POINTS TO PONDER: The ‘Conspiracy’ We Know as the ‘Progressive’ Movement

In my first post in this series, POINTS TO PONDER: Does the Progressive Agenda Violate the ‘Separations Clause?’, I attempt to help readers see that the Progressive movement is religious in nature: one just has to understand the roots of Progressive ideology before one begins to see how this is true.  In this post, I will ask the reader to consider another aspect of the Progressive movement, and that is the reasons why the Progressive agenda so often seems to lend itself to ‘conspiracy’ theories.

Now, before we start, I must warn you, dear reader: this will not be a short post.  Nor will it be easy for most people to read.  This is because I have to provide the briefest of a background story before I can have any hope of helping you see what I want you to see.  Even then, I will be forced to leave out most of what you need to know to see clearly.  Nevertheless, I beg your indulgence.  Please stay with me while I lay the necessary foundation.  I promise, near the end, it will start to make sense — and you may never laugh off the notion of ‘conspiracy’ again (though you may understand it in  different light).

Once again, we need to go back to the start of the Progressive movement.  This will take us back to the mid 1800’s and a bunch of German students of a man named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.  They were kicked out of Europe, mostly because of the danger presented by their ideas.  Hegel’s most famous student is probably Karl Marx, but he had others: others who are just as important to us today — and just as dangerous.

The first of these students we will look at was a man named Herbert Croly.  He is one of the forgotten founders of the American Progressive movement.  It was Croly who coined the term, ‘New Nationalism,’ which was later championed by another founder of the Progressive movement, Theodore Roosevelt.  Croly tied historic progress to material egalitarianism: the belief that history is marching toward the ultimate goal of equality in all things, especially material wealth.  This is the central tenant of Marxism.  In words that could have easily come from Marx, himself, Croly wrote this critique of the American system:

“It is the economic individualism of our existing national system which inflicts the most serious damage on American individuality;…”

You see, Croly, like most of the original Progressives, believed in democracy, but their idea of democracy was essentially the same as Marx’s Communism.  They believed that society was moving toward a utopia in which the individual would fade away and the collective would become the focal point of society.  The ‘People’ would express their collective will through ‘democratic’ means, and all individual rights would be stripped away in the process.  The only thing that would remain were the needs and the will  of the ‘cooperative’ collective.  This is the idea that was actually being reflected in Obama’s speech in which he said:

“If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own…. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.”

To the Progressive, everything is the result of a collective effort: nothing can happen due to the efforts of any individual.  Therefore, the individual can only be happy when he or she finds their place in and submits themselves to the will of society.  And only in this way — according to the Progressives — will the individual ever know true freedom.

This brings us to the next important point about the Progressive ideology: that ideas are useless unless they are actually brought to fruition.  In other words, the Progressive cares less for talk and more for doing or making it happen.  Thus, the Progressives spent a great deal of their time trying to figure out how they could best bring about this utopian collective toward which they believed history was pushing humanity.  This is where Woodrow Wilson enters the picture.  First, let us not be fooled: Wilson was also a student of Hegel and Marx:

“The fundamental theory of socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same.  They both rest upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members.  Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be, limits of principle [of the things government can and cannot do], upon strict analysis, there are none.”

In other words, Wilson believed in his own version of Communism where the people had the authority to do whatever they wished — even to its own members.  So long as 50.0001% vote for it, then that is what the Progressive considered to be the ‘moral’ and ‘just’ thing, and no one and nothing had a right to object.  After all, whatever the People vote for is the ‘will’ of the collective, and the will of the collective is the ultimate expression of the Progressive’s notion of ‘democracy.’  This then leaves only one question for the Progressive: how does he or she direct the ‘destiny’ of society so that it can be made to actually happen in the real world?

For most early Progressives, the answer was ‘administration.’  In short, this meant the establishment of an elite, specially trained cadre, independent of the Peoples’ will, who would govern society ‘scientifically’ by conducting ‘experiments’ on society to determine what works and what does not and then governing accordingly.  This is all explained by Wilson in his essay, ‘The Study of Administration.’  In this essay, Wilson calls for the establishment of an independent and unaccountable bureaucracy run by a cadre of elite people who are appointed to their positions for life.

“I know that a corps of civil servants prepared by special schooling and drilled, after appointment, into a perfected organization, with appropriate hierarchy and characteristic discipline seems to a great many thoughtful persons to contain elements which might combine to make an offensive official class….”

— Woodrow Wilson

Dear reader, this is the ‘shadow government’ you hear about in the media and it is real: Wilson and the Progressives succeeded in their goal of creating this un-accountable ruling elite.  However, if you fear these people might ever represent a threat to you or society, don’t.  Wilson also said this will never happen because — essentially — this ruling elite are the angels John Adams and James Madison said did not exist and, therefore, was the primary reason the Constitution placed chains on the government: so as to prevent the very thing Wilson and the Progressives wished to create.

Returning to the laying of our foundation, the Progressives knew where they wanted to go.  All that remained was to figure out how to make all this happen in a country where the Constitution prohibits every bit of their agenda?  (which, by the way, is why the Progressives always seem to be at war with the U.S. Constitution: it’s because they are!) The Progressives’ answer was to start with the education system.  Going back to Croly again:

“The best way to popularize scientific administration, and to enable the democracy to consider highly educated officials as representatives, it to popularize [today — populate] the higher education [universities].’

In short, the Progressives sought to take over our university system — and they did.  They started by establishing many schools with the purpose of producing the core of this cadre of Progressive elites.  Then they slowly took over other schools until, today, the universities we know as ‘Ivy League’ represent the culmination of the Progressive effort to construct this elite ruling class.

Now that I have laid the most minimal of a foundation for you, dear reader, let me start bringing things together.

— First, we must remember that the Progressives believed that they could govern society through ‘science.’

— There were many fields of ‘science’ by which they could achieve their goal of directing the evolution of humanity.

— These fields included administration (i.e. government bureaucracy); education; economics; social sciences; health care; the media/press; even the arts and especially the entertainment industry.

— We must also remember that the Progressives formalized the ‘science’ of what we now call public relations and/or ‘spin.’  Originally, before the word took on a negative connotation, this was referred to as propaganda.

— Next, we must remember that the Progressive founders all studied the same philosophers.  They also interacted with each other.  While each of them may have had their favorite focus as to what is the best method for achieving their goal — education for Dewey, Administration for Wilson and the press for Lippmann — they all had the same goal: the construction of a ‘democratic’ society where the individual is eclipsed by society (and society is governed by an appointed, unaccountable, ‘scientific’ elite).

So the solution was simple: train an elite and put them in to the system in places where they are not elected and cannot be touched by the government system as described by the Constitution.

The next problem for the Progressive was to figure out how best to pick these elite and train the people to accept this new social organization.  Their answer was to indoctrinate the masses through public schooling while using the elite university system to control who would have access to the un-accountable organs of ‘administration.’  And this is where the feeling of ‘conspiracy’ is born: the majority of those people running the bureaucracies, elite universities, media, entertainment and public schools all come from the same Ivy League schools.  This is because the ivy League schools were the Progressives answer to the problem of selecting their elite cadre.

This cadre is selected by using the college entrance and acceptance programs.  They are then shaped by the curriculum, which is taught by other Progressively trained professors.  They are then further whittled out when they entered into whatever branch of the ‘administrative’ machine they chose or for which they were groomed.  And, finally, after entering their specified branch of the ‘administration,’ they are continuously controlled by those above them, who also happen to be a part of the system.  The ultimate beauty of this plan is that, aside from the true, hidden leadership, the rank-and-file member of this elite ‘governing’ class never realize that they — too — are programmed drones.

The easiest way to see what I am trying to explain is to read Orwell’s “1984” and Huxley’s “Brave New World.”  Read them both and combine them in your mind, paying special attention to the characters in each book from the ruling elite of the societies in each book.  You will see that the ruling elites in this book are the fictional reflection of the real-world people behind the system the Progressives constructed.  If you will research them, you will also discover that both Orwell and Huxley were a part of these ruling elite, so they wrote with a great deal of informed authority.

This network goes far beyond anything the average person would imagine or expect:

Politicians And Their Famous Roommates: From Movie Stars To, Well, Other Politicans

I understand that it is easy to dismiss all of this as coincidence.  I once believed that, myself — but no more.  Now that I know the history behind the Progressive movement; what they believed and how they planned to achieve their goals; and how to understand the language they use; I see connections in everything about the process that shapes and directs our daily lives.  For example: can you see the related idea that runs through and connects the following quotes?

“And the people cannot be bothered with administration, for not only are they too busy, but they are simply unfit for and incapable of such a momentous task.”

— Woodrow Wilson, Founder of the American Progressive movement

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the [public] is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

— Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda, ‘PR’ and ‘SPIN’

“The public must be put in its place, so that it may exercise its own powers, but no less and perhaps even more, so that each of us may live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd.”

— Walter Lippmann, hero of modern American journalism

“Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”

— John Dewey, father of modern public education in America

If you see the common theme in these quotes, as well as how it progresses from a thought to an active solution, then you are starting to see what I mean by a Progressive ‘conspiracy.’  It is not so much the notion of a ‘tin-foil-hat’ conspiracy as it is a highly successful conspiracy to subvert the nation by undermining the U.S. Constitution and the system of government it describes.  Put another way, the Progressive movement is like a computer virus that infects, takes over and eventually re-writes the host operating system.  Once the process of infection is complete, there is little to no trace of the original operating system.  The trick is to teach yourself to look for and recognize the signs of infection and, in the case of Progressive social programming, it manifests in the form of a consistent agenda throughout all levels of government, education, the media and even our entertainment industry.  Once one understands and accepts this, and actively starts to look for these signs, they will become readily apparent in most everything you see or hear in the news, at school or in your favorite TV show or music.  We simply do not live in a world that happens by chance — not anymore:

The Progressive idea “…proposes that all idea of limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view….” and “…that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will.”

– Woodrow Wilson, Founder of the Progressive movement

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way.”

— Franklin D Roosevelt, Progressive

Do you see the connection and progression of ideas in those two quotes?  if so, do you see how they are connected to the notion of Progressive ‘conspiracy’ I have tried to describe and illuminate?  I would ask, dear reader, that you make an attempt to look for these signs: the signs of this Progressive conspiracy as well as how they are all connected back to the Progressive goals and system for achieving them.

 

 

 

 

h

 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “POINTS TO PONDER: The ‘Conspiracy’ We Know as the ‘Progressive’ Movement

  1. This is the best description of the Progressive movement I have ever read. Since I agree with it, it is difficult for me to criticize it, but I would be interested in arguments that might be used against it. Especially I like the use of the “separations clause” against Progressives, since they always twist the words of the Founders to maintain a “wall of eternal separation” between Church and State, to strip religion from the public square, rather than to prevent a “national” religion, which as you say the Progressive movement has become.

    1. Michele,

      Someone may try to make a counter argument, but it will be tough. I have used the Progressive founders’ own words here, and I even left out a few for the sake of brevity. they also said that the individual should place their faith in government (instead of God), sacrifice to government (instead of God) and subjugate their own will to that of the State (instead of the will of God). Therefore, even though they may argue their ideology is not a religion, it will not make it so. This is because Progressivism meets the definition of a religion, and even uses the same language of religion. It’s just that the individual Progressive does not see what they are doing (most likely because they are Spiritually blind).

  2. Excellent presentation. I would add that the “progressive” likes to hide behind the label of “liberal”, which confuses the original sense of the word liberal. One of my friends, on the other hand, does not want them to use the word progressive, because it implies progress, and thus implies “better” or more modern. I think Glen Beck was making a lot of progress in his TV series a few years ago, explaining the relationship of the Progressive Movement and its connections with the Fabian Society in England, and its roots in Socialism and Communism, and also Fascism.

    1. Alan,

      I understand what you are saying, however, Dewey (a leading Progressive) argued that Progressives were the ‘new’ liberals because the Progressive was working toward a new idea of individual liberty (i.e. the collective). Progressives did believe they were working toward something new and better. It’s just that the Progressive rejected the Marxist call for a sudden, violent revolution as the best means of achieving this new society. To the Progressive, the best way to do this was through a series of small steps forward, or to ‘progress’ toward their goal of a new liberal paradigm that they called ‘democracy’ but which was — in realty — a Progressive twist on the Communist ideal.

      As for Beck: I agree, he was doing good work. HOWEVER, Beck has never made the connections he should have made between the different parts of history he has brought to his audience. He is good at pointing to them and explaining the actors and their ideologies, but he really hasn’t (and I believe cannot) make the connections that bring all the pieces together into one coherent understanding of history. Sadly (in my opinion, anyway), this is because Beck, himself, is possessed of a touch of the Progressive tendency to re-write and/or dismiss things that he finds objectionable. When Mr. Beck encounters something that offends his world-view, rather than trying to see where and how it fits into the reality of this world, he re-writes the narrative to fit his desired story or narrative. In other words: instead of considering whether or not he should change his world view, he changes the facts and/or event. This does not mean there are not connections between the different pieces of the puzzle — there are. It just means Mr. Beck is blinded in a way that prevents him from being able to put those pieces together in a way that forms a consistent, coherent picture of history.

Your comments are wanted and welcome, but are moderated before posting

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s