Inside Every Liberal Is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out

[El Laton Caliente]

Inside Every Liberal Is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out


Frontpage 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.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/inside-every-liberal-is-a-totalitarian-screaming-to-get-out-2/

Pretty good read....

[El Jefe]

Agreed, that guy nailed them pretty well dead to rights.

Have you ever noticed that even when you run into progressives from other countries on the web they have the same maniacal desire to rid us of our rights. They're all the same and trusting any of them is the mistake of the fool.

[Kadmos]

Seems to me these monographs of disdain never actually show the actual nature of their opposition, but merely the feelings of the author.


The main problem with this particular one is that it confuses progressivism with radical leftism.

Progressivism is for the GRADUAL changes in society, science, economics to allow mankind to SLOWLY transform itself into a better, more stable, more just society at a rate that does not require violence, revolution, war, economic upheaval.

It's a just left of center view that thing should gradually improve.

It rejects the "nanny state" revolutionary leftism intrusions, like limits on soda sizes, just as do centrism, conservatism, and libertarianism.

The revolutionary left rejects the gradual nature of progressivism. It prefers the radical change of revolution over the gradual change of a more natural progress.

Many libertarians, and even many conservatives are actually progressives. They accept and even welcome natural advances in science, social theories, economics, etc.

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

The revolutionary left rejects the gradual nature of progressivism. It prefers the radical change of revolution over the gradual change of a more natural progress.


Not totally disagreeing with you, but it seems that the radicals when denied their instant gratification by the rest tf us reasonable folk, resort to the guise of progressivism to incrementaly push their totalitarian agenda.

[Kadmos]

Not totally disagreeing with you, but it seems that the radicals when denied their instant gratification by the rest tf us reasonable folk, resort to the guise of progressivism to incrementaly push their totalitarian agenda.

Absolutely. If the radicals lack the patience that progressivism demands then the radicals simply say to the progressives that the change isn't "all that large".

Progressivism is about moving things forward. Actually it's really about helping guide some things forward, slowly, while maintaing the good things we already have. But just due to the "forward" motion its always a matter of degrees.

All progressives won't agree that things are moving at the "right" pace. For some it will be too slow, for others too fast. But the key notion is that the idea shouldn't cause too much societal resistance.

If the society is rebelling strongly about the change then the "progress" is moving too fast.

There is no such thing as "radical progressivism", it's a contradiction in terms...Almost like a tortoise that is simply moving too fast.


It's important to note that there are radicals on both sides, neither of which appeal to progressives. You have radical liberal who want revolutionary change into what they think society should be, and radical conservatives who want the same (ie, Fundamentalist religious people who also want to dictate to society)


If one line were to prove the author is mistaken it would probably be this


the Progressive’s zeal to usher in Utopia and of the means he must use to achieve the smallest of his goals – brute force.

Progressives have no "zeal to usher in Utopia", that it completely antithetical to what the movement stands for...and the use of "brute force" even more so.

That is the language, the motives, and the tactics of revolutionaries.

No of course there are some revolutions, in my opinion, that are worth having, such as the American Revolution. But obviously there are one's that aren't, such as the communist revolution.

To a true progressivist of course neither would be what is best for peaceful society, which likely has some truth to it.

[5.56NATO]

Seems to me these monographs of disdain never actually show the actual nature of their opposition, but merely the feelings of the author.


The main problem with this particular one is that it confuses progressivism with radical leftism.

Progressivism is for the GRADUAL changes in society, science, economics to allow mankind to SLOWLY transform itself into a better, more stable, more just society at a rate that does not require violence, revolution, war, economic upheaval.

It's a just left of center view that thing should gradually improve.

It rejects the "nanny state" revolutionary leftism intrusions, like limits on soda sizes, just as do centrism, conservatism, and libertarianism.

The revolutionary left rejects the gradual nature of progressivism. It prefers the radical change of revolution over the gradual change of a more natural progress.

Many libertarians, and even many conservatives are actually progressives. They accept and even welcome natural advances in science, social theories, economics, etc.

LOl like zillions of dead Chinese and Russians aren't proof enough of this "disdain" being fact.

[Kadmos]

LOl like zillions of dead Chinese and Russians aren't proof enough of this "disdain" being fact.

For revolutionary leftism (ala communism) yes. But that's not progressivism.

[studmuffin]

Seems to me these monographs of disdain never actually show the actual nature of their opposition, but merely the feelings of the author.


The main problem with this particular one is that it confuses progressivism with radical leftism.

Progressivism is for the GRADUAL changes in society, science, economics to allow mankind to SLOWLY transform itself into a better, more stable, more just society at a rate that does not require violence, revolution, war, economic upheaval.

It's a just left of center view that thing should gradually improve.

It rejects the "nanny state" revolutionary leftism intrusions, like limits on soda sizes, just as do centrism, conservatism, and libertarianism.

The revolutionary left rejects the gradual nature of progressivism. It prefers the radical change of revolution over the gradual change of a more natural progress.

Many libertarians, and even many conservatives are actually progressives. They accept and even welcome natural advances in science, social theories, economics, etc.

And then comes the impatience and the grown disdain and contempt for those who dont want to be changed. God forbid anyone should question the latest advances in science, social theories and economics. Funny thing is the popular theory today is all to often proven false tomorrow. Thats why they are called theories in the first place. Now its nice to debate a theory, subject it to scientific debate, scrutiny and experimentation that is fine. But when it is used to justify public policy with potential long term damaging consequences to society and individuals, there there is a problem. When pundits and elected officials refuse to accept counter arguments and throw ad hominims at those who question their alleged superior knowledge beyond question, calling them tea partiers, trailer trash or racist country bumpkins, then there is a real problem and justified growing anger. Just saying.

[Kadmos]

And then comes the impatience and the grown disdain and contempt for those who dont want to be changed. God forbid anyone should question the latest advances in science, social theories and economics.

Those who act on that impatience are no longer progressivists. A progressivist expects people to question advances. Progress needs to be gradual in order not to take it too far too soon. You don't want to lose the good of the old simply because something is "new". But what you do want is advance.


Funny thing is the popular theory today is all to often proven false tomorrow. Thats why they are called theories in the first place. Now its nice to debate a theory, subject it to scientific debate, scrutiny and experimentation that is fine. But when it is used to justify public policy with potential long term damaging consequences to society and individuals, there there is a problem

Exactly. Only fools rush in.


When pundits and elected officials refuse to accept counter arguments and throw ad hominims at those who question their alleged superior knowledge beyond question, calling them tea partiers, trailer trash or racist country bumpkins, then there is a real problem and justified growing anger. Just saying.

I could not agree more.

But lets add those calling people libtards, progressives, tree huggers etc. to that list as well.


This is what the writer of this monograph is doing. He is talking about the few radicals, but changing the wording to include all people who are even a touch left of center...and truthfully a whole lot of people who are likely just right of center as well.

Instead of being honest and saying that these are really only those who are for radical revolutionary changes, he is trying to include the bulk of middle America. Those who want life to slowly get better, science and medicine to slowly get better, without the intrusion major immediate reforms have.

He is essentially saying if you aren't at least two steps right of center then you are basically a communist.

Which is bullshit.