Skip to main content
  1. News
  2. Politics
  3. Independent

Is Progressive PC for the Divine Right of Kings? Part 3 of 3

See also

Is “Progressive” the Politically Correct way of saying the “Divine Right of Kings”?


This is part three of a three part series. As many of the facts and premises for part two were laid out in the first two parts, it will likely be helpful to read and/or review them. You can go to Part 1 by clicking here You can go to Part 2 by click here

As a quick refresher, we are evaluating 3 different governance doctrines in manner similar to purchasing a car. These 3 governance doctrines are:

  1. Divine Right of Kings;
  2. Consent of the Governed (Natural law);
  3. Progressivism.

To the best of his ability, the writer has attempted to frame these analyses in a manner that creates unity and constructive dialogue rather than emotional, political party-centric division. Further, the writer is attempting to have you, the reader, use your own powers of observation and reason to reach your own conclusions. This writer has encouraged you to use Critical Thinking ( as a necessary component of your thought process. This as opposed to managing and manipulating you in the manner of our current major media and the one and only one ruling class pretending to be two major political parties. In this writer’s humble opinion, the road to take back our country, restore Natural Law, the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, begins here.

We have already discussed and evaluated the governance doctrines of the Divine Right of Kings and Consent of the Governed. We have mentioned Karl Marx and Marxism as the governance doctrine behind Socialism and Communism. We have discussed the Populists movement, and pointed out that the conflicting sources indicate it ended during the Spanish-American war or morphed into the Progressive Era/Movement. We have discussed that the Populist Movement’s primary inspiration was the corruption of government and corporations with particular ire caused by the shenanigans of the “powers that be” involving our country’s money and the valuation of that money. Those shenanigans created hardship for rank and file Americans by enriching the “powers that be” at the expense of the poor and the middle class. As all value is created (earned) by Labor; Ergo, any enrichment of those to do not labor comes from the value created by those that do labor.

(After the writer finished the first part of this article, another physical source was made available to this writer by the library. It appears as the last item in the list of sources at the end of part 2 of this article. )

With that, this writer will explain his conclusions and attempt to explain his “thought process” and his “perspective of reality” in a non-partisan manner. And in a manner intended to promote mutual understanding, constructive conversation and unity, rather than division. (The writer encourages all who share his perspective of reality to engage in the exercise of expressing themselves constructive ways, rather than the destructive ways the one ruling class pretending to be two major political parties have conditioned us to interact. It can be a difficult exercise)


In keeping with his desire to cause the reader to think for themselves and not allow themselves to be manipulated, before writer discloses his conclusions and thought process, this writer asks you to select which mode of governance doctrine you would purchase:

  1. The Divine Right of Kings Jalopy;
  2. The stylish and reliable Consent of the Governed standard automobile, or;
  3. The Progressive Sports car - new and improved German engineering -- bright, shiny and full of vigor and vitality.

At the same time, before making your free-will choice it is important that you not only know and understand history, but that you also consider the likely future outcomes of those choices.

No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be.

Isaac Asimov

This writer urges you to please make your selection with the passion and attentiveness that Critical Thinking ( requires. Your opinion matters and may affect the course of human history. With those caveats, please make your selection from the 3 governance doctrines above now.

Having made your selection, this writer respectfully requests the reader to please view this writer’s conclusions as a constructive dialogue exchange in the free market of ideas. If we disagree, please resist the conditioning of the one ruling class pretending to be 2 major political parties. In the current discussion, that conditioning:

  1. limits your ability to establish the truth for yourself by causing you to think in artificial and parasitic, “false left/right, two party paradigm” terms, and;
  1. has taught you to respond to ideas different from your own by not listening and/or responding with destructive, emotional drama ; rather than rational thought and constructive dialogue.

This ruling class conditioning prevents you from fully thinking for yourself. The point of this ruling class conditioning is to divide, conquer and distract the masses.

In the arena of politics and government, you must TRUST NO ONE. Think for yourself. Vigorously guard your own perception of reality. These are the first steps in breaking the one and only one ruling class’s control over you and, of the masses. All Politics is War (with less overt violence). The absence of overt violence should not lull you into complacency.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

George Washington

As part of his conclusion, this writer would like to express his genuine belief that some idealistic, rank and file Progressives are sincere in believing that the ideal implementation of Progressivism will heal the unfairness and injustices that exist in modern day America. This writer empathizes, agrees and enthusiastically embraces that desire to right said injustice and unfairness.

Government Corruption Sucks. The rise of a plutocracy sucks. Unfair labor practices suck. Couples having to work 100+ hour weeks to be able to afford to raise children, sucks. Campaign Contributions, Bribes and/or other consideration used to cause elected officials and government officials to not act in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE sucks. Racism sucks .Sexism sucks. “Might makes Right” justice is an illegitimate abdication of the Rule of Law by Judges. The growing disparate income and wealth between the Wealthy and the Middle/Lower classes through illegitimate schemes, sucks. And, finally, as the world no longer appears as one of endless open space and unlimited resources, policies of the past may no longer be appropriate policies for the future.

This writer can even relate to the desire of some individuals to immerse their selves in, and embrace the emotions of, community, team work, natural simplicity and mutual benefactorial relationship that Progressivism promises. However, Progressives and this writer will disagree as to the manner in which to remedy the evils that the Populist Movement and Progressivism were catalyzed by.

The enlightened reader will look upon this article as an exercise in establishing the Truth for themselves. This writer has referred to Critical Thinking many times in this article. If you seek the Truth and you have exercised Critical Thinking in establishing your Truth, you will view read and understand opposing perceptions of the Truth with confidence and not trepidation. For the purposes of this article, this writer has chosen to defend his selection of his preferred governance doctrine universal beliefs which do not rely upon political party affiliation. In this way, each reader can rely upon their own instincts and beliefs in determining the truthfulness or falseness of each premise this writer asserts, rather than having to rely upon handlers from their political party for the answers.

At this point, this writer wants to more even closer to putting this discussion into less esoteric and more common layman’s terms. This writer submits to the reader, that the four most important elements for assessing the legitimacy of any government and/or governance doctrine are:

  1. Legitimate Governance Doctrines maximizes the liberty of the individual;
  1. The individual establishes truth using their own observation and reason, rather than the Government Establishing Truth for the Individual;
  1. Legitimate Governance Doctrines strive to have Government adapt to the Nature of the Individual, rather than having the expectation that the individual should adapt to the nature of government;
  1. Legitimate Government is founded on a true and correct understanding of the Nature of Man in the Natural State;
  1. Legitimate Governance Doctrine embraces a social contract containing at least the following points:
  • The individual consents to be governed of their own free will;
  • The individual has certain unalienable rights which legitimate government protects;
  • The individual has the right to peacefully dissent without fear of reprisal or punishment,
  • The governed have the right to amend the governance doctrine in furtherance of its legitimate goals, and;
  • The governed, when all else fails, and as a last resort, have the right to cast off the governance doctrine when it acts in a manner not consistent with the unalienable Rights of Individuals(except as punishment of crimes pursuant to the Rule of Law) and/or the social contract, through peaceful and/or violent revolution.
  1. The actual outcome of the governance doctrine as it is practiced in the real, physical world fulfills the terms expressed in the Social Contract(Void for Fraudulent Representations);

To test whether you the reader agree with this writer’s most important, non-political elements of a legitimate government/governance doctrine, ask yourself these questions. Please respond with the first answer that comes to mind:

  1. Should you have the right to determine truth for yourself or should you have to accept truth as established by your government?
  2. Should your government be created as a reflection of your nature or should government be designed and implemented with the expectation that they can force you to conform to government’s expectations of you?
  3. Should the individual have certain rights that the government cannot take away (except for punishment of criminal acts)?
  4. Should you be forced to accept any form of governance or should you have a choice to accept or refuse any particular form of governance?
  5. Should you and a majority of the governed be able to alter, abolish and/or amend any form of governance that you originally accepted?
  6. If your government represented a set of terms in the social contract to induce your acceptance of that form of governance, and its implementation in reality, whether deliberate and/or accidental, does not deliver the promised results, does that government lose its legitimacy?

Now, before we even get to your answers, did those questions seem like legitimate points you yourself would use to analyze any government and/or government doctrine? If you said yes to the just previous question, then you concur with this writer’s method of analysis of these 3 governance doctrines of Divine Right of Kings, Consent of the Governed (Natural Law) and Progressivism.

Next, did you have to rely on political party dogma, a political party‘s platform and/or call a political party representative in order to answer those questions. If you did not, then I submit to you that these points of analysis are non-political and your answers are your own. Therefore, the writer's 4 points of analyses are based in establishing the Truth rather than mere regurgitation of political party dogma.

How you actually answered the questions is of less importance than whether you found them legitimate points of analysis and the thought process you underwent in reaching you answers. The exercise was intended to cause you to honestly assess for yourself the writer’s assertion that these four points are legitimate, non-political points of analyses of government doctrines.

This conclusion continues on the premise that you found these 4 points to be legitimate points of analyses for government doctrines.


Of the 3 governance doctrines we are analyzing, only Consent of the Governed explicitly states that government exists to protect the rights of the individuals governed. Both the Divine Right of Kings and Progressivism subordinate the Rights of the Individual to the Authority of the Government.

Divine Right of Kings and Progressivism limit the freedom of most individuals through a class system. Under the Divine Right of Kings, Government succession is supposed to occur through heirs. Aristocrats are supposed to come from the Aristocrat class and your trade will likely be whatever the trade of your father was. Under Progressivism, certain persons from the Wealthy leisure class will be selected to become Educated Elites. Hence, though Progressivism proclaims its intent to erase any class system, it is in fact built on a class system.

Under the Divine Rights of Kings, individuals don’t have rights. Instead they may receive permissions and privileges at the whim of the King and usually as reward for demonstrations of loyalty or in a quid pro quo arrangement for payment and/or other consideration. Under Progressivism, the permissions and privileges exchange system is cloaked in something called “Progressive Education”. Individuals are “educated” to learn to subordinate their personal interests and desires for the best interests of the community as determined by the Educated Elites. Permissions and privileges are amongst the means of “educating” the masses to do what the Educated Elites of the Leisure Class have instructed the masses is best for the community.

  1. The individual establishes truth using their own observation and reason, rather than the Government Establishing Truth for the Individual;

Only Consent of the Governed calls for the individual to establish their own Truth using their own observations and reasoning.

Under Divine Right of Kings and Progressivism, a ruling class establishes what the Truth is and the individual is expected to accept that Truth without question.

Under Divine Right of Kings, Churches and the Aristocracy educated the individuals of the masses as to the truth using Superstition, Tradition and propaganda. In addition, there was withdrawal of permissions and privileges, shunning and banishment. And finally there was brute force, imprisonment, corporal punishment, torture and death. All of these were the “education” system under the Divine Right of Kings to teach the individual the Governments established Truth.

Under Progressivism, the Truth is established by a Government of Educated Elites selected from the Wealthy, Leisure Class. Instead of the Church, Progressives have “Progressive Education”. Progressive Education meaning traditional education as well as permissions and privileges for adhering to the Truth as established by the Educated Elites and revocation of permissions and privileges as well as reeducation, coercion and punishments for straying from Truth as established by the Educated Elites.

The Obama administration is premised on the conviction that pragmatic federal leaders with professional expertise should have the power to implement programs to solve the country’s problems.

David Brooks, Progressive Spokesman and writer at the New York Times

This writer asserts there can be no true liberty if the individual is not free to establish the truth for themselves.

Only Consent of the Governed permits maximum liberty for the individual and allows the individual to establish Truth for themselves. In this regard, only Consent of the Governed (Natural Law) meets this requirement to be a legitimate governance doctrine.

Both Divine Right of Kings and Progressivism greatly reduce the liberty of the individuals amongst the masses and do not allow the individual to establish Truth for themselves.


In that Divine Right of Kings, Consent of the Governed, Progressivism all use the Nature of Man in the Natural State as the Foundation for establishing the legitimacy, role and authority for their respective governance doctrines, it seems unnecessary to restate the obvious.

In the other hand, just to drive the point home, perhaps this analogy will make it easier for the allegedly superior Progressive Elites to tell this ignorant writer of the masses where he gets it wrong.

If one is going to raise and manage dairy cattle, it is simply common sense to learn the nature of dairy cattle and build the facilities in consideration of that nature than it is to just build the facilities and expect the cattle to adapt to the building. (And even that ignores the fact that humans have the right not to be forced to do things that is against there nature.)

A. Legitimate Government is founded on a true and correct understanding of the Nature of Man in the Natural State;

Having established the obvious, all that is left is to determine the True Nature of Mankind in the Natural State.

Divine Right of Kings says mankind “tends to be selfish, is sometimes altruistic and is not social”

Consent of the Governed says mankind “is social, with tendencies towards reason and tolerance but can be selfish”

Progressivism says mankind is “social and altruistic”

To this writer’s mind, the analogies he offered in Part 2, offer no other reasonable conclusion than that Locke was the most correct in stating that mankind is a social animal with tendencies towards reason and tolerance, who can be selfish.

Divine Right of Kings’ position that man is not a social animal is refuted by cave wall paintings and other observations of pre-government societies. This writer dismisses Divine Right of King’s legitimacy on this point outright.

Progressivism is built on the premise that the nature of man in the natural state is one as a social animal who is altruistic. Among the examples that Progressive’s cite as pre-government societies are the island tribes of the Caribbean upon the arrival of Columbus.(Before exploring this farther, this writer directs the reader to the writer’s proposed “Nature of Man” analogies from Part 2.)

First, there is a principle in science known as the “Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle”. This principle says that the closer you get to something so you can observe it better, the more your presence interferes with its natural state. For our purposes, it is like when your family has company over. Everyone is on their best behavior in front of the company. And the natives were greeting Columbus and his crew as God’s. This writer submits that the natives that greeted Columbus were not being altruistic, they were worshipping Gods.

Beyond that, to this writer’s mind, the Progressive position of mankind’s nature being one of altruism is fraught with errors in reason and other explanations as to the native’s behavior; The primary being environment.

The native’s Columbus encountered were on a lush, tropical island. They could remain naked year round and get food year round easily. When one is not suffering from constant and/or regular shortages, one is far more willing to act altruistically towards others. These environmental conditions do not reflect the environment of most of the world. Meanwhile, a short distance away, the Mayans, Inca’s and Aztec were engaging in some selfish, non-altruistic behaviors such as human sacrifice, genocide and warfare.

Still further, this writer submits that factors other than innate altruism resulted in the observed behaviors of natives that Columbus encountered. Transparency, Accountability and Dawkin’s Selfish Gene much better explain the behavior of the Natives that greeted Columbus.

They lived in smaller communities where most of the individuals were related to a far greater degree than communities today. In that situation, behaving altruistically has a high probability of resulting in some of the genes you share in common with the person you help, being transmitted into the next generation. In simplest terms, even today Aunts and Uncles often dote on nieces and nephews. That is not general altruism towards all humans; that is selective altruism based on selfish competition explained by Selfish Gene Theory to maximize reproductive success of the gene.

On the other hand, selfish urges were curtailed, not because they did not exist, but rather because there was a much higher probability of being confronted, caught and held accountable for the theft. Transparency and Accountability are much greater deterrents to selfishness in communities of 300 than in communities of 3 million. (Hence the adage: Everyone knows everyone’s business in a small town)

To some this all up and drive home the point, consider this. If you could create your own governance doctrine and implement it as a government, would you create one with the understanding that politicians tend to be altruistic or that they tend to be selfish? If this exercise does not establish in your mind the true nature of individuals of humankind, nothing can.

Progressivism is premised on altruism and that the Educated Elites of the Leisure Class will make decisions for the community based on altruism rather than their own selfish self interests. This idealist perception of the nature of man will be exploited if and when this governance doctrine becomes a government in the real world. Under Progressivism, the individuals of the masses will be stuck in a perpetual logic loop similar to that of the Divine Right of Kings. That being:

  1. You say the Educated Elites (King) is wrong?
  2. IF yes, the Educated Elites (King) can’t be wrong, so you must be wrong.
  3. Therefore, we will re-“Educate” you.
  4. Repeat

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Lord Acton

Consent of the Governed is based on the nature of politicians to be selfish, and makes provisions for that nature of man within its social contract.

Progressivism and the Divine Right of Kings are based on forcing the individual to submit to the nature of the government.

Only Consent of the Governed is based on the True Nature of Mankind and does not seek to force mankind to adapt to the nature of government.


The fact of the matter is that Hobbes’s Divine Right of Kings was written as an explanation of the already existing Monarchy and Feudal System. In fact of the masses, questioning the authority of the King and Church, Hobbes provided Divine Right of Kings as the basis, role and authority for the Aristocracy and Church. The only social contract Divine Right of Kings really has is “The King is always right because he is guided by the Divine God. As such, no earthly being can challenge the Kings authority or decisions”

Progressivism says the Educated Elites know what is best for the community because they had the wealth that permitted them to study governance. The Educated Elites determine the Truth of what is best for the community. The Progressive Social Contract essentially says that anyone who does not agree with the Educated Elite is wrong is contaminated with the old evil ways of individualism, competition, free markets, and capitalism. Therefore all who believe the Educated Elites to be wrong must be reeducated.

Only Consent of the Governed’s Social Contract contains the provisions required in the Social Contract. Consent of the Governed, implicit in its name, commands that the individual must consent to be governed. It provides that if the government does not act in accordance with the social contract, the individual and a mass majority, can amend the government, or opt out of the governance by peaceful and/or violent revolution.

  • The individual consents to be governed of their own free will;

Present in Consent of the Governed, Not Present in Divine Right of Kings nor Progressivism;

  • The individual has certain unalienable rights which legitimate government protects;

In Divine Right of Kings, individuals have no rights and can own now land. Individuals only get permissions and privileges.

In Consent of the governed, individual rights are subordinate to the best interests of the community. Property y is owned by the State. Individuals get permissions and privileges for obeying the Educated Elites.

Protection of the Rights of Individuals is the first provision of the social Contract of Consent of the Governed. Consent of the Governed is the only one of the 3 governance doctrines that we are examining that makes that provision.

  • The individual has the right to peacefully dissent without fear of reprisal or punishment,

No right to peaceful dissent occurs under Divine Right of Kings or Progressivism. Under Divine Right of Kings, Peaceful dissent can result in revocation of permissions and privileges, shunning, banishment, imprisonment and corporal punishment. Like Divine Right of Kings, Progressivism provides for revocation of permissions and privileges, shunning, imprisonment and/or corporal punishment but euphemistically calls these ‘education” and/or “reeducation”.

Consent of the Government provides for peaceful dissent to be an unalienable right of the individual.

  • The governed have the right to amend the governance doctrine in furtherance of its legitimate goals, and;

As there is no right to peaceful dissent under either Divine Right of Kings or Progressivism; there is no provision in the social contract to allow the masses to amend said governance doctrines. In both case, the infinite loop of the “government is always right” precludes amendment of the governance doctrine by the masses.

Only Consent of the Governed anticipates the need of and provides for the ability of the mass majority to amend the Consent of the Governed governance doctrine.

  • The governed, when all else fails, and as a last resort, have the right to cast off the governance doctrine when it acts in a manner not consistent with the unalienable Rights of Individuals(except as punishment of crimes pursuant to the Rule of Law) and/or the social contract, through peaceful and/or violent revolution.

As there is no Right of the Individual to establish Truth for themselves, and individuals have no Rights and the government is always right under Divine Right of Kings, Divine Right of Kings provides no Right of Revolution for the individual or the mass majority.

As there is no Right of the Individual to establish Truth for themselves, and individuals must subordinate their individual rights to the best interests of the community, and the government is always right under Progressivism, Progressivism provides no Right of Revolution for the individual or the mass majority. Only endless “reeducation” loops.

Only Consent of the Governed Provides the Individual and/or the mass majority the Right of Revolution.

  1. The actual outcome of the governance doctrine as it is practiced in the real, physical world fulfills the terms expressed in the Social Contract(Void for Fraudulent Representations);

This writer asserts that the Divine Right of Kings was never a legitimate governance doctrine. It was a fraudulent attempt to retroactively provide legitimacy to an aristocracy and the church having unrepresentative power and taking a disproportionate portion of the value created by labor. As it is a fraud on its face, it does not past muster as a legitimate governance doctrine.

Progressivism was catalyzed by the corruption of the Government, the Trusts, big business and banking. Yet, Progressivism proposes making the Wealthy Leisure Class the source of the Educated Elites that will decide what is in the best interests of the community? Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Progressivism would have the masses believe that the Educated Elites chosen from the Wealthy Leisure Class will act ALTRUSTICALLAY toward the masses and the community.

The Progressive Legislation of the Federal Reserve Banking System and Social Security demonstrate conclusively that the Educated Elite will not act altruistically or intelligently.

WE THE PEOPLE pay the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank $25 Billion per year to mismanage our money supply, the value of our money and our economy as demonstrated in Part 2 of this series. The Educated Elite caused WE THE PEOPLE to incur a debt to the Federal Reserve Bank that can never be repaid. And WE THE PEOPLE are not allowed to audit the Federal Reserve Bank? And the owners of that privately owned Federal Reserve Bank use that $25 Billion (and more) to bribe our elected officials to act in a manner not consistent with the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE. How is any of this altruistic?

And that just scratches the surface of the selfish nature of the Educated Elites of the Progressive Federal Reserve Bank. Before this writer even knew the Federal Reserve Bank was a Progressive Managerial Governance Entity, he was critical of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Why the US Federal Reserve Bank System is unconstitutional and must end

And then we have 75+ years of Social Security revenue dumped in the general fund with no provision to cover the future liabilities. Why? So the corrupt politicians, big business and the Progressive Educated Elites could skim a little money off without being noticed as the money was being spent. How again were the Progressive Educated Elite acting altruistic in behaving in this manner?

To follow the fraudulent representations a little farther, how does taking rights away from the individuals that comprise the masses, address the original concerns of corruption of the government, the Trusts, big business and the Wealthy?

It seems to this writer that the Progressive Educated Elites of the Wealthy Leisure Class really intend to take away the right of the masses to hold the government accountable.

Under Progressivism, Educated Elites are always right. If an individual from the masses, for example says, “The Federal Reserve is a Rip off”, The Educated Elites respond by saying, “You are wrong.” Further, they elaborate by saying, “You are wrong because you have been contaminated by the old, evil ways of individualism, competition, free markets and capitalism.”

Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year. The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.

David Brooks, Progressive Political Operative and writer at the New York Times

The writer submits that the originators and promoters of the Progressive governance doctrine have made fraudulent representations as to the nature and intent of said governance doctrine. It proposes to take away the rights of the victimized masses to correct the problems of corruption of the government, the trusts, big business and the wealthy. And then it proposes that the wealthy, having the leisure time to study governance, should be the pool from which the Educated Elites should be selected. Progressivism almost unbelievably then proclaims that the offspring of the same wealthy that selfishly ripped off the masses, catalyzing the Populists and Progressives, are altruistic by nature and should be trusted to run the country.

The real life examples of the outcomes of the Federal Reserve Banking System and Social Security demonstrated the stated representations of Progressivism’s nature and likely outcomes were/are fraudulent.

As such, WE THE PEOPLE have the right to dismiss its legitimacy because of the fraudulent representations it asserted in gaining acceptance amongst some portion of the masses.

Consent of the governed made no such fraudulent misrepresentation. The shortcomings of Consent of the Governed can be found not in its Foundation and Premises but rather in its implementation by imperfect men in a real physical world. The government based on Consent of the Governed must be amended to reflect and correct its imperfections.

In Summation, neither Divine Right of Kings nor Progressivism pass muster as legitimate governance doctrines. Divine Right of Kings and Progressivism share the following attributes.

  1. Government establishes Truth;
  2. Rulers (Kings/Educated Elites) are chosen from a historic particular class of people;
  3. Individuals do not have unalienable rights;
  4. The best interests of the community are established by the rulers
  5. Best interests of the Individual are subordinate best interests of the community.
  6. Property is owned by the State;
  7. There is no right to revolution.

Now, if what these 7 points mean to the individual evades you, this writer encourages you to read the portion of the following article:

Natural Law: How WE THE PEOPLE got to the 4th of July, 1776 - Part 1 of 2

that summarizes the thought processes of an individual (the thatcher) as he goes about his daily life under the illegitimate governance doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. (This was written before this writer did extensive research on Progressivism) Now consider how much more difficult daily life would be under the illegitimate governance doctrine of Progressivism, with all the wonders of computer technology and drones at their disposal. #Progressivism is just simply the worst case scenario of Orwell's 1984 Big Brother.

With that, we have now kicked the wheels of the 3 governance doctrines of Divine Right of Kings, Consent of the Governed and Progressivism. That sporty Progressive Sports car appears to just be a re-engineered version of the Divine Right of Kings Jalopy. On first appearance it appears to be a keeper but closer inspection reveals that she is not all that she appears to be. That Progressive Sports car appears to be nothing but that Divine Right of Kings Jalopy held together with bondo, glue and duct tape and an engine full of sawdust to keep down the noise of an engine about to collapse… Progressivism appears to be the kind of vehicle likely to strand you in the middle of nowhere with no cell phone service and no help in sight.

As this writer stated at the beginning of this conclusion, he is sure some idealistic, rank and file Progressives are sincere in believing that the ideal implementation of Progressivism will heal the unfairness and injustices that exist in modern day America. This writer empathizes, agrees and enthusiastically embraces that desire to right said injustice and unfairness.

To wit, there indeed are injustices caused by the corruption of the trusts, big business and government that must be addressed, but this writer stridently asserts:


In Progressivism’s ideal implementation, Progressivism will not work because it is built upon the flawed premise that individuals are altruistic and not selfish by nature.

In Progressivism’s implementation by imperfect individuals in the reality of the real, physical world, Progressivism simply forms a new, less overt aristocracy. In this reality, Progressivism appears to the rank and file governed as operating in the best interest of society, but in the net result makes the corruption and abuse of power more plausibly deniable with the ruling class again receiving a disproportionate share of the value created by labor.

Progressivism seeks to trade our liberty for its benefactors and/or leaders personal gain with the duplicitous representation that its intent is to free rank and file labor from unfair exploitation by Capitalists.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this entire article has been written within the Perspective of Reality of Locke’s Natural Law from which the governance doctrine of Consent of the Governed is derived. This writer has told you his observations, asked you to compare his observations to your observations and then asked you to determine the TRUTH for yourself using your own reasoning.

If this writer was writing from the Progressive Perspective of Reality this writer would just tell you this is the correct way to think, be free to deceive, coerce or reward you to agree, and expect you to accept the truth as determined by this writer. (By the way, under the Progressive governance doctrine this writer would not even have the credentials nor right to presume to establish truth because he would not be one of the Educated Elites with enough leisure time to fully study the field of governance) Under Progressivism, you would have NO CHOICE but to accept the position of Educated Elite. Regardless of your preferred party affiliation, if you are a true, red blooded American Patriot you are revolted at this aspect of the Progressive perspective of reality.

Progressive Education

Educated Elites, you should stop reading now because this writer is about to depart from your standard of decorum as you were warned at the beginning of this article... The purpose in departing from decorum being to drive home points by using urban and youthful vernacular & colloquialisms.

Under Progressivism, Truth is established by the Educated Elite. The Truth is transmitted to the individuals comprising the masses through "Progressive Education".

The Progressive Education that Progressivism prescribes would be known in the hood as the “beat down” and/or “being played. “Beat down” being physically and/or verbally attacking someone so many times that they give up resistance and resign themselves to the situation. “Being played” meaning falling for a lie someone tells you to manipulate you to do something not in your own best interest. Progressive Education means conditioning, coercing, rewarding and/or punishing you to accept what they say as the truth and acting accordingly. In popular, youthful urban culture" and in the “hood”, that is what is known as making someone your “bitch.”

This writer submits to you that there are only two types of people who would want to be identified as being a Progressive. Those willing to be someone’s bitch and those that want to make others their bitch. Which one are you? Unless you are a member of the Wealthy, Leisure Class, the only role the Educated Elite will let you play is that of being their bitch. Why would any self respecting person agree to be associated with the Progressive Movement? How do you like Progressivism now?

Progressive Managerial Governance

In these next two paragraphs, this writer will attempt to clearly demonstrate how the thought process of Progressives will be implemented in the real world.

Remember now, under Progressivism, Truth is established by the Educated Elites selected from amongst the Wealthy Leisure Class. The Educated Elite are never wrong. What they say is the best interests of the community must be accepted as the best interests of the community. If you disagree, you are wrong and must be re-“educated”. (Doesn’t this sound like what happens to political dissenters in Marxist Communist Countries?)

Now under Progressive Managerial Governance, Government bureaucrats have the right to use their resources to create social change the government desires. And the lines between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branch of Government are blurred, so Executive bureaucrats no longer just adhere to legislation and higher bureaucrats.

Now let’s take an Progressive organization, like the FBI, who is just supposed to investigate persons who break the law and turn them over for prosecution by the Justice Department for judgment by the Judiciary.

If the Educated Elites decide that a particular race of people are “not in the best interests of society”, and the Progressive Managerial bureaucrats can blur the lines between the branches of government, what might be the result?

Purpose of counter-intelligence action is to disrupt [Black Panther Party] and it is immaterial whether facts exist to substantiate the charge. If facts are present it aids in the success of the proposal but the Bureau feels … that disruption can be accomplished without facts to back it up.

J Edgar Hoover, FBI Director 1935-1972 Memo (16 Sept. 1970)


King now became the chief target of the FBI, which tapped his private phone conversations, sent him fake letters, threatened him, blackmailed him, and even once in an anonymous letter suggested he commit suicide. FBI internal memos discussed finding a black leader to replace King. As a Senate report on the FBI in 1976 reported, the FBI tried “to destroy Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

A People’s history of the United States by Howard Zinn Page 462


No holds were barred. We have used [similar] techniques against Soviet agents. [The same methods were] brought home against any organization against which we were targeted. We did not differentiate. This is a rough, tough business.

Senate Committee Report on Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the FBI and COINTELPRO

Progressive beliefs and Progressive Managerial Governance allow things like this to happen. Educated Elites establish the best interests of the community and managerial method provides the freedom of bureaucrats to advance policies to promote the best interests of the community as dictated by the Educated Elites.

This writer is unable to comprehend how any person of color would be associated with Progressivism knowing it is rooted in Scientific Racism, Eugenics and Second Class Citizenship for certain groups of people.

For all the criticism of Jefferson and the Founder’s allowing slavery, was it not Consent of the Governed and the Constitution they penned under which blacks gained their freedom and civil rights.

This writer submits, and the evidence supports, that if the Progressive governance doctrine were in place at the time of the Civil War of the 1860’s or the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s minorities would have been stuck in the perpetual education loop of Progressivism and not have won emancipation and civil rights.

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.

It is Consent of the Governed’s provision for the individual to establish the Truth and the Right to Peaceful Dissent that it extends to the individual which made emancipation possible and the civil rights movement successful.

White men, who had argued to King George that there were certain self evident truths that all men were created equal and have certain unalienable rights, were forced to listen to their own arguments being used on themselves to persuade and/or force them to recognize the equality of women and people of color. It may not have been pretty, but then, the democratic process has always been messy.


This writer asserts our US Constitution has been broken and WE THE PEOPLE have failed to adhere to the prescribed maintenance schedule.

Progressives want to replace the American Constitution with the Progressive Governance Doctrine. Yet instead of redressing certain avenues of corruption and exploitation of labor by capitalists, Progressives propose only that Educated Elites chosen from the Wealthy Leisure Class will act altruistically to solve all of society’s problems. This as opposed to this writer’s sincere efforts to curb corruption and abuse of power and wealth.

Using Progressivism’s fondness for the Theory of Evolution, this writer asserts the following: Consent of the Governed allowed America to evolve to become the greatest country on earth. Rather than make our Constitution extinct, shouldn’t we amend and evolve her? This writer prefers we repair and upgrade our Constitution and adhere to the maintenance schedule prescribed by the Founders.

But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.

Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, (4 March 1837)

We will discuss these repairs, upgrades and maintenance in future articles. In the meantime, this writer has written articles for years proposing changes to banking, the judicial system, campaign finance reform, transparency in government finances and accountability and many others. Doesn’t any sincere attempt to reform our government have to include these elements?

Some of those the titles for those future articles may be:

  • Don Mashak’s Unifying Theory of American Government and Political History;
  • Selling/Leasing National Resource at Fair Market Price;
  • Campaign Finance Reform – The Nuclear Option;
  • Did the Founder’s Trust the Judicial Branch too much?
  • Mandating the best interests of Community in the Artificial Incorporation Process;
  • Mandating the best interests of Community in the licensing of financial institutions;
  • Mandating Profit sharing in all artificial institutions with more than 100 employees after 100 years of existence;
  • Bringing Home the Politicians;
  • Comparison of the Superior American Methods of Political Oppression to those of the former USSR;
  • Identifying the Artificial, Parasitical Aristocracy of America;
  • Identifying Artificial, Parasitical Institutions of America;
  • TAR - Transparency, Accountability and Reform
  • Incentivizing Peaceful Revolution;
  • Don Mashak’s Evolution of Society - Consent of the Governed 2.0.

Progressivism is merely an elaborate ruse to dupe the masses in accepting essentially the same terms and conditions of the Divine Right of Kings while advertising itself in a more palatable light as a means for Labor to prevent its exploitation by the Trusts, Big Business and the Wealthy.

This writer can summarize his opinion of the thought process of Progressives this pointedly:

Progressives have essentially joined Hobbes in claiming they have “squared the circle”.

At the same time, it is important that Progressives who have reached the conclusion that they don't like the Progressive vision, do not despair. This writer did not go untouched in his immersion into the Progressive thought process. This writer, and many other Americans, are still committed to the need to reform the corruption and disparity of wealth that this corruption has created.

Too much of the value that only labor created has been used to perpetuate the the corruption of our government. In future articles, this writer will expose many of the duplicitous ways a disproportionate amount of the value created by only labor is taken from labor. It is not our Constitution and/or Free Markets that caused this as Progressive Leaders would have you believe. It is the corrupt acts of individuals used to circumvent our Constitution and Free Markets which have allowed this.

Mr. David Brooks (and all others who want a piece of me) now is your opportunity to point out where this writer got it wrong and/or this writer made any misrepresentations. You have 15 days from today to post a responsive reply citing credible sources to respond. Let’s just call that October 1st, 2013, for easy remembrance. Mr. Brooks, your failure to meaningfully respond with specifics and credible citations will be interpreted as admission that the representations of this writer regarding Progressivism are overwhelmingly accurate. Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response. @DMashak & @WETHEPEOPLETAR

Those were my thoughts.

In Closing:

Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.

If what is written here rings true to you, perhaps another helpful exercise would be to ponder why you have not heard about this in your local paper or in the major media. [You may find articles about issues from this writer's local area posted in your area and wonder why. The reason is this: Remember those travel junkets taxpayers pay for (the ones the bureaucrats skip to go to the beach or the casino) but allegedly used for training? Well some government apparatchiks actually attend those training seminars. And learn nationally en-mass techniques to "manage" WE THE PEOPLE. Since they all receive similar training in oppression, it is likely the problems you are experiencing with government in your area are similar to the problems in your area (unless you live outside the USA). With that commonality in mind, it is this writer's intent that insight garnered from this writer articles about his local issues can be used by the reader to understand and applied to their local issues.]

Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [Last Paragraph, Declaration of Independence ]

This article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense”

Keep Fighting the Good Fight!

In Liberty, Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
Don Mashak Google Plus

The Conundrum: While our #Government works full time with compensation and funded with our money for the cause of #Tyranny; WE THE PEOPLE are forced to work part time without compensation for the cause of #liberty with what is left over of our time, money and energy,


End the Fed(eral Reserve Bank System) #ETF
National Minneapolis

Bring Home the Politicians #BHTP

Lawless America #LawlessAmerica

Term Limits #TermLimit

Justice in Minnesota #JIM

Critical Thinking Notice - This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking ( in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear. Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author... unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective


The Progressive Mind 1890-1917 David W. Noble (1981)

America Enters the World – A People’s History of the Progressive Era and World War I – Page Smith (1985)

The Annals of America 1895-1904 Volume 12 Populism, Imperialism and Reform Britannica (1965)

The Annals of America 1905-1915 Volume 13 The Progressive Era Britannica 1965

Rebirth of a Nation – The Making of a Nation 1877 – 1920 Jackson Lears 2009

The Selfish Gene – Richard Dawkins 1976

A People’s History of the United States 1492 to Present – Howard Zinn 1980, 2003

Special thanks to Monticello and Elk River Minnesota Public Libraries

And many internet and/or other sources too fluid and/or non-credible to cite as references



  • Mt. Everest avalanche
    Disaster strikes Mt. Everest as at least 12 people were killed in an avalanche
    Watch Video
  • Most Earthlike planet discovered
    The Kepler telescope has discovered the most Earthlike, possibly habitable planet yet
    Space News
  • Easter crosses create debate
    Easter crosses spark a debate of separation of church and state in Ohio
  • Chelsea Clinton is preggers
    Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton is pregnant with her first child
  • Stanley Cup playoffs
    The battle for Lord Stanley's Cup is on, don't miss a minute of playoff action
  • Ukraine discussed amongst U.S., E.U., Russia
    The U.S., E.U. and Russia agree on ways to diffuse the tension in Ukraine
    Watch Video

User login

Log in
Sign in with your email and password. Or reset your password.
Write for us
Interested in becoming an Examiner and sharing your experience and passion? We're always looking for quality writers. Find out more about and apply today!