It's happening again. Progressives always reach a place to where they want to kill people.

A few days ago, an article titled "Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists" appeared in a journal for bio ethics. More than anything, note the context. This is being discussed by those who are "the experts" of ethics, by researchers from Duke University and the National Institute of Health. So we're supposed to take this seriously, that this is an enlightened and reasoned discourse on the matter. All of that gets shattered if you look at the verbage they use at the bottom:

This radical conclusion may shock some readers, but the authors are not murderers. They want to bring greater precision to what we mean by killing. Rendering someone totally and permanently incapacitated is just as bad as taking a life, or so they contend. Killing totally disabled patients does them no harm.

"Then killing her cannot disrespect her autonomy, because she has no autonomy left. It also cannot be unfair to kill her if it does her no harm."

Nor, they say, is life "sacred". The only relevant difference between life and death is the existence of abilities – and a brain-damaged person no longer has these.

"[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong."

So they know full well their proposal is radical, yet they've proposed it anyways. I can't get past the words they're using, they have made a 'good' attempt to soften the ground. Where have I heard such vile nastyness before? Oh yeah! Margaret Sanger. In her 1922 book "The Pivot of Civilization", Sanger incredibly wrote the following:(Page 265)

At the present time, civilized nations are penalizing talent and genius, the bearers of the torch of civilization, to coddle and perpetuate the choking human undergrowth, which, as all authorities tell us, is escaping control and threatens to overrun the whole garden of humanity.

Margaret Sanger also justified her radicalism by cloaking it in science. In 1925, "Birth Control: Facts and Responsibilities" was published. Now, being as this is still under copyright, I can't do anything with it. But Margaret Sanger did, repeatedly, imply or outright say and write things in reference to "human weeds".(as you can see)

This is always how it begins. Go after the "lowest hanging fruit" as they see it. The feebleminded, the neuronic, the idiots and imbeciles, the illiterate, the undesirables, the defectives. Those are all terms that were used by early eugenicists and progressives to denote their superiority above others. As we have seen from history, doctors should not have the power to make these decisions. Even when individuals make this sort of choice is bad enough, as noted by The Blaze, this: is the result of the devaluation of human life. But this kind of thing is nothing new. Let's get back to Margaret Sanger. In 1932, she penned an article titled "MY WAY TO PEACE" (From the Sanger public documents archive)

have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems, and appoint a Parliament of Population Directors representing the various branches of science.

How nice. A politburo which will decide if you are worthy of life or not. And aptly named! The Parliament of Population.

(f) the whole dysgenic population would have its choice of segregation or sterilization.

(g) there would be farm lands and homesteads where these segregated persons would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

Yes, you read that right. This is where it always ends up. And note, as I go through all of this, how every bit of this relates back to what those bioethicists wrote just a week ago. They did everything but use the word 'feebleminded'. What Sanger wrote here sounds very similar to this:

"I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board, just as they might come before the income tax commissioners, and say every 5 years or every 7 years, just put them there, and say, sir or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?
If you're not producing as much you consume, or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the big organization of our society, for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of any use to yourself

Would you say Shaw's proposal sounds like a proposal for a Parliament of Population? I think it does. Now, you don't have to go digging very far before you start to learn that Sanger was well acquainted with Fabian Socialism, having relationships with both Havelock Ellis(who was a contributor The Birth Control Review) and H G Wells. All one big happy circle.

Know history, and you know the future. While I don't expect that modern bio ethicists will go around talking about the feebleminded any time soon, I cannot say it won't happen. They're already going around talking about "human weeds". They have already placed themselves on this path. So what's next?

Making a revolution constitutional: Progressivism and the "Gateway Amendment"

The Gateway Amendment is a simple thing, really. As it was explained in The Public, a Chicago based newspaper:

The gateway amendment proposed by Mayor Quick, of Sioux City, and recommended by the democratic convention of Iowa, is receiving favorable attention of labor organizations. The last labor organization to recommend it was the Machinists union, which did unanimously. We have commented favorably upon this amendment. Its object is to make possible to amend the federal constitution without a revolution, by providing that a majority vote of houses of congress, followed by a majority vote of the people of the States, shall make any immediately effective. The theory of the "gateway" amendment is constitutions should reasonably be under the control of the living; not wholly under that of the dead. People who are satisfied with things as they are, will naturally enough not favor its adoption; but people who want the gate opened for wise constitutional amendments will as naturally support Quick's "gateway" amendment.

Note, that's a simple majority. Not a 2/3s or 3/4 majority.

The preamble to the resolutions in favor of the "gateway" amendment adopted by the machinists convention, contains a succinct and admirable statement of the function of written constitutions. It is well preserving. The chief use of a written constitution, it says:

is to place certain legislative functions beyond the power of legislatures and congresses, and the object of these reservations is to preserve those functions for the people themselves and to protect them against the venality or folly of their representatives

This parallels Colonel House's book "Philip Dru, Administrator", Theodore Roosevelt(link) Woodrow Wilson(who cited a third person, Frank Goodnow), all of whom called for bureaucracies which were completely removed from the voters. The "Gateway" Amendment was their attempt to codify the progressive revolution into the constitution as an amendment. The wording here is not accidental, these progressives knew back then what their goals were, just as they did today.

In The American Magazine during the 1912 election, Herbert Quick was a big, big Woodrow Wilson Supporter. Here is the caption underneath his picture:(page 15)

THE FATHER OF THE "GATEWAY AMENDMENT" This important plank for the easier amendment of the Constitution in the Bull Moose platform was first proposed by Herbert Quick, who put it across in the Iowa Democratic platform in the late nineties. He has been agitating it ever since practically alone. He regards it as the most important plank in any political platform this year. Nevertheless Mr Quick is for Governor Wilson

Page 12 of 'The American' states that it has taken opinions from leading progressives of the day. While Quick may be forgotten to us today, he was well known back then. He was a prolific writer, which is all that Wikipedia's sanitized web page says about him. Here is a detailed bio should someone decide to change that.

What he wrote in his article in support of Wilson is very telling. He delights at the progressive revolution which is now(then) already well underway:(page 14)

Progressives like myself who regard the thing rather than the name are blest with an embarrassment of riches this year. It is a proof of the enormously rapid progress of the progressive movement in American politics that we, who have in the past fully expected that reactionary forces would in any given case control both old parties save when the perennial Bryan might wrest dominion temporarily from them, are now actually given a choice between two genuinely progressive candidates and two really advanced platforms. More wonderful still, these two are the real contenders for the victory. Standpatism, represented by the once great Republican party, is matched with Socialism for third place It is a most astounding revolution.

During the progressive era of American politics in the early 20th century, our country really was re-founded. Thankfully, they didn't get as much done as they wanted back then. Not foundationally, as this amendment would have done. It's taken them generations to do it through the back door via the courts.

And you know what's the funny thing, is I started out my research this morning on Theodore Roosevelt's third term. This is what I ended up digging out.

The New Nationalism

Recorded the speech (transcript), it's up on Youtube.

Highlights of the speech on the Youtube page. It's recorded more like a general audiobook than a political speech, that's what I can do. But at least it's now in a higher profile place - Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Theodore Roosevelt's letter to Charles Benedict Davenport, on eugenics

Want to be looked at by government like a farm animal? If your stock isn't good enough, perhaps we could just sit people in front of the politburo and force them to justify their existences. Doesn't sound good to you? Would it be too far to go out on a limb and say that Theodore Roosevelt would've agreed with the notion? In his letter to Charles Davenport, people's stock being 'farmed', is exactly the notion he advances. You can read the letter here, but I would much prefer you listen to it. Youtube link. (Also, Popmodal. But the audio doesn't seem as good.)

It has a much greater impact in audio, doesn't it? This(among many other things) is the danger of progressivism. Big governments inevitably become abusive.

This would have an even greater impact if it were recorded by a professional. And one day, I hope that happens. It needs to happen. We simply cannot afford to allow progressives to run away from their history any longer.

What is the role of the modern progressive teacher? Use children effectively in any crisis

Hat Tip to Michigan Capitol Confidential:

Teachers' Union Manual Shows How to Organize Illegal Strikes, Use Children During Bargaining

This is evil, evil stuff. You want to know just how deep down the rathole that the school systems have gone? Take a look inside this crisis manual. On page 17 of the manual(searchable alternative link here) it says "Pick a target - personalize - and polarize the opposition" which is right out of Saul Alinsky.

It was Horace Mann who said it best: We, then, who are engaged in the sacred cause of education, are entitled to look upon all parents as having given hostages to our cause

All answers are in history. Your children are hostages to the Michigan Education Association's cause.

State Control to Insure Equality But Not Socialism

Source 1 The Woodrow Wilson House

Source 2 The papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 67

Date: Sunday, August 03, 1919

Title: Wilson: State Control to Insure Equality But Not Socialism
In a memo from Wilson's brother-in-law Stockton Axson dated "one Sunday night in August 1919," [Sun. Aug. 3 chosen arbitrarily as a result. WP Addenda Vol. 67] Wilson is quoted as `a Liberal from a family gathering on the White House rear portico.

"I am perfectly sure that the state has got to control everything that everybody needs and uses. This means the state must control the means of distribution -the transportation facilities, the railroads; that the state must control the coal mines and the iron mines; that the state must control the water sources, the lighting facilities. These things must be controlled by the state in order to secure equality of opportunity among individuals." Wilson gave as an example how railroads favor large shippers giving them rebates and the like. "The little man must have just the same rights as the big man, and state control provides for this....But there is a point beyond which I cannot go with the socialists, because...their further programmes are not for the individual benefit of the individual."

This is one of my newest finds, I blogged about Wilson not too long ago and this was toward the bottom of that posting.(I had actually found this that day) But I wanted it to be up front and center being as it seems like nobody's ever noticed it before, certainly not any that I can see on the internet. Now, 1919 was not a good year for Wilson but this was written by him before he had that incapacitating stroke.

This book(volume 67) and it's contents are heavily blockaded behind a firewall of copyright, so I can't do much else with this. But I'm very sure I want to spread this around so others will be able find it, should the Progressingamerica project become what I want it to become and others follow in my footsteps of digging into the history of progressivism. This book will not be in copyright forever. :-)

Why did the progressives have to steal our founding fathers away from us?

There are many reasons, of course, but here is a good illustration:

This would have resonated very well among Americans in 1912, because back in those days we knew full well who the founders were, it had been in the textbooks. Even a century after Washington's passing, his star was so bright, he was such an incredible role model, that the point of this cartoon is impossible to miss - "Theodore Roosevelt, YOU are no George Washington!"

What the progressives had to do, is clear. Revise history. One of the first places that progressives established as a stronghold was academia, you may know that Woodrow Wilson was the president of Princeton for 6 years. Having complete control over the universities afforded progressives a great opportunity. Someone gets the bright idea about removing The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution from school books, give it a short time for people to forget, then they've given themselves a convenient way to now attack the Founders for being racists. Then they could remove from the textbooks that several of our Founders were dirt poor. Now the progressives can sneer at our Founders for being nothing but a bunch of rich white racist elitists. And finally, it's put into motion to take the Founder's faith out of the textbooks, now the Founders really aren't even the Founders. Rich athiest racists, a bunch of white elitists who now only exist on a bunch of old dusty documents. Why on earth would you consider any of them a role model?

This was done so the progressives could rule over us. Sun Tzu said:

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 (Chapter 3)

You don't know who you are as an American, and you don't know who the progressives are. Both have been removed from the textbooks. You're ripe for the taking.

The progressive call for more bureaucracies unaccountable to the people

Bigger and bigger government is the hallmark of progressivism, and so too is making sure that the voters have no say over how the machinery of government affects their life. I wrote about this a short time ago, Progressivism and the origins of the tyrannical administrative state, and this is a continuation of that theme. Woodrow Wilson was not the only one who fancied himself a 'Philip Dru' type of administrative authority, so too did Theodore Roosevelt. In his "The New Nationalism" speech, he said the following:

There is a wide-spread belief among our people that, under the methods of making tariffs which have hitherto obtained, the special interests are too influential. Probably this is true of both the big special interests and the little special interests. These methods have put a premium on selfishness, and, naturally, the selfish big interests have gotten more than their smaller, though equally selfish, brothers. The duty of Congress is to provide a method by which the interest of the whole people shall be all that receives consideration. To this end there must be an expert tariff commission, wholly removed from the possibility of political pressure or of improper business influence. Such a commission can find the real difference between cost of production, which is mainly the difference of labor cost here and abroad. As fast as its recommendations are made, I believe in revising one schedule at a time. A general revision of the tariff almost inevitably leads to logrolling and the subordination of the general public interest to local and special interests.

This is what progressivism is all about, and it doesn't matter what party you're talking about. It's in both parties. It was then, and it is today.

Big progressive change is closer than we American Communists think

The Communist Party USA is claiming victory. Via CPUSA: This is an FDR/MLK moment

The tea party was supposed to be the new majority trend in our country. But where is the tea party now? They are still a well-organized and financed group. They tried to help Walker and Kasich. I'm sure they were working in Ohio, Miss., etc., but they could not match the united might of organized labor, the unity of black, brown and white, Asian Pacific, Native American Indian in struggle. Men, women, youth, old, gay and straight - united nothing can stop us.

Where was the tea party? They had plenty of money but they were out organized, out strategized, and most importantly, their bankrupt ideas are losing support among honest working people. They are not a match for the united power of the organized working people, along with racial and nationally oppressed, youth and students, women, LGBT, peace and justice struggling together in a broad popular front. That's what is needed to turn the tide.

Our job is to contribute all that we can to maximize that power. And that is what will set the stage for a new progressive era and for a socialist transformation. Big progressive change is closer then we think.

While American progressivism was more Fabian in it's original form, they've been much closer to Marxian ideals ever since the 60's. And now we're seeing the fruits of that. The USSA is upon you. You should pick your preferred politburo now, before the mass killings begin. And if you think I'm being a bit overly-hyperbolic about that, think again. Over 100 million people were killed in the 20th century due to communism. Now it's our turn to slaughter ourselves for the glorious utopian revolution.

A dozen little squabbling contemptible commonwealths

In his speech "The New Nationalism", Theodore Roosevelt said the following:

We can admire the heroic valor, the sincerity, the self-devotion shown alike by the men who wore the blue and the men who wore the gray; and our sadness that such men should have to fight one another is tempered by the glad knowledge that ever hereafter their descendants shall be fighting side by side, struggling in peace as well as in war for the uplift of their common country, all alike resolute to raise to the highest pitch of honor and usefulness the nation to which they all belong. As for the veterans of the Grand Army of the Republic, they deserve honor and recognition such as is paid to no other citizens of the Republic; for to them the republic owes it all; for to them it owes its very existence. It is because of what you and your comrades did in the dark years that we of to-day walk, each of us, head erect, and proud that we belong, not to one of a dozen little squabbling contemptible commonwealths, but to the mightiest nation upon which the sun shines.

I do not speak of this struggle of the past merely from the historic standpoint. Our interest is primarily in the application to-day of the lessons taught by the contest a half a century ago. It is of little use for us to pay lip-loyalty to the mighty men of the past unless we sincerely endeavor to apply to the problems of the present precisely the qualities which in other crises enabled the men of that day to meet those crises. It is half melancholy and half amusing to see the way in which well-meaning people gather to do honor to the men who, in company with John Brown, and under the lead of Abraham Lincoln, faced and solved the great problems of the nineteenth century, while, at the same time, these same good people nervously shrink from, or frantically denounce, those who are trying to meet the problems of the twentieth century in the spirit which was accountable for the successful solution of the problems of Lincoln’s time.

I happen to think that the more local that government can be, the better. It's the federal government that's contemptible. I would never describe the states this way. How about you?

We ought all to regard ourselves and to act as socialists

In his book "The state, elements of historical and practical politics", Woodrow Wilson wrote the following: (Page 60)

It by no means follows, nevertheless, that because the state may unwisely interfere in the life of the individual, it must be pronounced in itself and by nature a necessary evil. It is no more an evil than is society itself. It is the organic body of society : without it society would be hardly more than a mere abstraction. If the name had not been restricted to a single, narrow, extreme, and radically mistaken class of thinkers, we ought all to regard ourselves and to act as socialists, believers in the wholesomeness and beneficence of the body politic.

If the history of society proves anything, it proves the absolute naturalness of government, its rootage in the nature of man, its origin in kinship, and its identification with all that makes man superior to the brute creation. Individually man is but poorly equipped to dominate other animals : his lordship comes by combination, his strength is concerted strength, his sovereignty is the sovereignty of union. Outside of society man's mind can avail him little as an instrument of supremacy ; and government is the visible form of society. If society itself be not an evil, neither surely is government an evil, for government is the indispensable organ of society.

Every means, therefore, by which society may be perfected through the instrumentality of government, every means by which individual rights can be fitly adjusted and harmonized with public duties, by which individual self-development may be made at once to serve and to supplement social development, ought certainly to be diligently sought, and, when found, sedulously fostered by every friend of society. Such is the socialism to which every true lover of his kind ought to adhere with the full grip of every noble affection that is in him.

Egads! The arrogance of these people, so he alone decides when and where to re-define socialism. Note the line about government as a necessary evil, which is how the founders viewed government. This part right here is an attack on the founding of the country, without specific mention on his part. And take note of the part that I bolded regarding the perfection of society. This is a common theme amongst progressives. If they just regulate enough of your life, if only there were enough unelected administrators, bureacurats, and judges to dictate to you about how to live your life, then society would be oh so perfect! On page 61:

Socialism and the Modern Industrial Organization.

It is possible indeed, to understand, and even in a measure to sympathize with, the enthusiasm of those special classes of agitators whom we have dubbed with the too great name of ' Socialists.' The schemes of social reform and regeneration which they support with so much ardor, however mistaken they may be, and surely most of them are mistaken enough to provoke the laughter of children, have the right end in view : they seek to bring the individual with his special interests, personal to himself, into complete harmony with society with its general interests, common to all.

So they have the right end in view. It's hard to miss the love and adoration of government throughout this section of his book. But! But! It's not socialism! A memo of Wilson's written in 1919 titled "State Control to Insure Equality But Not Socialism":

"I am perfectly sure that the state has got to control everything that everybody needs and uses. This means the state must control the means of distribution -the transportation facilities, the railroads; that the state must control the coal mines and the iron mines; that the state must control the water sources, the lighting facilities. These things must be controlled by the state in order to secure equality of opportunity among individuals." Wilson gave as an example how railroads favor large shippers giving them rebates and the like. "The little man must have just the same rights as the big man, and state control provides for this....But there is a point beyond which I cannot go with the socialists, because...their further programmes are not for the individual benefit of the individual."

It's incredible that these progressives thought they could walk a line like this but not cross over into tyrannical socialism. But that is the hubris that comes with a progressive mindset.

What is the role of revolutionaries in a non revolutionary period?

As I was recording section 11 of the STORM handbook (Moving from Resistance to Revolution, page 52 Reclaiming Revolution, full text, PDF, etc. versions ) it struck me that this was an important question to ask, I should've thought further ahead and realized that the question needed to be asked, but that's why it's important to read their words. You never know what benefit it will have. We need to keep an eye on people like this. And it starts with asking the correct questions. Anyways, below I'll post the full text of section 11 where the role is explained, generally speaking anyways. The audio version is here and here.

Our commitment to communist politics didn't give us any easy answers about what we should be doing to advance a revolutionary movement in this country. Other organizations with a Marxist analysis seemed to lack a practical program for building the kind of power needed to win our people's liberation.

Several of these communist groups emphasized the immediate building of the revolutionary vanguard party.They thought the party should prepare to seize power when the people "spontaneously" rise up during imperialism's inevitable crises. We believed that these groups had badly misassessed the real state of imperialism and of social movements. They prematurely anticipated a peoples' uprising (which we didn't see on the immediate horizon) while underestimating the importance and difficulty of building power in oppressed communities to lay the groundwork for future uprisings.

Other communist organizations - and many individual activists - were questioning the possibility of a revolutionary movement ever succeeding. They emphasized immersion in unions and mass struggles to the exclusion of intentional work to develop a revolutionary movement.

We wanted an approach that resolved the contradiction between the need for building immediate (and inevitably reform-based) power in disorganized oppressed communities on the one hand and the need to lay the ground work for the long-term development of a revolutionary movement on the other.

To resolve this tension, STORM developed an innovative analysis about the role of revolutionaries in a non-revolutionary historical period. We called it "Moving from Resistance to Revolution."

We concluded that the current period is one of "resistance," not one of "revolution." We thought that the main work of revolutionaries at such times should be to build resistance fights.These fights would build power and consciousness in oppressed communities. But revolutionaries must design and craft this "resistance work" so as to help lay the foundation for the long-term development of a revolutionary movement. As "conscious forces," we thought that revolutionaries should work intentionally to help the resistance movement mature into a revolutionary one.

This "Moving from Resistance to Revolution" framework was STORM's attempt to negotiate the contradiction between reformism and ultra-leftism.

We cannot afford anymore to turn a blind eye to the people working in the shadows trying to take our liberty. Some examples of what they mean by resistance fights, 'lay the foundation', and groundwork and so forth can be found earlier in the handbook. Thinks like 'Bay Area Police Watch', which became the Ella Baker Center(Van Jones' outfit). Non profits. Unions are listed right in this very section, above. At all times these people are working to steal our liberty. We need to at all times need to be shining flashlights in their direction. These people thrive on shadows. If we want to protect our liberty, we need to deprive them of shadows.

The war against the family

In The Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx/Engels write:(Page 39)

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists On what foundation is the present family the bourgeois family based On capital on private gain In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians and in public prostitution.

This is written as a response to objections by "bourgeoisie" detractors, though it's not exactly written as a complete refutation of the charge. I can't help but be curious as to what the exact charges were and how they were actually written/said, but it's likely in German if not completely lost in the sands of time altogether. Nonetheless, this is vague to me. Unreliable and old. I say rely on something more modern, and more concrete. The communist goals of 1963 are a good place to start: (Click here for text and audio)

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

And there are other goals which also contribute to making this goal a reality. But is this the only one? How about something even even more current? Written in 2007, The Coming Insurrection by the Invisible Committee says the following: Link1 Link2 - full text of the book (It's on page 67/68)

Form communes

Communes come into being when people find each other, get on with each other, and decide on a common path. The commune is perhaps what gets decided at the very moment when we would normally part ways. It’s the joy of an encounter that survives its expected end. It’s what makes us say “we,” and makes that an event. What’s strange isn’t that people who are attuned to each other form communes, but that they remain separated. Why shouldn’t communes proliferate everywhere? In every factory, every street, every village, every school. At long last, the reign of the base committees! Communes that accept being what they are, where they are. And if possible, a multiplicity of communes that will displace the institutions of society: family, school, union, sports club, etc. Communes that aren’t afraid, beyond their specifically political activities, to organize themselves for the material and moral survival of each of their members and of all those around them who remain adrift. Communes that would not define themselves – as collectives tend to do – by what’s inside and what’s outside them, but by the density of the ties at their core. Not by their membership, but by the spirit that animates them.

Communes should displace the family. Looks like the German 'bourgeoisie' that Marx and Engels objected to were right all along, and when we were told that this book calls for the destruction of the family, we were given accurate information. It's all in the wording. Two notes about this book. I used two links because both indicate that The Coming Insurrection is public domain, which would make sense given that it was used in a court case. Whoever uploaded Coming Insurrection in that PDF file didn't put the pages in order. Page 67 of the book(page numbers bottom right) appears on the PDF's page #25.

I hope that those of you who have run into my blog before are starting to realize that there are answers to all of this - It took me a while to figure that out too. How do these people communicate with each other? How do they know who is who? What do these people believe, have they ever written it down? Where does all this come from? We don't want to live under the authoritarian thumb of progressivism, communism, socialism, or any other. But if you're going to fight this, you're going to need answers. Because anybody can refute a simple charge into being a baseless charge.

But not if you have their own words on your side. Changes everything when you have something more than anecdotes. It just requires someone to go digging and then once the answers are found, tell people what page numbers to look at.

When did 'revisionist history' enter the english language?

We've long lived with revisionist history. Progressives have made the founders into racists, many of them into atheists, but there has to be a way to track this down, right? It actually comes from Germany. Once again, we see how the roots of progressivism comes from "Germanic ideals" or "Prussianism".(some of the ways it used to be phrased in the early 20th century - see my archives for previous discussion on this) And revisionist history is yet another tendril of this tree root. Marxists.org has the actual article where it first entered into the English language, but I can't blame anybody for not wanting to give web hits to these people. The title of the article is "Revisionism in Germany", written by J. B. Askew. Here.

Wikipedia has an article about Revisionism in the Marxist tradition. Here. While I generally distrust Wikipedia, I do generally think this makes sense in that the attribution of Revisionism as a whole goes to Eduard Bernstein.(and Jean Jaures) Here's what it says:

who sought to revise Karl Marx's ideas about the transition to socialism and claimed that a revolution through force was not necessary to achieve a socialist society. The views of Bernstein and Jaurès gave rise to reformist theory, which asserts that socialism can be achieved through gradual peaceful reforms from within a capitalist system.

The image caption on the right says the following:

Eduard Bernstein, originator of the original Revisionism.

I found this to be intriguing, as well as the whole timing, considering that (As I've previously noted) one of the major precursors to Fabian Socialism in Britain(and in the US I might add) is Henry George's Book. In the late 1800's. Also, this is right around the time that progressivism rears it's ugly little head. Late 1800's, early 1900's. And how Bernstein ties into this is incredible. He wrote the book on Evolutionary Socialism, in 1899. I think this may be it's English translation.

Now think about that for a second. Does not "Evolutionary Socialism" perfectly describe Fabianism? And while we're at it, does it not also in large part describe progressivism? I can't help but see that all these puzzle pieces fit together perfectly.