Top Ten Things Progressive Politicians Should Do To Prove They’re Progressive

By Jon Rappoport

It’s a simple premise: since so-called progressive politicians are incessantly meddling in other people’s business, telling them what they should and shouldn’t do, these progressives should demonstrate their own values by exemplifying them in their own lives.

Why not? If the values are virtuous, what harm could result? Only good could come of it.

One: To improve your life, to make it better, bring at least three single-male illegal immigrants, between 18 and 25 years of age, into your home to live. Provide a sanctuary. If you own several homes, settle several of these immigrants into each, as full-time residents.

Two: Give up all your guns. Fire your armed security personnel.

Three: Immediately receive all vaccinations listed on the CDC expanded schedule. Don’t worry about the aluminum, the formaldehyde, and other toxic chemicals in the shots. Ignore the fact that no proper studies have been done assessing the effects of multiple vaccinations given in combination. Just keep quiet and take the shots.

Four: Those politicians who voted for the infamous Dark Act, which effectively banned Americans from knowing whether their foods contain GMOs: eat only GMO food with its increased load of pesticides. No worries.

Five: Go to war on any battlefield when war is declared. Join the infantry. Pick up a gun. Position yourself on the front lines. Kill or be killed.

Six: Take your children out of elite private schools and send them to public schools.

Seven: No more private jets. You believe in manmade global warming. Use only public transport. Have a deep analysis done of every wasteful CO2 practice you engage in, and eliminate it. Reduce your carbon footprint. Get rid of extra homes.

Eight: Participate fully in Obamacare. Cancel any other health insurance policy you have.

Nine: Sell the home you live in, and move to a neighborhood where illegal immigrants have been newly resettled.

Ten: Divest yourself of all monies inherited or gained through investments, since these are signs of Privilege. If you’re still in the top tax bracket, pay 90% of you annual income to the federal government.

There is more—for example, since you support Antifa, refuse the help of the police under any and all circumstances—and since you champion the DOJ and the FBI, warmly accept full government surveillance of your conversations stemming from FISA court warrants—but those above ten actions will start you off in the right direction. I’m sure you’ll feel better, knowing you’re personally living the improved life you want everyone else to live.

It’s a win-win, isn’t it?

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

14 Comments on "Top Ten Things Progressive Politicians Should Do To Prove They’re Progressive"

  1. This is the stupidest article Rappaport has written yet. Individual solutions do not solve collective problems. If they did, if private charity worked, there would not be millions dying of starvation, over 2 billion living in abject poverty on less than $3 a day. Trump’s garment workers in Bangladesh make $60 a month. Where is the individual help? The binary thinking of individualism vs collectivism is a false choice: strong communities create strong individuals. We the People is “a collective.”
    Trashing progressives started with Hitler and Mussolini. Boring and stupid. If you trash liberals, you are in the fascist tradition. Liberals, Social Democrats, and Communists were the first people Hitler sent to the concentration camps, Dachau 1933.

    Think about it before having a kneejerk reaction.

    • There’s your problem, you are a collectivist.

      • We are all born into a collective, the family, the community. Your response is simplistic and absurd.

        • Actually the term collective has been misapplied to many sectors of society. The family unit isn’t a collective nor is a community. The collective is used in support of an illusion,

          Though Mr. Rappoport is kind of stretching it here, or has devolved to the level of the globalist mentality to produce argument. Play by your rules, never respond to them unless you know their rules.

          • Collective means any enterprise characterized by co-operation. The term became a curse word used by those opposed to any ideology other than individualism. A team is a collective. The important issue with collectives, from my value system, is that they be run democratically and with respect for all.

            The Constitution begins with a statement of collective identitity: We the People. A collective is more than a collection of individuals but a social organism greater than the sum of its parts: collectives, depending on how they are run, can enhance or diminish the value of the individuals involved.

            This is not an ideological interpretation of the term, which is often the case in political debates. Margaret Thatcher went so far as to say there is no such thing as society, only individuals. The individual, from my holistic perspective, is an abstraction, meaning a part removed from the whole in which it exists, whereas in fact no individual could exist without the co-operation and help of the collectives into which we are born. A collective as a group that co-operates can be “natural” as with the family, or deliberate, as with a trade union or a sports team.

            We need to remove the word from the ideological battlefield and understand it in its root meaning as a co-operative enterprise. Collectives can be good or evil: the Nazi Party was a collective, but so is every charity.

          • Huh, seems that you have missed the social engineering and psychological aspects by referring to the dictionary definition. Anything can be good or evil, but if given time and in most cases the evil seems to prevail over the intentions of the good.

          • Dictionary definition is how a word is commonly understood; seems you are using the right wing propaganda definition. Putting the welfare of the group (or family or community or nation or humanity) ahead of the private welfare of the individual is the halllmark of collectivism. The individualist demonization of the collective arose to justify the theft of the commons by private individuals.

            Even the Constitution endorses collectivism, making it the duty of government to “promote…and provide for the general welfare” The general welfare is understood to be all that is of benefit to all minus all that benefits only individuals (special interests etc). Putting the common good above individual benefits is the agenda of collectivism. An example would be allowing pollution, which pads the pockets of the polluters while degrading the air we all breath.

            The claim that collectivism or pursuing the general welfare is evil is made by those seeking to turn over the common wealth to private individuals, as under the old English Enclosure laws or the corrupt privatization schemes in Russia and the US.

          • You lost me just after the Alinsky tactics, 5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.“ General Welfare is a misdirect from the SJW humanitarian Globalist social engineering psychological paradigm. Under the guise of general welfare, the individual is the best keeper of his or her own affairs, the law can only defend and protect the individual rights of life, liberty and property/pursuit of happiness. The Constitutional Congress debates are in the Library of Congress, please view them then we can more freely debate our subjective opinions of the topic at hand. Edit, I’ll use the Alinsky tactic’s also because they aren’t specific to any cause if carefully considered. 11. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.“ I’m sure we will move from here to logical fallacies and confirmation bias’s, because that’s how the collective paradigm works…

          • The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution .
            Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States.”

            A good example is promoting clean air and water and protection against crime. This benefits everyone. Individuals cannot achieve this; it requires government which is collective action. When government is taken over by corporations, the general welfare is abandoned with laws that allow pollution, etc.

            Individualism is a modern doctrine designed to justify the destruction of the common wealth. I gave you examples; you ignored.

            Real individuals, as opposed to the ideology of individualism, arise out of strong communities and are the beneficiaries of government action which “promotes…and provides for the general welfare,” as we all benefit from a clean environment, protection, social safety nets, etc.

            Your ideological blinders may prevent you from absorbing this information. The common good is what is good for all. The right libertarian ( I am a left libertarian, a far older movement) idea that if Exxon pollutes your air, you should sue them is a patent absurdity, as Exxon has hundreds of lawyers and can even buy judges.

            To counter the tyranny of corporations requires collective forces such as labor unions (median US incomes are down 40% since Reagan destroyed the private sector union movement) and government action to enforce pollution laws, fraud laws, etc. The individual is a pathetic force when pitted against gigantic corporations with huge armies of lawyers. I have been part of two important collective movements: the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-Vietnam War movement, where people united were able to create critical change that individuals, on their own, were powerless to effect.

            We need collective action to protect the rights of individuals, as was proved when the Feds moved the National Guard (a collective) to enforce integration laws against state resistance.

            Corporations are another form of a collective, totalitarian and authoritarian. I belong to a movement that goes back 4 centuries and rejects both state tyranny and corporate tyranny with a 3d alternative which democratic collectives of workers coops, ESOPS, and credit unions, and other forms of client or workers owned and controlled enterprises. This is the simple concept of democratic self-government expanded into all spheres of life, including the workplace and the economy. For examples, see the anarchist movement in Spain, Mondrogan, and the example of the Syrian Kurds who have adopted a social model built on the libertarian socialism of the late Murray Bookchin.

            Since libertarian socialism (or socialist libertarianism, or anarchist mutual aid society, or voluntary socialism) is banned in the corporate media and academia, you may not have heard of it and assume it is a n oxymoron, but it was those who invented the term libertarianism, and were the first to proclaim the equality of women and children, who fought the Marxists in their concept of “dictatorship of the proletariat,” arguing that all forms of dictatorship must be resisted.

            The US has thousands of successful workers coops, ranging from steel mills to grocery chains to the anarchist-inspired coops that make my bread and beer…forming a model of successful libertarian socialism in action. If you seek a movement which rejects all forms of of tyranny and thus the evil side of collective action, I urge you to read globally respected lib socialist like Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Gar Alperowitz and Richard Wolff. They are banned on the corporate media (an alternative to state AND corporate oppression is a dangerous idea to the status quo: a state controlled by the corporations) so you will have to go to their books or alternative media.

            Open your mind to new ideas, or rather old ideas long buried and censored by the powers that be.

          • Nice appeal to authority, lol. What about the impacts of the Magna Carta, or John Locke, maybe Frédéric Bastiat, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. The technological innovations have no true bearing on natural rights in respect to the individual wishes. The collective was established in 1913, I believe it is called the Federal Reserve act. One of the greatest revelations of the founding of this Nation is the 9th Amendement of the bill of rights,
            Amendment IX
            The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The ninth amendment states that any rights not specifically granted to the “people”, ie individual not collective rights, by the constitution are not necessarily denied to them either. The Constitution limits the Govt, which further research will establish that the general welfare would indicate that the people are best left to their own devices, ie free market, as those individuals see fit. In support of the free market Govt supported free trade based on the innovations and desires of the free society. sovereign
            one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty
            one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere
            One who is not a subject to a ruler or nation
            To ensure a separation of powers, the U.S. Federal Government is made up of three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. To ensure the government is effective and citizens’ rights are protected, each branch has its own powers and responsibilities, including working with the other branches. This can also be referred to as checks and balances in respect to the individual and their natural rights. As the majority of the political cultists are responsible for the election of the collectivists in public office, it is still the duty of these political cultists to ensure the individual rights of every person are not violated and respected. As an example, me using my 1st amendment right to declare myself as an individual and expressing my rights to be respected as such. You want free college get a job, your stature within society isn’t my problem but rather a concern of the collective which employs the ideologies of the cultists of socialism, take from the working class and give to the whiners that are afraid to get off their ass and seek to better themselves through individual effort and proper goal setting.
            an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman.
            John Locke’s most important ideas are about the rights of
            people and the purpose of government. Locke believed
            that governments exist to serve their people. Locke
            believed that governments must protect the life,
            liberty, and property of its citizens. He called these natural rights and argued that
            governments and other people cannot take them away from a person. He called them
            natural rights because he believed that all people are born with these rights. In the Legislative Branch, representatives are directly elected by the people to act in the best interest of their safety and security. As I read further, I have questions and fully realize the time spent researching will provide answers but also more questions. As long as I do no harm my rights as an individual are guaranteed and the collective have no bearing on my course. Therefore I’m allowed to live within my natural individual rights. The collective is for free stuff and the political cultists who wish to subvert the system to their advantage.
            I’m sure this subjective discussion will further degrade from this point, lmao. Kind of like discussion religion with a religious cultist.

          • You do realize that the Bill of Rights supports the natural rights of the individual and not the collective? Maybe include some research on George Mason. The collective has boys pee’ing in girls bathrooms last time I checked, lmao.

  2. what a jerk

  3. I enjoyed it, perhaps if the left actually followed the folly they believe in they would soon grow tired of their own spew.

Leave a comment