In American politics, the term “progressive” was once used to describe policies which aimed to reform industry, to protect citizens, and to safeguard the future of our lands. The great Theodore Roosevelt passed the Antiquities Act, establishing the presidential authority to set aside protected lands for all to enjoy unto futurity. The one and only decent thing Woodrow Wilson would do, was to follow suit in expanding what Roosevelt had begun, by establishing the National Park Service Organic Act.
Prior to these Acts, lands that are now revered the world over were being ravaged. Native American ruins were destroyed, great redwood groves were being devastated for lumber, petrified forests were ransacked, and waste was dumped freely into the waters. As was quite clear to conservationist John Muir, these precious lands needed to be protected. Muir urged his friend Teddy Roosevelt to ensure that these unique lands would continue beyond their lives. No greater legacy could have been established.
During the true progressive era, Roosevelt and Taft took on the monopolies for their unfair treatment of consumers. They oversaw the breaking up of over one hundred trusts, and continued seeking laws to benefit the citizens by pushing for the Pure Food and Drug Act and establishing the earliest acts of conservationism in our nation’s history.
The United States also saw the introduction of regulations on industry and labor. Progressivism was in many ways nonpartisan. There were progressives in both political parties, and looking back, it is evident that a series of good decisions were made which truly favored the American people. It was a different era. President Roosevelt and Taft were not men beholden to their corporate or foreign masters. They were looking out for the people that had elected them, as it should be. A long-forgotten tradition in politics.
Historically, the term “progressivism” in the United States was used to describe reforms aimed at helping the common American, protecting them from unscrupulous business practices and from those looking to profit off what John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt felt were national treasures.
The modern uses of the terms “Liberal” and “progressive” are nothing more than marketing gimmicks employed by the Left to give themselves a fresh new image. The terms began to be applied to Democrats sometime in the New Deal Era. By “progress” and “Liberalism,” Franklin D. Roosevelt actually meant an unprecedented expansion of the federal government, the creation of the socialist welfare state, and massive wealth redistribution. Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke of the “freedom from want,” which he saw as both liberating and progressive.5
The historical meanings of Liberalism and progressivism would forever be changed in the United States from that point on. These terms were blatantly stolen from Classical Liberals — men like Thomas Paine and John Locke, and the true progressives like Teddy Roosevelt. What modern day Liberals and progressives stand for could not be further from the ideals of those great characters. Modern-day Leftists are nothing but thieves, as they reveal, quite appropriately, even in the names they use to describe themselves: the two terms have been appropriated from their true historical uses and made to describe the massive welfare state, open borders, the slaughter of unborn babies, and increased government intervention in all aspects of our lives.
Throughout the remainder of the book I will use the terms “Liberal” and “progressive” as they are used in modern colloquial language. I also use “Leftist” and the “Left-wing” to refer to Liberal ideologies and people.
I use the term “conservative” and “Right,” on the other hand, in reference to the people that believe in upholding the ideals and values this nation was founded on. And in reference more broadly to those who oppose modern Liberalism and progressives.
Right-wing and Left-wing are terms that have maintained a bit more consistency through history. It is again helpful if we establish some historical context and thence a working definition of these terms, for they are used heavily throughout this book. It is also imperative to understand that those we know as Liberals today in America have historically manipulated these terms for political gain. They continue to manipulate these terms even today, rewriting much of their own history.
Right-wing and Left-wing are terms originating in the French Revolution, and they indicated little more than who was sitting where. Those members of the National Assembly who sided with the King sat on one side of the room, while those supporting the revolution sat on the other side. The terms “Right-wing” and “Left-wing” have applied to different movements throughout history, but their usage has maintained a level of uniformity the world over.
Contemporary Left-wing ideals can be easily traced to communism. Like most modern Liberal ideals, their roots are in Marx, the Bolshevik party, the NKVD, and the KPD. Leftists all over the world are preachers of social justice, egalitarianism, forced financial equality, and (their hallmark feature) a massive government that the people serve. Leftist claim to be the party of Classical Liberalism and civil liberties, but as we can clearly see, they are in favor of anything but individual liberty.
At the beginning, Right-wing views were considered to be those opposing the communist Left, views based on conserving the beauty, order, and people of a nation. Right-wing philosophy is associated with Classical Liberalism, nationalism, the belief in certain inalienable individual liberties, and a government that exists to serve the people.
The absurdity of the American Left calling themselves Liberal is apparent in the differences of philosophy between the Modern Liberals and Classical Liberals. Classical Liberals believe in a small government and low, voluntary, taxation. Modern Liberalism is predicated on a massive State and oppressive taxation, enforced through the threat of violence. While Classical Liberals held individual liberty in high esteem, Modern Liberals routinely sacrifice individual rights to appease the collective. While Classical Liberals viewed freedom of speech, association, religion, thought, firearm ownership, and property ownership to be worthy values, the Modern Liberal rejects all these tenets.
When I speak of “individualism” throughout this book, I am using it in the traditionalist, European, almost aristocratic sense of the term associated with mastery and discipline. The sort of individualism that fosters creativity, high art, order, and a concern with our shared cultural destiny. Those individuals a little bit ahead of the rest, those who push humanity a little further, the aristocrats of the soul. Not the rootless, atomized, deracinated, selfish, plebeian, narcissistic, individualism of the modern era that Liberalism promotes — an individualism based on empty hedonism and hostile disregard for order and beauty.
Similarly, when I speak of “collectivism,” I am using the Marxist definition which seeks to create a forced equality and imbue the State with power. One can support individual liberties while still believing in a cohesive group identity and working together to preserve those liberties from hostile influence. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. Working as a group is not the same as a Marxist-collectivist ideology. The West has been unique in its ability to combine a strong national identity with profound freedoms for individuals within that group.
The Social Liberal of today advocates for “hate speech” laws, strict gun control, routine confiscation of property and labor through taxation, and even forced association through mass migration and open-border policies. Modern Liberals feel they have an inherent right to other people’s labor and property. Perhaps the most glaring difference between Modern Liberals and Classical Liberals is their views of the State. Classical Liberals view the State as something that works only for the people, something that should be allowed minimal interference, while Modern Liberals regularly seek to utilize the State to force others to succumb to their will. Individual rights to property, speech, association, are all damned in the collectivist framework of Modern Liberalism.
I think of the Left-Right spectrum as being arranged on the basis of the size of government and its involvement in people’s lives. Massive, overreaching governments based on communist principles are universally Left-wing. It
is well agreed upon that communism is a Left-wing ideology, and all subsequent political movements based upon communism are thus also Left-wing.
Political ideologies that favor smaller governments which exists to serve the people, protect them, and otherwise let them be, are Right-wing. Leftists political theorists have sought to over-complicate the dynamic in an effort to rewrite history and disguise their motives. Although historical examples of Right-wing governments that have grown large and powerful do exist, they have generally become that way as a reaction to Leftist attacks. The underlying principles of a concern and protection for their own people remained despite their reaching high magnitudes.
When a group wants to use the State to force their ideology on others, that is classic Leftism, for it necessitates a large government enforcing its will, and limits the individual liberties of citizens.
This idea of liberty was posited in opposition to the monarchs of Europe, who appealed to the Divine Right of Kings and believed that God had bestowed power upon them to rule over their subjects. John Locke arrived on the scene and declared that something had gone horribly awry. God would never make man in His image only to be ruled by another; the Divine Rights are a lie. To make a long story short, the idea caught on with a few people on a distant continent; they grabbed their muskets and declared their independence from Great Britain. And here we are today, once again, fighting tyranny.
Through the remainder of the book, I use “Left-wing” to describe policies and practices that support a large state, favor collective rights over individual rights, or seek to impose the will of a few on the whole of society through the apparatus of the State.
“Right-wing” will be used to describe policies and practices that foster more individual freedoms, while limiting the power of the collective and the State. There is also a demarcation between Left and Right in terms of nationalism. Where the Left favors globalism, open borders, and mass migration, the Right is concerned first and foremost with the well-being of its own people and self-determination.
When referencing other nations and politics outside of the USA, I also use Right-wing and Left-wing, as those terms still mean more or less the same thing across the pond.
The names and key figures have changed throughout history, yet the underlying principles and conflicts have remained constant. There are factions of people who want to impose their will upon others. In some cases theirs has been a religious will, an economic vision, or a perverse view of justice. And as long as there have been societies, there have been others who fight for the rights of the individual and for personal liberties, opposing the collectivist mob rule. Our side has always fought for the individual, the health of our people, and the triumph of will.
There is a good reason the American Left has fought so hard to call themselves Liberals and progressives, taking on the good name of better men that came before them. The Democratic party, the party that claims to be and always to have been progressive and Liberal, has a storied past which is nothing short of demonic.
Let’s take a quick look at the “Liberal” and “progressive” legacy of the American Left. Here are their programs:
The Revenue Act of 1913, which established the income tax.
The Federal Reserve Act, which established a central bank.
The New Deal, which created the welfare state.
The removal of the US from the gold standard.
The National Firearms Act.
The Great Society, which expanded the welfare state.
The Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965.
And here is a brief history of war mongering in the United States:
World War I — 1.6 years — Woodrow Wilson (Democrat)
World War II — 3.7 years — Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat)
Korean War — 3.1 years — Harry Truman (Democrat)
Vietnam War — 8.1 years –
Johnson, 4 years (Democrat)
Nixon, 4 years (Republican)
Persian Gulf War — 0.5 years — Bush Sr. (Republican)
War on Terror, including Iraq & Afghanistan –
Bush Jr. 8 years (Republican)
Obama 8 years (Democrat)6
Looking back through our history, it can be seen that Republicans have been in the minority when it comes to military interventions. The body count for the American Democratic party is staggering. It is one of the deadliest ideologies in all of human history. Second only perhaps to communism.
Of the 32.5 years the US has spent in major wars during the twentieth century to date, Democrats have been in office for twenty of those years. Nixon inherited a war, and the Bushes are nothing but neoconservatives.
Democrats have initiated involvement in all but the two of these wars, for which the Bushes are responsible. Of the years spent at war, Democrats have been in office for 63 percent of that time.
Which is no surprise. The bellicosity we see from the American Left is strikingly similar to that of the Trotskyite tradition. Under president Woodrow Wilson, a foreign policy known as Liberal internationalism was instituted, according to which sovereign nations should intervene through military invasion and aid in the affairs of other sovereign nations in an effort to spread the so-called values of Liberalism. The theory was that if nations the world over are operating under similar ideals, peace will be achieved through globalism, with the necessary consequence of undermining the sovereignty of nations. Leon Trotsky advanced the idea of “permanent revolution,” which has very similar ideological underpinnings to Liberal internationalism. Trotsky theorized that the cause of communism in one country would be greatly benefited by other nations operating on a similar ideology; disparate segments of society could draw support from others, and revolution in one nation would aid and inspire revolution in another. By solidifying the establishment of communism on a broader stage, the revolution in one nation would thus become “permanent” and secured. In precisely the same way that Wilson saw the spread of Liberal values being aided by global Liberalism, Trotsky believed that communism would be promoted by global communism.
Foreign invasions and communist revolutions, of course, tend to be rather violent. Both Liberal internationalism and permanent revolution theory require the erosion of sovereignty; just as Liberal internationalism opposes isolationism and non-interventionism, Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution was in opposition to Stalin’s vision of national communism or “socialism in one country.”
In contemporary times we see these philosophical expressions being displayed in nation-building at the behest of neoconservative Trotskyites, who claim that their goal is to “spread democracy and freedom” through the Middle East. This of course, sounds oddly familiar. Neoconservative military intervention and Liberal “humanitarian” aid are two sides of the same coin, one that very easily traces back to Liberal internationalism and permanent revolution theory.
The Democratic party, especially in its most modern incarnation, is little more than the American branch of the Communist party. The parallels are striking: the obsession with forced egalitarianism; the policing of speech and thoughts; heavy wealth redistribution through taxation; the advocating of policies that destroy the family unit; a severe disdain for the right to bear arms. All are qualities shared by modern Liberals and communists alike. Those on the Left are the rightful ideological heirs to the throne of Bolshevism.
With that said, it is important to note that the US in no way whatsoever has a real Right-wing party. The current Republican party serves little function other than gate-keeping, giving people the illusion they are voting Right, when instead we get nothing but Trotskyites who support globalized trade deals that hurt American workers, spark off endless wars, and promote population replacement through mass migration. No semblance of protectionism, isolationism, or nationalism is to be found in the official GOP program. The only reason any of these sentiments have a voice in current US politics is because a political outsider entered the arena, and be
cause dissidents are forcing the crimes of the establishment into the light.
The modern Left is not entirely bad. Mentally ill, certainly, and blindly following an evil ideology — but not all bad. It does have a few good positions, and I must give them credit where it’s due. Liberals have been against corporate welfare and bailouts, they are interested in protecting the environment, wildlife, and animal rights. I think the average rank-and-file Liberal may have a handful of good intentions. But as always — the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
With that said, the support of wildlife and environmentalism has its origins in Classical Liberalism and the Right. As does hostility towards corporations. Isolationism is another classic form of Right-wing nationalism. Every admirable issue espoused by social Liberals originates on the Right.
Republican governor Gifford Pinchot, ardent advocate of forest conservation, was the first chief of the United States Forest Service. The Forest Service itself was an offshoot of Teddy Roosevelt’s Boone and Crockett Club, the oldest wildlife and habitat conservation organization in the US. The Boone and Crocket Club eliminated commercial hunting and helped to create the National Park Service and the Wildlife Refuge.
Henry David Thoreau, a tax resister who argued for civil disobedience against an unjust government, was an early advocate of environmentalism. The same men who fought against taxation, also fought to preserve wildlife and nature. John Locke argued that cruelty to animals was morally wrong, and Rousseau felt that humans are morally bound to do no harm to our fellow creatures on account of our shared sentience. Years later, Thomas Jefferson would craft much of our Declaration of Independence based on the works of Locke and Rousseau.
Liberalism Unmasked Page 3