May 13 • 21M

Ep. 116 - The Regressive Progressive Agenda

2
 
1.0×
0:00
-20:57
Open in playerListen on);
Intelligent views on headline news.
Episode details
Comments

Let's step back in time.

It was May 5th, some 204 years ago, in springtime of the year 1818, when a baby was born who would grow up and change the world forever. Karl Marx was born in the Rhine province of Prussia, which is now modern day Germany, and some 65 years later, after seeding his revolutionary thoughts throughout the world, he died in London in the 1883.

Depending on the slant of historical account, and the political inclinations of the historian's pen, Karl Marx was either a brilliant philosopher and political revolutionary, or a deeply disturbed individual with radically dangerous ideas. Regardless of personal interpretation, his philosophy has had a significant impact on the course of history, and his ideas are very much alive and well today.

Obviously, to provide a historical account of Marx's life is beyond the scope of this article. Instead, the intent herein is to demonstrate the direct connection between Marxism, communism, socialism, collectivism, globalism, the progressive agenda, and the modern Democrat party.

The implication is that the philosophical lineage of progressive politics are ultimately regressive in nature, rooted in the philosophies of egalitarianism and idealism stemming from the 18th century Enlightenment. Egalitarianism is the philosophical foundation of all things related to equity and equality, while idealism asserts that reality is a mere mental construct, indistinguishable from human perception. Accordingly, this period was known as the Age of Reason, wherein "enlightened" thinkers began to question and become critical of traditional authority, especially the church. 

Quick side note: Klaus Schwab repeatedly refers to the "enlightened" leaders who will lead us into "Future Earth."

Back to Karl Marx. Born to Jewish parents, Marx was baptized as a protestant in his formative years, before later growing critical of the church and deriding religion as "the opium of the people," declaring that it was a harmful, illusion-generating painkiller. Contrasting with the traditional Christian belief that God created man in God’s own image, Karl Marx believed that human beings invented God in their own image. Please note the complete inversion of thought, the projecting of an exact opposite, as this pattern persists into modern politics.

Indeed, in the Communist Manifesto, Marx speaks of understanding communism through a framework of "hidden, higher, socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character." In other words, say one thing, but mean the opposite. Claim that you are seeking to liberate the working class, when in reality you are trying to consolidate control. Claim that you are defending democracy, when in reality you are systematically destroying existing society to install a communist state. After all, it is only the enlightened communist leaders who can ensure equality is properly enforced.

The irony of this perspective is maddening. So-called "enlightened" leaders cannot discern the difference between what they think, and actual reality. They believe that reality is indistinguishable from their perception. The degree of arrogance is astounding, though it is ultimately dwarfed by the degree of ignorance and self-deception afflicting those who suffer this delusion. That said, it is precisely this deluded thinking -- which is completely void of logic or rational thought, and in utter denial of reality -- that drives the progressive obsession with equality.

Taking a step back, taking a deep breath, and simply observing the natural world, it is readily apparent that equality is a mental construct that does not exist in actual reality--it only exists in the mind, and that is a critical distinction. As with all fantasies, it is only indoctrinated fanatics who fail to distinguish the difference between what they think and what is real. This is more formally known as psychosis, an inflammation of the mind, and it is one of the most pernicious mental disorders of the modern era, thanks in large part to Karl Marx.

What is the connection between Marxism and modern democrats?

To start, let's thread together a few more historical facts:

  • The Enlightenment, the fertile soil in which Marxism has its roots, also gave rise to feminism, liberalism, and modernism -- all of which explicitly reject tradition in favor of "experimentation" with new ideas and ideals.

  • Karl Marx was also the founder of the First International labor movement, founded in 1864, to unite the working class (known as the proletariat) for the purpose of over throwing their overlords (known as the Bourgeois).

  • The International organized local groups, which integrated into national federations and trade unions, ultimately centralized control in a General Council, which dictated the political actions of the communist collective.

We could go on and on here, but the overlap between Marxist influence and affiliation and the democrat platform should be apparent. Which leads me to another provocative question: Could it be that communists have intentionally taken on the label of "democrat" -- potentially a word with hidden, higher meaning and socialistic interpretation -- because it is more palatable, and because it positions them to prey upon the emotionally vulnerable democratic base?

Taking this one step further: Could it be that democracy has become a code word for communism?

Both claim to give power to the people. Both claim to be fighting for equality. Both claim to be the champion of the little guy. Both claim to be leading us toward a utopian future. Both require enlightened leaders to herd the masses.

Laying it out like that, the similarities might be somewhat shocking. But is there any actual evidence of this intentional co-opting of the label "democracy?” Indeed there is. To offer just one quick example, consider the follow account, praising the Grandmother of the Russian Revolution:

"After her first words of thanks that the people had freed themselves from Czardom, she made an appeal that her countrymen continue faithful to the great nations who were her allies, and continue the war of freedom; she further warned Russia not to abuse the gift of democracy which had been bestowed by faith."

You see, the communist revolution in Russia was a "war of freedom" that liberated the peasants and bestowed them with the "gift of democracy" -- which was actually communism, which led to centralized control (the opposite of democracy), gulags (the opposite of freedom), and massive suffering and starvation among the peasants while the Bolsheviks feasted on the fruits of their labor (the opposite of equality).

Keep in mind, Bolshevik just means “One of the Majority” (think democratic rule), and together these Bolsheviks constituted the Russian Social-Democratic Worker's Party, which was led by Vladimir Lenin and later became the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, better known as the U.S.S.R.--which, despite the appeal label, wasn't exactly known for uplifting humanity.

Democracy. Socialism. Marxism. Communism. Could it be we are just talking semantics? It's a question worth asking, before history repeats itself and we become the United Socialist States of America, and Marx leaves an indelible mark on the country we love. For the record, that would be the exact opposite of progress.