Carl Cohen, a professor at some college(It's in my college books, so this is being used for indoctrination purposes) wrote the following in his book Four systems on page 42:
Action as a society is most needed in the production and distribution of the necessities and comforts for ordinary human life. Socialism is democracy extended to the world of work and money.
On the surface, that makes socialism sound fantastic! (sarcasm) Considering that socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, Cohen's words sound much more like progressivism to me, considering that progressivism is regulation, not socialism. But I want to dig a little deeper than this. Who this really sounds like to me, is Theodore Roosevelt. In a book titled Progressive Principles(Which isn't written by Roosevelt himself per se, but he did write the preface. In the preface Roosevelt states the book is a collection of his speeches) Roosevelt said the following:(Page 3 - all Roosevelt quotes come from this one book)
Our aim is to secure the real and not the nominal rule of the people.
But what does this really mean? As we see with Barack Obama today(and others within our lifetimes) Progressives speak in a sort of code. Take 5-7 speeches of Obama's and put them together, and you'll see what he's really saying once you eliminate most of the fluff. Roosevelt, Wilson, and all these other people from 100 years ago were no different. They're only honest in places where they don't think people aren't looking. On page 116, we see:
There is urgent necessity of applying both common sense and the highest ethical standard to this movement for better economic conditions among the mass of our people if we are to make it one of healthy evolution and not one of revolution.
Now that's interesting. Roosevelt prefers evolution to revolution. I've heard that before. Here and here. Now, I'm not at all saying that Roosevelt was a Fabian, he didn't have to be. The seeds of nationalism had already been sown into the fabric of America, and and Fabianism does have a rather peculiar effect upon people of a liberal mindset. Where we get to the real meat of all this is on page 296:
And on the other hand you will read in the papers editorials saying that I am a Socialist or else that I am an anarchist. Now, I am preaching neither anarchy nor socialism; I am preaching the corrective to socialism and the antidote to anarchy. I am preaching and I am trying to practice, the policy of a square deal for every man and every woman in this Republic.
What on earth would he consider to be a corrective of socialism? Well, there's no doubt that Roosevelt significantly grew government beyond the founders intent. Stuart Chase IMHO write it the clearest:
17. not much "taking over" of property or industries in the old socialistic sense. The formula appears to be control without ownership.
This ties all of it together. This is where they're 'evolving' to, where they're 'progressing' to. The "democratization" of every aspect of our lives. Of course government should be involved with all aspects of business, people need to exercise their vote! That's the logical outcome of this. What you're witnessing is the full abuse of what 'democracy' really is. government by the people; especially : rule of the majority Mob Rule - yes, this explains why on the surface these people spout 'democracy' when they really mean 'socialism, because the mob really does want other people's money. Watch them riot. You can't miss it. But the concept of extending the ballot box to the grocery store, your place of business, your next door neighbor's belongings, all of it. This is indicative of people who view everything in life through government. As Reagan said:
Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.
All of this is a totalitarian mindset, where they view our lives as a dispensation of government. Let's go back to Roosevelt. Page 139:
Our aim is to control business, not to strangle it
There's Cohen right there. Socialism is democracy extended to the world of work and money. As Roosevelt said (Page 296), there's his 'corrective' to socialism right there. Of course, having that much control over business leads to this: (same book from above, page 133:
We stand for a living wage
That means wealth redistribution. Back to page 139:
Our aim is to promote prosperity and then see to its proper division. We do not believe that any good comes to any one by a policy which means destruction of prosperity; for in such cases it is not possible to divide it because of the very obvious fact that there is nothing to divide. We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage workers and reasonable prices for the consumers.
"Proper division", because you're a greedy SOB! And we in government really know best how to spread the wealth around. No matter that government control of business necessarily means the destruction of prosperity.
Totalitarian mindset, and it always ends up in the same place if allowed to reach it's final stage. Of course, the progressives learned to hate the constitution because it stood in their way, which is why: (Page 316)
The Progressive Party ... pledges itself to provide a more easy and expeditious method of amending the Federal Constitution
That would be The Gateway Amendment. Progressives will destroy anything that stands in their way, of attaining ultimate power.
http://tinyurl.com/7tvlqcs
No comments:
Post a Comment