Inside Every Liberal Is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out


insideFrontpage editors are pleased to announce the winner of our essay contest launched on April 5, 2013: “Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out.”

The winner of the $1,000 first-place prize is N. A. Halkides. Mr. Halkides is a mathematician, systems analyst and freelance writer living in the greater Chicago metropolitan area. His essay, entitled Inside the Progressive Mind, is below.

Frontpage would also like to applaud two runners-up in the competition: Oleg Atbashian and Daniel Greenfield. Each of them will receive $500 for winning second-place and their essays will run consecutively in our following two issues.

Congratulations N.A. Halkides, Oleg Atbashian and Daniel Greenfield!

*

Inside the Progressive Mind
By N. A. Halkides

The Progressive believes in precisely two things:  his own magnificence and the constructive power of brute force.  In combination, they lead him naturally from the role of pestiferous busybody to brutal dictator.  Where the productive man dreams of the things he might create if only left alone by his fellows, the Progressive dreams of the world he could create if only the lives and property of his fellows were at his disposal.  The roots of his pathology lie in that oldest and most destructive of all human vices, the desire for the power to rule over other men.

As naked power-lust is a rather ugly motive, the Progressive rationalizes his desire to rule as a concern for human welfare, seeing himself as a great humanitarian, far superior morally to the lesser beings who pursue merely “materialist” ends such as their own prosperity and who frequently object to his program for achieving Utopia.  This assumed moral superiority spills over into fields of practical accomplishment, and the Progressive imagines himself capable of allocating resources and even directing entire industries far more efficiently than a free market, often despite not even having any business or scientific experience.  But despite what the Progressive believes about himself, the desire to compel others to obey his orders is what drives him forward.  To satisfy this desire, there is ultimately no limit to what actions he will take, for he respects none of the restrictions on government officials intended to guarantee individual freedom that have been developed and set forth in written or unwritten constitutions.

It is easy to make the mistake of judging Progressivism by its earlier and less-severe manifestations and to conclude that its petty and paternalistic restrictions, for example New York Mayor Michael “The Nanny” Bloomberg’s recent crusade against large-size soda drinks, are simply bothersome annoyances.  In fact the transformation from irritating but superficially benevolent nanny to ruthless dictator not only occurs rather quickly, it is a logical consequence of the Progressive’s zeal to usher in Utopia and of the means he must use to achieve the smallest of his goals – brute force.  We should recognize the following principle:  Once the Progressive is permitted to intrude however slightly into matters that are properly beyond the sphere of government, then all aspects of the individual’s life may be subjected to control.  Once any degree of coercion is permitted, then no level of force is out of bounds.

Let us see how this principle applies to the Bloomberg soda ban.  First, if the government has an interest in regulating the individual’s behavior in the name of assuring his health, no private decision the individual makes which could affect his health is beyond its power to control.  (If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the “broccoli” argument that was raised in the court challenge of Obamacare by twenty-six states).  Second, since the government is to be permitted to use force to override the individual’s will, then it may use as much force as necessary to compel his obedience.  The punishment of merchants who refused to obey the Bloomberg ban was to be a $200 fine, which on the surface would probably not be thought of as extreme.  Note, however that this fine would probably have been sufficient to cause most restaurants to toe the line, and if it had proved inadequate there is no reason to believe Bloomberg would not have increased it to the point that no one would risk violating his edict.

If Bloomberg’s soda ban had been upheld (it was set aside by a judge during a rare moment when sanity prevailed in New York), the city could then have logically gone on to fine obese individuals or incarcerate them in “fat farms” where they would be forced to reduce, since nothing in principle would prevent this, and only the degree of public resistance might stand in the way of the ambitious politician determined to bring about these “superior health outcomes” – to use the modern technocrat’s jargon.  What specifically the Progressive attempts to control depends on his personal inclinations and just how far he senses he can push the general public.  Any weakness or lack of determination by the average citizen in resisting the nascent tyrant encourages him to push even further, whereas a determined resistance will often convince him to micro-manage some other aspect of our lives until a more propitious moment arrives to advance his original plan.  But in no case is the Progressive held back by any trace of self-restraint.

Now, packing unwilling citizens off to fat farms is only an example of how the Progressive might begin to move from “soft” to “hard” tyranny.  Do we have any examples in contemporary American politics in which Progressives have actually attempted something this obnoxious to personal liberty?  Consider the following characteristics of a “hard” tyranny such as Nazi Germany, the old Soviet Union, or Communist China today:

[1] Press Censorship – all media state controlled and opinions of which the government does not approve become punishable offenses.

[2] Complete Gun Control – only agents of the state are permitted to possess arms.

[3] One-Party Rule – this means an enforced hegemony, where if opposition parties are permitted to exist at all they are placed at such an extreme disadvantage they cannot truly challenge the ruling party.

[4] Control of the Nation’s Economy.

Let’s take these four one at a time and see what, if anything, Progressives have attempted along those specific lines.

[1] Press Censorship – in 2012, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats proposed gutting the First Amendment by removing its protections from citizens who band together to form corporations. This means that while an individual citizen might still literally get on his soap box and attack the government, publishers of newspapers, magazines, books, and web sites could be shut down by the ruling party.

[2] Complete Gun Control – while some of the more radical Progressives within the Democrat Party openly call for complete confiscation (New York Governor Andrew Cuomo considered the possibility in the run-up to the State’s infamous SAFE Act), most recognize the political danger that such a stand would put them in, and therefore advocate what they soothingly refer to as “common-sense” regulations meant to get us to the point of confiscation in slow and easy steps.  For example, Barack Obama pretends to believe in the 2nd Amendment, although we may well doubt that his views have changed from his days as an adjunct lecturer at the University of Chicago where he told John Lott that he didn’t believe Americans should be able to own guns.  Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.

[3] One-Party Rule – Progressive Democrats have not moved to officially ban other political parties, but the fact that in many cities and states Republicans can no longer win control of either the legislative or executive branches of government under any foreseeable circumstances is extremely troubling.  A full analysis would be too lengthy to present here, but it appears that in at least some of these places, Democrats have secured a permanent governing majority in every election by means of special favors and income redistribution.  Republicans cannot match Democrats there except by playing the same game and in effect becoming Democrats themselves.  Under such conditions, there is no need to officially ban the GOP.

[4] Control of the Nation’s Economy – the purpose of Obamacare was plainly to take control of one-sixth of the nation’s economy rather than improve health care or health insurance.  The other major bill the Democrats passed when they had the chance early in Obama’s first term was Dodd-Frank, which increased the Federal Government’s control of the financial sector to a degree unprecedented in our nation’s history.  Given the opportunity, there can be little doubt that Progressive Democrats would bring additional areas of the economy under the control of the government.

Let me reiterate that once government is permitted to use force at all in a given matter, any degree of force is allowed.  Bloomberg’s $200 “big gulp” fine, as noted earlier, may not seem draconian, but turning an innocent citizen into a felon for merely possessing a standard-size gun magazine certainly does.   We can only guess at what penalties Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Progressives would have imposed on those bold enough to criticize them had they been successful at sweeping away the First Amendment, but as the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act (an earlier attempt to limit free speech) provided for both fines and imprisonment, it is safe to say those penalties would have been quite heavy enough, and that inside every Progressive beats the heart of a true fascist.  And what is perhaps most frightening of all is that in the age of Obama, they’re not even trying very hard to hide it any more.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    First of all, congrats to the winner for a fine effort.

    To be sure, one cannot be liberal and intolerant at the same time. And it is also the case (at least for decades) that those who hue to so called liberal mantras often find themselves clinging to totalitarian views. In other words, free thinking for me but not for thee.

    One only has to look at what so called liberal academia has done to generations of students. Instead of opening their minds to free inquiry, they have closed their outlooks in unspeakable ways. So if one does not hue to their dictates then said thinker is relegated to pariah status…and on and on.

    It is also the case that liberals are very attracted to Islamists and communists and it is not for nothing. They are all totalitarian in their underpinnings. Hence, is it any wonder that they march in lockstep – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/03/25/redleftists-m

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • Michael Durham

      Just an FYI: In the above contexts, it's "hew", not "hue"

      But all points very well taken.

  • deepwheat

    "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." ~ Albert Camus

    Fine essay, Mr. Halkides — carry on!!

  • WilliamJamesWard

    All regressive tyrants when looking into a mirror see a Progressive and not God's gift to the
    world as they are above the Almighty and seek self diety, supreme obedience to thier will
    and must be obeyed. Progressives are sicko's without conscience and while agreeing with
    all Mr. Halkides describes I see things from the left as much more sinister than the size
    of a drink but in terms of just how many lives face total ruin by the leftist/communist/Islamist
    fanatics who under dictatorship will at some point openly call for the execution of all
    who oppose them…………………………..William

    • http://www.okcteaparty.org Mark Ward

      Absolutely. That's where it eventually goes. But first they have to paint the opposition as "mutants" (retarded anachronisms), a recipe for "reeducation and genocide. Enlightened? Indeed. Some are sociopaths, monsters. They are the "bitter clingers" that hate their fellow man who can only be redeemed by absolutely control, or death if it doesn't, you know, work out.

    • Yankee Doodler

      Progressivism is a spiritual disorder and in effect is a corrupt religion. While most progressives are not outright tyrants, but rather are sycophant-evangelists for utopian state control, the movement’s leaders tend to be full-on sociopaths. Thanks for the thoughtful essay, congratulations.

  • Jo Ward

    As a resident of MA I find your point about one-party rule especially on point. It is not uncommon for regular conversations around here to include insults about Republicans, as it is assumed that they are an evil cabal. I talk about politics only to those who are like-minded, otherwise abuse ensues. Disturbing article and well done.

    • Mahdi Al-Dajjal

      And in silencing your singular voice, the Left counts yet one more success in instilling in those who are non-compliant with their hive mind, feelings of fear and loathing for being an outcast. This is how they get so many to simply go along with them because most would rather be compliant than live as pariahs amongst the masses.

  • STEVE CHAVEZ

    EXCELLENT WORK!

    Mine focused on how they became the way they are and the root of the problem traced to the COMMUNIST PARTY USA and the SOVIET KGB in the 1980's and their "The Seeds that were Planted" which grew into the "Liberals" of today. How their "MIND" was brainwashed and how they are now BRAINWASHING our children from the time they are born turning them into to MINDLESS ZOMBIES who repeat slogans IN A CULT-LIKE TRANCE.

    I diagnosed their illness so we can recognize how they spread their disease.

    We know who they are and what they are doing but how did they get that way and how do stop them?

    THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM IS THE COMMUNIST PARTY USA! All my research leads back to them and their ties to the SOVIET KGB!

    "The CPUSA AND KGB DUPES of the 80's are now the leaders of the United States today." The main CPUSA/KGB DUPE is Barack Obama! Any research on that? How, when, and where? GO TO THE ROOT and anything else is gibberish!

  • Brujo Blanco

    This brings.to mind the Obama.truth squads in Missouri. During the 2008 elections.prosecutors and.sheriff's in that state actually got together to.take action against anyone who talked trash about Obama. They claimed.they were not going to arrest.anyone but what do cops and.prosecutors. I believe this was.a.left wing.test.to.see.how.far.they can go. This group made it clear that they were for Obama. Now we have the IRS doing for Obama.

  • SoCalMike

    What a great essay, Mr. Halkides.
    Truly outstanding!

  • DDay66

    How did Daniel, a full time writer for this publication win a runners up mention for the contest?

    • Looking4Sanity

      Don't be bitter. The objective is to shed light on the problem.

      A thing of beauty is a joy forever…and should be appreciated, not dissected.

  • DDay66

    Not bitter. I have the same last name as Daniel and was curious to see if it was a typo.

  • Arlie

    First they came for the tobacco industry….Hubert H. "Skip Humphrey III. (1998 tobacco lawsuit)

    This opened the door to destroy whole industries in the name of "collective health" and "we'll protect you" BS. Now there is Governor Mark Dayton and all the tobacco money is gone and MN is all Progressive/Communist. Property taxes alone have quadrupled since the mid 90s and people and companies are leaving and getting ready to leave Minnesota. The corruption is deep and wide in Minneapolis/St. Paul. Minneapolis has an unelected City Council that runs Minneapolis. It is outrageous and contemptible.

  • Alex Kovnat

    Mandatory air bags and ever more stringent safety requirements are another example of the totalitarian impulse described above. What makes such people dangerous is, since they are tormenting other people with constant demands in the name of health or safety, the totalitarian doing the tormenting does so with a clear conscience.

  • loneranger85

    Your description of a Progressive fits completely that of Adolph Hitler. This would also put the Jewish mayor of New Your in that same category. Hitler has been cast as the arch conservative. I have always doubter that. But I don't think his honor the mayor fits that bill.

    • UCSPanther

      It does not matter what the race of a totalitarian is, it is the mindset.

    • Sue

      Nazis were left wing: it was the National SOCIALIST Party, after all. But don't expect the schools to teach that.

    • Old European

      Adolph Hitler was actually a Socialist. The official name of the Nazi Parti was National-Socialist Deutsches Arbeit Partei – German Workers' Nacional-Socialist Party.

      As far as I know, Socialists are leftists, not conservatives.

    • fluoride-free pdx

      Adolf was very concerned with the working health of Germans. They knew a lot about what causes cancer and went after it. Filters in factories, restrictions on tobacco smoking. Once Big Brother is in charge of protecting you, doesn't he own you? Your pay will be reduced for the collective and individual good, without an opt-out. Bloomberg/Obama/Hitler/Stalin are all the same on different schedules. They are meddlers in the business of armed people, and it won't turn out well.

  • CurmudgyOneJr

    Excellent. Well written description of the process we are being put through by the current administration.

  • Knar

    Excellent essay. There are some blatantly relevant issues to be addressed in this form of analysis. The same evil impulse towards dominating one's fellow humans also arises in the fantasy of the 'free market'. Some institutions and industries become crucial to the infrastructure of the technologically evolving society. They amass wealth and power, and then slowly begin to abuse it. In the old days, it was land and food. Today it's energy/transportation, finance, land, medicine and food, as we've become more specialized. The out of control financial institutions (local and global), the ridiculous business model of the insurance/medical monopoly whereby no middle class person can possibly afford health services without insurance, a basic necessity, all while being taxed at multiple levels, is anything but free market. Then there are the behemoth financial institutions and massive imperial war machine that run on debt, which of course is passed back down to the working class consumer, who as a result, needs even more health care. Add to this mess the desire to play God called 'controlled' as opposed to gradual and spontaneous globalization, complete with a tyrannical world government (presently the EU & IMF as the most visible examples), where the leaders are far removed from democratic process, and you have misguided notions of cultural assimilation and wealth redistribution through displaced populations. These sort of excesses unfortunately always lead to horrific results and backlashes. In summary, we don't seem to have real democracy or freedom anywhere. Our current methods of social analysis are no longer adequate.

    • welldoneson

      wow. knar. you're part of the problem.

    • RoustAbout

      Knar, what an excellent point! Indeed, the Fascist model of totalitarian government literally depends on the unholy alliance between big government and big business/industry. Big business gave the Fascists money and control over industry and the tools needed to keep the populace under their boot heels.The same thing is happening today. Obama and his minions pretend to rail against the evils of capitalism while taking hundreds of millions of dollars of contributions from billion dollar corporations and doling out federal money and contracts and protection against competition in return.

  • emptorpreempted

    What happened to the video portion of the contest?

  • William

    This explains why one never meets a leftist who dreams of laboring in the field or in a factory, but only of being a senior bureaucrat or politician. That is to say they fancy themselves the boot, not the face.

  • Jossi

    First of all congratulations to Mr. Halkides, who gives us a very short, clear and concise essay. The spice lies in its shortness. Bravo. I'll send it to friends in Europe…; they may recognize their current situation.
    In every Western country the politician seem to have contracted the same disease, wanting ad absurdum to control everything and everybody. After analyzing and dissecting all these years this disease, WE should really put more emphasis for the cure. Alternatively we might in our lifetime experience the complete destruction of our countries. Freedom and liberty will grow again, though the price to pay will be extremely high. We should be prepared.

    • Mahdi Al-Dajjal

      Don't forget to send along the essays of the 2nd and 3rd place winners. Those too are excellent as well and also serve to illuminate the same subject matter but from a different angle.

  • onecornpone

    Very nice, i enjoyed reading the piece.

    Don't we currently have defacto blasphemy laws which are applicable only to special segments of society?

  • MaureenBeach

    Soda ban would have done nothing to reduce obesity. All it would have done was limit consumer choice and disproportionately hurt small businesses. Science has shown repeatedly that when it comes to obesity, all calories count, regardless of their source. So banning one product in particular is ineffective and counterproductive. Ultimately, government regulation is the wrong approach to the obesity challenge. Education is the only effective tool.

    • FritzIdler

      I've all but given up on reading anything new about diet or exercise. Now there's all this "research" about good calories vs bad calories. Especially in exercise. If you exercise wrong, you'll burn up the wrong kind of calories. Years ago I lost a lot of weight. But then, wanting to cut down on the time involved, became concerned about heart rates. I even bought a heart monitor. In the end, I drove myself so crazy, I started to gain weight again. Started eating more, and exercising less and less. Until I went back to what I was doing before. Watch how much I ate more than what, and did a lot of walking, with strength training as the extra when I can. Now I have a family member who is becoming a crank about "inflammation." Which implies of course, I am eating and exercising wrong again. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm up early today to fit my walk in.

  • ♜ MOD. TV COM VOCÊ ♜

    HELLO!

  • Herb Benty

    One in four Swedish women are RAPED. 80% of rapes in Sweden are by muslims. And Norway acts like this to people that point out the Truth…. Europe is getting a head start to Hell and they like it. I used to respect Europe, but since they have fell in love with Islamism and at the same time have begun to hate God's people I find Europe is a disgrace to a free world. EUROPE IS PROGRESSIVISM

  • Maxie

    Excellent essay Mr. Halkides! The best assessment of "Progressivism" I've read from an updated perspective. One objection is use of the rather exaltive term Progressive. Leftism is more descriptive and all-inclusive. Personally I prefer Coercive Collectivism. Admittedly clunky to use but, again, more descriptive. Hope to see more of your work.

  • Scruffy Leon

    Another area where the Leftist/Progressive/Socialist portrays his own aggrandizement is abortion. He/She puts his own wishes, desires, and importance above that of a defenseless unborn child. Does the unborn not have as much right to a life as a Leftist?

  • JohnD

    When it comes to leftists, never assess as stupidity that which can be explained by malice.

    • RoustAbout

      Very good point,John. Take the Anointed One, for example. He only found out our government was using the IRS to suppress free speech when he read it in the newspapers, just like we did. He had no IDEA his Justice Department was going after reporters for just doing their jobs, either! Our poor President is innocent of any wrongdoing, he's just been kept in the dark about everything. The truth is Barack Obama is a ruthless left-wing ideologue who can barely hide his contempt for those who disagree with him and he will to stop at nothing to achieve his goals as long as he gets by with it. And his political party is full with others just like him.

  • http://deprogrammingliberalism.com/ Jim Autio

    I am shocked that this would be chosen as a winner of an “essay” contest. This is hardly what I would consider an “essay”. I have read similar rants about conservatives at Daily Kos many times. This is nothing more than a description of some of the “symptoms” of liberalism, and totally ignores the underlying foundational cause of liberalism. Some elite liberals may fit the descriptions in this “essay”, but most liberals are not like these descriptions at all. In fact, the vast majority of liberals desire to direct their own lives (just ask them), and therefore, in the their core beliefs are not liberals – they just don’t know it. Understanding the liberal/conservative divide in America explains why liberals are reactionaries. It drives liberals to view conservatives as motivated by evil. Emulating them, as does this “essay”, does not help save America from liberalism (liberals will just see this as more justification in their belief that conservatives are motivated by evil). Liberals need help, not angry, whitewashing condemnation (that’s what liberals do). For an understanding of contemporary liberalism go here: http://deprogrammingliberalism.com/

    • Maxie

      "It drives liberals to view conservatives as motivated by evil"
      Of course! It's called Projection. The Left is also nihilistic. That's why you see them, but never conservatives, "demonstrating/protesting" by smashing windows, burning overturned cars, etc. Infantilism: The "adult" version of throwing your oatmeal on the floor. Nothing to do with achieving "social justice" which the Left cannot even define coherently because no such thing has, or ever will, exist. .Just 'one size fits all' except for the Ken nedyesque perfumed princes who live in Hyannisport and Malibu. Egalitarian sociialism is what exists in any prison population.

      • http://deprogrammingliberalism.com/ Jim Autio

        It is not projection. Evil is not the root cause of liberalism. It is a symptom of the cause of liberalism. If you wish to know what that root cause is, go here and read Explaining the Liberal/Conservative Divide In America: http://deprogrammingliberalism.com/

    • guest

      Sure liberals desire to direct their own lives. Unfortunately they also desire to direct everyone else's lives.

      • http://deprogrammingliberalism.com/ Jim Autio

        And the important question is, why do they desire to control everyone else’s lives while also wishing to direct their own life. The answers are certainly not because they are motivated by evil, as the above “essay” claims. Conservatives mistakenly think that they must “defeat” liberals, when what liberals really need is to be “rescued”. Until conservatives understand this, liberalism will continue to dominate American society.

        • Maxie

          Rescued? Maybe in the form of a good, solid grounding in basic Economics and learning that you can't regulate and legislate your way to Utopia which effort just begets tyranny.

          • http://deprogrammingliberalism.com/ Jim Autio

            Well, that’s part of it, but first you have to get them to realize that in their core values they are in fact not a liberal, but a conservative. To do this you must work on what motivates all liberals to create a safe utopia – their fears. It is not evil that motivates liberals, but fear. Contemporary American liberalism results from a societal conditioning, propagated on a foundation of paranoia, that subsequently drives liberals into the deceptive comfort of attempting to create a safe, collectivist utopia, at the expense of individual liberty. Liberals see evil monsters attempting to thwart the creation of their safe utopia. They must be rescued from their irrational fear of a world filled with evil monsters. This is why they feel that they must “regulate and legislate” their way to utopia, as you say – to in their minds defeat the evil monsters that they see everywhere.

          • Maxie

            Yes, fear drives them. We agree on that. But it's fear of the Human Condition: Fear of death plus fear of life itself and how to cope with the unrelenting need to manage their lives. That latter fear drives them into the waiting hands of demagogues and dictators. Revel(*)l put it this way: [The] warding off [of] two fears that are present in each of us: the fear of competition and the fear of responsibilty. These feelings are not just vague apprehensions; they are dominating anxieties." You cannot 'educate' people out such anxiety. "Progessivism" is essentially a nihilistic denial of reality ("Postmodernism) which focuses on creating a new and fear-free "reality". It is , in essence, a secular religious faith.
            You are wasting your time.
            (*) "Last Exit to Utopia' by Jean-Francois Revel

          • http://deprogrammingliberalism.com/ Jim Autio

            [Maxie, this is a reply to your last post to me - for some reason there was no Reply link in your last post.] Yes, I agree with your description of liberalism as “in essence, a secular religious faith.” But faiths can be changed. I use tactics akin to those used by Christians with cults. First, conservatives must be educated about liberalism. Then conservatives must be educated about how to awaken liberals to their core conservative belief that they do indeed desire to direct their own life, and that their liberalism is 180 degrees out of phase with that desire. My Nuclear Counterarguments 22-Essay Series is an education on liberalism, written to liberals, but mostly for conservatives. I am currently writing a companion book that will be the Rules for Radicals for conservatives. It will detail tactics for dealing with both low-information liberals and high-information liberals, and the liberal establishment. Contrary to the above “essay”, it includes no demagoguery or condemnation. In a considerable bit of irony, the only way to truly reach liberals is through a genuine understanding and compassion for their condition. And it is subtle, always allowing the liberal to think he is in control of the conversation, even as seeds of doubt are planted in his mind about his liberalism. I call it Deprogramming Liberalism. They don’t even know it is happening, and before they know it, those seeds of doubt grow roots. I disagree when you say, “You are wasting your time.” I have a strategy to save America, one liberal at a time. It will become public sometime next year.

    • carlwk3c

      The essay did in fact cite the underlying cause of liberalism … A quest for power over others, based on a delusional, self-agrandizing belief that they (liberals) are better, more intelligent, more capable, and therefore preordained to dominate lll of the "inferior beings" ("for their own good, to make the world a better place," of course).

      • http://deprogrammingliberalism.com/ Jim Autio

        Why do you make me repeat what I have already said? What the above “essay” describes as the cause of liberalism is nothing more than a description of some of the symptoms of the affliction. Again, if you truly wish to understand how to determine the cause of liberalism, first learn how to do that. You can learn how by reading the short slideshow, Explaining the Liberal/Conservative Divide In America, available here: http://deprogrammingliberalism.com/

  • Roguewave

    "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority…. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." 
~~ Daniel Webster

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it." ~~H L Mencken

  • Max

    Nice try at a false dichotomy, but the Far Left and Far Right are the exact same kind of monster and don’t pretend otherwise. The so-called ‘conservative’ always seeks to ‘conserve’ for the benefit of ALL and has no problem whatsoever forcing their absurd religious convictions on everyone else, uncaring and unconcerned that what THEY want to conserve is not for everyone… It is sickening to see people brainwashed into believing that it’s ‘the other guys’ that are guilty, when the same stain is on each and every one of THEIR plans for society. Disgusting hypocrites all of you! What kind of idiot tries to demonize ‘progressive’ ideas? Isn’t the opposite of ‘progressive’ actually ‘regressive’? Is THAT what YOU want for everyone else; backward and outdated laws??? Socially RETARDED, is THAT the world you want to force on everyone? BY DEFINITION, left and right of CENTER is OFF CENTER and too far off center is INSANITY.

  • Steve Fraser

    “The Party insisted that you give up your common sense plus the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”, G. Orwell.

  • Mary Sue

    Niiiiiice. I couldn't have said it better myself. :)

  • Mary Sue

    Also: this is why Leftism appeals to control freaks.

  • Western Spirit

    A very good essay. Power is indeed what the Progressive is all about. Shakespeare wrote about power at the last devouring itself. Unfortunately before it devours itself it devours everything else, too, especially whatever opposes it. And our conservative leaders try to appease the power hungry beast rather than offer up a well thought out opposition.

    And we're losing the power struggle because the prescient Bible tells us that our fight is not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers in high places. Places higher than man. Thus the war we're engaged in lies in the spiritual realm. Making issues pertaining to the spiritual aspect of humanity the principle ones rather than the throw away ones we call social issues.

    I don't know how the founders of this great nation can be called Deists when their actions such, as giving thankful prayer to a bountiful Deity for their good fortune and for defeating the most powerful nation on earth, at the time, with prayers of thankfulness that are well documented. In fact all of their behavior was decidedly Christian as was the rest of the nation itself Christian and teaching Christ's precepts. Washington, himself, welcomed Jews to this country as "Abraham's stock". Thus the father of the country acknowledging our fellowship with the Jews through Abraham and his gift to mankind of a way of life.

    While Islam with its moon God is not an Abraham based religion.

    Today we are setting aside our Judea-Christian identity and values so are losing the war—the war, that's nothing less than the war between good and evil. Evil is winning the day by calling itself "compassion", when the real face behind the mask of compassion is raw power.

  • Mark Davis

    All true, but it gives the “Conservative” statist a free pass. What about the Conservative that wants to use “brute force” to promulgate the evil Drug War? Or the Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace that invades and occupies more and more countries around the world in the name of Utopian ideals and paranoia? Or to stop people from peacefully seeking employment opportunities across artificial statist borders? Progressive ideals are not bad in and of themselves, certainly no worse than Conservative ideals. No, the problem is the state itself. The state institutionalizes the use of brute force and glorifies the desire to rule others. End the state and the people seeking to rule others, for whatever reason, loose the primary weapon. Evil is the essence of the state, no matter how good the intentions are of those that seek to use its brute force.

  • UraFecalLiberal

    Excellent essay. I might add that the Progressive is a narcissistic personality disorder that includes to varying extents, sociopatholgy. The Progressive looks in the mirror and sees himself as an omniscient deity, a god. And as such, he looks upon other, legitimate religions as competitors to be destroyed.

  • Ellman

    "Let me reiterate that once government is permitted to use force at all in a given matter, any degree of force is allowed. Bloomberg’s $200 “big gulp” fine, as noted earlier, may not seem draconian, but turning an innocent citizen into a felon for merely possessing a standard-size gun magazine certainly does."

    Progressives kill you not by a single death stroke but by a thousand minor strokes, barely noticeable until the cumulative effect has drained you of blood, energy, the capacity to resist or to complain even. Gays have won a significant battle against the Boy Scouts of America but they will not stop with this victory. They will continue agitating and demanding until they get a name change to the Gay Scouts of America. It will not only be a name changes but the demise of the Scouts altogether. They've done it to government , to the mainstream media, to the centers of learning at all levels. They've infiltrated and corrupted almost every institution with a significant bearing on politics and policy. They've done it not through REVOLUTION but through INDOCTRINATION and a thousand small slices.

  • Matt

    Congratulations to all the winners. Excellent work!
    The chief progressive on display today is the president. His administration is guided by Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals. The President taught this as an adjunct professor. Note his use of the word “enemy” to describe the majority of the people in this country in political speeches last year.
    In his mind, he was quite sure last year in Kansas, 236 years since the founding of this country, that it was his duty to inform the American people that their country doesn’t work, and that it never did, and he has the plan to fix it, no specifics mentioned.

  • marvin nubwaxer

    this site is absolutely right wing extremist fundamentalist paranoid nonsense. glad to see all you conspiracy buffs here. oh wait, i’m the first to waste time commenting. bye.

    • ColonelNeville

      Excellent emotional logical fallacy projection by an old hair-covered and ironically conformist hippie, conforming entirely predictably and by the numbers to the facts of the empirical article above. Ya don’t read, do ya. I could easily make up your name and your bundled cliched opinion nitwittery from every other leftist twit I’ve ever known.

      Bwaahahaha! ‘Marvin Nubwaxer: freelance twerp. No, really.

    • ColonelNeville

      Excellent emotional logical fallacy projection by an old hair-covered and ironically conformist hippie, conforming entirely predictably and by the numbers to the facts of the empirical article above. Ya don’t read, do ya. I could easily make up your name and your bundled cliched opinion nitwittery from every other leftist twit I’ve ever known.

      Bwaahahaha! ‘Marvin Nubwaxer: freelance twerp. No, really.

    • ColonelNeville

      How could you know “all you conspiracy buffs are here” if there are no other comments but wait for it, YOURS? Are you a projecting 9/11 Truther? Seems likely. Ya got the Democrat Unabomber 1000 yard stare thing goin’ there.

      Ah, “paranoid nonsense”…that would be, YOU again. Bravo. Five stars, Charles Manson impersonator. Not popular with educated, modern [as in not circa 1974], attractive, successful business women or men are you? You present as an absolute jealous n’ mediocre failure. No, really.

    • ColonelNeville

      Ah, Marvin Nubwaxer – and clearly he does exactly that at his Twitter feed. Goes through a lot of wax, does Our Man in Delusion, the hair covered Marvin…

      Marvin is gasp! an atheist leftist chain smoking Obamessiah drone with total faith in the liberal media! Well, I never!

      Nubwaxer, laughably consumed with hate for any dissent from the conformist bundled opinions of his idiot leftism, is an incurious and determined non-reader spouting endless cognitive dissonant logical fallacy by the Democrat full. When in town, self-loathing entirely extremist Marvin appears to prefer to collect Medicaid welfare paid for by the people he despises: productive non-treasonous American citizens he invariably ad hominems as ‘YAWN’, “right wing extremists”.

      No, really.

    • ColonelNeville

      Ah, Marvin Nubwaxer – and clearly he does exactly that at his Twitter feed. Goes through a lot of wax, does Our Man in Delusion, the hair covered Marvin…

      Marvin is gasp! an atheist leftist chain smoking Obamessiah drone with total faith in the liberal media! Well, I never!

      Nubwaxer, laughably consumed with hate for any dissent from the conformist bundled opinions of his idiot leftism, is an incurious and determined non-reader spouting endless cognitive dissonant logical fallacy by the Democrat full. When in town, self-loathing entirely extremist Marvin appears to prefer to collect Medicaid welfare paid for by the people he despises: productive non-treasonous American citizens he invariably ad hominems as ‘YAWN’, “right wing extremists”.

      No, really.

  • Darius

    Very well written. The totalitarian streak of the leftist must be exposed so non-leftists know to stay clear politically.

  • Kevin Stowell

    Does Lori give lap dances or just steal advertising services from FPM?