Progressivism and invisible government: non profits, 501c3 charitable organizations, and journalism

There have been some recent revelations regarding Media Matters that have come out lately, and this story really highlights the soft underbelly of invisible governance that progressives have set up over the last century. See these two stories: Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations and Why is Media Matters tax-exempt?

Now, when I talk about invisible governance(and I will do so more in the future), I'm using this partially as my basis. There are several key quotes that need to be brought back to the forefront here:(see the cover of the book for an explanation of these letters)

As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented(Page 39)

Nowadays the successors of the rulers, those whose position or ability gives them power, can no longer do what they want without the approval of the masses, they find in propaganda a tool which is increasingly powerful in gaining that approval(Page 54)

Democracy is administered by the intelligent minority who know how to regiment and guide the masses(Page 127)

Ok, so who are the 'intelligent minorities' who are regimenting and guiding the masses? Media matters. It's all in that first story, and The DC says they have more to come. MMFA is the 'missing link' between journalism and the whitehouse, so to speak. That is, what the whitehouse wants to be said, MMFA writes it up, and the larger media is more than happy to make that the headline or story. And it's "totally invisible", in that you don't see the tentacles coming from Soros, from MMFA, or where they end up in the various media organs. Well, that is until this investigation came around. This isn't the first time we've learned about the media's role in progressive invisible governance either, who could forget the JournoList? The media have already long established themselves as a reliable part of those 'intelligent minorities' who have found 'in propaganda a tool which is increasingly powerful'.

Now, I mentioned Soros. His role cannot be overstated, given that he's already crashed several societies in the past. He's the man who broke the Bank of England. But with respect to the things he does, he "merely" comes in and takes advantage of whatever revolutionary infrastructure is already built by others. Arguably the oldest leg of what the progressives have built here is academia, and that goes back well over a century into the late 1800's. Woodrow Wilson was the head of Princeton. All of this is nothing new. But how it's done is the key:

When you try to, let’s see, improve society you affect different people and different interests differently and they are not actually commensurate. So you very often have all kinds of unintended adverse consequences. So I had to experiment. And it was a learning process. The first part was this subversive activity, disrupting repressive regimes. That was a lot of fun and that’s actually what got me hooked on this whole enterprise. Seeing what worked in one country, trying it in the other country. It was kind of what developed a matrix in fact that we had, national foundations, and then we had certain specialized activities

So if you were looking for an admission by an important modern day progressive that the use of charitable foundations is indeed how they subvert our society to their own ends, there it is. In the man's own words, they build a matrix of charitable foundations from which to launch their attacks on society. You can find another example of this, in the STORM manifesto.(Page 21, section 1998: re-emergence, paragraphs 2 and 3)

http://tinyurl.com/7glexfj

Birth Control and Eugenics are identical - Margaret Sanger

In an article titled "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda" in the Birth Control Review, Margaret Sanger wrote the following:(Page 43)

The eugenic and civilizational value of Birth Control is becoming apparent to the enlightened and the intelligent. In the limited space of the present paper, I have time only to touch upon some of the fundamental convictions that form the basis of our Birth Control propaganda, and which, as I think you must agree, indicate that the campaign for Birth Control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aims of Eugenics.

I have made it a point to immerse myself in the history of progressivism so that I could demonstrate and display it for others, but eugenics is one of those things that's so profoundly evil that it leaves me absent for words. Nearly the entirety of the second half of this short article is quotable:

The almost universal demand for practical education in Birth Control is one of the most hopeful signs that the masses themselves today possess the divine spark of regeneration. It remains for the courageous and the enlightened to answer this demand, to kindle the spark, to direct a thorough education in Eugenics based upon this intense interest.

Birth Control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator. In answering the needs of these thousands upon thousands of submerged mothers, it is possible to use this interest as the foundation for education in prophylaxis, sexual hygiene, and infant welfare. The potential mother is to be shown that maternity need not be slavery but the most effective avenue toward self-development and self-realization. Upon this basis only may we improve the quality of the race.

As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

Birth Control is not advanced as a panacea by which past and present evils of dysgenic breeding can be magically eliminated. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism.

But to prevent the repetition, to effect the salvation of the generations of the future–nay of the generations of today–our greatest need is first of all the ability to face the situation without flinching, and to cooperate in the formation of a code of sexual ethics based upon a thorough biological and psychological understanding of human nature; and then to answer the questions and the needs of the people with all the intelligence and honesty at our command. If we can summon the bravery to do this, we shall best be serving the true interests of Eugenics, because our work will then have a practical and pragmatic value.

Birth control is the sacrament of eugenics.

http://tinyurl.com/86suv8d

An observation

This is something I can neither prove nor disprove, I just find it too convenient to ignore. I came across something when I was doing some research regarding Woodrow Wilson and the Russian Revolution. The two parties at the time were the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, which (here's the part) means minimalist and maximalist, which I didn't know previously.

From dictionary.com:

Origin:
1905–10; in political use < French minimaliste ( see minimal, -ist), translation of Russian men'shevík Menshevik; subsequent uses perhaps recoinage with minimal, -ist

Seeing this made a light go off. At that moment, I remembered this piece of audio:

VAN JONES: One of the things that has happened too often to progressives is that we don't understand the relationship between minimum goals and maximum goals.

There's a lot in this audio beyond this one small piece, so it's easy to overlook the smaller things for the larger things - of which have been widely covered by others elsewhere. But I do not consider this to be a coincidence. Here we have a man who is so steeped in communist ideology, that he probably can't help but look at life through that lens. It has become totally embedded in his being.

Where did Van Jones admit to being a communist, and in what words?

In the East Bay Express, the article titled "The New Face of Environmentalism" says this:

But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist."

Notice how vividly he recalls the story of his conversion to communism. This is important, because when people have big turning points in their lives, the details are usually memorable. Searching for this, there is a lot of revisionist history out there on this. This article comes to the following conclusion: "That doesn't sound Marxist to us." Which is totally laughable.

The problem for them, is that for people who have actually lived under communism, they can't help but notice the similarities.

This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists - wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world

So then the real question to ask is "where has Van Jones ever repudiated communism and centralized planning?" Just because he's silent about his beliefs and has a new way to sell them, is a far cry from having flipped over to something completely new and different, of course, notice how there's no vivid recalling of his turning point away from centralized planning.

http://tinyurl.com/7een3yu

Van Jones is not to be underestimated

I knew a long time ago that Jones was a serious player, who was going to be with us for the long haul, that's one of the reasons why this is being done.

Now, Nancy Pelosi has confirmed what I knew a year ago:

But as 3,000 Democrats met this weekend in San Diego for a three day convention here, Jones was lauded by Burton and Pelosi, who even described herself as “a fan” of Jones - a positive statement also once echoed by 2010 Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman.

Here is how the source article itself opens:

Van Jones, the former Obama Administration green czar who resigned in controversy, appears on the fast track to a political comeback - emerging as a star at this weekend’s California Democratic convention and lauded by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as a “leader of the future.”

Wow. So one of America's two primary political parties is rallying around a known and self-admitted communist? Not Progressive, not Socialist. Communist. Radical, revolutionary, communist. Read his words!(or listen to them) One thing's clear, anybody who thinks their liberty is in danger is basing their belief in well grounded fact. Van Jones is not one who you want to just brush off. You need to take him seriously. They do.

http://tinyurl.com/736krhc

What is the real purpose of birth control? Why is all of this so important to progressives?

With all that's going on with the Catholic Church and the President right now, this has become a huge hot button topic. But why is this so important to progressives? Rush keeps saying that "abortion is the sacrament of liberalism." What makes this so? Let's ask Margaret Sanger. In her book "Woman and the new race", Sanger explains the purpose of birth control:(Page 229)

Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives. So, in compliance with nature’s working plan, we must permit womanhood its full development before we can expect of it efficient motherhood. If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman. Then and then only can the mother cease to be an incubator and be a mother indeed. Then only can she transmit to her sons and daughters the qualities which make strong individuals and, collectively, a strong race.

Ok, now it makes sense. Birth control is the sacrament of eugenics.

http://tinyurl.com/727ter6

How are revolutionaries using the courts to steal your liberty?

Judicial activism is a big topic, but how does it work? Step by step, when they want to build something, how do they do it? How do those outside of the court carefully plan their actions to get certain cases in front of certain judges?

On January 9th, Mark Levin read excerpts out of his book Men In Black(pages 55-60, primarily), and it's a great illustration of how this all happens, step by step. In this, a few things stand out. Many of which Levin himself highlights. One thing that stands out to me is how Planned Parenthood employed the tactic of "arrestables", long before Lisa Fithian ever did. Notice how those fit together.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle - Sun Tzu (Chapter 3)

Here is the segment, on youtube.

http://tinyurl.com/89vqx5t