Thursday, December 8, 2016

Why is communist indoctrination required to go work at a corporation?

It has long ceased to be a secret that college campuses at all levels, from the highest ivy league centers down to community colleges, are centers of far far left wing indoctrination.

Why then is it that corporations keep requiring 4 year and above degrees - many times for jobs that clearly don't need such a thing? Most of the time, if you don't have that bachelor degree, you aren't even getting in the door. Don't bother. Don't send an email, don't call, do not show up at the office. Just don't.

Ok, Mr. Corporate toady boss. Let's examine your contradiction, your hypocrisy. How does it benefit you personally for me to be indoctrinated by a communist professor? How does this company benefit if every one of its new recruits hates the company? Are these idiot managers really that stupid, that they can't see all these protests, all these young indoctrinated students out there holding up signs about how the American Corporation is the root of all evil.

Meanwhile these managers watch these protests and they're picking out candidates for future employment. "That third guy on the right, holding up the red flag with the yellow emblem, calling big oil and big pharma the problem, find out who he is Frank. He'll make one heck of a regional manager!" Ok, that was a little sarcasm on my side, but seriously. Enough is enough. It's time for people to get real about what is really going on on university campuses these days, and cut the crap.

Who exactly came up with this suicidal policy structure anyways? I don't want to be an expert in communism to come work for your company!

To the reader of my post, go ahead. Right now. Go searching for a job, even if you don't need one, you'll see what I mean. Go to, or go to, or, or In job posting after job posting after job posting, you aren't getting a job until you have that 4 year degree communist indoctrination. Minimum. 6 years indoctrination preferred.

Send out all the resumes you want. They don't want to hear from you until you're redder than a tomato.

Tyranny re-focuses: Targetting the electoral college

The Electoral College(EC) is anti-democratic. It's supposed to be anti-democratic. Democracy does not work. It is a failure of a system, it's simply a bad idea. One of the many great features of the EC is that it protects the people - and the Republic - from the known, historically proven failures of democracy. Democracy always fails - no good parent would seriously do that to their children, inflict them with purely democratic government. Good parents give their children Republics, representative republics which as a guiding feature limit the size and scope of the national government.

It's simple to understand why those faithful to progressivism want to abolish the EC. A purely national vote would hand the election every time to any silver-tongued demagogue or two-bit tinpot dictator who sought the presidency. Progressives have for generations stated that's what they want, a benevolent dictator. They even mingle with communists like Van Jones, so that ought to let you know where they're headed.

You can tell how bad they want to get rid of the EC, because they're even playing the race card, even though the EC is not the result of that. The EC came out of the Connecticut Compromise, where little states like New Jersey and Connecticut worried about big states like New York and Virginia. In the irony of ironies, the Electoral College was born because of equality and fairness. The progressives like to tell you that's what they favor, equality and fairness, but they really do not. The EC is one example to prove this.

There's three reasons why we have the Electoral College, the third of which few people know or realize:

1: Equality and fairness among the states, so that people in less populated districts are allowed to have a say against people in the big cities.

2: Protection against democracy. Long live the republic!

3: Protection from cabal and corruption. The EC is actually very good at this, and it doesn't get talked about enough.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

The Demise of a Highly Respected Doctrine

The Demise of a Highly Respected Doctrine

By Neva R. Deardorff, January 12, 1918


LAISSEZ-FAIRE is dead! Long live social control! Social control, not only to enable us to meet the rigorous demands of war, but also as a foundation for the peace and brotherhood that is to come. This was the theme that ran strongly through all the annual meetings of the learned societies of the social sciences(1) which were held holiday week in Philadelphia. Education in idealistic concepts of service, toleration, justice, are in the future to underlie this social control and to make possible an enduring world democracy. New faith was everywhere manifest in the ability of democratic governments, and of our own in particular, to rise to occasions and handle gigantic enterprises both efficiently and with a view to benefitting society as a whole. While most of the contributions were in the nature of analyses of fundamental social forces which are now at work, suggestions, often quite specific, were not lacking as to how those forces can be directed to secure the maximum of human welfare. Everywhere there was a proud loyalty to the best that American life has produced, but nowhere the fatuous assumption that the promise of America has been achieved. Criticism was searching, frank and kindly; the spirit of genuine helpfulness abounded. Men and women, young and old, brought a fine spirit of toleration and mutual respect which stands in sharp relief against the acrimonious dissension which now characterizes so much of the discussion elsewhere of the issues which were before these meetings.

The political scientists were mainly concerned with new bases for international relations and with questions of improving the governmental machinery in nation, state, county and city. Prof. Munroe Smith of Columbia pointed to the new evidences, produced by the war, of the vitality of international law which, now in its infancy, seems to be following the same line of development that national law has pursued. The German government's disregard of international law has affronted the whole world, while the allies now represent a stupendous vigilance committee organized to punish the offender and to uphold that law. In future the fabric of international law will need to be strengthened by new provisions for arbitration, for delaying the resort to force, and for joint action, short of war, to show approval or disapproval of some nations for the action of other nations. New laws of war will be forthcoming as a result of the new conditions of air and submarine fighting; "military necessity" will need definition and some proportion established between injuries and reprisals. It is probable that eventually the nations of the world will be federated. Prof. Robert M. McElroy of Princeton, as well as several other speakers, maintained that there is no essential conflict between national and international ideals just as there is no essential disharmony between loyalty to family and to nation. All of the political science teachers seemed convinced of the necessity for cultivating in their students an international-mindedness as a basis for peace.

As for government at home, the professors seemed very diffident about the part they have, until very recently, played in shaping its course. The older teaching of government was referred to as rapt contemplation of the theoretical structure of government with no regard for its actual workings. Prof. A. R. Hattonsof Western Reserve University characterized political science to date as descriptive anatomy of political institutions and legalistic concepts. The pathology of politics, together with hygiene and prevention of political ilk, are the big opportunities of political scientists today. Everywhere it came out in the discussions that civic and political education for the mass of people is the sine qua non of the kind of democracy to which the United States is now committed and that this education is to be socio-economic rather than historico-juridical. Prof. Guy S. Ford, now of the Committee on Public Information in Washington and one of many teachers who have gone into public service since the war began, explained how the federal government is now educating, with millions of pamphlets, with pictures, films, four minute-men, etc., the mass of people on public affairs. Altogether the political scientists showed a refreshing regard for truth, a wholesome independence of judgment, and a sincere, though perhaps too modest, desire to be of service.

The discussions of constitutional law brought out very clearly the temper and spirit with which existing institutions are being examined. Decisions and judges of the Supreme Court were appraised with the utmost candor and in general the conclusions were by no means laudatory. Dissenting opinions were pointed out as evidence of the somewhat unsanctified character of the court and the fact that constitutional law frequently changes its mind lends color to the suspicion that politics is not wholly divorced from that high tribunal.

The economists, like the political scientists, have progressed from the detached, dehumanized study of the phenomenon of wealth to the consideration of the psychology of men in relation to the possession of wealth. Prof. E. C. Hayes of the University of Illinois, in what was considered the star session of the economic association's meeting, cleared the ground tor the new approach by calling attention to the fact that every age has had its philosophy to justify the existing order and that laissez-faire had until recently performed that function for our time. Our present order makes life and labor the cheapest commodities on the market and results in conditions that ill befit a democracy. As wealth is now distributed in the United States, the top 1 per cent of the population receives as much income without work as the lower 50 per cent obtains for its labor, and the top 2 per cent own three-fifths of the property. The middle class is declining. A better distribution, rather than equality of income, is the practical aim of those who would arrest the cleavage of classes that is widening, but the class-control of schools and press now makes very difficult the organization of a liberal party and tends to preserve the two old political parties, both of which are conservative.

Prof. John R. Commons of Wisconsin, in the presidential address of the economic association, pronounced the obsequies over the laissez-faire or rather the "let's grab" doctrine, and at the same time knocked the bottom out of the "pork-barrel" as the great objection to government ownership and control. The special assessment of benefits to private property from public.improvements can be depended upon to correct whatever tendency localities may have to dip unduly into the public treasury. Through such a system of taxation the basic utilities and such improvements as irrigation, land-reclamation and railroad extensions can be promoted. Rural credit can be extended and subsidies given to roads and education. Quite as important as obtaining the capital with which to do these things is the fact that by keeping capital at home one of the irritants which cause war will be removed. Capital which hunts in backward countries for high profits and big increments influences diplomacy, demands military protection and breeds international disputes. For the job of directing through taxation, the most beneficial use of our surplus, the government is becoming rapidly more expert. Indeed, our public inefficiency is even now little more than a state of mind.

The "economic man" of the classical economists was ushered off the stage by Prof. Carleton H. Parker of the University of Washington, who introduced the new discovery of the psychological man. This newly found being has some sixteen separate instincts which cause him to behave as he does. As Professor Parker had been testing his ideas among strikers in some of the lumber camps of Washington, the report of his observations of the motives of economic life represented considerable rugged reality.

Health Insurance by Common Consent

Health insurance and the conservation and mobilization of the labor supply of the country were the main topics of discussion in the meetings of the American Association for Labor Legislation. Relatively little time was devoted to the question of the advisability of health insurance legislation in the United States, it being quite generally agreed that we should have taken steps in this direction long ago. The great obstacle to be overcome in securing the adoption of health insurance laws would appear to be the lack of popular understanding of the subject, and this obstacle can be removed only by a campaign of education. The main participants in the discussion were members of state legislative investigating commissions appointed to inquire into the question of health insurance and to recommend appropriate legislation. Representatives of six such commissions were present - those of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Views were exchanged regarding the lines of inquiry that commissions ought to follow and also regarding the methods of conducting public hearings. A comparison of the experiences of the various commissions revealed that in nearly every state the first impulse of employers and wage-earners alike is to oppose the idea of government health insurance, but as both groups come to understand its operation and benefits more thoroughly, their opposition tends to give way. Private insurance companies are usually against the scheme, and physicians and surgeons seem to be divided on the question. Opposition has come also from Christian Scientists, and in agricultural states it is difficult to obtain the support of farmers.

The Labor Difficulty Analyzed

In The discussions on the conservation and mobilization of the labor supply of the country there was general agreement that we are not at present confronted with a shortage of labor. Our real ailment is that of maladjustment and improper distribution of our available man power. In order to correct this state of affairs, a more complete and better coordinated system of employment agencies was advocated. Opinions differed as to the advisability of securing this end by establishing cooperative relations between the federal and local systems or by bringing all government employment agencies under national control and operation. How to provide the farmer with the help he needs received considerable attention. To a great extent the farmer himself seems to be to blame for his predicament. He does not yet realize that wages generally have gone up and that it is no longer possible to obtain men for the wages he has been accustomed to pay. The conditions of labor on the farm also are such that men generally prefer city work. Relief for the shortage of farm hands might be brought about, partly by improvements in the system of employment agencies, partly by the transfer of men from cities and industries to the farm during the harvest season, partly by inducing retired farmers, women and other unemployed persons to take part in agricultural work, and partly by the offer of better wages and working conditions to farm laborers. The use of city school boys of working age during vacation also was recommended.

There seemed to be no sentiment in favor of labor conscription. Some attention was given to the efforts of the federal government to conserve human life in the war industries by safeguarding workmen against accident. At the last meeting of the association the applicability of the British munitions act to American conditions was discussed briefly. The suggestion of adopting these provisions in the United States, however, met with the immediate objections that, our conditions were different from those in England and that even in England the munitions act had been the cause of much dissatisfaction and unrest. According to an investigator of the London Times, it had been the cause of driving one-half of the workers of England to the verge of revolution.

As has been said, all the associations had turned "social." so that in point of view, the sociologists were but a vaguely defined group of thinkers at the big conference. Their most distinguishing mark consisted in that, while most of the other associations talked about social control somewhat in general, they took it for granted and discussed applications of it in particular. Both Profs. George E. Howard of Nebraska and Charles H. Cooley of Michigan submitted thoughtful analyses of the elements of social control of international relations - Professor Howard, the ideals that must guide, and Professor Cooley, the psychological and social machinery through which it is even now working, and will work, it is hoped, much better in the future. Among the false ideals which now make so difficult amicable relations among the nations are overdeveloped nationalism, territorial aspirations, the notion of war as a good in itself, race and sex conceit, the supposed necessity for economic and political oppression of the masses, and contempt for the idealist. The teaching of world-wide brotherhood must supplant these narrow concepts and democracy must be made to mean something tangible to all.

Of the more concrete suggestions for the better adjustment of social machinery was that of Prof. Arthur J. Todd, of the University of Minnesota, for the control of immigration based upon the true demand for labor. Briefly, his plan calls for information as to the true demand for labor, organization of the labor market, abolition of the contract labor provision and the illiteracy test in the present immigration laws and the introduction of the sliding scale as a guide to admitting immigrant labor, with a bonding of the employer who imports labor to cover deportation costs for any laborers who may become public charges and with a provision for the employer to carry unemployment insurance for his laborers. Prof. Carl Kelsey of the University of Pennsylvania thought that the need for conscription of labor is now imperative and that the time is coining when strikers should be treated as traitors. On the other hand, the laboring class must, of course, be protected from low wages and other abuses.

Perhaps the group which assumed the reality of social control with least question was the statisticians, for they simply went ahead planning how to forge the tools with which society is to work out better opportunities and protection for all. Prof. Irving Fisher of Yale cited the recent stock-taking in health of the men within the draft age as a confirmation of what had been known to a few interested people for some time. He drew the conclusion from the large number of rejections that we ought to have a national department of health to conserve the physical well-being of our people. Nation-wide recording of vital statistics should take the place of state action, which at present covers only about two-thirds of the population of the United States. Prof. Allyn A. Young of Cornell demonstrated the urgent need of coordinating the statistical work now being done by the United States government. The war found us in a state of statistical unpreparedness. Since last April, independent investigations have sprung up in many departments and bureaus, which frequently failed to make use of the permanent statistical bureaus. Much work was duplicated and business organizations have been bombarded with questionnaires. The results have been far from satisfactory. A general war statistical bureau to serve all the other bureaus was suggested as the orderly way out of chaos and as a means to obtain a comprehensive view of our national assets, labor, resources and goods.

Better Government Statistics Wanted

From the discussion of present conditions as regards the vital statistics of our army and navy, it would appear that there is now much room for improvement in the record-keeping systems of the military establishments. Frederick L. Hoffman, the well-known statistician of the Prudential Life Insurance Company, deplored the lack of anthropometric statistics of the army and in the absence of any scientific knowledge of physical growth and development, he considered a lowering of the age limit of drafted men little short of a crime.

Committees were provided by the American Statistical Association to assist the government in systematizing the federal statistics and in planning for the census of 1920. An interesting and valuable suggestion came from the Children's Bureau that the material in regard to family groups which is recorded on the census schedules should be tabulated, i. e., the number of motherless families, the number of fatherless families, the number of mothers at work, etc. Hitherto the published data on population have related only to individuals.

History on the Heels of Current Events

The historians were quite as interested in the present as in the past. The Russian revolution, the recent Massachusetts constitutional convention, present day politics of China and Japan, found places on the historical association's program. At the closing session of the conference, held jointly by the political scientists, the economists, the sociologists and the historians, Prof. Wallace Notestein of the University of Minnesota described the uses which German magazine writers, geographers, politicians and others have made of history to engender hatred of the British empire, to glorify Germany's history, to magnify her wrongs, to point to her manifest destiny of colonial expansion and reunion of all the German peoples of Europe. The partial truth of that which they taught has made it extremely difficult to combat their conclusions. While the British empire is a solid fact, Professor" Notestein was inclined to doubt that John Bull had been the consistent villain "through five acts" that he had been depicted in Germany. Anyone who believes that England's methods of acquisition were cunning plots, faultlessly executed, has only to stay a little while in the British Foreign Office, said R. H. Brand, deputy vice-chairman of the British War Mission to this country, to realize that British foreign affairs are not handled that way. Mr. Brand viewed the "British commonwealth of nations" as the one successful experiment in internationalism which the world has thus far produced.

Edward P. Costigan, of the United States Tariff Commission, ably represented the administration's position in regard to economic alliances. The "war after the war" policies will find little or no support in this country', and the United States is distinctly against selfish and exclusively economic leagues and economic discriminations which impose such stubborn barriers against world federation.

The farm managers conferred very largely with the economists and those interested primarily in labor legislation. The accounting instructors likewise flocked with the economists. Indeed, the tendency of each group of specialists to harmonize its views and teachings with those of its brothers in the allied sciences was one of the outstanding features of the conference and one of the best omens for the successful growth of the new culture of knowledge of and interest in the socializing processes now going on in the world.


(1) American Sociological Society, American Political Science Association, American Economic Association, American Association for Labor Legislation, American Statistical Association, American Historical Association, American Farm Management Association, Association of Accounting Instructors.

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Who was the first liberal journalist?

In the wake of Rolling Stone and its activist being found guilty of manufacturing a fraudulent rape hoax story, I wanted to start back at the beginning.

Who was the first liberal journalist? Everything has a beginning. Where can you find that very first yellow brick in the road? Well, the first thing is making sure that we get the question right, otherwise we will produce garbage answers. In computer science, that falls into the category of "Garbage in, garbage out".

So, "Who was the first liberal journalist in the age of objective journalism?".(meaning, when they started hiding their biases) I think there might be an even better question. "Who was the first liberal journalist in the age of objective journalism, as the liberal media's monopoly was being built?" This question really nails it, because as modern media came to be ABC, NBC, and CBS, and the newspapers, how they all came to largely be one reporting entity is crucially important. Even though we ultimately only want to know who is the man who started it all.

His name is Walter Lippmann. Walter Lippmann stands at the center of a perfect storm when journalism becomes a profession - at his request and leadership - while at the same time journalism becomes a taught study in colleges - where, you know, the students will be indoctrinated en masse - and where Lippmann's own tactics of manipulating the news become both the de-facto as well as de-jure way that journalists operate - at the same time the big modern media entities that we have all known for so long were being built. Modern objective journalism largely came into existence in the 1920's/30's, as did the completely one-sided media monopoly. Lippmann's book Public Opinion was published in 1922.

Walter Lippmann has been called the "Father of Modern Journalism" by people in the industry for a long time, for good reason. That's not my designation, and his book "Public Opinion", a book for which every single conservative should be reading, is a public domain book that is free to download. The audiobook is also for free in the public domain.

Some of you may not realize, or even argue against the notion that Walter Lippmann's way of journalism is at the heart of what Rolling Stone did, and I only have one question for you:

"What stereotype was Rolling Stone hoping to supply to its readers?" For those of you interested in journalism, the left wing aspects of journalism, etc, this question is a whopper. Lippmann was obsessed with stereotypes, and in particular how to manipulate them to effect. Let's examine the answer to the question first. Rolling Stone was hoping to play off of various stereotypes about how evil men are, about the victimization of women, rape culture, and several others. Other commentators who are much better at dissecting this can and have already done the job, so I'll move on.

So along comes Rolling Stone, hoping to supply a stereotype about fratboys and their mass rapes. How does that relate to Lippmann? Here's what he wrote: (page 355)

It is a problem of provoking feeling in the reader, of inducing him to feel a sense of personal identification with the stories he is reading. News which does not offer this opportunity to introduce oneself into the struggle which it depicts cannot appeal to a wide audience. The audience must participate in the news, much as it participates in the drama, by personal identification. Just as everyone holds his breath when the heroine is in danger, as he helps Babe Ruth swing his bat, so in subtler form the reader enters into the news. In order that he shall enter he must find a familiar foothold in the story, and this is supplied to him by the use of stereotypes. They tell him that if an association of plumbers is called a "combine" it is appropriate to develop his hostility; if it is called a "group of leading business men" the cue is for a favorable reaction.

It is in a combination of these elements that the power to create opinion resides. Editorials reinforce.

Did Rolling Stone intend to provoke feelings in its readers?

Did Rolling Stone intend to induce its readers to feel a sense of personal identification with the story?

Did Rolling Stone intend to offer the opportunity to its readers to introduce themselves into the struggle?

Did Rolling Stone intend to see people participate in the news, in other words, did it think protests may occur because of this article?

Did Rolling Stone intend to label the fratboys (in an equivalent fashion) as a "combine" instead of labeling them as a "group of leading business men"? In other words, were they just boys having a good time? Or were they rapists?

Did Rolling Stone's editorials reinforce the original article? In the first few days, I bet they did.

People who are tired of the left wing bias constantly ask, "How can we do damage to this media" and the answer to your question is that you should be reading Walter Lippmann. He built the blueprints for all of this. You have questions, his books are where the answers reside. Particularly, the book "Public Opinion". How does this machine work? Ask it's creator.

It would be best, by far, if people read Lippmann's book in full. If an audiobook is preferred, click here. I can only scratch the surface, and even then, it is hard in this format to cover every single detail.

But, if you're simply looking for a small write up, I have one here. There is no substitute for a full read.

Thursday, November 3, 2016

This is how Theodore Roosevelt's cult of personality stays alive

Hey, did you know that Teddy once killed a lion? It's true. And they are going to put it on display again soon. People haven't seen this lion for two decades.

Hey, did you know that Teddy really loved football?

Hey, did you know that Teddy was a really avid outdoorsman?

Hey, did you know that Teddy once was giving a speech, someone shot him, and he kept on speaking?

Hey, did you know (pick your favorite wholly-divorced-from-governmental-policy-related-trivia and place it here)?

I could just imagine if Ronald Reagan had shot a lion. The Washington Compost certainly wouldn't be celebrating it, that's for sure. They would put quotes from some PETA whacko in the first paragraph, in the second paragraph, and that's how they would close the article in the last paragraph. In short, it would be a hit piece. But what makes Reagan so different than Teddy? Why would progressive journalists treat the two so differently? For starters, the two men had completely opposing viewpoints of the constitution. One man wanted to respect the constitution, and the other wanted to shred it.

Every time some progressive journalist (unrelated to elections) trots out Ronald Reagan, it's so that they can take a crap on his grave. But every time some progressive journalist trots out Theodore Roosevelt, (unrelated to elections) it's so that they can puff him up and parade him around like it's a sequel to Weekend at Bernie's. Did you read the article?

I read the article. Man I feel good. That was some good crack, man. I feel so good about myself. I feel so good about life. I feel so good about killing lions. I feel good about taxidermy. I feel good about the Smithsonian, because you know, it's a government institution. It's a great institution, the government owns it. I really feel good about the Washington Post and that Sarah Kaplan, she's a great writer. But most of all, I really feel good about our 26th president - the puff piece worked. I feel great! Wow he was a good man, it's a good thing he never was in a position to actually govern. All he did was shoot lions and go out on safari! He was a man with a plan! He wasn't one of those crazy whackjob Tea Partiers, you know, with their old dusty constitutions, you know! He made a lot of sense!

So how do you keep small government people loving a big government man? Keep the big government man's big government views a secret - and more importantly, keep the big government man's big government activities a secret. That's why his cult of personality has persisted for over 100 years. If the truth about TR were ever told in a wide-scale fashion, only progressive democrat voters would want anything to do with him. Ask me this question: If Lyndon Baines Johnson shot a lion, why should I care about that? In the article, it says:

“What story did this lion and Roosevelt want to tell us?” Harvey wondered. That's what he aims to conserve.

Of course, the only stories that we should allow to be out there, are all of the puff piece, human interest stories. Get Theodore Roosevelt as far away from any notions of government as you possibly can. And these are the same people who still, still can't get over Iran Contra!!! The exact same people. I can guarantee you, that your children's children's children will know all the details about Iran Contra, but they won't know a thing about Theodore Roosevelt's policies - not deep in the details. They will only know the surface-level stuff. The flowery stuff. That which they can make smell good. Hey did you know TR was a conservationist? Yeah, it's great.

NO! Conservation is not a direct pre-cursor to radical environmentalism. We can't have people making that connection! Let's get back to the fluffy stuff.

Hey, did you know that Teddy once killed a lion? I hear he really loved football too. It's really great. Life's great. Hey, did you know that Teddy once killed a lion? And he loved the outdoors, too. That's about all I know. Why am I repeating myself? Well, that's all that matters. Because Teddy once killed a lion.

I couldn't tell you how many executive orders he issued, I couldn't tell you how he related to congress. I couldn't tell you the contents of his New Nationalism speech, nor could I tell you anything about the Progressive Party. I couldn't tell you if he stayed within the constitutional limits placed on the executive branch or if he worked to undermine those safeguards. I just couldn't tell you. I just know he was a manly man. That's all I know. I only know that he killed a lion. What else is there to know? What else matters?

Friday, October 28, 2016

How Theodore Roosevelt's big government schemes created the modern trucking industry

Does today's trucker and trucking industry owe its entire existence to big government? The answer to that question may very well be yes.

Recently, I wrote a post pulling together details about how Teddy used "reaching across the aisle" to undermine any attempt to keep government small, in passing the 1906 Hepburn Act.

But what happened after the act passed? Well, it significantly damaged the railroad industry, and some news outlets at the time attributed the economic recession: the Panic of 1907 (whom some also call the "Roosevelt Panic") specifically to the Hepburn Act.(Source) The Panic had multiple causes to be sure, but Hepburn clearly did not help.(source)

Let's examine what happened. Because Theodore just had, HAD to have bigger government, he undercut an entire industry and made it impossible for them to adequately continue. So what happened? Nature abhors a vacuum, that's what happened.

With all of the air sucked out of the room by the ICC, the Hepburn Act, and meddling progressive republicans, the Trucking industry stepped in. This new industry blew new air into the room and they've been trucking ever since. Now, I'm not the first historian to notice this,(source) at least, not in regard to the train half of the equation. I'm just the first to point out that progressivism is to blame. This is the logical conclusion of following a bankrupt ideology instead of paying attention to the constitution. In this article, Professor Albro Martin primarily focuses in on how the Hepburn Act ravaged the train industry.

However, if one is true then the other must also be true. A and b arrive hand in hand. Killing the train gave birth to the truck. Stuff has to be moved around somehow. What, did TR think we would all just sit around and accept his dictates without trying to get around the obstacle he created? Of course not, people have done this since time began, innovating their way around big government obstacles. The train industry cannot just sit around ravaged, without someone else coming along and saying "hey, we can do this" without the damaging effects of big government - brought to you by progressives. Trucking would again be strengthened by necessity during WWI, and trains would again be attacked later by Woodrow Wilson. This continued governmental assault necessarily has to have an end result. What is that result?

Today in the 21st century, progressives know full well that their schemes will destroy industry and destroy the lives of citizens. And they don't really care. To them, that's a good thing.

At least in this context, in the days of TR and other big government progressives probably really think that the utopia was upon them and that transporters would be more than happy to bend over and take it, even though no lube was being used.

Sorry for the graphic depiction folks. But there's just no good end result when government goes bullying people around. They hurt us. Government hurts us. Progressivism is the most destructive force in America and it has been now for almost 120 years. Isn't it time more people honestly dig in to their history, the progressives' history, and see just how much damage they've done to us?

Now, of course someone is going to come along and start saying "you're just an apologist for the railroad trusts" blah blah blah - do you really not understand how people would have been significantly hurt by the Panic of 1907? That panic may not very well have even needed to have happened. With regard to the railroad trusts, they made their own beds, but I'm not very interested in hurting everybody in the nation just so you can get your revenge. That's really petty.

What's the funniest thing of all, is that progressives have for the last decade or more been trying to revive an industry that THEY themselves destroyed. How is it that train technology, technology that's several hundred years old, is somehow the harbinger of the greatest progress? Every city must have mass transit, all of the cities must have government(they say "public") transit. That's progress - old technology.

In the end, trucking probably would have superceded trains anyways because of the advantages of open road, but we still have to respect the process as it actually happened and point out the authoritarianism of progressives going back to the turn of the 20th century. If they did it, then they own it. We should not be afraid to call a spade "a spade".

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.