What are Progressive Values?

Okay, so if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Sam Adams were running for office today against Hillary Clinton, would you vote for any of them, or for her?

Also, how many of the Bill of Rights (as they were understood and practiced in 1789) do you support today?

Also, how many of the tenets of communism do you support?

 

" The facts are the Nazis called themselves the National Socialist German Workers' Party. If they were that incorrect about themselves, then there would have been hardly anyone joining their party."

Communist East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic. Was it a democracy, Greataxe?


Perhaps the Fuhrer himself can convince you that fact is fact and no amount of magical thinking will change that, if not, oh well! No skin off my nose!

Hitler Explains to GOP Why They Are Wrong about National Socialism
added by Hrafnkell Haraldsson on Wed, Sep 12th, 2012

Republicans are fond of simplistic, ignorant, sound-bites that masquerade as facts. One of their favorites is to assign Nazism (aka National Socialism) to the left of the political spectrum on account of the ‘socialism’ in the party name.

Never mind that the Nazis saw themselves as firmly part of the extremist right in German politics and despised liberals and actual socialists (and of course, communists), who were properly placed on the left of the political spectrum. Before the Nazis could become the leading party in Germany, they first had to lead the right wing, and that breakthrough came in the period 1928-1930.

On 16 November 1928, in his first speech at the Berlin Sportpalast, Hitler told a crowd of ten thousand plus that, “We have to strip the terms ‘Nationalism’ and ‘Socialism’ of their previous meaning. Only that man is a nationalist who stands by his people, and only that man is a socialist who stands up for the rights of his people both internally and externally.”

But he became more specific yet in response to internal divisions within the NSDAP. It turns out Hitler himself pointed out the flaw in Republican thinking in a May 1930 meeting of the party leadership in Munich. As author Thomas Friedrich wrote, “Hitler…left his listeners in no doubt about what he did not mean by ‘National Socialism.'”

This is what Hitler said National Socialism was not:

It was not, “a universal morality of pity but a master race” – in other words, Hitler did not see his socialism as Republicans today see socialism, but rather as a form of German Exceptionalism (the Nazis called it a “National Community”) which can be equated with the GOP’s version of American Exceptionalism.

National socialism, Hitler said, “did not lie in socialism as a universal panacea nor was it a nationalist variant of that idea.” Republicans, of course, are fond of accusing socialism (and liberalism) as advocating a universal panacea. Indeed, it is all we are hearing leading up to Election Day 2012.

“Rather,” wrote Friedrich, “it was a completely new political concept with a totality that could not be divided into separate components.”

In other words, National Socialism had nothing to do with socialism then or now. Those elements of the party which clung to some hope that actual socialism would be a part of the Nazi platform (including especially Otto Strasser), were kicked out.

Here is what happened with Strasser. As Friedrich explains, in May of 1930, after the leader meeting in Munich, Hitler visited Berlin and met with Strasser. Strasser wanted to know what Hitler would do with Krupp and the other big German corporations when he became dictator. “Would everything remain unchanged in terms of ownership, profits and management?”

“But of course,” Hitler replied.”Do you think I’m mad enough to destroy the economy?” Hitler would intervene, he told Strasser, only when companies failed to act in the “national interest.”

As Friedrich writes, Strasser was dismayed. He told Hitler that if he was planning on retaining the capitalist system he had no right to speak of Socialism. Hitler told Strasser that the term “socialism” was “intrinsically bad” and repeated his position. “As long as that does not happen, it would simply be a crime to destroy the national economy.”

From Hitler’s perspective, Strasser’s viewpoint was “simply Marxist.”

Hitler waited until upcoming regional elections in Saxony had taken place and then moved to silence the “salon Bolshevists” as he called them. He told his Berlin Gauleiter, Joseph Goebbels to remove “all those elements whose views are essentially the same as those of our enemies [socialists] and who are now trying to obtain a hearing for these views of theirs.”

The next day, Strasser responded in his own newspaper, Der Nationale Sozialist with an appeal entitled “The Socialists Are Leaving the NSDAP!”

Somebody hadn’t been paying attention in class. Strasser was extremely naive if he had failed to pick up on the support given the Nazi Party by big industrialists from very early on.

In fact, on 26 January 1932, Hitler would even address the Industry Club, Friedrich writes, “and tried to assure them that they had nothing to fear from his party’s economic policies.” In his two-and-a-half-hour speech he gave a very Social Darwinist, Republican justification for capitalism and private wealth,
that those who have wealth have it because they deserve it and because they deserve it they’re better than everybody else:

I am bound to say that private property can be morally and ethically justified only if I admit that men’s achievements are different. Only on that basis can I assert since men’s achievements are different, the results of those achievements are also different. But if the results of those achievements are different, then it is reasonable to leave to men the administration of those results to a corresponding degree. It would not be logical to entrust the administration of the result of an achievement which was bound up with a personality either to the next best but less capable person or to a community which, through the mere fact that it had not performed the achievement, has proved that it is not capable of administering the result of that achievement. Thus it must be admitted that in the economic sphere, from the start, in all branches men are not of equal value or of equal importance. And once this is admitted it is madness to say: in the economic sphere there are undoubtedly differences in value, but that is not true in the political sphere.

In another speech to German industrialists a year later, on 20 February 1933, Hitler again sounds a great deal like a Republican of 2012, espousing false dilemmas and delegitimizing all but his own party:

No two ideologies can continuously live alongside one another. in such struggles the strength of a people eats itself completely up internally and therefore cannot act externally. It does not rest. This condition of attrition lasts until one party emerges victorious or the state itself dissolves, whereby a people loses its place in history.

It is clear that Hitler saw socialists in the same light as Republicans – they were nothing more than Marxists and Bolsheviks. He drew no real distinction between socialists and communists and neither do Republicans as we see almost daily from their rhetoric.

In fact, if there is a comparison to be made, then it is to the Republicans we must look. No the Republicans are not National Socialists but like the National Socialists the Republicans are a right wing party and a now very extreme right wing party. They are, like the National Socialists, a party of nationalists (fanatically so), appealing to the workings of a divine will they say puts America at the forefront of nations. And last, but not least, only the authoritarian Republican Party could come up with a president who adopts the Fuhrerprinzip (Leader Principle) by telling the world, “I am the decider” as though, like Hitler, he held sole power in the land.

References:
Thomas Friedrich, Hitler’s Berlin: Abused City. Yale University Press, 2012.

 

One of them.

All of them as I understand them today.

Off topic!

 

Don't be so naive -

Most Progressive or Tea Party radio and websites are ASTROTURF !

THAT MEANS THEY'RE FAKE !

Has CODE PINK pulled another stunt on the Senate floor ? -

After all - IT IS PLEDGE TIME AT PACIFICA RADIO !

AND LOOK how UNABASHEDLY FASCIST SUPPOSED 'Libertarian' Alex Jones has become over at INFOWARS - he's practically a NeoCon now ... or he's like CNN and Fox News with most of the coverage DESIGNED TO BE FEAR BASED and GEARED TOWARDS FUELING AND FOMENTING MORE WARS AND WEAPONS SALES !

It's all PR and marketing for the most part - for either the Dems or the GOP ...


AstroTurf Wars - Trailer


[video=youtube;pLydHWUKrbc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLydHWUKrbc[/video]

Anti-military liberal group, Code Pink... they look pretty fakey 'astro-turf' to me


Fake Democrat Astro-turf Protesting: Is Code Pink “Too-Well Dressed”? Or Just “Too Pink”? Only Sen. Babs Boxer Knows for Sure…

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_h...-too-pink-only-sen-babs-boxer-knows-for-sure/

Barbara Boxer meet Dr. Evil

[video=youtube;IsGR83Imoto]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsGR83Imoto[/video]


see also:

Code Pink has a morale problem: It’s called Democrats


"Ms. Benjamin and fellow Code Pink members arrived to stand in line outside the House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting room just before 10 a.m., securing a spot that allowed them to take prime seats behind Secretary of State John F. Kerry.

A day earlier, Ms. Benjamin was arrested for protesting in the middle of the Senate’s hearing on Syria, yelling “We don’t want another war” as she was escorted out."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/4/code-pink-founder-democrats-quiet-in-challenging-o/


Why Protesters Code Pink stay Out of Jail
By Daniel Nasaw, BBC News Magazine

""We respect each other, we even like each other," she said. "There can be a bad apple here among them, just as they probably think the same about us.

"They see us in the morning and they start laughing and joking and say, 'Give me a hug now because I might have to arrest you later."

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29280937


.............................. .............................. .............................

 

Sunday school can't possibly make you any crazier than FACEBOOK -

(but it probably runs a close second)



Facebook: CIA Op, Scientifically Proven
to Make You Crazy and Miserable

[video=youtube;cb_mbC7NJr0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb_mbC7NJr0[/video]

THE REAL REASON POLICE WAITED OUTSIDE WHILE EVERYBODY DIED

[video=youtube;f3h43-cCq1c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3h43-cCq1c[/video]

 

Sam Seder: Why Police Killed
Eric Garner - (Because They Can)


[video=youtube;figl3YEFSwQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=figl3YEFSwQ[/video]

 

ANTI-WAR TRUTH TELLERS -

LISTEN


Stephen Lendman: The Endgame Is
Tyranny In America

[video=youtube;jMAnCSLreIY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMAnCSLreIY[/video]

 

I can't tell you what the progressive values are, but my political values are responsible treatment of the environment, better treatment of women, preference for diplomatic over military solutions where possible, and respect for sciences and arts. I support market economics but also want to see people extended affordable education and health care. I believe that people should have the right to choose what kind of personal life they want to lead and to deal with whatever consequences this brings them.

 

Being a true progressive in America means embracing Islam even if they treat women like dogs and kill lots of people---even those who throw them a baby shower.

Being a true progressive in America means believing in fantasy "gender identity" issues, and having your bathrooms open to male pedophiles and rapists, having your sports programs trashed and taxpayers paying for sex change operations.

Being a true progressive in America means giving certain people of color a free pass to be as bad they want to be because of events far in the past.

Certainly it means no individual accountability.

 

I don't believe everything Alex Jones believes or believes will happen. But he at least has the courage to confront the morally debased leftist media, Obama, Hillary, #BLM and Black Panther hate groups.

When has the Leftist Major media recentsly run on bio on the Panthers and the 20 cops they have killed since the 1960's?

 

I can only speak for myself as a Progressive Populist, but here goes:

1.) Getting the influence of money out of politics essentially by making all donations anonymous and placing them in escrow (this is a subject for a completely different thread but for now I suggest reading the book "Voting With Dollars").

2.) Ending the issue of abortion by funding ectogenesis research.

3.) Stopping corporations from using offshore tax havens to avoid taxes.

4.) If "corporations are people" then they will be taxed at the same rate a citizen with their income would be.

5.) Remove the cap on income eligible for social security tax.

6.) Legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana.

7.) Creating a speculation fee for Wall Street - Creating a speculation fee of just 0.03% on the sale of credit default swaps, derivatives, options, futures and large amounts of stock would reduce gambling on wall street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the job creating productive economy and reduce the deficit by $352 billion dollars over ten years.

8.) End tax breaks and subsidies for big oil, gas and coal companies

9.) Establishing a progressive estate tax - which would only affect 0.03% of the population

10.) Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as work.

11.) Repeal the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%

12.) Establish a currency manipulation fee on China.

13.) Reduce unnecessary and wasteful spending in the Pentegon.

14.) Provide free higher education for all students who qualify.

15.) Reinstate the Glass-Stegall Act

16.) Reregulate the financial sector

17.) Break up the banks so they no longer have such a control of our economy.

18.) Raise the minimum wage to a living wage (I think about $15/hr).

19.) Create high paying jobs that cannot be outsourced by investing in clean energy.

20.) Guns - I can't put this in a ten word sound bite so I will say this: we are allowed guns so in case, God forbid, we are invaded by another country, if they get past the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, we will be able to fight to the last man (or woman). And don't give me any "I need it to protect myself from the government," I have a fundamental understanding of physics, I know no weapon available to the public is going to defeat a tank or an F-16 jet armed with missiles. Now, that is one hell of a responsibility. That is why those who have guns must not have a history of mental illness, a criminal record, and they must be able to, on a yearly basis, prove they can safely and accurately. I wouldn't even have a problem with requiring gun safety courses in P.E. classes in schools - the NRA could be very useful in implementing such programs - that's what they started out as. With these regulations in place we can insure that those who are armed have the ability to defend this country against an invading force. If I have to fight, I want to fight alongside someone who knows what the hell they're doing with a gun not someone who "saw it on tv and thought it looked cool." Moreover, these regulations would actually increase gun ownership...if yo ucan prove you can handle it, you should be able to have as many guns and as many types of guns as you wish.

21.) A single payer health care system.

22.) Not allowing pharmaceutical companies to pay doctors to prescribe their particular drugs.

23.) Allowing the government to bargain for drug prices.

24.) Creating a freer market by allowing drugs to be imported from other countries - Canada comes to mind.

 

This video clip of Sam Seder RE: Eric Garner I saw about 8 months ago for the first time.

I usually detest Sam Seder because he's a Democrat Party shill, and lies about the

Obama wars constantly, and covers up for Hillary and so forth.

When I watched Sams take on the Eric Garner incident, I was shocked he said this.

GreatAxe - please watch the clip - I wondered about what you think of Sams

viewpoint of the incident.

 

Yeah sure - diplomacy, right.



But it should be clear to you that here in America the

U.S. Government, its European allies. and the Establishment media is not doing that.

They are dong quite the opposite. They are using the media to ratchet up the FEAR

of foreginers, Blacks, Latin Americans, and and all the Western Governments are selling

massive amounts of guns and ammo, not just domestically, but abroad - tanks, fighter

planes, as well as missile launchers, bombs (to terrorists like al Nusra !) while the

TV networks and Hollywood do all the war promotion military hype

films - its definately FEAR BASED driven news coverage as well

exploiting and giving perpetrators fame and notoriety like that

'Natural Born Killers' - and movies and TV push more psychotic

characters and villians for sensationalism and blood and guts

ratings and ticket sales so people in their craziness of network execs broadcast or in public want their ratings

15 minutes of fame copy murder dramas, police murder show

scripts, and everyone in the public runs out to buy more guns, it

creates the permanent mindset and climate of FEAR driven by

profit and the National Security State. Look at even the PBS British

shows mirror and copy - LAW AND ORDER, CSI - and all the cops

in turn domestcally with the public have this 'shoot to kill' mentality,

more graphic violence mimicked from TV.

 

The Leftist on the video has a problem with the police being able to stop and frisk people obviously breaking the law. The Leftist does not talk about Eric Garner resisting arrest. He was not just passively cooperating.

I run a very small business. I pay a small fee to have a city business licence. I pay to be incorporated. If I wanted to sell cigarettes in NYC I would get a licence first and collect sales taxes. Eric Garner was a crook.

I think all cities should enforce the law. If someone is selling controlled substances like booze, smokes and certainly narcotics---they should know the law---and know the consequences.

The cops didn't "kill and harrass" Garner just "because the could" --- they had a right to enforce the law. If NYC wants to allow business to operate without licences, without collecting taxes, without obeying laws---then let them pass a law saying so.

And anyone who is breaking the law and then resists arrest---if they get killed or injured in the process---THEY alone are 100% liable.

Finally, if more cities actively cracked down on lawbreakers, then there would not be massive ganglands with hundreds of murders each years as happens in Chicago, Baltimore and so on.

 

I think its a little ruthless to crush a guys larynx over a few loose cigarettes, come on !

Besides - far from being just a Black/White issue - many whites are unarmed but get shot, beaten and/or tasered to death by police.

 

The core of progressive politics is income redistribution. It would be ideal if *everyone* made $15/hour. That's progressive heaven.

Other goals are just icing on the cake.

 

Black Lives Matter is an astroturf U.S. Government front designed to keep Blacks and Whites divided.

When Black Lives Matter activists spoke in front of the White House broadcast on CSPAN yesterday - they were docile, and made no progressive demands for reform.

They are being used as an election year prop, backdrop, and window dressing, to point the finger at Republicans and elect Democrats in a election year State controlled PR gimmick, unfortunately. The groups spoksmen are controlled from the top - down with pointless, directionless, and toothless rhetoric. It is the same as when Martin Luther King was murdered by the U.S. Government - Jesse Jackson was put in place by 'THE MAN' and his ineffectual by design 'Rainbow Coalition' was rolled out every 4 years on Super Tuesday to keep Blacks and Latinos voting under the Democrat umbrella - and Black Lives Matter is controlled dissent during some of the most unlawful heinous police killings seen in decades under Obama.

[video=youtube;figl3YEFSwQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=figl3YEFSwQ[/video]

 

Garner was resisting arrest while in a loose headlock. Garner was in poor health and should have consulted with a medical doctor before doing physical tasks such as resisting arrest.

 

#BLM is being directed by progressives and globalists.

[video=youtube;GFm5yFqkoww]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFm5yFqkoww[/video]

 

In all fairness, one could make that arguement that every degree of the political spectrum favors some kind of wealth redistribution. The question is whether it is from the top down or bottom up.

 

Progressive's values are merely what they fee today. There is no rhyme, reason or logic to their values. Actually IMO values are way down on their list. Values might be equated to morals, and progressives have few of those.

 

A 10% flat tax would be fair.

 

I believe we need the equivalent to an oil pump to help recirculate currency in our republic.

 

Returning to the question the "progressive ideology" embraces a step-by-step process of achieving Classical Liberalism in the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

The acknowledged Godfather of Classical Liberalism is John Locke and his Second Treatise of Civil Government could be considered the "bible" of classical liberalism.

Unfortunately Wikipedia goes on to falsely claim that the economic principles of Adam Smith, in his book the Wealth of Nations, is related to "Classical Liberalism" when, in fact, it was the foundation for "Neo-Classical Liberalism" that corrupted Classical Liberalism because it abandoned the belief in the "natural right of property" instead relying on "ownership established by title" that was founded in the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings that John Locke argued against.

The Classical Liberal rejects Adam Smith's works related to capitalism because "ownership established by title" violates the "natural right of property" as established by John Locke.

 

Wouldn't that only hold true without taxation? Title seems more accurate.