The White Male Oppressor Speaks

Welcome to the first of the next series that yours truly is doing on political ideologies. Over the next few posts I will be exploring the the backgrounds and practices of the major political ideas that are practiced. I will specifically be exploring: Progressivism, Conservatism, Socialism, and Marxism. And believe me they are each quite different from the other. The reason for this series is so that you my loyal reader will have an inform people and maybe teach them what these different ideologies stand for in idea and practice because I am sick of seeing idiots wearing Che t-shirts and thinking he was just a freedom fighter and a good person (I will be addressing him in a future post) or identifying themselves by one of these ideologies based on bumper sticker slogans and sideways rhetoric or as is more common, especially with cause heads and sudo-hippies because it is cool at the time.

I will start with Progressivism. This is probably one of the most widely claimed yet least understood ideologies on the scene today. So what are progressives and what do they believe? We have heard President Obama repeatedly call himself a progressive not a democrat. We have heard our secretary of state Ms. Clinton call herself a modern progressive. We have heard correlations between Liberals and Progressives but are they really the same? I hope to answer all these questions so you my lovely reader will truly know what those who say they are progressives really stand for. While progressives are more often then not associated with the democratic party you will see why that really is not the case and how the (R) and the (D) behind someones name means even less when it comes to Progressivism.

The term progressive has been adopted by people who are actually liberals which is misguided at best and foolish at worst. Let us start with what the dictionary defines Liberals and Progressives as. Dictionary.com defines Liberal as “favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.” And now the most truthful of the definitions for progressive as it pertains to political ideology would be once again from Dictionary.com: “going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.” I know that definition may sound a bit vague but as you will see it is right on the money. One of the main differences between classical Liberalism and Progressivism is that while classic liberals are for maximum individual freedom the progressive is for maximum government control at the cost of personal freedom. You will see why when someone refers to democrats as progressives they are not only stunningly wrong but also misguided as to the actual progressive movement.

When did progressivism really start? The progressives of today look back to the progressive era of the early 20th century and is closely akin but different enough from Socialism to be mistaken for it. Progressivism as a term was really put into use in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and gained popularity during the evolution of industrialization. It was sought to be an almost midway point between traditional conservative views on economic and social issues and the radical ideologies of Socialism and Marxism.

Progressives, as their actions dictate, stand for the betterment of society regardless of personal liberty. For example the Prohibitionist movement of the early twentieth century in America which while that movement was its own, it was firmly backed by progressives and progressive ideology. The prohibition movement was a multi-political background effort that even had a presidential candidate, Joshua Levering in 1896. (NY Times article July 28th 1896) eventually through political intimidation ultimately caused the creation of the 18th amemdment to the constitution that was in a wonderful blow for personal liberty overturned in 1933 by the 21st Amendment to the Constition.

Progressivism gained a lot of ground in the political arena with the formation of the progressive party in 1912 by Republican President Theodore Roosevelt and to this day was the most successful third party in American Politics. Other progressive presidents included Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. Let’s take a look at the two worst progressive presidents shall we and in this humble moderators opinion those were Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

What made these presidents progressivists? Well let’s start with President Roosevelt shall we. President Roosevelt held ideas of large government control and anti-capitalist ideologies. But he was a Republican right? Yes he was in name only, not in ideology; for example let’s look at a couple of quotes. “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” or how about “Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.” and last but not least  in his Speech at Osawatomie, August 31, 1910 “Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” In other words you only own your property as long as it is not decided by the government that your property should be used for a purpose that they decide is for the betterment of society. This idea is held today and is law in one way or another in every state. You may have heard of it, this little demon of government power is called “Eminent Domain”.  This is a very progressive idea that you own only that which is not needed by the collective society.

Now for Woodrow Wilson (D) who most progressives consider one of the greatest presidents of all time, but to those who value those few words “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” consider him one of the most damaging of progressive presidents. In the official polls he is considered number 4 in the list of top ten presidents behind Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I will show you why he should be next to the bottom and not the top and you will see how dangerous progressivism can be. Good ole Woodrow created the first official United states propaganda ministry which was called the “Committee on Public Information.” If you think that is Orwellian just wait it gets better. And remember this is common practice by Progressives. President Wilson, using the Justice Department, created an organization called the American Protective League that employed 250,000 badge-carrying government employees who were allowed to beat people up in the street, perform mass arrests, break into peoples homes and search without warrants, spy on American citizens, and do government background checks. Hmmm, they had a similar thing in another country… Oh yeah the secret police in USSR. But it doesn’t stop there it gets better.

This Progressive Fascist of a President also was one of the most detrimental to the 1st amendment as well. At the urging of Wilson he along with the justice department passed the Sedition Act of 1918 which forbade Americans from criticizing the government in a time of war. Citizens could not “utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the government or the military. This act also gave the Postmaster General authority to revoke the mailing privileges of those who disobeyed by his discretion. About 75 periodicals were were shut down by the government with this section of the act and many others were given warnings. Yeah who needs free speech right? the government knows best don’t they…

Now this is just the tip of the iceberg when you look at progressivism it is more closely related to Marxism than liberalism and so I will stop short of showing you the parallels between then and now any farther because this post as the ones coming up are meant for information not so much political rhetoric that will come later.

Up Next Marxism.

Bookmark It

Well here is a gem. As you my faithful reader know, I generally don’t bother to much with actual political debate but this one is such a beauty that I couldn’t pass it up. The  Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), chairman Robert Menendez in a move that is in response  to the recent Massachusetts Senatorial upset where Scott Brown was elected over the Democratic challenger seating a republican senator for the first time in since 1971 in this predominantly blue state.

This upset has not gone over well with the democrats as the whining and rhetoric has turned now from just calling anyone who disagrees with the president a racist or a tea-bagging extremist. A new ploy which comes in the form of a memo that Senator Menendez will be sending out in the morning to the Democratic campaign managers which lays out 5 questions that they can try to use to in Senator Menendez words, “We have a finite window when Republicans candidates will feel susceptible to the extremists in their party. Given the urgent nature of this dynamic, we suggest an aggressive effort to get your opponents on the record.”

Using these questions they want to try to drive the moderate voter away from any republican candidate right into the arms of the democrats. So in the interest of going on the record as this moron wants, I The White Male Oppressor will take the good senator’s quiz even though I am not a republican but am one of those independent moderate voters that they want but will not have until they (the democrats and the republicans start listening to the people.) So without further ado let us see how this independent will answer the questions.

1. Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen?

Answer – Yes, however I think his spending and social policies are alien.

2. Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards?

(Note: The 10th Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people)

Answer -  Yes I do think that the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards because it says nowhere in the constitution that the Federal Government can force the people of the United States to purchase any product. However, that is a privilege of the respective states whether or not they want to mandate such things for the residents of the individual states. Case in point Massachusetts’ Mandatory Health Insurance program in which the then Governor Mitt Romney signed into state law that all citizens in the state had to carry health care which is perfectly constitutional however the Federal Government does not have that right under the constitution.

3. Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place?

Answer -  To answer this question we must first look at the definition of “Socialism” according to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Socialism is defined as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” So now that we have the definition of Socialism, let’s look at what Social Security is. Social Security is a program that all people who work are required to pay money that they earn to the government which then in turn redistributes that collective payment to others. Yup sounds pretty much like a program that promotes socialism to me. Do I think that it should have been created in the first place? Yes, however the Federal Government has raided the Social Security accounts to pay for pet projects and repay large campaign contributors with favors to the point that it is full of nothing but worthless IOUs at this point and the prospect of those who are currently forced to pay into it will most likely not benefit from it in the future. Oh wait, sounds like socialism again.

4. Do you think President Obama is a socialist?

Answer -  Hmmm that is an interesting one. Do I think Obama is a socialist? I can’t speak for what another man privately thinks but maybe I will ask Reverend Jeremiah Wright you know the self avoud Marxist who’s church Obama attended for 20 years, the man who married Obama and his wife Michelle, baptized their two daughters and is credited by Obama for the title of his book, “The Audacity of Hope.” You know the good Reverend who publicly declared in his sermon and I quote “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people, God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.” see full story at ABC News. Or we could just ask his appointees such as his former green jobs czar Van Jones whose actual title was (Special Adviser on Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation for the White House Council on Environmental Quality) who said the following “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th [1992], and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist.“  Mr. Jones also said “I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like,  This is what I need to be a part of.  I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” Like I said I can’t speak to what is truly in the mind of another man but if who a man surrounds himself with is an indication of his ideology then you decide. My answer is that I think that he is a Progressive, not a Socialist.

5. Do you think America should return to a gold standard?

Answer -  Well the gold standard did work for over one hundred years but with our economy the way it is now it would be impossible to go back to it because I do not think that there is enough mined gold on the planet to pay for the insane spending plans and failed stimulus plans that have been forced down the American peoples throats and the continued surmounting debt that has doubled in the one year since the Bush administration, which is saying something being as he spent money like a drunken sailor.

I hope that that clears these retarded questions up for Senator Menendez and the rest of the non-representing representatives on both sides of the isle and I say if you are a moderate and not on the communist left or puritanical right then cast your vote against every incumbent and send a message to these idiots and remind them – you (the government) work for us and if you stop listening we will can your ass and start over with a new set of crooks.

One last note from former President Ronald Reagan’s Farewell Address to the nation on January 11th 1989 “And I hope we have once again reminded the people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

Bookmark It

On the occasions that I do venture out into the world I have been noticing a increasingly disturbing trend among the little girls and young women in today’s world. No I am not talking about teenagers they are disturbing enough. When I say that they are disturbing I mean that. I look back to when I was a teenager and think yeah I would kick my own ass. Anyway, the youth that I am talking about is generally between the ages of 5 and 10.

This disturbing trend that I speak of is “Prostitotism.” (yes I know that is not a word) I think that the parents and I am assuming primarily mothers because I am a father of daughters and if I ever saw one of my girls, two of which are under ten, dressed like a Bangkok whore me and whoever allowed that would have serious words. Seriously what in gods name makes a person dress a little girl like that.  Some people may not have a problem with that but why try to sex up a baby that to me is just sick.

With that said let’s move on to young ladies. My question is why would a young woman want to try to look like a whore if she isn’t one. I often wonder if they think that dressing in skirts high enough that they can’t bend over without showing off the goods (or maybe in some cases she is). Sure guys will look at you dressed like that but I can guarantee that they aren’t thinking “I’ll bet she is nice.” Personally I think, and I am not a expert in the field of sociology or psychiatry, that a woman like that must have extremely low self esteem and personal worth if the only way she feels that she can get attention from men (or women you never know), is by flaunting the goods rather than her personality. In this instance I do absolutely agree with some of the feminist blogs that I have read on the subject.

A woman doesn’t have to look like a hooker to be attractive. In fact, to me it makes a woman less appealing because, when I see a woman dressed like that (and yes I do look at the scenery after all I am a man) I would never ask her out (besides my wife would be pissed if I did) because personally, that would show a lack of one or more things that I looked for in a woman 1. Intelligence and 2. Self confidence.

And now for the part that is probably going to get me blasted by the feminist community for being an old fashioned puritanical oppressive swine. To me a fully covered woman in a full length dress with a high neck line is stunningly beautiful because to me it shows self worth and confidence, and it makes me wonder what mysteries she is hiding. I like presents, unwrapping them is fun.

One last thing ladies if you do decide to dress like a slut then you lose the right to complain when you are treated like one.

Bookmark It