Heidi Cruz vs José Ernesto Medellín

One of the things I find interesting is how powerful a media narrative is, and how it will stretch reality to the very limits of absurdity.

Did you know that Heidi Cruz is a bought and paid for shill for the Bilderberg group, the Illuminati, Goldman Sachs, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and every other shady conspiracy group you can think of? Yep, it's true. Except, not really. But we do owe journalists for this storyline. "But! The New York Times reported it! So it must be true!"

All of these conspiracy theories hinge on the fact that Heidi Cruz, as Ted Cruz's wife, is capable of convincing Ted (and has convinced him already, and has been convincing him for years) that the status quo is the preferred way, and all of these shadow groups have the correct vision for the future.

All of this ignores the fact that Ted Cruz has a record. That record begins with José Medellín. Why did Former President George W. Bush say that he doesn't like Ted Cruz? "I just don't like the guy"

If you listen to the conspiracy peddlers, George Bush is the same kind of shadowy Goldman Sachs puppet that Heidi and Ted Cruz are. So why the discrepancy? Why aren't Cruz and Bush big time buds? We would likely be told that it's all for show.

The reality is that the conspiracies are not true. For it to be true, Cruz would have had to have argued on behalf of Medellín, the Bush Administration, and on behalf of "the interests". But he didn't do that.

Its truly ironic that the only guy who has an actual verifiable record of fighting against international interests is supposedly a shill for those very interests who he not only went head to head with, but he defeated them. To use the phrasing of the conspiracists, Ted Cruz defeated the globalists. If you want to talk about a conspiracy, if there is any conspiracy, there it is. To prevent any substantive talk about Cruz's actual record and instead focus on nebulous terms in connection with his wife. Ignorance is strength, you know.

Conservative Review has a decent write up about the case of Medellín v. Texas.

In 1917 the novel Philip Dru was considered "utopian"

Depending on what you read, you will often times see the book Philip Dru cast as a dystopian novel.

To be fair, the first dystopian novel is widely considered to be "We", which wasn't published until 1921.(some 9 years after Dru) However, since the character of Philip Dru implements much of the progressive agenda to which they all generally favor, why on earth would it be considered dystopian today? (other than to mask the novel for what it really is)

Here is the view from 1917:

What goes on inside Col. House's head is a mystery to most people, but it should not be to those who have read the anonymous novel, "Philip Dru, Administrator," published by B. W. Huebsch, New York, in 1912. It is generally understood that this book was written by Col. House. The publisher gives publicity to the rumor, but does not deny it. Col. House has never said he didn't write the book. Mr. Huebsch sent me the volume the other day. It is a story of the future of the United States. It belongs to the class of prophetic romances of which the most famous in English is Sir Thomas More's "Utopia." Somewhat like Edward Bellamy's novel, "Looking Backward," it is even more like Frederick Upham Adams' novel, "President John Smith." But it is not a Socialist novel. "Philip Dru, Administrator," is just the kind of book in which a man must put his own ideas and ideals, for it is a projection of what he thinks his country should be and will be. From the story one may discover just what the author's political, economic and social purposes are. It is interesting to find out the purposes of a man who has such close relations with and, presumably, influence upon the President of the United States.

After pointing out how bad the book is, the author continues:

But what Philip and these others do and say gives us a good insight into the mind of their creator, who, to tell the truth, is more interested in ideas than in character. Those ideas must have great weight with the President of the United States or he would not so often consult in administrative crises the man who holds them.

Philip Dru was written as an utopian novel with an utopian outlook, it was considered utopian just a few short years after its publication, which means it is utopian today. But what is it about this novel that urges some to cast it as dystopian? There are four chapters in the book that span a brief civil war, to determine who will control the country. That's it. Four chapters out of fifty three. So all of those policy dreams and the accomplishments of progressivism in the other 49 chapters, you're supposed to ignore all of that.

We can even discuss those four chapters and also place those in the utopian category. Progressive ideologues have proven to be the biggest opportunists in modern history, why should anybody believe that if the progressives had a chance, and a civil war was all it would take for them to finally have what they wanted, that they wouldn't take it and be supportive of both the wartime and the after effects? The progressives will take what they can, whenever they can take it, however they can take it. The ends justify the means. THAT, we know for certain is a supreme guiding principle for anybody who believes in progressivism. Since the ends justify the means, that places even the civil war chapters of Dru in the utopian category.

How progressivism and journalism created the hated soundbite

In today's media world, sound bites are everywhere. Tiny little slogans that omit so much fact as to make them virtually useless. But where did these come from? Who created the soundbite? When was it invented? As is so common, most of the problems we have today are rooted in progressivism, from 100 year ago. The soundbite is no different.

George Creel, the chairman of the Committee on Public Information, wrote the following:

"Nothing is more true than that people do not live by bread alone; catch-phrases constitute a staple article of diet, especially in a democracy" - George Creel, Chairman of the Committee on Public Information

Setting aside that America is not a democracy, we see the crass view of the American people that is typical for journalists, which continues to this day. Especially the American that existed 100 years ago. Progressives have had a century to use their machinery in both education and media to dumb down the electorate, so that today, some may more readily and accurately make such arrogant pronouncements. I still reject them, but I would be a fool to outright dismiss the work the progressives have done.

So what did the original formula look like?

In the "General Suggestions To Speakers of the 4 Minute Men" (the 4 minute men was a division of the CPI), we see the following:

Read all the papers every day, to find a new slogan, or a new phraseology, or a new idea to replace something you have in your speech. For instance, the editorial page of the Chicago Herald of May 19 is crammed full of good ideas and phrases. Most of the article is a little above the average audience, but if the ideas are good, you should plan carefully to bring them into the experience of your auditors. There is one sentence which says, "No country was ever saved by the other fellow; it must be done by you, by a hundred million yous, or it will not be done at all." Or again, Secretary McAdoo says, "Every dollar invested in the Liberty Loan is a real blow for liberty, a blow against the militaristic system which would strangle the freedom of the world," and so on. Both the Tribune and the Examiner, besides the Herald, contain President Wilson's address to the nation in connection with the draft registration. The latter part is very suggestive and can be used effectively. Try slogans like "Earn the right to say, I helped to win the war," and "This is a Loyalty Bond as well as a Liberty Bond," or "A cause that is worth living for is worth dying for, and a cause that is worth dying for is worth fighting for." Conceive of your speech as a mosaic made up of five or six hundred words, each one of which has its function.

So, the express purpose of this organization per its own documentation was (among other things) the creation of slogans. To seek out pithy little lines, extract them, and repeat them ad-nauseum. That's not how news coverage was 100 years ago in the old publications. Media has come a long way in a century. Wheras today, it is common in to see or hear in any medium these short little clips, in the old media (with the exception of what was outright omitted) news coverage was long, drawn out, and informative.

The progressives hadn't had 100 years to design their own customer, so they had no choice but be more informative for a more informed audience.

Is it little wonder that the soundbite is the creation of government fiat?

Oh, and one other thing. Who were all the people within the Committee on Public Information? They were all journalists. George Creel was a journalist, Edward Bernays, Heber Blankenhorn, Charles Merz, Wallace and William Henry Irwin, Ernest Poole, Ray Stannard Baker, they were all journalists. Even Walter Lippmann, the Father of Modern Journalism was a member of the CPI briefly. Every last one of them were journalists. The Committee on Public Information was filled to the brim with journalistic "talent".

This is what journalism brought you. And they still bring it to you today. How many talking points do you see daily that start not with a person in one party or the other party, but the talking point starts right from a member of the esteemed media in the form of a soundbite?

General Suggestions to Speakers, 4 Minute Men

Bulletin No. 1 - 4 Minute Men - General Suggestions to Speakers

May 22, 1917

The speech must not be longer than four minutes, which means there is no time for a single wasted word.

Speakers should go over their speech time and time again until the ideas are firmly fixed in their mind and can not be forgotten. This does not mean that the speech needs to be written out and committed, although most speakers, especially when limited in time, do best to commit.

Divide your speech carefully into certain divisions, say 15 seconds for final appeal; 45 seconds to describe the bond; 15 seconds for opening words, etc., etc. Any plan is better than none, and it can be amended every day in the light of experience.

There never was a speech yet that couldn't be improved. Never be satisfied with success. Aim to be more successful, and still more successful. So keep your eyes open. Read all the papers every day, to find a new slogan, or a new phraseology, or a new idea to replace something you have in your speech. For instance, the editorial page of the Chicago Herald of May 19 is crammed full of good ideas and phrases. Most of the article is a little above the average audience, but if the ideas are good, you should plan carefully to bring them into the experience of your auditors. There is one sentence which says, "No country was ever saved by the other fellow; it must be done by you, by a hundred million yous, or it will not be done at all." Or again, Secretary McAdoo says, "Every dollar invested in the Liberty Loan is a real blow for liberty, a blow against the militaristic system which would strangle the freedom of the world," and so on. Both the Tribune and the Examiner, besides the Herald, contain President Wilson's address to the nation in connection with the draft registration. The latter part is very suggestive and can be used effectively. Try slogans like "Earn the right to say, I helped to win the war," and "This is a Loyalty Bond as well as a Liberty Bond," or "A cause that is worth living for is worth dying for, and a cause that is worth dying for is worth fighting for." Conceive of your speech as a mosaic made up of five or six hundred words, each one of which has its function.

Get your friends to criticize you pitilessly. We all want to do our best and naturally like to be praised, but there is nothing so dangerous as "josh" and "jolly." Let your friends know that you want ruthless criticism. If their criticism isn't sound, you can reject it. If it is sound, wouldn't you be foolish to reject it?

Be sure to prepare very carefully your closing appeal, whatever it may be, so that you may not leave your speech hanging in the air.

Don't yield to the inspiration of the moment, or to applause to depart from your speech outline. This does not mean that you may not add a word or two, but remember that one can speak only 130, or 140, or 150 words a minute, and if your speech has been carefully prepared to fill four minutes, you can not add anything to your speech without taking away something of serious importance.

Cut out "Doing your bit." "Business as usual." "Your country needs you." They are flat and no longer have any force or meaning.

Time yourself in advance on every paragraph and remember you are likely to speak somewhat more slowly in public than when you practice in your own room.

There are several good ideas and statements in the printed speech recently sent you. Look it up at once.

If you come across a new slogan, or a new argument, or a new story, or a new illustration, don't fail to send it to the Committee. We need your help to make the Four-Minute Men the mightiest force for arousing patriotism in the United States.

Progressivism and propaganda - the game of Monopoly

Long before progressives used video games as a vehicle for their embedded message,

Long before progressives used TV shows as a vehicle for their embedded message,

Long before progressives used hollywood as a vehicle for their embedded message,

There was Monopoly. More specifically, the original name of Monopoly was The Landlord's Game. To be fair to the Parker Brothers, they did(probably) do some watering down of the original agenda. But much of the original framework remains.

Have you ever asked yourself why there are railroads on the board? That's a remnant of the war on trusts; the war on the railroads; the war on eeeevil capitalists; the war on the "robber barons". That's why those railroads are there on the board. To advance the Georgist agenda. Why is that big "Go To Jail" square in the far corner of the board? That's a remnant of the original "No Trespassing" bit.

The year was 1904, and Lizzie Magie came up with a great idea: She could invent a board game in order so that she could show all the little children how evil that landlords are. The original name of the game really does give up the whole intent. Here's what Magie actually wrote on the matter:

It is a practical demonstration of the present system of land-grabbing with all its usual outcomes and consequences," says Miss Magie

So you see, land grabbing land grabbers need to be exposed. There can't possibly be a legitimate case for someone to build an apartment and rent to someone else. And who do we target? Why, the children of course. That's the beginning of the article. It's only one page. Here, this is from the end of the article:

It was the original intention of the author simply to work out a demonstration of how the landlord gets his money and keeps it, but while doing this there gradually developed a game which has proven one of amusement as well as of instruction and one which has attractions for both old and young.

and

Children of nine or ten years and who possess average intelligence can easily understand the game and they get a good deal of hearty enjoyment out of it. They like to handle the make-believe money, deeds, etc., and the little landlords take a general delight in demanding the payment of their rent. They learn that the quickest way to accumulate wealth and gain power is to get all the land they can in the best localities and hold on to it. There are those who argue that it may be a dangerous thing to teach children how they may thus get the advantage of their fellows, but let me tell you there are no fairer-minded beings in the world than our own little American children. Watch them in their play and see how quick they are, should any one of their number attempt to cheat or take undue advantage of another, to cry, 'No fair!' And who has not heard almost every little girl say, 'I won't play if you don't play fair.'

How often do you hear the adult children, the progressives, come on TV and proclaim that this or that isn't fair?

Is it fair to target children for the purposes of propaganda? The progressive would never actually answer that question with a yes, but their actions speak yes the loudest. Here's the last sentence of the article:

Let the children once see clearly the gross injustice of our present land system and when they grow up, if they are allowed to develop naturally, the evil will soon be remedied.

So you see, if you want to abolish capitalism, exploit the children. You have to embed the message at the earliest ages in order for it to have the utmost success, and it has to be embedded everywhere. TV, movies, video games, board games, school, church, science, and any other place. The approved message must be synonymous in all corners, and it must be unopposed.

http://tinyurl.com/q9g777t

The Landlord's Game, by Lizzie J. Magie

THE LANDLORDS' GAME

-AN INTERESTING INVENTION OF A YOUNG LADY IN WASHINGTON BY WHICH CHILDREN AT THEIR PLAY MAY BE TAUGHT THE TRUE LAWS OF ECONOMICS.

Miss Lizzie J. Magie, a single taxer of Washington, D. C., has invented an ingenious game, played with checkers and dice as is parcheesi, and thus describes it for the REVIEW :

"It is a practical demonstration of the present system of land-grabbing with all its usual outcomes and consequences," says Miss Magie. "It might well have been called the 'Game of Life,' as it contains all the elements of success and failure in the real world, and the object is the same as the human race in general seem to have, i. e., the accumulation of wealth. Representative money, deeds, mortgages, notes and charters are used in the game; lots are bought and sold; rents are collected; money is borrowed (either from the bank or from individuals), and interest and taxes are paid. The railroad is also represented, and those who make use of it are obliged to pay their fare, unless they are fortunate enough to possess a pass, which, in the game, means throwing a double. There are two franchises: the water and the lighting ; and the first player whose throw brings him upon one of these receives a charter giving him the privilege of taxing all others who must use his light and water.

"There are two tracts of land on the board that are held out of use - are neither for rent nor for sale - and on each of these appear the forbidding sign: 'No Trespassing. Go to Jail.' One of these tracts of land (the largest on the board) is owned by Lord Blueblood, of London, England, and represents foreign ownership of American soil. A jail is provided for any one who trespasses upon this land, and there the unfortunate individual must linger until he serves out his time or pays the required fine. 'Serving out his time' means waiting until he throws a double.

"Before the game begins, each player is provided with a certain amount of cash, sufficient to pay all necessary expenses until he is well enough along in life to earn his living. Should any one be so unlucky, or so reckless and extravagant, as to become 'broke,' there is a nice little poor house off in one corner where he may tarry until he makes a lucky throw or until some friend takes pity on him and lends him enough to set him on his feet again. And here is where he generally gets 'soaked,' for the other players, taking advantage of the unfortunate one's necessities, demand an enormous rate of interest which the impecunious individual must pay before he can complete his round and get his wages.

"The rallying and chaffing of the others when one player finds himself an inmate of the jail, and the expressions of mock sympathy and condolence when one is obliged to betake himself to the poor house, make a large part of the fun and merriment of the game.

"Each time around the board represents so much labor performed, for which so much wages are paid. When a player has been the rounds ten times he retires from his labors, although he still remains in the game, which is not finished until the last player has made his tenth round. It takes forty moves to make a round and there is in each round one little black-bordered spot marked 'Legacy,’ and whenever a player stops on this he receives a cash legacy. In each round there are three spots marked 'Luxury,' and these the player may indulge in or not, according to his inclinations or finances, but each luxury purchased counts the player so much more at the end of the game.

"General directions for playing the game accompany this description, but it is difficult to make a set of rules that will cover all contingencies since no two games are alike. The combination of circumstances are so many that almost every time the game is played new situations are brought out. Thus it is a game that is always interesting - never monotonous. It was the original intention of the author simply to work out a demonstration of how the landlord gets his money and keeps it, but while doing this there gradually developed a game which has proven one of amusement as well as of instruction and one which has attractions for both old and young.

"Children of nine or ten years and who possess average intelligence can easily understand the game and they get a good deal of hearty enjoyment out of it. They like to handle the make-believe money, deeds, etc., and the little landlords take a general delight in demanding the payment of their rent. They learn that the quickest way to accumulate wealth and gain power is to get all the land they can in the best localities and hold on to it. There are those who argue that it may be a dangerous thing to teach children how they may thus get the advantage of their fellows, but let me tell you there are no fairer-minded beings in the world than our own little American children. Watch them in their play and see how quick they are, should any one of their number attempt to cheat or take undue advantage of another, to cry, 'No fair!' And who has not heard almost every little girl say, 'I won't play if you don't play fair. ' Let the children once see clearly the gross injustice of our present land system and when they grow up, if they are allowed to develop naturally, the evil will soon be remedied."

How poisonous Christianity can be identified - Collectivism and the Social Gospel

The collapse of the Marxist-inspired governments of Europe was for this theology of redeeming political practice a kind of twilight of the gods: precisely there where the Marxist ideology of liberation had been consistently applied, a total lack of freedom had developed, whose horrors were now laid bare before the eyes of the entire world. Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic. - Pope Benedict XVI, Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions, page 116

Pope Benedict warned us that collectivism is the root of all evil, that when the body of Christ finds itself turned upside down, sheds its individualism and promises to be all for all people, it ceases to be useful. The foundation of Liberation Theology is no different than any other socialist or marxist dogma: collectivism.

Much was made of Obama's "collective salvation" commentary in the first few years of his presidency. He said:

I believe you do have that obligation; not because you have a debt to all those who helped you get to where you are today, although I do believe you have that debt to pay. It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.

Poisonous collectivism has quite a long history of perverting the good will of believers around the world, but the focus here is on its roots in the American context. That being the Social Gospel movement in the early 20th century, and one of it's most well known and high profile leaders: the Reverend Walter Rauschenbusch. In 1894, Rauschenbusch published a one page article titled "The Brotherhood of the Kingdom", which is an introduction for a group he and a few like-minded others put together. While it is true that Rauschenbusch is a long way from the 151 proof poison that Obama is drinking, you can still read this article and easily spot his 40 or 50 proof nonsense.

This is a great article to see how progressives rope people in. He starts out making a point about inter-faith denominational disagreements, but the language he uses is classic ideology:

As we exchanged our thoughts about the Kingdom of our Master, our views grew more definite and more united. We saw the church of Christ divided by selfishness; every denomination intent on its own progress, often at the expense of the progress of the Kingdom; churches and pastors absorbed in their own affairs and jealous of one another; external forms of worship and church polity magnified and the spirit neglected; the people estranged from the church and the church indifferent to the movements of the people; aberrations from creeds severely censured, and aberrations from the Christian spirit of self-sacrifice tolerated.

That's not really too bad. There may be a case to be made that denominational disagreements are based on selfish views or goals. Depends on who you ask. I reject this in total, but that's because I know what Rauschenbusch was really selling here. He continues:

As we contemplated these blemishes of the body of Christ, and sorrowed over them in common with all earnest lovers of the church of Jesus, it grew clear to us that many of these evils have their root in the wrongful abandonment or the perversion of the great aim of Christ: the Kingdom of God

See, again, we should all rally around Jesus Christ, we should all take part in the great aim of Christ and help build the Kingdom of Christ. Again, nothing on the surface here that would raise any red flags among anyone who trusts their reverend, or trusts reverends in general. We should be able to trust our church leaders without worry that some social justice work is afoot. In any case, he continues:

As the idea of the Kingdom is the key to the teachings and work of Christ, so its abandonment or misconstruction is the key to the false or one-sided conception of Christianity and our halting realization of it.

Alright, there's a true Kingdom of Jesus Christ, and a false Kingdom. I can go along with that.

Because the Kingdom of God has been dropped as the primary and comprehensive aim of Christianity, and personal salvation has been substituted for it, therefore men seek to save their own souls and are selfishly indifferent to the evangelization of the world.

You see that? So if you seek to have an individual, personal relationship with your lord and savior, Jesus Christ, that makes you selfish. You're greedy. You're greedy if you want a personal relationship with God. You've given up on the Kingdom of God.

So then what does Rauschenbusch really mean when he uses this phrase "Kingdom of God"? He does not mean a meeting, or group, or tabernacle, or pick what word you would like - of individuals who get together to do good works in the name of God. He means shedding your individual greed and recognizing that your individual salvation depends on collective salvation. He is using this phrase "Kingdom of God" as a euphemism for a full throated collective not all that different from what you might imagine with the Paris commune or some other commune.

A group of individuals getting together, that's not good enough. What he wants is for each church, your church, to become a collective where everybody sings the same tune and nobody has any of these dirty individualistic thoughts. Here's what he says next. I have not overstated this:

Because the individualistic conception of personal salvation has pushed out of sight the collective idea of a Kingdom of God on earth, Christian men seek for the salvation of individuals and are comparatively indifferent to the spread of the Spirit of Christ in the political, industrial, social, scientific and artistic life of humanity, and have left these as the undisturbed possession of the spirit of the world.

You see. That's everything that Pope Benedict said in his book. Politics, and whatever else, should be made redemptive.

Now haven't you had the feeling that progressive ideologues such as Obama view everything as if it's political? What did Rauschenbusch just write in that which I just quoted? Just reverse what he is saying to see how wrong it is: You're not supposed to have a personal relationship with Jesus, and let others live their lives as they would see fit. You're supposed to push out personal salvation and spread the collective idea of God in politics, at work, and wherever else. That's how you can make everybody the same. Leave no stones unturned. Sameness is an important goal for progressives, and the Christian Left is no different.

There's probably a lot to be said that Christian individuals should be more active in art, more active in politics, industry, and the other aspects aforementioned; which is just as true today(perhaps even moreso today) than 100 years ago, but he's not proclaiming the virtue of individuals. This is again yet another line designed to rope people in and overlook the collectivist message threaded throughout the writing.

All roads lead back to the early 20th century. Progressives politicize everything, why should Christianity be spared? It wasn't spared.

The collectivist Social Gospel and the more radicalized Christian Socialist movement were crucial parts of what became the original progressive movement of 100 years ago. While it can't be claimed that all progressives are socialist, they are in fact all collectivist. Which is actually worse. A group of individuals doing good things is a great thing. A collective is dangerous, because collectivism is the root of all evil.

The Brotherhood of the Kingdom, by Walter Rauschenbusch

The Brotherhood of the Kingdom

By Reverend Walter Rauschenbusch

The recent announcement of the formation of the Brotherhood of the Kingdom has awakened considerable interest, if we may judge by the number of questions asked concerning it. Perhaps a brief statement concerning its origin and purpose will be welcome.

The Brotherhood has taken shape very gradually, naturally, and, as we believe, under the guidance of God. It began in the friendship of a number of us who had been drawn together by kinship of spirit and similarity of convictions. As we exchanged our thoughts about the Kingdom of our Master, our views grew more definite and more united. We saw the church of Christ divided by selfishness; every denomination intent on its own progress, often at the expense of the progress of the Kingdom; churches and pastors absorbed in their own affairs and jealous of one another; external forms of worship and church polity magnified and the spirit neglected; the people estranged from the church and the church indifferent to the movements of the people; aberrations from creeds severely censured, and aberrations from the Christian spirit of self-sacrifice tolerated.

As we contemplated these blemishes of the body of Christ, and sorrowed over them in common with all earnest lovers of the church of Jesus, it grew clear to us that many of these evils have their root in the wrongful abandonment or the perversion of the great aim of Christ: the Kingdom of God. As the idea of the Kingdom is the key to the teachings and work of Christ, so its abandonment or misconstruction is the key to the false or one-sided conception of Christianity and our halting realization of it. Because the Kingdom of God has been dropped as the primary and comprehensive aim of Christianity, and personal salvation has been substituted for it, therefore men seek to save their own souls and are selfishly indifferent to the evangelization of the world. Because the individualistic conception of personal salvation has pushed out of sight the collective idea of a Kingdom of God on earth, Christian men seek for the salvation of individuals and are comparatively indifferent to the spread of the Spirit of Christ in the political, industrial, social, scientific and artistic life of humanity, and have left these as the undisturbed possession of the spirit of the world. Because the Kingdom of God has been understood as a state to be inherited in a future life rather than as something to be realized here and now, therefore Christians have been contented with a low plane of life here and have postponed holiness to the future. Because the Kingdom of God has been confounded with the church, therefore the church has been regarded as an end instead of a means, and men have thought they were building up the Kingdom when they were only cementing a strong church organization.

As these thoughts took shape through observation and the study of Scripture and church history, and grew hot through prayer, and as we felt in our personal efforts the magnitude of the task of removing these evils, we determined to strike hands in the name of Christ, and by union to multiply our opportunities, increase our wisdom, and keep steadfast our courage. So we formed ourselves into a "Brotherhood of the Kingdom," in order "to re-establish this idea in the thought of the church and to assist in its practical realization in the world."

We desire to see the Kingdom of God once more the great object of Christian preaching; the inspiration of Christian hymnology; the foundation of systematic theology; the enduring motive of evangelistic and missionary work; the religious inspiration of social work and the social outcome of religious inspiration; the object to which a Christian man surrenders his life, and in that surrender saves it to eternal life; the common object in which all religious bodies find their unity; the great synthesis in which the regeneration of the spirit, the enlightenment of the intellect, the development of the body, the reform of political life, the sanctification of industrial life, and all that concerns the redemption of humanity shall be embraced.

To this task, God helping us, we desire to dedicate our lives. We invite others, ministers and laymen, to join us in it. We are not a proselyting body. We care little for numbers. We care much for the spirit. If any one has cherished the same prayerful longings and feels that he is in substantial agreement with our aims, and if, moreover, he is willing to render service that may not bring honor or profit, we heartily invite him to put himself in communication with our Secretary, Rev. S. Z. Batten (312 W. 54th St., N. Y.), or with any of our members. Pastors who desire to have their people come in cbntact with the ideas for which we stand, will find us ready to serve them in the pulpit or on the platform, so far as other duties permit. As far as our efforts will reach in the churches, in the religions press, in the social movements, and in our personal relations, we hope to carry the thoughts and the spirit of the King whose bondservants we are, and to hasten with all our strength the time when the kingdom of the earth shall be the kingdom of the Christ.

Thoughts on Ebony's 1969 exposé of white slavery

In November, 1969, Ebony magazine published an article titled "White Servitude in America". You can read that article by clicking here.

The thing that strikes me the most about this article is that at no time are the Founding Fathers cast as racist. Now the obvious response to this is that the article is about white servitude, how could such a casting possibly take place - but there's more than that. On the last page of this article(page 40), the second-last paragraph opens with this following line:

American history and American historians have not been kind to the memory of the poor white founding fathers.

Of this article, I think that it is in its totality a trial balloon. Realistically, this article says more about progressivism than it does about white servitude/slavery. In the 1960's, the progressives wanted to denigrate the memory of the Founders but they didn't know which way to go. The progressives were completely done with hearing how great the Founders were, and all hands were on deck to get the job done. The author of this article, Lerone Bennett, Jr., took the position that every one of the Founders were nothing but slave owners and didn't care who they hurt - white people, black people, red people, doesn't matter. Obviously in the year 2015, we know which narrative the progressives ultimately ended up with. But it is interesting that he brings white indentured servitude to the forefront, in all its ugliness.

Where we are at in 2015, white slavery has been erased, red slavery has been erased, and the British have been erased from the equation in the history books as well(As far as the progressives are concerned, America might as well have been founded in 1620 or even earlier. British? What British? There were never any British here, and they certainly didn't have any slaves. The Spaniards and the Dutch, the French? No slaves there either. Evil Americans did this, blame America!) - and now in 2015 all we see in the history books is black slavery - that was the ultimate triumphant narrative of progressivism in this instance. You can see the erasure of the British right in this very article. In the third paragraph, he points out that white slavery lasted for two hundred years in America. Where are the British at? In the fourth paragraph he even calls the colonies "American colonies". There were no "American colonies", and by the time the Revolutionary War happened, they were no longer colonies but towns which were members of their certain states. The concept of an "American colony" is entirely fictitious, but it must be created in order to carry the narrative forward.

See how this works? See how progressivism develops its narratives? See how words are aggressively used to "make progress" from point to point to point?

I think that this narrative at the end of the 1960's - that the Founders were nothing but a bunch of slave owners developed into a coverup of the totality of slavery and into a narrative that the only slavery that existed was black slavery, and there it is: Racist Founding Fathers. That's how progressives work, they "make progress". One person builds a small framework, the next person comes along and makes changes and tinkers with it, and someone else will tweak it again later down the line. One thing you can see, is that with the line "the poor white founding fathers", the narrative is being pushed forward into a racial narrative, but it is still developing. It may not have been racial at all before this. But you would have to necessarily cover up red slavery, and necessarily cover up white slavery in order to make this narrative in its final form a reality as it exists today. People cannot under any circumstances know about red slavery if this agenda is going to work, and they cannot know that French, British, and Spanish colonial powers began and fostered the process. That just cannot be known.

He also points out that few authors were ever intent on exposing white servitude, and points to embarrassment - that they would only prefer to discuss black slavery. This situation makes it easy to push forward the progressives' narrative as we currently have it today. All it takes, is for someone such as this author to come along with a caustic line about the "white founding fathers" - that is, to inject race into it from a poisonous, racialist point of view, and the rest will to some degree develop on its own. To progressives who only look at the surface material and have disdain for individual Liberty and America to begin with, the "white founders" and the black slaves storyline almost writes itself.

This article primarily focuses in on the middle points, however, here is what I would like to know, because all things have a starting point. Who is the mastermind who created this narrative in its final form? There has to be one single person, the first person, who finally broke the ice and called the Founders racist, thus creating the narrative as we know it today. And there are other obvious, important other questions as well.

When did the final narrative get created? Was it in 1971? Was it 1973? Or later?

What college did this mastermind professor teach at that created the final narrative based solely on race, and only based on black vs white? (because it doesn't exist here in this article)

What was the book title where this professor created the final formula? What was the page number? Or was it a speech where this occurred? If it was a book, how popular was the book? Did it have a second or third printing? What was the publishing company?

Was this professor a man or a woman? Did he or she only have a masters degree? Did they have a Ph. D? Was their degree in history? Or was it sociology? Or did they have multiple degrees?

What year was this person born? Is this person still alive?

And what of Lerone Bennett, Jr.? Was he the first to cast the Founders as the "white founders"? Did someone do so before him and thus first develop this narrative into one of a generic racial tone? When did the sole focus of the Founding(among progressives) become slavery? What year? What was the title of that book, or article, or speech? What page number?

We know progressives started losing touch with Liberty at the end of the 1800s/beginning of the 1900's, with the development of their ideology: progressivism. When did they start trying to pry apart Liberty and the Founders? You would have to necessarily pry apart Liberty and the Founders and throw it away, before you could create a unitary link between the Founders and slavery.

The history books are the key in all of this. How have the history books "progressed" over the decades, from the 30's to the 70's? Perhaps the 20's to the 70's. Perhaps the 30's to the 80's? When did the British stop being slave owners?(In this narrative that the progressives created, it was not 1833) When did the British disappear from the equation altogether? The progressives are so hell-bent on creating a false narrative with this, that somehow Americans colonized the east coast before the nation of America even existed!

Which history book publishing houses were the most complicit in helping along the creation and "progress" of this narrative? Was it Pearson? Was it Houghton Mifflin Harcourt? Was it another? Who was the last publishing house holdout to refuse(or at least accept) this poisonous racial narrative? I bet it was Pearson on the front lines pushing it, but that's just my instinct talking.

How and what role did the progressive's non-profit entities play in this, if any? Is the Ford Foundation involved? How about the Carnegie or Rockefeller Foundations?

There are answers to all these questions. We could develop a timeline. We should develop a timeline. There are other questions I have of a similar nature, and the answers to these question will lead to other important questions with valuable, valuable answers. Maybe I missed a question, that should be asked and hopefully at some point answered - thats great, the more eyes looking directly at progressivism the less they can stand it. These people need shadows, they thrive on shadows, which means we need to turn the flash lights on.

I am sure that some will think that I am digging too hard on this, but I don't think so. If you know where something began, if you know who created it, you have a better chance of putting an end to it. And that's the real point.

The "racist Founding Fathers" - they weren't born in the 1700's. It's clear that the "racist Founding Fathers" were born in the 1970's at the hands of pointy headed elitists, and we have a right to know who is responsible for this poison. Maybe, maybe, it was in fact born right at the end of the 1960's and Lerone Bennett Jr. just didn't get the memo. We need to know.

This narrative is only roughly 40 years old, which means it can be tracked and picked apart.

http://tinyurl.com/qbtqxho

White Servitude in America, by Lerone Bennett, Jr.

White Servitude in America

When someone removes the cataracts of whiteness from our eyes, and when we look with unclouded vision on the bloody shadows of the American past, we will recognize for the first time that the Afro-American, who was so often second in freedom, was also second in slavery.

Indeed, it will be revealed that the Afro-American was third in slavery. For he inherited his chains, in a manner of speaking, from the pioneer bondsmen, who were red and white.

The story of this succession, of how the red bondsman and the white bondsman passed on the torch of forced labor to the black bondsman and of how white men created a system of white servitude which lasted in America for more than two hundred years, the story of how this system was created and why, of how white men and white women and white children were bought and sold like cattle and transported across the seas in foul "slave" ships, the story of how all this happened, of how the white planter reduced white people to temporary and lifetime servitude before stretching out his hands to Ethopia, has never been told before in all its dimensions. As a matter of fact, the traditional embalmers of American experience seem to find white servitude enormously embarassing, and prefer to dwell at length on black bondage in America. But this maneuver distorts both black bondage and the American experience. For white bondage and red bondage are the missing legs on the triangle of American servitude. And this triangle defines the initial American experience as an experiment in compulsion.