Are Progressives Speaking a Different Language?

Do you ever feel like you have no idea what the Progressives are talking about?

Is it not frustrating when you try talking to them only to have them call you a racist for some innocuous comment?

Does it seem like they are speaking some weird language that only they understand only to have them look down on you for not understanding?

This happens to me several time a week online, or in real life. It started to annoy me so much that I decided that I need to figure out what was going on.

The first thing in beginning to under a Progressive is to understand that they are speaking a different language than you. Social Justese, Political Correctness, or Progressive Speak; call it what you will it is not the English we learned in school. As someone with a Bachelor’s degree in English I should know.

Deconstruction and changing definitions

The native Progressive speaker’s favorite things to do is to change the definition of a word to suit their needs. Racism means power plus privilege not an individual believing someone of a different race is inferior based on race.

Feminism means equality for everyone not promotion for women’s rights (although that definition needs to be changed to include women’s rights over men).

This is known as deconstruction. Basically taking a word and interpreting it in a different way. This can be scaled up to include any work that utilizes words, books and speeches. A clear example of this is the removal of the family name Lynch from three schools in the Centennial School District due to ‘racial implications’.

Using outrage to erase history

Removing names from college buildings to forcing sports teams and high school to change mascots to tearing down statues of civil war generals in the south. The Progressive movement is using social distain for racism as a club to erase the past.

This tactic shows clearly how the Progressive movement is just Neo-Marxism.

The Communist Manifesto, written by Marx clearly states “In Communist Society, the present dominates the past.” (Pg 23)

These attacks are not just chosen because of links to racism, they are also chosen because these were great individuals who did amazing things in life. As the Communist Manifesto points out again “You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.” (Pg 24)

Social Justice as Religion

Religion for individuals is a good thing if it gives them a higher purpose, something to aim for.

Social Justice on the other hand is fanaticism. They use the holy scripture of post-modernism to destroy history in an attempt to crush Western Civilization.

What is funny about this is that they are completely ungrateful to Western Civilization while reaping the benefits from it. A popular observation of this is someone tweeting Smash Capitalism from their iPhone.

A religion provides a value structure to people. In the West Christianity was that value structure. It allowed us to disagree on many things but still live and work together because we all shared core values.

Being part of the church of Social Justice fundamentally changes that value structure.

Logic is just part of the Patriarchy

You’ve laid out your argument, provided several reliable sources, and multiple statistics yet the Progressive still says you are wrong and racist for just thinking that.

I am sure this scenario has played itself out several times. There is no winning. And you are absolutely correct.

That is because you are using logic to view the world and the Progressive is using emotion. This is the fundamental idea of Post-Modernism.

It says that everything can be interpreted in a million different way. This is where you get the 72 gender idea from. The scary part about this is that it is true!

At least partially true.

While different people can interpret things in different ways, there are only a few way in which you can interpret something had still have it be effective. For example if you read Romeo and Juliet and interpret it as to mean that you should commit suicide that is not a very effective interpretation.

Is there hope?

If Progressives use feelings not logic, hold fundamentally different values, are destroying any shared history, and use different definitions for words, then they are speaking a different language from the rest of us.

There is a light at the end of the Progressive tunnel, we just got to get there before the tunnel collapses. It was built by Progressives after all.

The way to do this is to not be afraid to speak up. Be proud of our history, accepting of the bad and proud of the changes for the better.

Share your values openly and stick to the logically meaning of words.

Ultimately the Progressives have alienated themselves and if we speak clearly, logically and truthfully people will continue to leave the Progressives. Western Civilization is built on the principle of the individual, so be the best individual you could be.

Oregon’s Tyranny of the Majority

            When Donald Trump got elected I had a lot of friends tell me, “Well, he lost the popular vote, that’s how we should elect our president anyway.” I tried to explain to them, badly as I still had not clearly thought the idea out, about the Tyranny of the Majority. One person I knew laughed at the idea and said “Tyranny of the Majority, isn’t that just democracy?” This made me reflect on that idea as I had no counter to it.

            After thinking about it for a while I came to the conclusion that, yes, pure democracy is the Tyranny of the Majority. This is one of the Tyrannies that the founding fathers sought to prevent when they created the Government of the United States. They were concerned about the Tyranny of an Individual, such as a monarch or dictator, on one end of the spectrum and the Tyranny of the Majority, mob rule on the other end.

            The Tyranny of the Majority is a more difficult concept to grasp than a Tyrant. With a Tyrant you can point to the Tyrant, see them, hear what they have to say and can see the concentration of power. The Tyranny of the Majority spreads the power out to the mob. It places the group above the individual, in a way that if sacrificing the individual will benefit the group it will be done regardless of the individual’s desires. The new rosy term for this idea is called Social Justice.

            In Oregon, the city of Portland (Multnomah County) and Washington County run the state. The bulk of Oregon’s population is in these two counties, so that makes sense. Yet it leaves people in the rest of Oregon’s counties frustrated because they feel they do not have a voice. Not only that, but they also feel that the people in the big cities are basically bossing them around. This is due to the Democrats holding both houses of congress as well as the governorship.

            As someone of the Millennial Generation who grew up in Washington County and went to college in Multnomah County (and who, no thanks to my teachers or classmates, held conservative/libertarian views) Republican was always thrown around as a dirty word. In fact it is used as a pejorative in some groups. I kept my mouth shut in college because, one I was a shy person, and two I found that if you said you voted Republican you got a lot of scorn and bullying. The insulation from different ideas coupled with the demonizing of the word Republican turns people away from even listening or understanding Conservative points of view. Libertarians also get lumped into the not Democrat box and are seen as just as bad if not worse in some cases.

            I know Republicans in Oregon do not expect, nor would they want, the government to fix this problem. Yet I do think they would want to see a Republican candidate running the state, just to get things back on track. My question is, what’s it going to take to make that happen?

Phobia: The Truth Behind the Lefts New Favorite Buzzword

            It is telling that the left quickly paints anyone who disagrees with them as being afflicted with some sort of phobia. Transphobia, Islamophobia, Homophobia, Xenophobia. If you are not a hard line Progressive you have probably been called one of these names before. While these names are being used as a cudgel against political opponents, it is curious that they have attached to the suffix phobia. But why?

            First let’s define Phobia: A Phobia is an extreme or irrational fear or aversion of something. This definition still holds as far as I know, that is unless the Progressives have changed it to mean irrational fear + privilege = phobia. Let’s just assume that isn’t the case and go with the correct definition, which is the one I’ll be using. So why is it that they are describing everyone they do not like as suffering from one phobia or another?

            They are the ones who experience fear and are projecting. With the left praising ideas such as microagressions and safe spaces this one becomes obvious. They are afraid of ideas or that someone is making aggressive moves against them without even knowing they are doing it. They hate the things they are afraid of and probably, rightfully so, believe that fear is a tool used for oppression. Since, from their perspective, they hate things that they fear, it is easy to project that things other people hate (or dislike or disagree with) must stem from fear as well. Since they are not afraid of those things that other people do not like, that fear must be irrational, thus a phobia.

            It furthers the idea that if you do not think like they do, than you are irrational. This can best be observed in comments aimed at The President. Comments like, he is completely irrational, he has a mental disability and is unfit to be President, and he is unstable. Naturally if someone is unstable or irrational you attempt to avoid them. We all have enough of our own problems in life, we don’t need unstable people around making things harder. Also if you believe or agree with, in part or wholly, with someone who is irrational, you must be irrational yourself. To a Progressive, if you do not like something they like, you must either be ignorant or irrational. If you are ignorant you don’t argue with them but if you speak up and disagree, you must be irrational.

            The words allow you to sound smart, without actually being smart, or doing any work to gain knowledge. Phobias, real life phobias, need to be diagnosed by a doctor. So when the left uses the word Phobia, they are appropriating the language used by doctors and psychologists. It is universally accepted that doctors go through a lot of training and schooling, thus they are very educated. Most people will see a doctor as an intelligent person or at the very least an educated person. So if someone sounds like a doctor they must be educated. If it walks like a doctor and talks like a doctor, it must be smart.

            Social stigma attachment. If hear someone say, “This person is afraid of spiders” you kind of feel bad or sympathize with that person. Spiders can be scary, but also it can be hard for the person to function if they have an irrational or extreme fear of spiders, so you end up feeling for them. But if someone says, “This person has arachnophobia” it is immediately associated with the language used by doctors, who you go to when something is wrong with you. Your brain immediately, usually subconsciously, will jump to something is wrong with them and trigger an avoidance response. That does not mean something is wrong with you, instead it is a survival mechanism that has its roots in biology.

            While these things may be interesting or give us a good laugh, it is important to understand. The better we can understand Progressives the easier it will be to point out the flaws in their arguments and understand their reasoning behind them.

Universal Basic Income: Another bad idea or a fair compromise?

 

            The GOP and Libertarian Party often get accused by the Democrats for not caring enough about the poor. The best answer I have seen is that the states should take care of welfare programs or private charities. While I believe those are good answer, the Democrats will never go for those. That is when I ran into the idea of Universal Basic Income.

            Basically a Universal Basic Income guarantees a minimum income for every citizen. There are a number of benefits to having a Universal Basic Income. First, it simplifies the welfare system on all levels. For those receiving benefits, they would get cash to use as they need, granting them the liberty to allocate funds to suit their individual needs. It will allow the government to end the massive bureaucracy in place to distribute benefits, reducing the size of and cost to the government and reducing the challenges for the individual in obtaining the benefits they need. We could end programs like social security, food stamps, low income housing, WIC, and more. It would also eliminate businesses to game the system though lobbying for contracts to build low income housing or to get their food accepted on a food stamp card.

            A few of the drawback would include having the government follow through with eliminating the other welfare programs. It is easy to get the government to spend money, it is very hard to get them to stop.

            If people can meet basic needs they will have no incentive to work. Our current system has this problem too but has government bureaucracy costs on top of it. The Universal Basic Income would have to be set high enough so people can survive, but low enough so they cannot afford things they want, such as an iPhone, a car, or good internet service.

            The level of Universal Basic Income would become a political football. This is a huge problem in our current system too, one party wants less money for entitlements (though they never say which ones and never follow through once they are in office) while another party will want to increase the level of income. The simplicity of the Universal Basic Income will make it easier for the voter to understand how it works and will make it easier to hold our elected representatives accountable.

            The biggest problem most people have is that they do not like to give out cash. They claim that the money will not be spent on taking care of themselves but be used for drugs or gambling or some other frivolous pursuit. That is exactly right, they will, but we still see this problem under our current system. People buy a stake at the store with their food stamps and sell the stake for 50% of what they paid for it to get cash, which they use to buy lotto tickets. The person on food stamps finds a way to get what they want and if they waste tax payer money they don’t care. The only people that are hurt by forcing money to go to specific things are the tax payers. We lose because the recipient finds a way around and we lose because we then have to pay someone to monitor the recipient.

            Universal Basic Income may or may not be the best idea. Instead it is a compromise that will reduce the cost of government, increase the personal liberty of the individual receiving the benefit, while providing help to those who need it. Let me know what you think, are there certain safeguards you would want in place? Is this a terrible idea that will waste time and money? Or is it an idea that will cost money but cost less money than our current system and will be a step in the right direction? Let me know in the comments below.

An Individual’s Declaration Against Progressivism

 

            It is a time of chaos and unrest that we find ourselves. When the truths that we hold to be self-evident are questioned and placed under relentless assault. When we are told people are not created equal, but instead suffer because they were born with a different skin color or gender. When we are told that the rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, come not from the highest power, but instead are granted by the government and can be alienated by that government as they see fit.

            This is the form of government the Progressives seek to impose on the American people. A government that derives its power, not from the consent of the governed but through coercion and force. A government that secures these right, for which the government was instituted to protect, for some and not others. A government that seeks death, subjugation, and the pursuit of misery, and denies the Right of the People to alter or abolish it. This form of government, seeking nothing but destructive ends, will not be built on principles of limited power, but built to impose power under the auspices of securing Safety and Happiness.

            It seems we have forgotten that prudence dictates that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. But when a long train of abuses designed to reduce people under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security.

            It is in this time of chaos where truth must be our guiding principle, for truth spoken to chaos will bring about order. Talk to each other in as clear and honest a manner as possible. Do not be ashamed for speaking truth badly, it is a hard thing to say clearly and an even harder thing to comprehend. Our great Republic is worth saving, Western ideals are worth preserving, do not be afraid to be proud of either.

            Show no fear when baseless insults are hurled in your direction. Instead present an open hand, for which you will receive much suffering. Yet this suffering is a small sacrifice for a better future. One where all men are created equal and possess unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is with these self-evident truths that I let this statement, by an individual, an echo of a declaration long ago be submitted to a candid world.

Communist Creep

Flow Chart for Communistic Thought Process

            Charles Schumer (D-NY) said “Old fashioned capitalism has broken down, Adam Smith has lost his way amid these big corporations.” The thing I hate most about this statement is that it is partially correct. Free market capitalism has lost its way and big corporations have helped it along. I do not blame the corporations though, they are acting just as they should, and trying to make the most profit they can. The problem is that government has put its foot on the scale of the market. The free market solution would be to limit the government and allow competition to thrive and regulate the market place.

            Each new regulation hurts the small businesses and the poor and lower middle class people. The small business cannot afford to keep up with the new regulation and goes out of business or has to lay people off. While the regulation may hurt a large corporation a little at first, most are usually large enough to absorb the cost right now for the increase market share they gain when there smaller competitors go out of business. This decreases the amount of competition in the market so good do not improve as much or reduce in price as much. This means the goods and services the poor and lower middle class want slowly move out of reach. It also means less jobs as more businesses move away or shut down.

            Schumer and House Minority Leader Nacy Pelosi (D-CA) announced their party’s new economic agenda called “A Better Deal” hoping the echo the New Deal under Roosevelt. They hope that this agenda shows that the Democrats are the party “on the side of working people.” And that their main goals are “higher wages, lower costs and the tools for a 21^st century economy.” (C-SPAN). Schumer goes on in an Op-Ed he wrote in the New York Times to call for $15 minimum wage and providing paid family and sick leave.

            The problem is that he does not say who is going to pay for this. Of course he wants the government to pay for it, meaning hard working people like you and me. To people like Schumer the government is the answer to all the problems of society. He wants to set wages and lower costs, and I doubt he wants to use the free market to do so. The Democrats are starting to sound more and more like Socialist/Communists rather than free market personal choice European liberals they claim to be. The government only has one way to lower prices, the use of force. Centralizing prices is a disastrous idea not only for business owners but for consumers as well. It causes shortages and forces businesses to go under because they cannot adjust prices to help meet costs.

            The minimum wage increase is the worst. A $15 minimum wage will only help the large corporations who can absorb the costs and make it up in the increase in the market share when competitors drop out. It also hurts low income people who may not have the time or money to go to college or trade school by denying them the ability to sell their labor at a lower cost. It takes the liberty away from the worker to determine the value of their own labor. It prices the low skilled laborer out of the market by denying them the chance to work for less now and learn a skill that they can use to increase the value of their labor in the future.

            This is thinly vailed Communism. If the government is lowering the prices and setting wages, they pretty much own the means of product at that point. The only hope I can offer is that the internet, the place the younger generation such as myself get their information from, is pretty good a pointing out socialism and how it is a failed system. Will the American people see through this Communist creep or will they be taken in by these utopian delusions?

 

If you enjoyed this please like and share, and comment below and let me know what you think. Also you can subscribe in the upper right and get new posts sent directly to your email. Thanks for reading.

The Important Questions About Oregon New Minimum Wage Law

            For people who do not live in Oregon, on July 1^st, Oregon State passed a law increasing the minimum wage. I personally find it abhorrent that the state of Oregon is telling everyone that they know better when it comes to how to run their business or how much they should be paid for their labor. If I decide that my labor is only worth $5/hour, than why can the state tell me I cannot work for that amount? Personal rant out of the way I had a few questions about the new law.

            First the new law has a higher minimum wage for people in the Portland Metro area as opposed to those in the more rural areas of our state. Basically saying the state believes the labor of those in the metro area is worth more than the labor of those who do not live in Portland. Is this law discrimination based on geography?

            It is well-known that the majority of the state outside of Portland and Eugene vote Republican, so is this an attempt by Democrats who control both Oregon houses and the Governor’s mansion to discriminate or is there a logic behind this variation in wage? The counties that are getting the smaller minimum wage have fewer people in them, so they have less voice when it comes to making laws.

            Was this law put to a vote of the people and if not why not? I searched but could not find where the people had a say in this law other than through elected officials. I did find stories of these elected officials being harassed and threatened by protestors and activists, who they immediate capitulate to. These activists are demanding a $15 minimum wage so they see the new law as not going far enough. It seems to me that these loud minority voices are the only ones the politicians are listening to. It is hard to blame them, when they do not hear from the other voices due to the loud and unrelenting voices of these full time activists.

            These were just a couple questions I had about this new law. The bigger questions of how to wrestle the state away from the oppression of activism and the tyranny of the moral busybody are the undercurrent to these other issues, of which I am still thinking on. If you have any sort of answers or opinions to these questions I am open to suggestions.