Progressive Racism

About: articles: is race equivalent to thought?

American Thinker: ... Having grown from the Darwinian spore that heralded men to be as fated as flies of a season, this biological fatalism reduced humanity into an organism that was contingent upon stimuli and responses -- blind necessity and material reduction. From there it was only a necessary step to social and racial theories in which loathsome ideologies could flower in the foul detritus of pseudoscience.

It was then inevitable that "Enlightened Minds" expressed postulates of superiority and inferiority from which the former were given a naturalistic right to rule and the latter were therein condemned to: dehumanizing rhetoric, loss of rights, experimental vivisection, and eventual systematic destruction. The smashing of such theories -- ideas that would have poisoned civilization for ten thousand years if victorious -- very nearly destroyed the West. Who can deny now that our civilization was indeed ripe for this racialist contagion once we had abandoned our Judeo-Christian ethos and the American concept of inalienable natural rights for doctrines that applauded the technocratic herding of humanity like so much cattle?

... I recommend the whole article of which the introduction above is just a part.
Progressive racism is a natural outgrowth of Darwinism & the throwing out of anything resembling religion subsuming that function to the state & her rulers. What people formerly looked to God for guidance & ethics is now given by the state & the ruling class. The assumption that all _________ think alike as a identity group is racist in itself & at the roots of progressive movement.

The eggs picture above is borrowed from David Horowitz's article here which is equally interesting.

Comments

Seth says

....

source: Mark above
What people formerly looked to God for guidance & ethics is now given by the state & the ruling class.

Well in my experience, God does not give any guidance, whatsoever ... or at least not the sort of guidance that can be put in an email or talked about in a blog. Perhaps you are actually talking about the "guidance & ethics" that comes from organized religion. Well, then, yes it is true ... the progressive movement has turned away from that. In America the state is not supposed to provide any kind of guidance like that ... that is right there in the 1st amendment ... and enshrined in our consciousness as a "separation of church and state". When the state does meddle in ethics, it does not come primarily from the "progressives" ... no, it comes from the "conservatives".

source: Mark above
The assumption that all _________ think alike as a identity group is racist in itself & at the roots of progressive movement.

Well the "progressive movement" does *not* presume that everybody of a race thinks alike. Such a presumption would not necessarily be racist, it's would just be stupid. Good thing progressives don't actually think the way conservatives want them to.

Then too, in regards materialism, what you call the "progressive movement" stands more against it than the "conservative movement". The values of the latter being primarily Laissez Faire Capitalism and promoting the bottom line exclusive of human values ... the former being respect for our earth, oppurtunities of human growth, and science.
Me, i think you got not just a little bit of confusion going on here.

But all that confusion swept away ... modern life does need to find ways to enliven our individual spirits ... in my opinion that does not come from the State ... nor, does it come from organized religions. And it certainly does not come from the generalized thinking with fallacies like in your Glenn Fairman article.

Mark de LA says

The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is about freedom OF religion NOT freedom FROM religion. Please get that straight. Liberals & communists don't want any authority except the government.

source: ... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

...
It helps to grasp that your own EGO is not the most perfect thing in the Universe. Most everyone calls that something more perfect - God. Tune into your heart & you can begin to touch what that's all about. You can go materialistic & all you get is dried out ethics.
The progressive movement IS all about separating the electorate into classes & races & poverty groups & pitting them against liberal opponents. Liberalism is Identity Politics. Obama is the example & the Alinsky is his prophet.

Mark de LA says

seth 2013-02-25 14:52:52 16432

MR 2013-02-25 12:43:39 16432

seth 2013-02-25 12:29:59 16432

Well "freedom of religion" and "freedom from sombody else's religion" is to me a distinction without a difference.

Yep you are void of some distinctions!!!! I said "freedom from religion" . You can practice any religion including none but you can't force your none on me! Atheism is also a religion.

"freedom from religion" ... "freedom of religion" ... "freedom from intimidation by another religion" ... and your last one "forcing a religion on somebody else" ... no big difference to me ... all of them go against a "separation of church and state". I really do not want to argue semantics here just to be right.

My only point is that based upon what conservatives have actually been doing in America, they are way ahead of "liberals" in terms of turning the government into a religious or ethical authority. Also, they are way ahead of liberals on religious intolerance too.

Like I said you are void of distinctions on this one. Get your head out of your ass & you may or not be able to tell the difference. There is no separation of church & state within the constitution. It is something concocted by Jefferson in a letter:

source: ... In English, the exact term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.[1

... Right now the state in Obamacare & other places is interfering with religion.

Mark de LA says

Did Seth actually bother to read the Horrowitz article mentioned in the last line of the item and here?

Mark de LA says

seth 2013-02-25 17:13:53 16432

well maybe some day when your not so insulting, haughty, and abusive we could discuss that kind of thing adult to adult.

Look in the mirror, Dude - you have just described what is there.
Or look here: 4413 depicting your behavior.
You make me laugh at your words:

Seth says

MR 2013-02-26 08:07:12 16432

Did Seth actually bother to read the Horrowitz article mentioned in the last line of the item and here?

yes i did ... i read as much of it as i could stomach.

Progressive Racism

About: articles: is race equivalent to thought?

Tags

Comments

See Also