Boring. Why does anybody care about this anymore? #NewYearsEve2017
Sunday, December 31, 2017
Saturday, December 23, 2017
But although Hamilton is much the finer man and much the sounder thinker and statesman, there were certain limitations in his ideas and sympathies the effects of which have been almost as baleful as the effects of Jefferson's intellectual superficiality and insincerity. He perverted the American national idea almost as much as Jefferson perverted the American democratic idea, and the proper relation of these two fundamental conceptions one to another cannot be completely understood until this double perversion is corrected.
To make Hamilton and Jefferson exclusively responsible for this double perversion is, however, by no means fair. The germs of it are to be found in the political ideas and prejudices with which the American people emerged from their successful Revolutionary War. At that time, indeed, the opposition between the Republican and the Federalist doctrines had not become definite and acute; and it is fortunate that such was the case, because if the opponents of an efficient Federal constitution had been organized and had been possessed of the full courage and consciousness of their convictions, that instrument would never have been accepted, or it would have been accepted only in a much more mutilated and enfeebled condition. Nevertheless, the different political points of view which afterwards developed into Hamiltonian Federalism and Jeffersonian Republicanism were latent in the interests and opinions of the friends and of the opponents of an efficient Federal government; and these interests and opinions were the natural product of contemporary American economic and political conditions.
Now, there is a lot here that I have to ignore. The entire Founding is a testament to Republicanism, but Croly views both Jefferson and Hamilton as Democrats.(I mean[and he meant] the government structures, not the parties) He goes on to write that the Federalists were in favor of a "strong central government".(which they were not) But I don't want to get hung up on these fallacies.
The word for today is "Efficient", because many if not most of us look at the Republican form of government which the Founders gave us as very efficient, precisely because it is completely limited by the Constitution to the point to where it cannot hurt us; yet progressives look at limited government itself(as Croly is writing about here) as completely inefficient. To the progressive, government must be big and within that big structure, it can be made into a sleek and efficient machine.
The fact is this: there simply is no point of compromise between big government and small government.
It really isn't any more complex than that. I could write another 50 paragraphs on it but I really don't need to. It's only one word, "efficient" yet that one word has two diametrically opposite definitions. Either America will have a big government and the progressives win, or we will have a small government limited by the Constitution. There is no middle here. A kind of big, kind of small, kind of limited, kind of unlimited government - that's not making anybody happy here in the 21st century, and it didn't make people happy in the 20th either.
Sunday, December 17, 2017
This highlights yet another miscarriage of fake historians. We are all supposed to collectively shrug our shoulders, wave our hand and say "oh but that was just 'indentured servitude'. That wasn't real slavery." As the Ebony article makes clear, yes, it was very much "just as real" as the slavery we are all constantly made to feel guilty for.
But I've already written what I wanted about that article. Here's the real question:
How many of the Founding Fathers themselves were held in slavery? We know whites were held in bondage by the King. We know it happened well before America was founded. So who?
There were two, in particular, both of whom were signatories of the Declaration of Independence.
Saturday, December 16, 2017
Net Neutrality was just repealed. Why isn't that precedent setting? It's very precedent setting to me.
You see, this word, "precedent", too, has been corrupted by the progressives.
What if an entire agency were abolished tomorrow? Would that be precedent setting? In reality, yes it would be setting a precedent. But would it be cast that way? No, of course not. It wouldn't be talked of that way, and it wouldn't be reported that way. But on the other hand any time a court decision, or trillion dollar budgets, or thousands of executive orders, etc etc..... all of that and more is said to be setting precedents. All of it benefits bigger government.
After a few days of reporting, I have only found one news article that is connected to this Net Neutrality repeal, which writes about it being precedent setting.(A news article out of India, BTW) Besides that one single article, the only handful I have seen talk about this repeal in the context of precedents is structured around the concept of if this relied upon some other past precedent already set. Any other time the repeal of Net Neutrality is treated as an outlier or an oddity. It's not normal, and it will never happen again in the view of most.
This action, this one by itself - sets precedents. Repealing sets good precedents, we should follow it and we should have more repeals in our future. Precedents are a two way street, not the current one way street we are led to believe.
If Obamacare does ever get repealed, don't expect it to be called "precedent setting". That would not fit the narrative.
Friday, December 15, 2017
Those with dishonesty in their hearts desire to talk about internet service providers, speed throttling, how evil corporations are, and other such absurdities. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with any of that. That's only a sales pitch. You see, the progressives cannot sell to you that they want total control over the internet, so they have to cook up flowery language - the word "Neutrality" ..... ahhhhhhh, so calming. Who could be against "neutrality"? I guess that makes me a bigot.(That's the next charge in line)
This is a fraud. Its a hoax. What a scam!
History tells us everything we need to know. Who did probably more than anybody else to get Net Neutrality off of the ground? Robert McChesney - a red communist.
What organization probably did more than any other to get Net Neutrality off of the ground? The mis-named "Free Press" - a fellow traveling communist front organization.
Who did probably more financiering of Net Neutrality than anybody else in order to get it off the ground? George Soros. I know I'm not telling you anything new here, but when large amounts of Soros money are involved, you know Liberty is under heavy assault. Why did Soros want Net Neutrality so bad?
History: Net Neutrality was originally named "Broadband discrimination". Now, if that isn't a snowflake-fest I don't know what is. But you see, that name was too honest when the eggheads at Columbia University cooked it up in the first place. So they needed something even more comfortable that wouldn't frighten people.
But you see, the liars don't want you talking about red communism. They want you talking about evil corporations. They don't want you talking about Soros' lifetime of destroying lives and building up big government. They want you talking about data bits traveling across wires. They don't want you talking about how Net Neutrality was cooked up in the first place - beyond the paper and out of the communist enterprises. No no no! Don't ever ask how it was invented. Just act like today is the only day that matters. Pay no attention to whatever is behind that curtain.
History: Many people have short memories. But not here. All of the fearmongering that we have heard about what would happen if Net Neutrality were repealed ignores the herd of elephants in the living room: The internet is well over a decade old; Net Neutrality is only roughly 2 years old. For those "missing" 8+ years, none of that garbage they speak of happened. So, maybe someone who was born yesterday could be fooled by this. But I'm old enough to engage my brain and remember how it was - remember that you are now lying. Robert McChesney once wrote that: "The ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control." It really doesn't matter what I think, per-se, what matters most is what they think. And what they think, when the sales pitch is removed and the liars take their masks off, is that they are waging an anti-capitalist war with the same goal they always have: control over your life. Government must be in control. That is the real goal. I for one do not want communist control of my life or any aspect of it. Those 8+ "missing" years disprove everything and they know it - which is why they don't even try - they just speak in nebulous theories and fearmongering. And with regard to Net Neutrality, the communists and the progressives are in full agreement.
"But that's only their opinions! The Net Neutrality regulations have nothing to do with that!" Net Neutrality's actual codified rules reference the Marxist organization "Free Press" 46 times. So yes, it all does come full circle and the circle is very complete.
You see, the progressives have been dealt a huge blow with the repeal of Net Neutrality, and every time progressives lose, I want to be seen and I want to be heard cheering. I don't care if I stand alone or not. Whatever. The progressives lost yesterday. Yesterday was a good day. That's cause for me to stand and cheer.
I only have one question for you, any who would disagree with my contentions here: You need to show me just one time in history where communism was a good thing for the people. That's your challenge. If you can do that, at least you can then say that Net Neutrality is your second time, your second example, that something the communists cooked up was good too.
Because the history of Net Neutrality is redder than the Soviet Union flag or Chinese flag. And nobody can honestly dispute that fact.
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
This is nothing new; however, what she did not do was explain what she meant. Other progressives have explained what they meant using virtually identical language. In 1909, in the book "The Promise of American Life", Herbert Croly, who wrote one of the most influential books of the Progressive Era, wrote: (This is all from chapter 1, starting on page 21)
The redemption of the national Promise has become a cause for which the good American must fight, and the cause for which a man fights is a cause which he more than ever values. The American idea is no longer to be propagated merely by multiplying the children of the West and by granting ignorant aliens permission to vote. Like all sacred causes, it must be propagated by the Word and by that right arm of the Word, which is the Sword.
The more enlightened reformers are conscious of the additional dignity and value which the popularity of reform has bestowed upon the American idea, but they still fail to realize the deeper implications of their own programme. In abandoning the older conception of an automatic fulfillment of our national destiny, they have abandoned more of the traditional American point of view than they are aware. The traditional American optimistic fatalism was not of accidental origin, and it cannot be abandoned without involving in its fall some other important ingredients in the accepted American tradition. Not only was it dependent on economic conditions which prevailed until comparatively recent times, but it has been associated with certain erroneous but highly cherished political theories. It has been wrought into the fabric of our popular economic and political ideas to such an extent that its overthrow necessitates a partial revision of some of the most important articles in the traditional American creed.
The extent and the character of this revision may be inferred from a brief consideration of the effect upon the substance of our national Promise of an alteration in its proposed method of fulfillment. The substance of our national Promise has consisted, as we have seen, of an improving popular economic condition, guaranteed by democratic political institutions, and resulting in moral and social amelioration. These manifold benefits were to be obtained merely by liberating the enlightened self-interest of the American people. The beneficent result followed inevitably from the action of wholly selfish motives—provided, of course, the democratic political system of equal rights was maintained in its integrity. The fulfillment of the American Promise was considered inevitable because it was based upon a combination of self-interest and the natural goodness of human nature. On the other hand, if the fulfillment of our national Promise can no longer be considered inevitable, if it must be considered as equivalent to a conscious national purpose instead of an inexorable national destiny, the implication necessarily is that the trust reposed in individual self-interest has been in some measure betrayed. No preëstablished harmony can then exist between the free and abundant satisfaction of private needs and the accomplishment of a morally and socially desirable result. The Promise of American life is to be fulfilled—not merely by a maximum amount of economic freedom, but by a certain measure of discipline; not merely by the abundant satisfaction of individual desires, but by a large measure of individual subordination and self-denial. And this necessity of subordinating the satisfaction of individual desires to the fulfillment of a national purpose is attached particularly to the absorbing occupation of the American people,—the occupation, viz.: of accumulating wealth. The automatic fulfillment of the American national Promise is to be abandoned, if at all, precisely because the traditional American confidence in individual freedom has resulted in a morally and socially undesirable distribution of wealth.
Notice the key words: "abandoned", "overthrow", "revision". That he is harping and carping about the mal-distribution of wealth is the least educating thing of this section. But, he doesn't stop here. He makes it clear that he wants to put an end to American individualism. He continued:
The consequences, then, of converting our American national destiny into a national purpose are beginning to be revolutionary. When the Promise of American life is conceived as a national ideal, whose fulfillment is a matter of artful and laborious work, the effect thereof is substantially to identify the national purpose with the social problem. What the American people of the present and the future have really been promised by our patriotic prophecies is an attempt to solve that problem. They have been promised on American soil comfort, prosperity, and the opportunity for self-improvement; and the lesson of the existing crisis is that such a Promise can never be redeemed by an indiscriminate individual scramble for wealth. The individual competition, even when it starts under fair conditions and rules, results, not only, as it should, in the triumph of the strongest, but in the attempt to perpetuate the victory; and it is this attempt which must be recognized and forestalled in the interest of the American national purpose. The way to realize a purpose is, not to leave it to chance, but to keep it loyally in mind, and adopt means proper to the importance and the difficulty of the task. No voluntary association of individuals, resourceful and disinterested though they be, is competent to assume the responsibility. The problem belongs to the American national democracy, and its solution must be attempted chiefly by means of official national action.
You see that? Individualism is the problem, and collectivism is the solution. And just as Omama said, Croly believes we need to get rid of our history. In Croly's view, we need government, and we need more of it. We need it everywhere. He says "official national action", but he is not mincing words here. He specifically and directly means bigger and bigger government at the expense of early American beliefs and at the expense of individuals.
You see, this is why progressives don't really believe they hate America, because they think government is the best thing for you. You need government more than you need food, more than you need water, more than you need blood, more than you need air. And that's anathema to what America means. America was founded as a rejection of big total government, because in 1776 the representative of all-powerful all-knowing government was King George III. See the Declaration of Independence for more details. Loving America is synonymous with small, limited constitutional government. Croly closed out the last bit of chapter 1 this way:
I am fully aware, as already intimated, that the forgoing interpretation of the Promise of American life will seem fantastic and obnoxious to the great majority of Americans, and I am far from claiming that any reasons as yet alleged afford a sufficient justification for such a radical transformation of the traditional national policy and democratic creed.
Thanks Herbert. I appreciate that.
What percentage of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves? It's about 73%.
What percentage of delegates to the Constitutional Convention owned slaves? It's just under 50%.
Problem is, this data set is complete, and it is purposefully structured to give the Founding Fathers short shrift. Even among slave-holding Founders, there is a clear number of them who even though they owned slaves, they weren't happy or fond of the issue. I came across this "data" while looking up something tangentially unrelated, but I didn't see any conservative blogs or news sites who had directly addressed this so hey, what the heck. It pleases me to be the first.
In my last post, I asked "What if Oskar Schindler were treated the way the Founding Fathers are?", and it's very simple:
Was Oskar Schindler a member of the Nazi party? Yes or no.
This question is of course garbage and meaningless, because if you answer yes then Schindler gets pigeon-holed into the racism and murder of the Nazis, even though he saved over 1000 Jewish lives.(regardless of his motives)
Now, what about the Founders? Just simply asking if any or all of them "owned a slave" is also garbage and meaningless. Likewise, this pigeon-holes the Founders into a position that is unrealistic propaganda. This is quintessential fake history on part of any who ask the question. So what's missing here?
The King's Colonial Governors. Even the most critical propagandizing fake historian doesn't have the spine to claim that the Founding Fathers were the people who created slavery at the nation's founding, so it had to come from somewhere. Where did it come from? Obviously, it came from the King. The King was well known for his oppression against Christians (See the mass exodus of Christians out of England, floating out on ships such as the "Mayflower" for more details), and his oppression against the blacks was just as equal.
Now, you could ask "what percentage of the King's colonial governors owned slaves", but that would not tell the full story just as it doesn't tell the story about the Founders either. It is a proven fact that the King enforced a slavery mandate. He supported the slave trade, and he issued decrees to (the 13) colonies if any dared pass laws outlawing slavery or the slave trade. So then, let's ask a more realistic question:
What percentage of the King's own men in the colonies opposed the King's mandate on slavery?
The answer is zero, BTW. That I have seen, anyways. I can't find one single colonial governor who opposes the King, meaning they get a big fat zero. Well, now we can at least complete the data set, because the reverse is 100%. 100% of the King's men supported the King's mandate on slavery.
Here we go, let's compete the data set now:
What percentage of the King's men supported slavery? It's 100%.
What percentage of the Signers owned slaves? It's about 73%.
What percentage of delegates to the Convention owned slaves? It's just under 50%.
Talk to me about the pattern you see. With a full data set here now, what pattern do you see?
The lies of progressivism are just so easy to put to bed. And, Mr. Samuel Adams, who hated slavery, is 100% correct here.