George Soros teaches radicalism to his family at dinner time

In an article from the Wall Street Journal (alt link) about Alexander Soros, there's this:

Mr. Soros, 25 years old, is a full-time student pursuing a Ph.D. in history at University of California, Berkeley. He says his knowledge of and interest in philanthropy was honed over the dinner table in conversations with his father, billionaire hedge-fund manager and philanthropist George Soros.

This entire story relies on distortions of reality, but I only want to focus on the more major things. A little way down the article, the younger Soros says this:

Organizations that support the concepts of an open society, justice and minority rights are dear to the younger Mr. Soros. He says that's he's not interested in the "sexy" philanthropic areas of health or technology.

Outside of health and technology, what kind of 'philanthropy' is left? The younger Soros explains. The last line of the article is the glue:

"I'm much more interested in doing things that are more experimental and controversial because I think they could have the greatest impact. My dad's view was always instead of building a hospital in a war-ravaged area, why not try and make peace or solve the actual problem."

Ah, yeah. Like father, like son. Experimental and controversial. And just like the father, the son knows how to manipulate the language in order to cloak his true meaning, for those who don't know progressive-speak. The Soros's have turned "philanthropy" into a loaded term.

We do know what Soros Sr. considers to be "the actual problem". Liberty. He's on video saying so, right here.

When you watch this video, note the similarities in the language of Father and Son.

At :25 seconds into the video, Soros Sr talks about his need to experiment.

At :53 seconds, Soros Sr talks about his "matrix" of foundations and the subversive and disruptive activities. What's the real alarming thing here isn't quite so much what he says, it's the look on his face. He truely loves screwing with people's lives. These are real people he's destroying.

Enter Alexander Soros' subversive activities with Samuel L Jackson. Alexander too, really loves his foundations. These are the kinds of things that can make "philanthropy" into a dirty word - the entire Soros "philanthropic record". They're not "donating" to "non profits" which serve a public purpose, they're building resistance fights and using non profits as a launching pad for the revolution.(If you don't know what I mean by "resistance fights", see the STORM manifesto, section 11) When Soros uses the word "matrix", what he's describing is much closer to the movie than it may seem.

At 1:13 Soros Sr talks about the problem of the sovereignty of states. Yet the last century of US history shows that the more national(less federal) our governmental structure gets, the less individual liberty we have.

Mr. Soros is quite an old man at this point. But unfortunately for us, he has prepared his successor. It's Alexander who will inherit Soros Sr's "matrix", and so far it looks like he's received the training necessary in order to know how to "properly" use that matrix against us.

http://tinyurl.com/a43475c

What is the Fabian policy of Permeation?

During my transcription process of the book Fabian Freeway, I would sometimes go through the footnotes and see what I could verify, when one thing in particular caught my eye. (Chapter 17)

The fact that an old-line southern Democrat had been induced to sponsor the basic legislation so ardently desired by all spokesmen of gradual Socialism was an early and notable example of success for the Fabian technique known as permeation.

This concept is actually used extensively throughout the book, but for whatever reason, it caught my eye in the current context. The Fabians turned "Permeation" into a policy because it was so successful: (GB Shaw, Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, Page 186)

The Fabian Society succeeded because it addressed itself to its own class in order that it might set about doing the necessary brain work of planning Socialist organization for all classes, meanwhile accepting, instead of trying to supersede, the existing political organizations which it intended to permeate with the Socialist conception of human society.

In short, a single skilled propagandist can turn a non-Fabian organization into a sort of proxy. Another good source for this(too long to quote) is Fabian Tract 41. Especially page 19, the section titled "Permeating the Liberals", as well as Edward Pease's "The History of the Fabian Society". As to this being a "specific Fabian policy", yes. It indeed was. In "The Story of Fabian Socialism", Fabian Margaret Cole, wife of G. D. H. Cole, writes the following: (Page 85)

What Fabian permeation meant was primarily ‘honeycombing’, converting either to Socialism or to parts of the immediate Fabian Programme, as set out in the continuous stream of Tracts and lectures, key persons, or groups of persons, who were in a position either to take action themselves or to influencing others, not merely in getting a resolution passed, or (say) inducing a Town Council to accept one of the clauses of the Adoptive Acts, but in ‘following up’, in making sure that the resolution or whatever it was did not remain on paper but was put into effect. It was not necessary that these 'key persons' should be members of the Fabian Society; often it was as well they should not; what was essential was that they should at first or even second-hand be instructed and advised by Fabians.

That last part says it all. Because it's that last line that allows me to actually test this. Anybody can talk about Fabians and Progressives all they want, but can you actually test all of this in reality? Let's take a shot at it. An easy starting place is someone I've already written extensively about, which is fellow Fabian, Stuart Chase. The person who coined the term "New Deal" and a member of FDR's Brainstrust.

Margaret Cole said that 'key persons' must be advised at first or second hand. Who would have FDR's absolute and unquestioning faith and trust? Surely his key advisors would've been important, but how about his wife, Eleanor? I don't believe she was a Fabian herself, but that's the wrong question anyways.

Those of you who may be steeped in historical knowledge about the New Deal era will likely know this right off the bat to be true: Eleanor Roosevelt loved the book "Prohibiting Poverty", written by Prestonia Mann Martin. She would go out and publicly acknowledge Martin's work. Here is such an example.

Remember, permeation. It's preferred if Fabian policies are instituted by non-Fabians. Though, with Chase's inclusion into the Brains Trust, the result was inevitable. And before I get too far away from it, yes, the Martins were Fabians. They founded the "American Fabian", and Prestonia herself was one of it's contributing editors. I have actively written about the Fabian policy of permeation, before I knew it had an official name. Here, Friedrich Engels describes the process without calling it by name.

Now, the New Deal Era is not the only place I can test apply the concept of permeation in an American presidential government.

The Woodrow Wilson years are another example. Take Fabian Walter Lippmann, for example, a member of Wilson's administration. Lippmann helped draft Wilson's "Fourteen Points", an important part of the Wilson story. Certainly Lippmann would've had some influence, but not nearly as potent as Eleanor's effect upon FDR(or for that matter, Stuart Chase in the trust). Look to Wilson himself.

I made an offhanded comment once that I believed Richard T Ely to be probably the closest thing to a "Founding Father" of progressivism that there could be. Based on some of my readings of what went on at the American Economic Association, and further bolstered by reading about how the Fabians structured their groups, similarities in the use of regulation as a means of control, and other things, this AEA has really gotten my attention.(Though I have not mentioned it yet)

Woodrow Wilson was an alumnus of the AEA. Just that alone points to the importance of Ely's influence. R. J. Pestritto has a blurb about this. In the AEA's own minutes, we see that Woodrow Wilson sat upon the AEA's council.

Here's where it gets fun. What did the AEA read or discuss? Among many, many other things they discussed Fabian tracts. The Fabian Society Summer School. G. D. H. Cole. And Sidney Webb.(see below)

A rather interesting footnote is that the Fabians were reading from the AEA. See Sidney Webb's essay titled "Historic", footnote 3. As AEA were reading the work of Sidney Webb, Webb was reading them reading him! Rather ironic, two movements in favor of centralized planning, in development and not yet fully blossomed, both learning from each other and perfecting their concepts of subversion. Allow me to demonstrate:

Margaret Cole's book "The Story of Fabian Socialism" is a gem just like Fabian Freeway is, Here's from page 84/85:

'Permeation' is a peculiarly Fabian term, with a very long history. It is first found in print in Hubert Bland's Fabian Essay - curiously enough Bland was not there advocating but warning the Society against it; but the casual reference shows that it was already in common use. Occasionally it seems to mean no more than what the Americans have taught us to call 'pressure groups' - persons organised with the purpose of forcing a particular measure, a particular interest, or a particular point of view upon those in power.

She doesn't elaborate upon what specific groups she means, but surely good candidates would be the ACLU, the NAACP, and likely the AEA itself. Recall a recent article of mine about how the Fabians and Progressives had enjoyed quite a friendly relationship with each other. Margaret Sanger's body of work(Planned Parenthood) would certainly apply as a 'pressure group', and that group still exists to this day.

'Permeation' is the puppet string that makes a non-Fabian group do Fabian things. It's the reason why (as GBS wrote above) they were so successful, despite the fact that by numbers the Fabians are incredibly small.

It's the reason why associations matter.

http://tinyurl.com/98z6p83

John Dewey served as President of the League for Industrial Democracy

Robert Rothman collection of John Dewey, 1935-1959 | Manuscripts

Biographical Note
John Dewey was born on October 20, 1859 in Burlington, Vermont and graduated in 1879 from The University of Vermont. Although he taught and remained primarily at Columbia University, he also taught or lectured at the University of Chicago, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of California, Imperial University in Tokyo, National University in Peking, and the University of Mexico. He retired from active service, and was appointed as Professor Emeritus of Philosophy in Residence at Columbia University in 1930. He also worked for the Turkish government and as an educational ad visor for the Barnes Foundation, served as chairman of the Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky and was elected president of the League for Industrial Democracy.

This is from Southern Illinois University.

For those who may come upon this at random, John Dewey is widely regarded as the Father of Modern Education in the United States.

The League was a very radical group in the early progressive era. Later on in it's existence, the LID's student wing would change it's name and become Students for a Democratic Society.

This is one of those things I'd written about before, but merely as a footnote when it should've gotten a greater focus.

In doing some additional digging for a timeline, I found out when Dewey was nominated as it's president: 1939. Dewey's involvement with the LID leadership has been written about by several of his biographers. Jo Ann Boydston, Molly Cochran(above timeline link), and Alan Ryan. Here is Dewey's welcome address as President of the group.

http://tinyurl.com/99dx6rd

Did Woodrow Wilson read the book Philip Dru: Administrator?

As I noted yesterday, Woodrow Wilson did indeed read the book Philip Dru: Administrator. He read it while on a trip to Bermuda.

I initially found this information while digging through the 1998 revised edition of Philip Dru, which is up to read on the Robert Welch University's website. Here's what it says:

Wilson eagerly embraced the Dru blueprint. Immediately after his election in 1912, Wilson sought refuge in a cottage in Bermuda "to do a lot of thinking." His mediations were guided by a copy of Dru. Professor Walworth points out that "Many of [Dru's] prescriptions for reform ran parallel to those set down in Wilson's The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the American People."

This paragraph completes with the following information:

That Wilson employed Dru as a policy template was attested by Franklin K. Lane, Wilson's Secretary of the Interior, who wrote in a letter to a friend that "All that book has said should come about... The President comes to Philip Dru in the end."

I quote the 1998 Dru revision because it's available online and quotable. Walworth's book isn't so easily accessible. (Arthur Walworth was awarded a Pulitzer for his Biographical work with Wilson) But at least what you see on page 288 of his book:

While resting in Bermuda after the election and reading Philip Dru, Administrator

That's how the paragraph opens. The revised copy of Philip Dru is accurate.

The quotation of Franklin Lane is also accurate. On page 297 of The Letters of Franklin K. Lane, this is written:

Colonel House's Book, Philip Dru, favors it, and all that book has said should be, comes about slowly, even woman suffrage. The President comes to Philip Dru in the end. And yet they say that House has no power....

Philip Dru is a book that has been entertained by at least one U.S. President, and parts of it according to his own inner circle were implemented. That makes it a pretty important book to become familiar with in the history of progressivism.

For anybody wishing to gain insight into the Wilson years, Philip Dru is a great place to start. In addition to that, one can't help but see a little bit of Dru in Barack Obama as well.

Here is the transcript and audiobook of Philip Dru.

It truely is a shame that the book Philip Dru has become so popular amongst crackpot conspiracy theorist websites, it's not a book filled with black helicopters. It's filled with progressivism.

http://tinyurl.com/8typ8sz

'Remarks about Guiseppe Mazzini' and 'Further Remarks in Genoa' by Woodrow Wilson

Before I get to the transcript, here are a few notes:

Giuseppe Mazzini was a revolutionary, as is noted by Woodrow Wilson's very own former home, Princeton University: (second paragraph)

Mazzini was an original, if not very systematic, political thinker. He put forward principled arguments in support of various progressive causes, from universal suffrage and social justice to women's enfranchisement. Perhaps most fundamentally, he argued for a reshaping of the European political order on the basis of two seminal principles: democracy and national self-determination.

What's that you said, Barack Obama Woodrow Wilson? Fundamental transformation?

Mazzini's ideas had an extraordinary appeal for generations of progressive nationalists and revolutionary leaders from his day until well into the twentieth century: his life and writings inspired several patriotic and anticolonial movements in Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East, as well as the early Zionists, Gandhi, Nehru, and Sun Yat-Sen.

Of course, Princeton uses the most flowery verbiage it can. Mazzini participated in the Arab Spring Spring of Nations of 1848(though he earned nothing but scorn from Karl Marx), and is cited on page 1 of Philip Dru, Administrator - that book written by Wilson's main advisor, Edward House. Dru is a manuscript/blueprint for progressivism.

The following words are often times written about under the headlines "Remarks about Guiseppe Mazzini" and "Further Remarks in Genoa". In a publication called The World Court, Volume 5, page 28, Woodrow Wilson's comments are recorded: (1919)

Speaking at the monument of Mazzini, in Genoa January 6, President Wilson said:

"I am very much moved, sir, to be in the presence of this monument. On the other side of the water we have studied the life of Mazzini with almost as much pride as if we shared in the glory of his history, and I am very glad to acknowledge that his spirit has been handed down to us of a later generation on both sides of the water.

It is delightful to me to feel that I am taking some part in accomplishing the realisation of the ideals to which his life and thought were devoted. It is with a spirit of veneration, sir, and with a spirit, I hope, of emulation, that I stand in the presence of this monument and bring my greetings and the greetings of America with our homage to the great Mazzini."

ACCEPTS MAZZINI'S WORKS

In accepting the gift of Mazzini's works from the municipality, President Wilson said:

"Mr. Mayor, it Is with many feelings of a very deep sort, perhaps too deep for adequate expression, that I find myself in Genoa, which is a natural shrine for Americans. The connections of America with Genoa are so many and so significant that in some sense it may be said that we draw our life and beginnings from this city.

You can realize, therefore, sir, with what emotion I receive the honor which you have so generously conferred upon me in the citizenship of this great city. In a way it seems natural for an American to be a citizen of Genoa and I shall always count it among the most delightful associations of my life that you should have conferred this honor upon me and, in taking away this beautiful edition of the works of Mazzini, I hope that I shall derive inspiration from this volume, as I already have derived guidance from the principles which Mazzini so eloquently expressed.

It is delightful to feel how the voice of one people speaks to another through the mouths of men who have by some gift of God been lifted above the common level and, therefore, these words of your prophet and leader will, I hope, be deeply planted in the hearts of my fellow countrymen. There Is already planted in those hearts, sir, a very deep and genuine affection for the great Italian people, and the thoughts of my nation turn constantly, as we read our history, to this delightful and distinguished city.

May I not thank you, sir, for myself and for Mrs. Wilson and for my daughter for the very gracious welcome you have accorded us, and express my pride and pleasure."

AT THE COLUMBUS MONUMENT

In a short speech at the Columbus monument President Wilson said:

"Standing in front of this monument, sir, I fully recognize the significance of what you have said. Columbus did do a service to mankind in discovering America, and it is America's pleasure and America's pride that she has been able to show that it was a service to mankind to open that great continent to settlement, the settlement of a free people, of a people who, because they are free, desire to see other peoples free and to share their liberty with the people of the world. It is for this reason no doubt, besides his fine spirit of adventure, that Columbus will always be remembered and honored, not only here in the land of his birth, but throughout the world, as the man who led the way to those fields of freedom which, planted with a great seed, have now sprung up to the fructification of the world."

In order to make this easier to read, I put Wilson's words in quotation marks, and I also corrected a misspelling of Mazzini's name.

There is certainly the usual Presidential fluff and generosity within this speech, that all Presidents put into their speeches as a way of fostering international good will. But don't mistake that for the truely progressive ideological honesty on part of Wilson, the parts which I've bolded. Particularly when it comes to Wilson emulating a revolutionary. An honest look at the Wilson years will show that this is an accurate description of his presidency.

Whether or not Wilson had previously read various works of Mazzini isn't specifically mentioned here. But Wilson was clearly influenced by him, as he says. If not his written words, then Wilson was influenced by Mazzini's actions, that being Mazzini as a revolutionary in the 1848 Spring of Nations. Wilson taking cues from Mazzini's actions would... well... bring us right back to the book Philip Dru. A progressive blueprint for revolution. It's all in there.

I hope people won't think I'm projecting and simply drawing an imaginary line that doesn't deserve to be there. "Ed House was Wilson's advisor, who wrote Dru. So what? That doesn't necessarily have to mean anything." According to Woodrow Wilson's biographer Arthur Walworth(Who got a Pulitzer for his Wilson Biographies) Wilson did indeed read the book Philip Dru, Administrator. See page 288 of Walworth's book "Woodrow Wilson". Woodrow Wilson read Philip Dru while on a trip to Bermuda.

Here is the audiobook version of Philip Dru, Administrator.(And transcript) It was my first recording, so take that for what it's worth.

http://tinyurl.com/8ha8urh

America's first experiment into progressivism was a failure

In "The History of Plimoth Plantation", William Bradford writes the following: (Pages 135-136) [I have chosen to stick with Bradford's actual writing. If you find the following excerpt painful, there is a translated version on the University of Chicago's website that you'll probably prefer to read]

The experience that was had in this comone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos & other ancients, applauded by some of later times; - that ye taking away of propertie, and bringing in comunitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much imploymet that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For ye yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour & service did repine that they should spend their time & streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, without any recompence. The string, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails & cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter ye other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and [97] equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, &c., with ye meaner & yonger sorte, thought it some indignite & disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, &c., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it.

This is pretty clear, even though it's written in a "foreign" form of English. Redistribution was considered to be slavery and an injustice by early "Americans". (They would've been British subjects at this time) On the prior page, Bradford gives details about the result of a freer society in which individuals pursued their individual best interest:

So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a beter crope then they had done, that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length, after much debate of things, the Gov (with ye advise of ye cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set corne every man for this owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to them selves; in all other things to goe on in ye generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no devission for inheritance), and ranged all boys and youth under some familie. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted then other waise would have bene by any means ye Gov or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into ye feild, and tooke their litle-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; who to have compelled would have been thought great tiranie and oppression.

I bolded two things: progressivism and wealth redistribution sow discontent, while individual pursuits don't sow discontent.(at least, one is greater and one is lesser)

Even in the early 1600's, progressivism just didn't work. Unsurprisingly, progressivism doesn't work today either. The last quoted line is the pièce de résistance, in that once the people were afforded the contrast and choice between the two different models, they looked at compulsion back into collectivism as tyranny and oppression.

It is my hope to share this story for Thanksgiving this year, and I hope others will share this with their families as well. Be thankful for plenty, and be thankful you know how to get it.(and also how to squander it)

Translating George Washington

"There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

I have not had a lot to say in quite a while, and I have explained much of why that is here. Transcribing takes up a lot of time.

In addition to the transcription, the other major project that I have been putting time into is getting a speech from one of the Founding Fathers translated into Spanish. I have a full transcript of one of George Washington's speeches up on my Original Sources blog, along with a sample clip of the audio recording, for those interested in either one. It is my goal to make some sort of visual presentation for this, and I'm already in contact with a few people who I'm sure can make that happen.

We have got to be able to reach more people with the best information. Original source material. This is certainly a good way to do it. http://tinyurl.com/8f5ust2