CHAPTER SIXTEEN
Disassembling the Progressive Virus
Shrouded Groups
THE PROGRESSIVE VIRUS’S DNA must remain encased in a protective non-threatening envelope in order to survive. In that respect, it functions exactly like a biological virus.
Take for instance the bacteriophage virus. The bacteriophage begins its attack by coming into contact with its victim, a bacterial cell. It perforates (lyses) the cell wall of the bacterium and injects its virus DNA into its victim. It does not take long before the victim’s DNA manufacturing facility is commandeered by the virus. Once the virus takes control, the bacterium victim begins to make virus DNA, not its own DNA. It continues making virus DNA until it bursts (this causes its death) and releases a million more virus particles to repeat the process.
The façade used by progressives is designed to hide their true nature from those who are being asked to accede their power to them. Progressives come across as nice liberals who are only trying to do good for society. This is ironic because progressives do not believe in “good” as an objective concept. Progressives know that if the population at large really understood what they were up to, Americans would recoil at their true nature. Take, for example, Van Jones:
“Jones’ new approach was modeled on the tactics outlined by the famed radical organizer Saul Alinsky, who stressed the need for revolutionaries to mask the extremism of their objectives and to present themselves as moderates until they could gain some control over the machinery of political power. In a 2005 interview, Jones stated that he still considered himself a revolutionary, but a more effective one thanks to his revised tactics.” (Emphasis added) {138}
After 25 years of studying the progressive virus and those who carry it, I have found that if you strip away the protective shroud worn by progressives, what you find are men and women dedicated to taking the reins of government, then increasing the power and scope of governmental power. Once in charge, progressives will use their power to wield totalitarian dominance over their fellow citizens. We find men and women who are angry and who are intent upon fomenting a revolution that is specifically designed to destroy free will and confiscate, then redistribute, wealth. Once progressives destroy free will and institute tyranny, they are intent upon becoming the totalitarian rulers of the world. This description of progressives may sound “over the top,” but the progressive virus, like the bacteriophage, won’t stop until it kills its victim.
Progressives are notoriously passive aggressive and psychologically sophisticated. They are masters at using psychological triggers to get what they want. They are, without exception, agnostic or atheist. They have sublimated their violent tendencies and have learned to become pleasant and soft-spoken.
The men are non-threatening for the most part, often appearing to be gender amorphous. Many are vegetarian and involved in animal rights, but do not love animals, per se. For example, progressives may belong to PETA, but they would be less likely to volunteer at an animal rescue shelter or take into their home stray animals.
Trace the history of many a progressive activist and you will find, if you go back in time, an anarchist who once terrorized his or her way through life. Whether it was the “Weathermen” or The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) or the Black Panthers, these groups were the breeding grounds where the non-threatening progressives of today got their start.
Those infected with the progressive virus are not individualists. They work in groups. Progressives start and belong to groups named to appear to be wholesome and non-threatening. The sheer number of progressive groups using shrouded names is very telling. The following CATEGORY listing of progressive groups is striking. Realize that each CATEGORY includes several specific organizations each with its own progressive agenda, funding, purpose and non-threatening name:
1.0 Progressive Electoral Politics Organizations
1.1. Progressive Political Parties
1.2. Progressive State and Local Legislation Groups
1.3. Progressive Lobbying and Electoral Action Groups
1.4. Progressive Democratic Party Election Groups
1.5. Progressive Voter Engagement Groups
1.6. Election Reform Groups
1.7. Government Accountability Groups
2. Peace and U.S. Foreign Policy Organizations
2.1. Coalitions of Peace Groups
2.2. General Peace Groups
2.3. Veterans Peace Groups
2.4. Women’s Peace Groups
2.5. Student Peace Groups
2.6. Nuclear Weapons-Focused Groups
2.7. Peace Building Groups
2.8. Conscientious Objection to War Groups
2.9. Religious Peace Groups
2.10. Nonviolent Peacemaker Groups
2.11. Nonviolent Action Policy Groups
2.12. Other Specialized Peace Groups
2.13. Peace Policy Institutes
3. International Justice Organizations
3.1. International Human Rights Groups
3.2. Regional Human Rights Groups
3.3. International Economic Justice Groups
3.4. International Development Groups
4. Economic Justice Organizations
4.1. Worker Justice and Democracy Groups
4.2. International Worker Justice and Democracy Groups
4.3. Anti-Poverty and Low Income Housing Groups
4.4. Anti-Poverty Policy Groups
4.5. Employment Groups
4.6. Economic Justice Groups
4.7. Anti-Corporate Domination Groups
4.8. Progressive Economic Research Groups
4.9. Progressive Tax Groups
4.10. Consumer Protection Groups
4.11. Socially Responsible Business Groups
4.12. Worker Ownership Groups
5. Civil Liberties Organizations
5.1. Civil Liberties Groups
5.2. Electronic Privacy Groups
5.3. Freedom of Religion Groups
6. Social Justice Organizations
6.1. Civil Rights Groups
6.2. Civil Rights Constituency Groups
6.3. Legal Defense of Civil Rights Groups
6.4. Immigration Rights Groups
6.5. Criminal Justice Groups
6.6. Groups Challenging Capital Punishment
6.7. Community Organizing Groups
6.8. Disability Rights Groups
6.9. Elder Advocacy Groups
6.10. Children Advocacy Groups
6.11. Family Advocacy Groups
6.12. Feminist / Women’s Liberation Groups
6.13. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Liberation Groups
6.14. Family Planning Groups
7. Health Advocacy Organizations
7.1. Healthcare Advocacy Groups
7.2. Anti-Smoking Groups
8. Environmental Organizations
8.1. Broad-Focus Environmental Groups
8.2. Environmental Groups Focused on Climate Change
8.3. Environmental Groups Focused on Energy and Mining
8.4. Forest Protection Groups
8.5. Other Specific-Focus Environmental Groups
8.6. International-Focus Environmental Groups
8.7. Environmental Research and Public Policy Groups
8.8. Conservation Groups
9. Other Progressive Issue Organizations
9.1. Progressive Media Reform Groups
9.2. Civic and Neighborhood Groups
9.3. Progressive Rural Groups
9.4. Progressive Education Reform Groups
9.5. Gun Control Groups
9.6. Ending Hunger Groups
9.7. Food Safety and Biotechnology Groups
9.8. Humane Treatment of Animals Groups
10. Progressive Cultural Change Organizations
10.1. Simple Living Advocacy Groups
10.2. Cooperative Living Advocacy Groups
10.3. Other Progressive Cultural Change Groups
11. Progressive Constituency Organizations
11.1. Progressive Labor Unions
11.2. Progressive Religious Groups
11.3. Progressive Humanist Groups
11.4. Progressive Lawyer Groups
11.5. Progressive Scientist Groups
11.6. Other Progressive Professional Groups
12. Progressive Infrastructure Organizations
12.1. General Progressive Policy Groups
12.2. General Legal Support Groups
12.3. Progressive Foundations
12.4. Progressive Groups Monitoring Foundations
12.5. Other Progressive Support Groups {139}
Since progressives operate within and are dependent upon groups, it is important to understand the nature of group psychology. Groups invariably take on characteristics that are not merely the sum of their parts. Groups may be made up of individuals, but once the group forms, its takes on a life of its own.
People do things in groups that they would never do as individuals. For instance, those inclined not to fight or be confrontational have no problem doing those things when part of a group. Gangs illustrate this behavior most graphically. However, any group with plenary power, and this would include all governmental agencies and bureaucracies, behave exactly like gangs.
Survival within an organization is different than an individual surviving in the culture at large. Groups, especially governmental groups, survive long after they have lost any semblance of positive purpose. Governmental groups are so autonomous, that when they are proven to cause more harm than good, they are funded and continue their assault upon those whom they regulate. Individuals do not benefit from this disconnect between merit and survival.
For example, individual entrepreneurs selling a product or service necessarily subject themselves to a natural selection in the marketplace. If the entrepreneur has something people want, then he or she survives, if not, failure is inevitable. On the other hand, tenured professors are virtually “fire proof.” As long as they can navigate the political waters in their university, they can virtually assure themselves a long career and generous pension.
Career union members are yet another example of how survival in a group is different than survival as an individual in the marketplace. For example, this KTLA television story highlights how unionized teachers are protected even when they commit heinous crimes against children:
“LOS ANGELES (KTLA) – An LAUSD teacher accused of molestation was allowed to return to the classroom, despite prior accusations of abuse. Paul William Chapel, 50, of Chatsworth is currently accused of molesting four children, including at least one student at Telefair Elementary School in Pacoima. Chapel is charged with 16 counts of sex abuse involving three girls and one boy, all under 14 years old.” {140}
The story went on to say this:
“A major obstacle has been a clause in LAUSD teacher contracts that limits how long allegations remain in a teacher’s file. Under the clause, alleged misconduct that does not result in discipline – no matter how serious – is removed from personnel files after four years. Teachers cannot be subject to punishment based on an expired file.” {141}
In yet one more example of group dynamics, another teacher in the Los Angeles School District took photos of children whose mouths he duct-taped closed while placing cockroaches on their faces. This same teacher took pictures of boys and girls eating semen-covered cookies (DNA testing confirmed it was his semen). But wait, it gets worse, the teacher extorted a huge severance package from California Taxpayers because otherwise, according to union rules, he could not be fired.
“A teacher charged with 23 counts of lewd conduct in his classroom successfully thwarted attempts by the Los Angeles Unified School District to fire him. In the process, the teacher, who is accused of spoon-feeding his semen to blindfolded children, managed to retain lifetime health-benefits provided by the nation’s second-largest school system. Former Miramonte Elementary School teacher Mark Berndt also automatically receives nearly $4,000 a month in pension from the California State Teachers’ Retirement System.” {142}
Groups ultimately select for and reward mediocrity; whereas, when it comes to individuals, excellence is selected. Groups not only select mediocrity, they deselect excellence. It has long been known that group decision-making is fraught with any number of problems.
Janis Irving coined the term “groupthink’ to describe the distortions of reasoning that people in groups often make. Here are a couple of definitions of Groupthink:
Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During Groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance.
Groupthink occurs in groups when individual thinking or individual creativity is lost or subverted to stay within the comfort zone of the consensus view. People’s common sense and ability to perform problem solving, make good decisions, and raise unpopular views are overridden by the desire for group consensus.{143}
Progressives cannot realize their dream of totalitarian control without working in groups and then harnessing the power of government’s groups, that is, government’s agencies and bureaucracies. Progressives recognize that the public would shy away from their unbridled ambition, which requires centralized governmental power, if they truly understood what was happening to them. Recognizing this problem, progressives argue that governmental power is less virulent and dangerous than corporate power. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Corporations, even the worst of them, cannot break down your door at 10 A.M. in the morning and arrest you, but the government can. Corporations cannot indict, try, then convict you and sentence you to death, but the government can. The worst corporations may lie, cheat and steal, but only the government can garnish wages, put you in jail for not paying your taxes, tell you where you can live, how big your house can be, how tall your fence can be, mandate the types of light bulbs you must use, where your kids can go to school, what they will be taught, the kinds of spices you can put on your food, mandate that you be patted down at the airport, mandate that you buy a license to open a business, even if it is a kid’s lemonade stand.
Political groups comprised of progressives invariably employ Marxist and Communist strategies. Invariably they censor, regulate, stifle their opponents and, if necessary, will eventually eradicate their enemies. Progressives, when they have their way, inevitably create governments that evolve into communist or communist-like entities.
In The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, the authors write:
“Revolutions, like trees, must be judged by their fruit,” Ignazio Silone wrote, and this is the standard the authors apply to the Communist experience—in the China of “the Great Helmsman,” Kim Il Sung’s Korea, Vietnam under “Uncle Ho” and Cuba under Castro, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah. The authors, all distinguished scholars based in Europe, document Communist crimes against humanity, but also crimes against national and universal culture, from Stalin’s destruction of hundreds of churches in Moscow to Ceausescu’s leveling of the historic heart of Bucharest to the widescale devastation visited on Chinese culture by Mao’s Red Guards.” {144}
The authors provide these sobering numbers:
The total death toll of these progressive infected revolutions is over 94 million, not counting the “excess deaths” (decrease of the population due to lower than-expected birth rates).
65 million in the People’s Republic of China
20 million in the Soviet Union
2 million in Cambodia
2 million in North Korea
1.7 million in Africa
1.5 million in Afghanistan
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
1 million in Vietnam
150,000 in Latin America
10,000 deaths resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power.
Mass murder is the quintessential example of controlling speech. In each instance of genocide those targeted for mass extinction would not shut up.
Each totalitarian regime began as a progressive political movement, intent upon establishing social justice. “Creeping progressivism” characterizes the nascent beginning of every revolution. Each regime ultimately succumbed to the totalitarian mandate of progressivism. How does progressivism evolve into totalitarian control? When each regime’s progressive PC rules no longer stifled its adversaries, those threatening the progressive virus were fired from their media job or ostracized. When that would not shut up their enemies they sent them to re-education camps. When that didn’t work purveyors of threatening speech were exiled to far off lands. Ultimately, mass murder became the best and final choice to control speech and stifle threatening ideas. It is indisputable that each successful progressive revolution began with the call for and implementation of social justice. Many ended in mass murder.
One of the ploys used by the progressive virus is that it appears to be non-threatening. It chooses issues “in need of social justice” that are designed to have universal appeal. If one looks closely, however, each progressive issue is merely a means to an end. And that end is rigid control through regulation, taxation and confiscation of private wealth.
Class envy is as important to progressive revolutions as fuel is to an internal combustion engine. One group is pitted against the other, and those competing groups are typically characterized as the haves versus the have-nots. In the latest iteration in America, this false battle has been characterized as the 99% versus the 1%. By appealing to the entitlement mentality of the have-nots, progressives can foment their plan to garner the power to confiscate, then redistribute, to the have-nots. Have-nots are led to believe that they, too, will obtain the success and wealth of the haves, thanks to the largesse of the government, if only they empower progressive politicians to restore social justice. But what invariably occurs is that redistribution strips the society of excellence, and lowers the standard of living for everyone. This is why the streets of Cuba are filled with 1950s American made automobiles and Soviet bloc countries produced cars like the Yugo.