Progressive Totalitarianism: Prescription For A Slow Death For America

In his book The Snapping of the American Mind, David Kupelian asks the painful question that millions of Americans like myself have pondered for years and will ponder for some time to come as America slowly rips itself apart.

Kupelian writes, “How could it be that hundreds of thousands of Americans fought and bled – and many died – on foreign shores to contain an evil and metas tasizing ideology variously called communism, Marxism, socialism, collectivism, or statism, and yet now, just a few years later, we would gaze up at the pinnacle of power in our own country and behold leaders in thrall to essentially the same core ideology we fought and died to protect strangers from?”

The answer can be found within the culture itself and more specifically within America’s youth who have seemingly embraced the concept of socialism with little to no understanding of what it even is. Yet, like frogs slowly boiling to death in the cesspools that have become our college campuses, our nation’s youth collectively embrace the ideology that will destroy them while demanding they be “protected” from opinions that run contrary to their beliefs.

For instance, after outspoken conservative and feminist critic Milo Yiannopoulos gave a speech at Rutgers University, the college responded in a way that has become typical in the cesspools that are our academia. Writing in the Rutgers campus newspaper The Daily TargumNoa Halff notes:

Students and faculty gathered in the Paul Robeson Cultural Center on Busch campus to generate dialogue about Yiannopoulos’s visit and the protest that occurred during his lecture. A variety of different organizations and departments were present to listen, answer questions and show support.

Representatives from the Rutgers University Police Department, the Office of Violence Prevention and Victim Assistance, Counseling, Alcohol and other Drug Assistance Program and Psychiatric Services and the Bias Prevention and Education Committee were present. Members from the Black Student Union, the Asian American Cultural Center, Center for Latino Arts and Culture, College Student Affairs and many more were also in attendance.

In short, this official response to a conservative speaker from what was once one of America’s most prestigious universities is a damning indictment of a generation that has been primed for totalitarianism. The fact this isn’t an isolated example is bad. What’s worse is these very same college students have become champions of government-regulated speech so long as the speech being regulated emanates from the right.

This is happening while, at the same time, students are actively discouraged from thinking for themselves. It’s a testament to how successful the left has been in capturing our nation,s schools that analytical thinking, once the basis of our education system, is now virtually gone.

It’s a symptom of progressivism to see the supposed “college educated” of today have become fierce proponents for government-regulated speech. But progressivism itself is not the underlying root cause. The cause itself can be found in the ideology known as liberalism, which has been carried to its logical and practical extreme — totalitarianism.

As James Burnham explained in his 1964 classic Suicide of the West, “Liberalism has always operated most naturally as a tendency of opposition to the prevailing order, to the status quo, the ancien régime, the Establishment in general or in its several parts.” Liberalism, continues Burnham, “has always stressed change, reform, the break with encrusted habit whether in the form of old ideas, old customs or old institutions. Thus liberalism has been and continues to be primarily negative in its impact on society.”

What is different today is that liberalism now controls all the powerful institutions of culture — from the media to education and everything in between — while at the same time it faces literally no opposition. The left controls the culture and given that political issues are often decided at the cultural level before they even reach the political realm, the opposition is almost always rendered defenseless.

Or in the case of college campuses, the opposition isn’t even permitted to make its case.

It is outright totalitarianism that is taking place today within American society, from the silencing of conservatives on college campuses to forcing Christian business owners to pay excessive fines and face prison sentences for holding true to their beliefs in traditional marriage. The nation has fractured into two separate Americas that continue to drift further and further apart, with half the nation seemingly convinced their rights stem from the government while the other from God.

The former seeks not only to control the latter, but to see to it that the latter is utterly destroyed. To accomplish this, liberalism functions as all totalitarian movements have functioned in the past by subjecting individuals to unbearable stress, conflict and crisis until each is broken.

Whether the means to do so are accomplished financially, spiritually, culturally, or psychologically matters little, as it always justifies the end. The end, of course, being the destruction of the will of each and every American so that liberalism can remake the individual from the ashes in which it has destroyed them.

Liberalism wants you to snap. It wants to challenge your sanity and destroy your belief system so that it can remold you in its image of dependency. First and foremost though, it must extinguish those institutions in which we hold dear. It is why, since his first day in office, Barack Obama has relentlessly attacked the cultural, moral and religious institutions that those of us on the right hold dear.

Yet Obama himself is not solely to blame, for he represents the logical extreme of liberalism. He is a symptom of the progressive creation and his rise to the pinnacle of power in this nation represented a turning point for the worse as the government has been infused with an ideology of totalitarianism. Take a look at any government agency functioning today and you’d be hard pressed to find just one that isn’t completely politicized into attacking the ideological opponents of progressivism.

In turn, you can do the same exact thing with our culture itself and you’ll find the same results. Wherever the progressives are in power, from the government to the culture to the academia and the media, the hatred of Western values dominates.

Popular discourse today sees the West in general as being “guilty of genocidal crimes against civilization,” for Western values seen through the lens of liberalism represents the “greatest repository of racism, sexism, xenophobia, antisemitism, fascism, and narcissism.” As the “Father of the New Left” Herbert Marcuse so eloquently put it, “American society is oppressive, evil and undeserving of loyalty.”

With this notion in mind, liberalism places a new emphasis on liberating all men and women from the “evil repression” and “tyrannical values” Western civilization was built upon. To bring this about, progressives have designed numerous strategies to discredit and smear the values that had forged and sustained the West for the past 2,000 years.

“Critical Theory,” writes Nelson Hultberg in Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America, “was the first and most important of these strategies” as it was not only critical to discrediting capitalism but also social conditions of contemporary society and existing social institutions. Hultberg explains, “Under its auspices, every tradition of Western life was to be redefined as ‘prejudiced’ and ‘perverse.’ And these redefinitions were to be instilled into the social stream via devastating scholarly criticisms of all values such as family, marriage, property, individualism, patriotism, faith in God etc.”

Critical Theory precisely defines the tactics used by progressives today as they attack Christianity, capitalism, family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, loyalty and patriotism. It is this routine and consistent attack on any and all foundations of our society in which liberalism has destroyed our culture and advanced its totalitarian agenda.

The left, no matter what they call themself today, breeds the ideology the totalitarianism as every single proposed and forced through “reform” serves to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and extinguish the highest, most complex and “God-like” aspects of human individuality. Even equality itself, while serving as a powerful appeal to the masses with its great promises of “each according to his need,” turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality of complete uniformity in thought and condition.

The total implementation of the principles espoused by liberalism deprives human life of individuality and simultaneously deprives life of its meaning and attraction. America isn’t at this point yet, but it is coming as reflected in a generation that is at best negligent, and at worst complicit in the march towards totalitarianism.

How do I know for certain this is where we are headed? Because what I’ve been calling progressive totalitarianism is what was once called socialism. And following the basic tendency of socialism, liberalism is hostile toward human personality not only as a category, but ultimately to its very existence. In the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “Socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death.”

Socialism masquerading as progressivism is really totalitarianism that will inevitably lead to the total destruction of the American spirit and to a leveling of America into death.


Young Voters’ Support For Sanders Shows Frightening Reality: Country Is Willing To Settle For Socialism

Less than 75 years ago, Norman Thomas, six-time candidate for the Socialist Party of America, stated:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

Today, however, signs point to the unsettling fact that many Americans have been seduced by socialist ideology resulting in a more secular society, where man is god and man determines outcomes.

Christians are not immune from the influence of this worldview that leads to the death of economic stability, morality and accountability in government.

In the Iowa caucuses a few weeks back, Democrats overwhelmingly supported Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders – an avowed “democratic socialist” – with 84 percent of those under 30 backing him. Let’s face reality: When MSNBC’s Rachael Maddow asked Hillary Clinton if she is “too far to the right” for liberal Democrat voters, not only have we witnessed an entire progressive party veer toward socialism, but it revealed where many in the elite media stand.

In the appendix in Milton Friedman’s 1980 book Free to Choose, he underlines that most of Thomas’s 1928 Socialist Party platform was already part of the federal establishment in America in the ’80s when President Reagan began his tenure. Some Democrats distance themselves from the word “socialist,” but continue marching the country toward its definition.

Can you blame many young people today for supporting socialism when they are raised to be narcissists with an entitlement mentality? They think they are owed a living, don’t care who has to pay for it, and they were not taught true world history, including the horrors of Lenin and Stalin who murdered millions of their own people in Russia.

Robert Knight of The Washington Times suggests today’s young voters are part of “the Free Stuff Army” Obama has been cultivating since he took office. Knight added:

How could so many young people expect others to pay entirely for their college education, all their medical needs and their job training, which Mr. Sanders has promised if he’s elected?

People falling for the siren song of socialism are not callously ignoring the many failures and atrocities committed in that doctrine’s name; they’re often blissfully unaware. For the past several decades, government public schools and nearly all colleges have touted socialism’s principles of redistribution, racialism and class envy while declining to connect the dots between socialism and tyranny, examples of which abound.

A poll conducted last month found 43 percent of Americans under the age of 30 now have a favorable view of socialism.

Why? Rather than wanting to help feed and clothe the poor, they really just want to help themselves.

To liberals, social justice means a level of fairness as defined by them and enforced by the state. Their argument is the church has generally not done a good job taking care of the poor – which is true – so the government must step in.

The solution should never, ever be government intervention. American history has proven big government programs rarely, if ever, do what politicians promise. In the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson launched his Great Society, establishing Medicare, Medicaid, The Housing Act, and dozens of other programs intended to lift Americans out of poverty…

The supposed “War on Poverty” failed to help those who needed it the most and has piled massive debt on future generations. Politicians who voted themselves more money from the treasury are doing very well and today’s government has little restraint when it comes to spending the people’s money.

America finds itself in a very dangerous place in which more citizens – particularly young adults – have bought into what they’ve been sold by progressive educators, a hyper-liberal media, a godless government and an administration with no accountability.

It’s called corruption. After all, the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10).

Read more here:

WATCH What Happened As Soon As Bernie Sanders Walked Onto ‘The View’ Set

Bernie Sanders, a self-declared socialist, wants to become the president of the United States so he can supposedly affect social change. With his big win over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire on Tuesday, he’s one step closer to realizing his goal.

Socialism, according to Websters dictionary is, “a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.” Socialism is also counterproductive to capitalism, the current economic system at work in the United States. Websters makes a distinction between the two defining socialism as “a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.”

On Thursday, Bernie Sanders was on The View, celebrating his victory. As soon as Sanders came on stage, all the hosts of the show stood up, and gave Sanders a warm embrace, noticeably different the welcome Mike Huckabee, a Republican presidential candidate, received when he was guest on the show in December.

For Sanders, the studio audience was seemingly elated as they maintained a long, standing ovation and loudly chanted “Bernie, Bernie!” After receiving hugs from the talk-show hosts, and acknowledging the roaring applause from the crowd, Sanders took his seat. After a question or two from the hosts, Sanders immediately started describing his socialist positions.

He immediately dived into income inequality, calling for the United States to be a “nation of fairness.”

Commenting on student loan debt post-graduation Sanders asked, “We’re punishing people for trying to get an education. What sense is that?” Instead, Sander’s proposes that college should be “tuition-free.”

Sanders then equated Wall Street executives as criminals. Sanders stated over the last 20 years the redistribution of wealth has gone from the middle class to the richest 1 percent. Sanders reiterated President Obama’s campaign line calling for large multi-billion dollar corporations to pay, “their fair share” in federal taxes.

Sanders said assault weapons should not be sold in the U.S. and likewise, said he wants to work with President Obama to expand instant background checks.

When asked about Michael Bloomberg running as an Independent Sanders commented, “I couldn’t live with that if the result was we elect some right-wing Republican.”

Sanders concluded his visit to The View by calling for judicial reform stating too many African Americans and Latinos are imprisoned, and stated the government needs to do more to combat unemployment in African American communities, which he claimed was higher than 50 percent.

Sorry, Bernie: Tuition Free ≠ Debt Free

With the 2016 New Hampshire Democratic Primary just around the corner and scores of college-aged voters up for grabs, affordable public college education has become a key selling point for Bernie Sanders. The Sanders plan to “Make College Tuition-Free and Debt-Free proposes offering free tuition at public colleges and universities, lowering interest rates on current and future student loans, meeting 100 percent of low-income students’ financial needs, and tripling the federal work-study program. As with most government handouts, the Sanders plan will likely cost more and deliver less than it promises.

Let’s start with the cost estimates for free public higher education. Virtually every advocate of free tuition references an article in The Atlantic from January 2014, which estimates the cost at roughly $62.6 billion. Sanders, factoring in his additional proposals, predicts closer to $75 billion. Two-thirds of his plan would be federally funded via new taxes on Wall Street speculators, with states contributing the remainder.

The problem with these calculations is that they are based on static projections for tuition costs. If this assumption proves faulty, the actual cost of implementing the Sanders plan will balloon. And there are three good reasons to expect an increase in tuition costs.

First, history suggests that tuition will continue to rise. Tuition rates have been gradually increasing over past decades, with students now paying 3.22 times more than in 1985 [See Figure 6, p. 18]. The Sanders plan will likely exasperate this trend because it will remove any incentive for public institutions to slow these increases.

Second, any reduction in current sources of revenue would likely require increases in tuition rates to cover the shortfall. For example, a large portion of public college budgets are governmentally funded through grants, tax benefits, and work-study programs. In 2014, state aid and local taxes cumulatively contributed $81.6 billion in these areas. Cuts to state or local budgets could result in less revenue for public colleges and universities, which would have to be offset by higher tuition rates.

Most public institutions also depend on revenue from hospitals, auxiliary enterprises, private gifts, investment income, and other educational activities. These sources contributed $80 billion—or one-third of total revenue—to public institutions (four-year, two-year, and less than two-year) in 2012. Although these programs are generally self-sustaining, the amount of revenue they generate is not guaranteed. Unexpected revenue deficits in these areas could also result in tuition hikes, costs ultimately saddled onto the taxpayer under the Sanders plan.

Third, the advent of free tuition will provide a powerful incentive for students to enroll in public colleges and universities. Whether motivating those who never before considered college to finally enroll, or incentivizing private college students to switch to the public sector, or a combination of both, the result will be the same—a significant increase in the cost of offering free tuition, well above estimates based on static enrollments in public institutions.

As faulty as Sander’ cost estimates appear, perhaps the more troubling aspect of his plan is its false promise of eliminating student loan debt. The cost of college attendance includes far more than just tuition. In fact, fully half of public college students’ expenditures remains room and board. The College Board reports the average published tuition rate for public four-year in-state students as $9,410, while the corresponding price of room and board is $10,138. Textbooks are another significant cost of attendance, with the average public undergraduate student paying $1,200 annually.

Admittedly, many public institution students attend a community college or commute, which minimizes room and board costs but does not eliminate them entirely. If only tuition is covered by government, students will still require loans to pay for their textbooks, room, and board, and many will remain weighed down with debt. While promising to provide a post-secondary panacea, Sanders merely increases government spending without lifting students’ financial burdens.

Before enacting a new federal entitlement, the American people deserve a more careful accounting of its costs. As currently written, the price tag of the Sanders plan is simply not as affordable as its proponents claim. College-aged voters would do well to look past the tirades against Wall Street speculators and demand more details—details such as exactly what services will be “free,” meticulous analysis of the plan’s financial assumptions, and specifics regarding how unexpected costs will be funded. They might be surprised to learn that the so-called free lunch they are being offered costs far more than suggested—and it doesn’t really taste that good, either.

– See more at:

Ouch: Watch Ted Cruz Perfectly Reveal Who Obama Is With Two Words

Asked during a presidential forum on Thursday to address critics who point out that he is, like Barack Obama, a first term U.S. senator with no foreign policy experience, Ted Cruz explained that he could do so in two ways.

The rising GOP primary candidate first noted that he finds it odd when reporters bring up his supposed similarity to Obama as though it is a negative.

“When the media asks, ‘Gosh, aren’t you like Barack Obama?’ My reaction to reports is, ‘I thought you thought that was a good thing,’” he said. “Last I checked he won two presidential elections.”

It was not Obama’s resume, Cruz said, that made him a bad commander in chief – it is the fact that he is an “unmitigated socialist.”

The line earned him some social media praise among fellow conservatives.

Cruz continued his answer to cover the “broader point” that there is one key characteristic behind the nation’s most transformative presidents. Over the last half century, he said, the “two moments that had the greatest impact on human liberty” were the elections of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.

He noted that, though they represented opposite ends of the freedom debate, they “shared one thing in common.” According to Cruz, both Reagan and Obama “believed profoundly in their principles [and] had they courage to fight for them.”

In order to correct the nation’s course, he concluded, “we need to nominate a candidate for president as committed to conservative principles as Barack Obama is to liberal principles.”