Wednesday, February 12, 2020
Thursday, January 16, 2020
If you don't like the fake news media? Best thing you can do is go out and protest. If you don't believe me I can prove it to you. I'll even show you where a journalist has admitted this to be true. Sure, I am going to be at the March for Life next week so I do have a vested interest. But I have to tell you, I have those tingly little butterflies all in my stomach and I am so excited. It's been years since protesting has been considered "a thing" among conservatives, and I'm glad that a large number of conservatives are re-considering this foolish position.
Yes, I said it. Anybody who thinks its a waste of time for conservatives to protest has chosen a foolish position. Read below, I have the facts and I'm sure I can persuade you of why this is a wrong-headed belief. Conservatives MUST protest. We have a constitutional responsibility to do so.
First, and I won't spend much time on this because I'm sure you already know, the Governor of Virginia has declared a state of emergency ahead of a gun-rights protest planned for next Monday. He has engaged in a good propaganda to bring up the 2017 Charlottesville incident to bolster his case. Hopefully, Richard B. Spencer will not show up and if he does, I would hope that the good guys would kick out a bad guy like him.
But anyways, moving on to number two. Secondly, some people will remember how badly that the Tea Parties were treated by the media in 2009 and 2010. Much of that is a decade-old now at this point, so I'll move on to my last example.
Nicholas Sandmann. Do I really need to say anything else? The media put their full fear of conservative protesters on display here. The entire situation is full of the stench of it. You can't miss it, once you recognize that awful smell.
Now, these are of course anecdotal evidences. Let's ask an actual journo-list. Are conservative protesters more powerful than you mr. journo?
In 1886 William Thomas Stead published an article titled "Government by Journalism". Now as an aside note, you will absolutely find everything in here that you would expect to find - media manipulation by the press? Good plan! - according to Stead. But there is one thing in this that can be easy to overlook. He wrote: (audiobook is available)
Public meetings, it will be said, are superior even to newspapers
That's really it the core highlight. But here is the full paragraph because its so much better.
Public meetings, it will be said, are superior even to newspapers as exponents of public feeling. It is true, because a public meeting is the direct utterance of the voice of Demos without any intermediary. There is nothing in England so powerful as a series of public meetings. But public meetings cannot always be sitting. Their effect, although enormous and immediate, is evanescent. It is only when the popular mind is very excited that spontaneous meetings can be held, and hitherto the attempt to get up meetings by wire-pullers at Birmingham and elsewhere has not been a conspicuous success.
Those are the facts. This is not anecdotal. This is not my opinion. That's from an actual journalist.
Now, to use the language that he has used: a protest is, at its core, a super-charged public meeting. Furthermore, a public meeting in a building might be limited to seat count. So you have a building with 300 seats, hows that compare to a 50,000 person or more strong march down Pennsylvania avenue to then do a series of speeches and etc. event on the Capitol front lawn? Lasting half the afternoon too.
That's power. And yes, all journalists know this, they'll just usually try not to say it.
This brings us to the discussion of voter motivation, which we need to make a note of. It is quite clear that the person who drives across several state lines is a way more motivated voter than the guy who just only shows up to the local town hall that's 15 minutes from home.
So, let's understand why it is that a protest more powerful than the media. The reason really is the same reason that the media are more powerful than politicians. Politicians are "people" out in a "far off distant land", be it 500 miles from your house to your state capital, or 2000 miles from your state to Washington D.C. But the journalist? Often times, the journalist resides in your city. The local news channel is probably not far from your house. Moreover, the journalist on the nightly news is right there every evening, five days of the week, there in your living room. The journalist spends time with you and your family in these hour long time frames. Now I know that media has changed quite a bit from years gone by with just the nightly newscasts, but the same is still true to some extent for cable TV news.
But compare this relatively close-by journalist to the Tea Party organizer. Can you walk up to your TV and shake (insert name)'s hand? Can you carry a conversation with this person? No, of course not, that's a sheet of glass with pixels projecting an image. Now maybe yes, you've gone to the news channel and had a conversation with them once or twice. But as a general rule, the politician is farther away from the people than the journalist, and the journalist is farther away from the people than the protest organizer. This is why conservative protesters are so powerful. You can go talk to them. Go shake their hand. Journalist ivory towers are much closer by, but they're still ivory towers. They're not on the ground. And if they do crawl out of their ivory towers, they're only down there to sneer at you for clinging to your Bibles and your guns. They're not there to actually understand you. Journalists do not like you.
As a protester, you're closer to the people than the media. If you keep these protests up? You win. If you sit at home on the couch? You lose.
Stick your finger in the eye of a journalist. Go make a sign and go be seen.
Go be powerful.
Monday, December 23, 2019
Or at least, when I marched in 2010 it was Pennsylvania Avenue where the Tea Partiers went. I can honestly say, those protests were some of the most fun I've ever had in my life, and I've been all around the country and seen and done many things. It's been too long, and it is time for me once again to proudly put on my activist hat and wave my sign.
Protesting is a Constitutional responsibility, listed right there in the First Amendment for all of us to read.
I will not shirk my responsibility.
Hopefully, I'll see you at the march on January 24th!
Friday, December 20, 2019
- Time cost
- Money cost
- Exclusivity or efficiency
I assume people will automatically think in terms of money, and it is true that the scope of what I'm looking for could have been better asked in terms of "commitment" instead of "cost", but I prefer the original wording because time spent is a cost paid.
I would also like to explain what I mean about exclusivity as well. Do you like to sit down for two hours at night and read a book? Many people do. But that's a nearly 100% exclusive task. A warehouse worker isn't going to read a book at the same time they unload a truck during early morning receiving hours, for example. An audiobook, however, overcomes the cost of exclusivity and introduces the advantage of multitasking.
Now, I would just like to know, what's your money cost? Only for the Founding Fathers or immediately relevant to the Founding era. Have you purchased this book, that book, a three pack of something else. Was it $50? $345? Some other number? Thousands?
Now, I would like to know what is your time cost? How many minutes or hours or days or weeks did it take you to read those books? Be it the Federalist Papers, the Law of Nations, Novanglus, Jefferson's Notes, John Locke, Letters from a Farmer, or any number of other works? Because I'm quite sure that a handful sought out the text online and downloaded. But did you print? That wasn't free either.
Since most of the work of the Founders only exists as paper, you were stuck in exclusivity, weren't you?
This is a discussion of cost, and of course you know I'm looking forward toward cost reduction. If we want to defend our Constitution and advance the Founding principles, and help others around us do the same, then cost reduction in areas such as this need to be discussed and the bar must be lowered. Because if you're going to buy one copy of a book for yourself, and one for your friend? Now you have doubled your cost, and doubled the (reading)time investment. Do you think your less-committed friend will be just as inclined as you to do the same? Don't bet on it. They wouldn't even buy one copy, why would they purchase several copies?
But if the cost can be lowered, is it more likely you can get even more people involved? I think so!
Monday, November 11, 2019
Oh, you want to say that what I produced wasn't valuable? My personal favorite is the book The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution, which according to the Archive page has been downloaded over ten thousand times since I released it. Not bad for something that's "not commercially viable". This book has a noted particular value for those who wish to engage in push-back against the race industry.
The point I'm making to you is this - and this doubles up for content from the Founding era - there is a ton of content published prior to 1923 that needs an audio production which can be extremely useful in telling the story and educating your fellow patriot. Once I realized that the key for me was to elevate someone else's content, instead of my own - I can't tell you how liberating of an idea that is. In particular, let me leave you with this thought:
The Founding Fathers speak for me. So I speak for them. Here is one such example. Click on number 6 in the list of 20.
Honestly, I wish I had more personal time to create way more "commercially non-viable" content than I'm currently capable. The works of John Adams, early important history books written prior to the progressive era about the Founding and our Founders, such as by Jared Sparks. 3 to 5 well placed "not commercially viable" audiobooks could be used quite effectively against the false history promoted by the progressives, but it will take me years to get there.
Any volunteers? Message me publicly or private with a little bit of your personal interests historically speaking and I'll show you how and more importantly where to get started. When is the last time you think you influenced thirty five thousand people? Only serious takers, please.
Sunday, November 3, 2019
Now first off, The notion of this phrase "federal funding" (the article also uses the phrase "state funding") is offensive because it's dishonest. It's welfare, that's what it is. I'm not interested in P.C. comfort terms. As I wrote in May of 2017, when the progressives were starting off building their nanny-state empire, they had a very specific list of welfare queens - 48 of them to be exact. When progressives are determined to achieve a goal, they are very crafty in a deceitful way of achieving their goals.
The progressive notion of putting the states on welfare first, before turning individuals into welfare queens was destined for success.
But why are we keeping around such a relic from a discredited ideology? I mean, I know why the progressives want to keep it, it's because they really don't like the states and want to subjugate them just like they want to subjugate us. That's why they put together court rulings such as Wickard v. Filburn. Count me out. Wickard also needs to be repealed.
Now in the short term, there is probably some merit to getting California to actually do something useful about these fires. Federal Government does in fact have California on food stamps, so why not cut off said food stamps? Ok, well if we only want to engage in extreme short term thinking is that workable. That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about the underlying issue of this long-standing welfare scheme, and looking out over America as a whole over the last 100+ years, these schemes of progressivism are an absolute horrific failure.
Monday, September 2, 2019
Lincoln: The Founding Fathers did not make America racist or slaver. They inherited America that way
We then adopted a free State Constitution, as we had a right to do. In this State we have declared that a negro shall not be a citizen, and we have also declared that he shall not be a slave. We had a right to adopt that policy. Missouri has just as good a right to adopt the other policy. I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people of Missouri, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people of the slaveholding States are civilized men as well as ourselves; that they bear consciences as well as we, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity, and not to us. It is for them to decide, therefore, the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits. I assert that they had as much right under the Constitution to adopt the system of policy which they have as we had to adopt ours. So it is with every other State in this Union. Let each State stand firmly by that great Constitutional right, let each State mind its own business and let its neighbors alone, and there will be no trouble on this question. If we will stand by that principle, then Mr. Lincoln will find that this Republic can exist forever divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it and the people of each State have decided. Stand by that great principle, and we can go on as we have done, increasing in wealth, in population, in power, and in all the elements of greatness, until we shall be the admiration and terror of the world. We can go on and enlarge as our population increase, require more room, until we make this continent one ocean-bound republic.
Judge Douglas asks you, "Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made it forever?" In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the fathers of the Government made this nation part slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that: when the fathers of the Government cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it?
The Founding Fathers could not undo in just a few short years what the King spent over a century doing.
Because of the false teachings of progressivism, it has become one of the greatest of ironies that the "Great Emancipator" was also one of the most ardent defenders of the Founding Fathers - specifically on the topic of slavery.