Skip to content

The progressive view of man

April 19, 2011

Progressives hold three truths to be self-evident, that all men are imperfect, that some men are perfectible, and that we shouldn’t even bother with the leftovers.  The first point is universally accepted and deserves little if any consideration.  The latter two points are a different issue, lets tackle them together shall we?

Man is Perfectible

This is an interesting concept, for it concludes a “perfect” station of the human condition.  What is this station?  If we were to infer from standard progressive memes, the legislation proposed by progressive lawmakers, and the writings of progressive authors, the perfect human would not possess any of the characteristics of humanity as we commonly recognize them, he would cease to be homo-sapiens, and would become homo-liberalis.

The concept of the imperfect human is the true essence of being human.  Our faults, failures and weaknesses are what motivate us to improve.  The sheer will of the human and our ability to adapt to our failings are what separate humanity from the lower species on the Earth.  We do not accept our station in life as “the way it is”, but use our station as motivation to seek “the way it can be”.  Notice I said can.

To the homo-liberalis, they seek “the way it should be”.  Can is proactive, should is reactive.  Can puts the responsibility for personal change and improvement on the individual, should puts it on others, usually society.  Can is an action, should is a demand for others to act.

So the first distinguishing characteristic of homo-liberalis is the demand that others should do their bidding.  In the proto-perfect human we see around us today, the demand of should is usually couched in philanthropic platitudes often preceded by the societal encompassing “WE”, for example, “We should do more to help the poor,” or the neuter intangible “IT”, as in, “It should be against the law to eat meat.”  Notice, these phrases remove the speaker from the discussion.  The “we” embodies everyone except the speaker, “it” is non-determinative.  So it can be surmised that the homo-liberalis first and foremost knows what society needs, but excludes themselves from the result.  This is indicative of their philanthropic nature, they do not desire change for themselves, but for others; they want us to know that nothing besides our betterment motivates their goals.

The second major characteristic of the perfect human is his bottomless well of tolerance.  The homo-liberalis is the embodiment of tolerance, his portrait holds position prime beside the term in the Oxford English dictionary.  His tolerance is unfathomable to us mere humans, he is so tolerant, to question the level of his acceptance of others is akin to “understanding the nature of God”, its impossible.  But there is one thing us regular humans often blasphemously question, the inconsistency of that tolerance.  One second, they claim to respect all opinions and views, then a second later they chastise the speaker of said view as a panton-phobe or bigot often when nothing could be further from the truth.  Or they disregard the opinion because the speaker is motivated to such extreme views by emotional exigencies like fear, or greed, or pride.  Or…the opinator is just stupid.  And that is where us regular humans truly miss the boat on the intolerance of the homo-liberal.

You see, it is ludicrous to expect one species to be held to the same standards as another.  We wouldn’t expect a badger to have the cleanliness mores of a housecat would we?  Of course not, just as we should not expect the perfect human to be tolerant of the imperfect.  The homo-liberalis is elevated to a higher-being, they have evolved in thought, word and deed.  To expect them to be respective, let alone cogitative, of their inferior’s viewpoints is ridiculous on its face.  And of course this truth holds for humans on the route to such enlightenment, because, by the very nature of them taking the smallest first-step upon this path, they have already elevated themselves above the lower order of homo-sapiens.

It is comparable to the parent-child relationship.  You might allow your child to express their opinions about a certain issue but you aren’t going to change your decision about what is better for them.  And we rightly shun adults who do so as being weak parents.  Should our societal betters be shunned by their peers for treating society’s children the same way?

The third and most important trait of the homo-liberalis, is their total devotion to justice.  They understand all aspects and failures of the imperfect human – we are lazy, slothful, ignorant, greedy, prideful, intolerant (of each other), and worst of all, evil.  But our evil is unique; it is the unmotivated evil of the “didn’t know betters”.  You see, the evil any one of us commit in this world is a product of our nature.  We can not help it, we are destined to such evils by who we are, without law and order to guide us, our gravitation towards evil would be unhampered, thrusting the world into darkness.  It might seem bleak, but rejoice fellow homo-sapiens, the “lawmakers” among us, the creators of justice offer a redemptive solution, we need only submit to their superior wisdom.

Their wisdom holds a secondary benefit as well, it absolves us of responsibility.  Once we release ourselves from the worn and frayed bonds of individualist thinking, the inane concepts of personal responsibility, only then can we elevate ourselves from the lazy, slothful, ignorant, greedy, prideful, intolerant and evil humans we were before.  But we can not do this alone, we need a helping hand, and homo-liberalis is the one with the palm open, inviting us to except their beneficence.

The perfect human has a plan for us, the unmolded rough clay of imperfect humanity.  But this plan can only be accomplished if they can overcome our aforementioned faults, sometimes all it takes is a “nudge”, oftentimes something more overt is needed.  That is why “the perfect” embrace law and justice such as they do.  They rightly understand that we might eat too much salt for example, or we might ignorantly pack an unhealthy lunch for society’s children when we send them off to the care and embrace of society’s schools.  They know our propensity for violence so they must pass laws to curb that behavior, often in the form of removing tools to commit such acts, but they also seek to abolish offensive, hate inducing words from our language,  surmising our hate for each other is the root of society’s evils.

So now we see what a few of us might aspire to, if we had aspirations to begin with.  But what about the rest?

The Leftovers

The leftovers are the dregs of society that truly have no hope of redemption.  For sure they suffer the same failures as the few who might be eligible for enlightenment, but they suffer from some other malady that disqualifies them.  In the past, such maladies would be their race, their nationality, their social status, or their mental acuity.  Let’s examine how the progressive views of the perfect society have changed from a little pup-tent to the grandeur of the circus big top.

First we must look to Charles Darwin.  His On the Origin of the Species, was a game-changer in the parlance of our time.  It gave us a viable explanation and theory as to the evolution of nature and man.  Different than the theories on transmutation where the individual in the species can change to suit his environment then can pass that change onto his progeny, the theory of evolution is completely unconscious.  In fact, it has no motive whatsoever, it happens completely out of chance.  That’s the brilliance of the theory.

An animal must compete with other animals to survive.  Anything in that animal’s genetic makeup, regardless of the variable, that affords it an advantage over his competitors should be passed on to his offspring.  Conversely, if an animal suffers an affliction that makes it more difficult to compete, his chances of surviving let alone procreating reduce dramatically.  This is how “nature” improves itself.  Its pretty common sense when you think about it, but back in the day it was staggering.

Darwin gives much credit for his ideas to a scholar named Thomas Malthus.  In his popular work, An Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus puts forth this theory – that populations grow exponentially, but the resources to support that population only grow arithmetically.

Malthusian theory is important when we begin to examine the great eugenics movements that popularized the world during the late 19th and early 20th century.  Eugenicists firmly believe man is perfectible (interestingly Malthus did not), but there is one obstacle to that perfection, the unchecked growth of population and the inter-mixing of races that that entails.  To be fair, race is probably the worst word created in regards to human affairs, it can mean so many things.  On one hand it can refer to the traditional three “races” of humans, the Caucasoid, the Negroid and the Mongoloid, on the other it can refer to humankind in general.  For this discussion, we must use the following definition (from

a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

This leaves us a lot of legroom on deciding what a race is, but it is important to understand this clinical definition of race in regards to eugenics.  When an early progressive talks about race, they usually are referring to a nationality, not the color of someone’s skin, for example, the American race is the conceptual human created from the melting pot of the United States, not a white person.

Racial purity was a big key to eugenicist thinking, most promulgated by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party, but that concept was not unique to progressive dominated Germany.  In fact, Hitler gives much credit to his embracement of the sterilization of the lesser races to the success the state of California had in the same purview.  The land of fruits and nuts was a big proponent of sterilization, performing such inhuman operations on over 20,000 people between the years of 1909-1964.  California was the leading state in numbers of sterilizations, but it was not alone, thirty states in total enacted “race betterment” laws.

To get an idea of the thinking behind these horrendous acts, let’s read a quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the landmark case Buck vs. Bell, a case brought to the court in 1927 challenging the legality of Virginia’s race betterment laws, in which the sterilization of a supposed “feeble-minded” 17-year-old girl was the focus:

instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

Buck was a leftover, society gave up on her or her offspring’s chances of elevation to homo-liberalis, better to cull the herd then to allow her continue to ruin the race.  Look at his use of the word “kind” and we can see he truly believes she was an inferior creature, a lesser animal – no wonder it was so easy to decide she could not “continue her kind”.

Needless to say American eugenicists were emboldened by this endorsement of their criminal views, and decided to help the “cause” overseas.  The most notable was the eugenics leader, Harry Laughlin.  Laughlin was a large proponent of forced sterilization, helping many states, including Virginia, write their “race betterment laws” so as to maintain their supposed constitutionality.  In Laughlin’s view, people deserving of sterilization were quite numerous, encompassing such classes as the “(1) Feeble-minded; (2) Insane, (including the psychopathic); (3) Criminalistic (including the delinquent and wayward); (4) Epileptic; (5) Inebriate (including drug-habitués); (6) Diseased (including the tuberculous, the syphilitic, the leprous, and others with chronic, infectious and legally segregable diseases); (7) Blind (including those with seriously impaired vision); (8) Deaf (including those with seriously impaired hearing); (9) Deformed (including the crippled); and (10) Dependent (including orphans, ne’er-do-wells, the homeless, tramps and paupers)”.  [from Eugenical Sterilization in the United States by Harry Hamilton Laughlin]

Laughlin decided to travel to Germany and help the Nazi party write its “race hygiene” law, resulting in the sterilization of over 2 million people [from the Los Angeles Times].  Bad time to be considered “feeble-minded” any where in the world it would seem.

Let’s examine this concept of “feeble-mindedness” because it is extensively used as an excuse to thin the herd of the leftovers.  The British government’s Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded (1904-1908), in its Report in 1908 defined the feeble-minded as:

persons who may be capable of earning a living under favourable circumstances, but are incapable from mental defect, existing from birth or from an early age: (1) of competing on equal terms with their normal fellows, or (2) of managing themselves and their affairs with ordinary prudence

It is important to note that “feebs” were on the high-end of mental deficiency, below them were the imbeciles and the idiots.  Of course, mental deficiency was not the only malady that could relegate a human to the race of the leftovers, as Laughlin says, the blind, the deaf, alcoholics, druggies, the diseased, orphans, homeless and tramps were all excellent candidates to be neutered.  Hard to imagine this thinking came from a movement labeled “progressive” isn’t it?

Before we transition to the leftovers of today, we must address a figure and an organization that straddles both periods of the progressive movement.  The figure is that of Margaret Sanger, the organization is Planned Parenthood.

Sanger was certainly a revolutionary woman.  Brave, outspoken, a defender of women’s rights, she was the prime proponent of legalizing scientific contraception.  What most people take for granted nowadays, we can buy birth control at our local grocery store or our kids can get it from their schools, contraception back in the start of the 20th century was illegal in most states.  Sanger’s main goal in life was to educate women on the immorality of large families and how to take control of their womanhood by effective use of contraception.  Of most important note, she was totally against abortion.  She believed abortion (legal or otherwise) was an end-result of women not having free and easy access to birth-control; never did she advocate it as an actual form of birth control.  But all is not rosy for Margaret, she was most definitely a sterilization proponent.  To quote her own writings, in A Plan for Peace she has these bullet-points to opine:

c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

Its nice to know the progressives are consistent.  Margaret was not very picky of whom she proselytized too either, once speaking to the Ku Klux Klan.  Shouldn’t be much of a surprise, because many of the progressive eugenicists believed wholeheartedly in the evils of miscegenation, otherwise known as whitey marrying blackey.  In the early half of the 20th century, 30 states supported anti-miscegenation laws, the last state to repeal said laws was Virginia, in 1967.  In this regard, race definitely referred to the color of ones’ skin.  Pretty sad isn’t it?

The child of Sanger’s movement is the organization known as Planned Parenthood, whose mission was to provide a place for women to seek education about the ills of unplanned pregnancies and to offer remedies in the form of contraception, not abortion.  So how has Planned Parenthood become the advocate of abortion that it is today?

Today’s leftovers

Because society has changed.  None of the laws I previously mentioned could ever have been enacted if the people of the United States (or Germany) were not amenable to their goals, this was not some progressive government run amok, it was in most ways an extension of the standard thought prevalent in the day (though probably not of the feeble-minded).  But following the horrific revelations of the Nazi eugenics projects, not just sterilization but of genocide in the name of racial purity, such memes spouted by American eugenicists soon got a much deserved negative connotation, nay repulsion.

The methods of culling the leftovers had to go underground.  Understand, the concept of homo-liberalis has never changed, he is the perfected human, pure in race, thought and deed.  Motivated by a desire for the betterment of society, tolerant of all enlightened thinkers, and dedicated to laws to “guide” the rest of us, even if that guiding will lead to our self-perpetuating destruction.

Planned Parenthood had to adopt the mantle of “leader of the abortion movement” when sterilization was no longer a viable option for racial purity – if they can’t stop us from breeding, they can at least motivate us to and provide us with methods of thinning the herd.  That isn’t to say you couldn’t get sterilized if you so wanted, Planned Parenthood offers those procedures as well, but their bread and butter is abortion.

Since the full legalization of abortion in the US in 1973, 40 million babies have been culled from the herd, that is a rate of 4000 per day, pretty staggering.  According to the Guttmacher Institute, the racial breakdowns of abortions today is 64% non-white, 36% white.  69% of abortions are sought by women whom earn less than or up to 2 times the federal poverty level, $10,830.  So basic deduction can assume the leftovers of today are mostly poor non-white women.

But this isn’t a “right to life” call to action, I only point out how the traditional method ensuring racial purity from the criminals, feeble-minded, insane and dependents of America has changed, it has not stopped.

Unfortunately for the progressive, the methods aren’t working.  The leftovers of today are growing, they aren’t subsiding.  What to do?

Why, make them subservient to society of course.  Force them to live in Affordable Housing Project “ghettos”, keep them coming back to the progressive government teat, and don’t let them mix with the American race.  This is not hard to fathom, allow me to re-quote Margaret Sanger:

to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

Of course sterilization as an enforced act is out, but legal segregation is not.  Keep the leftovers in their rundown urban ghettos, they are much easier to control and won’t transmit objectionable traits to the offspring of homo-liberalis.  Remember this is not a white vs. black issue, though abortion and welfare programs most certainly target the latter group disproportionately to the overall population.  This is about people who are worth saving, and those we shouldn’t bother with.  If it was just racial, Obama would never have been President, but he is not a leftover, he is the proto-perfect human, he is elevated above the simple color of his skin by his willingness to embrace the possibility of his perfection through the state.  And, he of course, “doesn’t speak with a negro dialect”.

But what about immigration, how come the progressives fully support it now when they were against it in the beginning?  Well, some evidence will point to the fact that today’s progressive does not embrace immigration as we would presume, Senator Harry Reid introduced legislation in 1993 that would severely curtail illegal and legal immigration into the United States, citing evidence of high immigrant participation in our nation’s welfare rolls, as well as to the criminality of the immigrant person.  Perhaps he wasn’t fully briefed on the progressive plan back in the day, because he does so regret such backward thinking nowadays.

The basis of the progressive support for immigration is simple, it is a political necessity.  I go into it further in my piece, Effect then cause – the key to the progressive strategy for America, but I will go briefly into it here.  By increasing the number of people seeking, nay demanding, a handout from the government, the progressive has a raison d’etre.  He has a mass of people not only supporting him, but creating a need for his very existence.  For the traditional philosophy of the United States runs counter to the progressive plan – it can not be implemented with out a cry for it to be so, much like sterilization in the early half of the 20th century.

Imperfection is perfection

Humans are not perfectible, there will always be something we could do to make ourselves better.  And that is the key.  For if we ever attained this vaulted status of the progressive dream, what cause would we have to continue living?  If were it not for humanity’s desire to improve itself, one person at a time, humans would still be living in mud-huts in some Luddite fantasy.

The state can not improve us, through a “nudge” or a law, it has proven throughout history to be the harbinger of destruction and evil like no individual could wrought alone.  The state has brought us genocide through “racial purity”, the inhuman removal of a woman’s ability to procreate through “racial betterment”, and the indignity of ghettos through “welfare”.  None of these accomplishments are deserving of praise, and none of them would have been possible without the state and it’s concepts of perfectibility.

The more we acquiesce to the government’s laws enacted to promote our perfection, the less we become humans.  But we are not being pushed forward to the vaulted species of homo-liberalis, but backwards to the lowly species of homo-worthless.  Our status as individuals is the only thing of intrinsic value we keep throughout our lives, remove that status, and we do indeed become worthless, not only to each other, but to the state.  We are no longer a person with a name, a face and history, but a number on a bureaucrat’s spreadsheet.  Considering the atrocities of the progressive past, I certainly do not want to be a statistic in the progressive future.

16 Comments leave one →
  1. JustFacts permalink
    April 19, 2011 5:39 pm


    • April 19, 2011 6:44 pm

      I take it you liked it?

      • JustFacts permalink
        April 19, 2011 7:29 pm

        Absolutely. It is hard to argue with “facts.” It is just remarkable to me that the average person can’t see through the liberal meme. No one can hate, except them. No one can be guilty of racism, except them. No one can segregate, except them. We all must pay higher taxes, but the liberal elite cheat on theirs, or go to foreign countries to avoid payment. Conservatives have a vastly greater charity contribution history, and want to establish places for the less fortunate to obtain services on a community basis. Why is it that no one can see the blatant hypocrisy of the progressive movement, and relegate it to it’s proper place in the trashcan of failed ideas? It just seems that every generation grabs ahold of this idealism and thinks that the only reason the previous generation failed was because they didn’t implement the progressive ideas fully enough.

      • April 19, 2011 8:53 pm

        Good questions you ask. I wish I knew the answers.

  2. April 19, 2011 6:45 pm

    Wow! You have laid bare a part of American history to which I was completely ignorant. Now I understand George Soros so much better. We are dealing with some very sick people. They have no morals yet they always claim the moral high ground. These psychopaths really do believe they are superior to the rest of us.

    • April 19, 2011 7:05 pm

      It is shocking to learn this stuff happened in America, fewer than 100 hundred years ago no less. And yes, they do believe in their superiority, but that isn’t the scary part. The scary part is the inevitable “sliding scale” that would be the definition of a “leftover”. You start with the “feeble-minded” but end up with orphans, the blind and the deaf – soon it would be “bitter clingers’ and “non-Muslims”.

  3. Dr. Tickles permalink
    April 19, 2011 7:10 pm

    I’m impressed. I believe we have an intellectual in our midst. Great article. I have studied the progressives in the past but my college goes back to 1970. I’m just a little rusty. Thanks for visiting my blog.

    Dr. Tickles (Ron)

    • April 19, 2011 7:14 pm

      Thank you for the kind words my friend.

      I like your work as well. =)

  4. April 19, 2011 7:28 pm

    What a brilliant post! There really is nothing that I can add to what you have already said, great work!

    • April 19, 2011 8:52 pm

      Thanks for the kind words. =)

  5. April 20, 2011 8:41 am

    You out did yourself on this one. Bravo!! I was already stewing about Supremo Ginsburg not wanting to hear the Obamacare issue expedited while she enjoys the very best in healthcare and would deny us the same. She is cut exactly from the Progresseive cloth, and expouses just what you wrote.

    • April 20, 2011 9:13 am

      Yeah, I saw your post after I wrote it and I was like, “Wow, isn’t this amazing timing.” LOL And thank you for the compliment. =)

      As far as the progressives go, they tell us exactly what they think, its not like they are hiding it. All people need to do is wake up! And understand there are people in leadership who actually feel that most of us are mere chattel to be used for the betterment of the state.

  6. April 20, 2011 4:59 pm

    Fascinating history! Thank you!

    I think it’s still possible for judge to order tubal ligation for a woman who keeps having children, but doesn’t take care of them. It’s obviously different from wholesale sterilization of the undesirables. Also, I think about 10 years ago there was some sort of talk of counseling homeless women in CA for tubal ligation, I’m not sure what came out of it. I tried to google, but nothing relevant came up.

    • April 20, 2011 8:53 pm

      Thanks. =)

      I could not find much on tubulagations, but I do know some states “chemically castrate” certain males convicted of sex crimes. I believe that is reversible, but I have no idea.

      Well, Planned Parenthood is big on counseling people on the joys of sterilization, so perhaps that was what you heard about in California.

  7. April 22, 2011 4:59 pm

    Great article on a very important issue.

    • April 22, 2011 8:57 pm

      Thanks for dropping by and commenting, and thank you for the kind words. =)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: