Saturday, October 29, 2011

Progressivism and the origins of the tyrannical administrative state

I recently came across this article by Robert J Pestritto on the origins of the administrative state, and I can't recommend it highly enough. Some excerpts:
Relying heavily on European models of administrative power, Wilson laid out a vision for administrative discretion in 1891 that directly rejected the rule-of-law model:
The functions of government are in a very real sense independent of legislation, and even constitutions, because [they are] as old as government and inherent in its very nature. The bulk and complex minuteness of our positive law, which covers almost every case that can arise in Administration, obscures for us the fact that Administration cannot wait upon legislation, but must be given leave, or take it, to proceed without specific warrant in giving effect to the characteristic life of the State

I have seen fit to quote from his article due to the fact that he quotes and footnotes from many things that are still in copyright, so I can't even see them unless I go out an buy them for myself. At the current time, that's not an option.

As Wilson memorably put it in "The Study of Administration":
It is the distinction, already drawn, between administration and politics which makes the comparative method so safe in the field of administration. When we study the administrative systems of France and Germany, knowing that we are not in search of political principles, we need not care a peppercorn for the constitutional or political reasons which Frenchmen or Germans give for their practices when explaining them to us. If I see a murderous fellow sharpening a knife cleverly, I can borrow his way of sharpening the knife without borrowing his probable intention to commit murder with it; and so, if I see a monarchist dyed in the wool managing a public bureau well, I can learn his business methods without changing one of my republican spots

Wilson readily admits that he is importing foreign statist ideals from European nations.

In fact, when he later taught administration in the 1890s, he said that there was only one author other than himself who understood administration as a separate discipline: Frank Goodnow.

As the author notes, Wilson is a critical figure to focus in on with regards to the understanding of the administrative state and the true danger of progressivism. And Wilson's recommendation of Goodnow makes him a critical figure to understand as well. As quoted by the author:(and found directly in public domain writings)

In a word, man is regarded now throughout Europe, contrary to the view expressed by Rousseau, as primarily a member of society and secondarily as an individual. The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.
- Frank Goodnow, The American Conception of Liberty and Government (Page 11, paragraph 3)

But rather by the society. He means, of course, government. Government is where you get your rights. Government is supreme in your life. Government is where you should turn to all that you need. Government should have the freedom to do whatever it wants, and you shouldn't be able to stop them:

The fact is, then, that there is a large part of administration which is unconnected with politics, which should therefore be relieved very largely, if not altogether, from the control of political bodies. It is unconnected with politics because it embraces fields of semi-scientific, quasi-judicial and quasi-business or commercial activity work which has little if any influence on the expression of the true state will. For the most advantageous discharge of this branch of the function of administration there should be organized a force of governmental agents absolutely free from the influence of politics. Such a force should be free from the influence of politics because of the fact that their mission is the exercise of foresight and discretion, the pursuit of truth, the gathering of information, the maintenance of a strictly impartial attitude toward the individuals with whom they have dealings, and the provision of the most efficient possible administrative organization.
- Frank Goodnow, Politics and Administration (Page 85)

And isn't this very thing, administrative bodies shielded from the voters, the exact thing that we see today? The EPA isn't accountable to the people. The IRS is a rogue institution, the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Justice - the judiciary has long since breached the protections that the constitution has in place with the intent of defending the people against the state. And on and on and on! At all levels and in nearly any agency you can name the government is out of control, the administrators are making a ruin of the republic, the civil society, and yours and your children's futures.

It's almost as if the names of "Woodrow Wilson" and "Frank Goodnow"(among many others) are names that you should be just as familiar with as names like Karl Marx. Perhaps even moreso. These are after all, American tyrants I'm posting about in their own writings. Not some far off theoretician from a distant land.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

The Progressingamerica recordings

For those who read my blog, see my ideas and would like to help or even emulate, I'd like to put out a few of my ideas and launch a side project that others can actively participate in, and announce the launch of a group titled 'Progressingamerica recordings' (link) on Freedom Connector, which is probably the easiest way to facilitate discussions and mobilize our activity. Here are my ideas:

First idea: Give history a voice. Our founding fathers have taken a relentless beating over the last century by progressives and leftists in the colleges. We're all worried about the indoctrination that our children face once they go off to get an 'education', even in grade schools. All levels of education are tainted. Many professors would like to make it seem as if history doesn't matter, they're just racist, or they're just a bunch of old dead rich white guys on some dusty old sheets of paper. But we can change that. If you want to reach a Youtube generation, an easy way to do that is to put it on Youtube. Record the things the founders said in context, directly sourced, and put it on Youtube. I've already started doing this in a small way, a small dedicated team could make these things soar. If people wish to reject the founders based on what they actually said, well that's a whole different story. But we have much power to push back. The same goes for the history of progressivism. They too need to speak and be heard. The progressives have been very good at keeping themselves hidden for all these years. It's time we permanently shine a light in their direction.

Second idea: Give history's voice a pretty face. I know full well my limits, and perhaps you know your own as well - you like the idea of giving the founders a voice but know you couldn't pull that off for whatever reason. But you are good with computer graphics and presentation software. Someone else can do the recording, you do what you're good at and make something presentable for Youtube. Giving the founders or early 20th century progressives a voice and letting them be heard can ultimately only have a limited impact if it's simply posted with a still image.

Third idea: Are you good at research? Or do you already have plenty of books with which to start out with? Books like "The Real George Washington", "The 5000 Year Leap", or "A Patriots Guide to American History"? There will be a need for people of sound historical knowledge to make sure that false quotes and writings of the founders are not falsely attributed or recorded and so forth. How about Ronald J. Pestritto's books on "Woodrow Wilson and the roots of Modern Liberalism"? I personally will be primarily focused on progressivism, given how the founders are generally more well known.

Fourth idea: Create your own blogs totally aimed at the progressives of the early 20th century similar to my own, and how it relates to today. There needs to be lively discussion in multiple places about these people. I don't care if you use the sources I've already posted or will post. I'm not getting paid for this anyways. But making it a point to read the old, direct sources should be an important goal at all times, which is what I do.

Fifth idea: For those of you who heard my conversation with Glenn Beck, I certainly cannot transcribe everything he has in his library. So for those of you who can type fast, you could easily help out with this effort as soon as he starts getting the things ready to be released to the internet.

Sixth idea: There will be a need for people who can tell others that this is being done and where to go to join or find others. I hear people around me, even at tea party meetings and rallies that are constantly asking "what can I do?" "what more can I do" and we will have an answer for them. Given as I'm not trying to get people to advertise directly for my blog, you don't have to mention the name of progressingamerica or anything else in any way if you don't want to in any of your recordings, messages, or etc. What I am trying to do is get people to advertise that this is something that they can do or help out with, right from your own computer desk. They can do so as they please, at their own discretion.

These are my ideas, which will no doubt be expanded upon and refined as time goes on. The group "Progressingamerica Recordings" is there so that people can join in the discussion and production in whatever capacity they can. No effort, no matter how small you may think it is will be unappreciated. Even if people don't always directly say thanks. As far as audio/voice production goes, I would direct all general inquiries at They've been doing this for a long time and can offer more help, better help, and more quickly than I ever could. Much of which has gone through a long process of refinement.

I'm looking forward to any and all contributions that can be made in the future, let's make this history relevant again!

Lisa Fithian and the arrestables - OWS organizers are using the tactics of Edward Bernays has an interesting news article titled "Occupy Arrest Scam Unmasked" in which they detail how even the arrests that the protesters are involved with are staged. While that's an important part of the story with regards to how fake all of this OWS nonsense is, there's more context to this story. The Townhall article links to this video: Lisa Fithian Teaching Radical to Chicago Teachers Union which is where you can see what I'm about to write about.

The video highlights how Fithian's signature strategy is to put together a very public event. This is exactly what Bernays did. Fithian has arrestables. Bernays had "torches of liberty". In both instances, the cameras were more than happy to capture dramatic pictures, tipped off by the organizer(s) of the upcoming event. And of course, behind the scenes Fithian is there directing the whole scene. Just like Bernays did. Here are the show notes from the January 13th, 2011 broadcast of "The Father of Spin".

In the 1920s, there was a taboo against women smoking in public. Working for the American Tobacco Company, Bernays commissioned a study by psychologist on what cigarettes meant to women. He concluded they were a phallic symbol and represented power for women and a challenge to men. Bernays sent a group of young models to march in the New York City parade. He then told the press that a group of women’s rights marchers would light “Torches of Freedom.” On his signal, the models lit Lucky Strike cigarettes in front of the eager photographers (he had tipped off). The New York Times (1 April 1929) printed a story headlined, “Group of Girls Puff at Cigarettes as a Gesture of ‘Freedom.’” This helped break the taboo against women smoking in public.
(He later regretted this and worked for anti smoking initiatives)

Also worthy of note is the BBC's documentary called "The Century of the Self", which contains video of Bernays himself as an old man discussing some of the details of the event.

From 10 minutes 20 seconds until 13 minutes and 30 seconds is where this is highlighted at. This three minutes of the Century of the Self, and the segments of the above video about Fithian's signature strategy are in many ways fully interchangeable. It's a different time period, different agenda topic, but the mechanics of how it's being done are no different be it Bernays or Fithian.

Know the history of progressivism, know how and why they do what they do today.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. - Sun Tzu

John Winthrop's A Model of Christian Charity, as an audio book

We are still that shining city upon a hill, and our best days are still ahead of us. No matter how much work we have to do.

This link is a direct mp3 download.

I recorded it as a standard audiobook. I'd like to see it re-recorded as a sermon, which is what it is and is how it was given.

Monday, October 17, 2011

Progressing America speaks to Glenn Beck

I just got off the phone with Glenn Beck. I will be putting up the audio momentarily.

First blog edit:

I'd like to put out a few initial thoughts, before I have to go out for the day. First, Glenn did not endorse what I'm doing here, just so that's thrown out there. I'm doing this on my own, and I'm sure I'll make my own share of mistakes going forward. Hopefully others who are reading history in general, the progressive in particular will have much to contribute. In just a few minutes, I've had a large stream of people start following what I'm doing, so this coming weekend I will put forth a few of the ideas I've held back, because I fully understand how huge of a project this is, and if I could get anybody's help with all this it would be much appreciated.

Second edit:

The call is up on Popmodal.

Youtube too.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise

At a campaign stop in Scranton, Pa, Presidential Candidate Woodrow Wilson had the following to say:

Of course this was intended to be a government of free citizens and of equal opportunity, but how are we going to make it such--that is the question. Because I realize that while we are followers of Jefferson, there is one principle of Jefferson’s which no longer can obtain in the practical politics of America. You know that it was Jefferson who said that the best government is that which does as little governing as possible, which exercises its power as little as possible. And that was said in a day when the opportunities of America were so obvious to every man, when every individual was so free to use his powers without let or hindrance, that all that was necessary was that the government should withhold its hand and see to it that every man got an opportunity to act as he would. But that time is passed. America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise. It is true that we have come upon an age of great cooperative industry. It is true that we must act absolutely upon that principle.

Let me illustrate what I mean. You know that it used to be true in our cities that every family occupied a separate house of its own, that every family had its own little premises, that every family was separated in its life from every other family. But you know that that is no longer the case, and that it cannot be the case in our great cities. Families live in layers. They live in tenements, they live in flats, they live on floors, they are piled layer upon layer in the great tenement houses of our crowded districts. And not only are they piled layer upon layer, but they are associated room by room so that there is in each room sometimes in our congested districts a separate family.

Now, what has happened in foreign countries, in some of which they have made much more progress than we in handling these things, is this: In the city of Glasgow, for example, which is one of the model cities of the world, they have made up their minds that the entries, that hallways, of great tenements are public streets. Therefore the policeman goes up the stairway and patrols the corridors. The lightning department of the city sees to it that the corridors are abundantly lighted, and the staircases. And the city does not deceive itself into supposing that the great building is a unit from which the police are to keep out and the city authority to be excluded, but it says: "These are the high-ways of human movement, and wherever light is needed, wherever order is needed, there we will carry the authority of the city."

And I have likened that to our modern industrial enterprise. You know that a great many corporations, like the Steel Corporation, for example, are very like a great tenement house. It isn’t the premises of a single commercial family. It is just as much a public business as a great tenement house is a public highway. When you offer the securities of a great corporation to anybody who wishes to purchase them, you must open that corporation to the inspection of everybody who wants to purchase. There must, to follow out the figure of the tenement house, be lights along the corridor; there must be police patrolling the openings; there must be inspection wherever it is known that men may be deceived with regard to the contents of the premises. If we believe that fraud lies in wait for us, we must have the means of determining whether fraud lies there or not.

So you see, they're not going to outright nationalize industry. No no, they're only going to nationalize a small corridor, if they even go that far. They'll just make progress. They'll make haste, slowly. There needs to be inspections, which means they'll regulate everything to death. It's regulation, not socialism. It's social regulation. Ronald Reagan said: (20 minutes in)

Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

That perversion took place in the early 20th century. Under Wilson and two Roosevelts, among many, many other people at the time. Governors, congress, advisors, judges, and more. And we've been stuck with it ever since.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

How would Aristotle classify or describe progressivism?

In his book "The Politics", Aristotle writes about different forms of government, in their upkeep, revolutions, and so forth. I'm going to highlight one particular part of book 5(Part XI), asking a series of questions along with making a couple of observations and let others decide for themselves if it applies. I also use Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" as a reference point. It's available online, but I will not link to it. Instead, I recommend you buy it. If you truely wish to keep your freedom intact, this book is a near must to own. There are other writings which make fair substitutes, such as the STORM manual, but Alinsky's book is the one to have. Regarding the preservation of tyrannies, here's what Aristotle writes:

A tyrant should also endeavor to know what each of his subjects says or does, and should employ spies, like the 'female detectives' at Syracuse, and the eavesdroppers whom Hiero was in the habit of sending to any place of resort or meeting; for the fear of informers prevents people from speaking their minds, and if they do, they are more easily found out.

Cass Sunstein, who is Obama's chief regulatory agent, wrote a paper titled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures" (alternate link Scribd) in which he suggests that:

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).

Now, it's important to note that this paper mentions truthers. So if and when(And I hope you do) go out looking for more information about this paper and Cass Sunstein, you be real careful what you read. Cass Sunstein is a progressive, and this is how progressives act when in power. If what you're reading can't honestly identify these ideological beliefs on it's pages and instead rants about "globalists" or "bankers" or other such vague and ambiguous terms, it probably has something to hide or may even be a progressive website itself. Back to Aristotle. I guess progressives want to or will employ spies after all, and it's not just official government agents. Aristotle wrote of the use of "informers and eavesdroppers". That too has been attempted, multiple times. They created an email in 2009 called flag at During the 2008 election, they had watchdog at and of course that story also details the newest attempt to pit American versus American with the "attack watch" website.

Another art of the tyrant is to sow quarrels among the citizens; friends should be embroiled with friends, the people with the notables, and the rich with one another.

In short: class warfare. Obama routinely employs class warfare, and the progressives in the media back him up by rarely if ever reporting on the following data. According to the IRS's own data spreadsheet the top 1% pay 40% of the tax burden, the top 5%, 60%. The top 10% pay 70%. The top 25% pay 86% of the tax burden. And the top 50% pay nearly all of it. 97%. So who isn't paying their fair share? Don't answer the question. This isn't an issue of who pays what. It's about keeping quarrels among the citizens, friends versus friends, just as Aristotle wrote. The question regarding who is or isn't paying their fair share comes right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which Alinsky writes on page 91, paragraph 5, sentence 4, about asking loaded questions. That's what it is, a loaded question designed to conceal the real goal. See this video of Obama for more on this. What's written above regarding the various snitch email addresses would also help keep Americans against each other in a semi or permanent state of agitated conflict. On page 117, paragraph 2 of Rules for Radicals, Alinsky writes that agitation to the point of conflict is indeed the goal.

Another practice of tyrants is to multiply taxes, after the manner of Dionysius at Syracuse, who contrived that within five years his subjects should bring into the treasury their whole property.

Obama may employ loaded questions regarding who is or isn't paying their fair share, but does anybody really doubt that if he actually had the chance to raise taxes, he'd actually do it? Benjamin Franklin also made a similar observation, I wrote about it here: Ben Franklin: wealth redistribution, that's what tyrants do

The tyrant is also fond of making war in order that his subjects may have something to do and be always in want of a leader.

Obama campaigned against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And what's happened since he got elected? Led by the wants of George Soros, we are now in Libya. And we've also made inroads to Yemen.

Hence tyrants are always fond of bad men, because they love to be flattered, but no man who has the spirit of a freeman in him will lower himself by flattery; good men love others, or at any rate do not flatter them. Moreover, the bad are useful for bad purposes; 'nail knocks out nail,' as the proverb says. It is characteristic of a tyrant to dislike every one who has dignity or independence; he wants to be alone in his glory, but any one who claims a like dignity or asserts his independence encroaches upon his prerogative, and is hated by him as an enemy to his power.

Obama has surrounded himself with radicals and revolutionaries. People like Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, Cass Sunstein, and others. As referenced earlier, the war in Libya. George Soros is the man who broke the bank of England, and gets his jollies off disrupting societies. At 30 seconds into this video, Soros talks about disrupting societies. Bodily expressions can be very informative; you should pause the video and take in the look on his face as he says the word 'disrupting'. It's incredible. This is highly disturbing.

Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him.

What's Obama's stated policy goal on amnesty for illegal aliens? And let's no stop there. It's no secret that progressivism is in both parties, the republicans and democrats. Let it be recorded that George Bush also pushed very hard for amnesty, led by John McCain in the senate, another republican progressive. To add insult to injury, Former President Bush said these things regarding the three isms. I for one, took this very personally, knowing exactly "what kinds of people, and with what kinds of beliefs" he was referring to. Whenever those in the establishment start throwing around the term 'nativism', they're almost always referring to those who want the border secured.

Such are the notes of the tyrant and the arts by which he preserves his power; there is no wickedness too great for him. All that we have said may be summed up under three heads, which answer to the three aims of the tyrant. These are, (1) the humiliation of his subjects;

Humiliation: Our country has been spent into oblivion. And the american people never wanted that healthcare bill. They passed it anyways. We want our constitution to be followed, not ignored and abused. We want our government limited and our children free. Sun Tzu wrote in his book "The Art of War" that:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

I won't claim to always get it right regarding progressivism. I can only observe from the outside, I can only read the words they've written and spoken, as well as any legislative history and make judgements based off of that as to their true means and goals. But at least I'm trying to examine their own history along with the history of elsewhere to try to get it right.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Communist Goals of 1963, set to the Soviet Anthem (1977)

Not too much to say about this really. I recorded the 45 goals, then took a moment to play around with what I had done. I got the anthem file from for which at the bottom of the page it explicitly states that "The materials are provided for non-commercial, educational purposes" and that is exactly what I'm doing. The anthem is just over 3 minutes long, so you may note that half way through, I re-started it. The 45 goals are just under 7 minutes.

I thought this came out pretty good, I'm getting more comfortable with the process of recording. With the anthem, is here

The goals are also being put out without the anthem, here.

Here are those goals, this is in congressional record and widely available on the internet.

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.

When these goals were originally discovered in the late 50's/early 60's, how many of them had been accomplished? How many of them have been accomplished today? How far we've progressed.........

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

The shifting definitions of the word "imperialism" by progressives

This is important to understand an get a grasp of. Often times, when the word "imperialism" is thrown around, they don't mean wars and empire, they mean capitalism and free markets.

In the little known communist manifesto "Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism" the following is written:(Page 24, in the PDF version page 36)(Alternate source of text)

Our final goal is the destruction of imperialism, the seizure of power, and the creation of socialism. Our strategy for this stage of the struggle is to organize the oppressed people of the imperial nation itself to join wilh the colonies hi the attack on imperialism. This process of attacking and weakening imperialism involves the defeat of all kinds of national chauvinism and arrogance; this is a precondition to our fight for socialism.

The Vietnamese struggle provides a strategic mode]: as the anti-colonial liberation movement advanced, contradictions within the LIS heightened, creating more favorable conditions for revolutionary organizing and action —we organized our people and our movement advanced; as anti-imperialist movement gathered strength and moved forward, this aided the Vietnamese who dealt a decisive blow to US imperialism.

Revolution is a dialectical process of destruction and creation. In the US, revolution is intimately bound to the process of defeating imperialism around the world. Any conception of socialism defined in national terms, within so extreme and predatory an oppressor nation as the US, is a view that leads in practice to a fight for particular privileged interest and is a very dangerous ideology. Active combat against empire is the only foundation for socialist revolution in the oppressor nation.

Socialism is the total opposite of capitalism/imperialism. It is the rejection of empire and white supremacy. Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit. Socialism means control of the productive forces for the good of the whole community instead of the few who live on hilltops and in mansions, Socialism means priorities based on human need instead of corporate greed. Socialism creates the conditions for a decent and creative quality of life for all.

After a long struggle, power will be in the hands of the people. Society will have to he reorganized, toward the integration of each with the whole, where people can realize themselves in peace and freedom. There will be rebuilding to do, but the tremendous power of creative human energy —revealed now in flashes of liberated space and in struggle— will be freed to fulfill its potential. Freed from the constrictions, prejudices and fearful anxieties of imperialist society, people can be better. Our values are
collective and communal.

The oppressor nation. That's us, the USA. It's important to note that this book Prairie Fire repeatedly talks about the war in vietnam, so they're using the word 'imperialism' with both meanings. But this particular section isn't about war at all. We're not just imperialist because we have been at war with other nations in the past, or currently are, or will be in the future. We're imperialist because we're a free society and people freely interact with markets when and where they choose.

The important part of any assertion that some may think is outlandish is testing it in the real world. I can point to any number of people who have demonstrated a belief in this alternate definition of the word 'imperialism'. How many times have you been reminded that America is only roughly 4% of the world's population, yet consumes nearly a quarter of the world's resources? This is something that Obama himself has stated:(As Mark Steyn notes)

"We can't just keep driving our SUVs, eating whatever we want, keeping our homes at 72 degrees at all times regardless of whether we live in the tundra or the desert and keep consuming 25 percent of the world's resources with just 4 percent of the world's population, and expect the rest of the world to say, 'You just go ahead, we'll be fine.'"

What is Obama saying in this quote? America as a capitalist society is imperialist. You're an oppressor nation. Some years ago, the first time I had heard someone use this phrase I was left scratching my head and thinking to myself "but we aren't oppressing anybody. We aren't stealing their resources. We buy it from them. They sell it to us on the markets, and it's a legitimate business transaction". Knowing that these people view free markets as imperialism will go a long way in helping us all decipher what it is that progressives are really saying. And it will help us to understand how much disdain they have for the United States of America, the constitution, and our way of life.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Progressivism: Democracy is administered by the intelligent minority who know how to regiment and guide the masses

A picture is worth a thousand words:

This book is still under copyright as far as I know, so I can't do much else with it on the blog even though I own a copy. But I have to be able to at least show off the cover of the thing. Also, I'll give page numbers so you'll know where to look for these. The book's cover is very accurate of it's contents. Of the letters P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A the 7th, 8th, and 9th letters:

As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented(Page 39)

Nowadays the successors of the rulers, those whose position or ability gives them power, can no longer do what they want without the approval of the masses, they find in propaganda a tool which is increasingly powerful in gaining that approval(Page 54)

Democracy is administered by the intelligent minority who know how to regiment and guide the masses(Page 127)

This is really how Bernays thought. His daughter Ann confirmed this in the BBC documentary "The Century of the Self" (Video) (Transcript) as follows:(32 minutes, 5 seconds)

Ann Bernays, Daughter of Edward Bernays: He knows everybody he knows the mayor, and he knows the senator, and he calls politicians on the telephone as if he did get literally a high or bang out of doing what he did, and that's fine, but it can be a little hard on the people around you. Especially when you make other people feel stupid. The people who worked for him were stupid, the children were stupid, and if people did things in a way that he wouldn't have done them, they were stupid. It was a word that he used over and over: "don't be stupid". And the masses? - They were stupid.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Peter Orszag, Administrator

Nearly a year before I even hit the web with any content at all, I started recording Philip Dru, Administrator as an audiobook. I'm really glad I did. It's a handbook for progressive revolution, somewhat cloaked as an adventure book. It's poorly written, but it's a book that all of us who wish to stop this madness should read in it's entirety. If you don't have the time to read, or perhaps you have an acquaintance who is blind, you don't like reading or just prefer audiobooks that's ok. You can download the MP3 files of my audio recording here at librivox. It's amateur audio, so take it for what it's worth. But if we're going to stop progressivism in it's tracks, we need to help each other learn about it, in detail, and that's what I'm here for. Before I get to Peter Orszag's commentary, let's lay a few things out. In the book Philip Dru, Administrator, this is written(Page 297)

"I find it essential for the country's good to leave it for awhile, perhaps forever," said Philip Dru. "Already a large majority of the newly elected House have asked me to become the Executive. If I accepted, there would be those who would believe that in a little while, I would again assume autocratic control. I would be a constant menace to my country if I remained within it.

That's the most straightforward part. This is what progressives want to do. What they have done. Appoint a bunch of Czars into positions of power that will just do things automatically, working to get around the will of the people because they know better than we do. On page 157 it says this:

When Dru had finished there was generous applause. At first here and there a dissenting voice was heard, but the chorus of approval drowned it. It was a splendid tribute to his popularity and integrity. When quiet was restored, he named twelve men whom he wanted to take charge of the departments and to act as his advisors.

They were all able men, each distinguished in his own field of endeavor, and when their names were announced there was an outburst of satisfaction.

This book repeatedly talks about committees, advisors, boards, and other descriptors are used to describe the process of appointing administrators to make decisions. You see, this isn't really a dictatorship. Philip is just the 'administrator'. His appointed autocrats are just 'administrators'. This is what progressives always do, they change the language.

What did Peter Orszag recently write that's got so many people tied in knots? Too Much of a Good Thing: Why we need less democracy. Knowing the history of progressivism will necessarily change how you read this article. And that's a good thing.

So what to do? To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.

That could have been lifted right out of the pages of the book "Philip Dru, Administrator". It's not any wonder that Peter Orszag is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, which itself is an offshoot of progressivism. Edward House, who is the author of the book Philip Dru, is an important player in the initial formation of the CFR.

It doesn't matter where progressives are at. Be it at the CFR, at universities, in newsrooms, in elected and official capacity, or in bureaucracies. Progressives think that they know better than you do and if given a chance they'll impose their will upon you. It's in their own writings, and it's in the most recent 100 years of american history.

We did not pass freedom along to our children in the bloodstream

On March 30th, 1961, Ronald Reagan stood before the Chamber of Commerce in Phoenix, Arizona, and gave what has come to be known as his "Encroaching Control" speech. Here is how he closed his speech:

Our Founding Fathers, here in this country, brought about the only true revolution that has ever taken place in man's history. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another set of rulers. But only here did that little band of men so advanced beyond their time that the world has never seen their like since, evolve the idea that you and I have within ourselves the God-given right and the ability to determine our own destiny. But freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it and then hand it to them with the well thought lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same. And if you and I don't do this, then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.

Thank You

This is similar to other speeches he gave, such as his Operation Coffee Cup speech. But I find this one to be the most pointed, and even his most important because of this ending. Freedom isn't the natural state of things. We all must do our part to make sure that freedom is protected. I knew for quite some time that these words were attributed to Reagan. I was very happy to see that an audio recording of it exists.

This speech is available on You Tube, but the audio track seems damaged to me. You can download the speech here, which I encourage everybody to do. It's sad that this speech has been somewhat lost in the sands of time.

The preceding posting is what appears to be the entire transcript from this webpage, I didn't sit and simultaneously listen/read to the whole thing to verify, but at times I went back and forth and it does appear to follow. It was the one and only transcript I could find, and I'd like to make sure this person's hard work is not lost. I would attribute this person by name, but they don't give their name. To whomever did this, thank you.

Ronald Reagan: "Encroaching Control" March 30th, 1961

Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests, ladies and gentleman. I could get off to a very bad start here because you've all been so kind and I've enjoyed such hospitality here, breaking bread with you. I was even allowed a second glass of water. I do think, however, that you went a too little far in welcoming me by starting an anti-smog campaign, I don't need that to feel at home.

You know with all of the people here that are so much better qualified to speak on any subject than I am, it becomes imperative to me, doubly important, that I should find exactly the right words to say. This perhaps wouldn't be as important to other people as it would to an actor. I keep thinking of a young fellow in our business who aspired to an operatic career. He studied several years in Milan, Italy, and then was awarded that highest recognition or honor that could come to any opera singer he was invited to sing at La Scala, the very spiritual fountainhead of opera. They were singing Pagliacci and when he finished singing the very beautiful aria, Vesti la Giubba, the applause from the balconies and the galleries and the orchestra seats was so thunderous and so sustained that the opera couldn't continue until he stepped back center stage and repeated the aria as an encore. And again the same sustained, thunderous applause and again he sang Vesti la Giubba. This went on until finally he motioned for quiet and he tried to tell them how full his heart was he said, "I have sung Vesti la Giubba now nine times. My voice is gone I cannot do it again." And a voice from the balcony said, "You'll do it, until you get it right."


You know, I speak in jest, but it must seem presumptuous to many of you, it would be strange if it didn't, that a member of my profession and my industry should attempt to speak to you on the serious subjects that face the people of the world today. We are not unaware in Hollywood what most of our fellow citizens thing of us. It is true that our stock in trade is tinsel and colored lights and make-believe. And it's equally true that some of this same make believe has colored our methods of doing business; colored our private lives.

But a few years ago, a funny thing happened to us on the way to the theater. For the first time, we ran into ugly reality face-to-face. While we were blissfully going along in our make believe world, on direct orders of the International Communist party, hardcore professional party organizers had infiltrated our industry, had worked quietly to create cells in some of our guilds and unions and communist front organizations which had deceived many of our people into supporting their apparently worthwhile causes. The aim of this communist infiltration was to subvert our screens to the dissemination of communist propaganda only after they had gained economic control of our industry. Now whether you agree with our boy-meets-girl plot in some of our motion pictures, in the finest traditions of private enterprise, in a single generation the motion picture industry of Hollywood has captured 70% of the playing time of all the screens of the world. And all over the world, people have looked beyond our plots and they've seen American freedom, they've seen the way we dress, the things we do, the streets filled with automobiles, the shop windows with the things we could buy, the food on our tables. The communists, more than a decade ago, about 12 or 13 years ago, decided to shortcut this gradual encroaching program and they took advantage of a jurisdictional dispute between two unions. And then overnight, we saw violence in our streets, mass pickets outside our studio gates, most of them provided by Harry Bridges' maritime union. We saw homes bombed, automobiles overturned, threats of acid in the face of our performers. The immediate goal was to close the motion picture industry and get us so discouraged with our own guilds and unions that we would see their dissolution and then fall for the idea of one huge, vertical union of motion picture workers from top-to-bottom and, curiously enough, we would get our charter from that same Harry Bridges. Well, we fought back and we fought well.

And after several months of costly fighting, we won the battle, but it was only an isolated battle. Now, after more than a decade of peace and freedom from the attentions of these people, the order within the last year has come down from the communist party that your memories are short, so are ours, the climate has changed and they are to come out from hiding and once again take up where they left off, re-infiltrate the entertainment industry and again seek to subvert the screens to communist propaganda. Many people in our midst, misguided, well-meaning, will help them, will believe in the civil rights of a man to believe politically what he wants to believe. Now we in Hollywood don't pose as having seen the monkey, we can run the circus. But we do believe that perhaps our experience has given us an awareness that is not possessed by many of our fellow citizens. I'm sure that everyone in the world agrees that the number one problem in the world today is the ideological struggle with Russia. Millions of words each day are uttered concerning the fluctuations of temperature in the Cold War. In spite of this, however, many people in high places in government, many people who mold opinion, through the press and on the airwaves, subscribe to a theory, a belief, that we are at peace and that we must guard our every action so as to make no overt move that would disturb this peace. Men cry peace, but there is no peace. We are at war and it's a war we are losing simply because we don't, or won't, realize we are in it. It's an unusual war, fought with strange weapons, but we can't yell foul. It's a declared war. Karl Marx laid down the cardinal principle a century ago when he said communism and capitalism cannot exist in the world together. And he then declared the war and said that our way, our freedom, our way of life must be destroyed and on the ruins they will then erect the international communist state. Lenin, in interpreting Karl Marx, said, "It is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue to exist for a long period side-by-side with imperialistic states. Ultimately, one or the other, must conquer."

Last November, the communist parties of 81 countries held a convention in Moscow and again they reaffirmed this principle of Marx that it was war to the death. In a 20,000 word manifesto issued as a result of that convention, they called on communists all over the world in countries where there were non-communist governments to work for the destruction of their own governments by treason and subversion. Only in one phase, the one we fear most, are we ahead in this conflict and that is, if the communists should resort to armed force. Thanks to the dedicated patriotism and realistic thinking of our men in uniform, we would win the shooting war. But this isn't too disturbing to the men in the Kremlin because they actually only counted on armed conflict in one eventuality. By their own words, they said, if the Americans should stupidly yield to a massive peace offensive and submit to disarmament and we could shortcut our regular program, our strategy, with armed conflict that would be of no risk to ourselves then we would resort to force. Lenin, in 1923, said, "We will take Eastern Europe, we will organize the hordes of Asia and we won't have to take the United States. We will surround it and that last bastion of capitalism will fall into our outstretched hand like overripe fruit." Well, they've taken Eastern Europe. They are organizing the hordes of Asia around the red colossus of China and today I'm sure many of us suspect we are being prepared for the bitter cup of capitulation in Laos that will be watered down only slightly by a few face-saving devices. Cuba is a Russian beach head 90 miles off our Florida coast and more telling that even that, 250,000 communist professional organizers are scattered up and down the length and breadth of Latin America.

Discussing other weapons and their effectiveness against us, Bulganin said "We can't appeal to the American working man, he's too well fed. But when, through inflation, America has priced herself out of the world markets, and unemployment follows, then we will settle our debt with the United States." Part of the American apathy is probably due to our reluctance to believe there can be any menace in a communist party so few in numbers here in our country. That only if it becomes a mass party with millions of people supporting it does it become something we should pay attention to and should worry about. And yet we ignore the fact that this was exactly the premise upon which Lenin took power within the ranks of the socialist followers. Lenin, determined the idea that the communist party never would be a large party. That it would be a hard, small, professional cadre. That only those people who had proven themselves would be allowed membership and this small professional cadre would, as he said, manipulate and use the masses when they were needed and he referred to us as the masses, we were the willing idiots. The communists are supremely confident of victory. They believe that you and I, under the constant pressure of the Cold War, will one by one give up our democratic traditions and principles and customs. Only temporarily, of course, but only temporarily we will turn to totalitarian tactics and methods just for the purpose of opposing the enemy. And then they cynically believe we will one day awake to find that we have, in adopting these tactics, become so much like the enemy that the causes for conflict have disappeared between us. Three and a half months before his last visit to this country, Nikita Khrushchev said, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism until one day they will awaken to find they have communism." Well this isn't exactly a new thought. As a matter of fact, the struggle we're in isn't new at all, no matter our confusion it's the same age-old struggle of mankind since his climb from the swamps. The struggle of those who believe that a few have the right to rule the many as against those who believe in individual liberty. James Madison speaking before the Virginia convention in 1788 said, "Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." Others, not realizing perhaps, that one day they would be serving the communist cause also subscribe to this belief and decided to use it. A socialist clergyman, writing in 1927, in The New Leader, the socialist magazine of that day, called for a new strategy of the American socialist party. He said they must infiltrate government and put men in government jobs and then he said we must work for government ownership of power, government control of railroads and banking and key industries. And he said we'll call our program, Encroaching Control. A short time ago, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the socialist party ticket, gave a critique on the success of this program when he said the American people will never knowingly vote for socialism, but under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

They've appealed not to the worst, but to the best in us. To our sense of fair play, our willingness to compromise, and compromise is a noble thing when it involves two people of diametrically opposed views, willing to meet in some middle ground where they can coexist together. But compromise in the field of legislation has been developed into a technique of foot-in-the-door legislation. Get any part of a proposed government program enacted into law and then, with the principle of government participation in that field established, work particularly during each election year to expand that to the ultimate aim that one day government must become a big brother to us all. Traditionally, one of the methods first used in imposing statism on a people has been government paid medical care. It's the easiest to disguise as a humanitarian project and none of us wants to be in the position of opposing medical aid to the sick. Today, in our country, the most expensive government medical program in the world is our own Veteran's Administration hospital program. Now, none of us disagree with the idea that a man wounded in the service of his country is entitled to the finest of medical and hospital care that we can possibly afford and give him. But today three out of four veteran's administration beds are filled with patients suffering diseases or injuries neither originated by nor aggravated by military service. Indeed there are only 40,000 service connected disabilities in the whole United States, and yet every annual budget contains millions of dollars for veteran's hospital building the expansion of present facilities. Counting the twenty-three million of us who are veterans and the recent liberalization of our benefits and those other government programs already enacted, today one out of four American citizens is entitled to some form of government paid medical or hospital care. Now it is proposed that all people of Social Security age should come under a program of such comprehensive government care. On an emotional basis, we are presented with a picture of our senior citizens, millions of them, needing medical care, unable to finance it. But somehow in this plea, the proponents of this measure fail to, or seem strangely reluctant, to meet the facts face-to-face. In the last decade, 127 million Americans have come under the protection of some form of private medical or hospital insurance. This includes some two-thirds of the people of Social Security age, seventy percent of the total population. And if the same rate continues, by 1970, the coverage will amount to ninety percent of our population. As nearly as we can determine, the real problem concerns about ten percent of our senior citizens who have medical needs and who do not have the means to finance them. To that end, the last session of Congress adopted a program known as the Kerr-Mills Bill. To make funds available through the states to provide medical care for that ten percent. Now, without even waiting to see if that program will work, we find that the proponents of this other program, the once defeated Forand Bill, are pleading that the only you can meet the problem of these ten percent is an overall compulsory program forcing all people into compulsory government insurance above age 65 whether they need it or not. We're justified, I believe, in accepting that this federal aid to a medical program actually is simply an excuse to bring about socialized medicine. As a matter of fact, ex-Congressman Forand by his own words says, "If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door then we can expand the program after that." Walter Reuther has announced that it is no secret that the organization that he represents favors a complete program of national health insurance for all the population. New America, the socialist magazine, has said, "The Forand Bill will not be paid for on insurance principles according to factors of estimated risk. It will be paid for through the tax mechanisms of Social Security. Once the bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine." Well, he has mentioned the tax mechanism of Social Security. In 1935, Social Security called for a three percent contribution of $3000 of annual income. Today it calls for six percent of $4800 of annual income. And if the expansions now proposed are voted, including this medical program, by 1969 it will call for eleven percent of $5000 of income and again it is no secret that the proponents of this measure are openly advocating that there should be no limit that Social Security taxes and dues should be based on gross income with no ceiling. Social Security was never intended to supplant private savings, insurance or pension plans of unions or industries. It actually was supposed to form a basis for a savings program so that destitution wouldn't follow unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. But the temptation during election years to some politicians was too great. In 1943, the actuarial experts of Social Security estimated that by 1957, the total outgo ib benefit payments would be $1,200,000,000. But by 1957, the total outgo was over $7,000,000,000. In 1959, we started paying out more than we're taking in. Today, the people drawing Social Security benefits will collect $65,000,000,000 more than they paid in. And those of us who are participating in the program and paying into it now are unfunded to an amount between 300 and 600 billion dollars. This program has been presented to us as an insurance program and indeed that term is used over and over again and we are told and led to believe that we and our employers are contributing to a fund and that some day we will call upon that fund on our own money to tide us over our non-earning years. But this isn't the tone of the testimony uttered by the experts of Social Security recently in a lawsuit before the United States Supreme Court. In that lawsuit, the experts of Social Security said it is not an insurance program. It does not have to be based on actuarial principles because it has at its beck and call the tax mechanism of the country. It then went on to say that Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government and the payment of this tax does not automatically entitle any citizen to the payment of Social Security benefits. It then goes on to say that these benefits are a welfare program at the behest of Congress and that Congress can curtail or cancel these benefit payments any time it sees fit.

And what of our sons? What of the young men who in these next few years will come into the nation's workforce? He will pay, in annual Social Security taxes, he and his employer, an amount which if he had at his disposal to invest in private insurance would provide him with a policy that would pay him almost double the benefits he will get from Social Security. But this isn't the only cost in personal freedom. Recently, the press reported the case of a religious group in this country has, as a tenet of its faith, the belief that it cannot participate in any pension or welfare program of government. The government stepped in, confiscated their property, sold their cattle at auction to enforce their payment of Social Security taxes. The foot in the door of education has been the $900 million National Defense Education Act of 1958. The excuse, once again, was the Cold War, Russia had put a Sputnik into the heavens, obviously something must be wrong with our education system. And so we are presented with a picture of overcrowded classrooms, of destitute teachers and of bankrupt school districts. But again let's face the facts. Ninety-nine and one half percent of the school districts in the United States have not even approached the limit of their bonded indebtedness. An increase of 35% of students in the last ten years has been matched with a 134% increase in spending at the local level. We have increased, in this decade, 10 million of the number of students educated in our public schools. We have matched this with a building program of classroom space for 15 million students. 500 colleges in America today can take an additional 200,000 students, without even adding a chair or desk, let alone another classroom. We're told that we must, on a crash program, build 60,000 classrooms a year for the next 10 years. But they forget to tell us we've been building for the last 5 years, 68,000 classrooms a year and if we continue at that rate, by 1970 we will have a surplus of classroom space in this country. Of course we want our teachers adequately paid. We believe they are entitled to the finest that we can afford and we've been doing something about it. Perhaps not as much as we should, but in the last few years the average salary of teachers has gone up from $3100 a year to $5300. The truth is there is not one shred of evidence has been presented that there is a necessity for any federal aid to our traditional local and state educational program. The aim, the aim alone is federal control. They deny this in proposing the legislation, but two and a half billion dollar program now that is advocated by the largest spending lobby in Washington D.C. But what do we hear in other utterances? The director of public education of the state of Washington spoke out in protest publicly against the problem of his state. For two years, in trying to fit itself to the rigid requirements of the director, the national director of education under the present act and he said this is federal control by indirection. All the more dangerous because it pretends to be a federal handout. The former president of the National Education Association spoke publicly on the probable need for temporary federal control of the school system in order to bring about integration in the South. The former chairman of the president's youth fitness committee has said much as we would like to keep our traditional system of local management of the schools we can no longer afford it. We must, in order to meet Russia on equal terms, adopt a same kind of nationalized program they have. The health, education and welfare department has quadrupled its staff. It today is working to create a system of national curriculum and a set of national policies for education because they look forward to the day when we will have a federal school system. In short, the proponents of this measure believe that the only way we can properly educate our young, is to take the control of teachers and subjects and curriculum out of the hands of the parents and put it in the hands of a bureau in Washington, D.C.

27 years ago, the American farmer was told that if the government subsidized him in his need, it would not mean government control. Now we have the case of Evetts Haley, Jr. a Texas university professor and rancher who raised wheat on his own land, fed it to his own cattle and was fined $4000 for so doing. And the United States Supreme Court upheld that conviction. They ruled in a single sentence, yes an agency of the federal government has the right to tell an American citizen what he can grow on his own land for his own use. We adopt a program to curb the production of farm surplus and then make it so financially attractive to produce a surplus that today we own enough wheat to bake 25 loaves of bread for every human being alive in the world. In the nearby state of New Mexico, citizens have learned that they can lease state-owned land for 25 cents an acre and immediately apply for and receive $9 an acre in Soil Bank payments to not plant that land. And all of the farm mess involves 20%, one fifth of agriculture. It would seem that the answer to the farm mess is to get that 20% of agriculture as quickly as is practicable out from under government regulation and subsidy and back out with the other 80% of agriculture which is doing just fine on the open market of supply-and-demand. But what is being proposed in Washington, well a farm program is being lobbied which says the only answer to the farm problem is to take the 80% of free agriculture into a program of government regimentation, requiring the licensing of every farm in the United States, requiring the government establishment of production quotas and prices. And then they frankly admit this will mean the employment of thousands and thousands of new employees in the agricultural department, a permanent government subsidy and the raising of food prices between 15 and 25%. And in order to do this, they admit they will also create, artificially, a shortage of foodstuffs to the point that meat alone will be in supply about equal to what we knew under rationing in World War II. Thomas Jefferson said, "If we let Washington tell us when to sow and when to reap, the nation shall soon want for bread."

I doubt if the American people would ever out, outright for the nationalization of industry as we saw it take place in England a few years ago, but in spite of this, we find that the federal government owns and operates more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. It ranges from the distilling of rum to the manufacture of surgical and dental equipment. 700 government corporations have an estimated book value of $260 billion. They operate tax-free, rent-free, dividend-free, in direct competition with our own citizens and each year lose billions of dollars in this operation. Now next time you're caught in a traffic jam, take some satisfaction from the fact that one of the government corporations built a six-lane highway in Spain. It runs 15 miles from Madrid to a gambling casino. All of this has led to the creation of a collection of internal powers and bureaucratic institutions against which we the citizens are virtually helpless. And this power, under whatever name, whatever ideology, is the very essence of totalitarianism. It's led to a permanent structure of government so complex and so big that Congress can no longer police its activities. Indeed, it actually does a great deal to determine the policy of our government, this permanent structure. Some time ago, a year ago, a subcommittee of Congress was appointed to look into the area of federal employees. They found there are almost two and a half million. They found that in 1942 there was one top salaried executive for every 89 employees. Today there's one for every 17. The committee further said they found little evidence that any agency, bureau or department created in answer to an emergency ever went out of existence even after the emergency had disappeared. Well, an example of this could be the Spruce Products Corporation a government corporation which Congress ordered liquidated in 1920. 30 years later, it was still in existence. This was the corporation founded in World War I to secure spruce wood for airplane fuselages. Some people, in advocating this government participation in business, tell us, well with its great central power and authority, the government, perhaps can do things more efficiently that we can at the local level. Well an example of this efficiency might be the Veteran's Insurance department. The claims department, where three government employees take double the time to perform the task normally assigned to one employee in the average private insurance company. Well, Congress perhaps is tied and can't do too much about it, but we can. First of all, we can inform ourselves on every piece of legislation that is presented to Congress. We can ask ourselves does it fit the theory of the Founding Fathers that government should only do those things the people can't do for themselves. Then we should write, we should look beyond this at what, not just what is the piece of legislation, what is the aim of the people backing it. Write to our Congressmen. Tell them where we stand. Tell them our opposition to federal aid to education, to a federal medical program leading to socialized medicine. You may think that it is silly to write to a Congressman, that it's sort of like fan mail, believe me 50 letters from a group of this kind means 50 times as much as a single resolution passed by an organization or a petition. 40,000 letters in Congress is considered evidence of a trend in public thinking. That's why the communist party boasts they can put 50,000 letters in Washington in any 72-hour period on any issue they choose. And don't forget now and then to sit down and just write a letter to your Congressman to pat him on the back if they are on the firing line, he has been fighting the cause you believe in.

But none of these extensions of socialism could be effected without money. The fodder upon which our government is fed and grown beyond the consent of the governed is the tax system which has only one real consistency and that is that any levy once imposed is never removed. During the Korean War, a excise tax was put on phones. We were told the government didn't need it for revenue, but it was put on to curtail our use of the telephone because of the war emergency. Now the war is long gone, but the tax lingers on. We suggest it be removed and government says we can't, we need the revenue. This tax plus the hundreds and hundreds of hidden and indirect taxes account for a third of your phone bill, one fourth of the cost of your automobile, a hundred of such taxes account for 50% of the price of a loaf of bread, a half of the gas and oil that you put in your car. We were told in our lifetime that the income tax if adopted would amount to 2%, never more and that it would only be applied to the wealthy. Well today, in this lifetime, we've seen that law grow from 31 words to more than 440,000 words beginning at 20% now and rising to 91% of a man's earned income. This progressive income tax was spawned by Karl Marx a hundred years ago. The steepest rate of increase in the surtax brackets occurs through the middle income range where to be found the bulk of our small-businessmen, our professional people, our supervisory personnel and many of our farmers. It reaches 50% and incidentally, these are the people that Karl Marx said should be taxed out of existence. It reaches 50% at 16 or 18 thousand dollars of income. This is considered such a luxury and yet the New York Supreme Court has recently ruled that a man earning $14,000 a year is so poverty-stricken that he should be entitled to live in government-subsidized public housing. We accept the proportion...that this tax is proportioned again appealing to our sense of fair play but if there is no moral justification for the progressive income tax we find that proportionate tax is best described in our Bible. Both the old and new testament describe tithing as the economic basis of our Judaic and Christian religions. We are told that we give the Lord a tenth and we are told that if the Lord prospers us ten times as much, we give ten times as much. But when you start computing Caesar's share under our present tax system you'll find that the man of average income, if he has prospered ten times as much, his personal income tax goes up 53 times as much. And does it really help the little man? Those of us that believe that we are willing to pay a proportional amount in order to remove the burden from that man of lesser income. Take a man with a gross income of $3500 per year and a wife and two children. When he is finished paying the tax collectors, federal, state and local and all those hidden and indirect taxes at the end of the year, he will find the tax collectors share of his gross $3500 is $1059. Now some people tell us the answer to his problem is to soak those of a higher income even more. But how much leeway is left? If the government, tomorrow, started confiscating all income above $6000, all income, the increased revenue wouldn't pay the interest on the national debt. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that amounted to one-third of its people's earnings. Today, 31 cents out of every dollar earned in the United States goes to the tax collector. And of that 31 cents, 23 cents goes to the federal government, leaving 8 cents for the federal, county and the local community to divide up between itself. No wonder we have to turn to government and ask for federal aid in all of our projects. But wouldn't it make a lot more sense to keep some of that money here in the local community to begin with instead of than routing it through that puzzle palace on the Potomac where its returned to us, minus a sizable carrying charge?


Lenin said the way to destroy capitalism is to debauch the currency. Through a quiet process of planned inflation, a government can quietly and unobservedly confiscate the wealth of its citizens. Henry VIII did it openly. He substituted copper for silver in the coinage of the day. While our own government has been deliberate and dishonest in its inflationary policies. Your dollar last year lost another two cents in purchasing power. In 20 years, we know, all of use that it's shrunk to less than half its previous value. But we're told that we shouldn't worry because in this inflated market, our earnings have kept pace and we're earning two-for-one. But they forget the part played by that progressive income tax which is based not on the value of the dollar but on the number of dollars you earn. And so when you start earning two-for one to maintain your purchasing power, you find that you have to earn additional dollars, the vicious cycle begins. Additional dollars to pay your increased surtax as you have moved up through successive brackets. The $5000 a year man of 20 years ago today must earn $14,000. The $10,000 a year man must earn $31,000 and 12,000 of that represents his increased income tax. Would any of us care to project 15 years ahead, to 1975? The same gradual rate of inflation, keep the same tax system and pretend that then we shall have a free economy? When the $5000 a year man will have to earn $33,000. The $10,000 a year man, to break even, will have to earn $84,000. And any among us who are fortunate as to be at that lofty $50,000 a year plateau, well that fella's got earn $835,000 to break even.

Here is the main battleground. Two years ago, I had the experience of going to Washington representing the motion picture industry before the House Ways and Means Committee, to advocate the adoption of a tax reform program. This was an experience similar to going over Niagara Falls in a barrel...the hard way, upstream.

[laughter and applause]

In a month of unprecedented hearings, practically every segment of the American economy appeared before that program and 100% of those appearing demanded some kind of tax reform. But it was obvious there was little sympathy on the part of the majority of that committee with our views so it was a surprise when a few months later they decided to hold additional hearings on tax reform. This time, no volunteers. They would hand pick and invite a few selected witnesses and so a group mainly of campus economists appeared before the committee and they to talked tax reform. But they talked a tax reform which would see that the government got additional revenue, a greater share of the national income. They said this could be done by closing some of the loop-holes whereby you and I were avoiding our just share of taxation. And some of these loop-holes were the very legitimate deductions without which the whole hodge-podge system would have long since proven unworkable. They were that you and I should not be allowed to deduct our real estate tax or the interest on our mortgages or loans before computing income tax. We shouldn't be allowed to deduct charitable and education contributions at 100%. Those of the liberal persuasion today are lobbying for a tax reform measure now before Congress, a tax reform measure which may come to us piecemeal, not all in one piece. But this tax reform measure actually will be presented with a reduction of rates but so many loop-holes would be closed that the advocates openly say the government, if they adopt this program, will get $18 billion more than they are now getting. And then they just as openly say by coincidence we happen to have $18 billion worth of welfare programs we want the government to adopt. These same people tell us we're not smart enough to spend our money for the things we should buy, that the function of government should be to take our money from us through taxation and buy for us the welfare programs that our intelligence will not or, our lack of intelligence will not permit us to buy. They say they refute, before a Senate committee one of them as a spokesman said they refute the idea that the least government is the best government. And when we suggest to them the danger of more deficit spending, when they tell us that only local and state debt is bad, but the federal debt is meaningless, they tell us that we are sacrificing our security on the false altar of a balanced budget. Well, ladies and gentleman, they very source of our strength is our individual liberty and our free economy. And there is no security anyplace in the free world if there isn't fiscal stability within the United States. Of course the federal debt is meaningless, it's incomprehensible. I've taken to drawing a picture for myself. If I had here in my hand a 4-inch stack of $1000 bills, I'd be a millionaire. But if we had in front of us the national debt, piled up in $1000 bills, the pile would be more than 18 miles high. And this is only the part that shows above the surface like an iceberg. Actually in legislation already enacted into law our government is obligated to more than $750 billion. This added to the local and state debt and the private debt of our citizens' amounts to a figure more than double the market value of every tangible asset and every foot of real estate in the United States.

Today, with no one using the term socialism to describe encroaching control, we find one out of seven of the workforce on the public payroll. In 15 years, a 50% increase in public employees has been matched by a 170% increase in their payroll. One-fourth of our people now entitled to government-paid medical care, socialized medicine if you please. One-fifth of our industry owned and operated by government. Senator Byrd has estimated that today 40 million American citizens receive some form of direct cash payment from the federal government. We have a tax system that in direct contravention to the Constitution is not designed solely to raise revenue, but is openly and admittedly used to regulate and control the economy and the level the earnings of our citizens, aiming again at that mediocrity which is the utopian dream of the socialists. Here is where we must expend the main effort. Don't forsake the other issues that I have mentioned but as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Strike for the jugular. Reduce taxes and spending. Keep government poor, and remain free." Write to your Congressman and demand a tax reform immediately which will reduce the percentage of the national income the government is taking in taxes. Write to your Congressman and tell him you want an end to deficit spending, that you want the same control of the federal government's right to borrow that we exert here at the local community and at the state level. Tell him further, with an eye on our children, that you want, as part of the annual budget a regular payment on that national debt. And if your Congressman is one who writes back and says he, too, is for economy, but we must reduce government spending before we reduce taxes, you write back and tell him this is a dishonest theory. Because no government in history has ever voluntarily reduced itself in size. Government doesn't tax to get the money it needs, government will always find a need for the money it gets. There can be only one end to the war we are in. We can't just out-wait it and hope by not looking, that it will go away. Wars like this one end in victory or defeat. One of the foremost authorities on communism in the world today, a former medical missionary, has said that we have ten years, not ten years in which to make a decision, we have ten years to decide the verdict because within this decade, the world will become either all free or all slave. Our Founding Fathers, here in this country, brought about the only true revolution that has ever taken place in man's history. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another set of rulers. But only here did that little band of men so advanced beyond their time that the world has never seen their like since, evolve the idea that you and I have within ourselves the God-given right and the ability to determine our own destiny. But freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it and then hand it to them with the well thought lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same. And if you and I don't do this, then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.

Thank You.