Only one hour from now, the ball is going to drop in #FakeNewsSquare

Right there in the heart of downtown Manhattan, thousands of people have gathered in Fake News Square to watch the ball drop.

Boring. Why does anybody care about this anymore? #NewYearsEve2017

Why conservatives and progressives cannot compromise with each other. One must win, one must lose.

In his book The Promise of American Life, Herbert Croly wrote the following: (page 29)

But although Hamilton is much the finer man and much the sounder thinker and statesman, there were certain limitations in his ideas and sympathies the effects of which have been almost as baleful as the effects of Jefferson's intellectual superficiality and insincerity. He perverted the American national idea almost as much as Jefferson perverted the American democratic idea, and the proper relation of these two fundamental conceptions one to another cannot be completely understood until this double perversion is corrected.

To make Hamilton and Jefferson exclusively responsible for this double perversion is, however, by no means fair. The germs of it are to be found in the political ideas and prejudices with which the American people emerged from their successful Revolutionary War. At that time, indeed, the opposition between the Republican and the Federalist doctrines had not become definite and acute; and it is fortunate that such was the case, because if the opponents of an efficient Federal constitution had been organized and had been possessed of the full courage and consciousness of their convictions, that instrument would never have been accepted, or it would have been accepted only in a much more mutilated and enfeebled condition. Nevertheless, the different political points of view which afterwards developed into Hamiltonian Federalism and Jeffersonian Republicanism were latent in the interests and opinions of the friends and of the opponents of an efficient Federal government; and these interests and opinions were the natural product of contemporary American economic and political conditions.

Now, there is a lot here that I have to ignore. The entire Founding is a testament to Republicanism, but Croly views both Jefferson and Hamilton as Democrats.(I mean[and he meant] the government structures, not the parties) He goes on to write that the Federalists were in favor of a "strong central government".(which they were not) But I don't want to get hung up on these fallacies.

The word for today is "Efficient", because many if not most of us look at the Republican form of government which the Founders gave us as very efficient, precisely because it is completely limited by the Constitution to the point to where it cannot hurt us; yet progressives look at limited government itself(as Croly is writing about here) as completely inefficient. To the progressive, government must be big and within that big structure, it can be made into a sleek and efficient machine.

The fact is this: there simply is no point of compromise between big government and small government.

It really isn't any more complex than that. I could write another 50 paragraphs on it but I really don't need to. It's only one word, "efficient" yet that one word has two diametrically opposite definitions. Either America will have a big government and the progressives win, or we will have a small government limited by the Constitution. There is no middle here. A kind of big, kind of small, kind of limited, kind of unlimited government - that's not making anybody happy here in the 21st century, and it didn't make people happy in the 20th either.

https://tinyurl.com/y8zwmqsy

How many Founding Fathers were themselves held in slavery?

A couple of years ago, I came across and wrote about an article in Ebony magazine on the topic of white slavery.

This highlights yet another miscarriage of fake historians. We are all supposed to collectively shrug our shoulders, wave our hand and say "oh but that was just 'indentured servitude'. That wasn't real slavery." As the Ebony article makes clear, yes, it was very much "just as real" as the slavery we are all constantly made to feel guilty for.

But I've already written what I wanted about that article. Here's the real question:

How many of the Founding Fathers themselves were held in slavery? We know whites were held in bondage by the King. We know it happened well before America was founded. So who?

There were two, in particular, both of whom were signatories of the Declaration of Independence.

The first is Matthew Thornton, and the second is George Taylor.

(Source), (source), (source)

https://tinyurl.com/ya53jztj

Have you ever noticed that "precedents" always benefit bigger, growing government?

Net Neutrality was just repealed. Why isn't that precedent setting? It's very precedent setting to me.

You see, this word, "precedent", too, has been corrupted by the progressives.

What if an entire agency were abolished tomorrow? Would that be precedent setting? In reality, yes it would be setting a precedent. But would it be cast that way? No, of course not. It wouldn't be talked of that way, and it wouldn't be reported that way. But on the other hand any time a court decision, or trillion dollar budgets, or thousands of executive orders, etc etc..... all of that and more is said to be setting precedents. All of it benefits bigger government.

After a few days of reporting, I have only found one news article that is connected to this Net Neutrality repeal, which writes about it being precedent setting.(A news article out of India, BTW) Besides that one single article, the only handful I have seen talk about this repeal in the context of precedents is structured around the concept of if this relied upon some other past precedent already set. Any other time the repeal of Net Neutrality is treated as an outlier or an oddity. It's not normal, and it will never happen again in the view of most.

This action, this one by itself - sets precedents. Repealing sets good precedents, we should follow it and we should have more repeals in our future. Precedents are a two way street, not the current one way street we are led to believe.

If Obamacare does ever get repealed, don't expect it to be called "precedent setting". That would not fit the narrative.

Net Neutrality dies - Freedom is a little safer today

Yesterday was a very, very good day for Constitutionalism, for a free internet, and a very bad, dark day for communists and progressives everywhere. They're still currently crying into their pillows over the whole matter.

Those with dishonesty in their hearts desire to talk about internet service providers, speed throttling, how evil corporations are, and other such absurdities. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with any of that. That's only a sales pitch. You see, the progressives cannot sell to you that they want total control over the internet, so they have to cook up flowery language - the word "Neutrality" ..... ahhhhhhh, so calming. Who could be against "neutrality"? I guess that makes me a bigot.(That's the next charge in line)

This is a fraud. Its a hoax. What a scam!

History tells us everything we need to know. Who did probably more than anybody else to get Net Neutrality off of the ground? Robert McChesney - a red communist.

What organization probably did more than any other to get Net Neutrality off of the ground? The mis-named "Free Press" - a fellow traveling communist front organization.

Who did probably more financiering of Net Neutrality than anybody else in order to get it off the ground? George Soros. I know I'm not telling you anything new here, but when large amounts of Soros money are involved, you know Liberty is under heavy assault. Why did Soros want Net Neutrality so bad?

History: Net Neutrality was originally named "Broadband discrimination". Now, if that isn't a snowflake-fest I don't know what is. But you see, that name was too honest when the eggheads at Columbia University cooked it up in the first place. So they needed something even more comfortable that wouldn't frighten people.

But you see, the liars don't want you talking about red communism. They want you talking about evil corporations. They don't want you talking about Soros' lifetime of destroying lives and building up big government. They want you talking about data bits traveling across wires. They don't want you talking about how Net Neutrality was cooked up in the first place - beyond the paper and out of the communist enterprises. No no no! Don't ever ask how it was invented. Just act like today is the only day that matters. Pay no attention to whatever is behind that curtain.

History: Many people have short memories. But not here. All of the fearmongering that we have heard about what would happen if Net Neutrality were repealed ignores the herd of elephants in the living room: The internet is well over a decade old; Net Neutrality is only roughly 2 years old. For those "missing" 8+ years, none of that garbage they speak of happened. So, maybe someone who was born yesterday could be fooled by this. But I'm old enough to engage my brain and remember how it was - remember that you are now lying. Robert McChesney once wrote that: "The ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control." It really doesn't matter what I think, per-se, what matters most is what they think. And what they think, when the sales pitch is removed and the liars take their masks off, is that they are waging an anti-capitalist war with the same goal they always have: control over your life. Government must be in control. That is the real goal. I for one do not want communist control of my life or any aspect of it. Those 8+ "missing" years disprove everything and they know it - which is why they don't even try - they just speak in nebulous theories and fearmongering. And with regard to Net Neutrality, the communists and the progressives are in full agreement.

"But that's only their opinions! The Net Neutrality regulations have nothing to do with that!" Net Neutrality's actual codified rules reference the Marxist organization "Free Press" 46 times. So yes, it all does come full circle and the circle is very complete.

You see, the progressives have been dealt a huge blow with the repeal of Net Neutrality, and every time progressives lose, I want to be seen and I want to be heard cheering. I don't care if I stand alone or not. Whatever. The progressives lost yesterday. Yesterday was a good day. That's cause for me to stand and cheer.

I only have one question for you, any who would disagree with my contentions here: You need to show me just one time in history where communism was a good thing for the people. That's your challenge. If you can do that, at least you can then say that Net Neutrality is your second time, your second example, that something the communists cooked up was good too.

Because the history of Net Neutrality is redder than the Soviet Union flag or Chinese flag. And nobody can honestly dispute that fact.

https://tinyurl.com/y7d9ocgm

Yes, progressives have written that they hate America.

They just don't use that language, because they believe their vision is better and not harmful. Problem is, in their writings they have gone too far in regards to spilling the beans. Around the time of the 2008 election, Michelle Obama was caught on video stating: "We're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation".

This is nothing new; however, what she did not do was explain what she meant. Other progressives have explained what they meant using virtually identical language. In 1909, in the book "The Promise of American Life", Herbert Croly, who wrote one of the most influential books of the Progressive Era, wrote: (This is all from chapter 1, starting on page 21)

The redemption of the national Promise has become a cause for which the good American must fight, and the cause for which a man fights is a cause which he more than ever values. The American idea is no longer to be propagated merely by multiplying the children of the West and by granting ignorant aliens permission to vote. Like all sacred causes, it must be propagated by the Word and by that right arm of the Word, which is the Sword.

The more enlightened reformers are conscious of the additional dignity and value which the popularity of reform has bestowed upon the American idea, but they still fail to realize the deeper implications of their own programme. In abandoning the older conception of an automatic fulfillment of our national destiny, they have abandoned more of the traditional American point of view than they are aware. The traditional American optimistic fatalism was not of accidental origin, and it cannot be abandoned without involving in its fall some other important ingredients in the accepted American tradition. Not only was it dependent on economic conditions which prevailed until comparatively recent times, but it has been associated with certain erroneous but highly cherished political theories. It has been wrought into the fabric of our popular economic and political ideas to such an extent that its overthrow necessitates a partial revision of some of the most important articles in the traditional American creed.

The extent and the character of this revision may be inferred from a brief consideration of the effect upon the substance of our national Promise of an alteration in its proposed method of fulfillment. The substance of our national Promise has consisted, as we have seen, of an improving popular economic condition, guaranteed by democratic political institutions, and resulting in moral and social amelioration. These manifold benefits were to be obtained merely by liberating the enlightened self-interest of the American people. The beneficent result followed inevitably from the action of wholly selfish motives—provided, of course, the democratic political system of equal rights was maintained in its integrity. The fulfillment of the American Promise was considered inevitable because it was based upon a combination of self-interest and the natural goodness of human nature. On the other hand, if the fulfillment of our national Promise can no longer be considered inevitable, if it must be considered as equivalent to a conscious national purpose instead of an inexorable national destiny, the implication necessarily is that the trust reposed in individual self-interest has been in some measure betrayed. No preëstablished harmony can then exist between the free and abundant satisfaction of private needs and the accomplishment of a morally and socially desirable result. The Promise of American life is to be fulfilled—not merely by a maximum amount of economic freedom, but by a certain measure of discipline; not merely by the abundant satisfaction of individual desires, but by a large measure of individual subordination and self-denial. And this necessity of subordinating the satisfaction of individual desires to the fulfillment of a national purpose is attached particularly to the absorbing occupation of the American people,—the occupation, viz.: of accumulating wealth. The automatic fulfillment of the American national Promise is to be abandoned, if at all, precisely because the traditional American confidence in individual freedom has resulted in a morally and socially undesirable distribution of wealth.

Notice the key words: "abandoned", "overthrow", "revision". That he is harping and carping about the mal-distribution of wealth is the least educating thing of this section. But, he doesn't stop here. He makes it clear that he wants to put an end to American individualism. He continued:

The consequences, then, of converting our American national destiny into a national purpose are beginning to be revolutionary. When the Promise of American life is conceived as a national ideal, whose fulfillment is a matter of artful and laborious work, the effect thereof is substantially to identify the national purpose with the social problem. What the American people of the present and the future have really been promised by our patriotic prophecies is an attempt to solve that problem. They have been promised on American soil comfort, prosperity, and the opportunity for self-improvement; and the lesson of the existing crisis is that such a Promise can never be redeemed by an indiscriminate individual scramble for wealth. The individual competition, even when it starts under fair conditions and rules, results, not only, as it should, in the triumph of the strongest, but in the attempt to perpetuate the victory; and it is this attempt which must be recognized and forestalled in the interest of the American national purpose. The way to realize a purpose is, not to leave it to chance, but to keep it loyally in mind, and adopt means proper to the importance and the difficulty of the task. No voluntary association of individuals, resourceful and disinterested though they be, is competent to assume the responsibility. The problem belongs to the American national democracy, and its solution must be attempted chiefly by means of official national action.

You see that? Individualism is the problem, and collectivism is the solution. And just as Omama said, Croly believes we need to get rid of our history. In Croly's view, we need government, and we need more of it. We need it everywhere. He says "official national action", but he is not mincing words here. He specifically and directly means bigger and bigger government at the expense of early American beliefs and at the expense of individuals.

You see, this is why progressives don't really believe they hate America, because they think government is the best thing for you. You need government more than you need food, more than you need water, more than you need blood, more than you need air. And that's anathema to what America means. America was founded as a rejection of big total government, because in 1776 the representative of all-powerful all-knowing government was King George III. See the Declaration of Independence for more details. Loving America is synonymous with small, limited constitutional government. Croly closed out the last bit of chapter 1 this way:

I am fully aware, as already intimated, that the forgoing interpretation of the Promise of American life will seem fantastic and obnoxious to the great majority of Americans, and I am far from claiming that any reasons as yet alleged afford a sufficient justification for such a radical transformation of the traditional national policy and democratic creed.

Thanks Herbert. I appreciate that.

https://tinyurl.com/y7lf8q4m

This data set is incomplete. The Founders and slavery....

What percentage of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves? It's about 73%.

What percentage of delegates to the Constitutional Convention owned slaves? It's just under 50%.

Problem is, this data set is complete, and it is purposefully structured to give the Founding Fathers short shrift. Even among slave-holding Founders, there is a clear number of them who even though they owned slaves, they weren't happy or fond of the issue. I came across this "data" while looking up something tangentially unrelated, but I didn't see any conservative blogs or news sites who had directly addressed this so hey, what the heck. It pleases me to be the first.

In my last post, I asked "What if Oskar Schindler were treated the way the Founding Fathers are?", and it's very simple:

Was Oskar Schindler a member of the Nazi party? Yes or no.

This question is of course garbage and meaningless, because if you answer yes then Schindler gets pigeon-holed into the racism and murder of the Nazis, even though he saved over 1000 Jewish lives.(regardless of his motives)

Now, what about the Founders? Just simply asking if any or all of them "owned a slave" is also garbage and meaningless. Likewise, this pigeon-holes the Founders into a position that is unrealistic propaganda. This is quintessential fake history on part of any who ask the question. So what's missing here?

The King's Colonial Governors. Even the most critical propagandizing fake historian doesn't have the spine to claim that the Founding Fathers were the people who created slavery at the nation's founding, so it had to come from somewhere. Where did it come from? Obviously, it came from the King. The King was well known for his oppression against Christians (See the mass exodus of Christians out of England, floating out on ships such as the "Mayflower" for more details), and his oppression against the blacks was just as equal.

Now, you could ask "what percentage of the King's colonial governors owned slaves", but that would not tell the full story just as it doesn't tell the story about the Founders either. It is a proven fact that the King enforced a slavery mandate. He supported the slave trade, and he issued decrees to (the 13) colonies if any dared pass laws outlawing slavery or the slave trade. So then, let's ask a more realistic question:

What percentage of the King's own men in the colonies opposed the King's mandate on slavery?

The answer is zero, BTW. That I have seen, anyways. I can't find one single colonial governor who opposes the King, meaning they get a big fat zero. Well, now we can at least complete the data set, because the reverse is 100%. 100% of the King's men supported the King's mandate on slavery.

Here we go, let's compete the data set now:

What percentage of the King's men supported slavery? It's 100%.

What percentage of the Signers owned slaves? It's about 73%.

What percentage of delegates to the Convention owned slaves? It's just under 50%.

Talk to me about the pattern you see. With a full data set here now, what pattern do you see?

The lies of progressivism are just so easy to put to bed. And, Mr. Samuel Adams, who hated slavery, is 100% correct here.

https://tinyurl.com/y7hopzgs

What if Oskar Schindler were treated the way the Founding Fathers are?

Yes or no? Was Oskar Schindler a member of the Nazi party?

If the answer is yes, then the final word is that he was a racist and an anti-semite. There are no other facts, there is no other context and important information to the story. He was, in fact, a high-ranking Nazi party member.

It's a fact. He was a racist. He was a high-ranking racist. Fact.

--------------------------------

You know the progressives wouldn't stand for this for very long. They would want to dig, they would want to add context, etc etc. They would want to make sure it was pointed out that O.S. saved over 1000 lives. But yet, this is exactly the idiocy they engage in when they pose their simple loaded questions in regards to the Founders.

Have you stopped beating your wife today? Yes or no. Did the Founding Fathers own slaves? Yes or no?

Those are loaded questions meant to arrive at a false narrative.

So, was Oskar Schindler a member of the Nazi party? Yes or no. That's it, that's all I need to hear. I don't need to hear anything else.

Specialization in progressivism: gun control, car control, etc.

In my last blog post, I wrote about how critical specialization is to progressive ideology, and the weaknesses that get bred in because of that. I also wanted to point something out, and I don't think very many people will like it.

Culturally, I am quite certain that progressivism would be hard pressed to justify its own existence without specialization, and gun control is one of those topics that is probably the easiest to dissect. One of the main stated goals of gun control is to get guns out of the hands of pretty much everybody, but the only people unaffected will be law enforcement officials, security-related fields, military personnel(current and likely former as well) and probably the politicians themselves. The progressives always omit themselves, but I'll get to that in a moment. Take note of who will not be affected. They're all experts in some way. That's a core of the ideology. In this regard, the progressives actually cannot help themselves.

But, here is what I doubt will score me many points. Memes such as this one and this one are easy targets for claims of hypocrisy, but unfortunately, they're not based in reality. It's perfectly consistent for a progressive to want gun control while at the same time they surround themselves with body guards armed to the teeth. The bodyguards are specialized - they're experts.

This doubles over when you consider the tyrannical nature of progressives.(even though in general, progressives don't think they're tyrants) Of course the King should be protected! Who are you to question the King? But this part isn't rooted in ideology, you see. It's rooted mainly in elitism. Kings and progressives and communists and all the rest of them think they're the smartest people on the planet.

You can see this play out in their media reporting as well. The Washington Post finally figured out who the guy was who stopped the Texas shooting massacre in its tracks. The man's name is Stephen Willeford. But look at how the Post introduces him:

Willeford, a certified shooting instructor, grabbed his own rifle and raced out of his house barefoot.

That statement is as ideological as you can get! The Post, true to progressive ideology, has, HAS to point out that the guy is an expert. That bit of information is wholly irrelevant to the "news". It doesn't matter if a certified instructor or non-certified instructor stopped this madman. What matters is that he, the bad guy, was stopped by a good guy!

This only has importance to the ideologue. Think about the line of questioning that Stephen Willeford was subjected to by an ideological journalist in order to get this information. Or worse, you think the ideological journalists went digging in his trash or dug up records and his back story, his facebook, etc? Maybe it was a combination of both. But the progressive HAD to know this, had to know his expertise level, to appease their own inner ideology.

Do you think Stephen Willeford was a Tea Partier? Scratch that. Don't answer the question, it's irrelevant. Here's the question: do you think the ideological journalist took the time and effort to determine if Stephen Willeford was a Tea Partier? No, of course not. It's not required. If anything, it would be a huge detriment to his ideological outlook, so by definition, that question couldn't be asked.(not at least, until later when its less important) Why make a link with Tea Partiers and good guys like this, especially since the guy is an expert?

The bias is every bit in the questions they don't ask, and the priority it doesn't receive. But I digress.

Meanwhile, it's not like shootings haven't been stopped by armed good guys before. But those often times aren't experts, so the Post and other outlets simply do not report the news hoping that these "problems", these pesky facts - that they'll simply go away.

Similar to gun control, we actually have a media outlet who has (on the surface) made a suggestion that smacks of consistency. In the wake of people getting ran over repeatedly by jihadis and others in vehicles, the NY Times actually took the bold step of proclaiming that we need car control.(or, call it vehicle control, truck control, what have you) This is actually more consistent than most realize, but not at all because of the gun control/car control angle.

Again, the Times leaves an opening for "the experts". Cabs, busses, and of course delivery drivers. But where this really gets good is when you consider the role of trains. Only the experts, the train drivers, should be in charge of getting you to where you need to go. Only the experts should be allowed to determine where "the masses" are allowed to go, you see.

The committed worship of experts can be seen in other areas as well. For example:

You can't home school! You're not an expert! You specialized in something else.

What do you know about climate change? You're not a scientist, an expert. The scientists, they are the once who specialized in this area.

How about citizen journalism? That's not a good thing in the eyes of progressives either.

It can also be seen in early eugenics. So what if the feebleminded get sterilized. They can't possibly be experts in anything. Eventually, the progressives found interest in lethal chambers. To quote Bernard shaw, their lives do not "benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself".

I could go on and on about this, highlighting many other specific policies where this rears its ugly head. But it's important to understand:

The policies are built upon the principles. Expertise, as a concept, specialization, is not a policy of progressivism. It's a foundational principle, that's why it is seen everywhere. The progressives have been making expertise front and central to their writings and ideology going all the way back at least as far as Philip Dru: Administrator, a book written by a progressive, for progressives.

http://tinyurl.com/yb8e5ut6

The role of specialization in progressivism

The cultural role of specialization in progressive ideology has become more apparent to me over the years, especially as I learn more about them at the same time I am learning about the Founders. It shouldn't be overlooked any longer.

The progressives, they really enjoy specialization. Man #1, he is a professional organizer. Always has been, always will be. Man #2 is a professional Human Resources coordinator. Man 3# is a professional journalist. Man #4 is a professional teacher. Man #5 is a CEO. Man #6, he is a professional politician.

Wait a second. Professional politician? Go with me here for a second. What were the Founders?

Many of them were lawyers. But actually, they were historians. But actually, they were philosophers. But actually, they were politicians.

Some weren't lawyers, instead they were farmers. But actually, they were authors. But actually, they were theologians. But actually, they were politicians.

You see that? They weren't specialists. They were generalists. They did many things throughout their lives, and did not look at politics as a life-long career and certainly did not go off to college to achieve that one single goal.

This is actually a part of the problem - the old adage "those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it" - well, what does a specialist know BUT his specialization?(and let's not forget the role of university indoctrination)

How can a specialist in, say, fixing some sort of complex machine possibly know about Article 3, section 2? That's not his specialization, that's for the Constitutional experts to handle.

How can a specialist in, say, nuclear physics, possibly know about the constitutional debates between August 6th to August 18th, 1787? That's for the history experts to handle.

How can a specialist in, say, medicine, possibly know the meaning of God's Law/Natural Law and the Enlightenment? That's for religious experts to handle. Add into the fact that the doctor who works 18 hours a day isn't then going to go home and read the Constitution before bed. Sure, there may be a small handful who will, but not nearly enough to make up the difference.

You see how the weakness is necessarily bred into the mix? I'm referring in all cases to super smart people here. This isn't an issue of lack of intellect. It's a lack of exposure.

Hyper specialists are natural suckers for tyranny. Serfs in the waiting. "Eh, politics? Bah, that's for the politicians to handle. Fake news? Bah, that's not for me. That's for the journalists to handle. History? No, I will leave that to the historians. Economics? I'm not touching that one. Go ask an expert." Specialization breeds large amounts of weakness.

Listen to the wording of this small preface:

In an age of specialization, one's activities are necessarily delimited by the professional interest. However, the great war has affected more than the vocational superstructure of our lives. It has rocked the foundations of civilization, and compelled the revaluation of many standards far more vital and more basic than the vocational. This fact may explain, if it does not justify, this excursion afield of a student of economics.

The war has changed many of the conditions of living which demand analyis. Unlike the chemist or physicist, the student of the social sciences cannot vary the conditions of his experiments, but must wait until the processes of history afford him an opportunity to observe variations In phenomena, and to study their causes.

The war has upset some accepted articles of faith, but it has confirmed many others, which not only stood the test of war, but determined the victory. Many new needs have arisen and some old tendencies have become clearer.

We are entering a new era. We may do so blindly, or we may attempt to crystallize our ideas on the issues arising out of the war for the purpose of intelligently controlling social forces.

The problems of social and of political adjustment, and of the conservation of human resources, are neither less pressing nor less significant to the country than are the economic and financial questions, which have riveted the attention of statesmen and publicists during the past year. The little attention which the social problems have received is not a criterion of their relative importance in the life of the American people. It is characteristic of human nature to neglect those problems which, though they deal with the most fundamental aspects of the national life, lack the driving force of the economic motive.

This volume is a sequel to "American Problems of Reconstruction, a Symposium on the Economic and Financial Aspects." In the treatment of their subjects the contributors were requested to discuss:

1 . What have been the effects of the war?

a. What pre-war conditions have become more clearly defined?

b. What new conditions has the war brought to life?

2. What should be our policy during the reconstruction period?

Thanks for suggestions are due to Drs. Dickinson, Rogers and Wolman, and others of the group of men who gathered at the Cosmos Club during the war. The volume has benefited as a result of the advice of Dean William H. Welch, of the School of Public Health of the Johns Hopkins University, and of my brother, David, particularly in the section dealing with the social aspects of medicine. Grateful acknowledgment is also made to President Frank J. Goodnow, Professors Charles H. Cooley, Franklin H. Giddings, M. M. Kaplan, T. I. Parkinson, Roscoe Pound, E. A. Ross, and Arthur J. Todd, and Mr. Abraham Flexner, for helpful suggestions.

That's from "America and the new era, a symposium on Social Reconstruction" It's a book written by progressives, for progressives. Social reconstruction? Who but progressives look at the progressive era through the era after World War 1 as an era of social reconstruction. Progressives are very intense when it comes to their "fundamental transformation" of America, and they have been since day one.

Notice how the theme of the preface is entirely geared toward social control, with a sprinkle of economic talk. That's the job of the new specialist in the progressive era, social control. Control over you, over your life. In part, this is also why progressives worship the false god of "the economy" so intently. They can use it for control purposes. Sure, it can be said that in the short term, an economy comprised entirely of specialists will be more productive and prosperous with fatter bank accounts than the corresponding generalists. However, at what price?

Here we are, one century past the progressive era. Tyranny is knocking at our door, demanding payment. You ready to pay the price for abandoning generalization? The generalists then had more freedom than the specialists do now. Choose wisely.

http://tinyurl.com/y7g8smca

Progressive on progressive violence

Progressives are the stupidest people on the planet. They really are.

It's moderately funny to consider that around a year ago, the progressives of today were attacking Woodrow Wilson, and now we have the progressives out there attacking another historical progressive, Theodore Roosevelt. You seen this report? Activists splash red paint on Theodore Roosevelt statue on Museum of Natural History steps

Theodore Roosevelt is being attacked because he was white and because he was an imperialist. This is so incredibly dumb. Theodore Roosevelt was an open progressive. He was proud of social justice. These are not secrets, you can google them andsee the facts plainly. But today's street-level malcontents are so drunk on their own propaganda that they're going to give up the ship and they don't even realize it. The elites know better, but they think they've written so many fake history books that the truth can't ever possibly come out. They think they've got it on permanent lock. But the elites, the leaders of the movement, they are far and few in between.

I've never posted about this directly, because it's too big of a topic for me right now, I have to leave it for the future. But the fact remains, is that when progressives attack imperialism, they are in fact attacking themselves and their own foundation. Progressivism was born of many planks, and progressive ideology would not exist if not for imperialism. It's so important to their existence, that imperialism and the imperialist era.

Most conservatives don't realize this fact, but it will get more coverage at some point in the future. It's too important.

And Theodore Roosevelt is the key, because more than any other progressive of that era, he is the highest profile and most easy to identify imperialist-progressive. He ties the whole thing together. Yes, the imperialist era and the progressive era butt up against each other if you look at a calendar, but that's not superficial. They are deeply linked ideologically.

Just remember this: When progressives attack "imperialism", they are attacking themselves. But they always do it in a way to which they project it as America's fault. No no, don't ask about President Roosevelt, just say "America". Forget about Woodrow Wilson, just say "America". And who was the appointed governor of the Philippines, and who was the secretary of defense, and who was senate president, and who was this and who was that and the Generals and etc etc. These people were all progressives! But forget all that. Just say "America". That's how they get away with it.

And it's been one of their biggest master strokes. The progressive historians covered it up. And they got away with it. You want to expose a cover up, dig here. Dig right here.

But every now and then, someone makes a mistake. It's far and few in between, but it does happen. Whoopsie, got red paint on a progressive's whoops I mean an imperialist's WHOOPS!! I meant to say an American President's statue. Yeah, that's it. That's what it was. Gotta keep the narrative straight.

http://tinyurl.com/y8qnpqnc

Did Jefferson believe that liberty had a nineteen year lifespan? Part 2

Many, many moons ago I wrote asking the question: "Did Jefferson believe that liberty had a nineteen year lifespan?"

Knowing more now than I knew then about Jefferson's own writings, the answer is clearly no. But I can point to it here instead of searching in vain for it. Jefferson did write to Madison that "No society can make a perpetual Constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation." I had struggled with this, because I knew progressives were liars and were at times using this phrase in order to advance their narrative.

The problem is this: I separate the Constitution from our Rights as two distinct concepts or topics, and I have long believed that the Founders did the same. The Constitution's plain language makes it clear: This document is not the source of our rights, it merely acknowledges their existence while at the same time telling government that it shall not infringe upon them.

Now, Jefferson was fond of this statement of the earth belonging to the living. He also wrote it to another person, John Cartwright, and in this instance Jefferson was also more explicit. You see, the Founders, or at least Jefferson, did also separate our rights and our Constitution as two separate things just as I do. He wrote to Cartwright the same concept, that the earth belongs to the living, but he was also more explicit and he told Mr. Cartwright what does not belong to the living. He wrote:

Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession for ever? I think not. the Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will. the dead are not even things. the particles of matter which composed their bodies, make part now of the bodies of other animals, vegetables, or minerals of a thousand forms. to what then are attached the rights and power they held while in the form of men? a generation may bind itself, as long as it’s majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.

This was to John Cartwright, June 5th, 1824.

This is where the intense deception of progressives comes in. To progressives, they think that abolishing the Constitution means abolishing the first amendment(because they're tired of hearing the crazy things you have to say), abolishing the second amendment(because you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself against progressivism), and etc etc etc. - AND! See, Thomas Jefferson agrees with us progressives! We should be abolishing your blasted constitution and all of its eternal principles in 19 years from now!

- except

That's not what Jefferson believed. He *only* meant to abolish the legal structures. The rock solid concrete foundation of God's gift of Liberty? - That is immutable and timeless. That has no 19 year or 39 year or 1426 year lifespan on it, according to Jefferson. Liberty is immortal. Liberty is forever. Liberty has more value than life itself.

You see, because our rights are a gift of God, they are not ours to abolish. We can only abolish what belongs to us, and Jefferson only wrote that the earth belongs to the living.

Ultimately, this exposes yet another lie that progressives tell. Progressives make it quite clear that these rights that we hold so dear are so inconvenient to their plans. But ironically enough, it is the progressives - not the Founding Fathers - who seek to bind future generations in their authoritarian schemes. When Government is put in control of every aspect of your life: your healthcare, trillions of dollars in debt, your education, your food, your housing, your entertainment(see Second Bill of Rights), etc - THAT is what binds future generations. Not God's gift of Liberty!

Everything about progressivism is bass ackward, and we see once again that what it is that they accuse others of doing is in reality what it is that they themselves are currently engaging in.

https://tinyurl.com/yddxedus

Who was the first presidential candidate to strongly advocate social justice?

Today's random trivia. Who was America's first presidential SJW?

Are you hypnotized by the Constitution?

Progressives have a challenge for all of us conservatives, and they have had this challenge for over a century now. In his book Progressive Democracy, Herbert Croly wrote the following:

Whether conservatives like it or not, the foundations of the traditional system are being tested both by the strain of new social and economic condition and by a flood of suspicion and criticism. If it is going to survive, not only must its adaptability to new exigencies be proved, but also its power to survive the severest possible inquisition.

Public opinion can no longer be hypnotized and scared into accepting the traditional constitutionalism as the final word in politics. If it is successfully to defend its position, conservatism must itself become critical, aggressive, inquisitive and contemporary. The issue has been declared. A momentous discussion has been started. Whether the results of that discussion are beneficial or the reverse will depend chiefly upon the enterprise, the patience, the good humor and the insight with which it is carried on.

Patience is the key here. Even in the early 1900s, progressives were sick and tired of hearing about the Constitution. That's why their level of commitment is as high as it is, that it even spans multiple lifespans. If progressives cannot destroy the Constitution in their own lifespans, they will send out their children as soldiers to continue on the task.(Or indoctrinate our children in colleges to do it) Croly died in 1930, but do we really believe he wouldn't be happy with what is happening today? Of course he would be happy with it.

In order to achieve their purpose, the progressives will lie and cheat so as to foster undue suspicion and false criticism. We see it play out in real time with our own eyes. When facts don't match the progressive agenda? Erase them. When other facts are standing on shaky ground? Send out fake journalists or fake historians to write about it and give the scheme additional credibility. When the final inquisition comes, there won't be a shred of reality on part of the inquisitors, and it will not matter. They will have literally constructed a whole new reality for which all of us can live.

Welcome to the new book burning, where no fire is required. It has been said that the pen is mightier than the sword. That is true, and the indoctrinator is also more powerful than the arson.

https://tinyurl.com/y8k7omn7

Theodore Roosevelt supported the death tax

Chalk another one up for big government progressivism. I recently posted about progressive republicans and the 16th amendment, having learned during that research that this was the case: I did not know previously that TR supported the death tax. Here is what he said in 1906:

As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual-a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax of course, to be imposed by the national and not the state government. Such taxation should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits. Again, the national government must in some form exercise supervision over corporations engaged in interstate business-and all large corporations engaged in interstate business-whether by license or otherwise, so as to permit us to deal with the far reaching evils of overcapitalization."

Perhaps we should propose an amendment which would strike out "We the People" and replace it "We the Government". This is insanely insulting, but it's typical for people who's minds have been infected and polluted by the ideologies of social justice.

I will have to give him this: TR was a masterful, masterful propagandist. His skill was that of omission. Note the things I bolded.

So who will determine which fortunes are "swollen" beyond health limits? Of course! You guessed it, commissars in bureaucracies! Big government will do it.

Who will supervise the supervisors? Nobody. Government controls you.

Who determines what a "healthy limit" is? What if you are just below that "healthy limit", will you be endlessly harassed by overzealous regulators? Well we can't allow you to amass too much, now can we?

It is interesting to note in what speech Theodore Roosevelt made these comments. "The Man with the Muck Rake" That's right! While TR was lauding his journalist friends who were pimping fake news across the country, he was currying favor with them with the sweet, sweet sound of death tax lullibies. Here, read the speech. Right before that paragraph that I quoted, here's what he said:

It is important to this people to grapple with the problems connected with the amassing of enormous fortunes, and the use of those fortunes, both corporate and individual, in business. We should discriminate in the sharpest way between fortunes well won and fortunes ill won; between those gained as an incident to performing great services to the community as a whole and those gained in evil fashion by keeping just within the limits of mere law honesty. Of course, no amount of charity in spending such fortunes in any way compensates for misconduct in making them.

You see, government should be in the business of determining the use of your fortunes.

Government should determine if your fortune was ill won.

Government knows best, not you.

Government, government, government. By leaving so many things open to government, this leads to the largest government the world has ever seen.

Theodore Roosevelt clearly believed that the most beautiful words in the English language were as follows:

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help".

I'm quite convinced that most people don't actually read Theodore Roosevelt's own words or look at his actions directly, thus they don't really know just how big of a big government guy he truely was. Instead, a bunch of propagandist fake-historians have falsely portrayed him in ways that are unwarranted by the facts, thus the re-invention of him as a "conservative".

https://tinyurl.com/ybkh28xl

New audiobook release: Technocracy

In keeping with the mission of this project, I have completed yet another audiobook for your consumption.

Kicking off a small movement at the time; Technocracy; William Henry Smyth and later Scott, Hubbert, and others gave it their best shot.

Of all the books I've produced so far, this one has one of my least favorite. Once I got about a third of the way in, my motivation went downhill fast and kept going down. It's not a long recording, it was not a long read, and there's plenty of wacky things in here. One of the reasons I recorded this I have already addressed here.

If you're interested in the topic, the recording came out pretty good. Download here. While seemingly irrelevant now, this could be important later on.

When did the progressives realize they needed to specifically target the commerce clause?

Social reform requires big government. Big government requires an obedient court, which fosters a "living constitution". In "Social reform and the Constitution", progressive reformer Frank Johnson Goodnow wrote the following regarding the courts: (page 31)

The result is that the constitutional law of the country is not, either necessarily or actually, uniform. For a state court may declare unconstitutional from the point of view of the federal constitution an act of a state legislature which would have been regarded as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. If, therefore, the state courts are more conservative than the Supreme Court, and many believe they are, they determine finally what is, in a particular state, the effect of the limitations of the federal constitution upon state action. This condition of things is, however, not one which need be permanent, nor one which can be changed only through constitutional amendment. For the jurisdiction of the federal courts is in these matters entirely within the control of Congress, which may constitutionally provide, if it sees fit to do so, that all cases both civil and criminal involving a federal question may be removed to the federal courts, and that appeals may go to the Supreme Court from all decisions of the state courts of last instance, whether they affirm or not the constitutionality of state laws.

Therefore, from a constitutional point of view, the attitude of the Supreme Court of the United States is the only really important thing to consider when we are treating of the permanent constitutional obstacles to social reform in the United States. On that account, what will be said as to the effect on the possibilities of such reform of the limitations contained in the federal constitution will in the main be confined to a consideration of the attitude of the Supreme Court towards these questions.

Our attention will naturally be directed, first to an examination of the powers of the Congress of the United States, as they are to be derived from a consideration of the provisions of the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and particularly to those clauses which contain the power to regulate commerce and the judicial power. For it is almost only through the exercise of these powers that any great centralization of our government may be secured.

This is something that progressives have long known, and it is exactly why the devised the scheme of a "living constitution". The supreme court is their holy grail institution for enforcing views upon Americans that Americans do not want and would not vote for on election day. Woodrow Wilson and others have plainly written about the need to get the courts separated from the Constitution and interpreting it in ways never intended.

Subvert and destroy. The progressives knew fully well what they had to do. And their primary target? The commerce clause. This book was written in 1911, only three years after Woodrow Wilson first floated the idea that the constitution should be reinterpreted as a living thing.

https://tinyurl.com/y75usyeq

Blame progressive republicans for the 16th amendment

Far too often, articles or books are written about how bad the 16th amendment is(which it absolutely is) but then the authors turn around and point to Woodrow Wilson. This is historical malpractice. It is said that 42 states ratified the 16th amendment, and 40 of those did so prior to March 4, 1913, which was when Wilson was inaugurated. Massachusetts ratified the 16th on the same day, March 4th, and New Hampshire followed a few days later on March 7th.

So let me get this straight: Woodrow Wilson as president was so strong and powerful that he reached back in his time machine and got all 40 of those states to ratify, before his inauguration. Do I have that about right?

So how is it that so many conservatives get this so wrong?

It's because the amendment was finalized in 1913, in part. How vacuous is that? Its easy to point to the year and dissemble about the rest.

The real reason why, I suspect, is because any amount of research leads to Theodore Roosevelt. You don't even have to scratch the surface with anything more tough than a piece of balsa wood and TR's name comes popping out. There are a lot of people who want to do something about progressivism, but they become ardent progressivism defenders once the facts get presented and TR's duplicity is proven. This one guy for whatever reason, he has a license for big government that's granted to him by constitutionalists. It's the strangest contradiction.

Well, let's get to the history. There were two efforts to get an income tax within a roughly 10 year period, but the first one failed in a court case so I will primarily focus on the second.

With the failure of the first income tax in the 1895 Pollock case, the progressives let a little time pass so as to let people get lulled back to sleep. The progressives will often times do that - they never give up on their ideas because of course progressivism is perfect, they'll just come back again later when you are convinced it is over. Following that 12 year period of time, the first time Roosevelt talked about the income tax that I am aware of was in his 1907 State of the Union address. That's not an obscure speech. He said:

When our tax laws are revised the question of an income tax and an inheritance tax should receive the careful attention of our legislators. In my judgment both of these taxes should be part of our system of Federal taxation.

Interesting. Not only did TR support the income tax, but I just learned something brand new today. Theodore Roosevelt also supported the death tax. I'll leave that one for another day.

Theodore Roosevelt's presidency concluded in 1908, and his hand picked successor William Howard Taft, continued TR's drive for the income tax by giving a major speech in 1909 which kicked off the move for the 16th amendment. After that, the states started their ratifications in the second half of 1909. During the 1912 presidential campaign and while the states were still individually ratifying the amendment, Roosevelt repeatedly spoke in support for the income tax.

The two most notable moments during the campaign (likely) were the inclusion of the graduated tax in the 1912 progressive party platform, Roosevelt's party, and in what is most likely Roosevelt's best known and perhaps important speech: The New Nationalism.(1912)

So, the point is this: History and the facts force us to blame progressive republicans for the 16th amendment in general and Theodore Roosevelt in particular. He was the first president to push for it, the first former president to push for it, the first presidential candidate to push for it, and it was his hand picked successor who got the ball rolling in congress. Wilson, a guy who doubled down on nearly all of Roosevelt's big government proposals and policies, came into office four days after the entire multi-year cause(1907-1913) would come to a successful end.

Four days. Yeah, it's clearly Wilson's fault. There's no love lost for Wilson around here, check my archives. But we have GOT to get the history correct. Wilson does not own this one, Theodore Roosevelt is to blame for the 16th amendment and the income tax.

https://tinyurl.com/ycwzwdco

Henry George and the turning point of big government in America

As I have written in the past, Progressivism would not exist at all if not for Henry George. John Dewey was influenced by George, many of the British Fabians, Margaret Sanger; one of the most proud proclaimations of progressive achievement in the early 20th century is Initiative, Referendum, and Recall - that entire movement was based on Georgist ideals (and dishonest ones at that.) The early unions, many of them were not socialist, they were Georgist. The Knights of Labor, Samuel Gompers, and others.

But understanding the link between big government and Henry George is not well understood. The fact that George repeatedly agitated for the nationalization of land typically falls on deaf ears. One of the most prominent members of the so-called "Social Gospel", Walter Rauschenbusch, is another who was deeply moved by the politics of Henry George. Rauschenbusch once gave a speech in which he proclaimed:

Mr. George has taught this proposition in his book. He is often called a socialist, but it is very incorrect to call him so; he is not a socialist, but the strongest opponent of socialism in the United States. He is a strong advocate of laissez faire in the highest sense of that term. Therefore he insists that artificial monopolies, such as the tariff, should be swept away, and that freedom should be given to the natural forces of society, and that natural monopolies should be owned and managed by the community to which they naturally belong. These are his propositions in regard to monopoly. Am I right?

By "his book" Rauschenbusch means "Progress and Poverty", George's most well known work.

Now, just earlier this week I pointed out that Progressives do not (and I believe they cannot; they are impaired from doing so) distinguish between "Government" and "Society". For a progressive, society is government and government is society. This speech from Rauschenbusch is no different. Reading the speech, he repeatedly uses "community", "society" and "the State"(and other synonyms) completely interchangeably.

For Rauschenbusch, natural monopolies need to be owned by the big organization of society i.e. government. He doesn't mean shareholders, read his speech. That's not his tone and its not his content. Besides, ownership by only the shareholders does not encompass an entire community. The only way "society" or "the community" can be the owners and managers is if the state at some level begins nationalizing property.

Which is what George was known for supporting anyways, at least in regards to land. It's clear what Rauschenbusch is talking about and clear who he is citing as his inspiration.

https://tinyurl.com/yagqhmos

Understanding why progressives love big government

In his book "The Principles of Sociology", Edward Alsworth Ross wrote the following: (page 267)

In the management of common affairs there is much to be said for the general as against the local political body. Too often local control sacrifices general and permanent interests to individual and immediate interests. Local control of education leaves its fate on the whole to men of less caliber and vision than those who determine it under state control. Local care of highways means less outlay on the roads of the commonwealth than sound economy demands. Local administration of forests or care of public health will generally be less enlightened than that of the state. Law enforcement by locally chosen officers permits each locality to be a law unto itself. In a word removing control farther from the ordinary citizen and taxpayer is tantamount to giving the intelligent, farsighted, and public-spirited element in society a longer lever to work with.

Note: Progressives hate the 50 states. They would nationalize everything if they had the chance. When he says "the state" he does not mean one of the 50.

That's why progressives hate taxpayers so much. You are arrogant enough to think you have a say. The progressives genuinely believe they're better than you: more enlightened, farsighted, and public-spirited. That's what gives them the right to centrally plan and control every aspect of your life, you see.

Additionally, this is why progressives always move on toward bigger and bigger government. Making government big in the individual states was bound to be not big enough. Once they found Nationalism, that lasted for them for all of about a decade or two. If progressives had the ability to move on to Intergalacticism, they'd drop Globalism in a heartbeat.

Even Theodore Roosevelt advocated for global government, he was the first one. Progressives lust after big government. It turns them on in a sick, twisted way.

https://tinyurl.com/yclxjezr

How is it that progressives confuse "society" and "government"?

Society is society. Government is government. They are two entirely distinct, and completely separate things.

Not in the land of Progressivism, however. For progressives, society is government and government is society. They are equally the same and there is no possible distinction. You can routinely see the rotting husk of this when someone proceeds to inform you that "they believe society should do x or y" but when talking of x or y they are instead referring to government action. "I believe that we as a society should take care of the poor, and that's why I support {insert name of welfare program here}".

But sir, you're not talking about society when you made that statement. You specifically excluded society from that statement, and you inserted government.

How can it be that progressives get this so wrong? It all goes back to the word "social". That's the key. Progressives are collectivists, which means that they are incapable of truly interpreting individual action and moreover, they suspect individual action. They have contempt for it. How often have you heard that one man cannot make a difference?

In the progressive's mind, humans are a "social" animal. Now, a progressive wants you to believe that when they say humans are "social" animals, that they merely mean you like to sit at Starbucks and shake people's hands, talk of sports and trifle things, exchange stories of yours and others' families and friends. You're being sociable! That's not what they mean. They have a dual word definition here. They mean collectivism, which is far more sinister. And you can easily prove it. So by "social justice" what they mean is "Starbucks justice"? It's a nonsensical thing. Of course they do not mean that. But if you were to say, "collective justice" - Now you're on to something.

Now, how do I know all off this is true? It's all in the progressives writings. Some progressives are more descriptive than others, but one progressive, Lester Ward, really sums this up well. In his book "Applied sociology: a treatise on the conscious improvement of society by society", he writes the following: (page 337)

When we say that society does anything we mean of course that it does it according to some settled method of social action. Society of course is an abstraction, but it is one of those abstractions that are always doing something. Society always possesses an organization, and it is this organization that acts. It would be as reasonable to object to the statement that an army does anything. An army is an abstraction in the same sense that society is such. It is an organization capable of doing much, and this is all that is meant by the action or the work of society.

Now, note how many times you see the word 'society' in his paragraph. I count 5. That's just one paragraph! But note what the title of this section is (for those of you who clicked the link) - Attractive Legislation!! And more of page content talks about representatives, he talks about the Russian government, autocracies, and much more.

He is thoroughly using the words 'society' and 'government' interchangeably here. All progressives that I know of do this. This is one of the biggest issues of all why progressives cannot understand and do not like America.

So, here is the formula: (Note again, the passage I quoted from Ward)

Society possesses an organization. Society's organization is an organization that acts. Therefore, government is society. They are one in the same. There may not be anything more foundational than this for progressivism. This also explains why progressives get so much other things wrong.

Why does a corporation exist? Well obviously, a corporation exists to create jobs. It's a social organization, and society has organizations in order to do things. Society has organizations that act. But, but, but! Let's not forget, that all corporations are subjugated to the one true societal organization that acts. That's why government must control corporations. Society's acting organization makes proxies out of these other little acting organizations.

And what of non profit organizations? How many of them do nothing but political activities? In order to build up the organization of all organizations, government, non profits are completely justified in organizing dead voters, organizing illegals, Mickey Mouse and Mary Poppins are registered voters; - did you vote three times? Vote again! Whomever and whatever and however the big organization of society can make the big organization bigger, it is all justified. Big government is purity.

What of churches? Or should I say, social churches/social religion. No, churches are not places for you to worship your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ! That's bigotry. The real magic of churches is that they are a great club! Yeah, and from churches we can make government bigger! It's the big organization of society. Churches don't need to do anything, they don't need to be charitable, we can have government do it all.

And what about individual charity? Why is it that progressives are the least charitable individuals on the planet, but act as if they are the most charitable and YOU are the greedy sob? It's because you only gave a couple thousand dollars. The progressive? They gave millions and billions and trillions of dollars in charity. You couldn't have possibly have given more than they did. But if you would just give all of your money to society, to the big organization that acts, you could be charitable too.

This also explains how it is that progressives come to see all of us as groups. You Christians over there, you unemployed over here, you have groups of hispanics, and the this group and the that group and the Rotarians, the Moose and the Elks, there's the gays, the employed, union members and non-union members, and any other group you can name. All groups are equal you know. We are all groups in the big organization of society.

It all stems from the fact that they, the progressives, do not see society as distinct from government. They see them as exactly the same.

What of our Founding documents? To a progressive, our founding documents are a great contradiction. Perhaps, the ultimate contradiction. You want "we the people" but you also want government limited? This cannot be! For the progressive, government is the people. Government is society. Government is everything. "We the people" means to the progressive that the American government needs to be the biggest government ever known in the history of mankind.

But those of us who are not collectivists, we see "we the people" and we realize "yes, ---------->I<---------- must do these things. Me. I should not be lazy, I should get off the couch, I should not wait for someone else to do it. I shouldn't connive some trick to get government to do it. I should do it. Right now. Because me, because I, because of my individual action, I am making society better".

And you can see this in play in real life. What happens when progressives protest? The scene gets trashed, people get raped, graffiti painted, and police cars get defecated on. Heck, even sometimes bombs get thrown.(See Weather Underground) Who cares, government will clean the paint off, put the fires out.

But what happened at the Tea Parties? The grounds were cleaner when the Tea Partiers left than when they first arrived. Why is this?

It's because of the individual making society better, despite government. I can speak to this first hand because I did this myself. I didn't wait for some park ranger or government official to walk by and clean up that empty paper cup for me. I bent over all by myself, picked up that paper cup, and I walked over and threw it in the trash without having to be told to do so.

I did it because it was the right thing to do. It wasn't my trash. But so what? It needed to be done. Progressives do not think this way. That's society's job. (That's government's job. See what I mean.)

"We the people" wasn't a celebration of the biggest government ever known for the Founders, but for progressives it is, because society is government and society "has an organization" that acts. For myself, I agree with the Founders, "we the people" was and is an indictment of government. Government merely gets in the way and only makes things worse.

Historians are an under-appreciated threat to America

Fake News? That pales in comparison to Fake History. As committed socialist George Orwell once wrote:

He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.

There is an article in Vox yesterday which explains exactly why there need to be more conservative citizen historians so as to hold "the experts" accountable. Titled "“They have no allegiance to liberal democracy”: an expert on antifa explains the group", faux-historian Mark Bray accurately admits that Antifa terrorists have no interest in Freedom.

They have no allegiance to liberal democracy, which they believe has failed the marginalized communities they’re defending. They’re anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum.

Now understand, the phrase "Liberal Democracy", that's not a nod to big government progressives like the Clintons. No, that's aimed squarely at so-called "Classical Liberalism" (The real, only liberalism), That's aimed at the Founding Fathers and any other small government group, effort, individual, or viewpoint. He openly admits that Antifa is communist. That means they want tyranny instead of small government Liberty.

Additionally, Fake Historian Bray also admits to the interviewer his own outlook. "He’s sympathetic to antifa’s cause and makes no effort to hide that."

Mark Bray is making the classic mistake: "This big government group over here is bad, so therefore I must join(or support) the other big government group over there because they are the good guys."

That has never, ever worked. The only time in human history where you see a long-lasting peace, freedom, etc, is with the American Revolution where both sides of the big government equation were rejected, and briefly during the Tea Party movement, which was not centered around one man or big government ideology. Small government was instead fostered. The Constitution was fostered. Republicanism(not the party) was promoted.

There's no question in my mind that Fake Historians and the falsehoods they promote is a bigger problem than Fake News, and this idea that Antifa is somehow the good guys is right up there. If historians told the truth, the Fake News about how great Antifa is couldn't stand. It couldn't possibly work.

Communism and Fascism are inherently evil. It's that simple. A real historian would recognize that.

https://tinyurl.com/yb2uuqnl

If progressives changed their name again, what new name would they choose?

Technically speaking, progressives have had about six different names. I believe that if the progressives ever did change their name again, they would choose the word "technocrat" as their new hiding place. First, for a little background. Note: this is not designed to be an all-encompassing, uncover-every-stone-history lesson.

Starting out, the earliest progressives were known as "Georgists" - that is, Henry George and the publication of the book Progress and Poverty. Note the word "progress" in the title. Georgists were not the uniform statist that we would come to know, starting around the beginning of the 20th century. One of George's primary claims to fame was the Single Tax, but more importantly, what impressed young budding would-be-progressives was his agitation for land nationalization. They absolutely loved that one.

Meeting only limited success, they eventually dropped "Georgist" and adopted the name of "Nationalist", following the success of Edward Bellamy's book Looking Backward. Much more statist than a Georgist, the Nationalists were (and still are) deeply fond of the idea of the nationalization of some or all industry in the hands of government. They had increasing nation-wide popularity, much moreso than under the prior banner.

Around the time when Looking Backward's popularity was waning, there was a lack of unity of what to call themselves. Some progressives decided to be called Populists, and had their own Populist party that again, still, sought greater government intervention. Others simply decided to call themselves "reformer". The populists were even more popular than their prior iteration, even running their own presidential candidate. The Nationalists never got that far and neither did the Georgists.

Finally, right around the turn of the 1900s the word 'progressive' became vogue in all corners of modern statist academia and among pro-big-government activists on the street. The movement that would inevitably become the "progressive movement" again split, this time succeeding in gaining the presidency in Theodore Roosevelt. Another half of progressives coalesced behind Bryan and then later Wilson, the second big-government progressive to become president.

It wouldn't be until the 1930's and Franklin Roosevelt that the progressives had to again take a new title. But this time, they took a new title for a different reason: They had thoroughly scared the crap out of the American people. Americans had seen progressivism in action for what it actually is and not just nebulous propaganda dressed up in cute words over the last two decades, and they were frightened by it. Every prior re-branding of progressivism was "simply" due to a failure to reach critical mass. But now, they were in active camouflage. The progressives were in hiding, they were wearing masks, masquerading in disguise, something they had never really had to do before.

Under the banner of "liberalism", progressives have had nearly a century (from the 1930's to today) to hide their true means and ends. With every prior name change, progressives could pretty much make something up and chart their course forward. But their movement was almost completely destroyed in the 1910's-20's, and this time they took over an already existing label: "liberalism". This label wasn't being used much and it was not the clean slate that they were used to. However, by taking over a previously known moniker, "liberalism", they found themselves gaining a much thicker layer of camouflage than they had expected to receive. It didn't require the kind of marketing that would've been necessary for a wholly new word.

But eventually, that camouflage began to see its disintegration in the mid-late 2000s, leading some prominent progressives to take off their masks and admit that they never were liberals at all - they were progressives all along and had been for decades. One even did so in a presidential debate.

Tody, there is not a unity among progressives as to whether or not they should reclaim the name of 'progressive', or continue to try to stay incognito under the banner of liberalism, or should they follow Bernie's lead?

As I said in the opening, I think progressives might jump ship altogether and go with what is largely a clean slate. That is their history, it's what they've always done. They've never gone back to a name that they had already used in some prior time. Even when they took over the word "liberalism", it was largely a clean slate.

The word "Technocrat" invokes the "good name" of science, and the media has over the years seeded the ground with plenty of good will toward this moniker.

Could lucky number seven - "Technocrat"; Technocracy - could this moniker lead progressives once and for all toward the salvation they've always sought? Only time will tell. The mask of "liberalism" is fading fast, and a widespread return to "progressive" may not provide the relief they are seeking.

https://tinyurl.com/yc7q2fnq

Who is the philosopher of American Progressivism?

In describing some of the history of American Progressivism, Dinesh D'Souza asks a very provocative question:

Think about this: we know the name of the philosopher of capitalism, Adam Smith. We also know the name of the philosopher of Marxism, Karl Marx. So, quick, what is the name of the philosopher of fascism? Yes, exactly. You don’t know. Virtually no one knows. My point is that this is not because there were no foundational thinkers behind fascism – there were several – but rather that the left had to get rid of them in order to avoid confronting their unavoidable socialist and leftist orientation. This is the big lie in full operation.

Now, what about Progressivism? Who is the foundational thinker behind that? Like Italian Fascism, American Progressivism has several. They are:

1) Henry George

2) Edward Bellamy

3) Herbert Croly

4) Woodrow Wilson (Prior to 1912)

Just as those behind fascism have been erased out of the history books, so too have these men - with the exception of Woodrow Wilson, but only because he was a president. Nobody hears the name of Wilson and considers his "philosophical" writings, despite just how impactful they really were when they started to be written in the late 1880s. If Wilson never would have been president, he would've been erased too.

Because people do not know the names of George, Bellamy, Croly, and Wilson, that is the big lie in action.

https://tinyurl.com/ybnvoew8

McCain supports government healthcare because Theodore did

Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

So it is, where countless articles have been written now about McCain's recent betrayal on the Obamacare repeal vote, but none of them looks at the issue historically. McCain is being true to his hero Theodore Roosevelt here. This is a high-school boy-crush on McCain's part, and it is pure progressive ideology on display for all to see who wish to see it in its raw ugliness. They all want government to control your healthcare, the progressives, and they've wanted it this way since 1912.

One of the planks of the 1912 Progressive Party Platform, written by Roosevelt himself, says the following:

HEALTH

We favor the union of all the existing agencies of the Federal Government dealing with the public health into a single national health service without discrimination against or for any one set of therapeutic methods, school of medicine, or school of healing with such additional powers as may be necessary to enable it to perform efficiently such duties in the protection of the public from preventable diseases as may be properly undertaken by the Federal authorities, including the executing of existing laws regarding pure food, quarantine and cognate subjects, the promotion of vital statistics and the extension of the registration area of such statistics, and co-operation with the health activities of the various States and cities of the Nation.

Single national health service - yes, you read that right. Theodore Roosevelt favored universal, single payer healthcare. It's right there for all of us to read. And this isn't the only time Roosevelt called for government intervention into the medical situation of private individuals. In his "Confessions of Faith" speech, TR stated the following:

What Germany has done in the way of old-age pensions or insurance should be studied by us, and the system adapted to our uses, with whatever modifications are rendered necessary by our different ways of life and habits of thought.

Germany was the first country on the planet to nationalize its healthcare. That's his model!

This is big government folks, this is progressivism. And nobody in the senate loves Theodore Roosevelt more than John McCain. The square deal, the new deal, the better deal, what a big deal!

Here is video of McCain from 2000 lauding TR, here is McCain calling himself a "TR Republican", and here is a McCain campaign ad titled "the man in the arena", which is a well known TR quote.(Including TR video clips)

Every time he mentions Theodore Roosevelt, McCain is signaling to his other friends in the senate that he stands on the side with big government. That's why every time you turn around, McCain is always attacking conservatives. That's what Progressive Theodore Roosevelt did too. Big government is as big government does.

I believe in reincarnation because I see it in action. Theodore Roosevelt was reincarnated after he passed. He's now a senator from Arizona.

https://tinyurl.com/yarksjj4

Is "reactionary" a communist word?

Generally speaking, if someone is running into a litany or a rant and denouncing you as a reactionary, that person is probably a communist. That is, in the 21st century. But what if the year is 1912? "Reactionary" is a word that statists of all stripes love to use, even those who do not behold the Communist viewpoint.

In a speech denouncing the GOP, the DNC, and anybody else who he didn't like, Theodore Roosevelt said the following:

I merely want to discuss the difference of policy between the Progressive and the Democratic Party and to ask you to think for yourselves which party you will follow. I will say that, friends, because the Republican Party is beaten. Nobody need to have any idea that anything can be done with the Republican Party.

When the Republican Party - not the Republican Party - when the bosses in the control of the Republican Party, the Barneses and Penroses, last June stole the nomination and wrecked the Republican Party for good and all; I want to point out to you nominally they stole that nomination from me, but really it was from you. They did not like me, and the longer they live the less cause they will have to like me. But while they do not like me, they dread you. You are the people that they dread. They dread the people themselves, and those bosses and the big special interests behind them made up their mind that they would rather see the Republican Party wrecked than see it come under the control of the people themselves. So I am not dealing with the Republican Party. There are only two ways you can vote this year. You can be progressive or reactionary. Whether you vote Republican or Democratic it does not make any difference, you are voting reactionary.

It is important to keep in mind here, that the "party bosses" at the time that were against statist Roosevelt, they were the exact opposite of then of what they are today. That's what he is whining about, but keep in mind that in the end he did win and the GOP became a statist party. Could you imagine today, if we didn't have to worry that the GOP was going to shaft us over Obamacare? What would it be like if we didn't have to say one word, and knew that the Republicans were going to fight this hard against the forces of big government? That's how it was back then. Theodore Roosevelt would be proud of today's Republican Party for not listening to the forces of limited government. "Those guys are just reading their Constitutions, you don't pay any attention to them, they're just reactionaries".

Now, about this word "reactionary". It's important to focus in on because it's a key word that gives you insight into the person who is using it. Just be careful about what your insights are. Roosevelt was not a communist. He wrote about communists, and he hated communists. While they also claim to stand for "progress", communism is the wrong kind of "progress". It's the wrong utopia. This utopia is better than that utopia.

So what does he mean by the word "reactionary" then? Roosevelt means, obviously, that while he is "making progress" toward progressive(not communist) utopia and the biggest government that man has ever seen, you are "reacting" to his proposals to progress, and you are the enemy. The reactionary enemy of progress. You're "reacting", specifically with outdated ideas, which is what makes you a reactionary. You have nothing new to add. You and your ideas are old. Old and tired. Worn out. You're a has-been. Your constitution is a has-been. You're clinging to your guns and your bibles and your antipathy toward others. To use TR's own words, your ideas of Federalism are "the old flint-lock, muzzle-loaded doctrine of States' rights." The word has more depth than just simple "act-react". It's deeply ideological across multiple ideologies. A fascist would likely call people a reactionary too, as the fascists also love big government and view big government as the ultimate in progress.

A quick web search for the word reactionary returns this as one of the top results, and confirms what I am saying. TR could call you a lover of the outdated and "flint-lock, muzzle-loaded" ideas of states rights, and spend hours lecturing you on why we should move on from the constitution, or he could just do it in one word. It saves him time.

There are no communists on Mount Rushmore. There is one Republican, the first Republican, there are two Founding Fathers, and then there's a lowly progressive. "Reactionary" is every bit a communist word as it is a progressive word. You're standing in the way of progress! Stop being a reactionary already.

But here is the really fun question: If Theodore Roosevelt hated Communists so much, why (and more importantly) how did he and other progressives of his ilk come to use the word "reactionary" so often? That's a question for another day.

https://tinyurl.com/y9tfw4dp

Are universities bad for America?

Now this is a very interesting poll. 58% of republicans think colleges have a negative impact on the country.

I've seen several reports about this poll, and surprisingly, every single report omits the most important word:

INDOCTRINATION.

The real question isn't if republicans have a negative opinion of universities. The real question is: Does America even have universities?

I'm very serious about that. A "university" that engages primarily in progressive and communist propaganda and indoctrination and does not actually educate, can it legitimately be called a college or a university?

I would answer that question quite firmly as a no. America has very, very few actual universities and colleges.

And I say that as someone who recently graduated. I can confirm with first hand accounts, "college" "professors" are an important source of social justice propaganda. "College" "professors" are likely the single most important single source of social justice propaganda. They're not engaging in education. They're engaging in something very akin to what happens in a re-education camp. If parents accompanied their kids and actually saw what professors say and do, and actually read the books that are assigned, parents would be pissed and would have every right to be pissed. These aren't universities, they're re-education camps. Their primary goal is to roll back all that damage you did as a parent, and show your kids "the correct way".

If a Cuban re-education camp can't be called a university, why should we call American re-education camps universities? Cuban, Chinese, Russian, there are(or have been) re-education camps all over the place. They're not universities.

Target the top first

How is it that progressives and other ideologues end up recruiting rich friends? You would think that would be an unfavorable group, but that's simply not so.

In the magazine The Nationalist, the following is written:

"In one respect the Nationalists and the Christian Socialists, who are attempting practically the same work, are right. They are applying to the advance of their reform the system which long and painful work has shown to be the best; they are beginning at the top, and their propaganda is to be carried on, not among the humble and the suffering, where it would, at best, but foster a futile discontent, but among the favored classes, who by virtue of their advantages, should be the readiest to hear and the promptest to act.

It is noblesse oblige now, as ever, and their battle cry has the ring of high minded endeavor, the touch of self abnegation which has never yet failed of a response."

Progressives heard this message loud and clear. It is even the case that in the book Philip Dru: Administrator, there is a full chapter devoted to going out and recruiting along these very lines.

Chapter X: Gloria Decides to Proselyte the Rich

Its true that the chapter in Dru is less than 5 full pages long but still, they understand very well how to recruit from within their targeted echelon.

The rich fall prey just like anybody else does, because the propaganda that's being used is tailor made just for them. Be it that guilt is used, or excessive praise - playing to a person's sense of pride. Maybe greed is what is used to recruit the rich into the cause. Saul Alinsky has also noted this process, when he wrote:

I have on occasion remarked that I felt confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday.

Lies, deceit, trickery, fear; whatever it takes. The end justifies the means for a progressive.

https://tinyurl.com/ybo5o65k

"The Root" magazine engages in gross historical malpractice

It's such a shame to see a magazine that claims to be "The Root", be so willing to ignore "the roots" of what you would think would be their own history.

Recently, The Root engaged in gross historical malpractice by giving voice to people who would benefit greatly from learning their own true history. They created a short video titled "No Country for Me." (And if this was independently produced, well, then, they do nothing to correct the record. So either way, they are at fault for not doing more to get down to "the root". Pun intended.)

This is (among many reasons) one of the reasons why I recorded William Cooper Nell's 1855 book The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution as an audiobook. There are many outlets out there, even outlets such as The Root who benefit greatly from lying about black history.

The only reason why The Root is able to get away with this is that for so long the progressives who control our school systems have engaged in a mass coverup of the truth of American history.

Shame on The Root for lying to its own readers and perpetuating this coverup! Shame on The Root for not pointing out that Britain brought slavery to this continent!

The Fourth of July, Independence Day, is worth of celebrating, by both whites and blacks!

https://tinyurl.com/ybhkukdg

Did Woodrow Wilson read James Madison's debate notes?

This is fully conjecture, but I'm convinced that the answer is yes.

During the time in which Wilson was inventing the concept of the "living and breathing constitution", Wilson made the following observations: (Constitutional Government, page 55)

The government of the United States was constructed upon the Whig theory of political dynamics, which was a sort of unconscious copy of the Newtonian theory of the universe [see: Newtonian government]. In our own day, whenever we discuss the structure or development of anything, whether in nature or in society, we consciously or unconsciously follow Darwin; but before Darwin, they followed Newton. Some single law, like the law of gravitation, swung each system of thought and gave it its principle of unity. Every sun, every planet, every free body in the spaces of the heavens, the world itself, is kept in its place and reined to its course by the attraction of bodies that swing with equal order and precision about it, themselves governed by the nice poise and balance of forces which give the whole system of the universe its symmetry and perfect adjustment. The Whigs had tried to give England a similar constitution.

The planets.

The sun.

Other celestial bodies that may or may not be seen in the sky or through a telescope.

What would possibly have urged Wilson to use this as his example, of all the things he could have used? Some might say "that's obvious", and I would tend to agree, but for completely different reasons. On Thursday, June 7th, 1787, John Dickenson made the following comment:

The preservation of the States in a certain degree of agency is indispensable. It will produce that collision between the different authorities which should be wished for in order to check each other. To attempt to abolish the States altogether, would degrade the Councils of our Country, would be impracticable, would be ruinous. He compared the proposed National System to the Solar System, in which the States were the planets, and ought to be left to move freely in their proper orbits. The Gentleman from Pa. [Mr. Wilson] wished he said to extinguish these planets. If the State Governments were excluded from all agency in the national one, and all power drawn from the people at large, the consequence would be that the national Govt. would move in the same direction as the State Govts. now do, and would run into all the same mischiefs. The reform would only unite the 13 small streams into one great current pursuing the same course without any opposition whatever. He adhered to the opinion that the Senate ought to be composed of a large number, and that their influence from family weight & other causes would be increased thereby. He did not admit that the Tribunes lost their weight in proportion as their no. was augmented and gave a historical sketch of this institution. If the reasoning of [Mr. Madison] was good it would prove that the number of the Senate ought to be reduced below ten, the highest no. of the Tribunitial corps.

Interesting. Of course, James Wilson's reply continued along the planetary theme. On Friday, June 8th, James Madison made the following comment:

Mr. MADISON seconded the motion. He could not but regard an indefinite power to negative legislative acts of the States as absolutely necessary to a perfect system. Experience had evinced a constant tendency in the States to encroach on the federal authority; to violate national Treaties; to infringe the rights & interests of each other; to oppress the weaker party within their respective jurisdictions. A negative was the mildest expedient that could be devised for preventing these mischiefs. The existence of such a check would prevent attempts to commit them. Should no such precaution be engrafted, the only remedy wd. lie in an appeal to coercion. Was such a remedy eligible? was it practicable? Could the national resources, if exerted to the utmost enforce a national decree agst. Massts. abetted perhaps by several of her neighbours? It wd. not be possible. A small proportion of the Community, in a compact situation, acting on the defensive, and at one of its extremities might at any time bid defiance to the National authority. Any Govt. for the U. States formed on the supposed practicability of using force agst. the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, wd. prove as visionary & fallacious as the Govt. of Congs. The negative wd. render the use of force unnecessary. The States cd. of themselves then pass no operative act, any more than one branch of a Legislature where there are two branches, can proceed without the other. But in order to give the negative this efficacy, it must extend to all cases. A discrimination wd. only be a fresh source of contention between the two authorities. In a word, to recur to the illustrations borrowed from the planetary system. This prerogative of the General Govt. is the great pervading principle that must controul the centrifugal tendency of the States; which, without it, will continually fly out of their proper orbits and destroy the order & harmony of the political System.

One of the things that Woodrow Wilson was, was a learned, well read man. He read the Founders in much the same way that I read his(Wilson's) words - for ways to deconstruct them.

This may only be my belief, but I believe it to be true. Wilson read the debate notes. And he hated every minute of it.

https://tinyurl.com/yab8ylpj