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?