Once
Upon A Time, Before The Recent Election, I was a 'Progressive'
There's
a move underway deep in the recesses of our collective subconscious
that has turned the ideologies of the past on their heads and inside
out. Whether you're an American or belong to some other nation,
there is no longer the usual “left/right” or “conservative/liberal” dynamic at play, though corporate
'mainstream' media is still trying to hide this fact from the
remaining pockets of the naive still trusting them to tell the truth.
If ONLY they could go back to the Tweedledee versus Tweedledum days,
it would make it easier, but that cat has long since left that bag.
For most of the Interested Few, that is, though there are still quite
a few members of the intelligentsia that have been too insulated and
in too deep to their paymasters to even allow themselves to question
how separated their views have become from the rhetoric they
politically have espoused for years.
It's not
so much that my values have changed, it's that the Establishment,
through its control of the institutions that run our lives, has
changed the language and approach. It is still a question of the
powerful maintaining control over the opinions of the masses of the
powerless. Since it's come to light in recent times that such
powerful people as the Rockefellers have used their 'philanthropy'
not necessarily to improve the quality of life for the masses, but to
ensure the progressive dumbing-down of them, it's led even
traditional, die-hard Republicans to reconsider whether the
ultra-rich are worthy of emulation or castigation. Think I'm crazy?
Then check out the contents of John D. Rockefeller's “Occasional
Letter #1”, often accredited to his employee Rev. Francis Gates
(who ran his General Education Board) in 1913 who had this to say
about educating Americans:
“In
our dream we have limitless resources, and the people yield
themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The
present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered
by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and
responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or
any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of
science. We are not to raise up among them authors, orators,
poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great
artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the
humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors,
preachers, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply."
Yes,
some will argue, that may have been said but it was intended for
RURAL, as opposed to urban or suburban schools. The context was the
“Country School of Tomorrow”, in which the squalid conditions of
primarily southern rural schools was decried in favor of improved
conditions for which Rockefeller would even pay a million-dollar
bonus if the conditions were met (in the South). In fact he went on
to give $180 million to his “General Education Board” that Rev.
Gates administered, after the US Congress chartered it in January of
1903, but like other philanthropic endeavors by the ultra-rich, there
were more nefarious agendas at work behind this largesse. After all,
to take the attitude that normally is reserved only for God, or a
divine force, is outstandingly arrogant of such powerful men. To
think that they should have the right to mold the public in such a
manner! Does excessive wealth really and truly confer such rights on
the elites? Perhaps this is the reason why we may no longer feel so
'blessed' as a nation.
Nonetheless,
it's clear from what is said that Rockefeller and his cohort felt
they had not only the right but a moral duty to dumb-down the masses,
even as they raised them up in material circumstances so that while
they had a minimum to survive, they wouldn't be 'raised up' to be
anything more than farmers and ranchers. This attitude became even
more pronounced when that same Rockefeller uttered his famous quote
“competition is a sin”. Oh really now! I wonder how many
contemporary Republicans know that's how John D. Rockefeller really
and truly felt? Why, that's a downright socialist idea, isn't it?!
The nerve; saying that the very thing that has given “American
exceptionalism” its pudding-proof is a “sin”!
Then
there's the tale of “Philip Dru, Administrator”, which was
written by Colonel House, Pres. Woodrow Wilson's 'handler' who passed
orders to him by those elitists that were referred to in his famous
quote, the one in which Wilson says “Some
of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and
manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power
somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so
complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath
when they speak in condemnation of it.”
Col.
House's book about Philip Dru was supposed to be a utopia, a book
about which Google has this to say: “First published (anonymously)
in 1912, this novel describes for the overthrow of the U.S.
government in favor of a socialist regime.”.
Bewildering,
isn't it? Wasn't this the power-behind-the-throne that had spent
years setting the stage for the Federal Reserve, the subtle seizure
of the money-making power of the United States by a handful of
foreign banking interests, as detailed in “The Creature From Jekyl
Island”, the following year – coincidentally the same year as the
Rockefeller quote above? And all these things were said and done a
year before WWI began? Ultra-rich bankers aren't usually thought of
as being socialist who are against competition, are they? What's
wrong with this picture?
It
gets even worse, but first let's revisit the traditional ideological
split, when 'progressives' were the American version of European
'socialists', and represented the 'left'. Typically these were the
intellectuals, the intelligentsia of academia and publishing, student
activists and environmentalists, doctors and others involved in the
medical field, lawyers representing the indigent and down-trodden,
and govt employees. The 'right' was exemplified by entrepreneurs,
businessmen, financiers, the military, fundamentalist clergy, and
lawyers employed by business interests. Socialism was the ultimate
expression of the 'left', and fascism the ultimate expression of the
'right'. Hippies had long hair and stock-brokers wore button-down
collars.
During
the 2016 presidential election, these concepts were turned on their
heads. The electorate was turned on its head, it's world turned
upside down. The dividing line placed both fascists and socialists
in the same Establishment camp, which continued to brainwash the 99%
of the public they needed to vote for them, and those in the 99% who
had 'awoken', who recognized what had happened, backed the brash
billionaire who openly challenged the Establishment the way a true
punk-rocker would challenge the music 'industry'. In fact,
punk-rockers have grandchildren now, who no longer live in a world
with a real counter-culture any longer. The traditional political
terms stopped working. The supposed 'leftist' candidate, after
openly and arrogantly stealing the nomination from the real winner
who was a socialist in the classic sense, was considered the most
corrupt politician in modern political history, with pay-to-play
schemes and a blatant trail of murder indicating this was NOT the
most compassionate, tolerant and transparent candidate ever. Quite
the opposite, in fact. More so, this supposed 'leftist' candidate
seemed to have sold access to the highest bidder, sold national
resources to potentially hostile powers, enacted policies abroad that
made it unsafe anywhere on Earth for an American to go to without
being fearful, whose campaign arrogantly lied about anything and
everything it was asked about.
This
same candidate had spent years and billions of dollars greasing the
skids for the campaign, shoring up support from most of the
corruptible party apparatchiks, and blackmailed even more individuals
who were in important positions where they could inflict potential
damage. The media even became an extension of that candidate's
campaign outreach, with reporters cravenly supplicating themselves
for approval by submitting articles first, in order to curry favor.
Tammany Hall seems almost pure in comparison.
The
fact is, ever since the murder of JFK was carried out by forces
dead-set against his agenda for liberating the economy from the
bankers, the parasites of the privately-owned Federal Reserve, this
nation has been on a slippery slope of increasing mediocrity, of
dullness, loss of prosperity, a slow strangulation of the lion that
once rescued the world from totalitarianism. That's no
over-statement. The so-called “G.I. Generation” that had fought
and won that war had bequeathed to its children a nation that
cherished freedom and democracy and a strong military to defend it as
well as a safety net that provided for its widows and orphans, its
elderly and disabled, and a basic education for all that would avail
themselves of it, and a strong economy that provided jobs for
everyone who wanted one.
However,
in no time at all it seemed the former foes that had been vanquished
in war stood up and shrugged off the rubble and destruction and were
soon the industrial envy of all, even Americans. Cheap goods were
soon competing with Made in USA, and even making better reputations
for themselves than the home-grown counterparts. Within a generation
or two, the former colonies of both victors and vanquished supplanted
them and what was once the Third World became home to industry, where
selfish capital had chased cheap labor to, and the prosperity the
G.I. Generation had handed down was fast evaporating in promissory
notes called Federal Reserve Notes – Legal Tender for All Debts
Public and Private. Fiat currency, backed only by a
military-industrial complex that operated as a mercenary force for
corporate interests. Jobs became scarce and wealth was hoarded in
real-estate, in the piggy-bank of the family home, creating the last
great bubble before the new American nationalism burst out in
frustration at the lies unceasingly crowding the airwaves.
The
public knew that the many years of Tweedledee and Tweedledum had yet
to result in a reversal of the slide into oblivion many felt
themselves experiencing. With practically no industrial base left,
where was the American worker to go? Did the Establishment really
expect us to believe that if the multi-national corporations could
pack up American factories and reassemble them in Indonesia, or
China, or Mexico, and re-sell those products much more cheaply back
to Americans, that by some miracle new jobs would materialize in the
US to offset the loss of those factory jobs? If the hourly labor
rate is based on the lowest common denominator, then exactly where
did they expect replacement jobs to come from?
Exactly.
Lies and more lies, and the expectation that the vast majority of
Americans would be too stupid, too worried about the daily bread n'
circuses, to seriously consider the REAL answers to the situation.
The
effective answer is that there is NO SUCH THING AS 'FREE TRADE'. If
Americans need a standard of living equivalent to $15 an hour for a
minimum living wage, then a system of tariffs – just like was used
in prior generations – has to be enacted once again. This is the
major tenet of the new American nationalism. It runs counter to the
pseudo-socialistic fascism of the mega-multinational corporations
owned by the bankster-gangsters of the Federal Reserve's handful of
bloodline families. It's just that simple. Those parasites would
like to see a sea of humanity that's been rendered into docile,
compliant, gender-neutral, non-nuclear-family-raised
labor and consumption units. Whether we use the “New World Odor”
terminology or its various splinter offspring – such as Agenda 21 –
the goal is the same: discourage the kind of critical thinking that
results in inventive and novel enterprise, and replace it with the
assembly-line mentality required for corporate projects.
The
flip side of the labor and production coin is the consumption aspect;
the globalism that nationalists decry sees the masses as labor and
consumption units, which can be moved around the planet practically
at will once dangerous “nationalism” is eradicated and a sense of
national identity is replaced with one based on the idea of a world
without borders. This world would have one single police force, and
to get there, dangerous civil unrest that results from critical
thinking about issues also has to be eradicated. They weren't quite
there yet when the rebirth of nationalism stirred.
Still,
that globalist New World Odor will use corporate-funded astro-turf
groups such as BLM and American Burka-Wearing Feminists for Sharia
Law to incite petty racism and Identiy Politics in general to divide
and conquer the public, all while using stale slogans that were
useful 2 generations ago but now have moved to more subtle
battlegrounds (except when employed in this manner, where they can be
printed on large signs while wearing penises and vaginas as
headdresses, showing how naive large brainwashed segments of the
population can still be). Labor is to be reduced to dependency on a
welfare state that can deploy it to where the multi-national
corporations need it most, but is anathema to entreprenurial
enterprise. Social fulfillment under globalism comes not from
physical interaction and raising a family in a vibrant and public
sphere but a private culture riddled and ridden with empty
pornographic carrots-on-a-stick that is forced to hide indoors, away
from terrorist acts, away from the awkward physical interaction that
used to be a hallmark of civilization....whether in the form of
dances, church socials, black-tie social events, etc. Yes, there are
still ball-games, and concerts, and even movies are still a place to
take a first date to, but even those are becoming more rare and
astronomically expensive for the average person – who can view it
all on a hand-held device in almost-real time.
This
wasn't the world bequeathed to us by the G.I. Generation. This is a
world slowly constricting real idealism, constricting our best
efforts to make society a better place for all, not just a place
where the minimum daily requirements for existence are doled out by a
fascistic super-state. It is this super-state, run by what's now
called the 'deep state', that continues to encourage factories to
outsource jobs and prosperity to the poorest countries (to help
dissipate the dangerous pride of American 'exceptionalism', the very
engine that saved the world 70+ years ago), continues to encourage
young people to yearn to become hedge-fund managers and stock-brokers
instead of inventors and builders.
The
globalism behind this is NOT a natural outgrowth of the will of the
People, but a natural outgrowth of the plans of the obscenely-wealthy
many years ago that put agendas in place to mold humanity to their
liking and the beliefs of that prior age. While it's considered
anathema tp even mention them, due primarily to countless years of
drenching the subject in heaps and shrieks of 'racism' and worse, the
Protocols
of the Elders from
over a century ago
spell out exactly what has been happening under the inexorable
'progress' of globalism in recent years. One doesn't have to
attribute it to any race or religion, but the results are evident.
Our social development has occurred just as it was spelled out in
those pages, whether one rejects them or not.
For
example; beginning in the mid-1970s, the white male has been
portrayed in popular culture increasingly as doltish, moronic, even
powerless....the butt of the joke. The acclaimed reasoning is that
it's been done to “undo centuries of white male privilege”. The
stark fact is that it does not require building such a stereotype in
order to lift up and demonstrate that all races and genders can be
equally virtuous and equally sinful, equally laughable and
contemptible, or lovable and worthy of emulation. I also have a
particular problem as well with attempts to incite “white liberal
guilt”, because in my particular religious belief, the slaves of
former ages have become the powerful of privileged races of today,
and the slave-owners of those former ages have become the
under-privileged and impoverished people of color of today. That's
how a belief in reincarnation sees a former plantation-owner as a
thug in the ghetto, or vice-versa, and you can't treat people today
based on racial stereotypes of former generations. To do so is but
one more form of selfish “identity politics”, which has polarized
the country and put us at each others' throats while doing nothing to
encourage a spirit of unity, that we're all Americans and in this
thing together – at least to the degree we need to in order to
survive. (We're all at different periods in our soul development as
well, which is an awareness that should be cultivated by the family
as well as the state in order to preclude resentments based on a
misplaced sense of entitlement.)
The
new American nationalism has gained favor among increasing numbers of
the millenial generation, who watched in disbelief as Hillary stole
the glass slipper from Bernie and the media acted as if nothing
happened. When Bernie didn't even fight back, and the leaked emails
pointed to some form of “leverage” she had over him, it further
damaged his reputation among voters who had put so much faith into
his campaign. I personally was disgusted at how he pointedly avoided
answering the pertinent questions about why he didn't even fight
back, and when the leaked emails referred to this “leverage”, I
wondered then and to this day what form of blackmail she used against
him. No matter; however he was compromised, if he's unable to answer
why, then he doesn't deserve the allegiance of a single voter as a
potential standard-bearer. I mention this because it's a major
factor in why I completed the circuit from progressive to
nationalist. At least I know that when the standard-bearer of
nationalism says something, he not only means it, he won't be doing
the usual shoulder-shruggin', hand-wringin' two-step to avoid
accountability. I even imagine Truman's old paperweight getting
dusted off and returned to the desk in the Oval Office for the next 4
years: “The Buck Stops Here”.
It
comes down to this: I'm proud to be an American; I'm not just proud
because I think I'm better than another, because if anything, the
more we have and the more we know, the more we obligate ourselves to
do better for others. However, it's not upon the State to guilt-trip
the individual or even the public to open themselves up to be
victimized. The US does not grant an entitlement to refugees who
want to come to this country to better themselves, particularly if
they do so illegally. I see common cause with those who feel the same
way, who may be of a different color or race or gender. If they see
themselves as Americans first, who understand that wealth by itself
does not confer righteousness, or extra-judicial rights, then they
are my American brothers and sisters. If they understand that color,
or race, or religion, or gender, also does not confer righteousness
or extra-judicial rights, no matter the history, then they too are my
fellow American brothers and sisters. If they understand that
membership in a secret society is anathema, and that it too does not
confer righteousness or extra-judicial rights, then they too are my
fellow Americans. If they believe that wealth and prosperity earned
in this country (I'm speaking here mostly about capital and capital
formation) should remain in this country, then they too are American
nationalists. If they believe in lawful immigration, not illegal
immigration, then they too are American nationalists. And if you
believe that excessive wealth, especially that produced in this
country and outsourced from it, or membership in secret societies, or
polarizing religious, ethnic, and gender identities have had an
adverse affect on American society, then the probability is high that
you, too, are an American nationalist.
The
conflict isn't between 'progressives' and 'conservatives', it's
between nationalists and globalists. Globalism began in earnest when
the robber-barons that conquered their competition before the turn of
the last century turned their backs on the system that had given them
their wealth, and instead poured their (often ill-gotten) gains into
foundations, trusts, and endowments whose purpose was to remake the
world into a place that preserved their hegemony over their fellow
man. Not only was this wealth used to reinforce their position
economically and socially, it was then used to remake and mold the
world around them into one that reflected their beliefs. Those
beliefs seem rooted in the applied sciences that has little room for
spiritual matters, aside from using religious institutions as control
mechanisms for the larger population. While the Founding Fathers
wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights for a nation in which
everyone has potential, and mankind is innately good but becomes
corrupted by the greed of his fellow man and the oppression of
financial institutions, the Usurpers acted to deny those that came
after them the same benefits, and have slowly worked to co-opt the
entrepreneurial spirit. Or, at minimum, they've acted to prevent the
masses from enjoying too much liberation.
It's
the subject of a book, as it always is, but the long and the short of
it is that the Progressive movement, the original progressives of the
early 20th
century, were against monopollies and corruption. That was the
original impetus behind the movement. What we witnessed in the
recent election cycle was a mockery of a supposedly 'progressive'
candidate facing off against a nationalist who believes in 'putting
America first'. It's not as if nationalism is a bad thing, it's the
fact that in using the terminology, the true agenda of globalism is
revealed by the reaction of the anti-nationalist Establishment. In
fact, the 'nationalist' is more of a 'progressive' than the
'globalist' these days, and what's left of the so-called 'left' has
merged with the 'right'.
