150,000 views

It's come to my attention that over on YouTube, my recording of Frederick Douglass' excellent speech What To The Slave Is The 4th of July? has been viewed now over 150,000 times. This one singular item has grown and blossomed in a way that really makes me happy.

I also noticed many commenters there haven't recognized the true import of Douglass' speech - mainly, perhaps, because of it's title. That's alright, you can't win them all. But you can win some and that's the important point. "Some" of 150,000 is a whole lot of people.

I guarantee you many people will listen to the FULL speech and it begins to dawn on them - hey wait a second, this Douglass guy, he's actively defending the Constitution and he's actively defending the Declaration and actively defending the Founding Fathers. Why would he do that?

Hey wait a second, maybe these progressives are liars. This full speech isn't what they told me it is.

Defending the constitution - yeah, Frederick Douglass did that alot. He was a black Republican. What would you expect from a black Republican?

https://youtu.be/4NNBIMYGtLo Text: (here)

150,000 views, and this speech wasn't really all that much work. I get to defend the constitution, I get to say my opinion,(Yes, Douglass does speak for me) and the best part is big tech can't get rid of it. They're stuck with it.

To all my readers and listeners I emplore you. Do not be deterred by what Douglass titled this speech. Douglass says: "But I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory" - NPR is lying about this speech. Blatantly, bald faced lying about it. It can be hard to hear or read some of this content, but it is ultimately a great speech.

Where did all of the progressives go?

In understanding why progressivism and liberalism are not the same thing and even moreso, why progressivism hates liberalism, there are two inescapable facts:

1) During the progressive era, progressives were everywhere.

2) Today, progressives are everywhere.

Well, what's in the middle? For some reason, no matter where I go there is an extreme resistance on the part of conservatives to admit (out loud or even perhaps even to themselves) that progressives re-labeled themselves as liberal and are now wearing camoflage. Why is this? I don't know. Every now and then you see someone attempt to dig it out and they do get it right, but those are far and few between.

We know where the progressives are during the 1900s, they're in the White House they're controlling many parts of the senate and they're setting up the beginnings of the bureaucratic state. We know where the progressives are during the 1910s, we see several destructive Constitutional amendments, and things kind of (we are told by historians) come to a closing right at the end of 1919 going into 1920. Well wait just a minute! No no, stop right here. Examine this. Starting in 1920 where did all the progressives go?

Yes, they got routed politically in the 1920 election and through the remainder of Calvin Coolidge's presidency the progressives got smoked really bad. But did the progressives disappear? No. Progressivism doesn't die. So where did it go? Where did all of the progressives go?

Well the short answer is, the progressives came back as strong as possible during the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. That's easy, everybody knows that. Except for one problem. Nobody knows it. Let me explain. Is FDR a liberal president or a progressive president? You have to pick, and there's a 50% chance you'll get the answer incorrect.

The answer is that FDR was never ever a liberal president. He was always a progressive. Calling these people "liberal" is the great historical lie. "The Big Lie". But the amount of people who are wedded to this lie is astounding. It is a bi-partisan lock.

So FDR was a liberal. THEN WHERE DID ALL OF THE PROGRESSIVES GO??? See, that's the question that destroys it all. Where. Did. All. The. Progressives. Go? No conservative believes that the progressives just magically went away, did they go "poof"? Did they go to mars? Are they butterflies, did they flutter away up to Greenland? No. They were here all along, they stayed right here, peddling their poisonous wares until the time was right. Like cockroaches in the night. But yet, far too many ignore this. After the 1930's, the progressives came roaring right back again a few decades later in the 1960's. But that's another topic in itself as well.

Where did all of the progressives go? Right here, here is where they went. In his speech on July 02, 1932, accepting the nomination for President of the United States, FDR said:

Let us feel that in everything we do there still lives with us, if not the body, the great indomitable, unquenchable, progressive soul of our Commander-in-Chief, Woodrow Wilson.

So progressive FDR waves high and proud to their history as fellow progressives, then he says this:

Yes, the people of this country want a genuine choice this year, not a choice between two names for the same reactionary doctrine. Ours must be a party of liberal thought, of planned action, of enlightened international outlook, and of the greatest good to the greatest number of our citizens.

There it is. With that, progressivism had successfully been re-named. Our party must be the liberal party he says.

Where did all of the progressives go? Mark the day.

On July 02, 1932, that's the day every progressive died. That's their birthday. July 02, 1932. This sentence is not a contradiction.

Where did all of the progressives go? Look for the camoflauge. This camoflauge is brought to you by the letters "L". "I". and "B".

Some day, I don't suspect it will be within my lifetime, but some day. Some day, conservatives are going to have to go to war to reclaim this word. "Liberalism". They stole it, they don't deserve it, and they certainly didn't do a thing to earn it. Within whatever the final defeat of progressivism entails, this word must be restored away from them. And this word will be a benchmark. Long before progressivism's final defeat, the mask must be ripped off for all time. No enemy is truely defeated who still possesses their camoflage or other tools of war.

For progressives, society is government and government is society

I've written about this several times, and here is another instance. The Guardian asks: "Is society coming apart?"

Most of the article is throw away, but here we get something extremely important:

According to the Reagan-Thatcher worldview, there is no such thing as society. There are only families, who look after one another, and individuals, who participate in markets. The idea that government is the solution to people’s problems rests on a mistaken belief in the existence of society.

The amount of honesty in these few lines is rather quite remarkable. First off they are completely incorrect about the "Reagan-Thatcher worldview", but that's just window dressing and fluff, likely designed to elicit an outraged response so that the really important thing doesn't get focus. I will focus this properly.

"The idea that government is the solution to people’s problems rests on a mistaken belief in the existence of society." See. Government is society. Society is government. They are one in the same. If you are percieved to be attacking government in any way, then you are against society or simply don't believe that society exists. I'll show you how this works. When Reagan said the words "government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem", that is not what progressives heard. Here is what they heard and what Reagan said:

Society is not the solution to the problem, society is the problem

You think I'm kidding. I'm not. This is what the progressives think Reagan actually said.

Evil never understands the light. "Society" is everything outside of government and without government. Government can only pervert and coerce society as we in our families and we as individuals seek to determine our own individual destinies. But a progressive is incapable of understanding this. I might as well have said something in dolphin clicks. It doesn't compute for them.

King George vetoed abolitionist laws. The Smithsonian omits that fact and then defends him.

As a citizen historian, I find it both "funny" and annoying how skewed history is and how few treat leftist historians compared to their leftist journalist counterparts. Its a huge problem for us.

Pimping a new book that he will hope you will buy, Andrew Roberts (the Book's author) writes this glowing piece for The Smithsonian about you know, George III, he wasn't all that bad of a guy!

Hey I have an idea. Maybe we should've stayed under monarchism. That whole "liberty thing"? Perhaps that's overrated. Sarcasm aside, take a look at paragraph number 2:

We can now see, for example, George’s fervent denunciation of slavery in an essay he wrote as Prince of Wales in the late 1750s, after reading Charles de Montesquieu’s classic enlightenment text, The Spirit of the Laws (1748).

This is historical malpractice. So George wrote some paper some time for some people to read, so what. When the pedal was down against the metal, what did King George actually do? Actions speak louder than words. When King George III had the opportunity, he sided with slave traders over abolitionists. Here's the actual text of the King's veto:

it hath been represented to us that so considerable an increase upon the duties of slaves imported into our colony of Virginia will have the effect to prejudice and obstruct as well the commerce of this kingdom as the cultivation and improvement of the said colony; whereupon we have thought fit to disallow the first mentioned of the laws, leaving the other, which is of short duration, to expire by its own limitation. It is therefore our will and pleasure that you do not upon pain of our highest displeasure give your assent for the future, without our royal permission first obtained, to any law or laws by which the additional duty of five per cent upon slaves imported, imposed by the last mentioned law, shall be further continued or to any laws whatever by which the duties of ten per cent upon slaves imported into our said colony, payable by laws passed antecedent to the seventh day of November, 1769, shall upon any pretense be increased or by which the importation of slaves shall be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.

The text of this is quite clear. Increasing the duties are going to reduce slave imports, and that's going to hurt the empire. Oh woe is me, we can't have that!

How different would this Smithsonian article look if it had included the fact that the King actively stood against abolitionism? Laws such as the one which was vetoed, referenced above, this was happening all over the colonies in the 1770s. This wasn't a one time thing.

I can see I'm going to have to record this veto into audio that everybody can listen to and throw it up on YouTube, since so many historians can't find the time to write the truth. What a bunch of flagrant liars. It isn't just this one guy, the Smithsonian is in on it. What a disgrace. What a historical disgrace this whole thing is. But that's where we are with the state of the "historical profession" in America these days. The article concludes this way:

The time has therefore come for objective Americans to take a fresh look at their last king. It was right for the colonies to break away from the British Empire in 1776 because they were ready by then to found their own nation-state, but despite the rhetoric of their founding document, they were not escaping tyranny, so much as bravely grasping their sovereign independence from a good-natured, cultured, enlightened and benevolent monarch.

Historians will always side against the American Revolution and cling to any whataboutism they can in order to make America look bad, meanwhile anything else must be preferred. "Rhetoric", "rhetoric"??? That's all the declaration is? It's no big deal? Reading the Declaration makes it quite clear that it is just as applicable today as it was back then.

We need new historians just as badly as we need new journalists. None of them are interested in being honest. None of them.

Just by being a listener, you're being a contributor

It's been a good few weeks here for me with hard work reaching the top and paying off. A few weeks ago one group audiobook was completed, the other day I completed a solo that I had been working on for four years, and launched another group book which is piling up very quickly. But I wanted to touch on something in case it never gets said or gets tucked away without the proper focus.

By being a listener, you are being a valuable contributor. Let me explain this.

First, I do not mean the works that I specifically recorded nor works that I had any way at all been involved. And second, I do mean a particular type of content. Example 1: Franklin's Autobiography. Example 2: A George Washington biography. Example 3: Adam Smith I had zero to do with these.

Progressives have stolen American history. It's easy and common to say that "Americans have forgotten this or that", but no. This was malicious and it was by design. It was taken from us by force and coercion. So right there, by listening to the audio or just the same by downloading the text and reading, you're doing something you shouldn't be doing and that makes it provocative.

It's also important to recognize that the negative is just as true. If you're spending time learning American history, that's less time you're investing into being soaked in the never ending cesspool of modernity. I know it's very difficult to stop staring at it, it's so grotesque, but the way to win the game is to not play it at all. That's the only way.

There is also a quality that goes into a listener. For example, I just completed a new recording of a speech by Frederick Douglass which no progressives will ever want to hear since he is forcefully defending the United States Constitution. So we have a situation that could happen that if on the off chance the recording gets into the hands of 10,000 progressives, it likely has no value. Sure, they may hear it but they won't be listening. Of the reverse, if 10,000 conservatives hear the speech nearly all will appreciate and potentially even be influenced by what Douglass said. In the second instance it is not just being heard it's also being actively listened to. Even if you don't like my personal recording, the content will be unmistakable and you'll want it to be known by others.

But at the end of the day I just wanted to make sure I highlighted the fact that audiobooks need listeners, my books or otherwise, and in so doing you are creating a value that has an important place. Who am I recording for?

New audiobook: Herbert Croly's The Promise of American Life

After four years of arduous work, the solo recording of Herbert Croly's The Promise of American Life is now completed. From the viewpoint of "what is progressive ideology", this book explains it better than perhaps any other I could offer. This book is entirely free, it is in the public domain. This is NOT. for sale.

The book can be downloaded from here, and using what I could find which was written by others, I wrote the following book summary:

The book is said to "offer a manifesto of Progressive beliefs" that "anticipated the transition from competitive to corporate capitalism and from limited government to the welfare state." By Croly’s death in 1930, only 7,500 copies of The Promise of American Life had been sold. Despite this, the book was immensely influential, even influencing Theodore Roosevelt to adopt the platform of The New Nationalism.

This is a pretty accurate summary of the work. Why this book is so important, is that it had implications for at least three of the very first progressive presidents in America: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. A book that has that kind of reach MUST be more widely known among conservatives, and what better way to accomplish the necessary task, than to read it to you?

You need to read this. You need to know this. I'll read it to you, I did the hard work for you! It's that important. If you don't like audiobooks, hey that's great now you have options, you can download the PDF or the text and read it, it's all yours. You're missing an important one if you don't. You're missing a very important one here. Here's the book review that former President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in regard to this book. Writing in The New Outlook, an essay titled Nationalism and Popular Rule, he wrote: (p. 96)

In Mr. Herbert Croly's "Promise of American Life," the most profound and illuminating study of our National conditions which has appeared for many years, especial emphasis is laid on the assertion that the whole point of our governmental experiment lies in the fact that it is a genuine effort to achieve true democracy - both political and industrial.

So if nothing else, let's recognize the importance of this work. This book has it all. Progressive education, the need for wealth redistribution, the subjugation of industry to the Nation, the domination of government in the lives of individuals. It's all here. It's ALL here, in these pages. What is happening to our country? The answers are here in these pages. Now it is true that over the years progressives have changed in some ways, but they're still the same. This is not an old outdated irrelevant story from a distant day of "what was". They are still here and this is still current.

We as conservatives, we have a lot of confusion among our people as to whether or not progressivism and socialism is the same thing (which it is not) and this book can clear a lot of that noise up. It's time to part the clouds here.

In the Art of War, chapter 3, Sun Tzu wrote:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

We can't win if we're calling them socialists. That's not historically accurate, then or now.

My first audiobook Philip Dru was useful in that it puts into the form of a novel what the goals of progressivism are. But that's a filter. This book is unfiltered. It's just, let's dominate everything, that's what progressives want.

This book is scary. For those of us who want government limitations and free markets, this is a very chilling work. I hope you enjoy. When you are finished with the book, for those of you who take it up, you will come away having learned something and realizing what we're actually up against. These people, are, I'll tell you what. I'll put it to you this way. Progressives are not kidding around. They mean what they say and they mean what they write. They really actually believe this stuff.

It's been over 100 years since this book was published, and we know the progressives actually believe this stuff because so much of it has been implemented. It's horrific to live with.

New audiobook: Anti-slavery in America (1619-1808)

It's been a very exciting week around here. The big ticket item is that I launched a new audiobook titled Anti-slavery in America from the Introduction of African Slaves to the Prohibition of the Slave Trade (1619-1808), and this time I started the work as a group project.

I see it fairly often where people express the sentiment "what more can I do?" and if that is you I would like to work with you on this. Look at the title of the book, you know exactly why I chose it.

Normally I don't mention audiobooks of mine until I have completed them but over the years I have learned more about my capabilities as a producer of free open source conservative audiobooks, I can work on more than one book at a time when I have additional works which are group collaborative efforts. Here is the book:

Anti-slavery in America from the Introduction of African Slaves to the Prohibition of the Slave Trade (1619-1808), by Mary Stoughton Locke

The timing is really good, I just completed my last solo recording(Still editing down the last chapter for final release though) and I know that this is the kind of thing that can have a positive impact on our culture.

In an age where we are surrounded by deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. Despite the fact that this audiobook will not carry any price tag it's value will be quite obvious. Again, just looking at the title tells the story. If you would like to work with me on this, let me know.

My favorite thing about working with public domain content is that Big Tech cannot censor me. Tens of thousands of people will be reached with my message.

The full text of the King's slavery veto

In my most recent prior post I referenced two things: The Wrong of Slavery, the Right of Emancipation, and the future of the African race in the United States - this book(and audiobook) is strongly related to the final report of the Freedmen's Inquiry Commission and bears many likenesses to the text.(source) Additionally: George Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VI.

All I want to do here is give you the full text of the order from the King's own hand so you can read it for yourself. On December 10th, 1770, here was the order given by King George III:

947. No Additional Duties on Slaves in Virginia

Whereas at a general assembly begun and held in our city of Williamsburg in our colony and dominion of Virginia on the seventh day of November in the tenth year of our reign, two laws were framed and enacted by our governor, council, and House of Burgesses of our said colony and dominion of Virginia, entitled An Act for Laying an Additional Duty upon Slaves Imported into This Colony, and the other An Act for the Better Support of the Contingent Charges of Government, by which said laws additional duties, amounting to fifteen per cent were imposed upon every purchase of slaves imported or brought into that colony over and above a duty of ten per cent payable by former laws then in force; and whereas it hath been represented to us that so considerable an increase upon the duties of slaves imported into our colony of Virginia will have the effect to prejudice and obstruct as well the commerce of this kingdom as the cultivation and improvement of the said colony; whereupon we have thought fit to disallow the first mentioned of the laws, leaving the other, which is of short duration, to expire by its own limitation. It is therefore our will and pleasure that you do not upon pain of our highest displeasure give your assent for the future, without our royal permission first obtained, to any law or laws by which the additional duty of five per cent upon slaves imported, imposed by the last mentioned law, shall be further continued or to any laws whatever by which the duties of ten per cent upon slaves imported into our said colony, payable by laws passed antecedent to the seventh day of November, 1769, shall upon any pretense be increased or by which the importation of slaves shall be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.

Virginia: (§939); Dec. 10, 1770.

Source: Royal Instructions To British Colonial Governors 1670 - 1776 Volume II, page 679.(counted as page 232)

A King the Pillar of the Slave Trade

And now for more history that the progressive professors don't want you to know.

In the book The Wrong of Slavery, the Right of Emancipation, and the future of the African race in the United States (Recently released as an open source public domain audiobook), the following is written: (page 85)

Since so small a proportion out of the whole export was directed to the United States, it is evident that the demand for slaves at that time could not have been great. Nor do we find, throughout the Report, any allusion to a direct trade by slavers from the African coast to the Continental colonies. Of course it existed, but evidently not to a large extent. The public opinion, as well as the legislation, of the colonies had uniformly been against it. (footnote 1)

(footnote 1) The agency of the British Government in fastening slavery upon the Continental colonies is well known. Bancroft has placed it distinctly on record: —

"The inhabitants of Virginia were controlled by the central authority on a subject of vital importance to themselves and their posterity. Their halls of legislation had resounded with eloquence directed against the terrible plague of negro slavery. Again and again they had passed laws restraining the importation of negroes from Africa; but their laws were disallowed. How to prevent them from protecting themselves against the increase of the overwhelming evil was debated by the King in Council, and on the 10th day of December, 1770, he issued an instruction, under his own hand, commanding the governor, 'under pain of the highest displeasure, to assent to no law by which the importation of slaves should be, in any respect, prohibited or obstructed.' In April, 1772, this rigorous order was solemnly debated in the Assembly of Virginia. They were very anxious for an Act to restrain the introduction of people the number of whom already in the colony gave them just cause to apprehend the most dangerous consequences. * * * Virginia resolved to address the King himself, who in Council had cruelly compelled the toleration of the nefarious traffic. They pleaded with him for leave to protect themselves against the nefarious traffic, and these were the words: —

"The importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of Africa hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity, and, under its present encouragement, we have too much reason to fear, will endanger the very existence of your Majesty's American dominions. We are sensible that some of your Majesty's subjects in Great Britain may reap emolument from this sort of traffic; but, when we consider that it greatly retards the settlement of the colonies with more useful inhabitants, and may, in time, have the most destructive influence, we presume to hope that the interest of a few will be disregarded when placed in competition with the security and happiness of such numbers of your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects.

Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we most humbly beseech your Majesty to remove all those restraints on your Majesty's governors of this colony which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might check so very pernicious a commerce."

"In this manner Virginia led the host who alike condemned slavery and opposed the slave-trade. Thousands in Maryland and in New Jersey were ready to adopt a similar petition; so were the Legislatures of North Carolina, of Pennsylvania, of New York. Massachusetts, in its towns and in its Legislature, unceasingly combated the condition, as well as the sale, of slaves. There was no jealousy among one another in the strife against the crying evil; Virginia harmonized all opinions, and represented the moral sentiment and policy of them all. When her prayer reached England, Franklin, through the press, called to it the sympathy of the people. Again and again it was pressed upon the attention of the Ministers. But the Government of that day was less liberal than the tribunals; and, while a question respecting a negro from Virginia led the courts of law to an axiom that as soon as any slave sets his foot on English ground he becomes free, the King of England stood in the path of humanity, and made himself the pillar of the slave-trade. Wherever in the colonies a disposition was shown for its restraint, his servants were peremptorily ordered to maintain it without abatement." — Bancroft's History of the United States, vol. vi. pp. 413, 414, 415.

"The English Continental colonies," says Bancroft, "were, in the aggregate, always opposed to the African slave-trade. Maryland, Virginia, even Carolina, alarmed at the excessive production, and consequent low price, of their staples, at the heavy debts incurred by the purchase of slaves on credit, and at the dangerous increase of the colored population, each showed an anxious preference for the introduction of white men; and laws designed to restrict importations of slaves are scattered copiously along the records of colonial legislation. The first Continental Congress which took to itself powers of legislation gave a legal expression to the well-formed opinion of the country by resolving (April 6, 1776) that "no slaves be imported into any of the thirteen United Colonies."

This used to be more widely known, hence why the race card couldn't have been played against the country until the progressives succeeded in removing the entire Founding from the history books. George Bancroft was a prominent and well-known historian in his day with his books widely read.

Relegated to the dust bin by historians with a seething hatred, Bancroft is exactly the kind of historian we all need resurrected and taught once more. Not really for this one item, but for the larger body of his work that seeks to accurately capture the Founding Fathers for who they really were instead of denegrating them at every opportunity.

George Bancroft is the anti-Zinn.

New audiobook release: "The Wrong of Slavery", by Robert Dale Owen

In 1864, Robert Dale Owen (A congressman from Indiana) published the book "The Wrong of Slavery, the Right of Emancipation, and the Future of the African Race in the United States", which traces the beginning of slavery from its roots in the British Empire(with in-depth statistics) up through the colonies and the days just prior to the Civil War.

The audio can be downloaded from here.(text here) This audio is free and open source in the public domain.

I have a lot to say about this book, and I want to warn everybody that this book is not what it appears. But I'll get into that later. For now, I'm starting to realize that if I plan my timing carefully I can work two audiobooks at the same time more gracefully than I had realized - one as a solo production and one as a collaboration. This book from the Civil War era is only a temporary stop. To be honest, the Civil War is so played out that I find it to be, quite frankly, boring, and besides this one was one that someone else needed help with. I'll be looking forward to doing more coverage of the Founding as I can get these staggered correctly going forward.

The progressives moved mountains to coverup and disguise the Founding. That's a more valuable (and interesting) use of my time for collaborative works.

Progressivism and the process of nationalizing the people

In The Promise of American Life, Herbert Croly writes a very interesting passage in the first two paragraphs of chapter 9 section 2: (p. 272/273)

The Federal political organization has always tended to confuse to the American mind the relation between democracy and nationality. The nation as a legal body was, of course, created by the Constitution, which granted to the central government certain specific powers and responsibilities, and which almost to the same extent diminished the powers and the responsibilities of the separate states. Consequently, to the great majority of Americans, the process of increasing nationalization has a tendency to mean merely an increase in the functions of the central government. For the same reason the affirmation of a constructive relation between the national and the democratic principles is likely to be interpreted merely as an attempt on the grounds of an abstract theory to limit state government and to disparage states rights. Such an interpretation, however, would be essentially erroneous. It would be based upon the very idea against which I have been continually protesting—the idea that the American nation, instead of embodying a living formative political principle, is merely the political system created by the Federal Constitution; and it would end in the absurd conclusion that the only way in which the Promise of American democracy can be fulfilled would be by the abolition of American local political institutions.

The nationalizing of American political, economic, and social life means something more than Federal centralization and something very different therefrom. To nationalize a people has never meant merely to centralize their government. Little by little a thoroughly national political organization has come to mean in Europe an organization which combined effective authority with certain responsibilities to the people; but the national interest has been just as likely to demand de-centralization as it has to demand centralization. The Prussia of Frederick the Great, for instance, was over-centralized; and the restoration of the national vitality, at which the Prussian government aimed after the disasters of 1806, necessarily took the form of reinvigorating the local members of the national body. In this and many similar instances the national interest and welfare was the end, and a greater or smaller amount of centralized government merely the necessary machinery. The process of centralization is not, like the process of nationalization, an essentially formative and enlightening political transformation. When a people are being nationalized, their political, economic, and social organization or policy is being coördinated with their actual needs and their moral and political ideals. Governmental centralization is to be regarded as one of the many means which may or may not be taken in order to effect this purpose. Like every other special aspect of the national organization, it must be justified by its fruits. There is no presumption in its favor. Neither is there any general presumption against it. Whether a given function should or should not be exercised by the central government in a Federal system is from the point of view of political logic a matter of expediency—with the burden of proof resting on those who propose to alter any existing Constitutional arrangement.

There are a few fallacies here which live on to this day of which I won't spend too much time here; rather, I want to focus on the ideological aspect of progressivism.

When Croly drones on about "nationalizing" the people, what he means is getting concepts like the 10th amendment out of their thoughts and culture, and he means turning them into a national collective. America's people at the time of the birth of progressivism was not nationalized. Yes, the country had been in existence for over 100 years but the states held tremendous sway with the people and many people still considered themselves individual "Tennesseans", "New Yorkers", "Arizonans", and so forth; much in the same way as the Founders did. Yes, we are Americans, but we are very much dual citizens. "My state has a constitution", the American/Missourian of 1900 would say - "and the Bill of Rights contained in my State's Constitution is something I appreciate", they would likely continue.

Today, Americans are completely nationalized to the extent that they are shocked to learn that America has 51 constitutions as well as 51 bills of rights. In this sense, the original progressive "New Nationalists" have been extraordinarily successful at abolishing the states in the minds of the people.

Croly does a brilliant bait and switch here. He says:

Consequently, to the great majority of Americans, the process of increasing nationalization has a tendency to mean merely an increase in the functions of the central government. For the same reason the affirmation of a constructive relation between the national and the democratic principles is likely to be interpreted merely as an attempt on the grounds of an abstract theory to limit state government and to disparage states rights. Such an interpretation, however, would be essentially erroneous. It would be based upon the very idea against which I have been continually protesting—the idea that the American nation, instead of embodying a living formative political principle, is merely the political system created by the Federal Constitution; and it would end in the absurd conclusion that the only way in which the Promise of American democracy can be fulfilled would be by the abolition of American local political institutions.

Yet, that's exactly what happened. But the cultural shift is what is important. The original progressives knew that if they nationalized the people first, the progressives wouldn't have to abolish the states. The people would abolish the states all on their own in a de-facto manner. Think of the last time a constitutional question came about. Did your state's constitution get overlooked first? As the late Andrew Breitbart famously said: "politics is downstream of culture". Croly makes this quite clear:

When a people are being nationalized, their political, economic, and social organization or policy is being coördinated with their actual needs and their moral and political ideals. Governmental centralization is to be regarded as one of the many means which may or may not be taken in order to effect this purpose. Like every other special aspect of the national organization, it must be justified by its fruits. There is no presumption in its favor. Neither is there any general presumption against it. Whether a given function should or should not be exercised by the central government in a Federal system is from the point of view of political logic a matter of expediency—with the burden of proof resting on those who propose to alter any existing Constitutional arrangement.

What he is saying is that the narrative is "the thing you want is x", mr. voter. What is the quickest way to get it? Don't worry about which governmental entity employed to get it, just make sure you get what you want. Don't you want it? Yeah, you want it. So just vote for anybody, anywhere who will give it to you. Of course, the progressives will always drive people to the national government. See what they did just a few years later with the 17th amendment, a gross injustice against America, the states, and Federalism. In the very next paragraph(third), he says:

It may be affirmed, consequently, without paradox, that among those branches of the American national organization which are greatly in need of nationalizing is the central government.

Of course the national government needs to get bigger, according to the opening of paragraph three. Opening of paragraph four is about growing government bigger, paragraph 5 is about denigrating the states, and paragraph 6 returns with an opening of how government needs to get bigger. Croly is nothing if consistent. Towards the last paragraphs of this section, Croly writes:

The great obstacle to American national fulfillment must always be the danger that the American people will merely succumb to the demands of their local and private interests and will permit their political craft to drift into a compromising situation—from which the penalties of rescue may be almost as distressing as the penalties of submission.

What "local" and "private" interests. He means the states. Or "worse" in the eyes of a progressive, would be county/city matters. He means one of the most important aspects of American Federalism - just throw it out.

Progressives today have left nationalism behind and have graduated to globalism. But at the time, they fully recognized that the way forward was first to convince the people that "You're just an American", and America has only one constitution. A strikingly simple goal to attain, especially at a time when the progressive era was in full swing - "private" and "special" interests were universally looked down upon and to assist in the process America's first progressive president was also helping to push everybody away from their states.

Should the British Government be dissolved because they authorized slavery?

Preferred title: Should the British Government be dissolved because Queen Elizabeth authorized Sir John Hawkins to import Africans into the West Indies? (title too long)

Frederick Douglass is amazing.

If you consider yourself a constitutionalist and you aren't reading Douglass you are missing out on true greatness. In 1860, Frederick Douglass tore fellow abolitionists to shreds over the slave trade saying: (source)

Mr. Thompson is just 52 years too late in dissolving the Union on account of this clause. He might as well dissolve the British Government, because Queen Elizabeth granted to Sir John Hawkins to import Africans into the West Indies 300 years ago!

This is the reason that progressives have erased Frederick Douglass. Douglass was pro-constitution, pro-capitalism, and pro-Founding Father. Frederick Douglass was the GOAT. A man like that naturally has to be erased from the history books. Obviously this is relevant today. Just as Douglass is mocking the Garrisonians for some of their notions that the union ought to be abolished over things such as the three-fifths or other clauses, he rightfully points out that the British Empire did in fact authorize slavery in the West Indies and by that reason the crown has to go. Buh bye.

And also the 13 colonies. Britain did that one too. Britain was all-in on slavery for hundreds of years, they had no room at any time to question us. They brought it here and then blamed us. Hypocrites. Looking outward it would be foolish to say that any union or government ought to be dissolved over what was done hundreds of years ago, because if we did that we would be abolishing every single government in existence. China, India, Russia, anywhere in Africa or South America - all of it would have to go.

This is a total troll and the Garrisonians deserved it. There's others in this speech, Douglass was definitely adept at trolling. This is a very fun read and I laughed out loud several times.

In progressivism, the definition of "democracy" is "government"

No matter what you may think, your definition of the word "democracy" is wrong as it pertains to what progressives are saying.

In progressivism, "democracy" = "the state". That's their definition of it. It's an unwritten and hidden definition, yet its the most commonly used. In The Promise of American Life, (p. 418) Herbert Croly wrote the following:

Any substantial progress towards the attainment of complete individual disinterestedness is far beyond the reach of contemporary collective effort, but such disinterestedness should be clearly recognized as the economic condition both of the highest fulfillment which democracy can bestow upon the individual and of a thoroughly wholesome democratic organization. Says Mr. John Jay Chapman in the chapter on "Democracy," in his "Causes and Consequences": "It is thought that the peculiar merit of democracy lies in this: that it gives every man a chance to pursue his own ends. The reverse is true. The merit lies in the assumption imposed upon every man that he shall serve his fellow-men.... The concentration of every man on his own interests has been the danger and not the safety of democracy, for democracy contemplates that every man shall think first of the state and next of himself.... Democracy assumes perfection in human nature." But men will always continue chiefly to pursue their own private ends as long as those ends are recognized by the official national ideal as worthy of perpetuation and encouragement. If it be true that democracy is based upon the assumption that every man shall serve his fellow-men, the organization of democracy should be gradually adapted to that assumption. The majority of men cannot be made disinterested for life by exhortation, by religious services, by any expenditure of subsidized words, or even by a grave and manifest public need. They can be made permanently unselfish only by being helped to become disinterested in their individual purposes, and how can they be disinterested except in a few little spots as long as their daily occupation consists of money seeking and spending in conformity with a few written and unwritten rules? In the complete democracy a man must in some way be made to serve the nation in the very act of contributing to his own individual fulfillment. Not until his personal action is dictated by disinterested motives can there be any such harmony between private and public interests. To ask an individual citizen continually to sacrifice his recognized private interest to the welfare of his countrymen is to make an impossible demand, and yet just such a continual sacrifice is apparently required of an individual in a democratic state. The only entirely satisfactory solution of the difficulty is offered by the systematic authoritative transformation of the private interest of the individual into a disinterested devotion to a special object.

American public opinion has not as yet begun to understand the relation between the process of national education by means of a patient attempt to realize the national purpose and the corresponding process of individual emancipation and growth. It still believes that democracy is a happy device for evading collective responsibilities by passing them on to the individual; and as long as this belief continues to prevail, the first necessity of American educational advance is the arousing of the American intellectual conscience. Behind the tradition of national irresponsibility is the still deeper tradition of intellectual insincerity in political matters. Americans are almost as much afraid of consistent and radical political thinking as are the English, and with nothing like as much justification. Jefferson offered them a seductive example of triumphant intellectual dishonesty, and of the sacrifice of theory to practice, whenever such a sacrifice was convenient.

And this screed it goes on from there. Attacks on Jefferson and the Founding(which happen in other parts of the book as well) But to stay on point, this is from Croly's chapter on "Conditions of Individual Emancipation" and yes, he does mean that in the most vile way. How can we emancipate individuals from individualism and promote them into collectivism? He uses all of these words interchangeably, but when he says that "a man must" "be made to serve the nation", he means the state. He means we should all serve government.

Even his quoting of Chapman is quite out of context. Chapman is lauding the greatness of the Founding in that section of his book (see here: [source on p. 121]) and it is not a slavish devotion to the purity of statism. Reading a few pages prior makes this clear, go ahead, you'll see it. Chapman isn't going in the direction Croly is.

Note the several periods in Croly's so-called quoting of Chapman. He's taking Chapman out of context! Even in the early 1900s, progressives have only taken what they have needed and discarded the rest like trash.

But as much as I dislike all of this that Croly has done, I also recognize the value it has. Progressives won't come to you and say "I have polluted the language." "I have perverted the word 'democracy' so that it has a new meaning. That new definition is the state or government." But that is in fact where we are at. The next time you hear a progressive speak and they start going into the use of the word "democracy", just strike that word "democracy" out in your mind as you are listening and insert the word "state" or phrase "the state", and you'll see it. It's an accurate capturing of progressivism ideology as it spills out of their dishonest mouths.

If more conservatives read Croly's book, we would all be better off for it and the result it would have on our dealings with these horrible people. Conservatives MUST read this book. To understand progressivism, this is the book. The Promise of American Life.

Progressives continue to marvel at how successful the Tea Party was

How much trouble are we in when progressives broadcast how to beat them and we still won't do it?

There's an interesting article in The New Yorker and this paragraph stands tall above all the rest:

This insurgent approach has caused establishment figures from both parties to refer to Justice Democrats and its ilk as the Tea Party of the left. Max Berger, an early employee, said, “If that’s supposed to mean that we’re equivalent to white-supremacist dipshits who want to blow up the government or move toward authoritarianism, then I would consider that both an insult and a really dumb misreading of what we’re trying to do. But if it means that we come out of nowhere and, within a few years, we have one of the two major parties implementing our agenda—and if our agenda is to promote multiracial democracy and give people union jobs and help avert a climate crisis—then, yeah, I’m down to be the Tea Party of the left.”

I have vacation time at work, I'd call out sick to attend, I'd take unpaid days. That's what I did a decade ago.(unpaid) But sadly, I feel 100% confident in predicting there will not be any protest to attend on April 15th, 2022. I wish I could be proven wrong on this, I would welcome it to see everybody out there next April.

Progressives campaign against the damage created by progressivism and then blame it on racial issues

You see what's happening here, right?

One of the singular most problematic items cited by BLM is the 1994 Crime Bill. Here's an example of what they say and how it hurts minorities from the Center for American Progress.

Who gave us this bill? Progressives did. Then Senator Joe Biden was even the bill's sponsor. But Progressivism can't blame itself, so it has to create a myth and campaign against it.

You can pick nearly any big city you want that's been ravaged by decades of progressive mayors. The inner cities are glittering examples of racial inequities. Chicago is one of those frequently cited and routinely tops such lists. Who caused it? Progressives did, they are the ones in charge of all these cities. Chicago has had progressive mayors since the New Deal.

But Progressivism can't blame itself, so it has to create a myth and campaign against it.

How about when a progressive hollywood actor or actress gets caught in some crime that any one of us would go to jail for 10 or more years for, well they can't say that's progressive privilege. So that has to be white privilege. Even when someone from hollywood is recognized for their grotesqueness and run over the coals the way they should be or more close to how they should be(instead of getting some joke of a two-month sentence/slap on the wrist) such as Harvey Weinstein, what's it an indication of? Whiteness of course. Here is an example.

You see what's happening here, right? It's easy to get caught up in the victimology of it all and proclaim that witches are being hunted. Not that that's inaccurate, but it's not useful. I want to understand the process. This is what they're doing and how they're doing it.

Progressivism can't blame itself even though they are creating these problems. But these problems that progressivism created are useful you see, so the progressives campaign against the very problems created by progressivism by re-directing the issue and saying it's an "American" problem or "systemic racism". You always see this formula, even though it's neither. Progressivism is America's cancer and this is all misdirection. They get away with it because they control the media.

Let me ask you a question. Woodrow Wilson was a deeply dedicated racist. You ever hear that proclaimed as a problem with progressivism? No of course not, that's an "American" problem. Why would it be a problem with progressives, progressivism is perfect.

A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

How progressivism reverses socialism, and how progressivism drew in innocent supporters

In the course of reading the works of progressivism, it's not uncommon for these elitists to portray how better they are compared to everyone else.

That includes the progressives' elitism against socialists.

Taft's running mate in 1912, Nicholas Murray Butler wrote quite the scathing anti-socialist work in 1907 called "True and False Democracy" in which he wrote the following: (source)

The socialist propaganda, never more seriously or more ably carried on than now, is an earnest and sincere attempt to escape from conditions that are burdensome and unhappy. Despite its most imperfect interpretation of the economic significance of history and its ringing the changes on a misleading theory of class consciousness, this propaganda makes an appeal to our favorable judgment because its proclaimed motive is to help the mass of mankind. No just man can quarrel with its aim, but few readers of history or students of human nature can approve its programme. What is it that socialism aims to accomplish by restricting liberty in order to promote economic equality? It seeks to accomplish what it conceives to be a juster economic and political condition. At bottom and without special reference to immediate concrete proposals, socialism would substitute for individual initiative collective and corporate responsibility in matters relating to property and production, in the hope thereby of correcting and overcoming the evils which attach to an individualism run wild. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the corporate or collective responsibility which it would substitute for individual initiative is only such corporate or collective responsibility as a group of these very same individuals could exercise. Therefore, socialism is primarily an attempt to overcome man's individual imperfections by adding them together, in the hope that they will cancel each other. This is not only bad mathematics, but worse psychology. In pursuing a formula, socialism fails to take account of the facts.

Wow. Kind of almost makes you want to be a progressive now doesn't it? No. Not really. Just because he nails the socialists - unfortunately, that's not good enough. He spends plenty of time in this book(which I didn't quote) explaining why we need to murder free markets and put government in control of everything as well. What you end up with is this. When you see two bad people fighting, sometimes just letting them go until one kills the other is the only viable option. But in reality, we have to give Americans 100 years ago the benefit of the doubt for siding with the progressives.

This was written in 1907 at a time when Americans didn't really know the deceitful goals of progressivism but knew enough of the dangers of socialism. That is why its easy to understand how well meaning people could find themselves roped into becoming ardent supporters of statism(progressivism) under the guise of putting a stop to statism(socialism). Looking at that statement it seems completely nonsensical, yet it's exactly what happened. Sometimes, I fear that very same thing is happening again today - embracing statism to stop statism.

In any case, Butler ran with Taft in 1912 and was the Vice President on the ticket on election day. Think of that. A republican wrote this stuff. Not that that's exactly some big time surprise, the GOP was the hardcore progressive party at the turn of the century and it was the GOP who gave America it's first progressive president.

However, as to the honesty of progressives in 1912 did they run on a platform of "elect us and we'll erect the best aristocracy you'll ever see!"(see the next book quote) No, they did not. They lied, as all progressives do. They tell the truth in their books - they tell the truth to each other - you can find honesty with progressives if you dig for it. But outside of doors, all progressives are liars. He continued:

True democracy will carry on an insistent search for these wisest and best, and will elevate them to posts of leadership and command. Under the operation of the law of liberty, it will provide itself with real leaders, not limited by rank, or birth, or wealth, or circumstance, but opening the way for each individual to rise to the place of honor and influence by the expression of his own best and highest self. It will exactly reverse the communistic formula, “From each according to his abilities, To each according to his needs," and will uphold the principle, “From each according to his needs, To each according to his abilities.” It will take care to provide such a ladder of education and opportunity that the humblest may rise to the very top if he is capable and worthy. The most precious thing in the world is the individual human mind and soul, with its capacity for growth and service. To bind it fast to a formula, to hold it in check to serve the selfish ends of mediocrity, to deny it utterance and expression, political, economic, and moral, is to make democracy impossible as a permanent social and governmental form.

The United States is in sore need to-day of an aristocracy of intellect and service. Because such an aristocracy does not exist in the popular consciousness, we are bending the knee in worship to the golden calf of money. The form of monarchy and its pomp offer a valuable foil to the worship of money for its own sake. A democracy must provide itself with a foil of its own, and none is better or more effective than an aristocracy of intellect and service recruited from every part of our democratic life. We must put behind us the fundamental fallacy that equality is demanded by justice. The contrary is the case. Justice demands inequality as a condition of liberty and as a means of rewarding each according to his merits and deserts.

We have the progressives "aristocracy" of "intellect and service"(the elites) today 120 years later. The so called best and brightest rule over us daily and disregard all of our political wishes. Note how he causally uses that word "command". There are hundreds of abc soup agencies and bureaucracies representing this "aristocracy of intellect and service" in "command" of your life. In this sense, Butler was quite Wilsonian in his outlook. That's what Woodrow Wilson also believed in, and wrote about the need for governmental agencies on a constant basis. Wilson's right hand man Edward House wrote the book Philip Dru: Administrator - and what is the book about? Administrators! An "aristocracy of intellect and service" in "command" of your every minute - the dream of progressives everywhere. It all comes full circle with these horrible people.

This book gives us a good and concise insight as to why progressives spawn a deep state in lieu of outright nationalization of private property. And if they're not going to put government in "command" of the means of production, what use do they have for puny socialism? No wonder they constantly talk bad about it. They want aristocracy, they want experts, they want you serving them as your commanders. Confiscation of property is outmoded in their view and in reality, progressives are indeed correct (in their own sinister way) that if they put enough rules in place, if they just create enough regulations, if they just establish enough "command" then they have achieved ownership without ownership. What they don't need is their name on the title. They've successfully circumvented that obstacle.

Hillsdale College's Constitution 201 series describes progressivism as "bureacratic despotism" and it's a great summary of the difference between progressivism and socialism.

The real reason the progressives sought after the 17th amendment

Progressives hate the states.

You see, I could end the blog post right there and nothing else need to be said, but I want to back up that statement anyways. It is the truth after all. Progressives hate the states. They've been telling us this directly and indirectly for our entire lives and theirs. First though, I want to point out the importance of senatorial elections in the first place. At the convention, Elbridge Gerry made the following comment: (July 19th)

Mr. GERRY. If the Executive is to be elected by the Legislature he certainly ought not to be re-eligible. This would make him absolutely dependent. He was agst. a popular election. The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men. He urged the expediency of an appointment of the Executive by Electors to be chosen by the State Executives. The people of the States will then choose the 1st. branch: The legislatures of the States the 2d. branch of the National Legislature, and the Executives of the States, the National Executive. This he thought would form a strong attachnt. in the States to the National System. The popular mode of electing the chief Magistrate would certainly be the worst of all. If he should be so elected & should do his duty, he will be turned out for it like Govr. Bowdoin in Massts. & President Sullivan in N. Hamshire.

By making the states the vehicle for electing your senator, the Founding Fathers were looking (among other things) to make sure you still loved your state. So, if you consider yourself to be an American and only an American, you are not really all that close to the Founding Fathers compared to, say, if you consider yourself to be a (insert state here) Texan first and an American second.

Are you a Virginian first and an American second? That's who the Founders were. Gerry with his strong attachment to his state would've been a Massachusettsian first and an American second.

Now, as to the progressives. At the time of the 17th amendment and the de-coupling of our senators from the state legislatures, the big argument at the time was corruption. Corruption this, corruption that, corruption corruption corruption! Except, progressives are dishonest, and progressive leadership meant corruption another way.(I'll explain below) To the average rabblerouser out in the streets of 1905 or whenever clamouring for direct election of the senators, yes, sure this guy has no clue of what progressive leadership is aiming at. To him, he sees all these left wing media reports about this representative and that representative being bribed, so all he knows and thinks is that if he can directly vote for his senator, that will solve the problem. It's a very surface level, not-well-thought-out problem/solution equation.

But to progressive leadership, where they are thinking in 50 year-100 year or longer increments, they could care less about bribes. They themselves bribe and seek to be bribed. The progressives, and I'm going to quote one in a minute here, they love big national government that can force you to live how they want you to live. The bigger government is, the better. Screw the states, the progressive says. We ought to abolish them outright, the progressive says. Here, see for yourself:

As for the veterans of the Grand Army of the Republic, they deserve honor and recognition such as is paid to no other citizens of the republic; for to them the republic owes it all; for to them it owes its very existence. It is because of what you and your comrades did in the dark years that we of to-day walk, each of us, head erect, and proud that we belong, not to one of a dozen little squabbling contemptible commonwealths, but to the mightiest nation upon which the sun shines.

Contemptible? That word simply does not need to be there. That sentence flows fully in place and gets the point across without that one word. Why was that word added? It was added because he wanted it there. He also said at another time:

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

See. This is Saul Alinsky 101. The ends justify the means. And if the states stand in our way? Screw them. That's old outmoded thinking anyways, those of you who cling to your guns and your religion AND cling to your state governments. But we progressives have a solution. We will load up the word "corruption" with multiple meanings so that even we can speak freely and you don't know what we mean when we say it.

As I said above, progressives had a different definition of their use of the word "corruption". What they meant was that the states are corrupt. The very existence of states violates all that is good and decent. That's what progressives think. Who did I quote above? Theodore Roosevelt. The guy who everybody says loved America. How can you love America and hate the states? How is that possible? You saw the words. The first part I used came from the New Nationalism speech and the second one - the more important one(but not because of the words themselves) - is from the speech when he was almost assassinated.

Yes, you have that right, but I'll spell it out plainly. Here's a guy who hated the states so much that he goes to give a speech in which he knows he is going to rip the states apart. He gets shot, he has a piece of metal in his chest and he is bleeding. But his answer is "Nope, I gotta rip the states even if I bleed a little, I can go to the hospital afterwards". Could you ever imagine hating something that intensely that even a bullet doesn't stop you? Now, before the comments start coming in I bet some of you might say "yeah, my in-laws". Wow. Ok. Well. I'm sorry to hear that. But the fact remains that TR hated the states as much if not more than you hate your in-laws. Imagine that, just to give context. Imagine that.

This is what we have been seeing for 100+ years now. We know the progressives hate the states. I'm not telling you anything new here. I'm just confirming it for you. What you have seen with your own two eyes is in fact correct. They hate the states as institutions and want it all done nationally. But the difference is the malcontent on the streets, who only knows what the media tells him, and a guy in leadership like TR who openly and admittedly hates the states. We will never know now as the question was never asked, but I have no doubt in my mind that the real plan among progressive leadership of the early 1900s was the de-coupling of the people's strong state attachments for good, and transforming from Ohioans into Americans into Americans-only who ask "My state has its own constitution?"

And it only took the progressives 100 years to achieve their goal. I bet that by the end of the 1950s Americans had forgotten the role that their states are/were supposed to play in the federalist system. How many people do you know who have read their State constitution? I'd bet you could ask 10 out of 10, and everybody would agree - nobody has read their state constitution. Particularly in the context of education. The progressive academics in schools teach everything nationally. Nothing is ever taught about the states in this context. They simply don't want you to know.

Some people say that the 16th amendment is the worst amendment. It's not. The 17th Amendment is. The 16th amendment "simply" changes how dollars and cents are collected. The 17th amendment represents a partial repeal of the United States Constitution. It repeals the Senate as well as a repeal of all 50 states.

The 1619 Project is also lying about Samuel Johnson

The New York Times does not want you reading Samuel Johnson.

You should read Samuel Johnson.

Here is what you will find toward the end of the work: (source)

Far be it from any Englishman, to thirst for the blood of his fellow-subjects. Those who most deserve our resentment are, unhappily, at less distance. The Americans, when the stamp act was first proposed, undoubtedly disliked it, as every nation dislikes an impost; but they had no thought of resisting it, till they were encouraged and incited by European intelligence, from men whom they thought their friends, but who were friends only to themselves.

On the original contrivers of mischief let an insulted nation pour out its vengeance. With whatever design they have inflamed this pernicious contest, they are, themselves, equally detestable. If they wish success to the colonies, they are traitors to this country; if they wish their defeat, they are traitors, at once, to America and England. To them, and them only, must be imputed the interruption of commerce, and the miseries of war, the sorrow of those that shall be ruined, and the blood of those that shall fall.

Since the Americans have made it necessary to subdue them, may they be subdued with the least injury possible to their persons and their possessions! When they are reduced to obedience, may that obedience be secured by stricter laws and stronger obligations!

Nothing can be more noxious to society, than that erroneous clemency, which, when a rebellion is suppressed, exacts no forfeiture, and establishes no securities, but leaves the rebels in their former state. Who would not try the experiment, which promises advantage without expense? If rebels once obtain a victory, their wishes are accomplished; if they are defeated, they suffer little, perhaps less than their conquerors; however often they play the game, the chance is always in their favour. In the mean time, they are growing rich by victualling the troops that we have sent against them, and, perhaps, gain more by the residence of the army than they lose by the obstruction of their port.

Their charters, being now, I suppose, legally forfeited, may be modelled, as shall appear most commodious to the mother-country. Thus the privileges which are found, by experience, liable to misuse, will be taken away, and those who now bellow as patriots, bluster as soldiers, and domineer as legislators, will sink into sober merchants and silent planters, peaceably diligent, and securely rich.

But there is one writer, and, perhaps, many who do not write, to whom the contraction of these pernicious privileges appears very dangerous, and who startle at the thoughts of "England free, and America in chains." Children fly from their own shadow, and rhetoricians are frighted by their own voices. Chains is, undoubtedly, a dreadful word; but, perhaps, the masters of civil wisdom may discover some gradations between chains and anarchy. Chains need not be put upon those who will be restrained without them. This contest may end in the softer phrase of English superiority and American obedience.

We are told, that the subjection of Americans may tend to the diminution of our own liberties; an event, which none but very perspicacious politicians are able to foresee. If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?

This is one of progressivism's oldest falsehoods, and its also one of the easiest to refute.

The 1619 Project said the following:

It’s not that they didn’t recognize slavery as an important part of American society, or were unaware of contemporaneous critique of the founding generation (like Samuel Johnson’s famous quip in 1775’s “Taxation No Tyranny” asking “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?”), but that slavery was a parenthetical in their story of the founding.

Read Samuel Johnson. There does not appear to me to be any "contemporaneous critique" of the "Founding generation" - not on the issue of slavery in this framing. All we are left with is the usual: progressives are liars.

Now maybe, maybe, had Johnson just said 16 words and gone home for the day, perhaps this could be a critique on slave owners. But it's not. There's hundreds of words here. The topics Johnson are addressing are two fold: Fallout from the Stamp Act and the use of the word "slave" as a questionable fortelling of what would happen to the colonists should more Stamp Acts be passed, and questionable commentary from Englishmen on his side of the Atlantic. That's what Johnson is critiquing.

Parts of the larger work even appear to me to be an agreement from Johnson that force must be used to keep the colonies in line(Which to some extent is an ironic justification of the use of the word slavery on part of early American patriots) but nonetheless, we need to discuss Johnson. The NY Times is lying.

Why don't conservatives consider the writings of the Founders to be included in "the classics"?

With all of the cancel culture and history re-writing that's gone on, a longing has started to develop among some conservatives and conservative websites lately for classic works.

Examples may include the Iliad, anything by Aristotle or Plato, Moby Dick, Shakespeare, Cicero, Hobbes' Leviathan, Machiavelli, and many others.

The thing that I can't understand, is why aren't the Founders included in the category of the classics?

What is the relation between the Founders and the Underground Railroad?

History is an interesting thing. If a journalist doesn't want you to hear about it, they simply don't have to report it. Well what happens if a historian omitted facts in the same manner?

What if, let's say for example, the Underground Railroad consisted of slaves escaping from a state deep in the throws of slavery northward to a different state and that state had abolished slavery? Well of course the historian wants you to focus on the slave continuing their journey up to Canada, but the reality is that not all continued on their course.

What if many slaves stayed in northern states where slavery had been abolished? Well, they did.

Well who did that? Who abolished slavery in those northern states, or who wrote that Northwest Ordinance which secured to places such as Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and many others, would be states born as free states?

Who was it in, say, New York, who wrote those abolitionist laws? Pennsylvania and Vermont and pick any of those states you want. It was the founding generation in general and the Founding Fathers in particular. That's who did that.

Let's explore it from the opposite side, because that's really where the truth will become apparent.

What if the Founders didn't push for abolition in those northern states? Or in Indiana and other states that were formed after the Northwest Ordinance, or in Connecticut or any of the others. What if the Northwest Ordinance would never have been written, would there have ever been an Underground Railroad, or at least would it have been as we know it today?

If these states hadn't become free states, then where would the runaway slaves have run? Well, the simple answer is to Canada but this isn't so simple. The fact is that many fleeing to freedom did stay and make homes in free states and the Founders DID engage in this abolitionist activity and DID pass abolitionist laws once they didn't have the king vetoing these laws.

Isn't it then fair to say that the Underground Railroad came into being _because_ of the Founders, and not despite them?

No, progressivism is not in the lineage of the abolitionists

One of the larger myths of progressivism is that they are heralds of liberalism. In order to justify this, they have had to do two things: (both of which, sadly, have been successful)

1) Paint the picture of Enlightenment > Founders(Liberals) > Abolitionists > Feminists > Progressives

2) The hijacking of the word liberal

In order to justify their own existence, progressives have sent out their historians over the last several decades to manufacture this concept of progress and tie it all together in a very disorderly and quite frankly, convoluted way.

#1 is really the big meme, and the meme goes a little like this. As everybody is making progress(centered in Europe), and we have this great Renaissance which leads to the Age of Enlightement, that in turn leads to the realization that Monarchism is nonsense and freedom is far, far superior. But this then in turn leads to the entire Western world turning against slavery, and the women who helped out the slaves become free realized that they themselves had more potential and that abolitionism minus slavery around a bunch of activist women equals feminism. And see, everybody knows that the early Feminists were progressives.

Except, no. First, Christianity is omitted from this. That's what makes the whole thing a fraud.

Secondly, there is a lot of truth mixed in with that lie, otherwise it wouldn't stand basic entry-level tests. And it's the entry-level tests that progressives rely on. They can't afford deep examinations.

Now for one, Monarchism really is garbage and it would be better to be dead than to live under a dictatorial king. The Founders were correct on that one. Life under a monarch isn't worth living. But more than that, large portions of the timeline do have their relations. It was in fact women who helped the slaves toward emancipation, and at least in part that did lead to a realization among women that some in part wanted a different course through history for themselves. The Renaissance does in fact precede and lead to the Enlightenment, and the American Founding is in fact a product of the Enlightenment. Thinkers like Adam Smith, Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, these are all heavyweight champions of light and reason - and Christianity. You see, there's that bugaboo. And there were other amazing thinkers too, but I digress.

Of course also, there is the direct link between the Founding Fathers and the abolition of slavery - which is the one that the progressives really don't want you remembering but it's a hard link not to make since so many of the Founding generation were outspoken against slavery even if their work has been downplayed by hardcore activist "historians".

That brings us to feminism and progressivism. The problem is that in most stages before, the foundational requirement is small government because big government hurts people. At every step, there is a reluctance to grow government once the enlightened made that connection. There's also the mix of Christianity, which provides the foundation at every stage and in particular, the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God".

Have you ever read the works of the early abolitionists? You should, this would leave no doubts. Even many of the abolitionists on the British side who had no intention of leaving the side of the monarch, they were well versed in the fact that Liberty is the gift of God to all of God's men, not just the white men. Reading the works of Granville Sharp for one makes this blindingly clear. It is terribly easy to go around quoting Sharp, not mentioning who the quote is from, and I swear to you you would be convinced that what you just read was from a Founder. You would swear it up and down, left and right. Founder, founder, founder. Because from an American context, "that way of speaking" is how the Founders spoke and wrote and that's what we mainly know. But the abolitionists they all wrote and believed that same thing. Liberty is the gift directly from God to all of man and men.

This too was what the original feminists fought for in their day. The early feminists were in large part all pro-life. They weren't on board with the abortion mantra. That right there really helps separate the mindset of what feminists started as, to what they became.

This also happens to be the rub.

Progressives far and wide have written and written it from day one. The Declaration sucks. The Founders suck. We gotta stop worshipping the word.(The Constitution) We need more activist government, we need more social control, we need more assaults on the markets, we need more regulation.

It's a direct break from everything that preceded it in its own evolutionary way since the progressives abhor revolution. Here. Here's a quote from Granville Sharp, just because I'm quite certain that it's something you have never ever seen before.

Writing in "A Declaration of the People's Natural Right to a Share in the Legislature, Sharp wrote:

And as all British subjects, whether in Great-Britain, Ireland, or the Colonies, are equally free by the law of Nature, they certainly are equally entitled to the same Natural Rights that are essential for their own preservation; because this privilege of "having a share in the legislation” is not merely a British Right, peculiar to this island, but it is also a Natural Right, which cannot, without the most flagrant and stimulating injustice, be withdrawn from any part of the British Empire by any worldly authority whatsoever; because, “by the Natural Law, whereunto he [ALMIGHTY GOD] hath made all subject,” (says the learned Hooker,) (2) “the lawful power of making laws, to command whole politic societies of men, belongeth so properly unto the same entire societies, that for any Prince or Potentate, of what kind forever upon earth, to exercise the same of himself," [or themselves,] “and not either by express Commission immediately and personally received from God, or else by authority derived at the first from their consent upon whose persons they impose laws, it is no better than mere tyranny ! Laws they are not, therefore, which public Approbation hath not made so." Agreeable to the same just principles of natural Equity is that maxim of the English Constitution, that "Law to bind all, must be assented to by all;” (Principia Leg. et AEquit. p. 56.) and there can be no legal appearance of Assent without some degree of Representation.

Amazing, isn't it? Beautiful, isn't it? Sounds a lot like a Founding Father, doesn't it? Yes, it does. The abolitionists knew exactly the same thing that the Founders knew - that is that man must be free and freedom requires equality before the law.

As we speak, the progressives have taken off one of their last masks - that is, the "equality" mask. Progressives have never ever actually truely cared about equality. They have always cared about equity. Even at the beginning of the progressive era, hooligans like Theodore Roosevelt were out there preaching the gospel of Social Justice and Herbert Croly was out there whining about the improper maldistribution of wealth. This is foundational in progressivism 101.

Everything must be equal in everybody's house. If you make $5 and the other guy makes $6 well government must come about and make sure both of you get $5.50.

That's just who these progressives are. They're control freaks. They're lunatics. They think they know better than you do and they're ready to tell you all about it. Which reminds me, I didn't yet write about #2 yet. The hijacking of the word "liberal".

No progressives are ever "liberal". Most of the time and for the entirety of your life (unless you're in a very advanced age of your life) you've known progressives under their banner name (more like camoflage) that they hold out of "liberal". The Founding Fathers were liberals. Bill Clinton is not and never was a liberal. That was just camoflage. Jimmy Carter is not and never was a liberal. FDR spent most of his time on the history books as a liberal, which makes sense, he's the guy who hijacked the word. However, activist "historians" have done their work to re-frame him back as a progressive hero in the last decade.

Which, as a side note, if we had a large body of conservative citizen historians we could do significant damage to progressivism on this liberal-FDR progressive-FDR cognitive dissonance, but as of yet there is far too much trust by conservatives of the historian class to mount a significant external challenge.

Pick any one of the progressives you want during any time of your life you want (unless of course you were in your 20's during the election of 1932 when the word "liberal" was hijacked and you remember it!) and all of them - ALL of them, are progressives. Not liberals. They're not liberals. But that's what completes the circle. By hijacking the word, they hijacked the entire history behind it.

They don't deserve that word "liberal". They didn't earn it. They stole it. Like a cheap two-bit thief. They stole it.

Only conservative historians can fix this mess.

We have got to stop saying of the Founders "they were a product of their time"

An interesting thing recently happened, Planned Parenthood has come out and all but said quite plainly that Margaret Sanger was racist. Writing in the Slimes,

we must fully take responsibility for the harm that Sanger caused to generations of people with disabilities and Black, Latino, Asian-American, and Indigenous people.

and

We will no longer make excuses or apologize for Margaret Sanger’s actions. But we can’t simply call her racist, scrub her from our history, and move on. We must examine how we have perpetuated her harms over the last century — as an organization, an institution, and as individuals.

Sanger harms every minority that could be named, but no no, not racist. Whatever. It's still shameless apologism. But you know, that's not the most important part of the confession. It's this:

We have defended Sanger as a protector of bodily autonomy and self-determination, while excusing her association with white supremacist groups and eugenics as an unfortunate “product of her time.”

Have you ever defended the Founding Fathers on the issue of slavery on the basis of "oh well it was just a different time in human history" or "things were just different back then" or "they were products of their time"? There are dozens of other ways as well that this can be constructed.

If you have ever made these arguments, please stop. The reality is that there is no equivalency between Margaret Sanger and the Founding Fathers. The Founders were abolitionists and were ahead of their time. Their thought was unusual for the day. Progressive historians have done so much damage, and have taken this away from our Founders when it is rightfully theirs.

Could you imagine a situation where everybody says "Yeah, Vern Mikkelsen is a basketball player" but look at how good Michael Jordan is. Vern Mikkelsen isn't a basketball player anymore. "Yeah, Michael Jordan is a basketball player" but look at how good LeBron is. Michael Jordan isn't a basketball player anymore. Maybe its not the greatest analogy, but that's what the historians have in fact done! The notion that they have successfully sold in their historical narratives is basically "a better abolitionist came along later" so therefore what it does is "invalidates any abolitionist action prior". It's plain insanity.

Nobody on earth would accept sliding-scale basketball, but yet somehow we've been beaten into submission and acceptance on sliding-scale history. Only that which is on the very end of the sliding scale where the historians deem it valid is said to be, but everything else is invalid.

These lying historians! They have lied, they have cheated, and they have stolen - and the worst part is the stealing. Like a thief in the night, our pockets have been picked clean of any facts and reason regarding the reality of the country's founding. Our Founders, and there were many of them, did things such as the creation/founding of abolitionist societies(B. Franklin), passed actual abolitionist laws(J. Jay) and through the course of the recognition of what America stood for in the revolution - where they previously owned slaves because the king wanted it that way they freed their slaves against the king's will because it was the better way to go(W. Whipple). Is any of this a "product of the time"? What the historians have left us with is all just so insulting.

Look at this. Benjamin Wade was one of the more prominent people in the move for abolitionism in the era just prior to the Civil War and the ending of slavery. Wade said the following in a speech in congress:

But let me say to my northern Democratic friends, who are Jeffersonian Democrats, who make that their boast on every stump from Maine to Chicago, that no boast could be more glorious, for no one, in my judgment, be more glorious has ever breathed the breath of life, even among that great galaxy of worthies of revolutionary memory. I have always admired him. I have endeavored to imitate him; and now, if I have Abolitionism about me more than is due, I have come very honestly by it, for he taught me. He told me all about it, as he has told those Jefferson Democrats and Abolition men so often.( source )

Have you ever seen any of these toxic historians ever talk about this? Heck no! To admit this would be proof positive in itself that the Founders were ahead of their time and not products of the time. Thieves, the whole lot of them! Imagine how many progressive historians would be putting themselves out of business if they were to admit in the exact same sentence, that the very same Jefferson who they consider racist was considered abolitionist by some of the guys on the front lines at the time in the mid 1800s. The two don't mix! So the history has to be erased. And Wade wasn't the only one who looked at Jefferson this way. Compared to journalists, historians are far, far more dangerous. It's always the enemy you don't see who does the most damage in their sabotage.

You must, must stop saying the phrase or any of its derivatives or synonyms "product of their time" to the Founders. I know you mean well. The reality is though, that when you do this you turn the Founders into Margaret Sanger, and they deserve so much better than to be associated with filth like that.

There's no need to be an apologist for the Founders. They were on the correct side of history. We need to be BOLD for the Founders because that's what they left us and from our perspective that's what they deserve.

The king is the one. The king is who it is was a "product of his time", it's him, he is the one. Read the Declaration, he was behind on the times. And if you don't want to read it, listen to it.

To refute the progressives slavery narrative, which three Founding Fathers would you choose?

The progressives over a century ago set about to install a programme which would ensure that Americans would not know anything about American history in general and the Founding Fathers in particular. In the 21st century we see the tree that they planted bearing poisonous fruit in abundance.

By destroying our history, progressives have eliminated the ability for conservative story tellers to tell these stories and keep the historical record intact. This naturally allows the lie to carry the day because it is unopposed. That is why free and open source audiobooks are so important, especially as more of then can be established. We must restore the ability of conservative story tellers and that requires knowledge. Free knowledge that is full and complete in un-quoted form.

To that end, I wanted to highlight what I believe are three great examples of Founders who like most around them, were standing on the correct side of history. Note that I am only highlighting the what and the who, I am not going to highlight the "why" for now because I think that could be instructive.

Here goes. To demonstrate the falseness of the progressive slavery narrative, the three Founders I would choose would be:

* John Hancock

* Samuel Adams

* John Jay

I think Henry Laurens is another good demonstration of the power of storytelling as well. Sure, there are those like Benjamin Franklin who could be cited in this but that's too easy. We aren't going to get traction if all we can do is find time to take the lazy easy route. We need to know what the progressives don't want us to know and we must know it in full detail and abundance. Relying solely on quotes is a sort of self-assassination of the Founders by our own hands.

I would like to highlight this. All three of the Founders I chose are Founders who have been erased. The use of this grants a natural strategic advantage. All of the progressive propaganda surrounds guys like Jefferson and Washington and by rebuilding the many we can save the remaining few.

You shouldn't quote on this issue, as quoting is akin to surrender. We desperately need thoughtful storytelling.

The 1776 Commission report says this about John C. Calhoun

In the PDF file (download here) for the 1776 Commission, a refutation of the 1619 Project, it says the following: (page 12)

Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina famously rejected the Declaration’s principle of equality as “the most dangerous of all political error” and a “self-evident lie.” He never doubted that the founders meant what they said.

To this rejection, Calhoun added a new theory in which rights inhere not in every individual by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God” but in groups or races according to historical evolution.

This isn't usually what is said about leaders from the South in three categories:

• 1 to 2 decades prior to the Civil War
• During the Civil War
• 1 to 2 decades after the Civil war

To be clear, I don't mean that this is what is said from the progressives. We know that the progressives believe without any doubt that all leaders during this time period loved and worshipped the Founding. We also know (because it is proven) that progressives lie. What I waht to know is if those who are not progressives but are Civil War buffs, where are they on this? This sort of history has been erased - the idea that there was in fact a rejection of the Founding in this region during this era that is not just limited to one or two irrelevant people. There needs to be more coverage on this and the 1776 Commission report is now probably the highest profile source illustrating this. The report isn't just 5 words which says "Nuh uh, they are lying!", it actually establishes a base timeline.

The Commission's final report does not contain footnotes, so if you want to see this fully Calhoun's comment can be found in the 1848 "Oregon Bill" speech.

I bring this up because I have in the past (again here) pointed out how Lincoln spoke glowingly of the Declaration and I was trying back then to make the point about the utter depravaty of the progressives' lies. Additionally, I also posted recently about how some unknown number of slave owners felt that Marx and Hegel better represented their views. which again, illustrates lies that progressives tell. I feel the need to show all of you that Lincoln did not (so it appears) just wake up one day and speak in a void. Additionally I wouldn't be doing what I need to do if I didn't follow up on these things. In this context, Lincoln was generally defending the Declaration against those who attacked it on what was a hot button issue in his day. In the Oregon Bill speech, Calhoun does in fact attack the Declaration of Independence, that's just what it is.

One thing I do not know entirely is the timeline: Did Lincoln mention the Declaration first, which led some leaders to say that the Declaration is a lie as a vessel or vehicle to attack Lincoln?(in other words, was this meant only as a personal attack or presidential campaign politics and not really an attack on the Founding) Or did the Declaration come under assault first and Lincoln responded in kind at some later date. I can see this speech is from 1848, well before Lincoln's election. Was there a break or was this a consistent narrative for over a decade? I do not know.

I have this nasty habit of reading more than just "the quotes", and that leads me to read full documents such as the 1776 Commission Report. Nobody else talked about this that I have seen, and it's an important thing to consider.

Please read the full 1776 Commission report. (download here)