The Progressives: Where did they come from and

General » History

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Progressives: Where did they come from and

Posted: 2/23/2021 3:13:49 PM EDT

did their ideology only affect the United States?

I picked this topic because of something of something one of the members here wrote in this thread:https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/HR5-Eliminates-Genders-Joe-Bidet-Wants-it-on-his-Sorry-IT-S-Desk-ASAP-/5-2428642/?page=2

Spiritual warfare for America as founded is at play. Eliminate genders, legalization of gay marriage, push LGBTQ issues in school, support abortion & post-birth abortion, pushing to remove Christianity from the fabric of our nation, fabricating evidence, etc..

Turning away from God leads to darkness that many of us are seeing unfold nearly everyday. Truth and reality have become more and more distorted, as what is good, is bad, and what is bad is good.

For those so inclined, please pray for America to repent, and ask God to heal our land.

View Quote

I'm leaving the poster's name out on purpose because I'm going to do my best to not have a "religious" thread because they turn to shit so damn fast. Why is this important? Because of the roots of Progressivism in the US lie in American Protestantism in the First Great Awaking, and it wasn't a good thing then, and it certainly is not now.
Here's a rather long essay originally published in 1986 and just republished a few months ago:
The Progressive Era and the Family

Here's some teasing quotes:

ETHNORELIGIOUS CONFLICT AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

In the last two decades, the advent of the "new political history" has transformed our understanding of the political party system and the basis of political conflict in nineteenth century America. In contrast to the party systems of the twentieth century (the "fourth" party system, 18961932, of Republican supremacy; the "fifth" party system, 1932? of Democratic supremacy), the nineteenth century political parties were not bland coalitions of interests with virtually the same amorphous ideology, with each party blurring what is left of its image during campaigns to appeal to the large independent center. In the nineteenth century, each party offered a fiercely contrasting ideology, and political parties performed the function of imposing a common ideology on diverse sectional and economic interests. During campaigns, the ideology and the partisanship became fiercer and even more clearly demarcated, since the object was not to appeal to independent moderatesthere were virtually nonebut to bring out the vote of one's own partisans. Such partisanship and sharp alternatives marked the "second" American party system (Whig versus Democrat, approximately 1830 to the mid-1850s) and the "third" party system (closely fought Republican versus Democrat, mid-1850s to 1896).

Another important insight of the new political history is that the partisan passion devoted by rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans to national economic issues, stemmed from a similar passion devoted at the local and state level to what would now be called "social" issues. Furthermore, that political conflict, from the 1830s on, stemmed from a radical transformation that took place in American Protestantism as a result of the revival movement of the 1830s.

The new revival movement swept the Protestant churches, particularly in the North, like wildfire. In contrast to the old creedal Calvinist churches that stressed the importance of obeying God's law as expressed in the church creed, the new "pietism" was very different. The pietist doctrine was essentially as follows: Specific creeds of various churches or sects do not matter. Neither does obedience to the rituals or liturgies of the particular church. What counts for salvation is only each individual being "born again"a direct confrontation between the individual and God, a mystical and emotional conversion in which the individual achieves salvation. The rite of baptism, to the pietist, therefore becomes secondary; of primary importance is his or her personal moment of conversion.

View Quote

That's how the essay opens up. There are plenty of footnotes to primary sources, so in case you need to call "bullshit," you can check those out first.

The Essay doesn't cover all aspects of Progressivism. It's starts out with Yankee Protestantism heading West to San Francisco. It skips things like the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1922 for example. But this is totally worth the read, I promise.

Another tease:

It has been known for decades that the Progressive Era was marked by a radical growth in the extension and dominance of government in America's economic, social, and cultural life. For decades, this great leap into statism was naively interpreted by historians as a simple response to the greater need for planning and regulation of an increasingly complex economy. In recent years, however, historians have come to see that increasing statism on a federal and state level can be better interpreted as a profitable alliance between certain business and industrial interests, looking for government to cartelize their industry after private efforts for cartels and monopoly had failed, and intellectuals, academics, and technocrats seeking jobs to help regulate and plan the economy as well as restriction of entry into their professions. In short, the Progressive Era re-created the age-old alliance between Big Government, large business firms, and opinion-molding intellectualsan alliance that had most recently been embodied in the mercantilist system of the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries.

View Quote

Another teasing, but see if this doesn't resonate straight into Today:

During the last two decades, educational historians have described a similar process at work in public, especially urban, school systems. The scope of the public school was greatly expanded, compulsory attendance spread outside of New England and other "Yankee" areas during the Progressive Era, and a powerful movement developed to try to ban private schools and to force everyone into the public school system.

From the work of educational historians, it was clear that the leap into comprehensive state control over the individual and over social life was not confined, during the Progressive and indeed post-Progressive eras, to government and the economy. A far more comprehensive process was at work. The expansion of compulsory public schooling stemmed from the growth of collectivist and anti-individualist ideology among intellectuals and educationists. The individual, these "progressives" believed, must be molded by the educational process to conform to the group, which in practice meant the dictates of the power elite speaking in the group's name. Historians have long been aware of this process.30 But the accruing insight into progressivism as a business cartelizing device led historians who had abandoned the easy equation of "businessmen" with "laissez faire" to see that all the facets of progressivismthe economic and the ideological and educationalwere part of an integrated whole. The new ideology among business groups was cartelist and collectivist rather than individualist and laissez faire, and the social control over the individual exerted by progressivism was neatly paralleled in the ideology and practice of progressive education. Another parallel to the economic realm, of course, was the increased power and income accruing to the technocratic intellectuals controlling the school system and the economy.

View Quote

So, the reason it skips West is because it was originally published by the Pacific Research Institute out here in CA. The Institute still exists. It's at the Eastern side of the Dumbarton Bridge (SF Bay Area) in case any one wants to stop by and give them money!! LOL I'm unaffiliated by the way.

IMO, the Progressives and the Nazis were two-peas-in-a-pod. They had similar origins back in the 19th Century and had similar policies and wanted the same results. Some quick examples are the following:

the Progressives believed in Manifest Destiny; for the Nazis, it was Lebensraum
Both believed in racial purity and eugenics and other sciences to achieve racial purity
the Progressives created segregation by promulgating laws in an effort to not only keep the colored races (more than one race was colored; it was not just blacks who were colored, Italians were considered colored for example. Apartheid copied this part) from miscegenation, but also they wanted to "raise" the colored races up from the lower human beings that they were. They were always going to be "second class citizens though, but at least they won't be as repellent. The Nazi codified such laws in the 1936 Nuremberg Laws
The Progressives also loved putting undesirables into institutions under spurious circumstances just like the Nazis did with their Concentration Camps and the Soviets as well with their Gulags. It's a great way to get rid of people you don't like, red flag laws for instance. Those things can go sideways and create the need for more red flag laws etc.

I have a few more links for those you are interested:
Eugenics, American Progressivism, and the 'German Idea of the State'

Forced Sterilization: America's Progressive Past

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics

The last tease I'll use has a part from the posted essay,

Many observers, indeed, reported in wonder at the strongly religious tone of the Progressive party convention. Theodore Roosevelt's acceptance address was significantly entitled, "A Confession of Faith," and his words were punctuated by "amens" and by a continual singing of Christian hymns by the assembled delegates. They sang "Onward, Christian Soldiers," "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," and finally the revivalist hymn, "Follow, Follow, We Will Follow Jesus," except that "Roosevelt" replaced the word "Jesus" at every turn.

View Quote

Then part of a T. Roosevelt's private letter the essay "Eugenics, American Progressivism and the 'German Idea of the State':

I do not for one moment believe that the Americanism of today should be a mere submission to the American ideals of the period of the Declaration of Independence. . . . Such action would be not only to stand still, but to go back. American democracy, of course, must mean an opportunity for everyone to contribute his own ideas to the working out of the future. But I will go further than you have done. I have actively fought in favor of grafting on our social life, no less than our industrial life, many of the German ideals.[10]

View Quote

That's the one big shocker of my whole research for personal edification into this topic. I had admired Teddy Roosevelt until I read this first line of the quoted letter.

I do not for one moment believe that the Americanism of today should be a mere submission to the American ideals of the period of the Declaration of Independence. . . . Such action would be not only to stand still, but to go back.

View Quote

It's mind blowing for me!!

Posted: 2/23/2021 7:48:11 PM EDT

[#1]

Socialists and communists countries ?

Posted: 2/23/2021 9:27:40 PM EDT

[#2]

No, sadly, socialism was not imported here from a socialist country.

At the risk of hi-jacking my own thread, I offer the following:

Before there was a United States of America, there were the settlements at Jamestown and then at Plymouth. Both used a "communal" system of government, both failed, and only had a second chance when they dropped the "communal" system. It turns out the few hard workers got tired of working for the lazier bastards and quit. Both colonies existed under the commune pact for about 2 years before the dying of starvation and disease allowed them to get rid of their commune systems. We all got the white washed version in public school. It was the weather that led to poor harvests, just like with the former Soviet Union. As soon as these colonists tore up the original governing pact, the weather got better every year.

Next our story jumps to when there is a United States. 1825, New Harmonie, Indiana, and you...are...there!

Owenite community (18251827)

The first commune that I know of following actual scientifically approved Socialism is this one. It was started by a Scotsman. Not sure if that had anything to do with it, but, from what I understand, the Scots were kind of nuts from being under the English for a few centuries. (England: a sad little prison of a country.) This commune failed because people were leaving it voluntarily. That didn't happen to the above named colonies as the only place to go was into an Indian tribe.

You'll also notice that the lifespan of this commune was...2 years.

That kind of stuff was also noticed by Marx and Engels. The next commune was 1830s England which lasted for????? 2 years, correct. Again, people left it voluntarily.

People leaving the communes voluntarily because they didn't like it was also noticed by Marx and Engels.

Next on the World tour is the Paris Commune of the late 1840s. This is the famous where the "man the barricade" speeches came from as these fledgling communists (this is where the word comes from) retold their tales of how brave they were when the French Army crushed them, and crush them they did.

At this point in time with nothing but failure to show but failure for each attempt, Marx, and especially Engels, become more and more militant. Marx used the language of Robert Owen above to describe the kind of people who joined the movement only to abandon it later when things got tough. I believe it was in an 1856 pamphlet where Marx used the word "volks abfaellen." "Volks" is German for people, and "abfaellen" is the plural for trash. Put them together, and you have human trash. These are the people that were causing the failures of Socialism. You might have noticed that antifa sprays paints "liberals get the bullet (or boolit depending on who did it) everywhere they camp or stage in preparation for action. They don't like liberals either.

Anyway, the upshot is no, the Progressives did what they did to all of us for the sake of being in control, having all the power, etc., etc.

I found a quick thing on the Pilgrims:
A Commune Called Plymouth: What the Pilgrims Taught Us About Socialism

Posted: 2/28/2021 7:10:02 PM EDT

[#3]

It goes back a long time. The cites in the Roman Empire got their wealth and sustenance by sucking it out of the rural areas that surrounded them. Slaves on the great rural estates toiled hard to keep the people in the cities fed. clothed and sheltered.

Posted: 3/1/2021 10:53:26 PM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:
It goes back a long time. The cites in the Roman Empire got their wealth and sustenance by sucking it out of the rural areas that surrounded them. Slaves on the great rural estates toiled hard to keep the people in the cities fed. clothed and sheltered.

View Quote

The sentence in red would be the only sentence I would disagree with. (I end sentences with prepositions whenever I can.)

I would say that the Romans were "racists" in the sense as most people outside of our modern times would use the word: xenophobic.

The Progressives were/are racialists in the sense that they believe that there are characteristics that belong to a specific race as opposed to another race which is deterministic with regards to that race's capabilities. (if I can think of a better way of stating the above, I will edit. Seems clunky to me.)

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Progressives: Where did they come from and

General » History

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us