Did Woodrow Wilson read James Madison's debate notes?

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

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

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

The planets.

The sun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://tinyurl.com/yab8ylpj

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.

https://tinyurl.com/ybzpuv39

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.

https://tinyurl.com/ybbdgrsl

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)

https://tinyurl.com/y88kyonb

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!

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.

https://tinyurl.com/yb7c8zpe