Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Yes, progressives have written that they hate America.

They just don't use that language, because they believe their vision is better and not harmful. Problem is, in their writings they have gone too far in regards to spilling the beans. Around the time of the 2008 election, Michelle Obama was caught on video stating: "We're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation".

This is nothing new, however, what she did not do was explain what she meant. Other progressives have explained what they meant using virtually identical language. In 1909, in the book "The Promise of American Life", Herbert Croly, who wrote one of the most influential books of the Progressive Era, wrote: (This is all from chapter 1, starting on page 21)

The redemption of the national Promise has become a cause for which the good American must fight, and the cause for which a man fights is a cause which he more than ever values. The American idea is no longer to be propagated merely by multiplying the children of the West and by granting ignorant aliens permission to vote. Like all sacred causes, it must be propagated by the Word and by that right arm of the Word, which is the Sword.

The more enlightened reformers are conscious of the additional dignity and value which the popularity of reform has bestowed upon the American idea, but they still fail to realize the deeper implications of their own programme. In abandoning the older conception of an automatic fulfillment of our national destiny, they have abandoned more of the traditional American point of view than they are aware. The traditional American optimistic fatalism was not of accidental origin, and it cannot be abandoned without involving in its fall some other important ingredients in the accepted American tradition. Not only was it dependent on economic conditions which prevailed until comparatively recent times, but it has been associated with certain erroneous but highly cherished political theories. It has been wrought into the fabric of our popular economic and political ideas to such an extent that its overthrow necessitates a partial revision of some of the most important articles in the traditional American creed.

The extent and the character of this revision may be inferred from a brief consideration of the effect upon the substance of our national Promise of an alteration in its proposed method of fulfillment. The substance of our national Promise has consisted, as we have seen, of an improving popular economic condition, guaranteed by democratic political institutions, and resulting in moral and social amelioration. These manifold benefits were to be obtained merely by liberating the enlightened self-interest of the American people. The beneficent result followed inevitably from the action of wholly selfish motives—provided, of course, the democratic political system of equal rights was maintained in its integrity. The fulfillment of the American Promise was considered inevitable because it was based upon a combination of self-interest and the natural goodness of human nature. On the other hand, if the fulfillment of our national Promise can no longer be considered inevitable, if it must be considered as equivalent to a conscious national purpose instead of an inexorable national destiny, the implication necessarily is that the trust reposed in individual self-interest has been in some measure betrayed. No pre√ęstablished harmony can then exist between the free and abundant satisfaction of private needs and the accomplishment of a morally and socially desirable result. The Promise of American life is to be fulfilled—not merely by a maximum amount of economic freedom, but by a certain measure of discipline; not merely by the abundant satisfaction of individual desires, but by a large measure of individual subordination and self-denial. And this necessity of subordinating the satisfaction of individual desires to the fulfillment of a national purpose is attached particularly to the absorbing occupation of the American people,—the occupation, viz.: of accumulating wealth. The automatic fulfillment of the American national Promise is to be abandoned, if at all, precisely because the traditional American confidence in individual freedom has resulted in a morally and socially undesirable distribution of wealth.

Notice the key words: "abandoned", "overthrow", "revision". That he is harping and carping about the mal-distribution of wealth is the least educating thing of this section. But, he doesn't stop here. He makes it clear that he wants to put an end to American individualism. He continued:

The consequences, then, of converting our American national destiny into a national purpose are beginning to be revolutionary. When the Promise of American life is conceived as a national ideal, whose fulfillment is a matter of artful and laborious work, the effect thereof is substantially to identify the national purpose with the social problem. What the American people of the present and the future have really been promised by our patriotic prophecies is an attempt to solve that problem. They have been promised on American soil comfort, prosperity, and the opportunity for self-improvement; and the lesson of the existing crisis is that such a Promise can never be redeemed by an indiscriminate individual scramble for wealth. The individual competition, even when it starts under fair conditions and rules, results, not only, as it should, in the triumph of the strongest, but in the attempt to perpetuate the victory; and it is this attempt which must be recognized and forestalled in the interest of the American national purpose. The way to realize a purpose is, not to leave it to chance, but to keep it loyally in mind, and adopt means proper to the importance and the difficulty of the task. No voluntary association of individuals, resourceful and disinterested though they be, is competent to assume the responsibility. The problem belongs to the American national democracy, and its solution must be attempted chiefly by means of official national action.

You see that? Individualism is the problem, and collectivism is the solution. And just as Omama said, Croly believes we need to get rid of our history. In Croly's view, we need government, and we need more of it. We need it everywhere. He says "official national action", but he is not mincing words here. He specifically and directly means bigger and bigger government at the expense of early American beliefs and at the expense of individuals.

You see, this is why progressives don't really believe they hate America, because they think government is the best thing for you. You need government more than you need food, more than you need water, more than you need blood, more than you need air. And that's anathema to what America means. America was founded as a rejection of big total government, because in 1776 the representative of all-powerful all-knowing government was King George III. See the Declaration of Independence for more details. Loving America is synonymous with small, limited constitutional government. Croly closed out the last bit of chapter 1 this way:

I am fully aware, as already intimated, that the forgoing interpretation of the Promise of American life will seem fantastic and obnoxious to the great majority of Americans, and I am far from claiming that any reasons as yet alleged afford a sufficient justification for such a radical transformation of the traditional national policy and democratic creed.

Thanks Herbert. I appreciate that.

This data set is incomplete. The Founders and slavery....

What percentage of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves? It's about 73%.

What percentage of delegates to the Constitutional Convention owned slaves? It's just under 50%.

Problem is, this data set is complete, and it is purposefully structured to give the Founding Fathers short shrift. Even among slave-holding Founders, there is a clear number of them who even though they owned slaves, they weren't happy or fond of the issue. I came across this "data" while looking up something tangentially unrelated, but I didn't see any conservative blogs or news sites who had directly addressed this so hey, what the heck. It pleases me to be the first.

In my last post, I asked "What if Oskar Schindler were treated the way the Founding Fathers are?", and it's very simple:

Was Oskar Schindler a member of the Nazi party? Yes or no.

This question is of course garbage and meaningless, because if you answer yes then Schindler gets pigeon-holed into the racism and murder of the Nazis, even though he saved over 1000 Jewish lives.(regardless of his motives)

Now, what about the Founders? Just simply asking if any or all of them "owned a slave" is also garbage and meaningless. Likewise, this pigeon-holes the Founders into a position that is unrealistic propaganda. This is quintessential fake history on part of any who ask the question. So what's missing here?

The King's Colonial Governors. Even the most critical propagandizing fake historian doesn't have the spine to claim that the Founding Fathers were the people who created slavery at the nation's founding, so it had to come from somewhere. Where did it come from? Obviously, it came from the King. The King was well known for his oppression against Christians (See the mass exodus of Christians out of England, floating out on ships such as the "Mayflower" for more details), and his oppression against the blacks was just as equal.

Now, you could ask "what percentage of the King's colonial governors owned slaves", but that would not tell the full story just as it doesn't tell the story about the Founders either. It is a proven fact that the King enforced a slavery mandate. He supported the slave trade, and he issued decrees to (the 13) colonies if any dared pass laws outlawing slavery or the slave trade. So then, let's ask a more realistic question:

What percentage of the King's own men in the colonies opposed the King's mandate on slavery?

The answer is zero, BTW. That I have seen, anyways. I can't find one single colonial governor who opposes the King, meaning they get a big fat zero. Well, now we can at least complete the data set, because the reverse is 100%. 100% of the King's men supported the King's mandate on slavery.

Here we go, let's compete the data set now:

What percentage of the King's men supported slavery? It's 100%.

What percentage of the Signers owned slaves? It's about 73%.

What percentage of delegates to the Convention owned slaves? It's just under 50%.

Talk to me about the pattern you see. With a full data set here now, what pattern do you see?

The lies of progressivism are just so easy to put to bed. And, Mr. Samuel Adams, who hated slavery, is 100% correct here.

Sunday, November 19, 2017

What if Oskar Schindler were treated the way the Founding Fathers are?

Yes or no? Was Oskar Schindler a member of the Nazi party?

If the answer is yes, then the final word is that he was a racist and an anti-semite. There are no other facts, there is no other context and important information to the story. He was, in fact, a high-ranking Nazi party member.

It's a fact. He was a racist. He was a high-ranking racist. Fact.


You know the progressives wouldn't stand for this for very long. They would want to dig, they would want to add context, etc etc. They would want to make sure it was pointed out that O.S. saved over 1000 lives. But yet, this is exactly the idiocy they engage in when they pose their simple loaded questions in regards to the Founders.

Have you stopped beating your wife today? Yes or no. Did the Founding Fathers own slaves? Yes or no?

Those are loaded questions meant to arrive at a false narrative.

So, was Oskar Schindler a member of the Nazi party? Yes or no. That's it, that's all I need to hear. I don't need to hear anything else.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Specialization in progressivism: gun control, car control, etc.

In my last blog post, I wrote about how critical specialization is to progressive ideology, and the weaknesses that get bred in because of that. I also wanted to point something out, and I don't think very many people will like it.

Culturally, I am quite certain that progressivism would be hard pressed to justify its own existence without specialization, and gun control is one of those topics that is probably the easiest to dissect. One of the main stated goals of gun control is to get guns out of the hands of pretty much everybody, but the only people unaffected will be law enforcement officials, security-related fields, military personnel(current and likely former as well) and probably the politicians themselves. The progressives always omit themselves, but I'll get to that in a moment. Take note of who will not be affected. They're all experts in some way. That's a core of the ideology. In this regard, the progressives actually cannot help themselves.

But, here is what I doubt will score me many points. Memes such as this one and this one are easy targets for claims of hypocrisy, but unfortunately, they're not based in reality. It's perfectly consistent for a progressive to want gun control while at the same time they surround themselves with body guards armed to the teeth. The bodyguards are specialized - they're experts.

This doubles over when you consider the tyrannical nature of progressives.(even though in general, progressives don't think they're tyrants) Of course the King should be protected! Who are you to question the King? But this part isn't rooted in ideology, you see. It's rooted mainly in elitism. Kings and progressives and communists and all the rest of them think they're the smartest people on the planet.

You can see this play out in their media reporting as well. The Washington Post finally figured out who the guy was who stopped the Texas shooting massacre in its tracks. The man's name is Stephen Willeford. But look at how the Post introduces him:

Willeford, a certified shooting instructor, grabbed his own rifle and raced out of his house barefoot.

That statement is as ideological as you can get! The Post, true to progressive ideology, has, HAS to point out that the guy is an expert. That bit of information is wholly irrelevant to the "news". It doesn't matter if a certified instructor or non-certified instructor stopped this madman. What matters is that he, the bad guy, was stopped by a good guy!

This only has importance to the ideologue. Think about the line of questioning that Stephen Willeford was subjected to by an ideological journalist in order to get this information. Or worse, you think the ideological journalists went digging in his trash or dug up records and his back story, his facebook, etc? Maybe it was a combination of both. But the progressive HAD to know this, had to know his expertise level, to appease their own inner ideology.

Do you think Stephen Willeford was a Tea Partier? Scratch that. Don't answer the question, it's irrelevant. Here's the question: do you think the ideological journalist took the time and effort to determine if Stephen Willeford was a Tea Partier? No, of course not. It's not required. If anything, it would be a huge detriment to his ideological outlook, so by definition, that question couldn't be asked.(not at least, until later when its less important) Why make a link with Tea Partiers and good guys like this, especially since the guy is an expert?

The bias is every bit in the questions they don't ask, and the priority it doesn't receive. But I digress.

Meanwhile, it's not like shootings haven't been stopped by armed good guys before. But those often times aren't experts, so the Post and other outlets simply do not report the news hoping that these "problems", these pesky facts - that they'll simply go away.

Similar to gun control, we actually have a media outlet who has (on the surface) made a suggestion that smacks of consistency. In the wake of people getting ran over repeatedly by jihadis and others in vehicles, the NY Times actually took the bold step of proclaiming that we need car control.(or, call it vehicle control, truck control, what have you) This is actually more consistent than most realize, but not at all because of the gun control/car control angle.

Again, the Times leaves an opening for "the experts". Cabs, busses, and of course delivery drivers. But where this really gets good is when you consider the role of trains. Only the experts, the train drivers, should be in charge of getting you to where you need to go. Only the experts should be allowed to determine where "the masses" are allowed to go, you see.

The committed worship of experts can be seen in other areas as well. For example:

You can't home school! You're not an expert! You specialized in something else.

What do you know about climate change? You're not a scientist, an expert. The scientists, they are the once who specialized in this area.

How about citizen journalism? That's not a good thing in the eyes of progressives either.

It can also be seen in early eugenics. So what if the feebleminded get sterilized. They can't possibly be experts in anything. Eventually, the progressives found interest in lethal chambers. To quote Bernard shaw, their lives do not "benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself".

I could go on and on about this, highlighting many other specific policies where this rears its ugly head. But it's important to understand:

The policies are built upon the principles. Expertise, as a concept, specialization, is not a policy of progressivism. It's a foundational principle, that's why it is seen everywhere. The progressives have been making expertise front and central to their writings and ideology going all the way back at least as far as Philip Dru: Administrator, a book written by a progressive, for progressives.


Saturday, November 4, 2017

The role of specialization in progressivism

The cultural role of specialization in progressive ideology has become more apparent to me over the years, especially as I learn more about them at the same time I am learning about the Founders. It shouldn't be overlooked any longer.

The progressives, they really enjoy specialization. Man #1, he is a professional organizer. Always has been, always will be. Man #2 is a professional Human Resources coordinator. Man 3# is a professional journalist. Man #4 is a professional teacher. Man #5 is a CEO. Man #6, he is a professional politician.

Wait a second. Professional politician? Go with me here for a second. What were the Founders?

Many of them were lawyers. But actually, they were historians. But actually, they were philosophers. But actually, they were politicians.

Some weren't lawyers, instead they were farmers. But actually, they were authors. But actually, they were theologians. But actually, they were politicians.

You see that? They weren't specialists. They were generalists. They did many things throughout their lives, and did not look at politics as a life-long career and certainly did not go off to college to achieve that one single goal.

This is actually a part of the problem - the old adage "those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it" - well, what does a specialist know BUT his specialization?(and let's not forget the role of university indoctrination)

How can a specialist in, say, fixing some sort of complex machine possibly know about Article 3, section 2? That's not his specialization, that's for the Constitutional experts to handle.

How can a specialist in, say, nuclear physics, possibly know about the constitutional debates between August 6th to August 18th, 1787? That's for the history experts to handle.

How can a specialist in, say, medicine, possibly know the meaning of God's Law/Natural Law and the Enlightenment? That's for religious experts to handle. Add into the fact that the doctor who works 18 hours a day isn't then going to go home and read the Constitution before bed. Sure, there may be a small handful who will, but not nearly enough to make up the difference.

You see how the weakness is necessarily bred into the mix? I'm referring in all cases to super smart people here. This isn't an issue of lack of intellect. It's a lack of exposure.

Hyper specialists are natural suckers for tyranny. Serfs in the waiting. "Eh, politics? Bah, that's for the politicians to handle. Fake news? Bah, that's not for me. That's for the journalists to handle. History? No, I will leave that to the historians. Economics? I'm not touching that one. Go ask an expert." Specialization breeds large amounts of weakness.

Listen to the wording of this small preface:

In an age of specialization, one's activities are necessarily delimited by the professional interest. However, the great war has affected more than the vocational superstructure of our lives. It has rocked the foundations of civilization, and compelled the revaluation of many standards far more vital and more basic than the vocational. This fact may explain, if it does not justify, this excursion afield of a student of economics.

The war has changed many of the conditions of living which demand analyis. Unlike the chemist or physicist, the student of the social sciences cannot vary the conditions of his experiments, but must wait until the processes of history afford him an opportunity to observe variations In phenomena, and to study their causes.

The war has upset some accepted articles of faith, but it has confirmed many others, which not only stood the test of war, but determined the victory. Many new needs have arisen and some old tendencies have become clearer.

We are entering a new era. We may do so blindly, or we may attempt to crystallize our ideas on the issues arising out of the war for the purpose of intelligently controlling social forces.

The problems of social and of political adjustment, and of the conservation of human resources, are neither less pressing nor less significant to the country than are the economic and financial questions, which have riveted the attention of statesmen and publicists during the past year. The little attention which the social problems have received is not a criterion of their relative importance in the life of the American people. It is characteristic of human nature to neglect those problems which, though they deal with the most fundamental aspects of the national life, lack the driving force of the economic motive.

This volume is a sequel to "American Problems of Reconstruction, a Symposium on the Economic and Financial Aspects." In the treatment of their subjects the contributors were requested to discuss:

1 . What have been the effects of the war?
a. What pre-war conditions have become more clearly defined?

b. What new conditions has the war brought to life?

2. What should be our policy during the reconstruction period?

Thanks for suggestions are due to Drs. Dickinson, Rogers and Wolman, and others of the group of men who gathered at the Cosmos Club during the war. The volume has benefited as a result of the advice of Dean William H. Welch, of the School of Public Health of the Johns Hopkins University, and of my brother, David, particularly in the section dealing with the social aspects of medicine. Grateful acknowledgment is also made to President Frank J. Goodnow, Professors Charles H. Cooley, Franklin H. Giddings, M. M. Kaplan, T. I. Parkinson, Roscoe Pound, E. A. Ross, and Arthur J. Todd, and Mr. Abraham Flexner, for helpful suggestions.

That's from "America and the new era, a symposium on Social Reconstruction" It's a book written by progressives, for progressives. Social reconstruction? Who but progressives look at the progressive era through the era after World War 1 as an era of social reconstruction. Progressives are very intense when it comes to their "fundamental transformation" of America, and they have been since day one.

Notice how the theme of the preface is entirely geared toward social control, with a sprinkle of economic talk. That's the job of the new specialist in the progressive era, social control. Control over you, over your life. In part, this is also why progressives worship the false god of "the economy" so intently. They can use it for control purposes. Sure, it can be said that in the short term, an economy comprised entirely of specialists will be more productive and prosperous with fatter bank accounts than the corresponding generalists. However, at what price?

Here we are, one century past the progressive era. Tyranny is knocking at our door, demanding payment. You ready to pay the price for abandoning generalization? The generalists then had more freedom than the specialists do now. Choose wisely.


Thursday, October 26, 2017

Progressive on progressive violence

Progressives are the stupidest people on the planet. They really are.

It's moderately funny to consider that around a year ago, the progressives of today were attacking Woodrow Wilson, and now we have the progressives out there attacking another historical progressive, Theodore Roosevelt. You seen this report? Activists splash red paint on Theodore Roosevelt statue on Museum of Natural History steps

Theodore Roosevelt is being attacked because he was white and because he was an imperialist. This is so incredibly dumb. Theodore Roosevelt was an open progressive. He was proud of social justice. These are not secrets, you can google them andsee the facts plainly. But today's street-level malcontents are so drunk on their own propaganda that they're going to give up the ship and they don't even realize it. The elites know better, but they think they've written so many fake history books that the truth can't ever possibly come out. They think they've got it on permanent lock. But the elites, the leaders of the movement, they are far and few in between.

I've never posted about this directly, because it's too big of a topic for me right now, I have to leave it for the future. But the fact remains, is that when progressives attack imperialism, they are in fact attacking themselves and their own foundation. Progressivism was born of many planks, and progressive ideology would not exist if not for imperialism. It's so important to their existence, that imperialism and the imperialist era.

Most conservatives don't realize this fact, but it will get more coverage at some point in the future. It's too important.

And Theodore Roosevelt is the key, because more than any other progressive of that era, he is the highest profile and most easy to identify imperialist-progressive. He ties the whole thing together. Yes, the imperialist era and the progressive era butt up against each other if you look at a calendar, but that's not superficial. They are deeply linked ideologically.

Just remember this: When progressives attack "imperialism", they are attacking themselves. But they always do it in a way to which they project it as America's fault. No no, don't ask about President Roosevelt, just say "America". Forget about Woodrow Wilson, just say "America". And who was the appointed governor of the Philippines, and who was the secretary of defense, and who was senate president, and who was this and who was that and the Generals and etc etc. These people were all progressives! But forget all that. Just say "America". That's how they get away with it.

And it's been one of their biggest master strokes. The progressive historians covered it up. And they got away with it. You want to expose a cover up, dig here. Dig right here.

But every now and then, someone makes a mistake. It's far and few in between, but it does happen. Whoopsie, got red paint on a progressive's whoops I mean an imperialist's WHOOPS!! I meant to say an American President's statue. Yeah, that's it. That's what it was. Gotta keep the narrative straight.


Sunday, October 22, 2017

Did Jefferson believe that liberty had a nineteen year lifespan? Part 2

Many, many moons ago I wrote asking the question: "Did Jefferson believe that liberty had a nineteen year lifespan?"

Knowing more now than I knew then about Jefferson's own writings, the answer is clearly no. But I can point to it here instead of searching in vain for it. Jefferson did write to Madison that "No society can make a perpetual Constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation." I had struggled with this, because I knew progressives were liars and were at times using this phrase in order to advance their narrative.

The problem is this: I separate the Constitution from our Rights as two distinct concepts or topics, and I have long believed that the Founders did the same. The Constitution's plain language makes it clear: This document is not the source of our rights, it merely acknowledges their existence while at the same time telling government that it shall not infringe upon them.

Now, Jefferson was fond of this statement of the earth belonging to the living. He also wrote it to another person, John Cartwright, and in this instance Jefferson was also more explicit. You see, the Founders, or at least Jefferson, did also separate our rights and our Constitution as two separate things just as I do. He wrote to Cartwright the same concept, that the earth belongs to the living, but he was also more explicit and he told Mr. Cartwright what does not belong to the living. He wrote:

Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession for ever? I think not. the Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will. the dead are not even things. the particles of matter which composed their bodies, make part now of the bodies of other animals, vegetables, or minerals of a thousand forms. to what then are attached the rights and power they held while in the form of men? a generation may bind itself, as long as it’s majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.

This was to John Cartwright, June 5th, 1824.

This is where the intense deception of progressives comes in. To progressives, they think that abolishing the Constitution means abolishing the first amendment(because they're tired of hearing the crazy things you have to say), abolishing the second amendment(because you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself against progressivism), and etc etc etc. - AND! See, Thomas Jefferson agrees with us progressives! We should be abolishing your blasted constitution and all of its eternal principles in 19 years from now!

- except

That's not what Jefferson believed. He *only* meant to abolish the legal structures. The rock solid concrete foundation of God's gift of Liberty? - That is immutable and timeless. That has no 19 year or 39 year or 1426 year lifespan on it, according to Jefferson. Liberty is immortal. Liberty is forever. Liberty has more value than life itself.

You see, because our rights are a gift of God, they are not ours to abolish. We can only abolish what belongs to us, and Jefferson only wrote that the earth belongs to the living.

Ultimately, this exposes yet another lie that progressives tell. Progressives make it quite clear that these rights that we hold so dear are so inconvenient to their plans. But ironically enough, it is the progressives - not the Founding Fathers - who seek to bind future generations in their authoritarian schemes. When Government is put in control of every aspect of your life: your healthcare, trillions of dollars in debt, your education, your food, your housing, your entertainment(see Second Bill of Rights), etc - THAT is what binds future generations. Not God's gift of Liberty!

Everything about progressivism is bass ackward, and we see once again that what it is that they accuse others of doing is in reality what it is that they themselves are currently engaging in.