Progressive Era: The integration of
National Socialism in America
Progressivism {Progressive Era} was America’s Middle Way to introduce socialism into society without revolution {Communism} or anarchy. While historians usually limit the span of Progressivism (1890-1920) I believe that it never ended but has constantly morphed via gradualism into socialism that permeated throughout American society on its way to join other socialist societies in a vast globalism dominated by the elite few. One might say that the European Union was but a limited experiment soon to be perpetrated on an ever expanding global scale.
I have been driven to learn as much as I can in order to discern the signs of the times as Jesus instructed (2Th 2:9-12). We are to be as wise as the serpents {dragon-Satan} but as harmless as doves (Mt 10:16). I make no pretense of special knowledge but what I have learned I seek to share with you so that may not be unaware of changes already occurring around us. Unfortunately, too many Christians are either chasing phantoms {He is here, he is there, the Antichrist is everywhere!} or ignorantly unaware as long as their activities are not curtailed; Christ spoke of this mindset and its ultimate end (Lk 17:24-30).
The Shield of the Fabian Society:
Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing – Deception
A think tank had developed in England calling itself the Fabian Society, and in this post I will give some insight into this society and its goals. I am indebted to Sovereign Nations for producing the video, The Genesis of the Progressive Movement, that succinctly encapsulates this information. Over the next several posts I will discuss several of the Fabian Society’s fundamental theories and modus operandi that affects us today. Their fundamental purpose is to further the socialism of Progressivism through gradualism until it engulfs the world bringing all societies under one socialism. Their shield {See Above Graphic} clearly shows the means by which they seek accomplish their goals: deception. Thus, America was not the only country with a Middle Way. The Fabian Society became associated with Britain’s Labor Party giving it a political voice in government much as the Progressivism in America gained a voice first through the Republicans {Theodore Roosevelt} and then through the Democrats where they have largely remained {Woodrow Wilson}. Some of the more influential early members of the Fabian Society include: George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Annie Besant, Graham Wallas, and John Maynard Keynes. Notice the blending together of philosophers, economists and entertainers to promote their message and bring about the gradual changes to reach their goal. Of particular interest to our discussion four Fabians, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, Graham Wallas, and George Bernard Shaw founded the London School of Economics. It was recognized early on that if one was going to change government {society} one had to control the monetary system which is the lifeblood of every government; thus, economic philosophy was incorporated very early on. These details, though kept as brief as possible, are necessary to understand what is occurring today. The London School of Economics (LSE) hired a philosopher, Karl Popper, who advanced two theories of special importance to us today: Open Societies and the Tolerance Paradox which we will touch on in this post.
Stain glass commissioned by Geo. Shaw
Depicting Fabian Society Remaking Societies
Herein is the essence of the Fabian Society: remaking society in the image they wanted. This stain glass commemorated their goal. The Fabians in the bottom portion are worshiping scientism {empiricism} as the means to accomplishing their goal. Their support legitimized the soft sciences, actually pseudosciences such as psychology, sociology, educational theories and even nursing theories, to extend their influence in every important aspect of a society. However, it was Karl Popper who developed the theory of Open Societies that is only now coming into the consciences of Americans. What is an Open Society? According to the Open Societies Foundation their mission statement reads: “The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable and open to the participation of all people.” This bland but pleasantly sounding statement seeks to capture your agreement by using the code words: democracies, accountable, participation and all peoples. However, since none of these terms are defined the First Law of Logic {Identity} is violated; that is, since they did not define these terms no one knows what they actually mean. How can someone agree with words that are essentially meaningless or whose definitions may fluctuate with the needs of the moment?
According to Karl Popper, a closed society is ruled by laws or religion which exclude others from both participating and enjoying much of the benefits such a society may possess; that is, wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few. This rhetoric may sound familiar to you if you remember occupy the Wall Street movement or listen to Congress debate the need for every increasing government programs. An open society by contrast in inclusive inviting everyone to participate on a personal level and enjoy all the society has to offer {sounds almost like Star Trek’s society}. Notice the false dilemma logical fallacy. The closed society is exclusive and thus anti-immigration seeking to keep others from obtaining the goodness America has obtained; i.e., selfish. The major personification of evil is the laissez faire business person {capitalist is a communistic term, I prefer to use John Locke’s more descriptive term}. The open society by contrast welcomes immigrants, gives them the benefits of society and legitimizes their citizenship so they may participate in the democratic process. Except: neither position is correct as they state.
The society built on a codified legal system based on absolutes {biblical Ten Words} is not exclusive. America during the majority of its history had an open immigration policy. It was not until Progressivism that immigration became closed to keep out the wrong kind of people. In America this immigration policy was begun by the Democrats though continued by the Republicans. Thus, those who state they want an open society actually only want a society filled with the right kind of people. This violates the Law of Non-Contradiction and countenances deception {Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing} to achieve one’s ends. This will not be the only logical fallacy and duplicity we will encounter in our discussions.
Thus, the concept of Open Societies actually becomes synonymous with open borders which actually means a decrease in sovereignty of each nation. While I mentioned earlier that the European Union (EU) is the quintessential example of Open Societies an earlier example exists. America began as a collection of thirteen sovereign, independent states that gave up some sovereignty to form the federal government with limited powers. This ended with Lincoln’s War {Civil War} when states became subservient to the federal {central} government losing their independent sovereignties. Within forty years of this conflict the central government had enough power to initiate Progressivism that would massively increase central power further weakening the power of the individual states and the liberties of its citizens. The road to the EU began after World War II (WWII) finally culminating into a union of nations with an overarching central authority {sound familiar?}. Though Britain has voted to leave the EU this has yet to be realized and may not be allowed {remember Lincoln’s War?}. The Open Societies movement seeks to accomplish this same goal on a global scale. A collection of nations with limited sovereignty answering to an overarching central government of ruling elites with the power to enforce their dictates.
These nations will agree to a universal moralism that is not based on biblical absolutes. These universally accepted moral values cannot be defended because they are based on logical fallacies such as appeal to authority even if that authority is the will of the majority. Thus, this universal morality will shift over time to meet the ends of the central government as will its laws {look at how the Constitution has been reinterpreted till the original document is meaningless}. Hence, this gradualism of socialism into globalism is really a means to suppress the Gospel message while enforcing a relative system of values that will only result in increasing violence and suppression of individual liberties; i.e., enslavement of the people for the needs of the few.
In our next post we will discuss Karl Popper’s Tolerance Paradox and how it is routinely used today.