New audiobook release: The History of the Fabian Society

The audiobook for the 1916 book The History of the Fabian Society is now complete.

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?

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.

This audiobook 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.

Enjoy your listen, and a big thanks again for all the hard work that created this audio production. Raw url:

https://librivox.org/the-history-of-the-fabian-society-by-edward-r-pease/

Pointing to the math, Clay Travis pontificates that perhaps England should be paying reparations to African Americans

I 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:

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.

....

You never hear anybody who advocates for reparations say ok, England is on the hook for 1619 to 1783, which is whatever the math is on that.

The podcast link is here, here, and the direct downloadable option is here. 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.

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.

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?

Progressives can't have it both ways on this.

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.

While progressives are liars, the math doesn't lie to you on this, just subtract the years and see what you come up with.

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?

Something amazing has happened. Many posts ago, I told people that Yes, I am open to taking requests for free open source audiobook production 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.

But there has been a change recently, and most importantly, the reverse has come true. 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.

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.

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.

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)

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. And this is because of how complete the control over history is, that the progressives have achieved. 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.

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.

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.

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?

Can we expand here? Please? I'm begging you. Please?

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. They erased Warren. And let me tell you, Joseph Warren didn't deserve erasure. He was too important. To heck with the progressives.

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, I mean, without trying to do a quick homework on Wikipedia. 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!

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.

I want to do an audiobook about a specific Founder, one who isn't Jefferson, Franklin, or Washington. And yes, I did mean to write Washington's name twice in the title. It illustrates the point.

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.

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.

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:

First: How can I avoid "the formula"?

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.

Second: How can I introduce a new Founding Father to people who want the Founding Fathers, in a way that is creative and engaging?

Audiobooks. This one isn't complicated. I got this.

Third: What will people actually care enough about?

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.

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'm wasting my time here, there's not many who would listen to this.

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 repeat work? I can tell you this. We don't need yet another book or audiobook about George Washington as amazing as he was.

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) One book is enough!!! 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. One person with one commitment can go a very long way. 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.

Look, I'm going to do this with or without you. The only questions left to ask are when, and who.

Oh, and P.S. What about the Founding Mothers? 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.

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.

Elie Mystal vs Frederick Douglass - the U.S. Constitution

Elie Mystal believes that the Constitution is trash because of slavery. No doubt, Mystal believes that the Constitution is pro-slavery.

https://www.newsweek.com/elie-mystal-doubles-down-against-haters-after-calling-constitution-trash-1685174

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:

The American Constitution and the Slave - Is the Constitution pro-slavery or anti-slavery? - By Frederick Douglass

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbJ5WdKpMro

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 "Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution." I know I would not purchase that, but you can do what you want.

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.

If it were Saul Alinksy, he would surely clog up the big game

The 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.

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.

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.

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.

Have you heard the plan for the piss in?

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

We could if we wanted to.

Do we want to?

The irrelevant George Washington vaccine mandate

Above 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.

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.

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.

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.

This is just meant to be a dissection of the propaganda of progressives and nothing more.

How 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?

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.

So it is with the works of Woodrow Wilson. David Barton's son Tim Barton lays this all out plainly, here. 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.

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 America that erased these heroes, it was progressivism. 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?

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?

No.

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.

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.

Progressivism is America's cancer.

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.

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Volume 4

Volume 5

The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution, by William Cooper Nell (1855)

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.