The Roots of Progressivism's Flower, Obama

The Progressive Movement became influential in the early 1900's and its leaders included Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Rev. Ely, John Commons, and E A Ross of UW-Madison, along with a number of Brits such as H G Wells.

In brief, the Progressives believe that with enough social engineering (through genetics) and enough money, heaven can be made present on earth.

(I didn't say they were realistic.)

Of course, all this is based on theology--and part of the root-system of the Progressives is the Scots-Presbyterian (Whig) theophilosophical outlook.

And the Whigs are not gone, albeit their Presbyterianism disappeared; they are still with us, now "post-modern" and atheist, instead.

The postmodernists, who gradually took control of the humanities departments in the western universities in the last half of the twentieth century, presumed themselves to have exposed the Whig narrative as a mere fable, whose sole purpose, they argued, was to provide a justification for the exploitation and subjugation by European civilization of traditional cultures throughout the world. But, it must be admitted, none of the postmodernists or postcolonialists had any deeply-set objections in principle to modern, western colonialism as such. They simply did not much care for the West in its Christian religion, on the one hand, or its economic capitalism...

And now they have new worlds to .......ahhhh........pollute.

...by century’s end, the shibboleths of the postmodern rejection of modern colonialism could themselves be seen as ideological constructions, and it was clear that in fact a new Whiggish colonialism was in place that had brought the expansion into the “Global South” of a permutation of the domineering, western ideological tradition. Only this time, the colonialism involved scientific eugenics and the transgression of the natural family. Western Europe was well-underway, in other words, in exporting its sexual nihilism to the “Global South,” and the postmodern postcolonialists, it turned out, were little more than the new Whigs, proudly advocating a western-derived, secular ideology of history and progress as a justification for the worldwide subjugation of traditional religious moral values pertaining to marriage and the family.

That accounts for the love-relationship between Obama, Chavez, and the deposed Marxist dictator-wannabee of Honduras--and for that matter, the thrilled-leg-ism experienced by Sen. Dodd and Tip O'Neill over the Nicaraguan Marxists during the 1980's.

The Progressive Project is starkly anti-familial, now clearly atheist (or at least agnostic) and in power. Sadly, the power-base now includes the White House and Congress.

Oh, and that eugenics stream continues to run strong in that bunch.

For years, organ transplant ethicists and some in the bioethics community have agitated to change the definition of death from a purely biological determination, to one based in utilitarianism and desired sociological narratives. Why mess with death? Too few organs are donated for transplant, leading to long waiting lines and the deaths of some people who might be saved were organs more readily available.

But why redefine death? The point of this reckless advocacy — although they don’t put it this bluntly — is that there are thousands of perfectly good organs being used by people who really don’t need them anymore, by which they mean patients with profound cognitive impairments who will remain unconscious or minimally aware for the rest of their lives. Why not harvest such patients, this thinking goes, for the benefit of people who could return to normal lives? --Wesley Smith (referenced here)

Folks, it's all a piece, and very consistent.

And if you're paying attention, it's also horrifying.

HT: Cosmos