tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59166890810822634952024-03-13T23:03:22.539-07:00progressingamericaProgressives do not want to discuss their history. I want to discuss their history.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.comBlogger656125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-33598930936073842972024-02-13T06:43:00.000-08:002024-02-13T06:43:49.295-08:00 New audiobook release: America's Retreat from Victory; The Story of George Catlett Marshall, by Sen. Joe McCarthy Today, with great enthusiasm I can let everybody know that the audiobook recording for <i>America's Retreat from Victory; The Story of George Catlett Marshall</i>, by Senator Joseph McCarthy, (as of yesterday) has been completed!
<p>It is high quality, great care was put into its creation, and since this is a free and open source item I would encourage all to give this to as many people as you can think of. If you have X/Twitter, Facebook, email, snail mail, whatever you have. Make sure you give it to others. What astounds me is how quickly this was strong-armed to completion. Very impressive!
<p><a href=https://librivox.org/americas-retreat-from-victory-the-story-of-george-catlett-marshall-by-joseph-mccarthy/>America's Retreat from Victory; The Story of George Catlett Marshall</a>
<p>There is a free lunch after all!progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-58651795390756774252023-12-30T08:53:00.000-08:002023-12-30T08:57:15.780-08:00If there was a free, public domain audio book written by Joseph McCarthy, would you be interested in listening to it?Just as the question states. Senator Joseph McCarthy wrote several books, what if one or many of them were recorded as open source public domain audio books and given away for/to everybody? Would you be interested in listening and learning from them?
<p>Would you share it with others? I'm just curious what people say to this.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-6161243877099356172023-11-25T07:54:00.000-08:002023-11-25T07:54:03.133-08:00Of Plimoth Plantation, Librivox audio bookI hope that everybody had a Happy Thanksgiving this week. My plan for this week had been to go ahead and begin a new collaborative audiobook about Governor William Bradford's chronicle of the early years at Plymouth Plantation. But little did I know, it's been complete since 2010! It just had a different name because someone "translated" it into a more common vernacular. There really are already some great works at Librivox to help contribute to a more educated populace. This work is a solo work, and it's fantastically read. This would be well worth paying for, but the fact that it is free is even better.
<p>Why is this book important? There are many reasons, but one stands out.
<p>Nearly a dozen years ago, I wrote about how the early Pilgrims attempted an <a href=https://progressingamerica.blogspot.com/2012/10/americas-first-experiment-into.html>experiment into progressivism</a> and a scheme of land and wealth redistribution. Progressives share this similarity with communists and socialists, in that they do not confirm that what you earn is yours. They think government should have a say and dispensate as needed. Needless to say, this experiement among the Pilgrims failed miserably, bred a ton of confusion and discontent, and cost many people their lives. This book is a large chronicle, and it is worth consuming for any true American. However, for the purposes of this highlight let's take a moment to focus. In this audiobook, the section dealing with the failed redistributionist policies appear in the audio file pertaining to book 2 chapter 4, and start around 7:20 of the audio.
<p><a href=https://librivox.org/bradfords-history-of-the-plymouth-settlement-by-william-bradford>https://librivox.org/bradfords-history-of-the-plymouth-settlement-by-william-bradford/</a>
<p>Now, knowing that this has been completed I'm going to go and fulfill a different promise I made some time ago and start an audio book project about Patrick Henry.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-2933427834513584202023-11-23T22:32:00.000-08:002023-11-29T07:37:06.398-08:00New audiobook release: The American NewspaperAfter a much longer delay than I hoped would happen, I am very happy to say that Will Irwin's <i>The American Newspaper</i> is now available as <a href=https://librivox.org/the-american-newspaper-by-will-irwin/>a public domain audio book</a>.
<p>For those of you who have strong feelings against media bias, this one is one you will not want to overlook. It's also a short work. There are only 15 segments, and the average runtime for each segment is often times in the 20-25 minute range making it both easy and quick to consume. Irwin properly frames how media use their power for political ends, and how their power is surpassed by virtually none. The amazing part is that someone actually wrote these things down to pen and paper. Some highlights include:
<blockquote>"<i>A newspaper may educate its public up or down: by the very power of constant iteration it may implant one or a number of fixed ideas.</i>" - Part 1 - "The Power of the Press", page 2 of 2</blockquote>
<blockquote>"<i>As for the gentleman of high finance who buys a newspaper outright to boom his private enterprises, his finish comes with greater expedition and certainty. Eventually, he finds that the newspaper in itself does not pay. If it is worth his while to retain it for assistance in his larger commercial and social plans, that is another matter. His profit must come in some coin other than business office receipts.</i>" - Part 13 - "The New Era", page 1</blockquote>
<p>You're not just supposed to go and admit these things. In the end, journalists have a lot of "social plans" that aren't the kinds of plans we envision for our own lives, but what does it matter what we want? The long and short of it is that progressive journalism is The Matrix. The reason to buy into media is to control people - the profit is not in money, the profit is in "control". You don't have to put a wire into the back of someone's head, all you have to do is have full control over the information that's placed <i>in front of their heads</i>. The end result is the same.
<p>Many of the audio books that I've lately worked to see to completion have been related to the Founding, but this one, this one is at the core of what the progressingamerica project is about. This was published in 1911 smack in the middle of the progressive era. This is all about progressivism. I've been trying lately to diversify, but the core of what happens around here has not been forgotten. Progressivism cannot go unchallenged.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-42859732278929390702023-10-26T09:57:00.004-07:002023-10-26T10:25:23.004-07:00New audiobook release: Reflections on the rise, progress, and probable consequences of the present contentions with the colonies<blockquote><i>§ 11. Can the Americans with a good grace complain of tyranny in the mother country for imposing an easy and inconsiderable tax, whilst they themselves are rioting on the labour of thousand of their species, torn from their dearest relations and doomed to abject and perpetual slavery?</i>
<p>In answer to this objection, it may be asked, where did this infamous commerce originate? Where is it still carried on with all the eagerness which avarice can inspire? Where, but in England? By what means can it be abolished? Surely by that power alone, which America acknowledges the parent state, may justly exercise over all her dominions, viz. the power of regulating their trade. The legislatures of some of the colonies have done what they could to put a stop to the importation of African slaves, by loading it with the heaviest duties: And others have attempted the total abolition of it, by acts of assembly which their governors refused to pass. And though they then petitioned for new instructions to their governors on this head, after all they failed of success. - <a href=https://archive.org/details/cihm_44466/page/n35/mode/2up>Page ( 28 )</a></blockquote>
<p>A fun thing happens when you crack open old books and start reading them. You start to see, hey wait a second, progressives are liars!
<p>Just released into audio is the book <a href=https://librivox.org/reflections-on-the-rise-progress-and-probable-consequences-of-the-present-contentions-with-the-colonies-by-a-freeholder-by-john-erskine/>Reflections on the rise, progress, and probable consequences, of the present contentions with the colonies. By a freeholder.</a>, which was originally published just three months after the United States declared Independence. October 18th, 1776.
<p>It's not all that difficult to look to American Patriots living on North American soil in the 1770s and find voices proclaiming grief that they could not get their laws passed beyond the Empire's prying eyes which would put an end to slaving. But what would those voices today who are proponents of The 1619 Project say to a British voice, living in England and who had never set foot anywhere in America, who also acknowledges the prime role the Empire played in introducing and carrying on slavery on North American shores? Erskine isn't the only one.
<p>This is the impossible position the progressives have put themselves in. Even early British citizens who were becoming anti-slavery could see the obvious. America wanted to get rid of slavery but the Empire kept stopping them from doing it.
<p>Any progressive who wants to blame the U.S. for slavery and the U.S. did not even exist cannot answer. Any progressive who wants to blame the U.S. for slavery and the colonies were the first anti-transatlantic-slavery in the western hemisphere cannot answer. What was being said on both sides of the Atlantic - American patriots who wanted it gone and the later British abolitionists who would follow their lead - this is our golden ticket.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-57782569815266936142023-10-22T23:42:00.000-07:002023-10-22T23:42:13.512-07:00New audiobook release: Benjamin Franklin (biography)I happened to notice that a biography of Benjamin Franklin was produced and published at Librivox. Thought you all might enjoy this.
<p><a href=https://librivox.org/benjamin-franklin-by-robin-mckown/>Benjamin Franklin, Robin McKown (1907 - 1975)</a>
<blockquote>This biography of Franklin was written for young people, but can be enjoyed by anyone. The author Robin McKown, is known for her young adult historical fiction and historical biographies. - Summary by Ciufi Galeazzi</blockquote>
<p>This audiobook is a solo, which means it is of a much higher quality than group books and yes, this reader did a fantastic job. However, it's free and open source so I would encourage you to give this to as many people as you can think of giving it to. Also note this has gotten nearly 50,000 hits since its release, so there is definitely a desire for audiobooks of this kind.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-14822857962237866592023-10-13T10:35:00.002-07:002023-10-13T10:35:16.085-07:00New audiobook release: The Life and Times of Joseph WarrenHappy Friday! What has just happened, I don't have the words to fully convey my excitement about this. This morning the biography written by Richard Frothingham, Jr. about General Joseph Warren has been completed and published!
<p><a href=https://librivox.org/life-and-times-of-joseph-warren-by-richard-frothingham-jr/>Life and Times of Joseph Warren</a> The summary is as follows:<br>
<blockquote>Joseph Warren was one of the popular leaders of Boston during the early stage of the American Revolution. He grasped its basis idea of civil freedom, and aimed to impress on the public mind its dignity and glory. By ten years of devotion to the patriot cause, he rose to be the head of public affairs in Massachusetts, and became one of the most prominent characters of New England. Warren, through life, was a man of action, whose words were deeds. To repel the aggressions of arbitrary power, and to maintain the principles of liberty, he wrote in the political journals, was zealous in the private clubs, and was a leader in the public meetings. - Summary by Richard Frothingham</blockquote>
<p>Unlike some of the other books I am working on which are group projects with the hopes of expediency, this reader took their time and recorded a solo audiobook, which are always in my opinion the best quality.
<p>We live in an America where progressives erase our history in order to gain an advantage for themselves. Who just sits back and lets the progressives do this? Not us! American history is so vibrant and it is so valuable, that it deserves to be enshrined on places like YouTube(as of now, this book has yet to be released on the Librivox YT page) and if people can't make time to stop and read a book, we will add convenience and value and read it to them. This book needs to be held up, promoted, and given to as many people as can be reached.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-54305236189109390512023-08-21T14:48:00.001-07:002023-08-21T14:48:10.130-07:00New audiobook release: History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution Vol. 1, by Mercy Otis WarrenTwo completed audio books in one month, its so exciting.
<p>A contemporary three-volume history of the American Revolution written with an Enlightenment tone that covers the background of the era spanning the crisis caused by the Stamp Act in 1765 to the closing of the establishment of the Constitution in 1789. Warren's book carries a strong Republican viewpoint as she comprehensively guides the reader through the events as they unfolded around her. - Summary by progressingamerica
<p><a href=https://librivox.org/history-of-the-rise-progress-and-termination-of-the-american-revolution-vol-1-by-mercy-otis-warren/>https://librivox.org/history-of-the-rise-progress-and-termination-of-the-american-revolution-vol-1-by-mercy-otis-warren/</a>
<p>The schools want to teach your kids falsehoods about the American Revolution. (In some instances, schools will ignore American history in total) With this, you can help correct the false record that's being taught or you can introduce them to a topic they will never receive. Truly a monumental work for any home schooler.
<p>I will get to vols 2 and 3 as time permits.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-6250023748594540532023-08-04T16:31:00.002-07:002023-08-04T16:54:40.520-07:00New audiobook release: An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers, by George LivermoreIf the contents of The 1619 Project are getting under your skin, here's a new audiobook for you.
<p>Nothing else need be said, book speaks for itself.
<p><a href=https://librivox.org/an-historical-research-respecting-the-opinions-of-the-founders-of-the-republic-by-george-livermore/>An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers, by George Livermore</a>
<p>Book summary: Collects the speeches, writings, public statements and legislative acts of the Founding Fathers and Framers of the United States against slavery. (Summary by progressingamerica)progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-82832023951465518642023-03-03T08:47:00.001-08:002023-03-03T08:47:28.197-08:00New audiobook release: Children's book of patriotic stories: The spirit of '76 by Dickinson and DickinsonJust released: <a href=https://librivox.org/childrens-book-of-patriotic-stories-by-helen-m-winslow/>Children's book of patriotic stories: The spirit of '76 by Dickinson and Dickinson</a> is a book that should be helpful for those of you working in the field of homeschooling. <a href=https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/69235>text</a>
<p>Note: I was not involved in any aspect of the nomination nor creation of this audiobook. I just know who benefits most from it's creation.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-1690689266966744572023-01-02T10:01:00.006-08:002023-01-02T10:02:47.477-08:00New audiobook release: Anti-slavery in America from the Introduction of African Slaves to the Prohibition of the Slave Trade (1619-1808)<p>This is super simple. In our ongoing struggle against the New York Times' 1619 Project, how valuable is a free/open source audiobook that highlights American abolitionism, going back to 1619, with 1619 in the title?
<p>Enjoy! Text in the link for those who prefer to read the words than to listen to an audio book presentation.
<p><a href=https://librivox.org/anti-slavery-in-america-1619-1808-by-mary-s-locke/>Anti-slavery in America from the Introduction of African Slaves to the Prohibition of the Slave Trade (1619-1808)</a>
<p>I've done the heavy lifting. The only question now is - will conservatives actually listen?(or read) American history gives us the upper hand against the progressives. Our Founding Fathers were on the correct side of history here. But the information is only valuable if we pick it up and use it. If we leave it on the ground, well, then, the progressives will continue their attacking. It doesn't have to be this way. If there was more I could do from this point, I would do it, I don't know what that "more" would be though. At at the end of the day, I'm only one guy. But I do think that getting the full audiobook completed means that I've done more than most, and I'll have to accept that.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-10373930751611418092022-11-27T09:10:00.003-08:002022-11-27T09:19:53.409-08:00New audiobook release: What is Industrial Democracy?As 2022 comes to a close, several audiobooks are all coming together around the same time. The latest is a little pamphlet written by Norman Thomas titled ""<a href=https://librivox.org/what-is-industrial-democracy-by-norman-thomas/>What is Industrial Democracy?</a>
<p>Now why did I record this book? Norman Thomas is a socialist, not a progressive - and even, in this little work, he takes the time to swipe at the progressives. So what gives? Let's start with two things we all know and can easily prove in 15 seconds, and let's look at how those things are connected.
<p>First, nobody would dare call Theodore Roosevelt a socialist. But we have to admit, Roosevelt was in fact America's first Progressive President.
<p>Second, by the time we get to the 1960's, progressivism and socialism (and to some extent communism even) had all kind-of-but-not-really merged.
<p>How did this merger take place? How did we get from anti-socialist progressives like TR(and Wilson as well) to the merger that we saw in the 1960's that still exists to today? To that I respond:
<p>What is Industrial Democracy?
<p>I'm really not kidding about that. The phrase "Industrial Democracy" - I believe this is the keystone. So too is social justice, but that phrase is too vague. It is true that Theodore Roosevelt was a SJW, a Social Justice Warrior. We have his audio, I don't even have to work to re-produce it. It's the whole deal too. In <a href=https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/teddyrooseveltrightpeoplerule.htm>this</a> original audio, he plainly states he wants social justice, and in addition, it's a gripe about how bad ultra conservatives are. All you reactionaries, you and I, who would be in opposition to TR's statist machinations. It's exactly the kind of screed you'd expect from a rotten progressive, it's just 120 years old.
<p>But why Industrial Democracy? What is so important about that phrase? It's because this phrase links so many things together. It's the glue that binds. Industrial Democracy is much more specific than the phrase social justice, to begin with.
<p>One of the most visible groups of the 1960's radicalism is the group SDS, or Students for a Democratic Society. Most people don't take their time to research it, but this group didn't just spring from nowhere. It was renamed. Renamed from what? The SLID, or, the <i>Student League for <b>Industrial Democracy</b></i>. So what was the LID? The League for Industrial Democracy, the main group, is the group that published this very Norman Thomas pamphlet.
<p>The LID was also where another person can be found, who is not as well known as he should've been, that being Stuart Chase. Chase is important because he was an advisor to Franklin Roosevelt, and FDR is known to have borrowed the phrase "New Deal" from Chase. Perhaps you've heard of that. And I'm only scratching the surface here of how influential this group the LID was. But let's not get too far confusing the group for the phrase. The phrase is the real nugget, the phrase is everything.
<p>There are other reasons also why I chose this book. For one, I'm actively looking for things that would make good audiobooks that also might catch some conservative eyes and increase the conservative mindshare in regards to free open source audiobooks, and Norman Thomas's name will forever be immortalized in Reagan's "<a href=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY>A Time for Choosing</a>". So that's good. There's what I mentioned at the outset. Thomas takes a swipe at the progressives. It's good to highlight every now and then the differences between the two(socialism/progresssivism) and this pamphlet does just that.
<p>Finally, there's also the fact that at the time I began recording Thomas's pamphlet, I needed a small work instead of a full sized book with several hundred pages. So that was good for me personally. At just the time when I needed it, I now have the free hand I needed to get started on my next major audiobook and really give it a good focus. Every other audiobook I'm currently working on, they're all closing and becoming ready for use at around this same time. Just what I needed. My next solo is going to be so much fun and it explains just about everything I've wrote about for the last decade.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-15598519843566756132022-10-05T09:40:00.002-07:002022-10-05T09:40:31.236-07:00The damage we did, and how we fixed it, and a bright conclusionIn pursuing goals, sometimes you step on landmines. I'd like to give you a little back story.
<p>I recently announced the completion of a new audiobook, <a href=https://progressingamerica.blogspot.com/2022/09/new-audiobook-release-history-of-fabian.html>The History of the Fabian Society</a>, but this time this audiobook was not completed by myself, but by a friend of mine who has also taken to recording audiobooks with a more conservative-interested focus. One of the biggest, if not <b>the biggest problem of all that we face is information availability</b>. Everywhere you turn, information is withheld and omitted. By making these works into audio, what we are doing is making the information into a sort of a pill that people can simply swallow. Reading a book takes a lot of time. You can listen to audio at the gym. So it goes. Audiobooks save time.
<p>But there's a flip side to this. When we first started having conversations about 'what book should we pick', our original goal was a book offered by the Mises Institute. I for sure thought that this was safe, since Mises has some reservations about copyrights and these are made known fairly publicly.
<p>The book we initially planned on seeing a recording made was <a href=https://mises.org/library/fabian-freeway-high-road-socialism-usa>Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A.</a> As you can see, now, that page says Access Denied. When we emailed Mises, Mises emailed the publisher. The end result is that this book is no longer accessible through that gateway. I personally find it strange that anybody (I'm referring to the publisher here) would refuse it when someone says "we will do free work for you". But hey, to each his own.
<p>Now the thought occurs to me, how many people really, are going to Mises so they can download the PDF or EPUB versions of Fabian Freeway? I don't know, but as already eluded to, we fixed it to some extent with a trade off by the general availablity of Pease's history book. The two are not completely equivalent, of course, however, give it a little bit of time to work its way out into the world and the Fabian audiobook will get much more traction. So that's the story, the damage we did and the end-result trade off that we did not plan going in to be making. We didn't even know we were putting in an order for some lemons, but after that's what we were handed, we made some lemonade.
<p>Now as an addendum, since I started typing this a few days ago, I have since discovered that Mises did not go very far in locking down access to these files. That, coupled with the Wayback Machine, these files cannot be lost. For now, here are the two sub-gateways to the files, respectively:
<p><a href=https://mises.org/files/fabian-freeway-high-road-socialism-usaepub>Fabian Freeway High Road to Socialism in the USA.epub</a>
<p><a href=https://mises.org/files/fabian-freeway-high-road-socialism-usapdf>Fabian Freeway High Road to Socialism in the USA.pdf</a>
<p>And here are the Internet Archive backups. These include the actual file and not just the gateways. So you can still read these works.
<p><a href=http://web.archive.org/web/20141215000000*/https://mises.org/files/fabian-freeway-high-road-socialism-usaepub>Archive: Fabian Freeway High Road to Socialism in the USA.epub</a>
<p><a href=http://web.archive.org/web/20160305093340/https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Fabian%20Freeway%20High%20Road%20to%20Socialism%20in%20the%20USA%20-Digital%20Book_3.pdf>Archive: Fabian Freeway High Road to Socialism in the USA.pdf</a>
<p>So now, you have all of the files you had before without any loss whatsoever. But you also gain a full audiobook that is well executed and worth putting your time into.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-50616415862587237272022-09-28T07:23:00.003-07:002022-09-28T07:48:12.208-07:00New audiobook release: The History of the Fabian Society<p>The audiobook for the 1916 book <i>The History of the Fabian Society</i> is now complete.
<p>Full disclosure - this isn't my voice. Yes! those of you who know, I've been recording free open source public domain audiobooks for years now in order to bring content to a conservative audience who realizes the natural advantage that history brings for us. So why not leverage it? Why let an advantage go to waste?
<p>To that end, I had a conversation with a gentleman some time ago, we discussed potential works, and long story short he put in the work and produced this fantastic audio recording! My preferred focal point has always been American progressivism, and for those who know a little bit on the subject the British Fabians had a lot of crossover with the progressives. Without going in depth, Margaret Sanger is a place you can look, you'll see what I mean.
<p><a href=https://librivox.org/the-history-of-the-fabian-society-by-edward-r-pease/>This audiobook</a> is a rendition of Edward Pease's History of how the organization came to be. It probably doesn't go too far into any American contexts. However, this organization is highly poisonous, and this book will go a long way toward allowing us to have a much better understanding of the organization for those who have taken an interest in it.
<p>Enjoy your listen, and a big thanks again for all the hard work that created this audio production. Raw url:
<p><a href=https://librivox.org/the-history-of-the-fabian-society-by-edward-r-pease/>https://librivox.org/the-history-of-the-fabian-society-by-edward-r-pease/</a>progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-62730310906987027642022-09-17T12:29:00.003-07:002022-09-17T13:06:03.610-07:00Pointing to the math, Clay Travis pontificates that perhaps England should be paying reparations to African AmericansI know this is a contentious issue for many, yet the fact that the United States did not exist prior to a certain date, is really hard to ignore. On the Tuesday broadcast, toward the end of the second hour, Clay said the following:
<blockquote>I've always been fascisnated, Buck, by the reparations argument in the United States in particular, because you know slavery was only legal in the United States for 80 years. A lot of people never actually do the math on it. United States was a country from 1783 until 1863 that allowed slavery to be permitted as an independent nation, 80 years. Most reparations for slavery would actually have to be paid by England because England was in charge of the United States colonies for the vast majority of our history.
<p>....
<p>You never hear anybody who advocates for reparations say ok, England is on the hook for 1619 to 1783, <b>which is whatever the math is on that</b>.</blockquote>
<p>The podcast link is <a href=https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/sdzh2-bcc80/The-Clay-Travis-and-Buck-Sexton-Show-Podcast>here</a>, <a href=https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-phw4c-1527d03b?utm_campaign=w_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=w_share>here</a>, and the direct downloadable option is <a href=https://www.podbean.com/site/EpisodeDownload/DIR1527D03BPHW4C>here</a>. If you do download or listen to the podcast - and I really think you should, start listening around 35:25. Buck of course agreed to some extent, pointing out that in those years, Transatlantic slave trading was an English program and that it was spread by them and other European powers. Historically speaking, all of this commentary is correct. There's a lot more to it and as a citizen historian I would love to give you eighty thousand words on it, but I'm really intent on just saying "Here's what they said on the radio show, let's focus on the math, this is it" and a little knock against the progressives is probably sufficient too.
<p>Now, for the record, I think that Clay is calling out the hypocrisy of progressives on this. I do not think he supports reparations, and so its said I don't support reparations either. But to say that the United States should pay reparations for when The Empire controlled the land and the plantations would make about as much sense to say that the United States should pay reparations to Jamaica in accordance to their leaders' wishes to receive reparation payments. Jamaica is another nation who is also calling for reparations.
<p>Why would the United States pay reparations to Jamaica when the U.S. was not in control? That land was controlled by the Empire. Why should the United States pay reparations for anything prior to 1783? The Empire still claimed the land. That means they also claim the slavery. Even more clear-cut is prior to the Declaration. Everybody was a proud citizen of the British Empire. How is that slavery America's fault when the U.S. doesn't even exist in any way, shape, or form?
<p>Progressives can't have it both ways on this.
<p>Jamaica was wholly-owned by the British Empire. Prior to 1783, the 13 colonies were wholly-owned by the British Empire despite that war that was going on. I don't support reparations, but let's be real with ourselves. This responsibility falls on the Empire. This is very simple math. The United States is just not that old.
<p>While progressives are liars, the math doesn't lie to you on this, just subtract the years and see what you come up with.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-27457461412676885162022-08-21T21:50:00.015-07:002022-08-22T06:01:57.173-07:00Which Founding Father is the most popular who isn't George Washington, isn't Benamin Franklin, isn't Thomas Jefferson, and isn't George Washington?Something amazing has happened. Many posts ago, I told people that <a href=https://progressingamerica.blogspot.com/2021/01/yes-i-am-open-to-taking-requests-for.html>Yes, I am open to taking requests for free open source audiobook production</a> and I meant it. I would be curious to know any directions people would like to go - of course, I have my own goals and a much greater lack of manpower than anybody can know. But there's plenty of room for overlap, and that post will never have an expiration date.
<p>But there has been a change recently, and most importantly, <b>the reverse has come true</b>. I've been in contact with someone, and after many discussions, this person helped me with one audiobook related to progressivism as a collaboration and now has taken on an audiobook all on their own, and they're ripping through it like a magician with a flame sword trying to melt butter. It's like watching fireworks in slow motion. Even better than that.
<p>The audiobook we collaborated on is rooted in media bias, and when that book is fully complete, you can be sure it will be announced here for your listening pleasure.
<p>To briefly describe this solo work he's taken, it's a historical account of the British Fabian Society written around 1906. We as conservatives are sorely lacking in knowledge about the Fabians. I've always wanted to do a book about the Fabians myself since they started having crossover with American Progressives in some of the crucial years,(like the 1920s) but I can't take my eye off of the ball. The core of my work must be Progressivism, so Fabians have never risen high enough as a priority. Look at my side bar. That side bar has never changed in over a decade, and it will never, ever change. It is more than anything, my guiding principle.
<blockquote>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 - Sun Tzu (Art of War, Chapter 3)</blockquote>
<p>The more I read the Founders directly and old historians from the mid and late 1800s, the more I realize that, wow, I didn't know squat about the Founders. <b>And this is because of how complete the control over history is, that the progressives have achieved.</b> If you have a history book written about the Founders that's after 1920, you might as well throw that junk in the garbage. No, really. All historians are guilty until proven innocent. Unless you have one of maybe a handful - 20 or so historians who truely are worth more than a salt shaker. Maybe you're lucky and you have one of their works and a sincerely well written non-omitting treasure of a book. But the vast bulk of all history written by historians since 1920 about the founders - It's really smelly fake trash. It just is. Historians are in many ways worse than journalists.
<p>But even in trash, there is some modicum of facts and that's why they get away with it. Progressive historians can omit much, but they cannot outright lie. They couldn't say that Washington was born in 1302 could they? Nah. So their strength is in omission. But it is omission that has led all of us to know so little of the Founders. Most people only really have knowledge of the Federalist Papers directly, and one, or perhaps two Founding Fathers that they've chosen as their figure. We need to know more than this. We just do. We need to know and specialize in knowing what the historians have erased and make it easy for others around us to develop the same specialty.
<p>But, just to round out the converse and hit the complete point that Sun Tzu was making, while some conservatives do have knowledge about the Founders; as to the progressives - the enemy? No. Progressives have owned history and have completely and totally buried their history in ways that even after doing this for a decade, it STILL confounds me how complete the full package that it is. It is so complete. It is so ironclad. I recognize how utterly devious and deceitful it all is, but I cannot help but marvel at how thorough and how completely successful they've been. It just is. You have to marvel at the success. And Fabians are the same way. That's what makes the work that my friend is doing such an amazing thing and such a ray of light and I cannot state in words how excited I am that this book is being recorded at the rate its happening. It does help me point the way in the future though, I can be more pointed toward the Founding Fathers.
<p>That's how all of this relates to the headline question of this posting. Because, of the one or two Founders that people do know, in most instances, it's George Washington. Now, Washington was a pillar of a human being and I'll even go so far as to say he was one of the greatest humans to ever walk the planet. But I still get a little frustrated that, come on, can we really not limit ourselves to anything but three of the Founders?
<p>Can we expand here? Please? I'm begging you. Please?
<p>And that's the crux of my question. I would love to be shown how wrong I am and have a hundred people or more come out of the woodwork and tell me how great John Hancock was - and you're going to tell me this story, and that story, and you'll have all these details about his governorship, and a link to this book and that book. But I'm certain that won't be happening in response. Very few of you know anything about John Hancock. Or how about a Founder like General Joseph Warren and all he did for us? If the only thing you can tell me about is the Battle of Bunker Hill, then, I don't mean this to be brazen, but if you can only talk to me about the Battle of Bunker Hill then you know I'm right and you're just proving it to yourself. You shouldn't feel bad, the Progressives have stolen Joseph Warren from us. We didn't surrender him. We didn't "forget" him. They own history. <b>They erased Warren</b>. And let me tell you, Joseph Warren didn't deserve erasure. He was too important. To heck with the progressives.
<p>They did this to you, the progressives, and they did it to me too. Or how about Rufus King? Will twenty or more of you come up around here and tell me this or that about him? And yes, <b>I mean, without trying to do a quick homework on Wikipedia.</b> You already know it without me saying it - you don't know anything about Rufus king. I'll be honest, I don't either. Look, I'm not omitting myself here, no one man can know all things, and that is fair, and my taking time to record audiobooks does in fact slow down my ability to learn more about the Founders. Here's another, how many of you even know we have a Founding Father named Steven? How few are familiar enough to even know that I misspelled it?(yes, it was on purpose) But the fact that I could easily go down a list and just one after the other, nobody knows the founders - except for Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson. Doesn't that strike you as a problem? How does nobody see this problem? It's an elephant. Right here in the living room! Nobody sees it!!! How can you miss it? An elephant. Right there!
<p>Well, to me, I like challenges. I see this problem, and I say what can I do toward I fixing this problem? Because I can make a difference here.
<p>I want to do an audiobook about a specific Founder, one who <b>isn't</b> Jefferson, Franklin, or Washington. And yes, I did mean to write Washington's name twice in the title. It illustrates the point.
<p>If I had to take a guess, I would suspect that the most popular Founding Father who isn't Washington, Jefferson, or Franklin, is Patrick Henry. That's just a guess! But when I see discussions or hear people I know, I think I hear and see Patrick Henry more than any others. Perhaps George Mason. I would never suspect Nathaniel Gorham of being one of the more popular founders, I just wouldn't. I bet you wouldn't either.
<p>Now, I wish I could do an audiobook of one of the founders that's so random, because I do want to fill this gap. But I also want to make something that people will actually take the time and have an interest to consume, so I am quite certain that I won't be doing anything about David Brearly. And yes, I'm dropping names to catch your attention.
<p>I want to do an audiobook that will be free in the public domain, a biography of one man that's just his story so we can learn just that and then that story can start being a little more prominent. More media is good media. I don't know when it will happen, but soon. But my goals are this:
<p>First: <b>How can I avoid "the formula"</b>?
<p>Universities can't really avoid Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin - while they can certainly lie by omission about these men, that's the formula. We only have three Founding Fathers by the culture of some universities. We're only allowed to learn about or discuss Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington. And oh let's not forget about how racist they all were. -- It's so boring. Because the universities are lying. Historians are frauds.
<p>Second: How can I introduce a new Founding Father to people who want the Founding Fathers, in a way that is creative and engaging?
<p>Audiobooks. This one isn't complicated. I got this.
<p>Third: What will people actually care enough about?
<p>Even with the importance of a Roger Sherman or a John Dickinson, who may be popular enough to be good choices, am I still just kinda playing to "the formula"? Would I really be doing much good if any if I don't break out and truely teach people something that's quite amazing? Even with as prominent as Madison was, is he really all that popular? How about Richard Stockton? Stockton sounds like a fairly good choice to me.
<p>My time does have value. I mean, not that yours doesn't. I'm just saying, I really think an audiobook about Jacob Broom could be reaching into the territory of <i>I'm wasting my time here</i>, there's not many who would listen to this.
<p>So that's why I'm asking. What's the best value for my time and to be clear, for your your time as well? What isn't <b>repeat work</b>? I can tell you this. We don't need yet another book or audiobook about George Washington as amazing as he was.
<p>And so it's said, I do hope that at some point in the future, others do join me. I hope my new friend doesn't turn out to be my only new friend who sees the value in this endeavor and helps. And yes, he has done one solo audio.(still ongoing) <b>One book is enough!!!</b> Know that - one solo is enough. A full two or three dozen audiobooks about specific founders that we could pass around like candy would be such an amazing thing. So amazing. Free and open source in the public domain, that I could just give to you, and you just could give to someone else, and they could freely give to me, and it keeps repeating and making us all more knowledgable and better voters. But the human lifespan only lasts so long. And even fully focused only on the Founders, I could not do that. I just won't last that long. <b>One person with one commitment can go a very long way.</b> My new friend is proof of that. Ten people with one single committment is a very big problem for progressives - I want to go and create that problem.
<p>Look, I'm going to do this with or without you. The only questions left to ask are when, and who.
<p>Oh, and P.S. What about the <b>Founding Mothers</b>? I couldn't even do a book there. Well, I suppose I could. But I truely think that a woman's voice would fit the bill so much more nicely and be a significant upgrade in quality that for the sake of quality, it should be read by a woman and not a man. So there's that. As much as I want it done, for the reason of quality I won't do it. Perhaps someone needs to convince me otherwise.
<p>In any case, which Founding Father is the most popular who isn't George Washington, isn't Benamin Franklin, isn't Thomas Jefferson, and isn't George Washington? I really would like to know so that I can set an optimum goal for myself.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-11812333976183755612022-03-26T08:18:00.000-07:002022-03-26T08:18:23.138-07:00Elie Mystal vs Frederick Douglass - the U.S. ConstitutionElie Mystal believes that the Constitution is trash because of slavery. No doubt, Mystal believes that the Constitution is pro-slavery.
<p><a href=https://www.newsweek.com/elie-mystal-doubles-down-against-haters-after-calling-constitution-trash-1685174>https://www.newsweek.com/elie-mystal-doubles-down-against-haters-after-calling-constitution-trash-1685174</a>
<p>Conversely, Frederick Douglass believed that the Constitution is anti-slavery, because of the details of its formation. Here's an idea of what he thinks:
<p>The American Constitution and the Slave - Is the Constitution pro-slavery or anti-slavery? - By Frederick Douglass
<p><a href=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbJ5WdKpMro>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbJ5WdKpMro</a>
<p>I know who I agree with. Interestingly, Douglass is super detailed as to why the Constitution is anti-slavery, wheras Mystal just spouts some talking points that only sound cute to a sympathetic crowd. I'm sure, to be fair, that Mystal gets detailed in his book "<i>Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution.</i>" I know I would not purchase that, but you can do what you want.
<p>It seems to me that these people really want to keep themselves in the dark and just keep saying the same tired old things over and over again.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-52406396544462560512022-02-11T07:17:00.003-08:002022-02-11T07:33:13.885-08:00If it were Saul Alinksy, he would surely clog up the big gameThe big super game is coming. The truckers are coming! The truckers are coming! Wouldn't it be so much fun if the truckers clogged up the streets of Los Angeles and prevented anybody from getting to the stadium? That is, after all, what Saul Alinsky would do.
<p>He really would. The icing on the cake would be if the truckers clogged up LA and all got out of their trucks and kneeled in the streets next to the trucks. Just get out right there and take a knee. That would be so fantastic. That would so turn it on its head and be the ultimate middle finger to the wokesters. Especially if we saw some truckers kneeling with some signs that said "no fans left". I know some might disagree with this part, but here's why. They would want the trucks gone. But if the truckers are out of their trucks, what's the message? "We aren't leaving here any time soon." It's all about messaging.
<p>And why would Alinsky do this? Because protesting works. It is so successful. I've been told time and again by people unwilling to get up and be a part of the solution things like "making signs and walking around in the streets, that never solved any problems" and "I have a job" and "activism is a left wing thing". (I've heard dozens of variations, and I've also heard obscenity laced statements as well.) But the point is, when it came to making a statement Alinsky knew how to spot a weak point and leverage it and he didn't just wait until election day. Culture matters.
<p>The big game on big game sunday would be perfect. Alinsky was fond of doing things such as having his activists eat huge meals comprised mainly of baked beans, and then attend events such as orchestras where the results would be rather loud and disruptive. But in regard to the big game, this seems more like the Chicago O'Hare piss in.
<p>Have you heard the plan for the <a href=https://www.conservapedia.com/Saul_Alinsky>piss in</a>?
<p>It was never implemented. Just the threat of it was enough for Alinksy to get his demands met. What Alinsky proposed was for a large group of activists to go to the O'Hare airport and just stand in a urinal for as long as possible and take up toilets as well, potentially for hours. Just thinking of this and what kind of mayhem it would create makes it obvious why Chicago moved so quickly.
<p>Now, preventing people from using the rest room is quite simply evil. That's just how Alinsky's mind worked, the guy was defective. But this clearly has parallels to potentially clogging up the big game. The NFL, they're all woke, they've thrown in against the country. But from our standpoint it's just some game. It doesn't really affect people anyways. With that in light, there isn't anything dishonorable compared to Alinsky's proposal. But the real focus needs to be on the results.
<p>The government wants to take total social control of our lives and everything about COVID has become a part of that - meanwhile, government relies heavily upon entertainment of all sorts to keep people distracted with shiny things so they don't rise up. That's what makes the super........... I mean, the big game, such an effective target.
<p>The message is: "you disrupt us, we disrupt you". It's really the ultimate message of protesting. "I can't live my life this way, and now, you can't live this way either." "You people in Washington didn't hear me, now hear all of us."
<p>But let's not forget, protesting also allows people to take command of media coverage. I'm surrounded by people who constantly complain about the media, but while at the same time there are daily opportunities to take command of their coverage and every day, those opportunities are left on the table. They are never used. Where will all the cameras be? All cameras are already planned to be focused on SoFi stadium. We know where, we know the time, we know the day, of the cameras will be. What will the cameras show? Woke football players who are not worth our time and money? Or will the cameras show truckers standing up for the constitution doing exactly what the Founding Fathers told us to do, protesting; it's embedded right there in the constitution. It's such a rare opportunity that we get to take control of the media.
<p>We could if we wanted to.
<p>Do we want to?progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-8490753721994713492022-01-14T18:44:00.002-08:002022-01-18T08:57:44.560-08:00The irrelevant George Washington vaccine mandateAbove all else, progressives are master propagandists. There isn't anything they'll take out of context for maximum effect. What happened with George Washington and smallpox is no different.
<p>This is a simple "two hand" comparison problem. In the one hand, you have every living American in George Washington's day, with or without enlistment. In the other hand, you have just military members, enlisted and or active soldiers. Progressives want you to believe that because George Washington had a narrow order that only affected military officials under his command in the one hand and not the wider public, that somehow this is proof that government has wide and unlimited powers that affects both hands. It didn't. In general, commanding officers always have a lot of say over what happens in regard to those under their command. This is a very useful bait and switch, and I even hear my fellow conservatives fall for this trap. It's a trap and nothing more.
<p>If you are not a member of the military and have never been a member of the military, this bit of historical malpractice that progressives have cooked up should make you and anybody laugh out loud.
<p>Outside of members of the military, for people in the first hand who never enlisted, George Washington's orders were and still are irrelevant. They will be irrelevant for all time. That is all. Now if you're a member of the military then we have a different conversation that we need to have.
<p>This is just meant to be a dissection of the propaganda of progressives and nothing more.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-40032295742755903542022-01-05T08:07:00.001-08:002022-01-05T08:07:55.086-08:00How did progressives successfully expunge all of America's black heroes from the history books?One of the most fascinating things I find about progressivism is how they create a problem, and then campaign against that problem all the while disclaiming any fault for its happening. So it is with the black heroes in early American history. But how did progressives accomplish it? How did they erase this? It's not that these heroes were unknowns. Who erased them?
<p>I've said this before and I'll say it here again. This idea that "Americans forget" is unwarranted, NOT when progressives are involved. Progressives are thieves when it comes to all of the highlights of America history. Progressives hate America. No Americans accidentally "forgot where they laid down their car keys". Is it on the tv stand? Did it fall behind the dresser? No. This was an intentionally malicious and pernicious design and has been to erase all of our history. Now, progressives don't always set out with 50 year plans, but they do know how to use progressivism to build more progressivism and they do have more patience than their own lifespans in order to see their goals accomplished.
<p>So it is with the works of Woodrow Wilson. David Barton's son Tim Barton lays this all out plainly, <a href=https://rumble.com/vnga5j-racist-origins-of-critical-race-theory.html>here</a>. As Barton notes, George Washington Carver, Frederick Douglass, and others - Phyllis Wheatley, Crispus Attucks, Peter Salem, and many, many others. All are missing from Wilson's work. Due to Wilson's prominence, these five volumes set the tone for all future historical works that would follow. This is an early progressive echo chamber.
<p>This elimination of history has a predictable outcome if you follow the process. From the beginning with Wilson erasing the black heroes so long ago, it stands to reason that Black Americans feel ostrasized from America for more than a century instead of what it should be, that they earned this just as much as anybody else. This was done in the service of progressivism, which at the time was just as highly racialized as it is today just in a different way. It was not <i>America</i> that erased these heroes, it was <i>progressivism</i>. Am I wrong on this? I don't think so. Let's flip this over so that it's on the other side. The progressives have the power to correct this grievous wrong, do they not? Well then why don't they fix it then? Why don't they fix it?
<p>Who controls universities? Progressives do. Who controls media? Progressives do. So it is progressives who could easily conduct a widespread campaign on every one of their news outlets, using every one of their publishing houses, across every one of their social media platforms, and in every university and textbook nationwide. But do they?
<p>No.
<p>Progressives created this problem. And they exploit it. It would be a detriment to progressive ideology to correct the record about black heroes in early America. This is all in service of progressivism from beginning to end and its over 100 years old. Even right now, as I type, progressivism receives dividends from Wilson's dreadful omission. Tomorrow, they will receive more dividends. And so it goes.
<p>Now that the history books have been cleansed of all the black heroes - the progressives turn around and invent canards such as "white privilege" - this isn't white privilege, it's progressive privilege. Progressives have been causing problems for America and Americans for over a century and yet, still, they have not paid the price for their misdeeds.
<p>Progressivism is America's cancer.
<p>Here is Wilson's five volume set. Go ahead. Look inside, you can search the text with a web browser. No black heroes whatsoever. It's truely despicable. And here also, below, is a free open source audiobook I recorded several years ago from an 1855 text and put out into the public domain, information which in past days was more widely known. It's what I can do as an active and reliable saboteur of progressivism. Please give out copies to whom you can.
<p><a href=https://archive.org/details/histampeople01wilsrich>Volume 1</a>
<p><a href=https://archive.org/details/ahistoryamerica02conggoog>Volume 2</a>
<p><a href=https://archive.org/details/historyofamerica03wilsiala>Volume 3</a>
<p><a href=https://archive.org/details/historyofamerica04wils>Volume 4</a>
<p><a href=https://archive.org/details/histampeople05wilsrich>Volume 5</a>
<p><a href=https://archive.org/details/colored_patriots_1602_librivox>The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution, by William Cooper Nell</a> (1855)
<p>If we want to fix this, we must reverse Woodrow Wilson and we must champion American history. The progressive historians are our greatest enemy in this fight. They are NOT correcting the record. They don't want to.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-15504740116601572552022-01-01T06:42:00.001-08:002022-01-01T06:42:19.707-08:00Do you have any ideas on how we can automate conservatism?I mainly just want to ask the question, see what kinds of responses I may get or what other discussions flow from it. What could we do to automate conservatism? This can be both in the form of reaching new people as well as helping educate others around us of new things they may not have known.
<p>So far the most prominent answer I have found for myself is the audiobooks. I will be creating those for many years to come as the opportunities for education are immense.
<p>Over the years I have tried to get out of my comfort zone and re-assess, to look back at successes or failures and make changes, just in case I might be missing something or if others have told me something and see something of value. It's 2022! We made it! There are some new things I want to try with the ProgressingAmerica project going forward.
<p>So. In what ways do you think we could automate conservatism?progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-91273926531730846332021-12-30T13:15:00.001-08:002021-12-30T13:15:13.973-08:00150,000 viewsIt's come to my attention that over on YouTube, my recording of Frederick Douglass' excellent speech <i>What To The Slave Is The 4th of July?</i> has been viewed now over 150,000 times. This one singular item has grown and blossomed in a way that really makes me happy.
<p>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.
<p>I guarantee you many people will listen to the <b>FULL</b> 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?
<p>Hey wait a second, maybe these progressives are liars. This full speech isn't what they told me it is.
<p>Defending the constitution - yeah, Frederick Douglass did that alot. He was a black Republican. What would you expect from a black Republican?
<p><a href=https://youtu.be/4NNBIMYGtLo>https://youtu.be/4NNBIMYGtLo</a> Text: (<a href=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/What_to_the_Slave_Is_the_Fourth_of_July%3F>here<a>)
<p>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.
<p>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.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-22631194550631508462021-12-11T08:59:00.004-08:002021-12-12T10:32:43.489-08:00Where 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:
<p>1) During the progressive era, progressives were everywhere.
<p>2) Today, progressives are everywhere.
<p>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.
<p>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?
<p>Yes, they got routed politically in the 1920 election and through the remainder of Calvin Coolidge's presidency the progressives got smoked really bad. <b>But did the progressives disappear?</b> No. Progressivism doesn't die. So where did it go? Where did all of the progressives go?
<p>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. <b>Except for one problem. Nobody knows it.</b> 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.
<p>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.
<p>So FDR was a liberal. <b>THEN WHERE DID ALL OF THE PROGRESSIVES GO???</b> 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.
<p>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, <a href=https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-accepting-the-presidential-nomination-the-democratic-national-convention-chicago-1>FDR said:</a>
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
<p>So progressive FDR waves high and proud to their history as fellow progressives, then he says this:
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
<p>There it is. With that, progressivism had successfully been re-named. Our party must be the liberal party he says.
<p>Where did all of the progressives go? Mark the day.
<p>On July 02, 1932, that's the day every progressive died. That's their birthday. July 02, 1932. This sentence is not a contradiction.
<p>Where did all of the progressives go? Look for the camoflauge. This camoflauge is brought to you by the letters "L". "I". and "B".
<p>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.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-64968858541189395122021-11-28T09:37:00.001-08:002021-11-28T09:49:53.457-08:00For progressives, society is government and government is societyI've written about this several times, and here is another instance. The Guardian asks: "<a href=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/25/society-thatcher-reagan-covid-pandemic>Is society coming apart?</a>"
<p>Most of the article is throw away, but here we get something extremely important:
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
<p>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.
<p>"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:
<blockquote>Society is not the solution to the problem, society is the problem</blockquote>
<p>You think I'm kidding. I'm not. This is what the progressives think Reagan actually said.
<p>Evil never understands the light. "Society" is everything <u><b>outside</b></u> 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.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5916689081082263495.post-87774434967036179902021-11-12T07:21:00.004-08:002021-11-12T07:36:46.380-08:00King 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.
<p>Pimping a new book that he will hope you will buy, Andrew Roberts (the Book's author) writes this glowing piece for <a href=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-defense-of-king-george-180978852/>The Smithsonian</a> about you know, George III, he wasn't all that bad of a guy!
<p>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:
<blockquote>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).</blockquote>
<p>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: <a href=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.179504/page/n231></a>
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
<p>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!
<p><b>How different would this Smithsonian article look if it had included the fact that the King actively stood against abolitionism?</b> 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.
<p>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:
<blockquote>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. </blockquote>
<p>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.
<p>We need new historians just as badly as we need new journalists. None of them are interested in being honest. None of them.progressingamericahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17926524162867559025noreply@blogger.com1