Did Jefferson believe that liberty had a nineteen year lifespan?

In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following:

Constitutions - No society can make a perpetual Constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The Constitution and laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every Constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer it is an act of force and not of right.

I think this is important to address, because there have been attempts by progressives to use Jefferson's quote, even to the point of defending Ginsburg's comments. Yes, I purposely asked an absurd question to illustrate the absurdity of the progressives' proposal here. Anyways, regarding Jefferson's letter, there's two things that stand out here to me. First, is the word "law", and second is "usufruct". If we were to just take this at face value, then could it be said that after 19 years we should just run right back into tyranny after throwing it all out? I suspect that's not what Jefferson was saying here. Regarding "law", in searching for this quote from Jefferson, I came across the following: The writings of Thomas Jefferson, 1907. In the section titled "Jefferson and the Land Question"(alternate link to constitution.org), the following is written:

Jefferson is a pole star among political philosophers because he based his politics on the eternal, self-evident, fundamental truths that all men are created free and equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inherent and unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How are the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness primarily to be exercised? Not in the political field, but in the underlying social field. How shall a man get an independent living precedes how shall he participate in general government. He cannot exercise, or fully exercise, his political faculties until, without let or hindrance, he can get sustenance.

Hence Jefferson's political axiom involves as a prerequisite a social or economic axiom, without observance of which political institutions can be only as a house built upon the sand. This economic axiom is that men have equal rights to natural opportunities, to land. On land mankind must have its habitation and from it it must draw subsistence. Nowhere else, from no other source, can it live. Therefore, the rights of life, liberty and the {ii} pursuit of happiness carry with them the inherent, unalienable, equal right of all to land.

And the chapter proceeds from there, including the quote from above about the expiration of all law after 19 years. Now, I focused on the word "law", and not on "constitutions", because it's pretty well known that Jefferson was firm in his belief of liberty. So while we can..... and even should....... throw out laws all the time(and perhaps 19 years may even be too long) that does not mean we throw out everything. We do not throw out that which protects us from an authoritarian. We do not throw out our firm reliance upon the protections of Divine Providence. Unless I'm totally wrong here, to which this second book and it's details would also appear to be wrong.

On to "usufruct". The second book talks about "Jefferson and the Land Question", and puts this letter in that context. The word "usufruct" means:

1: the legal right of using and enjoying the fruits or profits of something belonging to another

2: the right to use or enjoy something

In short, property. Which means that Jefferson was at least in large degree talking about property laws. Now, he does use the word "Constitution" several times, so that can't and shouldn't be ignored. But I have little doubt that Jefferson assumes that the inalienable rights that we've retained by our Creator would be a part of any future constitution which may be formed. So any constitutions which are built upon a basis of social justice need not apply to the United States of America. We are better than that, we have rights which are inalienable by social justice.

http://tinyurl.com/7lp6w7w

Are progressives now out there openly calling for a planned economy?

Normally, progressives will try to hide their claims and goals in dubious sounding fluff code words. "Economic justice" and so forth. But not here. The call has actually been made for a planned economy. I did a little bit of searching, and I think this may be the first sign of it. So if history is our guide, they're going to call more and more for a planned economy in the future. It's what the progressives really want.

A Planned Economy for the 1%

This thing is loaded with fallacies from front to back. First off, if they're "planning for the 1%", then they are necessarily planning for everybody. It's impossible to do the kind of separation that they're implying, this is just a way to sell it better. Second off, right out of the gate, the fallacy is thrown out that 'all economies are planned to some extent', to which they build up as a false either/or; either the government is going to plan it, or the banks plan it. Individuals do most of the planning on their own, when the government is not involved, and the banks don't care enough to do systematic planning, as long as whatever your venture is is making money. It's only when you start not being able to pay your bills, do the banks come sniffing at your doorstep. But with this either/or fallacy as the basis of the whole interview, it follows that the rest is fallacious as well.

For those seeking further background into how dangerous governmental planning is, see "The Road to Serfdom", by Friedrich Hayek, pages 1-283.

http://tinyurl.com/88aqkqw

Woodrow Wilson absolutely hated the principles of the Founding Fathers

"If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface." - Woodrow Wilson

There is so much in that little line. The obvious question is regarding the preface - what's in the preface of the Declaration of Independence that scared Wilson so much? In short, fundamental truths. Timeless, tested, proven to work fundamentals. Our reliance on our creator, and not upon government, for our rights.

In 1911, Woodrow Wilson gave his now infamous speech regarding the Declaration to - of all places, I love this - the Jefferson Club. "An Address to the Jefferson Club of Los Angeles" is the full title of this speech. What's really telling about how much disdain he had for the Founders is the line that precedes the one I opened this up with: (You can read the majority of this speech here)

Now, the business of every true Jeffersonian is to translate the terms of those abstract portions of the Declaration of Independence into the language and the problems of his own day. If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface.

See what I mean? Just with one single sentence, we get a much fuller view of Wilson's contempt for the Founders. Especially when he says 'translate the terms of those abstract portions of the Declaration'. But what's so abstract that needs translation? The natural law portions. Something that progressives have always been consistent about,(and I have a full blog devoted to proving this, in their own words) is the need for bigger and bigger government. But how can you grow government if the foundation is built on the rejection of tyranny? You don't repeat the preface. Just skip it.

And it's not like Wilson only said this once. September 1907, in "The Author and Signers of the Declaration", Wilson wrote the following:

So far as the Declaration of Independence was a theoretical document, that is its theory. Do we still hold it? Does the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence still live in our principles of action, in the things we do, in the purposes we applaud, in the measures we approve? It is not a question of piety. We are not bound to adhere to the doctrines held by the signers of the Declaration of Independence; we are as free as they were to make and unmake governments. We are not here to worship men or a document. But neither are we here to indulge in a mere rhetorical and uncritical eulogy. Every Fourth of July should be a time for examining our standards, our purposes, for determining afresh what principles, what forms of power we think most likely to effect our safety and happiness. That and that alone is the obligation the Declaration lays upon us.

He might as well have said his name was Philip Dru when he wrote this.(though, the book wouldn't have been released at that time) Notice how he throws out that fallacy about worshipping men or a document? That's the stereotypical progressive arrogance, and beyond that - that's ridicule. That might as well have come out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, even though that wasn't written yet either.(Page 128, rule # 5)

So even though the constitution is the law of the land, they don't have to uphold it. And they don't. When progressives get into office, the ends justifies the means, anything goes, and they're free to "Fundamentally Transform The United States of America". Wilson even says so himself - the Declaration only holds them up to one single obligation. All the rest of that stuff about tyranny? Throw it out the window, it's just some dusty old document anyways, it's just a living document anyways. We are the ones we have been waiting for.

Woodrow Wilson also directly rejected the rule-of-law theory, you can read about it here.

http://tinyurl.com/7h6almf

The aim of progressive education is explicitly to indoctrinate

John Dewey, widely considered the father of modern American progressive education, wrote the following in his 1916 book "Democracy and Education" : (Page 82, middle paragraph) (Gutenberg text)

It is the aim of progressive education to take part in correcting unfair privilege and unfair deprivation, not to perpetuate them. Wherever social control means subordination of individual activities to class authority, there is danger that industrial education will be dominated by acceptance of the status quo.

Now this doesn't sound too bad, I suppose. Extreme inequalities? Who wants that? Well, Dewey also further explains this on page 63:

4. The "Individualistic" Ideal of the Eighteenth Century. In the eighteenth-century philosophy we find ourselves in a very different circle of ideas. "Nature" still means something antithetical to existing social organization; Plato exercised a great influence upon Rousseau. But the voice of nature now speaks for the diversity of individual talent and for the need of free development of individuality in all its variety. Education in accord with nature furnishes the goal and the method of instruction and discipline. Moreover, the native or original endowment was conceived, in extreme cases, as nonsocial or even as antisocial. Social arrangements were thought of as mere external expedients by which these nonsocial individuals might secure a greater amount of private happiness for themselves. Nevertheless, these statements convey only an inadequate idea of the true significance of the movement. In reality its chief interest was in progress and in social progress. The seeming antisocial philosophy was a somewhat transparent mask for an impetus toward a wider and freer society—toward cosmopolitanism. The positive ideal was humanity. In membership in humanity, as distinct from a state, man's capacities would be liberated; while in existing political organizations his powers were hampered and distorted to meet the requirements and selfish interests of the rulers of the state. The doctrine of extreme individualism was but the counterpart, the obverse, of ideals of the indefinite perfectibility of man and of a social organization having a scope as wide as humanity. The emancipated individual was to become the organ and agent of a comprehensive and progressive society.

Now, I don't think I'm reading this wrong, but as usual I give the sources so that people can make up their own minds.

Here's how I read what's written: In the 18th century ideals are different than the ideals that existed in the modern 20th century progressive America, where back then "Nature" still meant something antithetical to a centralized state. When he says "social", he does not mean two people sitting at a restaurant having tea and crumpets. But here in the modern 20th century progressive America, "Nature" has new and more diverse meanings, instead of that tired, dusty, and old doctrine of extreme individualism. And where to progressive educators in? They make emancipated individuals (from the doctrines of EXTREME individualism of course) into agents of government, because they've been taught to oppose perceived inequalities and social control through their "industrial education".

This from Dewey, who labeled Horace Mann a "patron saint of progressive education". Let us never forget what Mann said, that "your children are hostages to our cause".

In both instances: Mann with his hostages, and Dewey with his emancipated individuals who are organs and agents of a progressive society - this is aggressive rhetoric. Dark, devious, and aggressive.

Finally, take note of what he wrote on page 66:

Neither phase of the problem can be worked out by merely negative means. It is not enough to see to it that education is not actively used as an instrument to make easier the exploitation of one class by another. School facilities must be secured of such amplitude and efficiency as will in fact and not simply in name discount the effects of economic inequalities, and secure to all the wards of the nation equality of equipment for their future careers.

Wards? That's more aggressive language. And we know what progressives mean by 'efficiency', more centralization and power for the dear leaders.

http://tinyurl.com/72djzof

Journalism and the manufacturing of consent

In his book "Public Opinion, Walter Lippmann(who can be considered the father of modern journalism) explains on page 358:

The hypothesis, which seems to me the most fertile, is that news and truth are not the same thing, and must be clearly distinguished. The function of news is to signalize an event, the function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts, to set them into relation with each other, and make a picture of reality on which men can act. Only at those points, where social conditions take recognizable and measurable shape, do the body of truth and the body of news coincide. That is a comparatively small part of the whole field of human interest. In this sector, and only in this sector, the tests of the news are sufficiently exact to make the charges of perversion or suppression more than a partisan judgment. There is no defense, no extenuation, no excuse whatever, for stating six times that Lenin is dead, when the only information the paper possesses is a report that he is dead from a source repeatedly shown to be unreliable. The news, in that instance, is not "Lenin Dead" but "Helsingfors Says Lenin is Dead." And a newspaper can be asked to take the responsibility of not making Lenin more dead than the source of the news is reliable; if there is one subject on which editors are most responsible it is in their judgment of the reliability of the source. But when it comes to dealing, for example, with stories of what the Russian people want, no such test exists.

The absence of these exact tests accounts, I think, for the character of the profession, as no other explanation does. There is a very small body of exact knowledge, which it requires no outstanding ability or training to deal with. The rest is in the journalist's own discretion.

This is an expansion of what I wrote recently, regarding invisible government. Journalism is one of the most important parts of this. Also relevant, see this: The Journalists Playbook

Now, Lippmann states that 'there is a very small body of exact knowledge', but there is a much larger body than he would like to admit, particularly with respect to his own progressive movement. When guys like Wilson, Croly, and many, many others were out there disparaging freedom and the American way of life, where was Lippmann and other journalists and "muckrakers" to defend the people against it? They didn't, they were in on it! At best, you could highlight his opposition to the propaganda coming out of the CPI, but a very large body of those in the CPI were all journalists. His opposition to CPI was quite frankly not enough, considering how big the body of progressive thought was back then(and still is), and how dark it is. And if you look at what Media Matters/NBC are up to, they are honoring Lippmann's legacy very, very well. The manufacturing of consent continues, and invisible government remains invisible. Lippmann and Bernays (both journalists) had very similar views, see: this. Wheras Bernays talked about the Engineering of Consent, Lippmann talked about the manufacture of consent. They're largely the same, when you consider how much just doesn't get reported, or of what does get reported is favorable to those intelligent minorities (such as journalists) who know how to regiment and guide the masses.

http://tinyurl.com/8yasa8r

What is Environmental Justice? The right virus needs to come along and wipe humanity out

Mark Levin talked about this last night. You can hear it right here. This comes from the first hour of his show. In the LA Times, October 22nd, 1989, David M Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, wrote the following: Mother Nature as a Hothouse Flower : THE END OF NATURE by Bill McKibben

(Paragraph 9)There is no chalk line between man and nature that we have crossed. We contaminated the planet with atmospheric hydrocarbons and metals beginning with the Industrial Revolution. The Atomic Age wrote another indelible signature in radioisotopes on every bit of the Earth's surface. DDT and its kin appear even in the Antarctic ice.

(Paragraph 10)I, for one, cannot wish upon either my children or the rest of Earth's biota a tame planet, a human-managed planet, be it monstrous or--however unlikely--benign.

We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value--to me--than another human body, or a billion of them.

(Paragraph 11)Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line--at about a billion years ago, maybe half that--we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.

(Paragraph 12)It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

Now, I'm not projecting one bit with the hammer and sickle here. The other thing that Levin references in this audio(and on the same page as David Graber's nonsense) is this:

Guided by a philosophy of deep ecology, Earth First! does not accept a human-centered worldview of "nature for people's sake." Instead, we believe that life exists for its own sake, that industrial civilization and its philosophy are anti-Earth, anti-woman and anti-liberty. Our structure is non-hierarchical, and we reject highly paid "professional staff" and formal leadership.

To put it simply, the Earth must come first.

Now, how this becomes relevant to the hammer and sickle is the banner that you will see at the top of this page: (I made a copy of this banner because leftists are notorious for revisionist history, scrubbing the internet of inconvenient things)

Even the most basic knowledge of communist imagery will allow people to recognize that fist sitting right there. Looks like Vaclav Klaus was right all along claiming that communism and environmentalism are alike. Unless you think that just happened, no connection at all. The left will honestly tell you everything you need to know about them, if you just know where to look.

http://tinyurl.com/72loswa

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Government is the granter of Rights

A blog posting about Rousseau from here may seem odd to my two readers. I guess I can't really pull off jokes like that, considering that I've got a whole 44 followers.... whohoo! So why Rousseau? Well, for those of you who have listened to my audio recordings, you know full well that I'm a young man. I have expressly wished for this blog to be one primarily about authoritarian progressives and not myself, but what I'm being exposed to in my re-education camp, my limits are being expanded. The indoctrination on college campus is something I'm going to want to address, even if it's in my own unique 'direct to the source' way. That, and it seems to me that while most of those who write about collegiate indoctrination talk about socialism, marxism, and progressivism, there appears to be scant discussion in this direction about Utilitarianism, Contractarianism, Rawls, Rousseau, and a few other things. Perhaps I can help to fill in that gap. On to Rousseau.
In his book The Social Contract he writes the following:(Page 19)

CHAPTER IX REAL PROPERTY

EACH member of the community gives himself to it, at the moment of its foundation, just as he is, with all the resources at his command, including the goods he possesses. This act does not make possession, in changing hands, change its nature, and become property in the hands of the Sovereign; but, as the forces of the city are incomparably greater than those of an individual, public possession is also, in fact, stronger and more irrevocable, without being any more legitimate, at any rate from the point of view of foreigners. For the State, in relation to its members, is master of all their goods by the social contract, which, within the State, is the basis of all rights; but, in relation to other powers, it is so only by the right of the first occupier, which it holds from its members.

The State is master of all their goods. The State is the basis of all rights. If the state is the basis of all rights, and thus the place where you get your rights, it's no wonder that the French Revolution turned out so badly - to which Rousseau's ideas were so profoundly influential.

I'm sure some may be wondering(because I would be) how Rousseau was mentioned in my college textbooks. I can't go posting pictures of the pages, unfortunately, so it's merely my word about this. But Rousseau is mentioned as a "Swiss philosopher" and a major contributor to the social contract tradition. No mention of the results of his ideas. I'd say that the fact that towards the end of the French Revolution, they were beheading children....... Don't you think that merits at least one small mention? In another version of Rousseau's Social Contract(still mostly in French) the introduction by Charles Edwyn Vaughan, the translator, makes some rather interesting observations about Rousseau's ideology largely within this same context:(page xv)

It is our business to make every individual member absolutely independent of his fellow members and absolutely dependent on the State. It is only by the force of the State that the liberty of its members can be secured.

Now there may be an argument about the validity of the second part of this, but the first part is the bomb blast that demolishes it. Further in the introduction, it says this:(page xxii)

What then are the conditions which, in Rousseau's view, the ends of the Contract thus inexorably impose? They may be summed up in one phrase: 'the absolute surrender of the individual with all his rights and all his powers to the community as a whole'; in other words, the replacement of his own will by that of the community, of his individual self by the 'corporate self' (le moi commun), which he has joined with all the others to create. And if we ask what is the justification for this sweeping sacrifice of individual liberty; Rousseau is at once ready with his answer. By no other means can we form that corporate self, without which there can be no moral life for the individual. By no other means can we secure that absolute equality, without which there can be no such thing as individual liberty. By no other means can we shut the door aga1nst that oppression of the weak by the strong which it is the first object of civil society to prevent.

This is just evil, evil stuff. Especially when you consider the real world application of all this: the necessary growth of big totalitarian government that squashes all who dare oppose it. Rousseau, a major contributor to the social contract tradition - Contractarianism - this is tyranny. No matter how much modern progressive theorists such as Rawls may try, you cannot pick good fruit off of a bad tree.

http://tinyurl.com/7an3v4e

Progressivism and invisible government: non profits, 501c3 charitable organizations, and journalism

There have been some recent revelations regarding Media Matters that have come out lately, and this story really highlights the soft underbelly of invisible governance that progressives have set up over the last century. See these two stories: Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations and Why is Media Matters tax-exempt?

Now, when I talk about invisible governance(and I will do so more in the future), I'm using this partially as my basis. There are several key quotes that need to be brought back to the forefront here:(see the cover of the book for an explanation of these 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)

Ok, so who are the 'intelligent minorities' who are regimenting and guiding the masses? Media matters. It's all in that first story, and The DC says they have more to come. MMFA is the 'missing link' between journalism and the whitehouse, so to speak. That is, what the whitehouse wants to be said, MMFA writes it up, and the larger media is more than happy to make that the headline or story. And it's "totally invisible", in that you don't see the tentacles coming from Soros, from MMFA, or where they end up in the various media organs. Well, that is until this investigation came around. This isn't the first time we've learned about the media's role in progressive invisible governance either, who could forget the JournoList? The media have already long established themselves as a reliable part of those 'intelligent minorities' who have found 'in propaganda a tool which is increasingly powerful'.

Now, I mentioned Soros. His role cannot be overstated, given that he's already crashed several societies in the past. He's the man who broke the Bank of England. But with respect to the things he does, he "merely" comes in and takes advantage of whatever revolutionary infrastructure is already built by others. Arguably the oldest leg of what the progressives have built here is academia, and that goes back well over a century into the late 1800's. Woodrow Wilson was the head of Princeton. All of this is nothing new. But how it's done is the key:

When you try to, let’s see, improve society you affect different people and different interests differently and they are not actually commensurate. So you very often have all kinds of unintended adverse consequences. So I had to experiment. And it was a learning process. The first part was this subversive activity, disrupting repressive regimes. That was a lot of fun and that’s actually what got me hooked on this whole enterprise. Seeing what worked in one country, trying it in the other country. It was kind of what developed a matrix in fact that we had, national foundations, and then we had certain specialized activities

So if you were looking for an admission by an important modern day progressive that the use of charitable foundations is indeed how they subvert our society to their own ends, there it is. In the man's own words, they build a matrix of charitable foundations from which to launch their attacks on society. You can find another example of this, in the STORM manifesto.(Page 21, section 1998: re-emergence, paragraphs 2 and 3)

http://tinyurl.com/7glexfj

Birth Control and Eugenics are identical - Margaret Sanger

In an article titled "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda" in the Birth Control Review, Margaret Sanger wrote the following:(Page 43)

The eugenic and civilizational value of Birth Control is becoming apparent to the enlightened and the intelligent. In the limited space of the present paper, I have time only to touch upon some of the fundamental convictions that form the basis of our Birth Control propaganda, and which, as I think you must agree, indicate that the campaign for Birth Control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aims of Eugenics.

I have made it a point to immerse myself in the history of progressivism so that I could demonstrate and display it for others, but eugenics is one of those things that's so profoundly evil that it leaves me absent for words. Nearly the entirety of the second half of this short article is quotable:

The almost universal demand for practical education in Birth Control is one of the most hopeful signs that the masses themselves today possess the divine spark of regeneration. It remains for the courageous and the enlightened to answer this demand, to kindle the spark, to direct a thorough education in Eugenics based upon this intense interest.

Birth Control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator. In answering the needs of these thousands upon thousands of submerged mothers, it is possible to use this interest as the foundation for education in prophylaxis, sexual hygiene, and infant welfare. The potential mother is to be shown that maternity need not be slavery but the most effective avenue toward self-development and self-realization. Upon this basis only may we improve the quality of the race.

As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

Birth Control is not advanced as a panacea by which past and present evils of dysgenic breeding can be magically eliminated. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism.

But to prevent the repetition, to effect the salvation of the generations of the future–nay of the generations of today–our greatest need is first of all the ability to face the situation without flinching, and to cooperate in the formation of a code of sexual ethics based upon a thorough biological and psychological understanding of human nature; and then to answer the questions and the needs of the people with all the intelligence and honesty at our command. If we can summon the bravery to do this, we shall best be serving the true interests of Eugenics, because our work will then have a practical and pragmatic value.

Birth control is the sacrament of eugenics.

http://tinyurl.com/86suv8d

An observation

This is something I can neither prove nor disprove, I just find it too convenient to ignore. I came across something when I was doing some research regarding Woodrow Wilson and the Russian Revolution. The two parties at the time were the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, which (here's the part) means minimalist and maximalist, which I didn't know previously.

From dictionary.com:

Origin:
1905–10; in political use < French minimaliste ( see minimal, -ist), translation of Russian men'shevík Menshevik; subsequent uses perhaps recoinage with minimal, -ist

Seeing this made a light go off. At that moment, I remembered this piece of audio:

VAN JONES: One of the things that has happened too often to progressives is that we don't understand the relationship between minimum goals and maximum goals.

There's a lot in this audio beyond this one small piece, so it's easy to overlook the smaller things for the larger things - of which have been widely covered by others elsewhere. But I do not consider this to be a coincidence. Here we have a man who is so steeped in communist ideology, that he probably can't help but look at life through that lens. It has become totally embedded in his being.

Where did Van Jones admit to being a communist, and in what words?

In the East Bay Express, the article titled "The New Face of Environmentalism" says this:

But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist."

Notice how vividly he recalls the story of his conversion to communism. This is important, because when people have big turning points in their lives, the details are usually memorable. Searching for this, there is a lot of revisionist history out there on this. This article comes to the following conclusion: "That doesn't sound Marxist to us." Which is totally laughable.

The problem for them, is that for people who have actually lived under communism, they can't help but notice the similarities.

This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists - wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world

So then the real question to ask is "where has Van Jones ever repudiated communism and centralized planning?" Just because he's silent about his beliefs and has a new way to sell them, is a far cry from having flipped over to something completely new and different, of course, notice how there's no vivid recalling of his turning point away from centralized planning.

http://tinyurl.com/7een3yu

Van Jones is not to be underestimated

I knew a long time ago that Jones was a serious player, who was going to be with us for the long haul, that's one of the reasons why this is being done.

Now, Nancy Pelosi has confirmed what I knew a year ago:

But as 3,000 Democrats met this weekend in San Diego for a three day convention here, Jones was lauded by Burton and Pelosi, who even described herself as “a fan” of Jones - a positive statement also once echoed by 2010 Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman.

Here is how the source article itself opens:

Van Jones, the former Obama Administration green czar who resigned in controversy, appears on the fast track to a political comeback - emerging as a star at this weekend’s California Democratic convention and lauded by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as a “leader of the future.”

Wow. So one of America's two primary political parties is rallying around a known and self-admitted communist? Not Progressive, not Socialist. Communist. Radical, revolutionary, communist. Read his words!(or listen to them) One thing's clear, anybody who thinks their liberty is in danger is basing their belief in well grounded fact. Van Jones is not one who you want to just brush off. You need to take him seriously. They do.

http://tinyurl.com/736krhc

What is the real purpose of birth control? Why is all of this so important to progressives?

With all that's going on with the Catholic Church and the President right now, this has become a huge hot button topic. But why is this so important to progressives? Rush keeps saying that "abortion is the sacrament of liberalism." What makes this so? Let's ask Margaret Sanger. In her book "Woman and the new race", Sanger explains the purpose of birth control:(Page 229)

Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives. So, in compliance with nature’s working plan, we must permit womanhood its full development before we can expect of it efficient motherhood. If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman. Then and then only can the mother cease to be an incubator and be a mother indeed. Then only can she transmit to her sons and daughters the qualities which make strong individuals and, collectively, a strong race.

Ok, now it makes sense. Birth control is the sacrament of eugenics.

http://tinyurl.com/727ter6

How are revolutionaries using the courts to steal your liberty?

Judicial activism is a big topic, but how does it work? Step by step, when they want to build something, how do they do it? How do those outside of the court carefully plan their actions to get certain cases in front of certain judges?

On January 9th, Mark Levin read excerpts out of his book Men In Black(pages 55-60, primarily), and it's a great illustration of how this all happens, step by step. In this, a few things stand out. Many of which Levin himself highlights. One thing that stands out to me is how Planned Parenthood employed the tactic of "arrestables", long before Lisa Fithian ever did. Notice how those fit together.

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)

Here is the segment, on youtube.

http://tinyurl.com/89vqx5t

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction

Today is February 6th, 2012. Mr Ronald Wilson Reagan would've been 101 years old today. Happy Birthday, Mr. Reagan. As a small token of commemoration, I would like to put focus on what I think is the most important thing he ever said, and he said a whole lot worth remembering.

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.

It wasn't but a few months ago that I even found out that the audio of this does indeed exist. Which is good, because I don't think anybody could've ever said this as forceful as he did.

I clipped this part of the speech, which is the end of it, and uploaded it here.

Someone else put the full 43 minute speech up on Youtube, which can be found here.

Socialism is super-progressivism

A picture is worth a thousand words.

From "The American Magazine", November 1912. Page 20.

http://tinyurl.com/7sx7fe5

Socialism is the Logical Outcome of Progressivism

There once lived a superprogressive by the name of Victor L Berger. He helped found the Democratic Socialists of America, was also a founding member of the Socialist Party of America, and was the first Socialist elected to the U.S. House. In November of 1912, superprogressive Victor L Berger wrote an article titled "Socialism, the Logical Outcome of Progressivism", which is little more than a pep article for fellow socialist Eugene V Debs. If you've read one tract of run of the mill political advocacy, you've read them all. But what's not run of the mill, is the picture caption: (The article starts on the right side of page 19, the picture is on page 20)

THE SANEST AND MOST INFLUENTIAL SOCIALIST IN THIS COUNTRY

Victor L. Berger, the first Socialist ever to sit in Congress has fought unfalteringly for twenty-five years. He is the man who made possible the Socialistic victory in Milwaukee, and he commands respect everywhere for his honesty and common sense. He is a superprogressive. Berger is for many of the things progressives want, but he cannot see why they stop at these: he goes much further

Now, Berger had to have seen this caption and wholly agreed with it at the time. Or, he wrote it himself in third person, and the editors of American Magazine did not object to it. Either way, he did stylize his article as socialism being the logical end to progressivism. I downloaded the image with this caption, so that I can use it in the future. Oh yes, this is gold. :-) And should anybody in the future run across any of this, by all means, download the image and use it yourself. Any of what you find on my blog, take it and use it well.

http://tinyurl.com/6qocgcc

What effect does Fabian socialism have upon Liberalism?

In a letter to 'Sorge'(probably Friedrich Adolph Sorge), Friedrich Engels commented about Fabian Socialism: (January 18th, 1893)

The Fabians here in London are a band of ambitious folk who have sufficient understanding to comprehend the inevitableness of the social revolution but who cannot trust this gigantic work to the rough proletarian alone, and therefore have the kindness to place themselves at the head of it. Dread of the revolution is their fundamental principle. They are the cultured par excellence. Their socialism is municipal socialism - the commune, not the nation, shall at least be the possessor of the means of production. This Socialism of theirs is then presented as an extreme but inevitable consequence of middle-class Liberalism, and hence their tactics are to fight the Liberals not as decided opponents but to drive them on to socialistic consequences; therefore to trick them, to permeate Liberalism with Socialism and not to oppose Socialist candidates to Liberal ones, but to palm them off to thrust them on under some pretext.

Normally, I have little faith in the commentary of communists, but it needs to be remembered that communists and Fabians had a clash; one believes ardently in the glorious revolution, and the others believe in the glorious evolution. So this is not commentary that was made out of a sheer need to propagandize something for which it is not.

And let's examine the timeline here. Fabian Socialism was imported to the States in 1895. It's right around this time period that the "Reform Movement" which preceded progressivism started to change. Prior to the progressive movement, reformers are hard to pin down. They are not full fledged statists, down the line point by point authoritarians.(some are, but very few) One of the closest to a full fledged statist is Theodore Roosevelt. The first true hardcore, high profile statist, is Woodrow Wilson. The reformers at all levels(national, state, local) went from a disparate movement of people with all kinds of beliefs, ranging from many conservatives might agree with to full fledged statists within about 20 years. How?

Nudge.

Engels' words certainly fit, but ultimately all of this is a bit of conjecture on my part.

And I need to define my term here in this context as well. By "Liberalism", I mean it as it existed 120 years ago, a more classical version. In a lot of ways, they were the descendents of our Founders, and they did not want to do a 'seek and destroy' hit upon the COTUS, the US, or it's people. They still believed in liberty, a fairly limited government, and so forth.

Based on how Engels has described this, you could even go so far as to say that the Fabians were the original Saul Alinsky Radicals. For those of you who own this book like I do, see page 91, paragraph 3. Fits like a glove, doesn't it?

http://tinyurl.com/7x38m5v of this posting.

Margaret Sanger's Parliament of Population (Population Congress)

In an article titled "My Way to Peace",(From the Sanger public documents archive) she wrote the following:

Second, to 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.

This body to direct and control the population through Birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with the taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.

The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

(a) to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of our population.

(b) to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11.

(c) keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphiletic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred from entrance by the Immigration Laws of 1924.

(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

(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.

This is just............ wow. There's not much I can say to follow this up, really. Except this: Do not take these people lightly. Do not just brush this aside. And don't think this is just something that was talked about 100 years ago and so it's ok, no need to worry anymore. Progressivism is alive and well today, and once progressives get ideas they do not just let them go. They merely change their language. Theodore Roosevelt was the first progressive to propose nationalized healthcare. What did Obama do in 2009? Edward House(Wilson's mirror-self) wrote the book on unaccountable czars(administrators) who only report to the president. What has Obama surrounded himself with? Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood. What has this administration fought so hard to make sure doesn't get de-funded? If all the puzzle pieces fit, then you are actually looking at the finished product. Do not brush these things aside, or anything else you see from progressivism that makes you scratch your head and think "there's something wrong here". Your instincts are serving you well. My goal is to make sure your mind and your instincts are in sync, with knowledge, by removing the shadows that these progressives have for far too long lived in. No more. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for this disease.

Who are the people in the Fabian Window?

(click the picture to make it larger)The people at the top row are well known. On the left operating the bellows to give the fire more air and make it hotter is Edward R Pease, A Fabian founding member and he was their secretary. In the center is Sidney Webb, who is working with George Bernard Shaw on the right to pound on the globe in an effort to re-mould the world. Both of whom were early members. The bottom row is what's much harder to find. If you don't hit the right names while searching, it's largely impossible to find. On the website for the London School for Economics:

The window - is set within an oak frame, giving an overall size of 81 x 76cm. Cited as an example of 'Shavian wit', the figures are in Tudor dress to poke fun at Pease who evidently loved everything medieval. The Fabian Society coat of arms is shown as a wolf in sheep's clothing. The first man, crouching on the left, is HG Wells, cocking a snook at the others. He is followed by the actor-manager Charles Charrington, Aylmer Maude (translator of Tolstoy's War and Peace), G Stirling Taylor (reading a book, New Worlds for Old), and the dentist F Lawson Dodd. The women, from left to right, are Maud Pember Reeves (mother of Amber Reeves, who bore Wells a daughter in 1909), Miss Hankin, the suffragist Miss Mabel Atkinson, Mrs Boyd Dawson, and, at the end, the artist who made the window, Caroline Townshend herself.

Who founded Fabian Socialism in the United States?

Most people don't even know what Fabianism is. Those who do, may think it's limited to Britain. It's not. In The Encyclopedia of Social Reform, By William D. P. Bliss, this is written:(Page 578)

FABIAN SOCIETY, THE (AMERICAN) A movement to establish in America a Fabian Society and carry on a work like that of the Fabian Society in England (see the next article) was commenced in Boston in February, 1895, under the lead of the Rev WDP Bliss.

Doesn't get any clearer than that. It was founded by William Dwight Porter Bliss, in Boston. His Fabian organization in Boston ended up publishing the paper "The American Fabian". They initially had very limited success(see pages 320-322), but Fabians in America would go on to have influence in at least two different Presidential Administrations. Walter Lippmann, who served in Woodrow Wilson's administration, was a Fabian. And Stuart Chase, who was a member of Franklin D Roosevelt's "Brain Trust" was also a Fabian.

As a testament to how successful Fabianism was(and still is) in the United States, it was Stuart Chase who coined the term "The New Deal" in one of his books.

But how did the Fabians have so much success, if they initially met with so much failure? It was the Colleges and "institutions of learning". And the fact that the further they got away from the word "socialism", the more success they had. The Intercollegiate Socialist Society, which was founded by Harry Laidler, (different link) had two important members. Walter Lippmann and Stuart Chase. Chase was also involved in the Fabian's attempt to create a mirror of their London School of Economics(LSE) here in the US, the The Rand School of Social Science.

As a side note,(I know there's a lot of information here, but I hope some of you are following the links and the information bread crumbs) this explains why William Ayers decided to make the classroom the frontline of his revolution. He learned it from his predecessors. Ayers, formerly of the SDS, Students for a Democratic Society. SDS, which split from the League for Industrial Democracy. The League for Industrial Democracy, which is simply the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, renamed.

Another side note, about the League for Industrial Democracy, What is "Industrial Democracy"? Ask Sidney Webb(co-founder of the LSE and original Founding Fabian), who wrote the book on it. At some point, once you learn their language you realize that they are being much more honest than it initially seems.