The Ethics of Sacrifice, the Politics of Slavery
Bad political ideas come from bad ethical ideas, which are originally spread by the words of bad philosophers. Progressives and their Utopian counterparts throughout history have pushed a corrupt and inverted morality on the world, causing man to act as his own destroyer.
It is from an individual's ethics that his politics are formed. Our government is flush with officials, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, who hold a Progressive political ideology. The end result of the Progressive political ideology is collectivism and statism. Not coincidentally these results are identical to those garnered from other specialized ideologies like Communism, Fabianism, socialism, National Socialism (Nazism), fascism, Globalism, corporatism, cronyism, Pan-Islam, etc. And they all have a common ethics as their root.
Each ideology is convinced the government in whatever form, can make a perfect society in its own image by controlling every aspect of its citizens' lives; groups of men are cattle or chattel to be herded, shaped or re-educated. For the Progressives to progress to their Utopian end, they will do anything necessary. The ends always justify the means to Progressives and the ends are always a totalitarian state.
Why didn't the average German rise up against the Nazis or the average Russian against the Soviets? Why don't the Chinese rise up now? Why do so many people in America seem so nonchalant about liberty and the rights of the individual? Why do the politicians who aren't Progressive keep silent?
Progressives gain emotional control and the sanction of their victims by trapping them morally based on the ethical principle which will not only best suit Progressive needs (you give, they take), but one the whole world has come to accept -- altruism. Altruism is sacrificing one's self for others, as considered by French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the man who coined the word and also invented the word "sociology."
By altruism, Comte did not mean being benevolent, charitable, kind, or generous. None of these things need be a sacrifice. Altruism, by Comte's definition, is the duty of the individual to serve the will of others, not oneself, and place others' interests above one's own. Altruism as Comte meant it was really sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice. Altruism means virgins sacrificed to volcanoes and goats sacrificed to Drippy the Rain God.
A sacrifice is getting rid of something valuable for something worthless or detrimental. If you and your spouse start a college fund for Junior instead of going on a cruise, it is not a sacrifice unless you would actually value a trip to Barbados over Junior going to med school. If you value your neighbor and help them with groceries instead of dining at a 4-star restaurant, it is not a sacrifice unless you value a 12-course meal over your neighbors eating for the week.
Progressives see themselves as more "moral" than the average slob. So if Joe Pick-up Truck isn't willing to follow the ethical code everyone else has accepted and altruistically live and work for the benefit of others, then the Progressives will make sure he is punished or silenced. The Progressives, too, have accepted this sacrificial, altruistic moral code, and know sacrifices don't collect themselves, so they will decide who sacrifices what and collect how much is desired.
To do so, Progressives, et al, must enslave the rest of us politically. By defending altruism ethically, Comte necessarily opposed the idea of individual rights politically.
Social positivism only accepts duties, for all and towards all. Its constant social viewpoint cannot include any notion of rights, for such notion always rests on individuality. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. These obligations then increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service... Any human right is therefore as absurd as immoral. Since there are no divine rights anymore, this concept must therefore disappear completely as related only to the preliminary regime and totally inconsistent with the final state where there are only duties based on functions.
Men are not allowed to think freely about chemistry and biology: why should they be allowed to think freely about political philosophy?
The scientific spirit forbids us to regard society as composed of individuals.
By the way, the motto of Comte's philosophy was: "Love as a principle and order as the basis; Progress as the goal." I would say he was a Progressive. And it is his ethics of altruism -- self-sacrifice -- the Progressives and their cohorts use as a scythe to reap us all.
It is the ethics of sacrifice which lead to the politics of slavery. It can take no other course and has been this way throughout history -- from the blood sacrifices of the Mayans, to the Inquisition of Spain, to the gas chambers of the National Socialists, to the starving millions of the Communists, to the Dhimmitude, slavery and abuse wherever Pan-Islamists can carve it out. The trend will continue until people have the ammunition to defend their individual rights -- their lives, liberty, property, and wealth -- on a moral basis.
The modern-day American ethos of altruism is not the ethos of the Founding Fathers. Their ethics were based on rational self-interest, of man as a sovereign individual capable of making his own choices and governing his own actions, and therefore their politics were of liberty and capitalism. For man to be free to choose and act he must be free from other men or groups of men to do so. It is the ethics of rational self-interest, the ethics of individualism, which lead to the politics of liberty.
The concept of the American form of government was to protect the individual rights of its citizens, especially against the actions of people who agree with Comte. But because people consider self-sacrifice moral, they never speak about defending their individual rights. Most Americans now believe rational self-interest is immoral. People have accepted an unearned guilt in their ethical code and consider being in bondage as justified -- so they will accept ever more ridicule and damnation for being selfish, pay more taxes and suffer more regulations and let the government intrude farther and farther into their lives. Then Progressives will tell us the reason everything is still rotten is because of those selfish obstructionists in society who aren't willing to sacrifice themselves quickly enough.
Always keep in mind what Progressives are "progressing" away from: the ideals and principles of America, the Constitution, the Republic, the rule of law, hands-off capitalism; away from the recognition of individual rights and of property rights; away from personal responsibility and self reliance; away from the idea that man is born free and the American government was created as his servant.
Progressives are gleefully "progressing" towards tyranny and totalitarianism, towards sacrifices and slaves, towards control of your life and your mind, with their power lust leading them all the way. And to globally rule over collective man in shackles is their goal.
The pimps of the ethics of sacrifice should be regarded as enslavers of men in spirit and exposed for what they are really saying. Conversely, the preachers of the ethics of individualism should be regarded as liberators of man in spirit and be commended for what they are really saying.