How Progressive Policies are Designed for Civilizational Suicide

We all understand, in the timeless words of the poet Robert Burns, that the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry. Most Americans are accustomed to assessing the various failed initiatives of our country’s leaders as well-intended actions that turned out badly. The Vietnam, Afghan, and Iraq wars, the 2008 financial meltdown, and the COVID pandemic overreaction, all in hindsight, can be viewed as simply the unfolding of human stupidity in the contingency of time.

In accordance, it is understandable that many are inclined to believe that our country’s current serious problems are, once again, merely the failed result of well-intentioned policies. But what if, we ask, seemingly fumbled programs were intended to be the initial throes of civilizational suicide? What if apparent missteps were actually directed at the purposeful destruction of a prosperous, free, safe, and secure society?

As we examine the policies pushed by the Biden administration progressives regarding climate, national security, crime, and the border, we can rationally conclude that they are being purposely implemented to render our society unsuccessful, not successful, in its traditional aims, causing what could be the ultimate destruction of a thriving, liberal enlightenment society.

Let us begin with escalating climate mandates, now reaching gas stoves and tires, seeking the total elimination of fossil fuels. Because our mainstream media, more out of reflexive conformity than malevolence, constantly amplify climate alarmism, most Americans believe climate programs are designed in good faith to protect us from planetary disasters. Climate subsidies are aimed, they are led to believe, at increasing prosperity through good “green” jobs in emerging “green” industries, all part of the supposedly improved “Bidenomics” economy, however counterintuitive many think them to be.

When Biden, immediately upon assuming office, stopped issuing new drilling leases, canceled the Keystone Pipeline, and issued EPA regulations effectively shutting down multiple power plants in the near future, was he, however idealistically, trying to wean our country off of fossil fuels in favor of clean, “renewable” energy? If so, what could be wrong with that?

If the administration had calculated that lost energy from stifling fossil fuel sources could actually be replaced, these initiatives, even if overly optimistic, could be viewed as well-intended.

However, within the climate camp, it has been well known that fossil fuels, which power 82% of world energy needs, cannot conceivably be replaced by renewable energy to any substantial degree. So, as these policies take effect over the coming years, our hospitals and medical centers, relying on petroleum-based plastic furniture, fixtures, and equipment, energy-dependent stainless-steel implements, and high-power physical plants, will be hit hard. Health care costs will soar, while treatment will decrease to emerging society levels. Our food costs, already rising dramatically, will skyrocket as petroleum fertilizer, now tripling yields, becomes economically impractical. Housing costs, dependent on fuel-powered equipment and concrete and steel needing massive energy inputs to manufacture, will put homeownership out of reach for all but the rich and reduce housing to cramped, third-world levels. And, of course, transportation will become an expensive luxury for both people and products.

But isn’t this all meant well? For trusting, uncritical moderates and traditional liberals, yes. For the progressives pulling the strings, no.

Maurice Strong, the Canadian socialist responsible for steering the United Nations into the bureaucratic sinecures of the climate alarmist IPCC, has stated from the outset that his intention is the diminishment of the wealth of the Western industrialized nations, making them more like less-advantaged societies.

Although they tout their certainty, climate warriors conceal that for decades, their computerized GCMs (General Circulation Models) have overpredicted global warming by 300%. Well, they respond when confronted by the knowledgeable, the increased heat was swallowed by the oceans, or perhaps tamped down by those pesky aerosols. They know better, but gullible, well-intentioned believers do not.

Documents from a key IPCC research center in East Anglia, the GRU, reveal the fear of climate activists that the public will learn of the Medieval Warm Period and that its temperatures were warmer than today without any claimed assistance from carbon dioxide. Progressive climatologists, in essence, know they are pushing a canard.

Progressive border policies need little discussion. When Biden was elected, the country was led to believe that he would aim to control the southern border, but do so in a humane, non-Trump manner, no longer putting children in cages (which in truth and in fact were Obama-inspired).

Of course, to any rational observer, it is now clear that the massive invasion at our southern border was intended by progressives. The “great replacement” theory is not needed to prove this invasion intentional, obvious to any observer. Three-star New York hotels and thousand-dollar-a-month payments to migrants? Free health care? These are among the positive incentives to illegally migrate, revealing intentionality after the maligned Trump proved that the border was substantially controllable.

The intended result of mass migration is not just new Democratic voters; the most obvious result. It is, more significantly, a deliberately overwhelming burden on our social welfare system, heretofore supported sufficiently by taxes on a powerful economy. With more unemployment and more burdens on social welfare, the progress of the aspiring poor, primarily minorities, will be crushed. Our society is headed, as intended by progressives, to socialism, which, as Winston Churchill noted, has “as its greatest virtue the equal sharing of misery.”

Moving to national security, the tinderbox of the Middle East was not caused by Trump’s irrational temperament, which, in hindsight, has proven its deterrent value. Rather, putting Obama’s progressive policies on steroids, Biden both directly sent cash to Iran and also removed oil sanctions, giving the country financial power to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and, of course, Iran’s own depredations on U.S. troops. Biden’s special Iran envoy, the pro-Hamas Rob Malley, and other pro-Iran and pro-Hamas officials influence our Middle East policy to intentionally favor our enemies.

But what could be the progressive motive for Iran’s hegemony in the Middle East? Clearly, it is to cause the demise of “right-wing” leadership in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, all American allies, so that the region will be controlled by anti-American repressive regimes. Interestingly, progressives revealed their anti-democratic, authoritarian roots by supporting Mullahs who kill members of the LGBT community and subdue women. Again, Iran’s terrorism is not an unfortunate artifact of balanced statesmanship. Rather, it is intended to exterminate a democratic Jewish society and a Saudi regime seeking to modernize itself. In a remarkable exercise in projection, progressives at the same time deem Trump to be a Hitler stand-in.

Similarly, the cause of increasing crime in our cities is no mystery. Progressives applauded, not decried, the George Floyd mayhem, largely an exercise in looting. Beautiful cities such as San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and Los Angeles, all run by progressives, have become dystopian hellholes.

So, sincere, well-meaning liberals should, but generally do not, see that they are being led like lemmings to the sea, toward civilizational suicide, by the progressives they have long trusted as being in the liberal leadership, not the socialist vanguard.

In the nineteenth century, the brilliant French observer of American culture, Count Alexis de Tocqueville, said that democratic despotism would be effectuated, if at all, not by overt state terror but by the infantilization of a trusting population. The evidence is now clearly established that moderate liberals should face reality and reject the policies of the progressive vanguard, leading them into civilizational suicide.


John D. O’Connor is a former federal prosecutor and the San Francisco attorney who represented W. Mark Felt during his revelation as Deep Throat in 2005. O’Connor is the author of the books, Postgate: How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate and Began Today’s Partisan Advocacy Journalism and The Mysteries of Watergate: What Really Happened.

Get the news corporate media won't tell you.

Get caught up on today's must read stores!

By submitting your information, you agree to receive exclusive AG+ content, including special promotions, and agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms. By providing your phone number and checking the box to opt in, you are consenting to receive recurring SMS/MMS messages, including automated texts, to that number from my short code. Msg & data rates may apply. Reply HELP for help, STOP to end. SMS opt-in will not be sold, rented, or shared.

Notable Replies

  1. Mr. O’Connor is obviously questioning the logic in Hanlon’s razor.

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

    And though many in this administration (i.e. Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and of course, none other than pudding brain himself) are certainly, buffoonish, I think we’d be wise to accept Mr. O’Connor’s assertion that appearances aside, malice certainly seems to be the driving motivation behind most of the policies of the Biden Administration.

    Come to think of it, perhaps “fundamental transformation” was always code for Cloward-Piven.

  2. Avatar for task task says:

    You credit them with only stupidity. They are not that stupid. Consider that the greatest obstacle to learning is Willful Blindness. They will not accept reason, logic and truth because emotion enhances what may be the greatest of all sins…pride.

  3. The human animal can rationalize anything to justify bad behavior. We’ve even invented a term to describe it—monologuing. Every Bond villain would treat 007 to a lengthy discourse on why their pet world domination scheme would ultimately turn out to better all of humanity. if only most of humanity would kindly die in the process.

    Klaus Schwab of the WEF monologues at every summit. John Kerry monologues even before descending the stairs of his private jet. The W.H.O.'s Tedros is awfully fond of monologuing-----especially lately as he tries to sell and defend his pet project to remove sovereignty from every nation on earth. So it isn’t as if they haven’t warned us.

    Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between the puppet masters and the puppets. There are so many strings attached in so many directions, it is hard to tell who is pulling which string. There are also a legion of Pinocchio’s who are eager to dance to any tune without the use of strings at all because they are so deep into a particular ideology that logic and reason escapes them.

    Sadly, for those of us who look upon all of the madness in horror, it is difficult–no matter how wildly we wave our arms—to get those go-along-to-get-along types to wake up to the danger.

    Perhaps some will wake up. Brett Weinstein, speaking on Joe Rogan’s program speculated that if only parts of the master plan are put into operation, we might be facing a mere 100 years of darkness, but his greatest fear is that the plan will be entirely successful, resulting in a extinction level event for all of humanity.

    We’ve faced civilizational collapse before-----the Bronze Age collapse, the Fall of Rome, the European cycles of plague----but each were regional in nature. Today, everything is connected world wide. And that scary thought leaves me very pessimistic when thinking about the future.

  4. Ah, but the useful idiots will remain idiots because virtue signaling has replaced virtue in our culture. The vapid masses have embraced outward appearance as the standard of excellence instead of personal worth & substance of character. Thinking requires ruthless honesty directed both inwardly and outwardly, a willingness to come to unpopular opinion and the ability to hold your course despite pressure from multiple directions. Frankly, few people have those qualities, particularly when it potentially will make their lives “uncomfortable”. And, no, it isn’t an unintended consequence.

  5. Au contraire, dear task, I credit them with malice. But certainly hubris cannot be ignored, as the arrogance of DC’s tyrant class is not to underestimated.

Continue the discussion at community.amgreatness.com

5 more replies


Avatar for Sanders Avatar for themadgardener Avatar for afhack73 Avatar for Maximus-Cassius Avatar for Mariner Avatar for Everett_Brunson Avatar for system Avatar for task