James Madison explains the uniqueness of the American Revolution

In "Charters", James Madison wrote the following:

In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example and France has followed it, of charters of power granted by liberty.

This is what makes modern revolutionaries so backward. They are stuck on stupid in old-think - that is, that power grants liberty. If only government could get bigger, we could grant the rights to _________________ for whatever special interest group they have in mind at the moment. Like the "right" to healthcare. In the comment "America has set the example", he makes it clear that it's never been done before. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another set of rulers. Madison continues:

This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness. We look back, already, with astonishment, at the daring outrages committed by despotism, on the reason and the rights of man; We look forward with joy, to the period, when it shall be despoiled of all its usurpations, and bound for ever in the chains, with which it had loaded its miserable victims.

This highlights the brilliance of Madison. Not only did the founders successfully break free of the world's superpower, but they completely revolutionized the way man thought - and they knew it, or at least Madison did. In all of man's history, governments granted rights. And at every turn of the page governments abused that authority. Reagan put it simply:

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

The key is recognition of the individual. That phrasing is not specifically used here, but it can't be ignored. "Charters of power, granted by liberty" implies that individuals hold the true power, power over government. The most unique idea in the long history of man is this concept that the individual matters more than the group.

In the process of researching this blog posting, I came across this article titled "The Only Real Revolution" from the Future of Freedom Foundation. It largely says what I'm thinking in this instance, even moreso.

http://tinyurl.com/cahas2n

Segregation is not humiliating. It's a benefit!

Historymatters has a portion of an exchange online between President Woodrow Wilson and Monroe Trotter.

President Woodrow Wilson: The white people of the country, as well as I, wish to see the colored people progress, and admire the progress they have already made, and want to see them continue along independent lines. There is, however, a great prejudice against colored people.... It will take one hundred years to eradicate this prejudice, and we must deal with it as practical men. Segregation is not humiliating, but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen. If your organization goes out and tells the colored people of the country that it is a humiliation, they will so regard it, but if you do not tell them so, and regard it rather as a benefit, they will regard it the same. The only harm that will come will be if you cause them to think it is a humiliation.

It would be easy just to wipe this off the table as the rantings of a hardcore racist and move on, but that would be a mistake.(Wilson was a racist, but I believe this is his progressive elitism speaking, not his racism) Here's what I mean:

The competent leader of men cares little for the interior niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much-everything for the external uses to which they may be put. His will seeks the lines of least resistance; but the whole question with him is a question of the application of force. There are men to be moved: how shall he move them? He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operates. The power will fail if it be misapplied; it will be misapplied if it be not suitable both in kind and method to the nature of the materials upon which it is spent; but that nature is, after all, only its means. It is the power which dictates, dominates: the materials yield. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.

That comes from Wilson's "Leaders of Men".

According to the William Monroe Trotter House:

In 1909 Trotter and Du Bois founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), but Trotter objected to the new organization's white financing and leadership, preferring his own alternative "National Equal Rights League."

Wilson clearly viewed the "National Equal Rights League" as a 'leader of men'. And what he's telling Trotter is that his group should be molding the clay. Considering all that happened with the CPI, the Five Minute Men, and all of Wilson's other propaganda efforts during his presidency, Wilson didn't think that molding the clay was just limited to blacks. That's why I don't see this as primarily an example of racism.

EDUCATE, AGITATE, ORGANIZE

In 2009 the NEA was promoting the works of Saul Alinsky, where they made it a point to highlight Alinsky's formula:

"Agitate + Aggravate + Educate + Organize."

From The History of the Fabian society: (Page 29)

However, as I have said, in 1885 our differences [from other Socialists] were latent or instinctive; and we denounced the capitalists as thieves at the Industrial Remuneration Conference, and, among ourselves, talked revolution, anarchism, labour notes versus pass-books, and all the rest of it, on the tacit assumption that the object of our campaign, with its watchwords, 'EDUCATE, AGITATE, ORGANIZE,' was to bring about a tremendous smash-up of existing society, to be succeeded by complete Socialism.

And again, on page 13:

"Socialism Made Plain," the social and political Manifesto of the Democratic Federation (undated, but apparently issued in 1883), is a much stronger document. It deals with the distribution of the National Income, giving the workers' share as 300 out of 1300 millions sterling, and demands that the workers should "educate, agitate, organise" in order to get their own.

The wording is most interesting. 'In order to get their own'? Isn't that what the Occupiers are saying? Some rich fat cat stole from them and they need economic justice to get it back.

Aren't coincidences nice? The world seems to be full of them.

http://tinyurl.com/ctp2s7v

The Demands of Liberalism and the roots of "Separation of Church and State"

I was contacted privately with large portions of this information, and the doors that it's opened I find to be absolutely fascinating. This was published in 1878, but I can find references to this 9 point list as early as 1872. In a magazine called "The Index", this is listed as their demands:(Page 85)

"THE DEMANDS OF LIBERALISM

"1. We demand that churches and other ecclesiastical property shall no longer be exempt from just taxation.

"2. We demand that the employment of chaplains in Congress, in State legislatures, in the navy and militia, and in prisons, asylums, and all other institutions supported by public money, shall be discontinued.

"3. We demand that all public appropriations for educational and charitable institutions of a sectarian character shall cease.

"4. We demand that all religious services now sustained by the Government shall be abolished; and especially that the use of the Bible in the public schools, whether ostensibly as a text-book or avowedly as a book of religious worship, shall be prohibited.

"5. We demand that the appointment, by the President of the United States, or by the Governors of the various States, of all religious festivals and fasts shall wholly cease.

"6. We demand that the judicial oath in the courts and in all other departments of the Government shall be abolished, and that simple affirmation under the pains and penalties of perjury shall be established in its stead.

"7. We demand that all laws directly or indirectly enforcing the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath shall be repealed.

"8. We demand that all laws looking to the enforcement of "Christian" morality shall be abrogated, and that all laws shall be conformed to the requirements of natural morality, equal rights, and impartial liberty.

"9. We demand that not only in the Constitutions of the United States, and of the several States, but also in the practical administration of the same, no privilege or advantage shall be conceded to Christianity or any other special religion; that our entire political system shall be founded and administered on a purely secular basis; and that whatever changes shall prove necessary to this end shall be consistently, unflinchingly, and promptly made."

For anybody who's been dealing with leftists for a long time, you will note now familiar all of this sounds. Remember, this goes back to 1872. I have often wondered "what kinds of things happened to lead Americans into the progressive movement of the 20th century" and this certainly helps answer that question.

An important note of what's happening in this time period, is the "Christian Amendment". Bad idea. The Founders Fathers had it right, there's no reason to over do it. Because of the Christian Amendment, people were recoiling against it in a very strong way, and this was their national platform for the 1880 election: (It's repeated 11 times within that book)

1 TOTAL SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, to be guaranteed by amendment of the United States Constitution: including the equitable taxation of church property, secularization of the public schools, abrogation of Sabbatarian laws, abolition of chaplaincies, prohibition of public appropriations for religious purposes, and all other measures necessary to the same general end.

2 NATIONAL PROTECTION FOR NATIONAL CITIZENS, in their equal civil, political, and religious rights: to be guaranteed by amendment of the United States Constitution, and afforded through the United States courts.

3 UNIVERSAL EDUCATION THE BASIS OF UNIVERSAL SUFFERAGE IN THIS SECULAR REPUBLIC: to be guaranteed by amendment of the United States Constitution, requiring every State to maintain a thoroughly secularized public school system, and to permit no child within its limits to grown up without a good elementary education.

I find this interesting. First, this "secularization" push is obvious, the Founders did not give is a secular republic. A Christian Amendment is clearly a bad idea but so to is a secularized republic. Again, the founders got it right the first time in this respect.

Also, "National citizens"? That's another bad idea, the division of power has proven to be an overwhelming success. Yet we suffer from this idea too, to this day. There are never ending attacks on the sovereignty of the states, but long term if our freedom is to be secure it's not going to come from D.C. The states are the answer. If you want to see who has it right, take a trip to Texas. They are clearly Texans - the Texas flag is everywhere, and that's a good thing. We don't need a national government running roughshod over helpless citizens. All 50 states should do what they do. The Founders weren't Americans, they were New Yorkers, Virginians, Georgians, Pennsylvanians, and etc.

But finally, is the issue of the 'total separation of church and state'. As a matter of judicial precedent, it's true that the "separation" goes back to the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case, but as a matter of liberal thought, it's clear that this had been percolating for a much longer time. They couldn't get it codified as a matter of legislation, so they simply used judicial activists to make it stick. Modern progressives would have you believe that Hugo Black was a big fan of Jefferson, and that's the end of it. While that may be totally true that Black was a Jefferson fan, this is hardly something that just started with one man and ended up on the SCOTUS at sheer coincidence.

The Rev. Benjamin William Arnett has a great response to what these "Liberal Leagues" intended to do, in his 1876 Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon: (Page 47)

The Danger to our Country.

Now that our national glory and grandeur is principally derived from the position the fathers took on the great questions of right and wrong, and the career of this nation has been unparalleled in the history of the past, now there are those who are demanding the tearing down the strength of our national fabric. They may not intend to tear it down, but just as sure as they have their way, just that sure will they undermine our superstructure and cause the greatest calamity of the age.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. One more quote from The Index: (Page 42)

Call to Organize CITIZENS of the United States who indorse the appended political platform adopted in convention by the National Liberal League, at Rochester, N.Y., Oct. 26, 1877, are requested to meet in their respective cities and towns on Washington's Birthday, Feb. 22, 1878, for the purpose of organizing themselves into Local Auxiliary Liberal Leagues in accordance with the provisions of the National Liberal League Constitution. Copies of the latter and blanks for organization can be obtained from W.H. Hamlen, Secretary, 231 Washington Street, Boston, or from H.L. Green, Chairman of the Executive Committee, Salamanca, N.Y.

Nice...... a call to organize. Now where have I heard that one from?

"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 (Chapter 3)

http://tinyurl.com/7xezn26

This explains a lot about modern journalistic malpractice

Walter Lippmann, the "Father of Modern Journalism", is really a piece of work. I had a hard time deciding what I wanted to make the title of this post. I simply do not believe that any man who holds the following views could possibly be a journalist worth a damn. Pardon my language, but this makes me sick. Every time I read something from this guy, I have an internal revolt. In his regular column "Today and Tomorrow", on April 7th, 1933, the following is written under the title "Roosevelt's Achievement":

At the beginning of last month the country was in such a state of confused despair that it would have followed almost any leader anywhere he chose to go. It was a moment when an intoxicated demagogue could have aroused section against section and class against class, when a dull politician would have been bewildered and would not have known what to do. By the greatest good fortune which has befallen this country in many a day, a kindly and intelligent man had the wit to realize that a great crisis is a great opportunity. He has taken advantage of it.

Hello, Rahm Emanuel.

This is bad journalism and bad columnist all wrapped into one, because FDR's policies of raising taxes so high was just that very thing, pitting one section against another. He was well known for going out and ripping this class and that class. This article goes on to discuss budgets and balancing them, but be careful to note how all of this is worded:

It was this impotence to control expenditure and to obtain revenue which was destroying the national credit. Inherently the federal government is the safest risk in the world, since it has legal access to the greatest wealth in the world. If anybody anywhere was theoretically entitled to borrow money in a time of emergency, the United States government was entitled to borrow it.

There's that flagrant progressive arrogance that we're all used to. Yes, all of our hard earned money is nothing more than a dispensation of government. It's not that you may pay 10% in taxes, or 35%, or whatever that rate may be. The progressive view is that they let you keep 90%, or 65% or whatever remainder is allotted to you post-taxes.

Now a government which has asserted its control over its expenditures and its access to revenue has accomplished what "balancing the budget" means.

And we see this very arrogance repeated today, in 2012, where they have made good on their legal access to the greatest wealth in the world. The left would love to 'balance the budget' - on your back. At the end of the article he says "Its no longer necessary to scrutinize so anxiously the relation between income and outgo" - and as we all know based on historical truths, FDR was a huge spender, and that's what's being endorsed here.

On Saturday, February 18th, 1933, in "The Paramount Issue", Lippmann ended his column this way:

A great emergency can be dealt with only by the swift use of power exercised by some central authority which possesses the confidence of the people. The danger we have to fear is not that Congress will give Franklin D. Roosevelt too much power, but that it will deny him the powers he needs. The danger is not that we shall lose our liberties but that we shall not be able to act with the necessary speed and comprehensiveness. To give the president the power to act must, therefore, be the first objective of those who appreciate the situation we are in and understand the magnitude of the measures that are needed to cope with it.

And who is it that's building the confidence of the people? Telling them that it's ok. Why, it's journalists. The "intelligent minority" who know how to regiment and guide the masses. Walter Lippmann himself wrote about "the manufacture of consent", in the context of that book he is largely decrying various forces(mainly within government) who use propaganda efforts as a means of control.

Yet, in this article, on February 25th, 1933, titled "Democracy and Dictatorship" he writes in defense of the concentration of power in the executive at the expense of congress. The whole article is quotable, but here is a very good illustration of regimenting and guiding the masses; the manufacture of consent.

The emergency calls for changes which will concentrate in the president the widest administrative and ministerial powers possible under the constitution, and in matters of policy the reinforcement of his leadership by the party caucus and by cloture on debate.

Ahh, yes. Give the president more authority, then sit down and shut up. It's the American way!

Proposals of this sort have loosely been described as designed to establish a dictatorship. This is an abuse of the plain meaning of words. A dictatorship is a wholly different thing, as one can readily see by looking at the dictatorships in Europe. The basic fact in a dictatorship is that the regime holds its power not by the votes of the people, but by the force of a body of armed men.

Walter Lippmann clearly did not read a book titled "Public Opinion", written by Walter Lippmann before he wrote this line. Had he done that, he would've realized that manufacturing consent is an act of manipulation that was supposed to have died out with the appearance of democracy.(The implication thus being, that dictators of old used it regularly) Yet here he is, Walter Lippmann himself, engaging in the manufacture of consent. But what else would you expect from a man who wrote in his book that "news and truth are not the same thing"?

http://tinyurl.com/7yfb8ee

Walter Lippmann and utilitarian thought

I wrote a while back about the relationship between Utilitarianism and Fabianism, and considering that Walter Lippmann was a Fabian, what's written in his book "Public Opinion" certainly goes to show the influence. Specifically, pages 26, 117, and 187. First up, Page 26:

Try to explain social life as the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. You will soon be saying that the hedonist begs the question, for even supposing that man does pursue these ends, the crucial problem of why he thinks one course rather than another likely to produce pleasure, is untouched.

I know what this is, because they tried to indoctrinate me with it. The pleasure pain calculus has several names, one of which is called the hedonistic calculus.(He references this later) As is noted, this comes from Jeremy Bentham.

Page 117:

So they constructed what they sincerely hoped was a simplified diagram, not so different in principle and in veracity from the parallelogram with legs and head in a child's drawing of a complicated cow. The scheme consisted of a capitalist who had diligently saved capital from his labor, an entrepreneur who conceived a socially useful demand and organized a factory, a collection of workmen who freely contracted, take it or leave it, for their labor, a landlord, and a group of consumers who bought in the cheapest market those goods which by the ready use of the pleasure-pain calculus they knew would give them the most pleasure. The model worked. The kind of people, which the model assumed, living in the sort of world the model assumed, invariably cooperated harmoniously in the books where the model was described.

He's clearly describing the calculus here. From page 187:

The socialist theory of human nature is, like the hedonistic calculus, an example of false determinism. Both assume that the unlearned dispositions fatally but intelligently produce a certain type of behavior. The socialist believes that the dispositions pursue the economic interest of a class; the hedonist believes that they pursue pleasure and avoid pain. Both theories rest on a naive view of instinct, a view, defined by James,(11) though radically qualified by him, as "the faculty of acting in such a way as to produce certain ends, without foresight of the ends and without previous education in the performance."

And there, he calls it by name. A Fabian, with knowledge of Utilitarian concepts. Having read other works from the Fabian Society, I'm not surprised.

Is Walter Lippmann really the "Father of Modern Journalism"?

Before I can say much more about Lippmann, I've made this statement in the past and now I'd like to establish it as something fairly reputable.

Drucker Gives Lippmann Run As Most Influential Journalist

But in his time--from the eve of World War I until the height of the Vietnam War--Lippmann was, as Steel says, "without doubt, the nation's greatest journalist," the confidant of presidents, the writer of books. And when he retired from writing his column in 1967, "it was as if an institution ceased to exist."

This one I found to be particularly relevant, considering that 'Foreign Affairs' is the mouthpiece for the Council on Foreign Relations, which was founded by Woodrow Wilson's right hand man, Edward House, and Lippmann himself. That explains why it's so puffy.

Walter Lippmann and the American Century

To James Thurber, in a 1943 New Yorker cartoon, Walter Lippmann was the object of respectful humor: a wife looks up from a newspaper and tells her husband, "Lippmann scares me this morning." To Judge Learned Hand, Colonel House, and five hundred guests at a testimonial dinner in 1931, he was, in the words of Time magazine, "their Moses, their prophet of Liberalism." To Dean Acheson, writing his memoirs, he was "that ambivalent Jeremiah." To Woodrow Wilson, for whom Lippmann prepared several of the famous Fourteen Points, his judgment was "most unsound"; to Lyndon Johnson, it was ultimately far worse than that. The one inescapable conclusion to be drawn from his six decades as a public correspondent is that Lippmann was America's, and perhaps the world's, most influential journalist.

Eli Pariser, board member of Moveon.org and author of the book "The Filter Bubble" openly calls Lippmann "The Father of Modern Journalism". These pages aren't numbered for whatever reason, so if anybody needs to reference this, it's on the second page of chapter 2 - "The User is the Content". Paragraph 8.

Nancy Snow also openly calls Lippmann "The Father of Modern Journalism" on page 31. Snow, who is a frequent contributor on The Huffington Post.

Nieman Foundation > About the Foundation : History > Walter Lippmann House

Lippmann, Harvard Class of 1910, was one of the most influential journalists of his time and served on Harvard’s Board of Overseers.

I figured I'd save this one for last, considering that Sidney Blumenthal wrote at the rag that Lippmann founded - The New Republic.

Walter Lippmann and American journalism today

Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) was the most influential American journalist of the 20th century.

And there you have it. The Father of Modern Journalism, the most influential journalist of the 20th century. Walter Lippmann. According to today's progressives. I won't argue.

http://tinyurl.com/8yfj7aa