Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Lothrop Stoddard and Margaret Sanger

In 1914, the publication Birth Control Review published a review of the book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy, by Lothrop Stoddard. The review was published by Havelock Ellis, a close friend of Margaret Sanger. Stoddard, like Ellis, was also a close friend of Sanger. Additionally, Stoddard was a board member of Sanger's pride and joy: The American Birth Control League.

To what degree did Sanger agree with the contents of this review? As editor of the magazine, she had the ability to decline/approve anything written in her pages.

The review said: (page 14)

Dr. Stoddard is an American, a graduate of Harvard and a citizen of New York, and like many Americans, aware that they have to attract the attention of a vast hustling audience absorbed in its activities over an enormous area, he is inclined to address it through a megaphone, in the strong, simple, emphatic language that that instrument demands. His message has thus to be a little discounted, but even when that allowance is made it remains a message it concerns us to hear, and it is delivered with force and knowledge. It is well to remember that his conclusions are, after all, fundamentally in harmony with those of sober and judicial observers in Europe, it is enough to mention Professor Demangeon's recent book Le Declin de l'Europe.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Theodore Roosevelt - the original "reach across the aisle" republican

Have you ever heard the whole story about exactly what it was that ol' Teddy did to get the 'rate bill' - the Hepburn Act, passed in 1906? If I didn't know the details of what I was reading and who was involved, I would swear this story mirrored a similar situation with John McCain rampaging on the floor of the Senate against Tea Party Hobbitses. Yes my friends. All tricks are fair game. Roosevelt threatened to pass the bill with democrat votes in order to undercut his own party, in order to stick the nose of government further into where it didn't belong. It's all a part of that war on big business, you know. The ends justify the means.

Politically, it is a brilliant move. Particularly if you love big government in every aspect of your life. But the danger of big government just keeps moving. It does not stop. It is never satisfied. Here is the scenario:

At the time of writing the Senate has not yet passed the Bill to regulate freight rates, but it will have passed the Senate several days before this is read. In the early days of this longdrawn-out and at times acrimonious contest between the President and some of the most influential Members of his Party in the Senate, Mr. Roosevelt announced that "Canossa gehen wir nicht." It would be somewhat unprofitable, and almost too academic, to determine whether the President played the part of Henry IV. and the Senate that of Gregory VII. The Republican Senators who blocked the Bill insisted that the Bill as it passed the House must be amended so as specifically to provide for an appeal from a decision made by the InterState Commerce Commission to the Federal Courts, which Mr. Roosevelt at that time resisted, because, as he viewed it, that would defeat the purpose the law was intended to correct. This appeal, however, has now been provided for, and Mr. Roosevelt expresses himself satisfied.

The Senators may claim it as a victory, but the country can see in it only the triumph of the President and the forced obedience of opposing Republican Senators to the will of the people. The country is correct in giving the President the credit for this legislation. He not only made it the great question in Congress, but he compelled a hostile Senate to enact it into law. Facing at one time a seemingly adverse Republican majority, he consented to the Bill being thrown into the hands of the Democrats, much to the confusion of the Republicans and to the gratification of their opponents, who expected to reap political advantage. But the Republicans pulled themselves together, and will vote solidly for the Bill, which disappointingly deprives the Democrats of their expected political gain. Mr. Roosevelt has again shown his amazing political shrewdness. He emerges from the fight the champion of rate legislation, and if that legislation corrects the abuses that are aimed at it, it is Mr. Roosevelt, and no one else, whom the victims of railway extortion - the farmers and small business men, who constitute the real political strength of the countrywill thank for relief and the end to favouritism, by which the great trusts have been able to crush out competition. Apart from what he gains personally, Mr. Roosevelt has put his Party in a very favourable position. Had the President been forced to accept Democratic votes to offset Republican defection, it would have been a non-partisan measure which, politically, would have done the Republicans great harm; but as the majority vote was cast by the Republicans, the Democrats can claim no credit. And though it is a fact that an important group of Republican Senators were able to secure the concession they demanded, thus again demonstrating that in a trial of strength between the President and the Senate it is generally the Senate that can force the President to its terms, the country will believe that for once, at least, the usual order was reversed. Mr. Roosevelt having said that the Bill suits him, the country sees in imagination the Senate making a wry face and swallowing an unpalatable dose while pretending to enjoy it. This discomfiture of the Senate, and this belief - quite a mistaken one, but which is of no consequence—that the Senate has at last met its master in the President, is very pleasing to the people.

Dang! No wonder McCain is literally in love with Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a supreme conservative-defeater! TR knew how to rout those nasty little hobbitses.

In T.R., the Last Romantic, Brands notes what TR wrote to his son Kermit: (page 547)

"I am now trying to see if I cannot get it through in the form I want by the aid of some fifteen or twenty Republicans, added to most of the Democrats."

"The Republican leaders have tried to betray me", Theodore Roosevelt whined to his son. Mr. Roosevelt, you were growing government bigger, your usual M.O. Of course they were betraying you. They were supposed to betray you. It is my sincerest wish that at any time someone is trying to grow government, that betrayal is what they face. I hope he fails. - to borrow four famous words.

Betraying the forces of big government means allying with those of us, the serfs of this country.

In any case, this mirrors the exact activity that we see today, with only one exception. Back then, republican leaders betrayed a big government president. Surely, many of them probably had all of their reasons that may not have had small government at its core, but that would have been the end result: a small government triumph. Today, the exception, is that republican leaders betray small government activists to the benefit of big government. Little doubt exists in my mind, that Theodore Roosevelt is very proud of what the GOP has become. They all now do what he did.

Other than that, what do we see? The republicans are too busy battling the democrats, and the democrats are too busy battling the republicans, that not a one of them stops and asks if the current activity is constitutional or not. We see it all the time, at least, a facade of such activity. Nobody asks the constitutional question. Nobody wants to ask that question. In the end, it's always 'we the people' who get hurt the most by government activity and largess. The GOP "goes along to get along" because in the end, they have proven that they reject the mold of constitutionally minded people such as the Founders, Reagan, or Coolidge. The GOP is the TR party. Over the last 80 years, TR won. They now want big government too in the GOP. The more bigger, the more better.

That's progressivism. The ends justify the means. Theodore Roosevelt, as usual, provides the blueprint of how its done. Growing government the big stick carrying way. This is the beginning of today's uniparty. These are the roots.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

George Soros is translating Saul Alinsky into different languages

On October 14th, 2014, the Open Society of Macedonia held a workshop, promoting the great work of Saul Alinsky and his book Rules for Radicals, after the institute translated the book into the Macedonian language. Most of you will prefer to click on the second link. The third link is Rules for Radicals, in full, in the Macedonian language. They're that proud of their accomplishment, that they'll give it to you for free.


PDF Download of "Pravila za Radikali" - Rules for Radicals

In the first links, you will notice a particular book on the table with a mostly white cover, but it has two distinct red diamonds in two corners. This is the version they translated.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Saturday, October 1, 2016

Conservatives: Worried about losing the internet? I have an idea; record an audiobook

It is almost certain that with giving the internet to "the world", that people with voices who say certain things run the risk of being silenced.

One possible solution: You should record an audiobook. Here's why.

As an example, one audiobook that I recorded was The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution, which highlights the black patriots that fought side by side against the British for American Independence and liberty. I completed that entire book on Valentines Day of this year, the day believed by some to be Frederick Douglass' birthday.

Why is this book important? Have you ever run into this meme that the Founding Fathers are supposedly racist? Well, I don't think one single book is going to put it to bed, and I certainly acknowledge that I can't possibly record every possible thing myself, however, these facts being so easily available, and so easily consumable, present quite a conundrum for those progressives who seek to keep "the narrative" alive. We need more. If more were available, there's a potential it could present a credible, visible threat.

Currently, there are roughly 3800 people who have been to this page, which is a fair estimate of at least how many people have listened to that book. That's 3800 in 8 months, and will certainly be over 4000 by year's end. The number who have listened is likely to be far higher, considering indirect mobile downloads and the like. But that's a number we can work with.

Think of that: That's nearly 4000 people I've educated about a topic that progressives would prefer people didn't know. If that number pattern stays true, at the end of the next year it will be 8000. In 5 years it will be 20,000.

Wouldn't you like to educate 20,000 people in five years about inconvenient facts? What kind of cultural impact does that have?

Here's how this relates to the internet giveaway. As I said at the outset, there will be voices who are silenced. I hardly think that audiobook recording is any kind of silver bullet, but I've yet to find any downside while conversely I can clearly demonstrate the upsides. The upsides are self-evident.

I'll give you another example, one which I think there might be some takers to my proposition. Have you ever run into the meme that there was no Christianity of any kind during the time of the American founding? Yeah, there were no pastors, that's it. And they certainly didn't discuss any political topics! The easiest way to combat that meme would be to record some sermons. Virtually everything prior to 1923 is public domain. Early American sermons, from pastors who were acknowledged to be highly influential in the years directly prior to the event of the Founding; the years that made the Founding possible. I know of several sermons that would be great candidates for recording, and several works of the Founders that have not yet been attempted. I, unfortunately, can't record everything on the planet in relation to these topics. At some point, someone will have to help.

I give all my audiobooks away for free. I'm not selling any thing here. Only, an idea. But selling you the idea isn't going to cost any money.

Making information easier to consume - that's a problem for the progressives. I'll gladly do that for free.

But, I do have one alternative, for those of you who would recoil at the idea. Here's what you should do. Do nothing. Sit there behind your keyboard. Do what you've been doing, because that's worked so well so far? It perturbs me to be harsh and I apologize in advance, but anything rooted in facts, and rooted in facts that are easier to consume(meaning faster), will present a little bit more of a challenge for anybody seeking the route of censorship. We need more, no matter how small that 'more' may appear to be. We have the power to give ourselves more. We don't have to wait for someone else to do it.

I'm looking to educate you, all I ask is that you are willing to listen. I'll give you every one of the mp3s as fast as you can download them. Now, I would like to find some people who would like to educate me. I'm willing to listen.

One thing I've noticed within the blogosphere is the tendency for people to focus exclusively upon their own opinion. This is not me saying that that is bad. I do it myself from time to time on my blog. But here is a converse thought.

The Founding Fathers - they speak for me. So I speak for them. And you can speak for them too. Why do you and I need to formulate new, additional words, when some of the best words that need to be spoken have already been spoken? They just weren't recorded. Ok, great! The only thing that is missing, is that microphones didn't exist in 1776 or 1753. That's not a problem. It's not.

We can rectify that. We have microphones. Download the transcript, and read it verbatim. For those of you who agree with me: if you can raise your hand and say "yes, the Founders speak for me",(or the pastors of that era) then it is likely that speaking for them may present a prospect that might be worth considering.

Friday, September 9, 2016

Ronald Reagan's 1975 speech to YAF - Young Americans for Freedom

Ronald Reagan Addresses Young Americans for Freedom

Officers, members of YAF, Young Americans for Freedom, first of all let me thank you for allowing me share in this meeting with you in this manner, and at the same time express my regret that it was impossible for me to be there with you in person.

You know you never cease to amaze me, you have followed a philosophy in spite of the fact that you spent your lives growing up in a nation that was characterized by an atmosphere of tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect. The era of the free lunch and the handout. How you have clung to principle and followed the philosophy that you follow does amaze me but at the same time as a citizen I want to thank you and commend you for it.

You know, the policies that our opponents, those who follow the liberal philosophy, have espoused have distorted the balance between the different branches and levels of government, they have distorted also the relationship of the people to their government. But maybe you and I have done better than we know, those of us who talk of conservatism. Because the great majority of the people today, believe with us. They may not be able to put a label on it, but their approach to the various policies of government is the same as ours.

Now, this was evidenced in the 1974 election, disastrous as it was, when we look at the liberal candidates who campaigned and who won, by espousing the same philosophy that we have talked for so many years. When they wet their fingers and held them up in the political wind they found there was no longer a market for the old fashioned cliches of the New Deal and the Great Society, and all the other social tinkering that's gone on for the last forty years. They were against deficit spending in the campaign, but what we have to be on guard for, is the fact that now they are voting for a $100 billion dollar deficit in the budget. There was an incumbent senator from the middle-west who ran on a platform for re-election in which he opposed gun control and bussing, and since returning to Washington he's voted for both.

They say that politics is the second oldest profession, sometimes it bears a grave resemblance to the first.

Our responsibility now, is to point out every discrepancy between the campaign promise and the post-election performance of these people who sang our song. Its time to quit trying to organize the same old minority every two years and start informing the new majority every day who has been responsible for bringing us to the brink of disaster, economic disaster. Our task is now one of education and information, we no longer have to sell our philosophy. And I submit that the Republican Party has the great opportunity to do this. We have a concrete example to hold up for comparison.

A great nation, with a land mass greater than our own, rich in natural resources, 250 million capable people. And for more than fifty years, they have been free to fully implement and put into practice without hindrance or interference, all the principles of socialism. And we could be just like them, but it would take a little doing on our part.

We'd have to start by cutting our paychecks eighty percent, move 33 million workers back to the farm, destroy 59 million television sets, tear up 14 out of 15 miles of highway and two thirds of our railroad tracks, junk 19 out of 20 automobiles, rip out 9/10ths of our telephones and tear down seventy percent of our houses. And then all we'd have to do is find a capitalist country that would sell us wheat on credit, so we wouldn't starve.

You know, in spite of all our greatness, our people feel a sense once again or a desire to feel a sense of greatness. A sense in the pride in their own capacity, for performing great deeds. We republicans I think can do something about this, but not if we try to be all things to all people. There are some in our midst who have suggested that we should broaden our base. Except that what they mean by broadening our base is to blur the image, to make us indistinguishable from the other party.

Some have suggested that the 1974 election, the disastrous results, were an indictment of what we stand for. Well may I suggest that the meaning of the last election will not be found among those who voted, it will be found by polling those who stayed home. The biggest non voter bloc in our nation's history.

And why did they stay home? Well because they said they couldn't see any difference between the two parties.

I think they're basically wrong, but I think this is also an indication of what our answer should be to those who would make us more like the opponents. I am a convert to Republicanism. I spent most of my adult life as a democrat, and I can testify that when I found I could no longer follow the leadership of the democratic party, I became a republican not because the parties were the same, but precisely because they were different.

More than half of those who didn't vote have been polled and say, it no longer makes any difference which party wins.

Now some have taken another course, there are some among us, and I respect their views, who suggest that that means an end to the Republican Party that we should form a new third party. May I suggest an alternative to that? Let's have a new first party. A Republican Party, raising a banner of bold colors, no pale pastels, a banner instantly recognizable as standing for certain values which will not be compromised.

Yes, we must broaden our base, but lets broaden the way we did in 1972, because those Americans, democrats and independents, and republicans are still out there looking for a banner around which to rally. And we have what they want, what they're seeking. But they don't know that. And sometimes I wonder if we know it.

Young people, your own companions, I am told are registering either democrat or independent avoiding us in overwhelming numbers. Well is this because of what we represent, or what they think we represent? I know that in a poll of 35,000 college and university students, eighty percent of them said they wanted more individual freedom, less interference by government in their private lives. Well isn't that what we want?

Our banner should also proclaim our faith in the marketplace as the greatest provider for our people, and that we will eliminate needless regulations and restrictions that keep the marketplace from being able to provide the jobs our people need. And on that subject, let us also proclaim compassion for those who through no fault of their own cannot provide for themselves, see that their needs are fully met. But at the same time, let us say that all those who are able-bodied, will be given an opportunity to work for their welfare grants. We will not make them lifetime recipients of a dole, as clients of an ever growing welfare bureaucracy.

We must extend our compassion to that great group of unsung heroes, the working men and women of this country who ask nothing of government but to be left alone. They make the whole system work, but for a long time they haven't been fairly represented in government.

Today they see themselves falling further and further behind unable to afford the good life they've earned and deserve. Political demagogues for the last four decades have been appealing to the worst in us, the tepidity and selfishness of human nature. They've been telling us that each one of us can have a bigger slice of pie but we have to help them take it away from someone else who's been getting too big a share. Well I think it's time for us to tell those political demagogues, we can all have a bigger slice of pie if government will get out of the way, and let the free enterprise system bake a bigger pie.

James Burnham has said that even the most skillful surgeon when operating on a democratic politician, cannot separate demagogic from solid tissue, without causing the death of the patient.

Can anyone say that the banner that I've presented so far does not represent what has been typical republican philosophy, but does it not also represent what the people of this country in an overwhelming majority desire for themselves and the country today? Our party must stand for the traditional belief in a federation of sovereign states, of local autonomy and individual freedom. We didn't seek on the world scene the leadership that has been thrust upon us, but we can't abdicate that leadership without abdicating our ability to keep the peace.

We have seen in recent months little men with little minds in Washington tarnish our shield and rob us of credibility throughout the world. Make it plain to every friend and foe alike, every nation, that we will join any in seeking peace, but we will keep our commitments, and we will not give away freedom not ours to give. Nor will we sacrifice our own freedom, we will indeed sacrifice to maintain that freedom and peace throughout the world.

One last line, I think we have room for on our banner. Let us add a line that says as a pledge:

That never again will young Americans be asked to fight and die for their country, unless the goal is victory.

Thank you very much.

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Theodore Roosevelt - the first globalist president

All of us know how politicized the Nobel Prize is, but many people falsely believe that it's only been politicized since around the time of Obama, perhaps since the time of Carter. It's been a tool for awarding statists for over a century. Don't forget, Wilson also won a Nobel. On May 5th, 1910, Theodore Roosevelt gave his acceptance speech for receiving his political prize.

Here is how Roosevelt began the last paragraph of that speech:

Finally, it would be a masterstroke if those great powers honestly bent on peace would form a League of Peace, not only to keep the peace among themselves, but to prevent, by force if necessary, its being broken by others. The supreme difficulty in connection with developing the peace work of The Hague arises from the lack of any executive power, of any police power to enforce the decrees of the court.

Even here, TR continues his zeal for kingly government and some power, any power, who can issue decrees to all of you little peasants out there. But this is much, much worse. Being as this speech is from 1910, this makes Roosevelt the first American President(he was a former president at the time) to call for an international body to lord over multiple nations. Note that last line, where he laments the fact that there's no executive power at the Hague. So, to you living in 2016, do you think Roosevelt would be proud of what his World Court has become? It's just a side question, a thought piece.

Woodrow Wilson would continue Roosevelt's work with an attempt to form a League of Peace League of Nations, and finally, TR's cousin Franklin would succeed in implementing the dream, with the introduction of the League of Peace United Nations.

Friday, August 26, 2016

The Columbian Orator, audiobook edition

Normally I wait until I am fully complete with an audiobook before announcing it here, but I am handling this one a little differently.

For my next audiobook, I am not doing a solo read. It is a group project on Librivox instead. So if you are interested, feel free to join in and take a section. The book has over 80 sections, so most are not more than 1-3 pages long.

The Columbian Orator, first published in 1797, is a great book for anybody interested in the culture of early America. It contains speeches from Founders such as Franklin, Mason, and Washington; it has several British parliamentary speeches from Pitt, Fox, and others, and even earlier classical works, from well known Roman authors such as Cato and Cicero. Additionally, many sections of the book are deeply religious, in regards to topics like Christ's Crucifixion, David and Goliath, and the existence of God. Finally, there are sections of this book that contain back and forth discussions, which could afford two people the ability to have somewhat of a personal dialog together.(per the book text, of course)

In short, this is truely a great book and it will be a great audiobook when complete. If you have ever thought about considering recording an audiobook or want to give it a try, this is a good place to start.