch, their presumption is that they are indeed the two equal lines. Therefore no contextual investigation or critical analysis are necessary. This is how liberals can always see themselves as the smartest person in the room. But I would much rather be the most researched person in the room (an alpha conservative), wouldn’t you, American neighbor?
For instance, the smartest person in the room might declare that President Clinton was an economic genius for producing budget surpluses. But, the most researched person in the room will just shake their head as groupthink self-congratulations swirl around, intoxicating each of the other smartest and wannabe smartest people in the room. Unfortunately, if you were to ask any of these smartest persons in the room if they had actually researched the numbers to verify their presumption, they would probably insist that they had and you are an a-hole just for asking. If you were to ask them to define a surplus, do you think they could do it, American neighbor? I think they could probably get pretty close to a correct definition. The problem for them is that they have never actually applied it to the Clinton years to see if those supposed surpluses actually fit their definition. They just presume there is no conflict.
Let’s look at another example. Ask a liberal how the Great Depression ended and they invariably credit President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal economic policies. FDRHoover became President in 1933 (Recall from essay #2 where I explained that I refer to Roosevelt as FDRHoover because he and Herbert Hoover were joined at the hip as ideological blood brothers – much more in #11 Austerity Versus Stimulus – What Is the History?). The depression was already well under way for two years, so, you would think that a successful strategy to end the depression would have worked within a year or two, three at the most. The more severe but brief depression of 1920-21 was cut short by President Warren G. Harding through drastic government spending reductions, a reduction in the size of government, removal of government regulations and tax cuts – the exact opposite of FDRHoover’s supposed solutions. The ongoing malaise of the Great Depression did not end for another fourteen years, well after the end of WWII when FDRHoover was already dead! Liberals just presume that FDRHoover fixed the Great Depression, because those are the two lines they are told are equal, but, even FDRHoover’s own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau admitted utter failure in May, 1939:
~ “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong . . . somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot.”~ [yea7hpd]
Not only did FDRHoover’s policies fail to stop the Great Depression, they prolonged it (remember – the 1920 depression only lasted 1 1/2 years – much more in #11 Austerity Versus Stimulus – What Is the History?). Do you see that liberal presumptions trump reality, American neighbor? Never presume that a so-called liberal truth is also a truism. In all likelihood it is a liberalism, and with a little contextual investigation and critical analysis it will indeed be exposed as a self-evident fraud. I will present many examples in the following essays, but first let’s examine the history of liberalism.ah
• John Dewey – the father of contemporary liberalism
So how did America end up in this unfortunate state where liberalism is infused throughout society? And you are probably wondering how you were personally programmed into liberalism, American neighbor. The answer to one is also the answer to the other. But let’s first deal with the most pressing question about liberalism. Is liberalism a giant conspiracy? Well, it mostly started that way, but then its handlers lost their grip on the leash of their little pet Frankenstein monster and it took on a life of its own. Let’s start at the beginning.
What is now known as contemporary American liberalism began with arguably the most famous (I would argue infamous) educational philosopher of the past century, John Dewey. He was a progressive utopian dreamer who lived from 1859 to 1952 and is known as the “Father of Modern Education”, which is hardly different from saying the “father of contemporary liberalism”. Although Dewey was a philosopher, his means were educational and his goal was decidedly political. [Essay: Why History Matters, *ydfvufq] John Dewey first became directly associated with the National Education Association in 1918 and was granted an Honorary Life President position in 1932.ai
• Desired a collective society
Dewey dreamt of a new world order of freedom from individual responsibility, and with a complete dependence on others:
~ “Independent self-reliant people (would be) a counterproductive anachronism in the collective society of the future […] (where) people will be defined by their associations.”~ [ye56v5p]
Dewey saw the individual as an enemy of the “collective society”. He saw his purpose as a “mission” to convert the great unwashed from their supposed prisons of traditional thought and morality. John Dewey was an original signatory of the first human manifesto in 1933. [28lk7e5] The aim was to create a new secularist “religion” that was little different from raw Marxism. Dewey even deigned to call his message “the gospel”. He would have his mission do away with such base concepts as fault and blame. There would be no more gender stereotypes where boys did boy’s things and girls did girl’s things, and no such judgments as good and evil, no more right and wrong. Poor choices like criminal behavior were no longer an individual’s sole responsibility, but the result of a faulty society producing this behavior in individuals. All choices would now be equally valid. Morality would be disposed of as an encumbrance to reaching the “true selves”. This man was truly delusional in historic proportions – and the educational establishment loved him! John Dewey’s philosophy is also known as moral relativism, a branch of secular humanism.
Out of a total thirty books considered, John Dewey’s foundational literary work, Democracy and Education was voted as the fifth most harmful book of the 19th and 20th centuries by fifteen conservative scholars and public policy leaders. [p6rw3] Ranking just behind monsters like Adolf Hitler and Moa Zedong, this places Dewey with ‘interesting’ company. Though few know his name today, his vast influence over North American society cannot be overstressed.aj
• John Dewey was not a contemporary liberal
Before we continue I want to clarify something. John Dewey was not a liberal by contemporary standards – he was not a complete paranoid. In other words, liberals today would probably not agree with John Dewey on many points, and he would probably be horrified with much of contemporary liberalism’s reactions to their extreme paranoia. (Early progressives like John Dewey were paranoid of not reaching utopia because of a fear that society might not accept it. Liberals multiply that paranoia, fearing that imagined evil monsters are out to prevent utopia.) Nevertheless, he is the father of contemporary liberalism. Remember our liberal principle: Contemporary liberalism is rife with unintended consequences. Well, John Dewey’s progressive utopianism as the genesis of contemporary liberalism was also saturated with unintended consequences, and contemporary liberalism is the all-encompassing label for his unintended consequences. It is what happens when utopianism inevitably goes from vanilla paranoid to extreme paranoid. Remember our paranoid principle: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism.ak
• Other influential predecessors
Other influential predecessors of modern liberalism include President FDRHoover and Roman Catholic Priest, Father Charles Coughlin who both preached the utopian values of collectivism during the Dirty Thirties. FDRHoover established the Democratic Party as collectivist (although they did reject FDRHoover’s collectivist Second Bill of Rights, fearing a return of the Great Depression after WWII), and Coughlin, through his charismatic radio program converted the Roman Catholic Church in America. [69vpxhg, 7mrw5r4] Margaret Sanger and John Maynard Keynes were two other collectivists of note. However, John Dewey more than any other historic figure converted the masses to the temptations of collectivism, and no doubt influenced the others mentioned above.al
• Dewey utopianism not the same as liberal utopianism
Utopianism assumes that humanity and society can be perfected. This is what John Dewey believed, and liberals also believe this for the most part. (“Our union can be perfected.” – President-elect Obama, November 4 ,2008 [6do5jw]) But Dewey thought that as society was perfected politicians would become less and less necessary as this new utopian society would naturally function with little governance necessary. This is the goal of an idealistic communist state where each person supposedly desires to work and live for the good of all at the expense of himself – no self-interest, only group-interest with little management necessary.
This, of course, is the first major contrast between Dewey’s utopianism and contemporary liberalism. Liberals are paranoid of anything that might provide resistance to achieving utopia, so government control is central to liberalism. Under liberalism, to reach utopia, limits must be imposed on a society. This of course requires a guiding hand – the hard rule of big government. You see, American neighbor, there are two types of utopianists. The Dewey model places faith in a bottom-up progression with a nurturing of the cultural base through the education system. The second type of utopianist is contemporary liberalism’s top-down model where utopian ideals are both indoctrinated from the bottom and forced onto the nation from the top by unopposed elite visionaries. Liberalism demands an ever-expanding ruling class to coerce society in the ‘proper’ direction. To a liberal, utopian ideals must first be imposed on a resistant society. Again, this is progressive-fascism. This explains America’s ever burgeoning government. Whereas John Dewey saw government as virtually unnecessary in a utopian state, liberals see ruling government control as the central tenet of a utopian state. (This did not make John Dewey a minimalist, which we will discuss later. He still favored limitations to individual liberty – he was more of a progressive with Trotsky-like democratic/communist ideals.)
There are two kinds of contemporary liberals in this regard. One aspires to control the reigns of power, or at least influence them, so as to implement the government’s laws and regulations in order to perfect society. The other supports these goals and desires to be nourished by this nanny state. Both positively view having restrictions put on those that disagree with liberalism’s utopian methods and goals.am
• Conservatives oppose utopianism
Deweyism and contemporary liberalism differ from contemporary conservatism in that conservatives do not believe society can be perfected, but with a set of limited moral and legal restraints a balance can be found between the coercion of government power to restrict a society’s natural immorality, and the liberty necessary for people to live their lives as they wish. This is why liberals tend to become bureaucrats, politicians, journalists, educators and teachers more so than conservatives. Liberals gravitate towards societal control positions – they wish to rule and be ruled – whereas conservatives have a natural suspicion of controlling government and institutions. To liberals one can seldom have too much control (this is why liberals can embrace thugs, dictators and socialists like Che, Castro and Hugo Chavez). Liberals view ruling government control as essential and efficacious, or at least benign in leading towards a perfected, utopian society. To conservatives a limited amount of government management is barely more than a necessary evil.an
• All societies have injustices
Despite liberalism’s utopian goals, history has proven that societies always produce certain injustices. It is how these injustices are viewed and dealt with that also separate liberals from conservatives. There are basically two types of societies. The first is a liberated society with included and inevitable unjust traits mostly outside the direct control of government. The second is a government controlled society with its own inevitable unjust traits as a result of that government control. For example, the conservative prefers the unfortunate injustice that some people will fail in a free society and accepts that as the price of freedom for all. The liberal embraces government intrusion into society and the marketplace in an illusory attempt to keep everyone from failing (utopia), and is willing to give up a substantial amount of individual freedoms to government control to reach for this goal. Remember our question from essay number one about whether you would prefer the freedom to direct your own life, American neighbor? Do you see the connection? If you prefer the freedom to direct your own life you disagree with the basic liberal foundation of a coerced utopia.
The conservative chooses the first preferring to accept the unjust traits produced by a society with liberty, whereas the liberal chooses the unjust traits of a society controlled by government with substantially reduced liberty. But here is the real difference. The premise of conservative thought realizes that in spite of which choice is taken some unjustness is inevitable in a society that can never be perfected into a utopia. So if we must live with some societal unjustness the conservative says let’s at least live under the maximum liberty apart from intrusive and overbearing government. For instance, the conservative prefers a free market healthcare system where everyone is responsible for themselves with some minimal government help for those who by their life circumstances are not able (I am not talking about the status quo before Obama’s healthcare reform, but a much more liberated system like healthcare savings accounts – more in #13 Government Healthcare – One Giant Death Panel). Of course those who can, but refuse to act responsibly may fall through the cracks. That is the price of a liberty based system. The following is an example.ao
• How to fill the cracks
During a Republican presidential debate a theoretical situation was proposed where an employed young man who had chosen not to purchase health insurance would become deathly sick after six months. The question was asked, “Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? … are you saying that society should just let him die?” To this a handful of audience members yelled out “Yes”. [67bk8dq] Naturally liberals pounced on this as proof that conservatives are motivated by evil. Let’s however, step back a bit first, before pronouncing guilt. This man made a life choice. No doubt he would have chosen otherwise if he had better realized the predicament he was making possible for himself. In a society where self-reliance and responsibility were held up as the pinnacle of societal moral standards, it is very unlikely he would have had no health insurance. Also in such a society charity would be a much larger institution than with present day society where the nanny government attempts to provide a soft landing for all who slip through the cracks by taxing away disposable income that might otherwise go to charity (this will all be thoroughly explained in #9 Liberals Are the Compassionate Ones – Really?). In such a self-reliant society there is no doubt that the young man’s health treatment would be paid for by a charitable church or probably by charities specifically set up for that rare purpose. He would not die.
Of course liberals see utopia where this young man is taken care of by the government despite what the peripheral consequences might be, like significantly higher taxes necessary to support such a government system (yes, despite what groupthink proclaims, “universal healthcare” like that in Canada is much more expensive than Obamacare and the American health system preceding Obamacare – and our self-reliant system would be significantly more efficient than all of them – more in #13 Government Healthcare – One Giant Death Panel). In fact, the young man would likely get much better treatment from charity at the beginning of his illness than the minimal treatment offered by a financially hamstrung government system. The real price however is the liberty lost to support such a government system, from less charity, to poorer quality healthcare, to limited or no available alternative treatments, to ever more restrictions on what are termed to be risky behaviors that might produce such dire circumstances for young men where the government must pick up the tab for the consequences. Liberals want to convince society to voluntarily give up an ever-growing list of liberties so that supposedly no one falls through the cracks and the cost of filling those cracks is kept to a minimum. Unfortunately the results are an inefficient system with less liberties, the system is much more expensive, and the cracks are only shifted and mostly enlarged.ap
• Liberals sacrifice liberties
~ “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”~ – Edmund Burke
The liberal is willing to sacrifice everyone’s individual liberties for the unjust traits of government control (progressive-fascism) in the futile hope of reaching a utopian goal where supposedly no cracks exist. This is important, American neighbor: For the liberal, imposing government control is more important than any detrimental unintended consequences and resulting corruption. Liberals cannot live for the present moment because of their long-term goal of utopia. It is their utopian ideals that justify their every move in the present despite the fact that they often produce immediate, destructive unintended consequences. So the liberal demands government control over everyone’s healthcare and is willing to sacrifice everyone’s liberty and the overall quality of healthcare to hopefully reach for a future utopia with the illusory dream of no one falling through the cracks, when in fact the whole system becomes one giant liberty crack where everyone falls through – the unintended consequence and 800 pound gorilla in the corner.
~ “The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.”~ – Edmund Burke
In other words, for the liberal it is control first – “We’ll clean up the mess later.” Except the intended benefits are seldom realized and the resultant mess is never cleaned up. (This is how trillion-dollar stimulus packages, cap and trade, and healthcare reform bills are written by agenda driven nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and then passed without legislators even reading or knowing what is in the bills. This is how NGOs can corrupt elections while being supported and funded by the same government they are corrupting.) In fact, liberals see intrusive and overbearing government as progress toward their utopian goal. This is how progressivism and fascism are combined to produce progressive-fascism. Liberty from government then naturally becomes a hindrance to achieving utopia. This is why conservatism is seen as evil by liberals. It is the conservative promotion of liberty – resistance to ever-expanding government – that liberals see as a hindrance to reaching their utopian goals. So anyone motivated to preserve liberty has an evil motive, because to a liberal mind the promotion of liberty is subversive to progressing toward their utopian dream which by necessity needs ever-increasing control to implement – progressive-fascism.aq
• Liberals only live for the future
You see, American neighbor, liberals can’t live in the present, but only for an imaginary future. Liberals demand utopia for all. Until that is achieved liberals judge society based on its failure to live up to their utopian dream. So for the liberal every day that does not live up to utopia is always a failure of society – the basis of their paranoia. Liberals are like a dog chasing its own tail. Every unintended consequence of their manipulation of society to reach utopia is a reason for even more manipulation. They are determined to catch that tail, but the harder they try the dizzier everything becomes, and of course they never do catch their tail. That is infuriating for liberals. It turns them into angry, bitter, critical and most importantly, paranoid beings where society never lives up to their expectations and every opposition is evil (more later). Frustration in not reaching utopia turns liberals into compulsive paranoids, seeing evil resistance to their utopia under every rock. What humor they possess is ugly humor. This is where the progressive turns into a fascist – a progressive-fascist. Consequently, conservatives who oppose their goal of utopia are to blame for the failure of society to reach utopia and therefore must be motivated by evil. In fact it is their extreme paranoia of perceived evil monsters that separates liberals from John Dewey. Dewey was bold in his vision of utopia and more-or-less confident of its realization. Liberals are forever insecure about reaching utopia, and paranoid of evil monsters attempting to derail its realization.ar
• Questions for you
American neighbor, using your third person analysis you should be asking yourself if this is all true? “Do I as a liberal believe that society can be perfected by more and more government control?” As a liberal your answer must be yes, because if it is no, then you are barely a liberal. Think about it. If you are a liberal, you want more government control in order to achieve liberal ideals. For a liberal there is no other way. Liberals believe that the human condition can and must be regulated toward perfection. To think otherwise is to think conservative. (The mechanism of this hidden liberal belief system will be dealt with in the following essay.)
Here is the pertinent 800 pound gorilla question for you, American neighbor: Do you believe in liberal utopianism? If you do not believe that utopian ideals can be achieved, why do you support ever-increasing government control, American neighbor? Why do you wish to give up more of your liberty to government control if you do not believe this control can and will produce a more just society than one with liberty from government control? Do you see, American neighbor? One is either for liberty or against it. More government control is a contradiction to more liberty. They are black and white, hot and cold, yin and yang. Beyond the most basic fundamentals of preserving a civil society, additional government control is anathema to liberty. So do you believe in liberty or do you believe in utopia? If you believe in utopia you are a resultant, conditioned product of John Dewey, an unintended consequence, a liberal. But if you are thinking, since you now understand the dichotomy between government control and liberty, that you no longer wish to believe or participate in liberal utopianism, you have taken another significant step in your liberal deprogramming. (Be confident in your decision, American neighbor! You will have your decision repeatedly affirmed as you read subsequent essays illustrating the horrible unintended consequences of liberalism’s attempts to impose its utopian ideals on society.)as
• Indoctrinating a society
Through no fault of your own you have been programmed with liberalism. Here’s how it came about. John Dewey surmised that the most efficient way to transform a society was to indoctrinate the young so they unwittingly grow up to be progressive proselytes. He also surmised that in order to be able to indoctrinate the young he would first have to control their teachers. This he did through the educators – those who train teachers. Through eager education faculties across the nation John Dewey’s utopianism was implemented by teaching the teachers who would teach the children. Of course, it was a gradual process and it was not entirely successful in its implementation. Although Dewey never witnessed the disaster he created, his utopianism mutated into what we now know as contemporary liberalism. (Incidentally, this all happened in my own country of Canada as well.)
Dewey was a progressive – a collectivist. He called this “the new individualism”. This is like Newspeak from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four novel where black is white, up is down, and collectivism is “the new individualism”. Why would Dewey call it this? Because collectivism had lost favor in society through repetitive international failures of communist countries and needed to be camouflaged. Critical thinking can’t be done by a collective, as John Dewey asserted before collectivism lost its favor:
~ “Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”~ [ye56v5p]
Children are taught to think of the world in a linear fashion that proclaims a proper way and an improper way, not alternative ways. So, for instance, when teaching on the environment the green orthodoxy is of course proper, whereas opposition is of course improper. No alternatives are presented as legitimate considerations. This is not teaching kids how to think, but teaching them what to think – Deweyism, or indoctrination. Why is it do you think, American neighbor, that kids today cannot sit quietly with their thoughts. They fidget and squirm, they simply must have a Game Boy or Xbox to keep their mind occupied. It is because to sit quietly is to think, and thinking is not something they are educated to do. Creative and contemplative thinking is foreign to them. Children must now be occupied with what to think. Liberal programming neither desires nor leaves room for quiet, contemplative thinking. Collectives simply regurgitate what they have been taught. They thrive on hidden liberalisms – unexamined, self-evident frauds thought of as truths. And one cannot be a good liberal attack dog if one abides by manners. So liberalism does not teach manners. My wife is a retired elementary public school teacher. She told me one year about twenty students with July birthdays receiving a small gift and card at the end of the school year in June. As each of them came up to receive their gift and card, not one of them said thank you. Not even one. It starts young. I remember hearing a story on the radio of a logger coming home only to have his five-year-old daughter burst out crying. When he asked her what was wrong she replied through her tears, “Daddy, you murder trees!” Naturally, she learned this from her Kindergarten teacher. (I can tell you that hearing that story was very emotional for me. I was so angry I literally blew up, yelling at the radio and swinging at phantoms in the air! HOW COULD A KINDERGARTEN TEACHER DELIBERATELY TURN CHILDREN AGAINST THEIR PARENTS?!? It made me want to write a book or something. And then I got determined, so here we are. Besides writing this essay for you, American neighbor, I am also doing this because I don’t want some indoctrinating teacher turning your children or grandchildren against you.)at
• Only individuals can think critically
Only individuals can think critically, and the last thing John Dewey needed was a nation of critical thinkers questioning his utopian dreams. So thinking for oneself must become verboten, and the masses should then be assured that what they had been conditioned with was ‘individual’ to them. After all, it would not do if the proselytes ever understood that they were being conditioned not to think for themselves, or as Edmund Fairfield warned in 1853:
~ “The more the ignorance, the better the slave.”~ – Edmund Fairfield; President, Hillsdale College; July 4, 1853 [ye56v5p]
John Dewey thought of individuals and society as essentially innocent in their core, but outwardly corrupted by the traditions and moral expectations of society. He naively thought that if these supposed encumbrances could be eliminated society would naturally gravitate toward his utopian ideals, so he and his educational establishment followers set about to eliminate the teaching of history, because history proved the folly of his progressivism. Dewey encouraged replacing it with social studies, which meant teaching only that of history which promotes “relevant” issues relating to current social causes. [*6cvo5nr] So when learning about civil rights, the only history to be taught would be about the evils of slavery and segregation, and when learning about women’s causes, only the history of the subjugation of women would be taught. When learning about America’s industrial and technological advances, the negative environmental consequences would be highlighted. When learning about war only the devastation, persecution and suffering are “relevant”. The heroes of American history were to be replaced with the demons of America’s past. (No wonder liberals have such a negative view of America.) Need evidence? Read this: [*d7a4qo3]au
• Old is bad – new is good 1
The purpose of education would become making kids feel good about themselves no matter how poor their work habits, grades, attitude or misbehavior. That way they would acquiesce to the new progressive/collective ideological system and not question it. This would be accomplished in two ways. First, teach them to think of themselves as superior to Americans of the past. This of course is done by portraying America’s past as flawed and rotten to the core. The second part of the equation would be done by passing kids onto the next grade irrespective of whether they could perform at the current level. Learning would be no more important than socializing. Self esteem would be paramount. Teachers would be denied the use any sort of real disciplinary actions. Students would never be disciplined for poor attitudes or misbehavior with anything that would approach what would be necessary to curb or correct the problem. Moral judgments were to become the new taboo. Assigning blame and responsibility would be derogatorily seen as ‘judgmentalism’. Students would be taught that judging others is wrong. They were to be indoctrinated with social causes. ‘Critical thinking’ would be turned on its head with more Newspeak influence, defined as questioning and challenging the assumptions of the past. Someone who still respected the old moral models would be someone not thinking critically – so Nineteen Eighty-Four. Further, they were to be taught that they should expect to acquire whatever they desire irrespective of their ability to attain it. Personal obligations of responsibility would be discarded – the community would be responsible. And they must not think that there are serious consequences for a person’s actions, particularly concerning the law. Truth and morals would become relative to any circumstance. “Hypocrisy” would be the only true moral crime – holding to silly old moral values and then breaking them. And of course, students would be taught that today’s America is a result of a shameful history of judgmentalism, victimization, greed and imperialism. This was the strategy that John Dewey saw as the future for a utopian America. The goal was to produce self-satisfied and ignorant young adults that would naturally demand more utopian ideals of their leaders and society at large. [*7u4ksgp, *ybddeuw]av
• Invasion of the mutant liberals
The mutation of John Dewey’s methods began in the sixties with the earliest of the Baby Boomer generation. State by state the National Education Association (NEA) was in the process of becoming what is now the largest union in America. They are the face of public education representing public school teachers and personnel, and college and university faculty and personnel. The 1960s NEA was equivalent to the demented Ygor’s brain accidentally implanted in John Dewey’s Frankenstein experiment. Naturally with its membership being full of unwitting Dewey proselytes the union membership gravitated towards the Democratic Party who agreed with its utopian goals. It soon became one of the largest financiers of the Democratic Party and liberal nongovernmental organizations. [y42gexz] If you do not think that the NEA is an ideologically driven organization, think again. [*cnbhbo] General Counsel Bob Chanin who recently retired after over forty years at the NEA, while explaining conservative criticism of the NEA in a farewell speech, confirms the timing of the politicization of the union:
~ “Why are these conservative and rightwing bastards picking on NEA and its affiliates? [laughing and standing ovation] I will tell you why. It is the price we pay for success. NEA and its affiliates have been singled out because they are the most effective unions in the United States. And they are the nation’s leading advocates for public education and the type of liberal social and economic agenda that these groups find unacceptable. When I first came to NEA in the early sixties it had few enemies and was almost never criticized, attacked or even mentioned in the media. This was because no one really gave a damn about what NEA did or what NEA said. It was the proverbial sleeping giant, a conservative, apolitical do-nothing organization. But then the NEA began to change. It embraced collective bargaining. It supported teacher strikes. It established a political action committee.”~ [yyo8eep]
The NEA became a political machine advocating a “liberal social and economic agenda”. Terry Herndon, the NEA Executive Director in 1973 confirmed this:
~ “The NEA’s ultimate goal is to tap the legal, political and economic powers of the U.S. Congress. We want leaders and staff with sufficient clout that they may roam the halls of Congress and collect votes to re-order the priorities of the United States of America.”~ [y6jq39n]
The NEA and the Democratic Party became synonymous, dedicated to a “liberal social and economic agenda”. Together they saw themselves as a benevolent Big Brother, empowered to shape society to their wills, so why would they not indoctrinate their students into their beloved liberalism?
~ “Schools will become clinics whose purpose is to provide individualized, psycho-social treatment for the student, and teachers must become psycho-social therapists.” – January 1969, NEA, Today’s Education, ‘Education for the ’70s’ [yybvmd8]
Does this sound like education to you, American neighbor? This sounds more like it is something right out of the science fiction horror novel Nineteen Eighty-Four! To me it sounds more like an edubabble description for conducting psychological manipulation on school children, or more plainly put, it sounds like they intended to program America’s children with their liberalism.aw
• Old is bad – new is good 2
The NEA and the Democratic Party wanted control of education and society, not the diminishment of government as Dewey envisioned, so the above listed Dewey goals for education were mutated into judgmentalism is bad unless one is judging conservatism. Traditional morals are prejudiced judgmentalism, but political correctness is moral (political correctness is the moral code of contemporary liberalism – progressive-fascism). Free market capitalism is bad and government intrusion into the marketplace is good. Traditional religion is bad – environmentalism and secular liberalism would be the new religions. Dewey’s vision of a utopian, self-governing populace was supplanted with liberal government tyranny – progressive-fascism. The end goal would remain the same, except that the guiding hand of Big Brother would now be the new path to utopia.
Because judging right behavior and wrong behavior became taboo, student misbehavior became the result of psychological illness, and outlawed school discipline was replaced with drugs like Ritalin. 1960s Baby Boomers were also to be taught that sexual promiscuity would not be subject to disapproval. Libertine self-indulgence would no longer viewed as selfish. Unrealistic expectations would be entrenched with an entitlement attitude that contradicted the American tradition of self-reliance, with an additional approval for the ignoring of manners, morals, rules and laws. To realize these perceived entitlements Boomers would be encouraged to play the victim card. They should demand that other people’s money be made available for their use through the coercive hand of the government. This would be especially true for higher education, healthcare, welfare and retirement. This gave birth to the ‘entitlement mentality’. And more importantly, it empowered liberal elites.ax
• Competent or incompetent populous? – Principle – society is incompetent
Liberalism assumes an incompetent populous burdened with misery is in need of ‘benevolent’ government control in order to function properly. To be sure of an incompetent populace needing and desiring this helping government hand, what better strategy than to dumb them down with programmed liberalism in an enforced public school and college system? [*2enzjvt]
Conservatism on the other hand, assumes a competent population. It assumes that given the opportunity and proper schooling (real critical thinking as opposed to liberal conditioning) the vast majority of the populace can make right decisions and fend for themselves without the supposed ‘aid’ of the ‘benevolent’ guiding hand of big government. This dichotomy between the liberal view of society as generally incompetent, and the conservative view of society as generally competent is another of the foundational principles of liberalism: Contemporary liberalism views society as generally incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of a controlling government. This is not how the founders envisioned America. Their assumption was that if government intrusion could be kept limited, Americans could take care of themselves with churches and charity mostly filling the void for those in need, and where necessary, state government provisions, not the federal government. Unfortunately, for two centuries the country has increasingly drifted away from the founders’ prescription for America.ay
• The liberal takeover
By the end of the sixties the contemporary liberal mutation of John Dewey’s utopianism had become irreversible. Dewey’s dreams would never be realized (not that they ever could have been). Instead of Dewey’s envisioned utopian ideals, a malevolent fascist virus had developed that quickly saturated American society. The education system, the political establishment, the orthodox media, the entertainment culture and the church were soon infected with this new liberalism. Large, intrusive government along with a parallel political NGO industry devoted to it became the remedy for every ill in an America viewed as filled with needy incompetents. Traditions became an enemy of the new, post-traditional society. Societal progress became only that which was deemed to be progressive. “Political correctness” became the true judge of character. Reason and facts were discarded for an ends justifies the means attitude – the end being a liberal utopia.
As the power and influence of the teachers unions grew their students’ grades fell for reasons that have become obvious. Right now on the NEA website they have, for recommended reading two books by Saul Alinsky, probably John Dewey’s most prominently known proselyte, even though Alinsky may have been completely oblivious to this. Alinsky was a radical counter-traditionalist, communist sympathizer, and friend of the Chicago mob who advocated an ends justifies the means type of community agitation with the amoral, relativistic, blame-others, entitlement attitude of Marxism. [*7jtreao, *ye2lswz] Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals has become the tactical textbook for reaching liberal utopia even though he wrote it to obtain a Dewey utopia. The Dewey dumbing down of American society has metastasized as inherent to the indoctrination process called Public Education. Good little children would be molded into good little liberals. [*yado5ko, *75y2kwv, *dyezvs8] Good little liberals are always satisfied with their view of themselves (strong self-esteem, but actually bordering on narcissism), but never satisfied with their view of society. Good little liberals do no wrong, and so when wrong things happen in their life they are taught to blame society. Liberalism teaches that everyone is a victim of society. So as long as people have problems society will be to blame, and this naturally leads to a demand for government to ‘fix’ the problems – that liberal elite empowerment thing again.az
• Principle – society is always guilty
This liberal attitude is important, American neighbor, and perhaps the most acute principle in understanding the basis of liberalism: The essence of contemporary liberalism is that the individual is blameless and society is always guilty. The bitter irony is that liberalism itself is a result of a societal dysfunction – progressive-fascism.
Ideologically egocentric people (liberals) do not look to themselves for fault or remedy, but view themselves as perpetual victims of a deficient society, always looking to government for solutions (be aware we are talking doctrines here, not absolutes – and of course liberals do not identify their liberalism as a societal problem). And likewise, they see others as victims of society, so naturally the solution to their problems is also in liberal government control. This is the difference between the N.C. Essay Series and liberal utopia: Liberals view utopia as a top-down system where government fixes and orders society, and dispatches evil monsters, so the few attempt to fix the many through coercive laws and intimidation. However, the conservative sees society as fixable only to the extent that each person can be taught to fix themselves – personal responsibility. The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is about helping you fix yourself, American neighbor. Your responsibility to society is to be your own personal responsibility.ba
• Deweyism and liberalism like Trotskyism & Stalinism
Among the many flaws in liberalism’s theory of utopianism there is one that stands out. Utopianism can only ever end up with corrupt, authoritarian government control. Leon Trotsky was just such an idealist as John Dewey, believing that after Lenin’s death, Soviet Marxism would develop into a fair and equitable democratic society where everyone lived for the sake of everyone else. But all it takes is for one person with the ability to gain power to insist that they know better what is right for everyone. Joseph Stalin figured that he knew best and soon put a stop to Trotsky’s utopian dream, turning the Soviet Union into an extremely harsh, totalitarian dystopia known as Stalinism. [*crhl9, *9xcdp] John Dewey was America’s Trotsky. Deweyism was designed as a bottom-up societal programming, with the goal being a collective, everybody-for-everything utopia (a sort of western Trotskyism). But Lyndon Johnson became America’s Stalin with his grand scheme of the Great Society, wrecking all of John Dewey’s carefully laid plans for a benevolent utopia, and instead coercing America toward dystopian unintended consequences through a government-knows-best social engineering.
~”The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all. […] We are going to assemble the best thought and the broadest knowledge from all over the world to find those answers for America. I intend to establish working groups to prepare a series of White House conferences and meetings-on the cities, on natural beauty, on the quality of education, and on other emerging challenges. And from these meetings and from this inspiration and from these studies we will begin to set our course toward the Great Society.”~ Lyndon B. Johnson – The Great Society speech, 1964 [73ksky7]
Top-down government control sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? Johnson gave this speech just outside of Detroit Michigan – at the time perhaps America’s greatest city. Now after 50 years of “progress” towards the Great Society, Detroit is acknowledged as the most failed city in America after recently declaring bankruptcy.
Liberalism’s mutation of Deweyism kept its bottom-up societal programming of progressivism, but added the governmental control of fascism to a redefined utopia. Contemporary liberalism (which probably should have been labeled Johnsonism) is a top-down, anything-for-the-cause, soft tyranny of collectivism whose goal is a utopia of “fairness” and “equality of outcome” – Stalinism-light or progressive-fascism. Unfortunately the results of the Great Society and its subsequent liberalism have been worth much less than the amount paid (and owed).
• The Cold War never really ended
If there was one individual point in history that can be directly connected as a turning point where old-style progressivism would be replaced with contemporary liberalism it was the moment that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. It took a few more years for contemporary liberalism to become established in American society, but that single event led to a Lyndon Johnson presidency. Johnson would probably have never become President otherwise. That fateful day in 1964 communist assassin Lee Harvey Oswald won the most significant individual battle of the Cold War. In one moment with three shots he started the dominoes falling that would turn American society abruptly to the left in the political spectrum. President Johnson transformed progressivism in America into progressive-fascism. The Cold War really didn’t end in the early 1990s – it just evolved. Contemporary American liberalism is the lasting legacy of that East (collectivism) versus West (individual liberty) rivalry. The war still rages within America. Apparently, JFK was prescient about a Johnson presidency, fearing he would ruin the country. Unfortunately, JFK would be proven correct. [4xyrnso]bb
• Lyndon Johnson’s legacy & John Dewey’s Frankenstein
You see, American neighbor, every person must first own up to their own sorrows in life (again, we are talking basic principled doctrine here, not absolutes). A capable, responsible and resourceful citizen looks first to himself to solve his own problems, and only reluctantly looks to others for help. This attitude is the conservative way and is a very real obstruction to liberalism which seeks an empowerment of a governing elite to implement the utopian goals of the collective to slay society’s monsters and fix everyone’s problems. A good little liberal proselyte with a self-satisfied attitude that accepts no responsibility for life’s predicaments and is paranoid of evil all around them, holds only the ubiquitous “them” responsible (see the List of Evils in essay #2), and will always look to liberal government or liberal NGOs to correct their or their neighbors’ problems. Liberals seek others to solve their sorrows. Naturally this is a system that guarantees empowerment of liberal elite visionaries. So the myth (noble lie) is perpetuated that even though society supposedly does many terrible things to individuals, if the people would only give the great and compassionate governing liberal elite the support to right these wrongs through coercive government control we could all end up with a collective utopia. Clever, huh? It is a self-perpetuating recipe for producing ever-growing government intrusion into society with a built-in liberal cheerleading squad, but it is terrible for the country which ends up with a population half-filled with egotistical brats ruled by a narcissistic liberal elite who naturally disdain those they govern as stupid and dependant, promising them the moon while knowing they can never deliver it (well, some think they can), while assuming that the populace is too stupid to notice anyway. (Obamacare as an example anyone?) This is Lyndon Johnson’s legacy – and John Dewey’s Frankenstein.bc
• Principle – utopian ideals must be forced upon America
Dewey’s and subsequently contemporary liberalism’s educational conditioning, although effective for much of the populace, has proven to be far from exhaustive. The only educational way to achieve liberal utopia is for government to convince society as a whole of its (the government’s) beneficence, but, because Americans are not homogeneous in their opinions of what constitutes utopia (or that it is achievable or even desirable), when society inevitably resists the leading edge of the government’s implementation of utopia, the liberal elite visionary must either give in to society’s objections or coerce its utopian ideals on the country (like passing Obamacare on Christmas eve with no Republican support and a majority of the American people objecting). In fact this is our next liberal principle: For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it. (Examples will be discussed in following essays, but for a taste, remember the President-elect Obama quote from above: “Our union can be perfected.” His next sentence was: “And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.” To a liberal like Obama the necessity of achieving perfection (utopia) for America is a “must“. [6do5jw]) This is the fascist thinking of contemporary liberalism. It is this sort of elitist thinking in the minds of liberals that validates an ends-justifies-the-means attitude, and so a liberty-based American society is slowly transformed into a corrupt and increasingly government controlled tyranny of progressive-fascism.
Because liberals see themselves as nobly fighting against a conservative evil that is intent on preventing utopia for America, they find sophistry an acceptable strategy, with propaganda their tool. [852o3m2] This is related to their use of the noble lie, where selective, specious and often deceitful reasoning is used to demagogue an issue or opponent. Often, it plays to the preconceived conceptions of the intended liberal audience, targeting their known prejudices and hot button responses while obfuscating rational reasoning and facts. The issue of budget surpluses from the previous essay is a prime example. While liberal leaders will emotionally charge the issue with proclamations of liberal prudence and accusations of conservatives driving up the deficit, we have seen that their reasoning is illogical and unsupported by the facts. The budget surplus issue is a textbook example of liberal sophistry and will be expanded upon in later essays.bd
• Principle – sophistry & demagoguery – weapons of choice
In fact, this is our next lesson on programmed liberal attitude: For the contemporary liberal groupthinker, sophistry and demagoguery are the weapons of choice against critical thinking. So that we can be clear on the meaning of this principle let’s define sophistry and demagoguery.
Sophistry: ~ “A subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning. A false argument.”~ [yy3keh]
Demagogue: ~ “To treat or manipulate (a political issue) … obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.”~ [y9oacxv]
Because facts and reason generally debunk the supposed justifications for the liberal agenda it is not really surprising that liberals resort to sophistry and demagoguery. It’s all they’ve got, American neighbor. These are the tools of the fascist. It is not so much that liberals want the public to believe individual sophistries or incidents of demagoguery. It is that with the massive volume of both they hope to persuade and intimidate the public to their side. This is why they are relentless in their sophistry and demagoguery. Sophistry and demagoguery are warning bells and alarms signifying the last and often only defence of a fallacious position, and an additional interesting observation to be alert for is that often when liberals resort to sophistry and especially demagoguery, they tend to project themselves, providing valuable insight for the astute observer (more on this later). Here’s a list of some liberal sophistry and demagoguery: [*3mm9y66] And of course don’t forget essay #2!be
• Liberalism is always correct
Liberalism rejected Dewey’s principle of there being no right and wrong, and turned it into liberalism is always right. Provoked by their extreme paranoia they contemptuously believe that liberalism is right and everything opposing liberalism is so wrong that it is evil (fascists always use this rationalization as justification for their methods of intimidation). Liberalism mutated John Dewey’s no right and wrong principle, to say anything can be right that upholds liberalism – any lie, any demagoguery, any deceit, any corruption. In other words, a liberal argument need not be honest, follow logic, or stand up to contextual investigation and critical analysis. As long as the argument bolsters liberalism any sophistic argument is acceptable, and equally, any sophistic argument that tears down conservatism is also acceptable. Ignored 800 pound gorillas are all a part of the game. Liberals simply need to play stupid to play this game.
In fact, liberalism is portrayed as so correct that any opposition must be demonized to illustrate how wrong and evil that opposition is – progressive-fascism. So, as we will see in #9 Liberals Are the Compassionate Ones – Really?, in a liberal’s eyes conservatives cut taxes not because it is good for the country, but because they are greedy and are wishing to steal from those below them. If liberals were to allow a legitimate debate on the merits of tax cuts they would have to engage it with factual substance, and, as we have seen with the ‘Clinton surpluses’, the facts are not friendly to liberal arguments. So liberals demagogue conservatives as evil thieves to stifle a debate that would inevitably end in a liberal defeat. Evil can be a conservative’s only motive for tax cuts, and that means there is no need for a debate on the merits of tax cuts (and if tax cuts by a liberal politician are considered expedient, they can be justified as coming from an honorable motive – how convenient).
You see, American neighbor, liberalism has proven John Dewey to have been thoroughly wrong. Instead of creating a society where right and wrong have become incidental, his utopianism-turned-resultant-liberalism has imposed a hyper judgmental and selective political correctness (thoughtcrime) on America which begins with the first and foremost wrong being the questioning of the ideals and methods of liberalism. This is the origin of liberalism’s condemnation of conservative motivation as evil. Liberals are utterly convinced (conditioned) that anyone who does not share their liberal goals and agree with their liberal methods, simply must be out to undermine society (Hofstadter’s Paranoid Style and the paranoid principle: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism.). This is why liberals desire to rule rather than govern. It is not just that no opposition can be legitimate in liberalism’s eyes. It is that no motivation for opposition can ever be legitimate. An example here is the liberal accusation of racism against any opposition to President Obama’s agenda – the intimidation of progressive-fascism. No opposition can be legitimate, so the easiest sophistic argument is the accusation of racism. It really just boils down to saying, “You are evil because your opinions are motivated by evil, otherwise you would be with us.” Again, how convenient. (Of course liberals are exempt – because their motives are good – so when the extreme left turned against Obama over the Bush tax cuts they of course were not considered racists.)bf
• Principle – chaos makes liberal ‘solutions’ more palatable
Liberalism eventually leads to a kind of political anarchy through chaos where sophistry and demagoguery are used to justify any function or goal – progressive-fascism. This directly relates to our next liberal principle: Contemporary liberals employ chaos as a political strategy to destabilize society so that liberal solutions can appear more palatable. Liberalism demands utopian ideals and when liberals become frustrated with being unable to institute their utopia through following the rules of society, they search for ways around the rules, a compulsively paranoid attitude that sees both rules and opposition as evil, intent on stopping liberal utopia. This is also why liberals are not content with attaining power and implementing their utopian dreams. They also feel the need to destroy their opponents. After all, in a liberal’s paranoid eyes, opposition is evil, and it is righteous to destroy evil. This kind of self-righteous attitude with no toleration for dissent is the basis for a growing and eventual inevitable authoritarianism (full-blown fascism), otherwise ideologically known as a managed utopia, or more plainly known as a dystopia.bg
• Contemporary liberalism does not equal classical liberalism
I always find it humorous when I come across liberals who claim that their contemporary liberalism (they just think of it as liberalism or progressivism) extends from the classical liberalism of the early twentieth century. In reality there is only a little truth to this. As we have already witnessed, contemporary liberalism is a hybrid of early to mid-twentieth century progressivism and Euro-fascism, with a contradictory smattering of classical liberalism and modern corporatism mixed in. But first let’s deal with classical liberalism. It is a philosophy that grew in America from an amalgamation of the founder’s vision of liberty and Adam Smith’s free market principles. From Wikipedia:
~Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.~ [k9hpx]
I cannot in one short sentence define contemporary conservatism any better than this. Of course, the contemporary liberal will superficially agree with freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly, while at the same time attempting to stifle them with as much government regulation and political correctness as possible in an attempt to perfect them for the coming utopia (remember from our definition of liberalism in essay #1 that the submission itself is believed to be an individual liberty – and up is the new down, and black is the new white, etc.). [*9gcfel2] However, for the contemporary liberal, limited government, the liberty of individuals, and free markets are anathema to reaching utopia. We have seen that the sixties was the transition period where John Dewey’s benign utopianism was replaced by Lyndon Johnson’s managed utopianism, where government was seen by Dewey as virtually unnecessary for utopia, but where Johnson saw big government as imperative for enforcing and maintaining utopia. In this sense John F. Kennedy was the last President of the Dewey era.bh
• Are you a JFK liberal?
So I have a question for you, American neighbor. Would you consider yourself a JFK liberal? Or maybe better put, do you think you share the same liberal values as JFK? At your core I bet you do. In a 1960 campaign speech to the New York Liberal Party, JFK described his liberalism (a descent from classical liberalism, diluted in other parts of the speech with some progressivism of the first half of the twentieth century):
~I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas.~
Notice all this without the mention of government. This statement is all about the individualism of classical liberalism. It is the individual, not collective government control where Kennedy placed his faith:
~It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith.~
But contemporary liberalism has no such faith in the individual, instead replacing faith with a suspicion of the individual that needs to be forcibly reformed and integrated into a collective utopia. Kennedy continued:
~For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man’s ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.~
Notice here, he goes a step beyond a benign exclusion of government to active denial of its inclusion. Also notice that Kennedy sees self-reliance as leading to the benefits of justice, freedom and brotherhood. His faith is in the individual, “in man’s ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment”. The contemporary conservative embraces this as his own. This completely contradicts the contemporary liberal view of government providing a collective reasoning and judgment for society.
~I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind.~
This is almost Reaganesque in vision, hardly how Dewey envisioned America, and certainly a stark dichotomy from the disdain for America that contemporary liberalism embraces. For the contemporary liberal, America is not at all close enough to utopia to generate such pride and satisfaction, and certainly was much less so when JFK made this assertion five decades ago. America’s history is not something of which to be proud, but to be ashamed. Until utopia is reached the contemporary liberal sees America as arrogant and imperialistic, at most a beacon signaling others to stay away from its perceived draconian failures. (Of course liberals will express patriotism when need be, but this is nothing more than easy sophistry – true patriotism to a liberal is only generated when the country apologizes for its wrongs.) However, here is where Kennedy conclusively repudiates the central tenant of contemporary liberalism:
~I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well.~ [w7t4]
Magic to my ears, American neighbor – and those of every conservative today, and not just platitudes. JFK was no fan of redistribution of wealth (“tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned”). In #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts, we will examine President Kennedy’s very real tax cuts and his very contemporary conservative/classical liberal reasons for them. But this quote is poison to the ears of the contemporary liberal who sees nanny government intervention, taxation and regulation as the correct path to their promised land. For it is the “superstate” that Kennedy abhorred that the contemporary liberal yearns for – a managed utopia. President Kennedy was the last Democratic President to stand for such liberty, unwittingly repudiating the contemporary liberalism that followed his presidency. It is contemporary conservatism that is the modern equivalent of classical liberalism, whereas contemporary liberalism is actually a devolutionary step in the pursuit of utopia from progressivism toward authoritarianism (much more on ideologies later). So tell me, American neighbor, is that last JFK quote magic or poison to your ears? Remember our MCTE question: “As a principle, would JFK have preferred his government to direct each citizen’s life, or would he have preferred them to have the freedom to direct their own lives?” (Now you know why JFK was so fearful of a Johnson presidency.)bi
• Deprogramming lessons
Here is a quote from an alpha liberal. His name is Robert Creamer. A Democratic Party strategist and husband of Chicago Representitive Jan Schakowsky (D), he wrote the blueprint for Obamacare while in prison for bank fraud and tax evasion. He has kindly layed out the universal liberal strategy of sewing paranoia into American society in a single sentence:
~“To win we must not just generate understanding, but emotion–fear, revulsion, anger, disgust.”~
These are all emotions related to paranoia and the tools of fascism. Generate “fear, revulsion, anger, disgust” in a society and you end up with liberalism. John Dewey’s grand pursuit in the social engineering of a benevolent utopia has been perverted into the failed consequence of a fear of monsters hiding beneath every rock. Yes, American neighbor, you are the result of a horrible societal experiment gone terribly wrong (as was I).bj
• Five new principles
In this essay we have discovered five additional liberal principles:
Contemporary liberalism views society as generally incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of a controlling government.
The essence of contemporary liberalism is that the individual is blameless and society is always guilty.
For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it.
For the contemporary liberal groupthinker, sophistry and demagoguery are the weapons of choice against critical thinking.
Contemporary liberals employ chaos as a political strategy to destabilize society so that liberal solutions can appear more palatable.
So do you now have an answer for our other MCTE question, American neighbor: “Is the foundation of your belief system the equivalent to a classical liberal?” Since you answered our first essay question that you would prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, the answer is yes, your foundational beliefs are equivalent to a classical liberal – and a contemporary conservative.
Contemporary liberalism is a mutated variation of John Dewey’s original plan to incrementally implement a Trotsky-like collective utopia, but just as Stalinism drove Trotskyism off the rails, so has Johnsonism (liberalism) driven Deweyism into the ditch and produced a progressive-fascism. Contemporary liberalism is just incremental authoritarianism by another name. Liberalism preserved the best parts of Deweyism; a dysfunctional public school system that deliberately produces a society of dumbed down, dependant citizens with an entitlement attitude (by producing hordes of dumbed down teachers, of course [mftae33, ma2myu9]). Liberalism also added some of its own accoutrements; elite visionaries to force utopia on the masses, and crisis politics to convince the masses to support their forced utopia and to destroy their opponents.
~ “A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is.”~ – Karl Krauss.
• Deprogramming exercise
I have one question for you, American neighbor? Have you figured out whether you still believe in utopia? Liberal groupthink demands that you sacrifice your self-interest for it. Will you continue to do it? Do you think of American society as incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of big government to reach that ever elusive liberal utopia? Or are you beginning to see that liberalism is not the answer, but the problem? Kudos if you are beginning to see through the veil.
Do you think liberals are unaware of how the public school system dumbs down American children, American neighbor? America was recently ranked 15th and 21st respectively in literacy and mathematics skills, out of the top 23 advanced economies in the world. [myb5pr9] Even public school teachers who are NEA members know how bad it is. They send their own children to private schools. [*34y29d8, *5voen3k, *mrx4oad] Watch this short video and see the problem for yourself: [*y49wj9d] For an insider’s view of the NEA I want you to read this enlightening interview with a former NEA administrator from 1985, American neighbor. It is a bit of a long read, but it is eye-popping! (Remember, this is a liberal saying these things.) [*d2myuoz]
Here is another thing that John Dewey and liberals have done to the public education system – they’ve made it into a make-work program while academic achievement has disintegrated:
~The Friedman Foundation for Economic Choice recently released a study that showed the amount of administrators (non-teachers) in the K-12 public education system has increased over 700 percent since 1950, while the amount of students has increased by only 96 percent.~ [c24lua8]
Deweyism and its subsequent, unintended consequence of liberalism are both about denying you the liberty to direct your own life, American neighbor. Utopia is not where everyone lives in bliss. It is where all individual choices are usurped by collective rules that coercively direct your life. That is not liberty, American neighbor. That is a type of subservience. Sleep tonight with liberty on your mind.bl
• Humor, sort-of
Instead of humor we have a profound witticism to end this essay. From the man who has taught us more about totalitarianism than any other, the author of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm:
~ “In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”~ – George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)