Friday, October 6, 2017

Are you hypnotized by the Constitution?

Progressives have a challenge for all of us conservatives, and they have had this challenge for over a century now. In his book Progressive Democracy, Herbert Croly wrote the following:
Whether conservatives like it or not, the foundations of the traditional system are being tested both by the strain of new social and economic condition and by a flood of suspicion and criticism. If it is going to survive, not only must its adaptability to new exigencies be proved, but also its power to survive the severest possible inquisition.

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

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

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

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

Friday, September 29, 2017

Theodore Roosevelt supported the death tax

Chalk another one up for big government progressivism. I recently posted about progressive republicans and the 16th amendment, having learned during that research that this was the case: I did not know previously that TR supported the death tax. Here is what he said in 1906:
As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual-a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax of course, to be imposed by the national and not the state government. Such taxation should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits. Again, the national government must in some form exercise supervision over corporations engaged in interstate business-and all large corporations engaged in interstate business-whether by license or otherwise, so as to permit us to deal with the far reaching evils of overcapitalization."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government should determine if your fortune was ill won.

Government knows best, not you.

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

New audiobook release: Technocracy

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

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

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

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

Saturday, September 23, 2017

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

Social reform requires big government. Big government requires an obedient court, which fosters a "living constitution". In "Social reform and the Constitution", progressive reformer Frank Johnson Goodnow wrote the following regarding the courts: (page 31)
The result is that the constitutional law of the country is not, either necessarily or actually, uniform. For a state court may declare unconstitutional from the point of view of the federal constitution an act of a state legislature which would have been regarded as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. If, therefore, the state courts are more conservative than the Supreme Court, and many believe they are, they determine finally what is, in a particular state, the effect of the limitations of the federal constitution upon state action. This condition of things is, however, not one which need be permanent, nor one which can be changed only through constitutional amendment. For the jurisdiction of the federal courts is in these matters entirely within the control of Congress, which may constitutionally provide, if it sees fit to do so, that all cases both civil and criminal involving a federal question may be removed to the federal courts, and that appeals may go to the Supreme Court from all decisions of the state courts of last instance, whether they affirm or not the constitutionality of state laws.

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

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

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

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

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Blame progressive republicans for the 16th amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, September 8, 2017

Henry George and the turning point of big government in America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, September 4, 2017

Understanding why progressives love big government

In his book "The Principles of Sociology", Edward Alsworth Ross wrote the following: (page 267)
In the management of common affairs there is much to be said for the general as against the local political body. Too often local control sacrifices general and permanent interests to individual and immediate interests. Local control of education leaves its fate on the whole to men of less caliber and vision than those who determine it under state control. Local care of highways means less outlay on the roads of the commonwealth than sound economy demands. Local administration of forests or care of public health will generally be less enlightened than that of the state. Law enforcement by locally chosen officers permits each locality to be a law unto itself. In a word removing control farther from the ordinary citizen and taxpayer is tantamount to giving the intelligent, farsighted, and public-spirited element in society a longer lever to work with.

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

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

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

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

Saturday, September 2, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, August 26, 2017

Historians are an under-appreciated threat to America

Fake News? That pales in comparison to Fake History. As committed socialist George Orwell once wrote:
He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.