What Jamaican Maroons and the Founding Fathers have in common: When fighting a superpower, it is not possible to free every single person

We live in an age were now even the most fringe of arguments, the idea of reparations, is a widespread part of presidential elections. The problem with this is that if the progressives had any consistency they would be demanding that Britain pay reparations to American blacks. The Founding Fathers didn't bring all of these slaves here. King George did. All three of them. Queen Anne did. King William did. Queen Mary did. King James did. And so too did King Charles. The Founders even called the Brits on it in their writings. But the facts don't matter anyways - not to progressives. They are only interested in reparations because it would divide the country even more. In division, the progressives find power.

What does this all have to do with Jamaican Maroons? During the time of Britain's slave trade, one of their primary destinations was the island of Jamaica. The entire history of Jamaica over the last 500 years is one big letter F and letter U toward the British crown. Just follow the bouncing ball. After the Conquistadores wiped out the local tribes, the island was primarily hispanic. So how is it that left wing Wikipedia states that Jamaica is over 90% black? How did all of those blacks get there? Did the tribes bring the blacks to Jamaica? Did the Founding Fathers do this? Did the Conquistadores bring all of those blacks to Jamaica? Who did this?

Britain did. Britain took the island over in between 1650-1660, depending on which books you read. During this time, the English deported most of those who were still favorable to the Spanish crown, thus making Jamaica a white island. Then came Britain's slave ships. The rest is history. Except for one thing. The Maroons. The Maroons where escaped slaves, who make their way toward uninhabited parts of the island.

The Maroons have a lot of similarity with the Founders in the context of three things: Fighting against Britain for freedom, serfdom under a tyrant, and not being able to achieve full emancipation after battle. Britain fought the Maroons on and off from 1728 to basically the early 1800s. During this time, one of their leaders Cudjoe proved to be quite formidable. After some years of war and mounting costs, the war against the Maroons reached a sort of a stalemate, and Cudjoe and the British came to an agreement and a treaty.

One article of this treaty, the Maroons gained freedom for themselves, but didn't gain freedom for all people. Neglecting the rest of the blacks.

That sound familiar? One article of faith among progressive propagandists is that the Founders gained freedom for themselves, but didn't gain freedom for all people. Neglecting the rest of the blacks.

You see! That proves it. Not everybody was freed, so the Maroons are racists. No, wait.... No wait. I'm getting my propaganda confused here. It's the Founders who were racists for not freeing everybody. Hmm. Why is it that history always disproves the progressives?

At this time and for the next century, Britain was a super power. Of course the Founders couldn't free every last person. Neither could the Maroons. Even after admitting one of two things: stalemate(Cudjoe) or defeat(Yorktown). When dealing with a super power, you just can't always get everything you want. That's reality. Because what if the super power decides to come back? This is a significant question. Britain was not the "good super power" that America has been since becoming one.

What if the super power comes back?

Of course they do. That's because historians ARE the problem.

Historians and academics have been lying to us for well over a century. So a headline like this is not a shocker. Academics Rally Behind Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Over Concentration Camp Comments: 'She Is Completely Historically Accurate'

Of course they would say that. They're drunk off of their own propaganda. Academia is a fraud and a wasteland.

The time is now for James O'Keefe style citizen historians to challenge the false narrative that the progressives have been building since the days of Carl L. Becker and Charles Beard. The free open-source conservative audiobook is one important key to throwing it back in their faces. Everything prior to 1924 is public domain. This content is our oyster - and their bane.

Nondelegation and the heart of progressive ideology

One of the most damaging yet least-known Supreme Court cases is J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (1928). This case is much, much worse than the more well known case of Wickard v. Filburn.

Wickard enables the bureaucracy to distort the commerce clause to do damage to our lives. Hampton enables the bureaucracy to exist. Without Hampton, Wickard is effectively repealed. A Twofer!

Hampton also has another effect that is usually missed. There is a question as to when the Supreme Court decided it was fit to become involved in the process of creating law. This is usually misattributed to Marbury v. Madison, which deals with nothing more than judicial review. A reading of the full text of Marbury quickly disspells this allusion. The new activist Supreme Court owes in part its activism to the 1928 Hampton case. Let me say this loud and say it clear:

The Founding generation did not give us an activist court. The Progressives did. Marbury is. Not. The. Problem. Time to stop tilting at windmills.

The effect of Hampton is that it creates(Or at least fosters the idea) in the courts a sort of an expert panel on the constitution. Who says what the Constitution actually means? It's supposed to be the people. The courts have decided that they are the final arbiters of the constitution. This idea that the courts should be an expert panel is rooted deeply in progressive ideology from some of the heavyweights of their early years such as Wilson and Croly. See: http://progressingamerica.blogspot.com/2012/11/progressivism-judiciary-is-expert-panel.html for some of what they wrote and why it mattered so much to them. This idea of "the experts" is core to progressive ideology, and at the time of both the Founding as well as Marbury, the courts were not experts. They were just judges.

I'm bringing this up because of a recent court case Gundy v. United States. It is both interesting and ironic that the progressives oh-so-dear non-delegation doctrine was nearly blown out of the water by a sexual offender, considering how often they weaponize this concept of sexual offenders against conservatives in order to keep government large. But whatever. I'll take it.

The end result is that the doctrine of nondelegation still stands, however look at the press. They are freaking out. They know how close they came to demolition. If nondelegation were taken out that would probably comprise 80 percent of progressivism. Not a bad first blow. However, the ruinous legacy of Woodrow Wilson as well as the ruinous legacy of Theodore Roosevelt would still be left standing and as long as those are still in place our beloved constitution is not safe from the ravages of progressivism.

Will someone remind AOC that Spaniards invented concentration camps?

Spanish General Valeriano Weyler, according to the Progressive Broadcasting Service, was the first to set up concentration camps under the Spanish Reconcentration Policy.

But Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn't Spanish! She's Puerto Rican! (I wish I didn't have to type this but you know its coming.)

"As is the story of Puerto Rico, we are a people that are an amalgamation," she said. "We are no one thing. We are black; we are indigenous; we are Spanish; we are European.", she told the New York Times.

That's right AOC. Your people invented these things. She is the last one that has any place blabbing about this.

https://tinyurl.com/y42blcym

Why did the progressives begin hating America?

As is always, the answer to the question is in their own words and writings. Some people will say "the progressives hate America", which is an accurate statement. But why do they hate it? When did that begin? What was the motivation for this ambivalence and rejection of the philosophical underpinnings of Americana?

In calling themselves "progressives", they do to a certain extent give the answer away. Progressives by their nature abhor revolution. That's why the first red scare was conducted by Woodrow Wilson - a horrible president; because making progress requires evolutionary change and not revolutionary change. We still want to get to Z from A, we just don't want to skip B, C, D, etc and kill everybody who stands in our way. We want that frog in the pot, and a slow boil. A large portion of the hatred of America particularly of its Founding is also embedded in the collectivist (anti-individualist) nature of progressive ideology. But that is secondary.

Ok, so where is this written? I just made a claim, how can I prove this claim? Are you going to trust me just because "I said so"? You shouldn't. You shouldn't trust anybody who says this. Ask them to prove it. And ask them to prove it beyond inferences of anecdotal claims. "Did you see how person x did x action?" "Did you see that bill they passed?" You're not in that person's heart, you don't actually know why they did what they did. This is not proof. No matter how devastating that bill would be, that person honestly believes that bill will improve the lives of whomever their target audience is. It's not proof.

Where is it written or in what speech does it appear, that progressives dislike the ideals of America? First, let's discuss the claim within the claim. Do progressives reject "revolution"? Yes, they do. In the book The Promise of American Life, Herbert Croly, Founder of The New Republic, wrote the following:

The great weakness of the most popular form of socialism consists, however, in its mixture of a revolutionary purpose with an international scope. It seeks the abolition of national distinctions by revolutionary revolts of the wage-earner against the capitalist; and in so far as it proposes to undermine the principle of national cohesion and to substitute for it an international organization of a single class, it is headed absolutely in the wrong direction. Revolutions may at times be necessary and on the whole helpful, but not in case there is any other practicable method of removing grave obstacles to human amelioration; and in any event their tendency is socially disintegrating.

Even the Founders conducted a revolution. To that extent I don't think anybody would say never. However, he is pointing specifically to the revolutionary nature as the GREAT weakness. Again, it was a progressive who conducted the first red scare against the communists. That's not a coincidence. The first red scare falls right in line with Croly's words.

Which brings us to the second point of this. The founders did in fact conduct a revolution - an individualist revolution against the British collective. Croly writes:

The temper of the local democracies, which, for the most part, controlled the state governments, was insubordinate, factious, and extremely independent. They disliked the idea of a centralized Federal government because a supreme power would be thereby constituted which could interfere with the freedom of local public opinion and thwart its will. No less than the Federalists, they believed in freedom; but the kind of freedom they wanted, was freedom from anything but local interference. The ordinary American democrat felt that the power of his personality and his point of view would be diminished by the efficient centralization of political authority. He had no definite intention of using the democratic state governments for anti-social or revolutionary purposes, but he was self-willed and unruly in temper; and his savage treatment of the Tories during and after the Revolution had given him a taste of the sweets of confiscation. The spirit of his democracy was self-reliant, undisciplined, suspicious of authority, equalitarian, and individualistic.

This whole thing is clearly culturally in line with Founding-era writings such as the Federalist Papers, Federal Farmer, and a whole plethora of other writings of the day. The Founders did not want a government centralized. That was the very thing they fought to escape from. And Croly can't stand it. Note how he talks about the "local public opinion" and "its will"? This is aghast of the "national will".

In this entire section, Croly makes it quite clear that he is not fond of this cultural aspect of the "ordinary American democrat" as he calls them.

Now, a little context here. Croly was a huge fan of Alexander Hamilton. In essence, Hamilton was a Nationalist in that he wanted to see all of the states obliterated. As a collectivist, Croly is quite fond of this notion as all progressives are that there's no need for the states to exist. We should just all come under the banner of the national government and let them run the show. In contrasting Jefferson and Hamilton, Croly writes:

Unfortunately Jefferson's conception of democracy was meager, narrow, and self-contradictory; and just because his ideas prevailed, while Hamilton toward the end of his life lost his influence, the consequences of Jefferson's imperfect conception of democracy have been much more serious than the consequences of Hamilton's inadequate conception of American nationality. In Jefferson's mind democracy was tantamount to extreme individualism.

Two paragraphs down:

On this, as on so many other points, Hamilton's political philosophy was much more clearly thought out than that of Jefferson.

Hamilton's policy was one of energetic and intelligent assertion of the national good. He knew that the only method whereby the good could prevail either in individual or social life was by persistently willing that it should prevail and by the adoption of intelligent means to that end. His vision of the national good was limited; but he was absolutely right about the way in which it was to be achieved.

So we see that Jefferson = "individual" and Hamilton = "collective", in the terms of what Croly is writing. And he is making this quite clear. Whatever you want to do, you weaponize government and get it done. But you see you don't say the words "weaponize government" no no, that's not progressive. You say it's a "national good", because that will win you more supporters. That's the way to ensure proper progress. Government will force everybody to comply. In describing "Jeffersonianism", Croly writes:

Once these conditions were secured, the motto of a democratic government should simply be "Hands Off." There should be as little government as possible, because persistent governmental interference implied distrust in popular efficiency and good-will; and what government there was, should be so far as possible confided to local authorities.

So he has an accurate and firm grasp on the beliefs of the Founding and the Constitution. Above, the section of the "local will" is also for the most part accurately described. He's not like today's progressives who are drunk on their own propaganda and throw the race card out every fourth word. He knew the nature of the Founding specifically, and he specifically rejected it. Again:

In the foregoing type of political organization, which has been very much favored by the American democracy, the freedom of the official political leader is sacrificed for the benefit of the supposed freedom of that class of equalized individuals known as the "people," but by the "people" Jefferson and his followers have never meant all the people or the people as a whole.

Jefferson = "individual" and Hamilton = "collective". He puts together three concepts here. An individual, a group of individuals, and a collective. "the people as a whole" - one single unitary whole or a mass or collective. A collective is always counted as one and not the millions comprising it. In scolding the Abolitionists in some of their tactics, Croly writes:

The Abolitionists, no less than the Southerners, were tearing at the fabric of American nationality. They did it, no doubt, in the name of democracy; but of all perverted conceptions of democracy, one of the most perverted and dangerous is that which identifies it exclusively with a system of natural rights. Such a conception of democracy is in its effect inevitably revolutionary, and merely loosens the social and national bond.

And so again we see two things: Worship the Nation and Natural rights are perverted and dangerous because they are revolutionary. And to this extent he is also correct. For millennia upon millennia humanity was told by false dictators that the emperor was also a deity and you must belong to the government collective. Pharaoh wasn't really all that different than Caesar or Hirohito in that respect. Along comes Natural Rights and God sets us all free.

To a certain extent, the American revolution is the only revolution humanity has ever known. Reagan stated this:

In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world’s history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny.

This is the individual "Jefferson" that Croly despises. Should you worship God? No, You should worship the Nation! Croly writes:

In economic warfare, the fighting can never be fair for long, and it is the business of the state to see that its own friends are victorious. It holds, if you please, itself a hand in the game. The several players are playing, not merely with one another, but with the political and social bank. The security and perpetuity of the state and of the individual in so far an he is a social animal, depend upon the victory of the national interest—as represented both in the assurance of the national profit and in the domination of the nation's friends.

So if you are a friend of the nation, the nation will promote you and redistribute wealth your way. But if you are an enemy of the state and the "national profit", and you believe in these "perverted" conceptions such as "natural rights", you must be destroyed. This is the National interest. The word "nation" appears in this book over 1400 times. He makes it clear the entity he worships. Some might disagree with my use of the word "worship", but when the government is so prevalent and all powerful in one's viewpoint, what other word comes so close to accuracy? How about devotion? How close is the word "worship" to "devotion"? Croly even writes this:

Loyalty to the national interest implies devotion to a progressive principle.

See. The Nation must have its progress! The national interest! Bow down or be shadowbanned. And if the states get in the way? Abolish them. We are a Nation. Get rid of the 10th amendment, get rid of the electoral college. These things are undemocratic and anti-progressive anyways.

So we have proven that progressives are collectivist, dislike the Founding because it is revolutionary, and were intially obsessed with the "national interest". How can the people be converted into a national collective? Croly writes:

If a people, in becoming more of a nation, become for that very reason more of a democracy, the realization of the democratic purpose is not rendered any easier, but democracy is provided with a simplified, a consistent, and a practicable programme. An alliance is established thereby between the two dominant political and social forces in modern life. The suspicion with which aggressive advocates of the national principle have sometimes regarded democracy would be shown to have only a conditional justification; and the suspicion with which many ardent democrats have regarded aggressive nationalism would be similarly disarmed.

That's the goal. Nationalize the people so that they are less individualistic and more of "a nation". A complete rejection and hatred of the American founding.

Now this book was written in 1909, but as collectivists, progressives would have instinctively developed a disdain for the American founding as soon as they appeared a decade earlier and shed their uniquely American individualism.

That is why the progressives began hating America. Evolution vs revolution. The starting point is in the "progress". Making progress requires evolution: moving from A, to B, to C, D, E, etc until you have evolved to reach Z. Isn't progress wonderful? And nobody can explain why nor how it happened. So it's permanent. But the Founding principle that rights come from God and not Government is necessarily revolutionary and therefore it is irrelevant. The Founders wanted to move from A, the position of tyranny under the British National Collective to Z, Liberty under God's tutelage. In one single act they shook off the chains of bondage, a concept that is antithetical at every turn to the principles of progressive ideology.

Millennial dads are not lazy. They are indoctrinated

Here is an interesting news item, right out of progressive ideology. I wanted to highlight this because the role of expertise has been, in my experience, one of the most misunderstood aspects of progressivism.

Millennial dads have pathetic DIY skills compared to baby boomers

In this story, the "shocking" statistics are reported:

Many millennial dads reported not owning a cordless drill (46%), a stepladder (49%), a set of screwdrivers (38%) or even a hammer (32 percent) — an item owned by 93% of boomer dads. Why the decline in DIY?

Now this article tries to chalk it up to increases in technology. Perhaps there's a percentage to which that is true, but lets get real. Tires and tire changing technology have not gone through significant technological changes at the "I gotta get out on the side of this highway and change it" level. You jack the vehicle up, you take the lugs and then the tire off. Hanging pictures hasn't changed. You drill a hole, you secure the anchor, and you hang the picture. Oil changes are still remove a bolt, let the oil drain out. Replacing a ceiling fan is nothing more than a few screws and turning off one circuit breaker. The real stand out item is this from the article:

more than half of millennials prefer to call a professional.

I understand progressive ideology, as I routinely read their works. This story wasn't a shock to me. If anything, these numbers look extraordinary low to me. I would've figured over 50% of millennial dads didn't have a hammer. It's only 32%? Give it time, the numbers will go higher as indoctrination continues. As I talked somewhat about here and even more directly here, this is all about what their professors are teaching them and specifically how it blooms into full blown progressivism.

First, it is important to establish the fact about progressives themselves. Are they collectivists? Or do they believe in individuals? They believe in collectivism. So the structure of progressivism is you have the queen bee, and everybody else are drones. The point about the drone, however, is that they have a deep training and are an expert in their one specific area.

Now, have you heard about millennials and their "gig economy"? These are not lazy people. The facts dictate that we have to look elsewhere. An easy way to understand it is this:

Your job is in the compliance department. You have no business painting a room in your house. The collective didn't teach you how to paint. So why would you need these tools: a paint brush or a stepladder?

Your job is as a recruiter or HR. You have no business with cordless drills or hammers. The collective didn't teach you about the jobs that these tools would be used for in college.

Your job is to be a dentist. Now a dentist at least would have been trained how to use drills. But that wasn't intended by the course syllabus to extend into the kind of work that cordless drills are used for as referenced in the news article. The article intended cordless drills in the context of more saving, more doing - that's the power of home depot.

There's a reason why progressives do this, above and beyond their natural state as collectivists. In the book The Promise of American Life, Herbert Croly wrote the following:

The pioneer Democrat believed that he was as competent to do the work as any member of an office-holding clique, so that when he came into power, he corrected what seemed to him to be a genuine abuse in the traditional way of distributing the American political patrimony. He could not understand that training, special ability, or long experience constituted any special claim upon a public office, or upon any other particular opportunity or salary. One democrat was as good as another, and deserved his share of the rewards of public service.

While Croly is talking specifically about the viewpoint of an expert politician, this ideology is the same across the board. The thing about the pioneers, if I were to bounce off of this article about DIY millennial dads, is that a large majority of the pioneers had stepladders. They had hammers. They had axes, and whatever else technology was in existence in those days.(obviously not cordless drills) They did everything instead of being walled off into expertise. Since the pioneer was qualified to be a farmer, he was also qualified to be a repairman, he was also qualified to be a politician. And Croly cannot stand that. No progressive can stand this, so they have to wipe it out. It's a threat. Everybody must be drones incapable of doing anything but the one thing. Yes, if the progressives had their way it would be against the rules to change a lightbulb and only expert electricians would be allowed. This reminds me of something else that must be stated and stated loudly:

This is not about "professionalism". This is about "expertise". This is key.

While it is true that anybody can be a professional and have a lot of expertise, and also that most experts probably strive to have professionalism in what they do. That is not the point. Here, "expert" isn't entirely about experience and qualifications, it's literally a designation. You are an expert. In the progressive collective, drones are "experts". You're a robot. You have one job. Do it well. You were only trained for one thing. Why are you complaining about congress? You weren't trained for that. You're not an expert! What do you mean the journalist did not tell the whole story? Where did you hear that? Who are you to question us? What do you know about cap and trade? Show us your credentials! Oh you don't have any? So then shut up! You won't shut up? We'll shut you up with Facebook or Net Neutrality or the Fairness Doctrine or we'll just simply call you a racist and we'll dox you. Then we'll have our experts at the SPLC write up a peer reviewed paper just to prove how racist you are. Oh and did you know that SPLC is a non profit? See...... they have absolutely no agenda because everybody knows that money is the ONLY thing that can motivate people.

That's how this machine works. There are a thousand ways that progressives have at their disposal to enforce compliance. And college degrees are the new royalty and fiefdoms and lords and vassals in the progressive collective. They purposefully leave you ignorant of pretty much everything. Well why would you know in-depth about the separation of powers?

That's why you need expert politicians. Croly writes at length about the "pioneer democrats" and the "pioneer democracy", its a very telling tale about the role of expertise(and NOT professionalism) in progressive ideology. If you know how to do 8 things as the pioneers did, you'll have 5 jobs through early and mid-life and then go to congress; then you'll come home and go back to the same or another job and perhaps one more before you get too old to work and expire. But progressives want domination and lifetime careers lording over your life. This is why the Founders didn't give us term limits. They culturally abhorred tyranny. The progressives are the embodiment of tyranny. What do you need term limits for when you have a populace in 1787 that only wants to do 2 or 4 terms and then desires to go home? They self-term-limited 200 years ago. That's not what the progressives desire though.

This is the thing about colleges and universities and yes, also trade schools. They will indeed teach you what you were intent on learning, such as if you went in for a medical degree, or welding, or software developer. But there is no stone left unturned with these progressives. They will saddle you down with the baggage of social justice no matter what point you enter the institutions formerly known as "higher learning". And there are ramifications to this indoctrination. One of the ramifications is the drone mentality and the deep emphasis on being an expert. "I'm a mid level regional manager, x is not my job." "I'm a traveling auditor. x is not my job." "I'm an electrical engineer. That is not my job." "I'm a y, but x is not my job."

Whatever x is, the progressives are doing this on purpose at the indoctrination level. If you have only been taught how to be a creative designer with a dash of social justice, you are incapable of being a citizen. You are a drone. Despotism has drones. Republics require citizens. However, they aren't teaching the republic to these kids(now dads). They aren't teaching the Declaration of Independence, young students haven't been taught the point of our divorce from Britain. They don't get taught the Federalist Papers. They aren't required to read Madison's notes. None of these things: Madison's notes, the republic, the Declaration; has any impact on your career choice of a speech language or communications role. So why are these musty old documents needed? Throw them out.

They have been thrown out.

The further away we get from America's founding principles, the worse everything gets.

Every job I've listed at any point above, BTW are great jobs. But just remember, I'm trying to emphasize progressivism here through the eyes of progressives. Read Croly's book. Don't take my word for it. You'll see.

I don't want to stand where I am standing here and try to understand progressivism. I want to go stand over there, where the progressives are standing, and understand progressives from the progressive point of view. And besides, progressives have acted this way for over a century so the facts are everywhere to be seen. But you should still read Croly's book. Knowledge is power and the progressives have purposefully hid their own history in the shadows because that empowers THEM. These books are so valuable for what they contain and for how it can be used against them. Use their own words against them. What could be more powerful?

Education institutions as only "job centers" is the death of the republic, and millennial dads not knowing how to do anything for themselves is only a small surface level indicator of this much larger problem of progressive indoctrination and poisoning of the processes of learning.

Remember. Millennials don't know how to be citizens either. They were explicitly not taught that by scheming professors. Citizens are a threat to the collective.

How did republican senator Sherman describe Philip Dru?

The progressive era is a mystery to far too many people, and this is by design. One example of this is the book "Philip Dru: Administrator", which is in reality a blueprint of progressive action. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is an agenda - a provable fact. But due to the progressives' need for shadows and darkness with which to hide in, they have erased their own history and put a nice shiny bow on it.

At the time of its publication, Dru was a big deal. We don't know that today, again, by design, but it was so big of a deal that it was discussed on the floor of the senate. As recorded in the Congressional Record for 1918, Senator Lawrence Sherman of Illinois made (in part) the following: (source)

"Here is exhibited the colonel's whole mental viscera. If there be twilight zones in the biography of 1918, the colonel's 312 pages of fiction flashed from the watchtowers of 1912 a searchlight athwart the gloaming so any wayfarer can see everything. Suffice it to know Philip Dru is an autobiography of the colonel himself and solves the Conundrum how to get rid of the Constitution."

A blueprint for how to get rid of the United States Constitution. That is what this book is. The progressives have been attacking our states and our country for 120 years, we just have not been diligent enough in turning on the lights. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Shortly after the Senator's comments, sales of Dru hit new records and caused a second printing. (Source ) By 1920 it had received its third print. (source)

Being as Dru was printed in 1912, its text is free in the public domain. The audiobook recording is also free in the public domain.