Extremism

If I am "extreme" then so is history.

If you google “extremism” and look at the images the search presents, it is clear that the algorithm has been taught that “extremism” is exclusively a right wing trait.

It has been alleged that I am sometimes "extreme".

I don't think that is completely true, at least in the context of my mind inventing things to worry about of which there is no evidence. I tend to try to illustrate extremism through the use the very words and actions of those I see as enemies, people and ideologies that are not just enemies of freedom – but enemies of humanity as well.

Something I've come to notice is that, at its root, every progressive policy is misanthropic. Like poisons, some are slow acting and some fast, but from abortion to euthanasia, they eventually kill and do so without remorse - because in their view, every human life is of little value (except for those of the highest priests and priestesses) and a common dogma is that the biggest problem on our planet is too many people.

They want to reduce that number, starting with the people who don't see it their way and then following up with a process foreshadowed by George Bernard Shaw, who proposed, on radio and in his own voice that:

“You must all know half a dozen people at least who are of no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”

Sounds a lot like the rhetoric generated at the World Economic Forum meetings in Davos, doesn't it?

It should, because there are a lot of Fabian Socialists who hold memberships in the WEF. Of course, they are now called "progressives", not Fabian Socialists - but birds of a feather do tend to flock together.

Godless communism is a reality - Marx demanded that God be removed - because in global communism, there can be no higher authority than the state. But without God, and since a soul is the creation of the Divine, man has no soul. The soulless man is useful to the collectivist, for if man has no soul, he is just another dumb animal, a beast of burden, and his value is determined solely by his usefulness to those in charge. He exists only to serve his master's needs, wants, and desires.

Shaw was a Fabian Socialist and as it turns out, the belief that man is a soulless beast is common within all flavors and levels of collectivism. Collectivism is not "for the people", it is "for some of the people", mostly those at the top. The rest of the "people" are simply chattel, livestock to be used and discarded.

It also follows from what Shaw said, and Marx wrote, that what F.A. Hayek proposed is also true, that the committed collectivist should be prepared to do things that shock the conscience because to him, those things are necessary to further the collectivist agenda. Concentration camps, genocide or slavery are no impediment to the agenda because these are necessary to provide the work or to isolate those who stand in the way of "progress."

Is my deduction extreme?

History says it is not.