Tuesday, August 15, 2017

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.


Monday, August 14, 2017

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.


Sunday, July 30, 2017

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:


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.


Sunday, July 23, 2017

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.


Tuesday, July 11, 2017

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:


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.

Sunday, July 9, 2017

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.


Wednesday, July 5, 2017

"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!


Saturday, June 24, 2017

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.


Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Progressivism would not exist without Henry George

I've eluded to this before, but I am more convinced of this than ever.

A "Progressive" gets his name; or rather, originally got his name - because of the book "Progress and Poverty".

That is, this: A "Progressive" is someone who "is in favor of Progress and poverty" (The contents of the book; George's arguments, etc.) But they can't call themselves Progressandpovertyists, who are in favor of Progressandpovertyism. I feel silly even typing that, yet that's ultimately the most accurate way to describe it.

That's what a progressive is. That's how it started. Henry George. Progressivism is progressandpovertyism. Now, you can find plenty of small roots of the evolution of progressive from European authors, because the progressives here found European writing to be more "enlightened" than American writing, but this is a big root. This is the biggest root. Progress and Poverty is the tap root of progressivism. That's why so many early progressives were either directly Georgist themselves, or directly indoctrinated by a Georgist. In a tribute to Henry George, Fabian Socialist Bernard Shaw wrote the following:

When I was thus swept into the Great Socialist revival of 1883, I found that five-sixths of those who were swept in with me had been converted by Henry George. This fact would have been more widely acknowledged had it not been that it was not possible for us to stop where Henry George had stopped.

He continues:

“George actually felt bound to attack the Socialism he had himself created; and the moment the antagonism was declared, and to be a Henry Georgite meant to be an anti-Socialist, some of the Socialists whom he had converted became ashamed of their origin, and concealed it

This presents the fork in the road.

In Europe and Britain in particular, the Georgist activists became socialist very quickly, as tyranny is how European culture is and socialism is tyranny. They had no reason to hide it. They had no reason to fight it. Culturally, it was a match set.

But in America, where socialism was viewed as a rotten set of ideals at the time, the big government types founded their own brand and called it "progressivism". This is why culturally the early progressives are different than the socialists even beyond the simple naming convention, but at the same time its why they(the progressives) had no problem mixing it up as friendly associates with the socialists. In general, they all had a common origin: Georgism. Shaw explains:

While others, including myself, had to fight hard against the Single Tax propaganda. But I am glad to say that I never denied or belittled our debt to Henry George.

Ultimately, the progressives and socialists started to merge back together in the 1930's, and then merged with the communists in the 1960's.

Culturally, American Progressives didn't initially believe in total government ownership of all means of production, they "merely" believed that government should regulate every aspect of business. Generically, the end result is indistinguishable yet culturally this difference must be explored as separate and distinct. That's why I treat progressivism differently than socialism. When Hillary or someone else says "I consider myself a modern progressive" as a way to deflect from them being a socialist, they are 100% lying at the same time they're 100% telling the truth.

They know you won't call Theodore Roosevelt a socialist. Nor should you. But in doing so, the modern progressive has absolutely disarmed the argument and won the discussion. It's a genuine historical paradox that exists only because historians don't tell the story of how progressivism came to be and how it continued to "make progress".

The original progressives weren't socialists, and I'll point to Theodore Roosevelt's own writings as well as the original Red Scare - That was Woodrow Wilson, folks. The progressives hated the socialists. That's historical fact. Today's progressives however, rely upon this relic of the past as if progressivism hasn't changed. It has changed, and today they are mostly socialist. But I still see no reason to let the original progressives get away with it. This a mythology, and we need to smash it. It's fragile, but its large. One person alone can't break it.

As long as the original progressives go unchallenged, today's progressives will continue to win.


Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Comparing the radicalism of Charles Beard and Howard Zinn

The American Thinker has an interesting piece today about Howard Zinn, in which the claim is made that: "Zinn, more than any other man, turned our history books on their heads, and in a way, changed the contemporary course of history."

Honestly, I'm not sure that's true. In comparing Zinn to Charles Beard, one of the main issues is the simple expanse of time. Sure, Zinn is more acute in the lies he has written, but Beard has had over a century for his poison to become foundational thinking. Here's the thing: Howard Zinn never knew the real America, so his rejection of America is actually easy to comprehend. I reject the lies too, I just go the other way and try to find the truth.

It's Charles Beard's rejection of America, that's the head-scratcher. That's the one that's very difficult to understand. Beard grew up in an era where there were no lies about America - or at least, very few of them. Beard would have been taught the truth about how exemplary of a man George Washington was, it is extremely likely that he read the actual Federalist Papers in school by a teacher who was fond of said papers, and he also would have known of America's early colonial generation and the role that the Church actually played during that time.(not the perverted storylines told today) Beard knew the truth, yet he still rejected America anyways. Talk about radical. Zinn can't hold a candle to that.

I'll put it to you another way. Because of the Beardification of history, that made Zinnification of history possible.

Charles Beard's main claim to fame is that there couldn't have possibly have been any real arguments over Liberty or limited government, no no, that's just school-house fluff and lies.(school houses in his day) The real Founding Fathers were only and solely motivated by money and economics. They were in reality a bunch of greedy SOBs and money grubbers and land-hoarders who had much to gain(in their deep, deep pockets) by agitating for war.

Sound familiar? Zinn doesn't own that storyline. Beard does. And some might even be quick to retort that Beard was discredited. Yes, he was, eventually. But only he was, because his ideal that the Founders were greedy SOBs, that clearly was not discredited. That false narrative has stood the test of time in academia and is alive and well to this very day.

Now it is fair to say that Zinn has expanded that storyline, if not several fold. But let's not grant Zinn all sorts of superhuman powers to which he does not own. His most well known book was published in 1980, compared to 1913 for Beard. From Beard to Zinn, the revisionists between the two, and also let's not forget those who arrived after Zinn and built upon the Zinnified blather is a great example of how progressives "make progress" to new heights.

The real question is, how will the historians be lying about America 40 years from now? Again, just to make sure that the main point is stated twice: Zinn never rejected the real America, because he was never taught it. Beard, on the other hand, rejected the truth outright. The truth is all that existed at the time.

That's truely radical.


Thursday, June 8, 2017

Woodrow Wilson deported 556 communists and anarchists

Common knowledge has it that the Red Scare involved Joseph McCarthy, HUAC, and Cold War highlights. While all of this is true, that's the second Red Scare of the 1950's.

The first Red Scare is far more interesting. The first Red Scare involved progressives using the force of big government against their ideological opponents, the communists. While it is true that (probably) the two most high profile people to be deported were Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman - both anarchists(not communists) - that does not change the fact that one of the main goals of the 1917-1919 purge was to get rid of reds.

Red-deporter in chief, Woodrow Wilson

While thousands of suspected reds were rounded up during the Palmer Raids, the grand total of communists/anarchists deported in the end was 556. For anyone interested, here is a report in front of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization from April 21st, 1920, titled "Communist and Anarchist Deportation Cases".

I've stressed the point on multiple times both directly and indirectly that progressivism and communism are competing big government ideologies, and this is probably one of the most high profile examples.

That does not mean progressives are good people. I still think progressives are more dangerous than communists and this does not change that opinion. It isn't until the 1960's (generally) that progressivism and communism started to mean the same thing.(the merging of the two ideologies)


Friday, June 2, 2017

Making socialists out of college students

Making Socialists Out of College Students: A Story of Professors and Other Collegians who Hobnob with Radicals

I don't need to say much about this, except this: Read this book! But, do pay attention to the publication date. 1920. It's out of copyright and free to download from the public domain.

To our friends who believe that all evil begins in the 1960's, I emplore you. Please look back further. To our friends who believe that all evil begins in the 1930's, I emplore you. Please look back further!

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Deception is a cornerstone of progressivism

Lies are as important an ingredient in the ideology of progressives as is h20 in water.

Two months ago, a Planned Parenthood pamphlet from 1952 was making the rounds, and everybody was rushing to condemn the organization for it. Here is the pamphlet. Here it is again, and again and again. The last link is the most direct, but at the same time the most problematic. It states at the top "MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH".

This entirely misses the point and as far as I'm concerned, it's dangerous.

If you guys want to attack individual leaves on the tree, you'll never kill the tree itself. That's the problem with this. Every one of these articles - not one of them uses the name of progressivism. Not one. Do you not realize that if you did kill this leaf, the tree would simply grow another leaf?

You won't find a pro-Planned Parenthood comment coming from me, but there's a huge difference between forests and trees.

This pamphlet is actually an indictment of progressivism as a whole, not just this one organization. Progressives have always lived in the "here and now" and this pamphlet is a great example. That is, their primary mode of operation is "what do I have to say here, now, in order to win?"

That's what this pamphlet is all about. They'll deal with the consequences later. Since they control the media, consequences never come. Even our media, focuses on the micro while never pointing to the macro. The big picture. You're right, that one color there in that one section is indeed blue. But the whole picture tells a story! That story is never told.

It's been like this for progressives since the beginning, this isn't anything new. Woodrow Wilson lied about wanting to keep us out of the war. The initiative, referendum, and recall were sold to Americans under false pretenses. The entirety of modern liberalism is a lie! They've been progressives all along, but they spent decades with the shiny new label of "liberalism" from the 1940s until after 2000. That's 60 years! And they're still doing it now, they're not yet ready in total to give up on using the word "liberal" as a hiding ground.

In general, it doesn't matter where you look for progressivism, they must lie, cheat, and steal in order to achieve their purpose.

The only time you find progressives honest enough about their beliefs, is a brief few year period early on in their writings and speeches.

It is especially ingrained after being utterly destroyed after the turn of the 1920's: In order to simply survive, progressives had to come up with a way, and that way was to take over the word "liberal" in the 1930s. Progressives cannot and will not be honest ever again. They've learned their lesson.

We need to learn ours. In this instance, the issue is not the actual issue. The real issue is progressive ideology and how to destroy it.


Monday, May 29, 2017

Who were America's first 48 welfare queens?

Initiate a discussion about welfare, and inevitably the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt pops up. Often times FDR comes up in the first sentence.

Problem is, this simply is not historically accurate. It is true to say that FDR supercharged welfare, but anything else is fake history. Not only did welfare in America exist prior to FDR, but the first welfare program for citizens was repealed in 1929.

The interesting story, however, is that it was not people who were first at being put on welfare by the federal government. That's what makes the issue of the first 48 welfare queens so interesting. Here are their names:



























New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota





Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota







West Virginia



Long before Ida May Fuller, the states themselves were being manipulated by the progressives using national money. So what I blogged about earlier about the first welfare program being put in place in 1921 (repealed in 1929), this is not actually true in the fullest sense. (Normally, welfare is only thought of in connection with individual citizens and in that sense, it is true. This is a grave mistake however. The states have consistently been on welfare now for 103 years and it is time to use that terminology - its accurate.)

The first welfare program had its foundation laid in 1914 and expanded in 1917. The 1917 initiative is especially caustic, stating that:

in order to secure the benefits of the appropriation for any purpose specified In this act, the State board shall prepare plans showing the kinds of vocational education for which it Is proposed that the appropriation shall be used; the kinds of schools and equipment; courses of study; methods of instruction; qualifications of teachers; and, in the case of agricultural subjects, the qualifications of supervisors or directors; plans for the training of teachers; and, In the case of agricultural subjects, plans for the supervision of agricultural education as provided for in section 10. Such plans shall be submitted by the State board to the Federal Board for Vocational Education, and If the Federal board finds the same to be In conformity with the provisions and purposes of this act the same shall be approved. The State board shall make an annual report to the Federal Board of Vocational Education on or before September 1 of each year, on the work done in the State and the receipts and expenditures of money under the provisions of this act.

In other words, big daddy government will gladly give you money, but you have to accept these strings attached and do as you're told. The marionette has met its puppetmaster.

This is the real reason why state-level DOTs, and DOEs, and every other department you can name exist. They are not there first and foremost to deal with state-wide policy, they are there to distribute funds from big daddy. I'm sure they do have state-policy input, but that is secondary.

Each Department of X is there to ensure that your state remains a proxy, a purchased agent. An empty suit.

As long as your state continues to receive its welfare dole, it is a slave.

It's time to set the states free from their bondage.


Monday, May 15, 2017

"What more can I do"

There it was again, I heard that question again. "What more can I do" There's fifty different ways this question can be asked, but I wanted to make sure this time I blogged about it for future reference.

Rush talked to a millennial listener of his, and this was the context:

CALLER: How do we get people to understand the beauty and the power and the greatness of capitalism? Like, what can I do every day?

This question will be answered, because we cannot rely on politics and the political process for answers.


Thursday, May 11, 2017

Donald Trump targets the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt

I can't tell you how excited I am about this.

Many if not most of the problems we have trace their lineage back to PROGRESSIVE Theodore Roosevelt, and in particular, Theodore Roosevelt's abuse of executive orders to get around congress and enact his conservation agenda.

All this Bundy Ranch stuff? Thank you Theodore Roosevelt.

All the land grabs over the last few years? Thank you Theodore Roosevelt.

"I gots my pen and my phone, I don't need congress" - Obama. Thank you Theodore Roosevelt. He was the first one. TR had his pen and phone too. Conservation was arguably the biggest piece of TR's huge government agenda, and he was the first president to issue over 1000 executive orders. No president prior to TR comes even close.

Enter the announcement of Trump's executive order regarding the Antiquities Act. Quick little fact: Who are the two presidents who used (abused) the Antiquities Act the most? FDR and Obama, of course. If only we could get a full-scale repeal of the Antiquities act, that is exactly what we need. With the Antiquities Act, there is no baby in the bathwater, so it is safe to chuck it out the window. The states are more than capable of this work.

I'm not a fan at all of executive orders, they smack of monarchist decrees and we separated away from King George precisely because the "King Thing" is a proven failure. However, we have to recognize the position we are in: much of the garbage of progressivism was born of executive orders, so for the most part only executive orders are going to undo other executive orders. That's just how to get progressivism from our current position.

Hopefully, we see more of this. The sooner we can overturn much of this Theodore Roosevelt-era garbage, the sooner we can put an end to progressivism once and for all. The fact is that we cannot rid ourselves of big government progressivism(in part), until we get past the Antiquities Act and the notion that only big national government is sufficient. I trust the state of Arizona with the Canyon. I trust Tennessee, North Carolina with the Smokies. I trust the state of Oregon with Crater Lake. I trust New York with Niagara. I trust Texas with the Sabine and Crockett forests. I trust Florida with the Everglades. I trust Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, etc etc with the Great Lakes. We do not need big daddy big nanny to do it. Big government does more harm than good. Always.

(As an aside note, I wish I had my own cartoon of a guy with a jackhammer going after the foundation, because that's the proper imagery needed to convey here. TR is the deepest foundation of big government progressivism.)

Politico has this headline: "Teddy Roosevelt Is Rolling Over in His Grave"

Good, I want to make them roll more frequently and roll faster. If more progressives are rolling in their graves, that means we're moving toward smaller government. When government loses, the people win.

There's nothing better than that. Progressivism has destroyed way too many people's lives, enough is enough.


Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Yes, a welfare program has in fact been repealed.

Have you ever heard of the Sheppard-Towner Act?

No, of course not. That's because it was repealed in 1929. Specifically it was allowed to expire and congress did not move to act, to renew the bill.

In 1921, this bill created the first national welfare program in the United States, which as you probably guessed it, was "for the children", and "for the women", and blah blah blah. Progressives always recycle the same foolishness.

"For the children" and "for the women" - these are generally the primary schemes that the progressives always use as an excuse to grow government, isn't it? Yeah, well, back then Americans weren't putting up with it.

The program was administered by the Federal Children's Bureau, and the American Medical Association bravely stepped up to help us all get rid of this garbage, and as a result the welfare program lasted less than 10 years.

Compared to modern welfare programs it was incredibly modest, and many of us might not recognize it as a welfare program today considering how welfare programs have evolved and "made progress" over the last 100 years. Nonetheless, that's exactly what it was until it was repealed.

If a welfare program can be repealed once, they can be repealed again.


Friday, March 31, 2017

George Bernard Shaw's Tribute to the Work of Henry George



Henry George has one thing to answer for that has proved more serious than he thought when he was doing it - without knowing it.

One evening in the early eighties I found myself - I forget how and I cannot imagine why - in the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, London, listening to an American finishing a speech on the Land Question. I knew he was an American because he pronounced "necessarily" - a favorite word of his - with the accent on the third syllable instead of the first; because he was deliberately and intentionally oratorical, which is not customary among shy people like the English; because he spoke of Liberty, Justice, Truth, Natural Law, and other strange eighteenth century superstitions; and because he explained with great simplicity and sincerity the views of The Creator, who had gone completely out of fashion in London in the previous decade and had not been heard of since. I noticed also that he was a born orator, and that he had small, plump, pretty hands.

Now at that time I was a young man not much past 25, of a very revolutionary and contradictory temperament, full of Darwin and Tyndall, of Shelley and De Quincy, of Michael Angelo and Beethoven, and never having in my life studied social questions from the economic point of view, except that I had once, in my boyhood, read a pamphlet by John Stuart Mill on the Land Question. The result of my hearing that speech, and buying from one of the stewards of the meeting a copy of Progress and Poverty (Heaven only knows where I got that sixpence), was that I plunged into a course of economic study, and at a very early stage of it became a Socialist and spoke from that very platform on the same great subject, and from hundreds of others as well, sometimes addressing distinguished assemblies in a formal manner, sometimes standing on a borrowed chair at a street corner, or simply on a curbstone. And I, too, had my oratorical successes; for I can still recall with some vanity a wet afternoon (Sunday, of course,) on Clapham Common, when I collected as much as sixteen and sixpence in my hat after my lecture, for The Cause. And that the work was not all gas, let the tracts and pamphlets of the Fabian Society attest.

When I was thus swept into the Great Socialist revival of 1883, I found that five-sixths of those who were swept in with me had been converted by Henry George. This fact would have been more widely acknowledged had it not been that it was not possible for us to stop where Henry George had stopped. America, in spite of all its horrors of rampant Capitalism and industrial oppression, was, nevertheless, still a place for the individualist and the hustler. Every American who came over to London was amazed at the apathy, the cynical acceptance of poverty and servitude as inevitable, the cunning shuffling along with as little work as possible, that seemed to the visitor to explain our poverty, and moved him to say, "Serve us right!" If he had no money, he joyfully started hustling himself, and was only slowly starved and skinned into realizing that the net had been drawn close in England, the opportunities so exhaustively monopolized, the crowd so dense, that his hustling was only a means of sweating himself for the benefit of the owners of England, and that the English workman, with his wonderfully cultivated art of sparing "himself and extracting a bit of ransom here and a bit of charity there, had the true science of the situation. Henry George had no idea of this. He saw only the monstrous absurdity of the private appropriation of rent; and he believed that if you took that burden off the poor man's back, he could help himself out as easily as a pioneer on a pre-empted clearing. But the moment he took an Englishman to that point, the Englishman saw at once that the remedy was not so simple as that, and that the argument carried us much further, even to the point of total industrial reconstruction. Thus, George actually felt bound to attack the Socialism he himself had created; and the moment the antagonism was declared, and to be a Henry Georgite meant to be an anti-Socialist, some of the Socialists whom he had converted became ashamed of their origin, and concealed it; while others, including myself, had to fight hard against the Single Tax propaganda.

But I am glad to say that I never denied or belittled our debt to Henry George. If we outgrew Progress and Poverty in many respects, so did he himself too; and it is, perhaps, just as well that he did not know too much when he made his great campaign here; for the complexity of the problem would have overwhelmed him if he had realized it, or, if it had not, it would have rendered him unintelligible. Nobody has ever got away, or ever will get away, from the truths that were the centre of his propaganda; his errors anybody can get away from. Some of us regretted that he was an American and therefore necessarily about fifty years out of date in his economics and sociology from the point of view of an older country; but only an American could have seen in a single lifetime the growth of the whole tragedy of civilization from the primitive forest clearing. An Englishman grows up to think that the ugliness of Manchester and the slums of Liverpool have existed since the beginning of the world. George knew that such things grow up like mushrooms, and can be cleared away easily enough when people come to understand what they are looking at and mean business. His genius enabled him to understand what he looked at better than most men; but he was undoubtedly helped by what had happened within his own experience in San Francisco as he could never have been helped had he been born in Lancashire,

What George did not teach you, you are being taught now by your Trusts and Combines, as to which I need only say that if you would take them over as National property as cheerfully as you took over the copyrights of all my early books, you would find them excellent institutions, quite in the path of progressive evolution, and by no means to be discouraged or left unregulated as if they were nobody's business but their own. It is a great pity that you all take America for granted because you were born in it. I, who have never crossed the Atlantic, and have taken nothing American for granted, find I know ten times as much about your country as you do yourselves; and my ambition is to repay my debt to Henry George by coming over some day and trying to do for your young men what Henry George did nearly quarter of a century ago for me.

G. Bernard Shaw. London, Eng.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

The League makes its announcement

Counter Attack on Reaction Organized - Research Group to Aid Labor—Wants Production for Use Not Profit (1922)

"A counter attack on the autocratic forces" which it charges are in control of American industry and "practical work for the socialization of industry" were announced recently by the League for Industrial Democracy, a new organization of engineers, publicists, technicians, economists, lawyers and members of other professions. The League is a successor to the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, which has been in process of reorganization for some months. The officers are Prof. Robert Morss Lovett, of Chicago, president; Charles P. Steinmetz, of Schenectady, Evans Clark, Florence Kelley and Arthur Gleason, of New York, vice presidents; Stuart Chase, treasurer; Harry W. Laidler, secretary and director of research, and Norman Thomas, chairman of the Executive Committee. The executive work of getting the new plan under way is in charge of Roger N. Baldwin.

The League's statement which outlines the new program shows why a reorganization of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society was decided upon after fifteen years of its work in the colleges arousing interest in socialist principles. "Prior to the World War, the form of organization adopted by the Society was admirably fitted in many respects to current intellectual needs. The large majority of American collegians were either utterly ignorant of the existence of socialism and the socialist movement, or regarded socialism as a mere Utopian theory, remote from the practical realm of politics and economics. The war came. Old economic systems collapsed. New social forms developed. The socialist and other movements of labor made and remade history. Even 'educated' men and women in provincial America were compelled to acknowledge the existence and power of these movements; thousands learned to regard them as the one hope of civilization.

"In spite of all their activities our liberals and radicals have had little effect upon our social life. They have left the labor movement untouched. They have created little literature of the new social order. The pamphlet, that instrument of social change, has gone rusty from disuse. The socialists have been so splendidly busy that they haven't worked out a plan of nationalization for the mines. The syndicalists and radicals have been so active that they have not shown the next step in workers' control in factory committees.

"Only one main idea is in sight with driving force and the power to capture the imagination of these groups. The idea concerns itself with changing the basis of civilization. It is the idea of production for use, of work for service. But an idea like that does not descend from heaven and travel on its own momentum. It is hammered out by the faithful in close thinking.

"Our first objective is the technician, the teacher, the social worker, the brain worker generally included in the 'great middle class' - a class which may be counted upon to obstruct social change until an effort is made to bring its need before them in their own language. Our final objective is the worker and the farmer.

"Our job demands that added to its primary educational work, the League shall stimulate the hardest kind of thinking on the concrete problems of social ownership and democratic control of our industrial life. It demands that the League shall do its part to utilize in constructive tasks the hundreds of young idealists who have aligned themselves on the side of the new social order."

Among the immediate aims is the thorough study of industrial disputes in order to arouse the public to the evils of the present system. The two basic industries to get first attention are coalmining and railroad transportation, in which national strikes are threatened in the near future.

Any person is eligible to membership in the League for Industrial Democracy, whose national headquarters are 70 Fifth Avenue, New York City.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Understanding Progressive Nationalism

In his speech to Congress on December 7, 1915, Woodrow Wilson made the following point about hyphenated Americans:
There are citizens of the United States, I blush to admit, born under other flags but welcomed under our generous naturalization laws to the full freedom and opportunity of America, who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; who have sought to bring the authority and good name of our Government into contempt, to destroy our industries wherever they thought it effective for their vindictive purposes to strike at them, and to debase our politics to the uses of foreign intrigue.

Their number is not great as compared with the whole number of those sturdy hosts by which our nation has been enriched in recent generations out of virile foreign stock; but it is great enough to have brought deep disgrace upon us and to have made it necessary that we should promptly make use of processes of law by which we may be purged of their corrupt distempers. America never witnessed anything like this before. It never dreamed it possible that men sworn into its own citizenship, men drawn out of great free stocks such as supplied some of the best and strongest elements of that little, but how heroic, nation that in a high day of old staked its very life to free itself from every entanglement that had darkened the fortunes of the older nations and set up a new standard here,that men of such origins and such free choices of allegiance would ever turn in malign reaction against the Government and people who had welcomed and nurtured them and seek to make this proud country once more a hotbed of European passion.

A little while ago such a thing would have seemed incredible. Because it was incredible we made no preparation for it. We would have been almost ashamed to prepare for it, as if we were suspicious of ourselves, our own comrades and neighbors! But the ugly and incredible thing has actually come about and we are without adequate federal laws to deal with it. I urge you to enact such laws at the earliest possible moment and feel that in doing so I am urging you to do nothing less than save the honor and self-respect of the nation. Such creatures of passion, disloyalty, and anarchy must be crushed out.

Now, first of all, it chills me to the bone to see any American President talking about any other citizen in the context of "crushing", but with that aside..............

This quote has gotten a little bit of attention from other historians, so I want to highlight what they have highlighted:

Citizens..... born under other flags..... have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; who have sought to bring the authority and good name of our Government into contempt.....

Notice how he puts government ahead of all others? Government is more important than all industry, more important than anything else. Except one thing.

Wilson says "our national life". Theodore Roosevelt spoke much the same way, both in and outside of the context of "hyphenated-Americans", and here is one such example:

Therefore, we should devote ourselves as a preparative to preparedness, alike in peace and war, to secure the three elemental things; one a common language, the English language; two, the increase in our social loyalty - citizenship absolutely undivided, a citizenship which acknowledges no flag except the flag of the United States and which emphatically repudiates all duality of national loyalty; and third, an intelligent and resolute effort for the removal of industrial and social unrest, an effort which shall aim equally to secure every man his rights and to make every man understand that unless he in good faith performs his duties he is not entitled to any rights at all.

See, this is a trick. It's a dirty trick by a dirty trickster, that TR. "Social loyalty"?

Please. What an insult. This key word "social" is always used by progressives as a way to load the entire sentence with bull crap, and TR did it just the same. Others may not notice, but I notice it.

When TR, Woodrow Wilson, or any other progressive(Moreso in the early 20th century than today, for certain reasons; mainly globalism) uses the word "nation" or phrases like "our national life", they mean the most sinister and devious things you can think of. This is why no progressive can ever, ever be trusted. They take things which should be considered a good thing and they abuse it, pollute it, pervert it. We should be able to reasonably discuss the problem with those who would put something hyphenated in front of their title as an American, but as a conservative, under no circumstance should quoting of any progressive take place. Progressives have no credibility. This word "social", because of what they mean by it and how the statists use it, is at the root of so many of our problems. It's probably at the root of every single problem.

Now, Theodore Roosevelt was a disciple of Herbert Croly, who arguably got the "New Nationalism" from Croly. Like Croly, Roosevelt believed in the supremacy of the NATION, and I put that in both bold and caps for a reason. Croly was a big time statist. His belief about the nation was as a near cultification. For those of you who are well versed in Stalinism and the cult of personality that he built up around himself, its very much like that.

Croly hated the parties, because it divided loyalties. Croly hated religion, again, because it divided loyalty. Croly, and TR by extension, believed the same things - that everybody should worship at the mantle of the big NATIONAL government. The bigger the better. TR wanted a government as big as his own personality was. Now that's big. It's a total Jim Jones-ification of what people believe with regards to nationality.

Did you notice that both progressives Wilson as well as TR emphasized the flag? Again, these are progressives. These are dirty tricksters. You're not supposed to worship the flag! You're supposed to worship God.

God says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". What Croly, TR, and so many other progressives say is that you shalt have no other gods before the nation. When TR proclaimed the "New Nationalism", what do you think he was impugning as the old nationalism? That's right, the same old saw from progressives that we've heard for the last 100 years. Those old dusty musty old ideas of the Founding Fathers, those all need to be put to bed. Put it back up in the attic and forget about it. That's sooooo 18th century. This is the New Nationalism. New. Shiny. Clean.

Constitution schmonstitution, your nation is before you. So bow down and be walked all over. You don't want to be walked over? We progressives will steamroll you. Prepare to be audited by the IRS.

To put it shortly, what progressive nationalists believe is probably the grossest perversion of the entire concept of nationalism. Unfortunately, that perversion persists to this day.

The Founding Fathers did not believe that the NATION ought to be dictator of all of our lives, quite the reverse. The Founding Fathers believed that THE PEOPLE ought to be above the nation, with God above all. Even as the Constitution was being built and a strengthening of the general government was under way, the Founders never went so far as nationalism. They chose federalism instead.

God first.

The people second.

Localities third.

The states fourth.

The nation? Last. Dead last. Now it is true that 17 powers were nationalized, but the rest of the powers were kept as far as could be from the nation, because that's tyranny.

Conversely, the progressives work in the opposite fashion. This is why they reject God. Government is their god.

The people last.

Localities fourth.

Regions third.

States second.

The nation first.

This is why globalism is a natural turning point for progressive nationalists, because there's only one form of government bigger, and that's globalism. Even Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed the need for global governance, in his Nobel Prize speech. They're progressives, and progressives love government. The bigger the better.

Somewhere down the line, our children's children's children are going to have to fight the progressives and their intra-globalism, because one world government just isn't big enough. They need one universe government. That's progressivism, and Progressive Nationalism is a step along this path. Gotta "make progress" to the bigger government at every turn.


Thursday, March 23, 2017

Evolution and Revolution, by G. D. H. Cole

In 1921, George Douglas Howard Cole(Who would become a member of the Fabian Society) wrote the following in a book about Guild Socialism: (page 156)
We have now completed our outline sketch of the structure and methods of working of a Guild Socialist Commonwealth, and have thus come to the threshold of the practical problem of transition to it from the capitalist Society of to-day. And here the first question that confronts us, as it confronts all Socialists under the conditions of the present time, is the question of "evolution and revolution." Do we hope and intend to bring about the great social transformation to which we look forward by purely evolutionary means, or do we anticipate, at some stage, a phase of catastrophic or revolutionary transition?

The question, stated, as it usually is, in that form, is to some extent misleading; for the word "revolutionary," and to a less extent the word "evolutionary" also, are capable of bearing a variety of interpretations. Revolution, or catastrophic transition, for example, though it probably always involves some employment of force, cannot be taken as necessarily involving force on a scale at all deserving the name of civil war. The first Russian Revolution of 1917 and the German Revolution of 1918 were both definitely revolutions, and were accompanied by some appeal to force ; but in neither was force, in the sense of armed conflict, employed on any considerable scale. The old constitutional system which was displaced crumbled, and a different system took its place, with the minimum of fighting. There are, of course, many who contend that this is one of the main reasons why both these Revolutions achieved so little, and that real social revolution, involving a change of social and economic system as well as of political institutions, will never be accomplished save by a much more extensive employment of armed power ; but, whether this is true or not, it is clearly necessary to distinguish between catastrophic change in which armed power, insofar as it exists, is only a secondary factor, and catastrophic change in which armed power is actually the principal agent of transformation.

Similarly, the word " evolutionary " has more than one sense. It is often interpreted to mean practically "political," and evolutionary methods are treated as identical with the constitutional employment of parliamentary action. But there is also a wider sense in which "evolutionary" tactics can denote a method applicable not merely to politics, but to every sphere of social action, economic and civic as well as political.

One of the things that I do think - is that there people who assume that just because a person is against communism, and against the revolutionaries, that somehow, this is a good person. No, not really. Not all socialists believe that communism is the final stage of socialism. This problem exists with Theodore Roosevelt. No, TR was not a communist, yes, he was a statist. He hated both communists and socialists, yet he was just as bad as they were. The different various big-government ideologies are constantly in competition and at war with each other, proclaiming themselves as the one, true utopia.

George Orwell was also this way, as a more relevant example to the topic. He was an evolutionary socialist, he lived his entire life a socialist and died a socialist. His book 1984 is a defense of socialism. I've even seen Orwell described as a conservative in many places, by people who ought to know better, it's crazy.

This is a grave, grave weakness. We're bringing the trojan horse into the city walls here. When the radicals start waxing poetic about evolution, they don't always mean life cycles and/or earth forces and/or pro-choice and/or Charles Darwin and/or lizards, geckos, fish, and turtles. Sometimes, they're honestly looking you in the face, honestly telling you that they're going to steal your liberty - they just aren't going to do it in one step. But they want you to think they're talking about turtles and/or pro-choice, because that makes it easier for them to steal your liberty. You don't see them coming.

Cole continues:

This, I believe, would be possible for a Labor Movement possessing the present strength of our own, only in face of a capitalist Society far less strong than our own, and only at a quite exceptionally favorable moment, such as occurred in Russia in 1917. To overthrow by this means the far stronger capitalism of Great Britain or America would require a very much stronger, and more fully awakened Labor Movement than now exists in either country.

This is why evolutionary socialists have had so much success in Europe and America. They know full well their movements aren't as strong as capitalism, so they have instead sought another way. Convince people healthcare is a right, convince people that government is a never ending spigot of free money and that debt doesn't matter. I could list a whole litany of things, but that's not the point. Remember Pelosi saying that "We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in".... That's exactly what Cole is saying.

The point is this, being more knowledgeable about evolutionary socialism can and will be very useful knowledge as it will help to further discriminate about who is and who isn't actually an enemy, as it's never beneficial to bring the enemy into camp to do damage from within.

"Limited strength, when persistently applied, can accomplish great feats", "little strokes fell great oaks", "constant dripping wears away the stone", "death by a thousand cuts", take your pick. They all describe evolutionary socialism. George Orwell was an evolutionary socialist; and so he told a good story. So what? Why exactly does anybody look to him for guidance, especially considering the substance of authors like Friedrich Hayek who didn't create platforms to advance socialism.


Wednesday, March 22, 2017

The 9th amendment vs the living constitution

There is a new argument that progressives are cooking up, consider this a warning. Be prepared.

In Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution, the following is written: (page 268)

Oddly enough, those who advocate a constitutional "jurisprudence of original intention" and assert that the Constitution "said what it meant and meant what it said," are the ones who most vigorously deny content to the Ninth Amendment and to the concept of a "living Constitution." Presumably, they would not swear fealty to a dead Constitution, not even to a static one of the sort endorsed by Chief Justice Roger Taney in the Dred Scott case. Nevertheless, they reject as absurd the idea that the Ninth Amendment could have been intended as a repository for newly discovered rights that activist judges embrace.

I bring this up because on the face of it, this is a very potent attack. Unless you know a little history, you're about to get steamrolled flat.

I titled this posting "The 9th amendment vs the living constitution", because in reality the 9th amendment contradicts the living constitution theorem. But you have to dig to know.

As simply as I can put it, the 9th amendment is in conflict with Woodrow Wilson's Living Constitution because all rights come from God. Yes, I mean the God of Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham. That's what the Founders believed, that's what I believe, and that's also what those who the author quoted above is impugning believe.(generally)

Without Natural Law and by extension Natural Rights, the 9th amendment is meaningless. Without Natural Law, the progressives are taking the 9th amendment out of context and engaging in a dishonest discussion that's intended to grant themselves advantage.

First off, government cannot grant rights. Read any one of the original bill of rights you want. Here's a transcript. It's to my benefit for you to read them. Not one of the bill of rights grants a right. You don't have freedom of speech because of the first amendment. You don't have protection from property seizure because of the fourth amendment. You don't have protection without due process because of the fifth amendment. The Bill of Rights does. Not. Grant. Rights. It's not the source.

God is.

All rights as written in the Bill of Rights come from the fact that they limit government while propping up the individual. Even the trial by jury, which is a device that is designed to take a baseball bat to government's knees in the context of how governments can and have used courts in the past. It's still rooted in "government shall not". Government shall not throw you into the Star Chamber.

I don't want to spend an excessive amount of time on John Locke, but that's who you should read for the quickest crash course into God's gifts. Locke wrote Two Treatises of Government, and he also wrote The Reasonableness of Christianity as delivered in the Scriptures. Consider reading them. One of those exists even as an audiobook.

Even Thomas Paine, who went off the deep-end in his support for the French Revolutionaries never went so far as to lose his grounding in the reality that governments cannot grant rights. He wrote:

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights.

Next, and here's what's even more important, is that the activist judicial view is making the case that judges can invent rights and legislate from the bench.

Then why did the Founders even bother to write article 2? Why have a house and senate in the first place? Just have a president and judges and be done with it all. If judges can invent law, why is article 3 so short? Why isn't article 3 the longest article in the constitution? BTW, judges inventing new law is a form of constitutional amending, as even some who favor such activism will readily admit.(not all, but some)

But! Marbury vs Madison!

What about it? Just because Marshall wrote that "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.", do you really think that the full text of the Marbury ruling is 15 words long? That's what the progressives think. The progressives do absolutely believe that the Marbury ruling is 15 words wrong. But out here in the real world, we can all put the ruling into our word processors and see that it is nearly 10,000 words long.

Here is what else that John Marshall wrote in the Marbury case:

The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

He also wrote:

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

As these paragraphs from the Marbury case make clear, Marshall places the courts below the constitution. John Marshall does not establish judicial supremacy, not in any shape or form. Moreover, Marshall clearly holds the constitution to be a special, extraordinary document. That's why it cannot be changed by ordinary means. Only extraordinary means.

Doesn't the constitution have article 5 for describing what those extraordinary means might look like or what qualifications and procedures to look for and follow? Yes, it does. And judges are not in there.

So not only should we abolish article 2 because the judges have that covered, but we should also abolish article 5 because the judges have that covered as well.

What other parts of the constitution do we not need, simply because we have 9 people wearing black robes who are more than glad to tell us what is best?

Besides, as Marshall brilliantly points out, the Constitution is mentioned first, and the laws are mentioned second in the supremacy clause. Aren't judges mentioned third? Ponder that for a minute. The judges are mentioned last. Third. What does that say to the judicial supremacist? Well, it doesn't say anything to them because they're unaware of the fact that the Marbury ruling is longer than 15 words. But in reality, judicial cases aren't mentioned in the supremacy clause because judges were not supposed to be a part of the legislative process at all.

The best thing any conservative could do is read the Marbury v. Madison case, it's not a terribly long read and its incredible just how big the lies are that progressives tell about it. They are utterly reliant upon the fact that so many won't take the time to read the text. Here is the text. The way progressives constantly bring up Marbury, you would think that the ruling benefits them when in fact, the Marbury ruling is extremely adverse to the progressives mental health. It's also very adverse to the idea that the 9th amendment somehow helps prop up the notion that we have a living and breathing constitutional document.

There is one thing, however, that the original author got correct.

Nevertheless, they reject as absurd the idea that the Ninth Amendment could have been intended as a repository for newly discovered rights that activist judges embrace.

By definition, all of God's rights have already been given. In other words, they're all old. God probably isn't waiting until 2052 to spring yet another new one on us. Surprise! More to the point, if we do get a new one it won't be these progressives who discover it, because government is their god. They would reject whatever was given.

We know God. He knows us. This relationship is over 2,000 years old (and those gifts were given long before that!), and we know the rights he granted are not anything like the rubbish that the progressives are peddling. "New rights" only serve one purpose: to put us all under the thumb of an increasingly out of control government.


Thursday, March 16, 2017

Will you listen to this speech audio? Unbelievable.

(He) stated his position when he said that the history of government, the history of liberty, was the history of the limitation of governmental power. This is true as an academic statement of history in the past. It is not true as a statement affecting the present. It is true of the history of medieval Europe. It is not true of the history of twentieth-century America.

In the days when all governmental power existed exclusively in the king or in the baronage and when the people had no shred of that power in their own hands, then it undoubtedly was true that the history of liberty was the history of the limitation of the governmental power of the outsiders who possessed that power. But today, the people have, actually or potentially, the entire governmental power. It is theirs to use and to exercise, if they choose to use and to exercise it. It offers the only adequate instrument with which they can work for the betterment, for the uplifting of the masses of our people.

Unbelievable. Had any democrat spoken these words, they would be raked over the coals. Obama could've said this! Yes, this is absolutely audio of whining that government is not big enough and needs to be bigger and more expansive.

Here's the audio. It's only a 3:48 (4 minute) clip.

This is the exact problem we have with progressivism, and have had now for just over a century. They live government. They breathe government. They sleep government, and they eat government. Government runs through their veins. Every aspect of their life is government-focused, every aspect of their thoughts are filtered through the prism of government. Everything they see would be improved if only government controlled it, and everything they touch needs government in the mix.

Government, government, government! And what's quoted above, that's not the worst of it. Here, here is what he says next: class warfare claptrap!:

The liberty of which (he) speaks today means merely the liberty of some great trust magnate to do that which he is not entitled to do. It means merely the liberty of some factory owner to work haggard women over-hours for under-pay and himself to pocket the profits. It means the liberty of the factory owner to close his operatives into some crazy deathtrap on a top floor, where if fire starts, the slaughter is immense. It means the liberty of the big factory owner—who is conscienceless, and unscrupulous—to work his men and women under conditions which [inaudible] their lives like an [inaudible]. It means the liberty of even less conscientious factory owners to make their money out of the toil, the labor, of little children. Men of this stamp are the men whose liberty would be preserved by (him). Men of this stamp are the men whose liberty would be preserved by the limitation of governmental power. We propose, on the contrary, to extend governmental power in order to secure the liberty of the wage workers, of the men and women who toil in industry, to save the liberty of the oppressed from the oppressor. (He) stands for the liberty of the oppressor to oppress. We stand for the limitation of his liberty not to oppress those who are weaker than himself.

Progressives have been using this very template for over 100 years. I heard Chuck Schumer use it last week. Any time you want to put government back into it's constitutional box, the progressives trot out this false narrative. Never fails. You're just a stooge for the rich, according to Theodore Roosevelt. You're in their pockets, you're beholden to the lobbyists, you're paid off. You're GREEDY. Thanks for clearing that up TR! Thanks pal!

Every word in that audio is perverse, it's word pollution - diarrhea of the mouth. Progressivism is incredibly sickening.


Friday, March 10, 2017

Progressive Cause Greater Than Any Individual, by Theodore Roosevelt


By Theodore Roosevelt, October 14th, 1912

Just before entering the Auditorium at Milwaukee, an attempt was made on Colonel Roosevelt's life. The speech which follows is from a stenographic report, differing considerably from the prepared manuscript. - Editor's Note

FRIENDS, I shall ask you to be as quiet as possible. I don't know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot; but it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose. But fortunately I had my manuscript, so you see I was going to make a long speech, and there is a bullet - there is where the bullet went through - and it probably saved me from it going into my heart. The bullet is in me now, so that I can not make a very long speech, but I will try my best.

And now, friends, I want to take advantage of this incident and say a word of solemn warning to my fellow countrymen. First of all, I want to say this about myself: I have altogether too important things to think of to feel any concern over my own death; and now I can not speak to you insincerely within five minutes of being shot. I am telling you the literal truth when I say that my concern is for many other things. It is not in the least for my own life. I want you to understand that I am ahead of the game, anyway. No man has had a happier life than I have led; a happier life in every way. I have been able to do certain things that I greatly wished to do, and I am interested in doing other things. I can tell you with absolute truthfulness that I am very much uninterested in whether I am shot or not. It was just as when I was colonel of my regiment. I always felt that a private was to be excused for feeling at times some pangs of anxiety about his personal safety, but I can not understand a man fit to be a colonel who can pay any heed to his personal safety when he is occupied as he ought to be occupied with the absorbing desire to do his duty.

I am in this cause with my whole heart and soul. I believe that the Progressive movement is for making life a little easier for all our people; a movement to try to take the burdens off the men and especially the women and children of this country. I am absorbed in the success of that movement.

Friends, I ask you now this evening to accept what I am saying as absolutely true, when I tell you I am not thinking of my own success. I am not thinking of my life or of anything connected with me personally. I am thinking of the movement. I say this by way of introduction, because I want to say something very serious to our people and especially to the newspapers. I don't know anything about who the man was who shot me tonight. He was seized at once by one of the stenographers in my party, Mr. Martin, and I suppose is now in the hands of the police. He shot to kill. He shot - the shot, the bullet went in here - I will show you.

I am going to ask you to be as quiet as possible for I am not able to give the challenge of the bull moose quite as loudly. Now, I do not know who he was or what party he represented. He was a coward. He stood in the darkness in the crowd around the automobile, and when they cheered me, and I got up to bow, he stepped forward and shot me in the darkness.

Now, friends, of course, I do not know, as I say, anything about him; but it is a very natural thing that weak and vicious minds should be inflamed to acts of violence by the kind of awful mendacity and abuse that have been heaped upon me for the last three months by the papers in the interest of not only Mr. Debs but of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Taft.

Friends, I will disown and repudiate any man of my party who attacks with such foul slander and abuse any opponent of any other party; and now I wish to say' seriously to all the daily newspapers, to the Republican, the Democratic and the Socialist parties, that they can not, month in and month out and year in and year out, make the kind of untruthful, of bitter assault that they have made and not expect that brutal, violent natures, or brutal and violent characters, especially when the brutality is accompanied by a not very strong mind; they can not expect that such natures will be unaffected by it.

Now, friends, I am not speaking for myself at all. I give you my word, I do not care a rap about being shot; not a rap.

I have had a good many experiences in my time and this is one of them. What I care for is my country. I wish I were able to impress upon my people - our people, the duty to feel strongly but to speak the truth of their opponents. I say now, I have never said one word against any opponent that I can not - on the stump - that I can not defend. I have said nothing that I could not substantiate and nothing that I ought not to have said - nothing that I - nothing that, looking back at, I would not say again.

Now, friends, it ought not to be too much to ask that our opponents - [speaking to some one on the stage] - I am not sick at all. I am all right. I can not tell you of what infinitesimal importance I regard this incident as compared with the great issues at stake in this campaign, and I ask it not for my sake, not the least in the world, but for the sake of our common country, that they make up their minds to speak only the truth, and not to use the kind of slander and mendacity which if taken seriously must incite weak and violent natures to crimes of violence. Don't you make any mistake. Don't you pity me. I am all right. I am all right and you can not escape listening to the speech either.

And now, friends, this incident that has just occurred - this effort to assassinate me, emphasizes to a peculiar degree the need of this Progressive movement. Friends, every good citizen ought to do everything in his or her power to prevent the coming of the day when we shall see in this country two recognized creeds fighting one another, when we shall see the creed of the “Have-nots " arraigned against the creed of the “Haves." When that day comes then such incidents as this tonight will be commonplace in our history. When you make poor men - when you permit the conditions to grow such that the poor man as such will be swayed by his sense of injury against the men who try to hold what they improperly have won, when that day comes, the most awful passions will be let loose and it will be an ill day for our country.

Now, friends, what we who are in this movement are endeavoring to do is to forestall any such movement by making this a movement for justice now - a movement in which we ask all just men of generous hearts to join with the men who feel in their souls that lift upward which bids them refuse to be satisfied themselves while their countrymen and countrywomen suffer from avoidable misery. Now, friends, what we Progressives are trying to do is to enroll rich or poor, whatever their social or industrial position, to stand together for the most elementary rights of good citizenship, those elementary rights which are the foundation of good citizenship in this great Republic of ours.

My friends are a little more nervous than I am. Don't you waste any sympathy on me. I have had an A-1 time in life and I am having it now.

I never in my life was in any movement in which I was able to serve with such whole-hearted devotion as in this; in which I was able to feel as I do in this that common weal. I have fought for the good of our common country.

And now, friends, I shall have to cut short much of the speech that I meant to give you, but I want to touch on just two or three of the points.

In the first place, speaking to you here in Milwaukee, I wish to say that the Progressive Party is making its appeal to all our fellow citizens without any regard to their creed or to their birthplace. We do not regard as essential the way in which a man worships his God or as being affected by where he was born. We regard it as a matter of spirit and purpose. In New York, while I was Police Commissioner, the two men from whom I got the most assistance were Jacob Riis, who was born in Denmark, and Oliver Van Briesen, who was born in Germany - both of them as fine examples of the best and highest American citizenship as you could find in any part of this country.

I have just been introduced by one of your own men here - Henry Cochems. His grandfathers, his father and that father's seven brothers, all served in the United States army, and they entered it four years after they had come to this country from Germany. Two of them left their lives, spent their lives, on the field of battle. I am all right - I am a little sore. Anybody has a right to be sore with a bullet in him. You would find that if I was in battle now I would be leading my men just the same. Just the same way I am going to make this speech.

At one time I promoted five men for gallantry on the field of battle. Afterward in making some inquiries about them I found it happened that two of them were Protestants, two Catholics and one a Jew. One Protestant came from Germany and one was born in Ireland. I did not promote them because of their religion. It just happened that way. If all five of them had been Jews I would have promoted them, or if all five had been Protestants I would have promoted them; or if they had been Catholics. In that regiment I had a man born in Italy who distinguished himself by gallantry; there was a young fellow, a son of Polish parents, and another who came here when he was a child from Bohemia, who likewise distinguished themselves; and friends, I assure you, that I was incapable of considering any question whatever, but the worth of each individual as a fighting man. If he was a good fighting man, then I saw that Uncle Sam got the benefit from it. That is all.

I make the same appeal in our citizenship. I ask in our civic life that we in the same way pay heed only to the man's quality of citizenship, to repudiate as the worst enemy that we can have whoever tries to get us to discriminate for or against any man because of his creed or his birth-place.

Now, friends, in the same way I want our people to stand by one another without regard to differences of class or occupation. I have always stood by the labor unions. I am going to make one omission tonight. I have prepared my speech because Mr. Wilson had seen fit to attack me by showing up his record in comparison with mine. But I am not going to do that tonight. I am going to simply speak of what I myself have done and of what I think ought to be done in this country of ours.

It is essential that there should be organizations of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize.

My appeal for organized labor is twofold; to the outsider and the capitalist I make my appeal to treat the laborer fairly, to recognize the fact that he must organize, that there must be such organization, that the laboring man must organize for his own protection, and that it is the duty of the rest of us to help him and not hinder him in organizing. That is one-half of the appeal that I make.

Now, the other half is to the labor man himself. My appeal to him is to remember that as he wants justice, so he must do justice. I want every labor man, every labor leader, every organized union man, to take the lead in denouncing crime or violence. I want them to take the lead in denouncing disorder and in denouncing the inciting of riot; that in this country we shall proceed under the protection of our laws and with all respect to the laws, and I want the labor men to feel in their turn that exactly as justice must be done them so they must do justice. That they must bear their duty as citizens, their duty to this great country of ours, and that they must not rest content unless they do that duty to the fullest degree.

I know these doctors when they get hold of me they will never let me go back, and there are just a few things more that I want to say to you.

And here I have got to make one comparison between Mr. Wilson and myself, simply because he has invited it and I can not shrink from it.

Mr. Wilson has seen fit to attack me, to say that I did not do much against the trusts when I was President. I have got two answers to make to that. In the first place what I did, and then I want to compare what I did while I was President and what Mr. Wilson did not do while he was Governor.

When I took office the Anti-Trust Law was practically a dead letter and the Inter-State Commerce Law in as poor a condition. I had to revive both laws. I did. I enforced both. It will be easy enough to do now what I did then, but the reason that it is easy now is because I did it when it was hard.

Nobody was doing anything. I found speedily that the Inter-State Commerce Law by being made more perfect could be made a most useful instrument for helping solve some of our industrial problems. So with the Anti-Trust Law. I speedily found that almost the only positive good achieved by such a successful lawsuit as the Northern Securities suit, for instance, was in establishing the principle that the Government was supreme over the big corporation, but that by itself that law did not accomplish any of the things that we ought to have accomplished; and so I began to fight for the amendment of the law along the lines of the Inter-State Commerce Law, and now we propose, we Progressives, to establish an inter-State commission having the same power over industrial concerns that the Inter-State Commerce Commission has over railroads, so that whenever there is in the future a decision rendered in such important matters as the recent suits against! the Standard Oil, the sugar - no not that - tobacco - Tobacco Trust - we will have a commission which will see that the decree of the court is really made effective; that it is not made a merely nominal decree.

Our opponents have said that we intend to legalize monopoly. Nonsense. They have legalized monopoly. At this moment the Standard Oil and Tobacco Trust monopolies are legalized; they are being carried on under the decree of the Supreme Court.

Our proposal is really to break up monopoly. Our proposal is to put in the law - to lay down certain requirements, and then require the commerce commission - the industrial commission - to see that the trusts live up to those requirements. Our opponents have spoken as if we were going to let the commission declare what the requirements should be. Not at all. We are going to put the requirements in the law and then see that the commission requires them to obey that law.

And now, friends, as Mr. Wilson has invited the comparison, I only want to say this: Mr. Wilson has said that the States are the proper authorities to deal with the trusts. Well, about eighty per cent. of the trusts are organized in New Jersey. The Standard Oil, the tobacco, the sugar, the beef, all those trusts are organized in New Jersey and Mr. Wilson - and the laws of New Jersey say that their charters can at any time be amended or repealed if they misbehave themselves and it gives the Government - the laws give the Government ample power to act about those laws, and Mr. Wilson has been Governor a year and nine months and he has not opened his lips. The chapter describing what Mr. Wilson has done about the trusts in New Jersey would read precisely like a chapter describing the snakes in Ireland, which ran: "There are no snakes in Ireland." Mr. Wilson has done precisely and exactly nothing about the trusts.

I tell you, and I told you at the beginning, I do not say anything on the stump that I do not believe. I do not say anything I do not know. Let any of Mr. Wilson's friends on Tuesday point out one thing or let Mr. Wilson point out one thing he has done about the trusts as Governor of New Jersey.

And now, friends, there is one thing I want to say especially to you people here in Wisconsin. All that I have said so far is what I would say in any part of this Union. I have a peculiar right to ask that in this great contest you men and women of Wisconsin shall stand with us. You have taken the lead in progressive movements here in Wisconsin. You have taught the rest of us to look to you for inspiration and leadership. Now, friends, you have made that movement here locally. You will be doing a dreadful injustice to yourselves; you will be doing a dreadful injustice to the rest of us throughout this Union, if you fail to stand with us now that we are making this National movement, and what I am about to say now I want you to understand if I speak of Mr. Wilson I speak with no mind of bitterness. 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.

Now, the Democratic Party in its platform and through the utterances of Mr. Wilson has distinctly committed itself to the old flintlock, muzzle-loaded doctrine of States' rights, and I have said distinctly that we are for the people's rights. We are for the rights of the people. If they can be obtained best through the National Government, then we are for National rights. We are for the people's rights however it is necessary to secure them.

Mr. Wilson has made a long essay against Senator Beveridge's bill to abolish child labor. It is the same kind of an argument that would be made against our bill to prohibit women from working more than eight hours a day in industry. It is the same kind of argument that would have to be made; if it is true, it would apply equally against our proposal to insist that in continuous industries there shall be by law one day's rest in seven and a three-shift eight-hour day. You have labor laws here in Wisconsin, and any Chamber of Commerce will tell you that because of that fact there are industries that will not come into Wisconsin. They prefer to stay outside where they can work children of tender years, where they can work women fourteen and sixteen hours a day, where, if it is a continuous industry, they can work men twelve hours a day and seven days a week.

Now, friends, I know that you of Wisconsin would never repeal those laws even if they are to your commercial hurt, just as I am trying to get New York to adopt such laws even though it will be to New York's commercial hurt. But if possible I want to arrange it so that we can have justice without commercial hurt, and you can only get that if you have justice enforced Nationally. You won't be burdened in Wisconsin with industries not coming to the state if the same good laws are extended all over the other States. Do you see what I mean? The States all compete in a common market; and it is not justice to the employers of a State that has enforced just and proper laws to have them exposed to the competition of another State where no such laws are enforced. Now, the Democratic platform, and their speakers, declare that we shall not have such laws. Mr. Wilson has distinctly declared that you shall not have a National law prohibit the labor of children, to prohibit child labor. He has distinctly declared that we shall not have a law to establish a minimum wage for women.

I ask you to look at our declaration and hear and read our platform about social and industrial justice and then, friends, vote for the Progressive ticket without regard to me, without regard to my personality, for only by voting for that platform can you be true to the cause of progress through-out this Union.