The Opposition

Most of the people who support Progressive politicians can give you many reasons for doing that. All you have to do is find someone who strongly supports Obama and ask him or her what he's all about. You'll hear things like equality, world peace, protecting the environment, freedom of choice, and many other such lofty goals. They actually believe that their Progressive candidates want these things, and worse, that Conservative opponents want the opposite things. In other words, they believe Conservatives don't want equality. They believe war is a good thing. They believe the environment can take care of itself. They want to prevent people from doing things, taking away their freedom of choice.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the opposite is true, and that's clearly evident if you stop to look at both sides objectively. In order to do that, you must look at what both sides have done, not what they say they'll do, or talked about doing.

Were the founders of America Conservative or Progressive. Ask most people who support Progressives and they'll tell you those folks were Progressives. They were not. They were, in fact, the exact opposite. Progressives seek to transform America into a place that looks more like the places that America's first citizens wanted to flee, not what they sought to build.

Let's break this down, shall we?

Equality sounds like an admirable goal, doesn't it? I mean, wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone was truly equal? Actually, if that were true, you wouldn't be able to tell if the world was a better place or not. Better than what? If there's no alternative, there's nothing to measure. You can't win if nobody can lose. You can't be poor or rich if everyone has the same amount of wealth. True equality can't exist, unless everyone is equally dead. The healthy can't support the sick if everyone is equally healthy, or sick. Some inequality is outside human control. Putting people into classes is a trick Progressives use to control certain groups of people. If they can turn one class of people against another, they can take sides with the larger class and win a majority vote. But is the larger side the side that makes the world a better place? Not usually.

Things like wealth, age, popularity, beauty, intelligence, productivity, and just about anything else you can measure, are not equal. They are actually distributed in different proportions. Almost all these things are distributed roughly following a "bell curve" where a smaller number of people exist at either end, and the majority of people fall into the middle. Most people have some wealth, but are not rich. Most people are neither terribly ugly or incredibly good looking. Few people have no friends at all, and few people have thousands of friends. Most fall in the middle.

The distribution of people by age isn't quite a bell curve. That's because everybody who is born eventually dies, and we all die at different ages. Nobody comes back to life once they're dead. So the number of young people is normally larger than the number of middle-age people, and the number of elderly people is normally smaller than any other group. The number of people over 100 years of age is extremely small.

Intelligence and knowledge are not the same things. Intelligence is best described as the ability to think and reason. The distribution of intelligence does tend to follow a bell curve. Few people are idiots, and there aren't very many people who are a true genius. Most are somewhere in the middle. Knowledge, however, can be manipulated. If the schools aren't doing a good job, you can end up skewing the population, artificially creating a larger number of people who lack general knowledge.

Let's say you want to get elected. Which people should you try to represent? If you want the most votes, you'd go after the largest groups. That would be middle income, average people. But, if you can control the schools and dumb-down the population, you can create a large group of stupid people. Shortly after you've started doing this, that large group will include mainly younger people, since the older ones went to school before you screwed up the system. Stupid people are easier to trick than smart people. Therefore, if you're a dishonest politician, you can convince the stupid that you want what's best for them, even if you don't. You wouldn't have an easy time doing that if there were fewer stupid people. So, if you're doing something like this to trick people into supporting you, what would your position be on something like the voting age? Of course, you'd want to make the voting age as low as possible. This is based on the assumption that the votes added to the system when you lower the voting age will include a larger percentage of stupid people, thanks to the damages you've done to the school system.

Progressives have been destroying our schools in America for many years. They've done this deliberately in order to grow a large number of stupid voters. Those stupid voters are easily manipulated, especially when you can reach them on an emotional level. Suppose you told them that they're stupid because they've been screwed by the smart people? You'd be pitting a large number of stupid people against a smaller number of smarter people, and you'd position yourself as champion of the stupid. You get those votes.

You can do the same thing with wealth. If you pick any point on a bell curve that is right of center, you'll have more people on the left than the right. If only one percent of the population is worth more than one million dollars, those people are at the extreme right end of the bell curve. That means that 99% of the people are not millionaires. Which group do you appeal to if you want to get the most votes? Those in the 99%, of course.

Now think about this. If you're using these tactics, are you interested in making the schools better so people can be smarter? Nope. If you do that, you'd be reducing the number of stupid people, and therefore limiting your votes. Are you interested in helping people earn more money? Of course not. That might move them into the top 1% and take them out of your pool of voters. In fact, to be safe, you want even more stupid people. You also want more people to be poor. That builds your voting base. Any other actions could shrink your base of support.

Progressives are not looking out for poor people. They're taking advantage of them. They're not interested in helping people out of poverty. Actually, it's in their best interest to push more people into poverty. Once they're poor, they can control them using entitlement programs paid for by the rich, which is a much smaller group of people. Screw the rich to feed the poor is politically a brilliant idea because the ones you're hurting, the rich, represent fewer votes by far than the poor people you claim to be "helping" with government support.

What about jobs? Is it a good thing for Progressives to help businesses create more jobs? Of course not. That could tip the scales and push people out of poverty, thus costing them votes. You want to destroy jobs so you can get more people to depend on your government programs. Those who rely on your programs to survive will be far more likely to vote for the candidate who supports those programs and talks about expanding them.

If you're a Progressive, do you want people to have more choice or less? Prosperity gives you the freedom to expand your choices. As you move farther away from poverty, you can afford to buy more expensive things. Your ability to choose increases. That's not what a Progressive wants, not because they don't want people to have nice things, but because those who don't have things are easier to manipulate into voters. Therefore, Progressives do whatever they can to destroy jobs, or prevent new ones from being created.

Take any issue and study it objectively. Using the same logic, you can determine which side of that issue a Progressive is likely to support. It's always the side that creates more control over people who vote to keep them in power. That would be the poor and stupid people, because they're easily manipulated.

Abortion? That's tricky. You might think that Progressives would be against abortion because it takes away a potential voter. But, that's not the whole story. Which people are most likely to want an abortion, the rich or the poor? The stupid or the smart? Smart people with money usually want to raise a family. Those who are poor can't afford to raise a family. Those who are stupid might not be interested in raising a family. Progressives do better if they support abortion because abortions tend to keep people poor and stupid. If you can do stupid things and not pay the consequences of your actions, you'll learn nothing from the experience and keep on doing stupid things. If you don't get that abortion, you're forced to raise a family, which means you should go out and get a job, which means you'll be moving away from poverty. For a Progressive, this means a lost vote.

Racial equality? You'd think Progressives would appeal to the largest racial component of the population. But they make themselves out to be champions of those in the minority. Why? The answer lies in demographics. Thanks to racial inequality in the past, the percentage of people of certain races who are poor and stupid are much higher than the same ratio among the majority race. If you appeal to those who are in those minorities, you're more likely to find stupid and poor people you can control. Therefore, the advantage goes to Progressives, again.

War? Progressives use a war to play on strong emotions among their followers. This is a great way to manipulate the stupid and poor. If you can make them believe that war is bad, and convince them that you take their side on that position, you win votes as long as a war is raging somewhere. Bring home our troops! End the war! War is not the answer! Of course, you don't really want to end the war if you're a Progressive, do you? That takes away a powerful tool that you're using to control people and keep them voting for you. On the contrary, it's in your best interests if there are always wars going on somewhere. You don't end wars, you start them and expand them.

Now let's look at all these issues from a Conservative point of view. Conservatives don't believe in a large central government that controls the masses. They believe in individuals. They want to life people out of poverty. They appeal to those people who work, produce things, invent things, earn money, raise families, and amass as much wealth as they possibly can. They're not interested in keeping people poor. They need the poor to be lifted out of poverty. Once they're no longer oppressed, they'll be far more likely to see through the cage that Progressives have built to keep them in poverty. They'll come over to the other side and become conservative voters.

What about racial equality? As long as most people in minority races believe that everyone else is holding them back, they'll continue to support those who claim to be working against those people. Conservatives want to erase the artificial barriers that are created through the division of people by race. If all people have an equal opportunity to succeed, more of them will succeed. That means more voters for Conservatives. Conservatives really want racial equality. The less one race is perceived as being inferior to another, the move Conservative votes are created. Progressives, therefore, want the opposite. Racial inequality is the key to racial division and hatred, turning one group into victims of the other, while the Progressives step in to play the role of savior. They have no intention of correcting inequality because doing so would cost them votes.

The bottom line is that most people who vote for Progressives are actually cooperating with the very group that is keeping them from improving their lifestyle. They're working toward limiting their own freedom. They don't see this because they're blinded by emotion. The most powerful controlling emotion is hatred. In the name of love, Progressive voters are taught to hate Conservatives. That hatred is the fuel that keeps the Progressive fires burning. It's the source of power for Progressives. They would never do anything to put that fire out. They'd rather throw gasoline on it than water. It's a matter of self-preservation, after all.