Yuri Bezmenov - Soviet Defector - Explains the Occupy Wall Street "movement"

Yes, I know, Yuri died in 1993. Just watch the video. I'll see you in 15 minutes.

...

Back with me? See, now, when you know their tactics, you see right through them. They are transparent, aren't they?

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)

So how did "Occupy" begin? It didn't initially call itself "Occupy". When I initially started researching this, there were 38 pages on The Blaze listed under the key word of "Occupy". Now, there are 40. Depending on when you see this blog posting, what you will want to do is start at the end and work your way backward. The very last page doesn't have much of anything on it, but page 39 is where you first start seeing some significant things.

The "Days of Rage" is where it all began. Some of you may remember that. Why is this significant? They weren't originally 'occupiers', they were 'ragers'. That's not a term they ever used, I use it here now to differentiate. They were having 'Days of Rage' to occupy wall street. That is the genesis of their name. But their use of the phrase "Days of Rage" is significant, because America has seen it before. This is exactly what Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground called their riots.

I hope people will go through the archives of The Blaze, page by page. Who is at best in bed with them or supporting them, at worst the actual organizers and the actual head(s) of the snake? As you saw in the video, it's all the usual suspects, but with greater detail. Communists, Anarchists, Van Jones, DSA and the most particularly radical unions, revolutionaries, ACORN, progressives, George Soros, even Islamists and the Nazi Party have endorsed 'Occupy'.

While these details are important(Yes, I know, show me your friends and I'll show you you're future), those aren't what I want to focus in on. The details that stand out more to me are the symbolic things, the things that mean the most to them. The Days of Rage, for example. Or there's this: Donny Deutsch ‘Repulsed’ by the Tea Party, Hopes for a ‘Kent State’ Type Moment so the Occupy Wall Street Movement Can Really Resonate With the American People.

Who among those reading my words knows or remembers the Kent State Massacre? And this is what Occupy needs?!?!?

Well, yes. It is. In their minds. They're revolutionaries. I don't mean the average person who's disenchanted with any number of things and believes what the media sells them about Occupy, I'm talking about the actual leaders who know full well what they're doing. And they constantly tell us about their violent nature in their imagery. Take the November 17th protests for example. The image you see there is not about Tianenmen Square.

How many Occupy _________ posters, shirts, and other memorabilia can you find which use the clenched fist, a very well known piece of communist imagery? I don't mean the stuff built by individuals. I mean "official" stuff. In that link, I see Occupy Atlanta, Occupy Freedom Plaza, Occupy Red Bank, Occupy Boston, Occupy Toledo, Occupy Portland, but the one that really got my attention was Occupy Miami(this is an amateur image, so see this direct source). Occupy Miami states that "This revolution will not be televised".

When I tell you that they know their history, I'm not kidding. This goes back to Gil Scott Heron and his little poem under that very name. Or how about the upcoming Occupy May Day rallies? Yeah, May day is a well known communist holiday, and again you see the fist. But note the line there about "no chores". They are clearly targeting parents. This is where I can bring this right back to the beginning of the blog posting. See the left's war against the family. At about two minutes into the video I linked you to at the top of this post, you see Glenn Beck on, talking with Bill O'Reilly, and he mentions the book "The Coming Insurrection" while trying to warn people that the insurrection is coming. Well, that was some time ago. No longer is the insurrection coming. It's here. It's name is Occupy. Occupy knows of the Days of Rage, of N17, and yes, they know too about the book the Coming Insurrection. Don't believe me?

Occupy Movement Dumps Clenched Fist for New Logo to Represent the 99 Percent How is the new logo described?

calling the chosen design a "very expensive CIRCLE."

These people know their own history. This is no accident. It can't be. A circle? Where have I heard that term before? Oh yeah! In the book "The Coming Insurrection"! That little book does not have "Chapters", it has 'circles'. First circle, second circle, third circle, and on and on. I know, because I have a copy of it. I've read it. You can get a free copy in the above blog link of mine about the war on the family.

So it's as Sun Tzu said after all. Know your enemy and yourself and you need not fear the result of a hundred battles, because you can see them coming 20 miles away and be prepared way before they arrive.

http://tinyurl.com/7vwsnpo

"The Nation" magazine launders socialists and communists - And anarchists too!

This is truely interesting. The Nation magazine has two lists of influential 'progressives', but when you look at the lists, many of them are outright socialists and communists. List one, here, list two here. It's almost as if socialists are super progressives. That's what they were calling Victor Berger - because he was a socialist, that made him a super progressive. So what, does that mean that communists are super-ultra-mega progressives? Let's examine the first list:

1) Eugene Debs: The Nation doesn't try to hide that he was a socialist, but it still begs the question - does that make him a super progressive? And, I thought that progressives had nothing in common with socialists? That's what they'd have you believe, anyways.

5) John Dewey: He was a Fabian socialst, and also the father of modern education. You'll love this guy, search my archives for some of the things he's written.

7) W.E.B. Du Bois: Another socialist, which The Nation does make note of. A superprogressive.

8) Upton Sinclair: Another superprogressive.

10) Charlotte Perkins Gilman: Another member of the Fabian society here in the US. Or at least at a bare minimum, she contributed to the magazine "The American Fabian" here in the US.

11) Roger Baldwin: A communist. A super-ultra-mega progressive.

15) Norman Thomas: As The Nation states, he was a socialist(superprogressive).

16) A.J. Muste, 17) Sidney Hillman, 19)A. Philip Randolph, 20) Walter Reuther, and 21) Paul Robeson are all socialists

23) Woody Guthrie: A communist.

25) Ella Baker: Van Jones' favorite socialist.(or at least, he named one of his institutions after her)

26) I.F. Stone: A soviet spy!

30) Harry Hay: A communist(The Nation is honest about this) and the founder of the Mattachine Society. If you've ever wondered about the red roots of the pink(or is it rainbow?) movement, this is where you should start your research.

32) Bayard Rustin and 35) David Brower were socialists, 38) Betty Friedan was a communist.

39) Michael Harrington: not much question here. Look at the picture on the page; behind his head it clearly says "democratic socialist".

43) Gloria Steinem: Member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Note the Che picture in the background.

44) Tom Hayden: Founder of SDS, which is where we got Bill Ayers(a small "c" communist) and the Weather Underground. Nice people eh!

48) Bill Moyers: Now this is an interesting one. Bill Moyers has stated that he was "on his board for several years", referring to George Soros' Open Society Institute.

49) Barbara Ehrenreich: another socialist. Just don't wait for the Nation to tell you that.

And now for the second list of eleven, picked by the Nation's readers:

1) Howard Zinn: America's leading revisionist history and an ardent communist.

2) Dorothy Day: one of Jim Wallis' favorite socialist leaders.

5) John Muir: While I'm not aware of him being a socialist, he was a part of that conservationist/progressive/eugenicist axis of evil that existed right at the start of the progressive era. I couldn't let that pass without a comment.

7) Emma Goldman: See, anarchists are progressive too. Especially when they're out there burning things up and turning over cars. That's really progressive of them.

11) Studs Terkel: And ending the list, another communist.

I suspect that this is a part of the effort to mainstream socialist and communist thought. Is he a communist? No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. It may not be long, before that changes into "Why does that matter?" - socialism is great! Centralized planning is the future! Bow before dear leader.

http://tinyurl.com/8y3cwzw

Fabianism: practical, constitutional, evolutionary Socialism

At the beginning of the year I wrote about revisionist history, and quoted an author's description which sounded to me strikingly like Fabian Socialists. According to a professor named Samuel Peter Orth - without going through and reading 3-5 books, I cannot determine who Orth was. His books are written for places like Cornell and Yale, so my gut tells me he was a fellow traveller of the progressives, but again, I cannot determine for sure. In any case, here is what he wrote quoting one of the founders of the British Fabian Society, Edward R Pease:(Page 248)

So we see Socialism and Liberalism united in accomplishing changes in legislation and ancient institutions - changes that are revolutionary in character and will be far-reaching in results. It is not the red revolutionary Socialism of Marx; it is the practical British Socialism of amelioration. "This practical, constitutional, evolutionary Socialism," a chronicler of the Fabians calls it. It would have to be practical to appeal to the British voter, constitutional to lure the British statesman, and evolutionary to satisfy the British philosopher

Now, while I cannot for sure determine Orth's position and where he is coming from, here is what Edward R Pease wrote by his own hand in "The History of the Fabian Society":

The revolt came from England in the person of Edward Bernstein, who, exiled by Bismarck, took refuge in London, and was for years intimately acquainted with the Fabian Society and its leaders. Soon after his return to Germany he published in 1899 a volume criticising Marxism,[45] and thence grew up the Revisionist movement for free thought in Socialism which has attracted all the younger men, and before the war had virtually, if not actually, obtained control over the Social Democratic Party.

Footnote 45 is the key here. After spending all those years with the Fabians, Bernstein then published "Evolutionary Socialism". So in this regard Orth's quoting of Pease is entirely in context. Here is footnote 45:

[45] Published in English by the Independent Labour Party in 1909 as "Evolutionary Socialism."

So then that's how it shall be. They are evolutionary socialists, not revolutionary socialists. This is an important distinction to make and knowledge to grasp. The first thing that pops into my head is the words of James Madison:

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

So then it's settled. Progressives and Fabians - the evolutionaries - are a greater threat to liberty than are communists - the revolutionaries. I know Madison has my complete trust. How about you?

http://tinyurl.com/7gzrx6w

Theodore Roosevelt thanks Grant for his racist, eugenic book

In Scribners' magazine, 1917, Theodore Roosevelt wrote the following about Madison Grant's book "The Passing of The Great Race":

"The book is a capital book; in purpose, in vision, in grasp of the facts our people most need to realize. It shows an extraordinary range of reading and a wide scholarship. It shows a habit of singular serious thought on the subject of most commanding importance. It shows a fine fearlessness in assailing the popular and mischievous sentimentalities and attractive and corroding falsehoods which few men dare assail. It is the work of an American scholar and gentleman; and all Americans should be sincerely grateful to you for writing it"

- Theodore Roosevelt

This is also the book that's widely rumored to be Hitler's "bible". What great company, eh? Roosevelt and Hitler, great nationalists of world history. (that's sarcasm, for those who missed it) Now, I can't source that quote, so I do take it with a grain of salt. But I know there's plenty out there which is not available online.

It's important to note that Grant was a huge conservationist. But as is with everything else that progressives engage in, their stated goal is only a means. The end is what makes them dangerous.

http://tinyurl.com/7v7m7ck

Theodore Roosevelt believed in pure democracy

From a book titled "Progressive Principles"; the following is a speech Roosevelt gave in Ohio: (page 47)

I will gladly send him a copy of the speeches I made in 1910 which I think cover most of the ground.

I believe in pure democracy. With Lincoln, I hold that "this country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it.. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it."

We Progressives believe that the people have the right, the power, and the duty to protect themselves and their own welfare; that human rights are supreme over all other rights; that wealth should be the servant, not the master, of the people.

We believe that unless representative government does absolutely represent the people it is not representative government at all.

This all sounds good on the surface, until reason rears it's ugly head and you begin to remember that democracy doesn't work. That's why the founders gave us a republic...... if we can keep it.

Furthermore, knowing Roosevelt's background helps us to understand what he is really saying here. As I recently noted, he plainly stated:

I have actively fought in favor of grafting on our social life, no less than our industrial life, many of the German ideals.

This was very common for the progressive central planners of Roosevelt's day. They didn't like all these American ideals with this nonsense of inalienable rights. It's no wonder that to the casual observer, Wilson largely implemented the plans as laid out by Roosevelt's progressive party.

http://tinyurl.com/7ml75e6

The STORM manifesto audiobook is finally complete

I think I've said all that I can or need to say about this in a prior posting (see notes here). To all of my friends in every tea party, 9/12, g000h, afp, and any other related liberty-based group you are involved in, please get a download copy of all of this and get it to your project leaders so that it can be used the way it needs to be used. At some point(probably sooner than later) someone from the left will notice that this has been created, and may want to scrub it from the internet. That's what the left does to all inconvenient things, and as a lone citizen I am powerless to stop it from happening. You can do a single-file download on the left hand side of the archive.org screen where it says "VBR ZIP". Or click here.(Warning: 200+MB file)

Maybe I'm biased because I did the recording, but I think if there's anybody out there who has read this work comes across the recording, they will know full well how useful a decent audio recording of this can be and will want to make sure it can't be erased.

This took a lot of my free time to do. Use it well, fellow patriots. Good citizenship requires informed citizens, and many of you just don't have time to read.(work, kids, etc)

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)

http://tinyurl.com/7h6rgy8

A fundamental of Progressivism: Capitalism is anarchic

In Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" he quotes(Page 124, first page of Ch 7) Stuart Chase as saying "political democracy can remain if it confines itself to all but economic matters" - which is a remarkably telling statement as to the aims of both Fabians and Progressives alike. Remember, Stuart Chase was a Fabian Socialist, and a member of FDR's braintrust. It was Chase who coined the term "The New Deal".

In "Road", Hayek cites Lippmann for the quote from Chase, but I prefer original sources. Chase wrote this in his book titled "The Economy of Abundance" - on Page 313 - but note how this book was written 1934, this is right around the beginning of the New Deal. This is important to note, as another one of Chase's books "The Road we are Traveling"(1942) notes, free enterprise is being replaced by a centrally planned society.(Page 95) The point of highlighting the dates, is that Chase never changed his beliefs while he was a part of the brain trust.

In regard to the original quote at the top of the post, "political democracy can remain if it confines itself to all but economic matters", what I want to highlight is what comes just after that. So on page 313 of the book "The Economy of Abundance", you will see this:

Political democracy can remain if it confines itself to all but economic matters; democracy in consumption will make enormous strides as standards of living are leveled upward; industrial individualism - anarchy is a better term - in the sense of each businessman for himself, each corporation for itself, must be disallowed.

As I noted just the other day, John Dewey says this, and Woodrow Wilson says this. But looking beyond mere words is the key: How do all progressives act? They all centralize government. They all attack free enterprise.

I am convinced this is a fundamental of progressivism. They all look upon capitalism as anarchic. This is just my opinion, but the thing about having their words directly sourced, is that it means that we necessarily develop the correct interpretation of their actions, and not just some interpretation that we find to be convenient. I encourage all to go digging into my archives and pick apart their words and actions, I don't see many people disagreeing with this notion I've developed.

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

http://tinyurl.com/8ydfcej

The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution - Audio Book

With the audiobook recording of the STORM manifesto coming to a close, my next project will be William Cooper Nell's great book The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution. This book in it's entirety (and chopped up every way I can find useful) will be on youtube.
I'm done hearing progressives tell me or anybody else that the founding era was full of racism.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Jy8OAAAAIAAJ

Try to keep Librivox' server constraints in mind if you choose to download this before it's complete.

https://forum.librivox.org/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=38822

The contents of the book can be accessed via Youtube now, I have arranged the individual chapters of the book in order on my Original Sources sub-blog:

http://useoriginalsources.blogspot.com/2012/05/colored-patriots-of-american-revolution.html

How many warnings of the revolution have you missed?

Are you like me in that you've had a hard time introducing the progressive revolution to people around you? Are you looking for a more populist, secular, mainstream example? This may help you. You've been surrounded by it your entire life, but any voice that attempted to issue a warning was distorted then erased.

Progressives have been in our nation for about a century now, planning, undermining, impugning. And for most the century, Americans really haven't had any warning. But to the credit of the American people, we have consistently rejected it. Woodrow Wilson and the progressives of their era frightened Americans so much that they had to actually drop their name as "progressives" and start calling themselves liberals. FDR and that era so angered Americans so much - FDR became such a beloved figure to the point that Congress actually got a constitutional amendment passed limiting the presidency to two terms. How much hatred of progressivism do you think is required to get an amendment passed? That's a very, very high hurdle. Any person who claims that FDR is this big beloved figure in American history can not and will not discuss the mood that existed in America between the years of 1947 to 1951. It runs counter to everything they believe.

But these were not the result of warnings of progressivism, rather experience and fear. It was recently made known on national radio that the song "American Pie" is one such warning about the dangers of progressivism. I have no shame in admitting that I did not know this. Did you? Here is a detailed explanation of large parts of the song:

What does “The Day the music died” mean

This is incredible. Progressives have become so good at revising history that they are fully capable of doing it in real time. To a certain degree, this song is designed to be cryptic. While on the other hand, McLean has made it clear that this song is "a tale about my country"(interview one), the 60's(interview two), and the passing of an era - "it's a cautionary tale to America about what happens when the spirit goes out of something"(interview one)

There is so, so much information that just isn't available online for various reasons. But of the interviews I did find, two of them(above) make clear that this song is about much more than an airplane crash and the death of important musicians. It's metaphorical to the death of America, and it what it used to stand for.

It's a song about how the progressives killed America. And it's up to us to restore it. If we don't, then our children and younger siblings have no future worth speaking of.

Other than Don McLean, how many other warnings about progressivism have been issued over the years? It's hard to say. But thankfully people are sitting up and taking notice and finally, some of those warnings are being heard for what they actually are.

http://tinyurl.com/6nt2hs9

Examining John Rawls from a totalitarian point of view

Having already laid some preliminary groundwork regarding Rousseau and Utilitarianism, I shall open the door to my primary target: John Rawls' book "A Theory of Justice".

A couple of things before I get too in-depth here. First, yes, I do actually have a copy of the book:
and I have made my way through large portions of it. Due to my classes and other things, I won't be able to finish the entire thing in the near future. But I can and do have enough to make a solid case that this ideology is one that needs further examination along lines which lead away from liberty, and not toward it. Everybody and anybody who is interested in defending themselves against the authoritarian schemes of progressivism, you need to pick up a copy of this book. You can read large parts of it online(here), but there are parts of this book that unless you know exactly what you're looking for and you're using the correct search term, you can't access it. So your local library, Amazon, try going to a college, whatever you have to do. In my readings of this, I would put this book similar to Philip Dru, the Communist Manifesto, Rousseau's writings, the Fabian Tracts, and many other philosophical/semi-philosophical writings which have ended up spawning dark periods in history.

Just so that I'm clear here, I don't believe Rawls to be a communist. Nor did Rawls ever kill anybody or advocate the killing of anybody.(that I've yet seen, and I do not expect it) But there are certain things which are undeniable truths of life that cannot be ignored, and inevitably end up in the exact same place. To be specific Rawls specifically states(page 10) that his writing is not a doctrine for a particular form of government. Yet reading this book you are led down a remarkably utopian path, and that's where human beings get into trouble. Karl Marx, Edward House, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the original Fabians never killed anybody. Yet these ideas(some moreso than others) led to some of if not the darkest, violent, deadly periods in humanity's history. The ideals lead the revolutionary utopian activist to want to dictate to others how life should be, and those who resist end up standing alone in the middle of a protest, with three tanks coming at them. This story has been told over, and over, and over again. And while the makeup is different, the path is different, everything is different. Yet everything is the same. Be it concentration camps, eugenics, guillotines, gulags, you name it. Different makeup, different path, same utopian starting point, and same deadly ending point. The glorious revolution is not so glorious after all.

When you start reading revolutionary history as I have done, you start to see them all as the same. It no longer remains a fear of Communism, or the dangers of Fabianism, or of Fascism, Nationalism, Progressivism, or any others. History has far too many labels for what is one single concept: centralized planning. That's what all of it is. Every bit of it. From the Divine Right of Kings, to Jacobinism, to Anarchism or Syndicalism, and now Rawlsianism. I encourage every liberty minded citizen to read this book. Here are a few things you will find:

Rawls uses the phrase "Social Justice" 31 times. (as an after-publish note, due to how google books search works, I am now seeing 38 results)

He talks about a "well ordered" society. As much as he wants to say he isn't advocating for one type of government or another, he is. He is arguing for a well-ordered society. In 600 pages, he yearns for a well ordered society 73 times. 73 times!(now 71 results)

Something else that Rawls frequently mentions here in this book and elsewhere is the concept of "distributive justice", which I think is one of the most dangerous concepts that progressives have ever come up with.

Another thing that Rawls frequently mentions is the concept of fairness, which is probably the most abused word in the English language.

The concept that's completely Rawlsian in origin is the concept of 'luck', and I consider it to be the absolute most dangerous of his ideals. It was seeing his beliefs of luck that prompted me to dig deeper and consider writing this and the things I will write in the future.

Finally, earlier I stated that I do not believe Rawls to be a communist. There is a specific reason why(In Rawls own words). Yesterday when I wrote of Utilitarianism, I stressed that collegiate education does not have to be socialist or communist in order to indoctrinate, which is why I'm now highlighting Rawls' book. But just because Rawls was not a communist, doesn't mean he didn't know of Marx, or what Marx said. In closing this I will leave you with a quote from the book:(Page 305)

It is even possible to elevate one of these precepts, or some combination of them, to the level of a first principle, as when it is said: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Footnote 33 directs the reader to "Critique of the Gotha Program", which is the source of that quote.

http://tinyurl.com/848uevj

Theodore Roosevelt absolutely hated the principles of the Founding Fathers

Not long ago I made an entry titled "Woodrow Wilson absolutely hated the principles of the Founding Fathers", well, I am no fan of any progressive. They are all dangerous to me. So Wilson attacks the founding and I'm going to call it as it is. The same is said for Roosevelt. Progressivism is America's cancer and it's not just in one party. I came across an article on The Heritage Foundation titled "Progressivism: Still Dangerous After All These Years, which is primarily about Roosevelt. In it, they highlight one of the things that came out of Roosevelt's pie hole:(Direct source)

I do not for one moment believe that the Americanism of today should be a mere submission to the American ideals of the period of the Declaration of Independence . . . Such action would be not only to stand still, but to go back. American democracy, of course, must mean an opportunity for everyone to contribute his own ideas to the working out of the future. But I will go further than you have done. I have actively fought in favor of grafting on our social life, no less than our industrial life, many of the German ideals.

There is a lot here. First, we see the exact same disdain for the Declaration via the ideals that made it so great. But beyond that, Roosevelt states plainly that he is promoting Germanic ideals(Prussianism), which is something that I have made observations about in the past. You can trace a lot of progressive roots back to Germany, idea wise. But most importantly, note how he uses the phrase "to go back". That is the exact kind of arrogance that progressives have held for well over a century now, that these ideals that made America so great are somehow 'backward', or regressive. Liberty is not backward. The tyranny of progressivism is what's backward.

Every progressive means harm to the USA, democrat or republican - all progressives. All of them. That is their intent. And after a century of these people and their ideas and policies, it's inarguable. They have proven it in their actions and words.

http://tinyurl.com/7pytfhk

Does Utilitarianism lead into Fabian Socialism?

It is quickly dawning on me from my courses at my re-education camp that the teachings of Utilitarianism are potentially a means to an end(to cite Alinsky), that a professor does not need to strictly teach socialist dogma in order to make sure that young adults leave colleges indoctrinated into the big government mindset. Just teach the foundations, teach that social justice is a good thing, and teach a handful of other things that complete the picture and the rest will fall into place.
So how then, were the Fabians influenced by Utilitarianism? Judging from what I'm reading in Edward Pease's "The History of the Fabian Society", Utilitarianism is probably not the largest influence. But it can't be ignored either. Here are some general observations:

First, as I wrote earlier, Henry George was an important ideological driver for the Fabians. But as Pease's writing makes clear, George was not the only one. Chapter 1 of Pease's 'History' is titled "The Sources of Fabian Socialism" to which:

The ideas of the early eighties—The epoch of Evolution—Sources of Fabian ideas—Positivism—Henry George—John Stuart Mill—Robert Owen—Karl Marx—The Democratic Federation—"The Christian Socialist"—Thomas Davidson

To those of you not well versed in all of these things(and I don't consider myself an expert either, I'm just observing) John Stuart Mill is the Utilitarian key here. I also bolded Positivism, because that's Auguste Comte's ideals. I've not seen that in my classes, but it's something that Mill himself had wrote about, and not in a way that I would consider favorable to liberty.

But keeping with Utilitarianism and Fabianism, here is one of the first things written about Mill in Pease's 'history':

(quoting Mill)"We are too ignorant, either of what individual agency in its best form or Socialism in its best form can accomplish, to be qualified to decide which of the two will be the ultimate form of human society."

More than thirty years had passed since this had been written, and whilst the evils of private property, so vividly depicted by Mill, showed no signs of mitigation, the remedies he anticipated had made no substantial progress. The co-operation of the Rochdale Pioneers had proved a magnificent success, but its sphere of operations was now clearly seen to be confined within narrow limits. Profit-sharing then as now was a sickly plant barely kept alive by the laborious efforts of benevolent professors. Mill's indictment of the capitalist system, in regard to its effects on social life, was so powerful, his treatment of the primitive socialism and communism of his day so sympathetic, that it is surprising how little it prepared the way for the reception of the new ideas. But to some of his readers, at any rate, it suggested that there was an alternative to the capitalistic system, and that Socialism or Communism was worthy of examination.

I could go on quoting Pease at length, but I'm hoping people will click the link and do so for themselves. The above is certainly written favorably to Mill. Other parts of the book are certainly favorable as well, though at several times(as I mentioned at the beginning) the question arises as to just how influential Mill really was. My goal here is not to lay it all at the feet of Utilitarianism, as the facts simply do not warrant that. My goal is to get people thinking that perhaps there's more than one way for professors to get their students to start thinking that big government is the only correct course of action for society. It doesn't have to be communist or socialist propaganda.

Of the things I've found relating to Utilitarianism and Fabianism, four stand out and are worth the read to those interested:

1: "Shaw, the Fabians, and the Utilitarians" by William Irvine Lays out many things pretty well, including those things which are unwritten. For example, Beatrice Webb's parents, and their role in earlier Utilitarianism.

2: The Rise and Fall of England: 11. The Fabian Thrust to Socialism, an article on The Freeman which also details the influence of the Utilitarians.

3: The third is a writing by G. D. H. Cole, titled "Fabianism". Cole was himself a member of the Fabian Society, so he is yet another solid source for this, and to which unlike other writings seems to explain why the Fabians rejected many parts of Mill: (Page 3)

John Stuart Mill they recognized as standing at the point of transition between the two interpretations of utilitarianism. Although he sympathized with the socialism of his day, he was too deeply rooted in the old traditions for a complete conversion. The Fabians regarded themselves as completing the work which he had begun and thus found further cause to emphasize their continuity with older liberal thought.

4: Another member of the Fabian Society, Bertrand Russell, wrote the following, to which is displayed prominently upon one of the home pages of today's utilitarians, utilitarian.net(this comes from Page 39 of his autobiography)

It appeared to me obvious that the happiness of mankind should be the aim of all action, and I discovered to my surprise that there were those who thought otherwise. Belief in happiness, I found, was called Utilitarianism, and was merely one among a number of ethical theories. I adhered to it after this discovery.

I'm satisfied that the answer to the original question is an affirmative - Utilitarianism leads to Fabianism.

http://tinyurl.com/87n55u4

STERILIZATION LAW PASSED BY JERSEY (1934)

From the Miami Daily News, Sunday, February 4th, 1934

STERILIZATION LAW PASSED BY JERSEY

Pioneer Code Held to Be Unconstitutional Before Use

(Special to New York Herald Tribune and Miami Daily News)

TRENTON, Feb. 3.- Long before Chancellor Hitler initiated his plan for the improvement of the Teutonic Race through wholesale sterilization New Jersey placed on her statues a law to accomplish a somewhat similar purpose, and although declared unconstitutional before it could be put into operation, it proved to be the forerunner of many other pieces of legislation having the same end in view.

New Jersey adopted a sterilization act 23 years ago. It was described officially as an act "to authorize and provide for the sterilization of feeble-minded(including idiots, imbiciles and morons) epileptics, rapists, certain criminals and other defectives." It was declared unconstitutional in a memorable by the late Supreme Court Justice Charles G. Garrison, who, after having attained distinction as a surgeon, turned from medicine to the practice of law and became a member of the highest judicial body in the state.

Since then attempts to enact sterilization measures have been made repeately in the legislature, and all of the proposed acts have been along lines corresponding closely with the original law, which gave to a board of examiners of feeble-minded, epileptics, criminals and other defectives the right to decree sterilization.

http://tinyurl.com/7o85ap3

Woodrow Wilson and eugenics - he supported it - here's the details

In researching Wilson's support for eugenic ideas, I was surprised how little there actually was to find. It took quite a few different search terms to come up with anything substantive. He apparently never spoke on the issue, at least not in any of his currently public writings. Who knows what's locked away in Link's volumes of Wilson's writings. But the law he passed in New Jersey can't be locked away, thankfully. It took some time to dig out the title of the law, but once I did the doors started opening.

It was approved April 21, 1911, by Governor Woodrow Wilson.

It appears on the New Jersey statutes of 1911 as Chapter 190.

The title of the law: "AN ACT to authorize and provide for the sterilization of feeble-minded (including idiots, imbeciles and morons), epileptics, rapists, certain criminals and other defectives"

It was overturned by the NJSC on November 18, 1913, here is the final decision. "Smith v. Board of Examiners of Feeble-minded (including idiots, imbeciles and morons), Epileptics and other Defectives", wheras "Smith" is Alice Smith, who was the prosecutrix of the case.

I'm going to end this blog entry with what appears to me to be the full text of the bill from the first link, but before I do that, here are some of the appointments that Woodrow Wilson made to said "Board of Examiners of Feeble-minded (including idiots, imbeciles and morons), Epileptics and other Defectives":

Hon. John D. Prince, President of the Senate:

Sir-I hereby nominate for appointment, with and by the advice and consent of the Senate, the following persons for the following offices:

To be State Superintendent of Weights and Measures: William L. Waldron of the county of Mercer.

To be members of the Board of Examiners of Feeble-Minded, Epileptics and other Defectives: Alexander Marcy, Jr., M.D., of the county of Burlington; Henry B. Costill, M.D., of the county of Mercer,

Respectfully,

WOODROW WILSON,

Governor.

Here is the preface of the bill(alternate link has it, as opposed to the link above):

WHEREAS, heredity plays a most important part in the transmission of feeble-mindedness, epilepsy, criminal tendencies, and other defects:

Be it enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

1. Immediately after the passage of this act, the Governor shall appoint by and with the advice of the Senate, a surgeon and neurologist, each of recognized ability, one for a term of three (3) years and one for a term of (5) years; their successors each to be appointed for the full term of five years, who in conjunction with the Commissioner of Charities and Corrections shall be known as and is hereby created the "Board of Examiners of Feeble-minded (including idiots, imbeciles and morons), Epileptics and other Defectives," whose duty it shall be to examine into the mental and physical condition of the feeble-minded, epileptic, certain criminal and other defective inmates confined in the several reformatories, charitable, and penal institutions in the counties and state. Any vacancy occurring in said Board of Examiners shall be filled by appointment of the Governor for the unexpired term.

2. The criminals who shall come within the operation of this law shall be those who have been convicted of the crime of rape, or of such succession of offenses against the criminal law as in the opinion of this board of examiners shall be deemed to be sufficient evidence of confirmed criminal tendencies.

3. Upon application of the superintendent or other administrative officer of any institution in which such inmates are or may be confined or upon its own motion, the said board of examiners may call a meeting to take evidence and examine into the mental and physical condition of such inmates confined as aforesaid, and if said board of examiners, in conjunction with the chief physician of the institution, unanimously find that procreation is inadvisable and that there is no probability that the condition of such inmate so examined will improve to such an extent as to render procreation by such inmate advisable, it shall be lawful to perform such operation for the prevention of procreation as shall be decided by said board of examiners to be most effective, and thereupon it shall and may be lawful for any surgeon qualified under the laws of this state, under the direction of the chief physician of said institution, to perform such operation; previous to said hearing the said board shall apply to any judge of the Court of Common Pleas, of the county in which said person is confined, for the assignment of counsel to represent the person to be examined, said counsel to act at said hearing and in any subsequent proceedings, and no order made by said board of examiners shall become effective until five days after it shall have been filed with the clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of the county in which said examination is held, and a copy shall have been served upon the counsel appointed to represent the person examined, proof of service of the said copy of the order to be filed with the clerk of the Court of Common Pleas. All orders made under the provision of this act shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court or any justice thereof, and said court may upon appeal from any order grant a stay which shall be effective until such appeal shall have been decided. The judge of the Court of Common Pleas appointing any counsel under this act may fix the compensation to be paid him, and it shall be paid as other court expenses are now paid. No surgeon performing an operation under the provisions of this law shall be held to account therefor, but the order of the board of examiners shall be a full warrant and authority therefor.

4. The record taken upon the examination of every such inmate, signed by the said board of examiners, shall be preserved in the institution where such inmate is confined, and a copy thereof filed with the Commissioner of Charities and Corrections, and one year after the performing of the operation the superintendent or other administrative officer of the institution wherein such inmate is confined shall report to the board of examiners the condition of the inmate and the effect of such operation upon such inmate. A copy of the report shall be filed with the record of the examination.

5. There shall be paid, out of the funds appropriated for maintenance of such institutions, to each physician of said board of examiners, a compensation of not more than ten ($10) dollars per diem for each day actually given to such work or examination, and his actual and necessary expenses in going to, holding and returning from such examination. When in the judgment of the board of examiners it is necessary to secure the assistance of a surgeon outside the medical staff of the institution to perform or assist in said operation, the necessary expenses of such surgeon shall be paid from the maintenance account of such institution.

6. If any provisions of this act shall be questioned in any court, and the provisions of this act with reference to any class of persons enumerated therein shall be held to be unconstitutional and void, such determination shall not be deemed to invalidate the entire act, but only such provisions thereof with reference to the class in question as are specifically under review and particularly passed upon by the decision of the court.

7. This act shall take effect immediately.

http://tinyurl.com/6ur72uc

Special Thanks to the Black Quill and Ink Blog

The Black Quill and Ink blog has taken notice of an entry I wrote recently, "Who Laundered Van Jones". If you read the article prior, you already know of it's contents. The only thing new is the introductory paragraph written by BQI. I wanted to make mention of this and hope that people would consider visiting BQI.

Here is the article:

Who Laundered Van Jones

Woodrow Wilson: It's time to break from that constitution

In February 1911, Woodrow Wilson wrote an article titled "The Law and the Facts", starting on page 4:

Take the case of the United States.

It(the US) has been a great spectacle of splendid force released and challenged by every circumstance to work its will. It has, too, been a regime of utter individualism. The forces as well as the men have acted independently, of their own initiative, at their own choice in their own way. And law has not drawn them together,- it does not appear that it was its object to draw them together.

Note the separation there? Sure, the US has been a great spectacle. But, it has also been a regime of utter individualism. "Regime" is generally used negatively - This is entirely my own opinion, but I think he is complaining here. The central planner is complaining. Continuing to page 5:

And so individual interests without number have been built up. They have not been harnessed to a common cause; the common cause was supposed to be individual development and the right of those who could to use the country and its resources for the release of their private energy and the piling up of their own wealth. Separate opportunities were studied, not common obligations, variety, not community, of interest.

Continuation of the complaint. He asks:

Our search is for the common interest, but where shall we find it?

He has an answer. A commission - non partisan, experts. Sound like what we see today? Wilson explains:(bottom of page 6)

Such a commission would be in fact a commission to discover, amidst our present economic chaos, a common interest, so that we might legislate for the whole country instead of for this, that, or the other interest, one by one.

This is very important to me for a number of ways. First, note how he says 'we might legislate'. So where there were once free people pursuing their own interests, now the legislators direct them toward the mythical common goal. But more important than anything else, the more I read the words of the progressives from their own original sources, the more I'm convinced that progressives look at us as anarchists. Because you are buying a car, I'm buying a house, the other person is saving, yet another person is in college. What anarchy! What CHAOS. John Dewey used the exact same phrasing:

Peoples who have learned that billions are available for public needs when the occasion presses will not forget the lesson, and having seen that portions of these billions are necessarily diverted into physical training, industrial education, better housing, and the setting up of agencies for securing a public service and function from private industries will ask why in the future the main stream should not be directed in the same channels.

In short, we shall have a better organized world internally as well as externally, a more integrated, less anarchic, system.

I've seen this elsewhere as well in the writings of progressivism that I've read, but I'll have to research it further before making a headline. I think this is a fundamental of progressivism. The lack of a centrally planned state is by definition anarchic and chaotic - in their minds. Just the other day, Occupy was saying that democracy and capitalism are not compatible, and Wilson himself stated that democracy and socialism are one and the same. It's the anarchic free markets vs the stability and order of a centrally planned society. Let's get back to Wilson's article "The Law and the Facts", now on page 7, Wilson proposes finding a starting point:

Suppose we define business as the economic service of society for private profit, and suppose we define politics as the accommodation of all social forces, the forces of business of course included, to the common interest. We may thus perceive our task in all its magnitude and extraordinary significance. Business must be looked upon, not as the exploitation of society, not as its use for private ends, but as its sober service; and private profit must be regarded as legitimate only when it is in fact a reward for what is veritably serviceable,- serviceable to interests which are not single but common, as far as they go; and politics must be the discovery of this common interest, in order that the service may be tested and exacted.

What an incredible admission. But it gets worse: (bottom of page 7, to 8)

In this conception society is the senior partner in all business. It must be first considered,- society as a whole, in its permanent and essential, not merely in its temporary and superficial, interests. If private profits are to be legitimatized, private fortunes made honourable, these great forces which play upon the modern field must both individually and collectively, be accommodated to a common purpose. Politics has to deal with and harmonize many other forces besides those of business merely.

By 'society', he means government, and government must reach beyond business as well. Don't think it's going to get better:(Page 9)

Business is no longer in any proper sense a private matter. It is not in our day usually conducted by independent individuals, each acting upon his own initiative in the natural pursuit of his own economic wants. It is pursued by great companies, great corporations, which exist only by express license of law and for the convenience of society, and which are themselves as it were little segments of society. Law is not accommodating itself, therefore, to the impulses and enterprises of individuals, as experience pushes it forward from change to change; but is accommodating itself, rather, to the impulses of bodies of men, to the aggregate use of money drawn from a myriad of sources as if from the common savings of society at large. The processes of change will be organic only in proportion as they are guided and framed along self-consistent lines of general policy. As experience becomes more and more aggregate law must be more and more organic, institutional, constructive. It is a study in the correlation of forces.

Now we're getting at the heart of the matter. You want to know why progressives so arrogantly think they have a right to centrally plan society? Businesses are already segments of government in their view. Why shouldn't they be completely controlled by government? His use of the word 'institutional' is key here, given his prior commentary regarding the panel of experts. Yet, this is not the worst of Wilson's commentary: (moving to page 10)

Let us break with our formulas, therefore. It will not do to look at men congregated in bodies politic through the medium of the constitutions and traditions of the states they live in, as if that were the glass of interpretation. Constitutions are vehicles of life, but not sources of it. Look at all men everywhere first of all as at human beings struggling for existence, for a little comfort and ease of heart, for happiness amidst the things that bind and limit them.

It wasn't long ago that I posted an article about how Wilson hated the founders ideals. Here's more of it. Just ignore that constitution, it's too inconvenient. It's time to break from standard bodies of politic, and look toward new panels filled with experts, unaccountable to the people.

http://tinyurl.com/82rrhqn

Obama hands "Occupy" a major victory

And they know it. Anybody remember when Obama refused to acknowledge 8-28 and many other tea party or liberty-based gatherings? Why is that? He did not want to give those groups credibility.

The announcement has gone out that the G-8 Summit is being moved from Chicago, to Camp David. This is clearly a victory for the Occupy movement. This is something that revolutionaries desperately need. As time goes on, (see the STORM manifesto - search it for the word "burnout") revolutionaries can get burned out. Who wouldn't? We all have our limits.

Now, enter Occupy. In one of their own publications, here is what they are reporting:

Occupy Claims Victory as Obama Relocates G8 Summit

Lookout! This summer is not going to be pretty. Obama just threw gasoline, rocketfuel, and some nuclear rods on the fire. Consider this: Occupy was just successful at getting 9 of the world's major leaders to move to a different location. If you know how revolutionaries think, you will know how giddy they are.

http://tinyurl.com/7jtxkf8

Some notes on the audiobook recording of the STORM handbook

The audiobook of Reclaiming Revolution is complete.

First off, I do not, can not, and will not profit monetarily off of this audiobook, and anybody else who downloads it should not either. It is for educational value only.

Second, part of my final preparations for the audiobook was to re-record several of the first few sections. It's very important to me that people be able to have this available to learn from it, and due to the fact that I just took up recording one day, without any prior experience, I have had a lot of learning to do myself. So the first few sections did not sound very good, but they do now.

Third, portions of the STORM Manifesto reflect a 'work in progress' type recording. Audio recording is not nearly as easy as you would think up front, or it just wasn't for me and I had to train myself to do it. Either way, the first few sections sounded awful as I was speaking too slowly. When you get to section 8 there is a small difference, that is where the original recordings began to get better and I did not feel the need to re-record anything beyond that. Also, for large portions of the recording I was able to keep 'puffs' low despite not having a puff filter.(which I got my hands on later) As I have continually improved my recording ability, I could just keep recording and recording and recording in a never ending loop the exact same audiobook over and over, but each time with diminishing returns on quality. The later recordings and the first several sections represent a puff-free recording, at the point when I acquired a puff filter.

I feel that this recording as it stands is very good and has a great educational value, despite a small handful of puffs(put your hand an inch away from your mouth and say the word puff. Feel that air?) being in the recording, and a handful of small things that only I as the recorder would even likely notice. (The puffs not excessively loud and are not distracting - and I'm fairly picky about audiobooks. Not only do I want something decent, but I still haven't yet gotten used to the idea of listening to myself. So I'm very critical here)

Finally, I re-exported all of the files after stabilizing the audio a bit. This makes my voice more consistent in each individual audio track. And the meta-data has been changed as well. The entire audiobook is numbered via the actual book's own page numbers, which was the closest I could get to keeping everything in context instead of having all of the workgroups and other grey boxes bunched up at the end of the book. This is done to keep the audio files all in line in your media player. You'll understand what I mean when you download the files and look at the chapter numbers. And now for the files:

You can get the text version of the STORM handbook here.

Scribd searchable file

The audiobook recording is here.

Democracy and capitalism cannot coexist. Why? Democracy is inherently socialistic

At the Occupy Strategy Session at New York University, all the usual suspects are once again targeting capitalism. This isn't surprising, anybody who digs into the roots of all this 'Occupy' stuff will quickly see that it's all based on progressivism and central planning - with a hint of socialism, a hint of communism, and they have even teamed up with Islamists. Glenn also talked about this.

Right at the beginning, both David Graeber and Marina Sitrin(Occupy lawyer) lay it out:

Graeber: "The only way to have a genuinely democratic society would also be to abolish capitalism in this state".

Sitrin: "We cannot have democracy with capitalism".

Note how the people in the video shake their heads yes in agreement at all video angles. So is this true? Democracy and capitalism are incompatible? What makes that true?

In 1887, Woodrow Wilson wrote an essay titled "Socialism and Democracy", and in my original entry I wrote an observation about mobs.

We've all seen what 'Occupy' does. They're a mob. And what does the mob want? Other people's money. So Woodrow Wilson was right after all. Democracy is socialism. Then democracy and capitalism are indeed incompatible.

Isn't it a good thing then, that the Founding Fathers gave us a republic? If we can keep it.

http://tinyurl.com/7d2l3h3

The state has a duty to diminish or eliminate the inefficient, and prevent multiplication of the breed

Royal Meeker, who was an advisor and long time ally(details, see chapter 4) to Woodrow Wilson, wrote the following: (page 544)

In M. Colson's view the poor are poor through their own laziness, inability or thriftlessness; the rich are rich because of their own or their ancestors' virtues. The laws of property and of inheritance are almost above criticism. Any attempt to ameliorate the condition of those living at or below the minimum of subsistence must result in such an increase of the poorer classes that the result will inevitably be a larger number of miserable wretches living at or below the margin of starvation (volume i, pages 378 et seq.). This out-Malthuses Malthus; for the English economist, in the later editions of his Essay on Population, modified drastically the original rigor of his reasoning. In his second volume, treating of labor and labor problems, M. Colson somewhat abates the severity of his laisser-faire theories but in a way that will meet with the disapproval of many economists. Speaking of the evils of the sweating system, he admits the mischief of wages below the minimum of subsistence, of unsanitary workrooms and of excessively long hours. But all these evils come about because the workers, male and female, are unskilled, ignorant and superabundant. The remedy for these conditions is not a minimum wage, but a contribution by the state, sufficient, when added to his meager earnings, to enable the underpaid and irregularly employed worker to eke out a livelihood. The choice for these poor wretches is between underpaid work and no work at all. The state should not support them wholly but should make up the difference between their actual wage and a living wage. It seems to the reviewer that all experience has shown that this is the worst "solution" that can possibly be found for this hard social problem. This is the "solution" which was tried for so many years in England, with such disastrous results. It is much better to enact a minimum wage law, even if it deprives these unfortunates of work. Better that the state should support the inefficient wholly and prevent the multiplication of the breed than subsidize incompetence and unthrift, enabling them to bring forth after their kind. M. Colson says nothing of the duty of the state to provide manual and technical training for those born under its sovereignty, to the end that the inefficient may be diminished or eliminated. One cannot avoid thinking that the great French economist seeks to exonerate individual enterprisers from the charge of extortion by an appeal to vague general theories which have no applicability to the case under discussion.

I think this is poorly written. First, who is M. Colson?(a commenter has brought to my attention that "M" could mean monsieur, which would make sense) I searched for the title of the book he is responding to is "Cours d'Economie Politique, by C. Colson", and searching online, the author's name is indeed Clement Colson, from what I can see. Further, the last few lines is mainly what caught my eye. But at first, it's not immediate as to if he's objecting to Colson's eugenic view, or lack therof. This is nasty, and it requires a bit of insight into the mind of a progressive in order to properly interpret this. As was written in the New Republic in 1916:

Imbecility breeds imbecility as certainly as white hens breed white chickens; and under laissez-faire imbecility is given full chance to breed, and does so in fact at a rate far superior to that of able stocks.

This explains why those who are even more well versed in progressivism than I am, attribute these words to Meeker himself, rather than what appears to be a projection on Colson. Jonah Goldberg does so on page 264 of his book Liberal Fascism, and The Freeman does so as well, though they don't give the full quote to which they are referring to.

The evils of progressivism and eugenics, for all to see.

http://tinyurl.com/7dy6rpj

Did Woodrow Wilson praise the Bolshevik Revolution?

In Wilson's War Message to Congress on 2 April, 1917, Woodrow Wilson said the following:

A steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations. No autocratic government could be trusted to keep faith within it or observe its covenants. It must be a league of honour, a partnership of opinion. Intrigue would eat its vitals away; the plottings of inner circles who could plan what they would and render account to no one would be a corruption seated at its very heart. Only free peoples can hold their purpose and their honour steady to a common end and prefer the interests of mankind to any narrow interest of their own.

Does not every American feel that assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia? Russia was known by those who knew it best to have been always in fact democratic at heart, in all the vital habits of her thought, in all the intimate relationships of her people that spoke their natural instinct, their habitual attitude towards life. The autocracy that crowned the summit of her political structure, long as it had stood and terrible as was the reality of its power, was not in fact Russian in origin, character, or purpose; and now it has been shaken off and the great, generous Russian people have been added in all their naive majesty and might to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace. Here is a fit partner for a league of honour.

It would be entirely fair(as much as I dislike Wilson) to point out that he could not have known that they would go on to slaughter 20+ million people. I suppose you could say that it was a good thing that the Russia was overthrowing the Tsars and "moving toward freedom"(which was their claim) - the problem is their definition of freedom. Wilson, like the Bolsheviks, had a belief in collective freedom, and freedom for the state. Not freedom for the individual. Or, at best, freedom for the individual is secondary to the primary of freedom for the state. It was Wilson who wrote that Democracy and Socialism are one and the same.

http://tinyurl.com/75kljz8

Who laundered Van Jones?

I have in the past written generally about progressivism and people laundering, here. But instead of ideas and generalities with a few specifics, this time I will be more detailed.

So how do you take a revolutionary and shine them up like a bright shiny new car? How do you go from this:

A jeans wearing, unpolished, rugged revolutionary, to this:

Understanding how progressives use positions of power, authority, and "pure" non profits as a position to re-brand their own as palatable members of society is an extremely important thing to understand. This blog post could just as easily be written about Bill Ayers, or any number of other revolutionaries. But my focus is on Jones because of his high profile nature, as well as the 'newness' of all this.

So who laundered him? It's a process, not an event. Step by step, institution by institution, award by award. Let me count the ways:

As you have noticed(I really hope you read the above link, because STORM itself has some people laundering details in it's handbook) the Ella Baker Center is on this list. All they did was change the name from Bay Area "f--- them pigs" Cop Watch to something that sounded more respectable. But outside of the attempt to self-launder, you have Princeton University for one. I have written in the past about progressives' and their 'invisible governance' as well, people laundering and invisible governance are very much connected. Non profits, the media, academia, corporations, hollywood and many other sectors of life have become important parts of this progressive invisible governance, and all of which I will discuss more later.

Now, who else has played a part in the laundering of Van Jones? Yesterday I posted this, note the picture of Jones with the purple background. The Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank which has more than happily accepted a self-described communist into it's midst.

The media has played it's part in helping to launder Jones as well. The above picture of Jones in the suit comes from CBS news. Nowhere does this article talk about his belief in communism, marxism, or any other key word which would be CBS giving it's readers any indication as to how much danger we are in. PBS also played along. You could pick out nearly any media report you want, very rarely is Jones' belief in big centrally planned government ever mentioned.

Jones' Wikipedia page was surprisingly helpful in the area of garnering names of institutions who have played along:

1997-1999 - Rockefeller Foundation "Next Generation Leadership" Fellowship

1998 - Reebok International Human Rights Award

2000 - International Ashoka Fellowship

2008 - Best Dressed Environmental List (#1 of 30); Sustainable Style Foundation[74]

2008 - Time Magazine Environmental Hero[4]

2008 - Elle Magazine Green Award

2008 - One of the George Lucas Foundation's "Daring Dozen"

2008 - Hunt Prime Mover Award; Hunt Alternatives Fund

2008 - Campaign for America's Future "Paul Wellstone Award"

2008 - Global Green USA "Community Environmental Leadership" Award

2008 - San Francisco Foundation Community Leadership Award

2008 - Puffin/Nation Prize for Creative Citizenship[75]

2008 - World Economic Forum "Young Global Leader"

2009 - Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights Award[76]

2009 - Eco-Entrepreneur Award, Institute for Entrepreneurship, Leadership & Innovation; Howard University

2009 - Individual Thought Leadership, Energy & Environment Awards; Aspen Institute[77]

2010 - NAACP President's Award[63]

2010 - Commonwealth Club of California - Inforum's 21st Century Visionary Award

2010 - Global Exchange Human Rights Award Honoree. [78]

Out of those institutions, how many do you see which give big credibility with their recommendation? Starting from the top: Princeton University, Reebok, Time Magazine, and George Lucas, among many others.

This is how revolutionaries get laundered into respectable citizens who are rumored to be a part of the civil society. This is how the chameleon changes it's colors, this is how they are progressingamerica into the society we can't recognize. We all need to understand this process. And there are hundreds, if not thousands of organizations which can play the part. This is what makes this particular part of invisible governance so invisible. Seemingly disparate individuals and organizations are all playing their part actively and diligently to steal your liberty.

http://tinyurl.com/7fvyslr

This is what a modern day trojan horse looks like

A short comment about the pictures I chose. Did you happen to notice the purple background? The Center for American Progress. That's in/of itself important, but I'll get to that later. Now, not all revolutionaries are worthy of much, if any attention. Many times they have set the bar so high that they can't achieve the things they set out to do. But every now and then, you find that they end up making it into positions of political power, and when they do that it's necessary for you to sit up, take notice, and learn. Realistically all revolutionaries and revolutionary groups fall under the category of being a trojan horse, but most just are not successful. But here we have a revolutionary that has not only been appointed into a position within the white house, but just recently the former speaker of the house indicated that he is still considered a 'rising star'.

I will be posting a lot about Van Jones and the S.T.O.R.M. handbook in the coming days/weeks, considering how close I'm getting now to the completion of the audiobook.

Van Jones is still very much a player in modern politics. A year and a half ago, Glenn Beck said this:

this is written by the folks with Van Jones. This is "Reclaiming Revolutions," Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement or STORM.

I begged you for two years to read this.

I was one of those people who took the warning at face value, and have read the document. I was so threatened by what I read in it, I showed it to others, and eventually, it will have ended up being the second full-sized audio book that I've recorded. This isn't something to be taken lightly.

I sincerely hope that anybody that comes across these blog postings will consider reading the document, or re-consider, and if you don't have time to read that's ok. Listen to the audiobook. That's why I recorded it. It's entirely free, just like the text is. I don't care how much time it took to record, this is very important. If you want to push the trojan horse back outside of the gates, you first have to recognize that the trojan horse is a threat to everything inside of the gates.

http://tinyurl.com/6uhfrcn

Tyranny in the Brain Trust

I recently had a conversation with my local 912 project leader, in which I was introducing some names and concepts. One name that came up was Charles Merriam, who wrote in one of his books that "The individualistic ideas of the "natural right" school of political theory are discredited and repudiated". In my earlier blog posting about this, I forgot to mention why it was important to know who Merriam was, his role in government, so I'm tying up that loose end. Merriam was a member of FDR's "Brains Trust", with some people even referring to the group that Merriam was involved with as "The University of Chicago Brain Trust".

Merriam was also a major player in the 1937 "Brownlow Committee", also known as the "Committee on Administrative Management". A title like that makes me shudder, because I've read Philip Dru. I know exactly what progressives mean when they start talking about administration. One other thing, is that Merriam was influenced by Frank Johnson Goodnow. For anybody interested in truely defending themselves against progressivism, these are all names and ideas you need to know. Johnson was hailed by Woodrow Wilson as the only other person beside himself(Wilson) who truely understood administration as a separate discipline. It's no wonder that Merriam wrote what he did regarding the founding. In both of Merriam's books that are pre-1923, he references Goodnow's book Politics and Administration. See the above link for why that's important.

Another member of the Brain Trust who should be mentioned in this context is Stuart Chase, a Fabian Socialist. I have yet to post about Chase's writings, but it's on my very long to do list.

With many of the Brain Trust members' writings behind a wall of copyright, many of them I cannot search through and read, but I suspect that with people like this being among the people guiding our nation at that time, is likely a big reason why Raymond Moley broke from the New Deal and went on to write the things that he did.