Modern Liberalism is not Liberalism

John Locke is called the Father of Liberalism. His beliefs were like those of our Founding Fathers. The uninaleinable right that he referred to as our First Right, is the right to defend our lives, our rights, our liberty, and our possessions with unrestricted, unmolested, and unrestrained access to firearms other means.
He is quoted in the Declaration of Independence both verbatim and paraphrased. Classical Liberals valued personal freedoms, personal rights, personal beliefs, personal choices, and personal wealth….. and honored a man’s freedom to pursue those things above all else. Modern liberalism calls for collective wealth, collective beliefs, collective acceptance of other people’s choices, and calls for personal freedoms to be restricted in the name of the collective, or social good.
Democrats were never ‘liberal’, and they aren’t ‘liberal’ now. They have perverted the meaning of liberalism to adopt the sincere love and acceptance of true liberals in order to enslave those that would allow them to regulate their personal lives with their fascist ideologies. And yes, fascism is, even if it wasn’t in the past,  a leftist ideology.

Before WW2, Democrats had started to accept rapidly growing belief systems like socialism, communism, and fascism. We had a robust Socialist Party, the German American Bund (Fascist supporters of Nazism), and we had a  large population of Americans who valued Russian-style Communism, who mostly belonged to the Socialist Party like Socialist Party Presidential Candidate and BernieSanders hero, Eugene Debs.

If not for the start and outcome of WW2, the fate of the minority groups in The United States of America would have a very different history to reflect on if the actions of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany would have been initiated here. However, Nazi Germany and Communist Russia put on display the absolute horrific results of those systems of government, and that resulted in their American cousins to vacate their open celebration of those ideologies. Their communist, socialist, and fascist ideologies were then molded into the Progressive Democrat Party’s core agendas.

Since one of the ‘evil three’ is more feared and stigmatized than the others, the question must be asked…. How does fascism apply to modern Progressive Democrats?

Fascism is defined as an authoritarian system of government centered around a core set of beliefs. Democrats like to try and box-in fascism as a strictly right system. This is a biased and ignorant definition, and it is best defined like this…
“Roger Griffin’s definition of fascism focuses on the populist fascist rhetoric that argues for a “re-birth” of a conflated nation or ethnic people. 
According to Griffin:
Fascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying and cathartic national rebirth can stem the tide of decadence.”
Defined as such, fascism becomes malleable to whatever group decides to implement it’s typically authoritarian style governmental policies in the name of building a new, more ‘moral’ or ‘righteous’ nation. Democrats seek to install socialism, with touches of communism, through government centered regulations in the name of a ‘intellectually based’ morality. They seek a  “re-birth” of the USA as a nation built upon a Science and Atheist centered authoritarian style government. Climate change suddenly becomes a religious-like belief system. It becomes an avenue by which opponents of the governmental policies meant to stem the human impact of climate change are uneducated, misinformed, and even moronic….. While everyone that supports that agenda and accepts unproven theories as facts, are intellectually elite. Likewise, anyone that opposes gun control, gay marriage, atheist school systems, restricting of religion to the home and church, or any other “liberal” policy are labeled bigots and opponents of progress.

Progressive Democrats seek to give power to the government to implement policies, without compromise or a balance of power, that they feel are best for the social, or collective good of the people. They seek to build a national belief system of their progressive agendas that removes the liberties of the individual in order to install a leftist ideology in the name of some mythical collective good. This is the same rhetoric that Hitler used to justify his fascism. This is displayed currently by Presidnet Obama every time he uses his blatantly sarcastic and condescending rhetoric to slander Congress as incompetent and inefficient. He is letting his followers know that Progressives would make these changes if only Congress didn’t exist. It is a veiled call for authoritarianism to be accepted by the people. 
Progressive Democrats claim that only their progressive ideologies are a solution to the assigned bigotry that they level at any opponent of their agendas. Progressive politicians that achieve some victory in their cause are lauded as heroes, as fascism embraces. Naturally, they seek out groups that can be easily convinced of their victimization due to their minority status in society. By doing this, the least impactful, and even damaging, actions of someone supposedly acting on behalf of these groups achieves faux heroism. 
They are building this conglomerate of minorities into a majority of elitist, self-righteous, and a very fascist block of Proressive Democrats that seek to eliminate the “bigotry” of the “majority” that they are seeking to make the minority. This is why open borders and lax immigration laws are lauded as examples of the “compassion” and “equality” that the Progressive Democrat prides themselves on….. They are recruiting voters.
They seek to achieve their final solution by slandering all opponents as outsiders of the elitist cause, stupid, backward, unfit, and violent….. The exact same labels and slander they used to target Black Americans in their golden age of Slavery, Klan atrocities, ghetto construction, Jim Crow and Lynching laws, and finally….. The “War on Poverty,” with which they have built a dependent and loyal group of voters that NEED a powerful government that is willing to keep the welfare flowing.
Modern Progressive Democrats are a mixture of 1930’s socialism, communism, and fascism…… All of the worst systems of governance the world has ever known, all of which have collapsed in on themselves…… rolled into one huge ball of manipulative, greedy, slandering, pandering, and corrupt politicians.  The people who support them are not necessarily these things as well, but they are being naive while aggressively defending the fascist, socialist, and communist policies openly on display from their chosen mule. They fervently deny and insistence that the things they support are, in any way, oppressive or tyrannical. All the while they are willingly voting for their leaders to erode their personal liberties.

It really is a shame that all of these people, that consider themselves intellectuals and socially and morally superior, are fooled so easily by this ideology that seeks to enslave them. They want so badly to be the winning and most moral group, that they refuse to look up at the monster they are following down a road of oppression and blatant racism.

The “Progressive Liberalism” Reality

“American liberalism is a totalitarian, political religion, but not necessarily an Orwellian one. It is nice, not brutal. Nannying, not bullying, but it is definitely totalitarian, or holistic, if you prefer, and that liberalism today sees no realm of human life that is beyond political significance, from what you eat to what you smoke to what you say. Sex is political. Food is political. Sports, entertainment, your inner motives and your outer appearances all have political salience for liberal fascists.”

…….Excerpt from the book ‘Liberal Fascism’ by Jonah Goldberg, which he intends to make the case that fascism has always been an ideology left-of-center on the political scale, and deeply rooted within the American Democrat Party. To dig down into the bosom of this blossoming revelation, we need to understand what, and who he is referring to.

 

Liberals in America have taken on many forms since the founding of our great nation, and not all of these forms are genuine to the actual definition of what liberalism means, or use to mean.

Liberalism of the late 17th century all the way through the late 19th century was centered on the belief that equality among men in their rights to live, pursue, possess, and defend all of those things freely, were the key to stable, moral, and fulfilling lives of any society. Progressivism was an avenue, a branch of this liberal mentality that viewed advancement of equality between the sexes, equitable possessions of men due to the eradication of poverty, and advances in science as a means to ensure a liberalistic society continued to move forward, but in their opinions, at a more rapid pace. It still fell in line, and in no way in contrast to, the classic definition of liberalism.

 

John Locke, called the Father of Liberalism, preached the idea that equality between men is paramount to the success of a nation and the morality of the human being. Locke, even though dead since 1704, lended his words to the founding documents of The United States, being quoted both verbatim and in paraphrase in the Declaration of Independence.

Liberalism of men like Locke, and later on, our Founding Fathers advocated for the very freedoms listed in the Constitution, almost identically. It demanded a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (of possession, according to Locke) in opposition to any interference and burdening of these rights at the hands of any government. Locke called the right to self defense the First Natural Right. This First Natural Right did not stop at the preservation of your life, but extended to the ideas, and even the possessions of a man gained through his labor and investments of effort and money. This is the basis for our Second Amendment Right to possession and use of individual firearms, and not reliance on the State for the securement of our rights.

Here, we begin to see the division between classic liberalism and modern day ‘progressive liberalism.’ While men like Locke and our Founding Fathers valued the rights to individual possessions and the ability to defend those things ourselves, Progressives, or Modernists, in the mid to late 1800s began to develop the thought that the State should take a more invasive role in advancing equality among men through, what our Founding Fathers would have considered, the same tyrannical and oppressive policies of the monarchy from which we had just loosed ourselves from.

 

As the Civil War came and went with Republicans fighting for equality for slaves, and our nation was facing the Industrial Revolution. Progressives developed an even more passionate desire for the State to take a more aggressive role in implementing laws and policies that would benefit the development of technology and the advancement of ‘equality’ at a more rapid pace.

Unfortunately, these people who claimed to desire equality among men and women also became enamored with the idea that certain races were unfit to be included into this new utopian society that they envisioned. Societal engineering through Socialist policies, eugenics, anti-Semitism, and outright racism became synonymous with Progressivism, and coincidentally, Nazism. Noted Progressive Americans openly called for the eradication of “lesser human animals” based on the ‘scientific studies’, cherished by Progressives, that ranked human races in terms of quality by purely self-serving racist standards and stereotypes, much like we would later see in Nazi Germany.

 

“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … Philanthropists encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste.

Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.

The main objects of the Population Congress would be to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring; to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

-Margaret Sanger, “The Pivot of Civilization” and “A Plan for Peace”

 

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a Progressive Liberal in the early 20th Century that called for  eugenicist policies to be used to either forcibly sterilize, abort, or to segregate people from society who she and her Progressive colleagues deemed as unfit, tainted, weeds, and human waste. Modern self-described Progressive Liberals, like Hillary Clinton, often praise the vision and work of Margaret Sanger.

The question must be asked…… If Margaret Sanger’s vision was to ultimately eradicate, in absolute entirety, the existence of minority peoples through sterilization and abortion, or to at least keep them segregated from society, which she indeed seek to do, then in what way can modern Progressives, “admire the vision,” in the words of Hillary Clinton, without also honoring her intention of eradication or segregation?

H.G. Wells, during a speech at Oxford University in 1932, called for his Progressive Liberal associates to become ‘enlightened Nazis’ and ‘ Liberal Fascist’. While this is the first reference I have given to fascism in the United States, the fascist ideology was not a new idea in the USA in 1932. Neither was the phrase “Nazi.” The USA had a very active and popular Nazi affiliated group called the “German American Bund,” which had evolved into existence from a group called “Friends of New Germany.” This group consisted of a registered membership of 25,000 people, and countless unregistered ‘members’.

So, Wells was not making these statements about an enigmatic political group on the other side of the planet, but about an American group that helps to show us his familiarity of what fascism was/is.

 

With fascsim being defined as a strictly right-wing ideology, how could Wells call for liberals to become fascists?

What would liberal fascism look like, and what would their policies and agendas consist of?

 

To answer these questions accurately, all that must be done is to draw a sincere link between fascism and the progressive ideologies of the time. Remember when I said that Progressives believe that the State should have a very invasive role in implementing progressive policies? Well, what better way to have this done than to have an authoritarian nationalist system of governance in place? This would ensure that opposition to their policies would be minimal, and powerless if it were allowed to exist at all.

In what way did Wells’ liberal fascists need to be ‘enlightened Nazis’?

Nazis and Democrats, which included Progressives, were not far apart in those days as far as ideological beliefs. Both groups had a problem of an ethnic group of citizens that they felt were unfit to be a part of their communities. Both groups built ghettos to wrangle these people into segregated areas in which they had little to no means by which to support themselves. Nazi Germany quickly found itself in a very large war effort in which it’s financial stability quickly ended any desire for these ghettos to be supplied with food and necessary provisions. The Final Solution came about to end this problem. Instead of feeding and housing their “unfit” weeds, they decided to kill them.

While the economic environment in the US was similar, the war against Germany began to cause any idea that fascism was acceptable to be scrapped, and anyone that pushed Nazi-like ideals were often jailed. While Democrats still had to deal with the existence of a people they hated as badly as the Nazis hated the Jews, and while lynching laws remained, America never took a step down the road to exterminate Black Americans. So, his ‘enlightened Nazis’ would have to become enlightened to find another way to deal with the problem of Black Americans.

At the same time that Nazism had become taboo, so had the ideologies of Communism and Socialism, due to the negative view of the Soviet Union and the efforts of men seen as traitors like Eugene Debs. Unfortunately, the fascist, socialist, and communist ideologies had already become engrained in the ideologies of the Democrats of the time, and once a seed of an invasive vine like those ideologies takes root, it is nearly impossible to eradicate.

So, how does all of his permeate into the modern Democrat Party and Progressive Liberals, being that there was some big switch in which the racists Klan members switched from Democrat to Republican affiliation, which supposedly ended Democrat racism?

Simple…… The big switch never happened!

 

When the New Deal of FDR was being marketed to the people to gain support, it was not very popular because even the Democrats of his party considered it far too socialist/communist to ever be passed. The people though, long out of work and hungry for change, saw the potential for jobs and a return to prosperity. Not only did white voters buy into the idea of the New Deal, but so did Black Americans, who were led to believe that the benefits of the package would get them out of poverty too.

With promises of jobs, housing loan incentives, small business loans, entitlements for farming, and many other benefits, the New Deal was simply one that none of the people could pass up, including Black Americans, who rushed out to change their party affiliation from Republican to Democrat.

There is always a catch, right?

Of course there is! Just because the people loved the New Deal, didn’t mean that Democrat and Republican politicians and leaders were buying into it. Especially Southern Democrats. The idea that the “human weeds” were also going to benefit from the associated programs within the Deal was unacceptable. The ghettos and slums were currently keeping them segregated, and those housing benefits would mean that those “unfit” people might possibly be able to purchase a home next door to a white family.

Due to a great deal of pressure and a fear that the proposal would be voted down, FDR agreed to amend his initial deal to exclude Black Americans from everything, except some very limited job programs, to get it to pass. This wasn’t the only time FDR failed to stand his ground for Black Americans. He also refused to veto or overturn lynching laws and even used executive action to establish other policies that oppressed Black people.

Black Americans had been fooled into switching parties in expectation that they would finally get ahead. The New Deal did create enough jobs that a lot of unemployed Black Americans got, but they were excluded from a lot of the best jobs, and the ones they did get involved them getting a far lower rate of pay than their white counterparts.

The majority of Black Americans in the South had been share crop farmers for their entire free lives. Farm subsidies through the AAA excluded Black farmers. Due to this, and constant harassment at the hands of the Democrat ran Klan, Black families fled their 40 acres and a mule in exchange for little to no pay for their land and the hope of jobs in large cities.

This actually helped boost the economy because there was a sudden demand for an enormous amount of housing in these new Black communities, which flooded areas previously dominated by other minority groups. In Chicago, an area called the Black Belt saw an explosion of extremely poorly designed (and built) high rise housing units built by white labor for Black residents be erected. Efforts to maintain the segregation that Progressives, like Sanger and Wells, had worked so hard for was in danger of falling apart, so support for the construction of these State funded housing units was plentiful.

Black Americans were no longer predominantly farmers in the South. They had been lied to, falsely promised, persecuted by the Klan, and ran out of the southern agricultural fields and into concentrated areas in major cities, ghettos. Democrats were delighted with these results. Southern Democrat plantation owners were now back in possession of the land that had been taken from them and given to freed slaves.

Progressive hero Woodrow Wilson, before FDR and his New Deal, was a progressive Democrat and held office for two terms. He established several federal agencies in the name of progressive policies, and set the stage for FDR to get elected. Wilson was also a raging racist who implemented segregation, lynching, and expanded Jim Crow laws. He was a Klan sympathizer and screened the first movie ever shown in the White House….. The Klan film “Birth of a Nation.” This serves to further demonstrate how Progressives have always been invested in the exploitation and oppression of Black people and minorities.

 

/////Brace yourselves for offensive language. I will not redact the reality of the views of a United States President///////

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”—LBJ

 

So I got a little ahead of myself with that…… but, this serves to show how the Progressive segregationist mentalities of the Democrat Party lasted right through the 40s and 50s and stretched into the 60s.

Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the very first  Civil Rights Act in 1957. And another in 1960 to address faults in the 57 Act which had only raised Black voter registration from 20 percent to 23 percent, displaying the fact that Republicans remained the Party committed to true equality through the 1960s.

“We’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

LBJ’s statements reveal that there existed a popular desire within the Democrat Party to use these newly gained rights of Black Americans to manipulate them for their votes, by giving them what was masqueraded as some fantastic favor, but was truly a scheme to exploit them once again. He later called his “War on Poverty” and subsequent Democrat policies marketed and perceived as aide for Black Americans as a scam to fool them out of their votes.

Written into his plan were policies that rewarded broken marriages, and this is still part of the welfare system today. A single mother would be paid more than a husband and wife that needed assistance. Often times, even if he father worked full time. So, an incentive for couples to not legally marry and claim separate residences was born. 22 percent of black households in 1960 were single parent homes. Today that number is over 50 percent! LBJ’s “War” wasn’t on poverty, it was on black and poor families. It wasn’t meant to end poverty, Democrats meant for it to make those targeted dependent on the government for “the next 200 years!”

 

“American liberalism is a totalitarian, political religion, but not necessarily an Orwellian one. It is nice, not brutal. Nannying, not bullying, but it is definitely totalitarian, or holistic, if you prefer, and that liberalism today sees no realm of human life that is beyond political significance, from what you eat to what you smoke to what you say. Sex is political. Food is political. Sports, entertainment, your inner motives and your outer appearances all have political salience for liberal fascists.”

 

We have come full circle. Read the quote from Goldberg’s book one more time…… Now ask yourself if those assertions are accurate.

Is every facet of our lives made into a political topic or not?

Is there a constant, uninterrupted, undeniable flow of Progressively bigoted, seregationist type policies and agendas within the Democrat Party that runs from afterbthe Civil War until now?

Does the Democrat Party still exude the socialist, communist, and progressive ideologies that were absorbed by their members before WW2?

Do modern, self-proclaimed Progressive Liberals like Hillary Clinton have a history of expressing praise for the Progressives of the early 20th Century, and a continuation of the policies of Progressives Wilson, FDR, and Lyndon B. Johnson?

To be a liberal/progressive fascist, the people being accused of that title would have to believe in the establishment of an authoritarian government in which certain rights that classic liberals valued are stripped away from the people.

I am making the argument that Jonah Goldberg is correct. Modern, self-proclaimed Progressive Liberals do desire an authoritarian state in which the rights valued by true liberals like John Locke and our Founding Fathers are subject to the whim of the State.

They seek to remove the people’s FIRST Natural Right of self-defense and our subsequent rights of capital gains based on the labor output of the individual man in pursuit of our happiness.

They seek to give the State supreme power, in the name of a patriotism-free national socialism, to implement their agendas and policies which are centered on doing to every citizen, what Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty did to our Black brothers and sisters.

At no point did Democrats stop perpetuating the Progressive agendas of segregation with ghettos, and eradication through abortion that Margaret Sanger implemented, and H.G. Wells called for.

At no point have Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, stopped revealing their racist views toward Black Americans. (Super predators) At no point have modern Progressive Liberals strayed very far from the ideologies of the Nazi Party…….

Universal healthcare. Universal Childcare. Gun control. Killing undesirables. Segregation. Unionized workforces. Oppressive State controlled police, procedures and laws meant to target the undesirables (Like those that Bill Clinton and Hillary passed in 1994). Building of ghettos to segregate society. Constant expansion of welfare programs that are enough to “settle them down, but not enough to make a difference.” Nationalized school systems designed to create an indoctrinated, like minded population of children. Promises of equality at the expense of individual liberty, and only for those that tow the party line. Slander/propaganda that labels anyone who opposes the progressive/fascist agenda as being bigoted or ignorant. Elitism that calls anyone not on board as uneducated and backwards.

I assert that fascism never left the Democrat Party. It simply calls itself Progressive Liberalism now.

I assert that the same racist agendas of Progressives Margaret Sanger, H.G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ are alive and well in the heart of Hillary Clinton and her like.

I assert that there is nothing truly liberal about modern day “progressive liberals.” They simply hijacked the liberal moniker to use it as a cover for their segregationist, progressive, racist, socialist, and fascist reality.

They adopt any group that they deem as equally “unfit” as Black Americans in order to wage their “War on Poverty” against those groups to make them ‘victims’, and so that they develop a sense of needing to be taken care of by their Progressive Fascist State.

They seek to place us all in ghettos and do everything possible to prevent anyone from ever escaping them. Drugs, crime, oppressive policing, poor education, no jobs….. But plenty of welfare, government housing, and assistance that is stripped away the moment you try to get ahead by getting a job.

 

“We’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”