I'm going to the March for Life!!!

Several months ago, I blocked vacation time at work for January, and over the course of the last few months have been planning the trip. Plane fare, a few sights to see, but most importantly, my trip by foot down Pennsylvania Avenue. Nothing is more important than this.

Or at least, when I marched in 2010 it was Pennsylvania Avenue where the Tea Partiers went. I can honestly say, those protests were some of the most fun I've ever had in my life, and I've been all around the country and seen and done many things. It's been too long, and it is time for me once again to proudly put on my activist hat and wave my sign.

Protesting is a Constitutional responsibility, listed right there in the First Amendment for all of us to read.

I will not shirk my responsibility.

Hopefully, I'll see you at the march on January 24th!

What is your cost to entry to learning the Founding Fathers?

I'd like to have a frank discussion about the cost of entry for you or others who wish to discover more about the Founding Fathers, and even moreso the barrier that presents toward educating others. As we approach the completion of the audiobook version of James Madison's Notes, one of the goals for this project is cost reduction. I would like for you to consider three aspects:

1. Time cost
2. Money cost
3. Exclusivity or efficiency

I assume people will automatically think in terms of money, and it is true that the scope of what I'm looking for could have been better asked in terms of "commitment" instead of "cost", but I prefer the original wording because time spent is a cost paid.

I would also like to explain what I mean about exclusivity as well. Do you like to sit down for two hours at night and read a book? Many people do. But that's a nearly 100% exclusive task. A warehouse worker isn't going to read a book at the same time they unload a truck during early morning receiving hours, for example. An audiobook, however, overcomes the cost of exclusivity and introduces the advantage of multitasking.

Now, I would just like to know, what's your money cost? Only for the Founding Fathers or immediately relevant to the Founding era. Have you purchased this book, that book, a three pack of something else. Was it $50? $345? Some other number? Thousands?

Now, I would like to know what is your time cost? How many minutes or hours or days or weeks did it take you to read those books? Be it the Federalist Papers, the Law of Nations, Novanglus, Jefferson's Notes, John Locke, Letters from a Farmer, or any number of other works? Because I'm quite sure that a handful sought out the text online and downloaded. But did you print? That wasn't free either.

Since most of the work of the Founders only exists as paper, you were stuck in exclusivity, weren't you?

This is a discussion of cost, and of course you know I'm looking forward toward cost reduction. If we want to defend our Constitution and advance the Founding principles, and help others around us do the same, then cost reduction in areas such as this need to be discussed and the bar must be lowered. Because if you're going to buy one copy of a book for yourself, and one for your friend? Now you have doubled your cost, and doubled the (reading)time investment. Do you think your less-committed friend will be just as inclined as you to do the same? Don't bet on it. They wouldn't even buy one copy, why would they purchase several copies?

But if the cost can be lowered, is it more likely you can get even more people involved? I think so!

So then, conservatives, don't produce audio that's commercially viable. Simple! Problem solved.

Not sure if you heard, but Google is going to be cutting off content that they deem to be "not commercially viable". Yes, I'm a conservative, and no, I'm not worried one bit. Why would I be worried, I already don't produce anything commercially viable.

Oh, you want to say that what I produced wasn't valuable? My personal favorite is the book The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution, which according to the Archive page has been downloaded over ten thousand times since I released it. Not bad for something that's "not commercially viable". This book has a noted particular value for those who wish to engage in push-back against the race industry.

Here's another one, by Stuart Chase The Challenge of Waste, which according to the Archive page has been downloaded over thirty five thousand times. It was published early in 2017. Not bad eh?

The point I'm making to you is this - and this doubles up for content from the Founding era - there is a ton of content published prior to 1923 that needs an audio production which can be extremely useful in telling the story and educating your fellow patriot. Once I realized that the key for me was to elevate someone else's content, instead of my own - I can't tell you how liberating of an idea that is. In particular, let me leave you with this thought:

The Founding Fathers speak for me. So I speak for them. Here is one such example. Click on number 6 in the list of 20.

Honestly, I wish I had more personal time to create way more "commercially non-viable" content than I'm currently capable. The works of John Adams, early important history books written prior to the progressive era about the Founding and our Founders, such as by Jared Sparks. 3 to 5 well placed "not commercially viable" audiobooks could be used quite effectively against the false history promoted by the progressives, but it will take me years to get there.

So.

Any volunteers? Message me publicly or private with a little bit of your personal interests historically speaking and I'll show you how and more importantly where to get started. When is the last time you think you influenced thirty five thousand people? Only serious takers, please.

Shouldn't all of the states be taken off of welfare?

There's an interesting headline out there today, which can serve as a good educational moment. Due to the ravages of the fires out in California, the White House is threatening to cut off federal funding.

Now first off, The notion of this phrase "federal funding" (the article also uses the phrase "state funding") is offensive because it's dishonest. It's welfare, that's what it is. I'm not interested in P.C. comfort terms. As I wrote in May of 2017, when the progressives were starting off building their nanny-state empire, they had a very specific list of welfare queens - 48 of them to be exact. When progressives are determined to achieve a goal, they are very crafty in a deceitful way of achieving their goals.

The progressive notion of putting the states on welfare first, before turning individuals into welfare queens was destined for success.

But why are we keeping around such a relic from a discredited ideology? I mean, I know why the progressives want to keep it, it's because they really don't like the states and want to subjugate them just like they want to subjugate us. That's why they put together court rulings such as Wickard v. Filburn. Count me out. Wickard also needs to be repealed.

Now in the short term, there is probably some merit to getting California to actually do something useful about these fires. Federal Government does in fact have California on food stamps, so why not cut off said food stamps? Ok, well if we only want to engage in extreme short term thinking is that workable. That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about the underlying issue of this long-standing welfare scheme, and looking out over America as a whole over the last 100+ years, these schemes of progressivism are an absolute horrific failure.

Lincoln: The Founding Fathers did not make America racist or slaver. They inherited America that way

See the Lincoln-Douglas debate #6.

Stephen Douglas:

We then adopted a free State Constitution, as we had a right to do. In this State we have declared that a negro shall not be a citizen, and we have also declared that he shall not be a slave. We had a right to adopt that policy. Missouri has just as good a right to adopt the other policy. I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people of Missouri, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people of the slaveholding States are civilized men as well as ourselves; that they bear consciences as well as we, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity, and not to us. It is for them to decide, therefore, the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits. I assert that they had as much right under the Constitution to adopt the system of policy which they have as we had to adopt ours. So it is with every other State in this Union. Let each State stand firmly by that great Constitutional right, let each State mind its own business and let its neighbors alone, and there will be no trouble on this question. If we will stand by that principle, then Mr. Lincoln will find that this Republic can exist forever divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it and the people of each State have decided. Stand by that great principle, and we can go on as we have done, increasing in wealth, in population, in power, and in all the elements of greatness, until we shall be the admiration and terror of the world. We can go on and enlarge as our population increase, require more room, until we make this continent one ocean-bound republic.

Abraham Lincoln:

Judge Douglas asks you, "Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made it forever?" In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the fathers of the Government made this nation part slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that: when the fathers of the Government cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it?

The Founding Fathers could not undo in just a few short years what the King spent over a century doing.

Because of the false teachings of progressivism, it has become one of the greatest of ironies that the "Great Emancipator" was also one of the most ardent defenders of the Founding Fathers - specifically on the topic of slavery.

Edmund Burke replies to Samuel Johnson about slavery and slave holders

The propaganda that progressives employ is in full bloom, now that they've spent the last 120 years dumbing us down through government controlled grade schools.

One of the favored propaganda devices that they use is that of Samuel Johnson, a well known British author at the time. Johnson examined some of what he heard coming from the Continental Congress and among other observations, asked this question:

We are told, that the subjection of Americans may tend to the diminution of our own liberties; an event, which none but very perspicacious politicians are able to foresee. If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?

Just a month ago I wrote this about one of Burke's speeches, where he notes the hypocrisy of the British (of all people) offering freedom to slaves, after they were the ones who did all of the colonial shipping across the Atlantic! But anyways, in the same speech Burke gives what is actually a very concise answer to Johnson's query. Burke said:

There is, however, a circumstance attending these Colonies, which, in my opinion, fully counterbalances this difference, and makes the spirit of liberty still more high and haughty than in those to the northward. It is that in Virginia and the Carolinas they have a vast multitude of slaves. Where this is the case in any part of the world, those who are free are by far the most proud and jealous of their freedom. Freedom is to them not only an enjoyment, but a kind of rank and privilege. Not seeing there that freedom, as in countries where it is a common blessing, and as broad and general as the air, may be united with much abject toil, with great misery, with all the exterior of servitude, liberty looks, among them, like something that is more noble and liberal. I do not mean, sir, to command the superior morality of this sentiment, which has at least as much pride as virtue in it; but I can not alter the nature of man. The fact is so; and these people of the southern Colonies are much more strongly, and with a higher and more stubborn spirit, attached to liberty than those to the northward. Such were all the ancient commonwealths; such were our Gothic ancestors; such, in our days, were the Poles, and such will be all masters of slaves, who are not slaves themselves. In such a people the haughtiness of domination combines with the spirit of freedom, fortifies it, and renders it invincible.

Note that both Samuel Johnson and Burke are observing how the spirit of Liberty appears to be more vivid in southern colonies. Now of course Burke wasn't addressing Johnson at this time. However, it does render the question Johnson asked relatively useless.

What Johnson is responding to(without wording it that way) is their heightened sense of jealousy over their individual Liberty. Patrick Henry is very well known for using that specific word. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." Jefferson also uses that word in the Kentucky Resolutions. "Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go."

What did the Confederates agree on with Abraham Lincoln? That the Founders opposed slavery of course.

In his 1861 "Cornerstone Speech", Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander H. Stephens said the following:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other — though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.

Now you know that if the VICE PRESIDENT of the Confederacy was saying this about the Founding Fathers rejection of slavery, he had plenty of agreement on it. In other more detailed(line by line) words, Abraham Lincoln agreed that the Founders rejected slavery. In his Peoria Speech, Lincoln said the following:

AT the framing and adoption of the constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word "slave" or "slavery" in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a "PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR." In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States NOW EXISTING, shall think proper to admit," &c. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery. Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers COULD not do; and NOW [MORE?] they WOULD not do. Necessity drove them so far, and farther, they would not go. But this is not all. The earliest Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.

In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave-trade---that is, the taking of slaves FROM the United States to sell.

In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa, INTO the Mississippi Territory---this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was TEN YEARS before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.

In 1800 they prohibited AMERICAN CITIZENS from trading in slaves between foreign countries---as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.

In 1803 they passed a law in aid of one or two State laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.

In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance to take effect the first day of 1808---the very first day the constitution would permit---prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.

In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it, the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; and by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.

Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the PRINCIPLE, and toleration, ONLY BY NECESSITY.

Now isn't it interesting that the New York Times in its 1619 project disagrees with both the Confederates and Lincoln? What must it be like to have such a low quantity of shame?

This "Cornerstone Speech" does many things, but most importantly, it shows quite distinctly that there is a lineage break from the Constitution to the Confederacy. Not that the New York Times cares for facts, anyways. But I know that you do.

The New York Times uses the British Empire's propaganda in order to smear the United States with the 1619 Project

There is an interesting line in the 1619 Project that many would have perhaps glossed over because they have heard it so many times. It is this:

The United States is a nation founded on both an ideal and a lie. Our Declaration of Independence, approved on July 4, 1776, proclaims that "all men are created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst.

No, no, don't gloss past this. Stop right here. Examine this. Who first made this claim? Refuting this is all too easy, for those adept in when/where the Founders said what. But that's been done. I'm not interested in a defense, let others defend. Who first made this claim? Here's a hint: it wasn't progressives. It wasn't communists nor socialists either.

On July 4th, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted. Just a month later, parliament funded the creation of a rebuttal to the "Declaration of the American Congress". Initially, this rebuttal was published anonymously, but it later was revealed to have been authored by John Lind. However, the An Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress, written late in 1776, became popular in part because of it's other contributing author. Most of you have heard of him.

His name was Jeremy Bentham.

Yup, that very same Jeremy Bentham who would become widely known as the father of utilitarianism. Funny that, no?

Anyways, here is what the British government's funds produced. You should read all 100+ pages, but in particular, my focus is on the response to the very last grievance.

ARTICLE XXVII.

He has excited domestic insurrections among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

The article now before us consists of two charges, each of which demands a separate and distinct consideration. The one is, that his Majesty— "has excited domestic insurrections among them;" the other— "that he has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of their frontiers the merciless Indian Savages."

By his Majesty, in the first charge, is meant— not his Majesty, but— one of his Majesty's Governors. He, it seems, excited domestic insurrections among them— Be it so— But who are meant by them? Men in rebellion; men who had excited, and were continuing to excite, civil insurrections against his Majesty's government; men who had excited, and were continuing to excite, one set of citizens to pillage the effects, burn the houses, torture the persons, cut the throats of another set of citizens.

But how did his Majesty's Governors excite domestic insurrections? Did they set father against son, or son against father, or brother against brother? No— they offered freedom to the slaves of these assertors of liberty. Were it not true, that the charge was fully justified by the necessity, to which the rebellious proceedings of the Complainants had reduced the Governor, yet with what face can they urge this as a proof of tyranny? Is it for them to say, that it is tyranny to bid a Have be free? to bid him take courage, to rife and assist in reducing his tyrants to a due obedience to law? to hold out as a motive to him, that the load which crushed his limbs shall be lightened ; that the whip which harrowed up his back shall be broken;that he shall be raised to the rank of a freeman and a citizen? It is their boast that they have taken up arms in support of these their own self-evident truths — " that all men are equal" — " that all men are "endowed with the 'unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" Is it for them to complain of the offer of freedom held out to these wretched beings? of the offer of reinstating them in that equality, which, in this very paper, is declared to be the gift of God to all; in those unalienable rights with which, in this very paper, God is declared to have endowed all mankind?

It's a small world after all.

The very same British who just spent years opposing every colonial attempt to abolish slavery and the slave trade up until Independence, now arrogantly takes the high road for what they created. It's utterly laughable.

What's important though, is to notice what the NY Times and this screed from 1776 have in common. They both dance around the bush about the undeniable fact that it was Britain(And Dutch, Spain, etc) who brought these slaves here in the first place. Now many will say "You're just shifting the blame", as if someone wants to level the charge that Ukraine did it. Nobody's "blaming" anybody. Guilt is not a synonym for "blame", and that guilt doesn't go away no matter how much the progressives want to pray for it to stay away.

Major data loss catastrophe averted with the Madison's notes audiobook recreate

It's been a rough last few weeks around here. Normally I try to post only things which are on point toward a specific topic and usually with a focus on history in relation to progressivism(one way or the other), but I just wanted to share some thoughts in general. I won't go too in-depth with the more technical information.

As we have reached the 75% completion rate for this project, I noticed that the drive I have been using over the last few years started reporting errors. After confirming some strange things in my Disks partition management utility, I was able to repair some issues by running file system checks. Ultimately my worst fears were confirmed when I started making partition clones with GParted. Other than a completely failed and unusable drive, seeing bad blocks was one of the worst bits of news I could have faced.

On a more positive note, I have been doing good with making backups on a regular basis over the years, so the fallout should be minimal. As of now, I do not appear to have lost anything. I just uploaded a new mp3 for August 18th, 1787, and I have another that I am wrapping up and hoping to upload in a few days.

Full steam ahead! Let's complete this project for the good of all.

https://archive.org/details/AudiobookConstitutionalConvention1787

Clause 2 of the Articles of Association (1774) completely blockades the slave trade

Most people only think of our "Founding Documents" as comprising two things: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Some, or perhaps many, might correctly also say that the Articles of Confederation is a (third) founding document. There was actually a fourth. The Continental Congress passed on October 20, 1774 the Articles of Association, sometimes also called the Continental Association. (full text) In it, it contains this following text:

2. That we will neither import nor purchase any Slave imported after the first day of December next; after which time we will wholly discontinue the Slave Trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our Commodities or Manufactures to those who are concerned in it.

Just think, why would the progressive historians keep on erasing and erasing and erasing our history? If you erase enough of this, you can make anybody into a racist. The progressive historians benefit from book burning or the closest alternative. Then they can remake history in their own image.

The best way to do some damage to the progressive agenda is simply to read history from the original sources. Not quotes, the whole thing. That's also where they get us, is in the quotes. Again, here is the link to the full text.

The Founding Father of modern Conservatism called the British hypocrites about slavery

In his speech on Conciliation with America, Edmund Burke said the following to the House of Commons:

Slaves as these unfortunate black people are, and dull as all men are from slavery, must they not a little suspect the offer of freedom from that very nation which has sold them to their present masters?--from that nation, one of whose causes of quarrel with those masters is their refusal to deal any more in that inhuman traffic? An offer of freedom from England would come rather oddly, shipped to them in an African vessel which is refused an entry into the ports of Virginia or Carolina with a cargo of three hundred Angola negroes.

Now, there may be some issue raised as to if Burke really is the Founder of modern Conservatism, that's a title given to him by (I think) Kirk and repeated by many, many others. If that's the primary response to this, you missed the forest and the trees. Keep in mind, Burke isn't just stating that Britain brought them across the sea. Burke is also stating another crucial fact - The future Americans (then British subjects) were fighting back and trying their best to prevent future shipments. What does Burke mean when he talks about "refused an entry into the ports of Virginia or Carolina"?

According to some estimates, less than 300,000 slaves were brought to America after Independence was declared. More than double that were brought here per the wishes of Parliament and/or the King. That represents some roughly 5% total of human traffic. As horrible as this is, let's understand the full scope of what was done.

According to the same estimates with less numbers omitted, Britain shipped out over 3 million souls from Africa. What percentage is that? These estimates state that in total roughly 12 million were trafficked including what was done by Portugal, Spain, France, and others. Over 3 million is at least 25%.

Is Edmund Burke correct on his call of hypocrisy? If so, then the question is this: Is slavery really America's original sin? At 25%, is it more correct to say that slavery Britain's original sin?

Why should America get the blame when our forefathers repeatedly and desperately tried to tell the King "NO"?

What Jamaican Maroons and the Founding Fathers have in common: When fighting a superpower, it is not possible to free every single person

We live in an age were now even the most fringe of arguments, the idea of reparations, is a widespread part of presidential elections. The problem with this is that if the progressives had any consistency they would be demanding that Britain pay reparations to American blacks. The Founding Fathers didn't bring all of these slaves here. King George did. All three of them. Queen Anne did. King William did. Queen Mary did. King James did. And so too did King Charles. The Founders even called the Brits on it in their writings. But the facts don't matter anyways - not to progressives. They are only interested in reparations because it would divide the country even more. In division, the progressives find power.

What does this all have to do with Jamaican Maroons? During the time of Britain's slave trade, one of their primary destinations was the island of Jamaica. The entire history of Jamaica over the last 500 years is one big letter F and letter U toward the British crown. Just follow the bouncing ball. After the Conquistadores wiped out the local tribes, the island was primarily hispanic. So how is it that left wing Wikipedia states that Jamaica is over 90% black? How did all of those blacks get there? Did the tribes bring the blacks to Jamaica? Did the Founding Fathers do this? Did the Conquistadores bring all of those blacks to Jamaica? Who did this?

Britain did. Britain took the island over in between 1650-1660, depending on which books you read. During this time, the English deported most of those who were still favorable to the Spanish crown, thus making Jamaica a white island. Then came Britain's slave ships. The rest is history. Except for one thing. The Maroons. The Maroons where escaped slaves, who make their way toward uninhabited parts of the island.

The Maroons have a lot of similarity with the Founders in the context of three things: Fighting against Britain for freedom, serfdom under a tyrant, and not being able to achieve full emancipation after battle. Britain fought the Maroons on and off from 1728 to basically the early 1800s. During this time, one of their leaders Cudjoe proved to be quite formidable. After some years of war and mounting costs, the war against the Maroons reached a sort of a stalemate, and Cudjoe and the British came to an agreement and a treaty.

One article of this treaty, the Maroons gained freedom for themselves, but didn't gain freedom for all people. Neglecting the rest of the blacks.

That sound familiar? One article of faith among progressive propagandists is that the Founders gained freedom for themselves, but didn't gain freedom for all people. Neglecting the rest of the blacks.

You see! That proves it. Not everybody was freed, so the Maroons are racists. No, wait.... No wait. I'm getting my propaganda confused here. It's the Founders who were racists for not freeing everybody. Hmm. Why is it that history always disproves the progressives?

At this time and for the next century, Britain was a super power. Of course the Founders couldn't free every last person. Neither could the Maroons. Even after admitting one of two things: stalemate(Cudjoe) or defeat(Yorktown). When dealing with a super power, you just can't always get everything you want. That's reality. Because what if the super power decides to come back? This is a significant question. Britain was not the "good super power" that America has been since becoming one.

What if the super power comes back?

Of course they do. That's because historians ARE the problem.

Historians and academics have been lying to us for well over a century. So a headline like this is not a shocker. Academics Rally Behind Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Over Concentration Camp Comments: 'She Is Completely Historically Accurate'

Of course they would say that. They're drunk off of their own propaganda. Academia is a fraud and a wasteland.

The time is now for James O'Keefe style citizen historians to challenge the false narrative that the progressives have been building since the days of Carl L. Becker and Charles Beard. The free open-source conservative audiobook is one important key to throwing it back in their faces. Everything prior to 1924 is public domain. This content is our oyster - and their bane.

Nondelegation and the heart of progressive ideology

One of the most damaging yet least-known Supreme Court cases is J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (1928). This case is much, much worse than the more well known case of Wickard v. Filburn.

Wickard enables the bureaucracy to distort the commerce clause to do damage to our lives. Hampton enables the bureaucracy to exist. Without Hampton, Wickard is effectively repealed. A Twofer!

Hampton also has another effect that is usually missed. There is a question as to when the Supreme Court decided it was fit to become involved in the process of creating law. This is usually misattributed to Marbury v. Madison, which deals with nothing more than judicial review. A reading of the full text of Marbury quickly disspells this allusion. The new activist Supreme Court owes in part its activism to the 1928 Hampton case. Let me say this loud and say it clear:

The Founding generation did not give us an activist court. The Progressives did. Marbury is. Not. The. Problem. Time to stop tilting at windmills.

The effect of Hampton is that it creates(Or at least fosters the idea) in the courts a sort of an expert panel on the constitution. Who says what the Constitution actually means? It's supposed to be the people. The courts have decided that they are the final arbiters of the constitution. This idea that the courts should be an expert panel is rooted deeply in progressive ideology from some of the heavyweights of their early years such as Wilson and Croly. See: http://progressingamerica.blogspot.com/2012/11/progressivism-judiciary-is-expert-panel.html for some of what they wrote and why it mattered so much to them. This idea of "the experts" is core to progressive ideology, and at the time of both the Founding as well as Marbury, the courts were not experts. They were just judges.

I'm bringing this up because of a recent court case Gundy v. United States. It is both interesting and ironic that the progressives oh-so-dear non-delegation doctrine was nearly blown out of the water by a sexual offender, considering how often they weaponize this concept of sexual offenders against conservatives in order to keep government large. But whatever. I'll take it.

The end result is that the doctrine of nondelegation still stands, however look at the press. They are freaking out. They know how close they came to demolition. If nondelegation were taken out that would probably comprise 80 percent of progressivism. Not a bad first blow. However, the ruinous legacy of Woodrow Wilson as well as the ruinous legacy of Theodore Roosevelt would still be left standing and as long as those are still in place our beloved constitution is not safe from the ravages of progressivism.

Will someone remind AOC that Spaniards invented concentration camps?

Spanish General Valeriano Weyler, according to the Progressive Broadcasting Service, was the first to set up concentration camps under the Spanish Reconcentration Policy.

But Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn't Spanish! She's Puerto Rican! (I wish I didn't have to type this but you know its coming.)

"As is the story of Puerto Rico, we are a people that are an amalgamation," she said. "We are no one thing. We are black; we are indigenous; we are Spanish; we are European.", she told the New York Times.

That's right AOC. Your people invented these things. She is the last one that has any place blabbing about this.

https://tinyurl.com/y42blcym

Why did the progressives begin hating America?

As is always, the answer to the question is in their own words and writings. Some people will say "the progressives hate America", which is an accurate statement. But why do they hate it? When did that begin? What was the motivation for this ambivalence and rejection of the philosophical underpinnings of Americana?

In calling themselves "progressives", they do to a certain extent give the answer away. Progressives by their nature abhor revolution. That's why the first red scare was conducted by Woodrow Wilson - a horrible president; because making progress requires evolutionary change and not revolutionary change. We still want to get to Z from A, we just don't want to skip B, C, D, etc and kill everybody who stands in our way. We want that frog in the pot, and a slow boil. A large portion of the hatred of America particularly of its Founding is also embedded in the collectivist (anti-individualist) nature of progressive ideology. But that is secondary.

Ok, so where is this written? I just made a claim, how can I prove this claim? Are you going to trust me just because "I said so"? You shouldn't. You shouldn't trust anybody who says this. Ask them to prove it. And ask them to prove it beyond inferences of anecdotal claims. "Did you see how person x did x action?" "Did you see that bill they passed?" You're not in that person's heart, you don't actually know why they did what they did. This is not proof. No matter how devastating that bill would be, that person honestly believes that bill will improve the lives of whomever their target audience is. It's not proof.

Where is it written or in what speech does it appear, that progressives dislike the ideals of America? First, let's discuss the claim within the claim. Do progressives reject "revolution"? Yes, they do. In the book The Promise of American Life, Herbert Croly, Founder of The New Republic, wrote the following:

The great weakness of the most popular form of socialism consists, however, in its mixture of a revolutionary purpose with an international scope. It seeks the abolition of national distinctions by revolutionary revolts of the wage-earner against the capitalist; and in so far as it proposes to undermine the principle of national cohesion and to substitute for it an international organization of a single class, it is headed absolutely in the wrong direction. Revolutions may at times be necessary and on the whole helpful, but not in case there is any other practicable method of removing grave obstacles to human amelioration; and in any event their tendency is socially disintegrating.

Even the Founders conducted a revolution. To that extent I don't think anybody would say never. However, he is pointing specifically to the revolutionary nature as the GREAT weakness. Again, it was a progressive who conducted the first red scare against the communists. That's not a coincidence. The first red scare falls right in line with Croly's words.

Which brings us to the second point of this. The founders did in fact conduct a revolution - an individualist revolution against the British collective. Croly writes:

The temper of the local democracies, which, for the most part, controlled the state governments, was insubordinate, factious, and extremely independent. They disliked the idea of a centralized Federal government because a supreme power would be thereby constituted which could interfere with the freedom of local public opinion and thwart its will. No less than the Federalists, they believed in freedom; but the kind of freedom they wanted, was freedom from anything but local interference. The ordinary American democrat felt that the power of his personality and his point of view would be diminished by the efficient centralization of political authority. He had no definite intention of using the democratic state governments for anti-social or revolutionary purposes, but he was self-willed and unruly in temper; and his savage treatment of the Tories during and after the Revolution had given him a taste of the sweets of confiscation. The spirit of his democracy was self-reliant, undisciplined, suspicious of authority, equalitarian, and individualistic.

This whole thing is clearly culturally in line with Founding-era writings such as the Federalist Papers, Federal Farmer, and a whole plethora of other writings of the day. The Founders did not want a government centralized. That was the very thing they fought to escape from. And Croly can't stand it. Note how he talks about the "local public opinion" and "its will"? This is aghast of the "national will".

In this entire section, Croly makes it quite clear that he is not fond of this cultural aspect of the "ordinary American democrat" as he calls them.

Now, a little context here. Croly was a huge fan of Alexander Hamilton. In essence, Hamilton was a Nationalist in that he wanted to see all of the states obliterated. As a collectivist, Croly is quite fond of this notion as all progressives are that there's no need for the states to exist. We should just all come under the banner of the national government and let them run the show. In contrasting Jefferson and Hamilton, Croly writes:

Unfortunately Jefferson's conception of democracy was meager, narrow, and self-contradictory; and just because his ideas prevailed, while Hamilton toward the end of his life lost his influence, the consequences of Jefferson's imperfect conception of democracy have been much more serious than the consequences of Hamilton's inadequate conception of American nationality. In Jefferson's mind democracy was tantamount to extreme individualism.

Two paragraphs down:

On this, as on so many other points, Hamilton's political philosophy was much more clearly thought out than that of Jefferson.

Hamilton's policy was one of energetic and intelligent assertion of the national good. He knew that the only method whereby the good could prevail either in individual or social life was by persistently willing that it should prevail and by the adoption of intelligent means to that end. His vision of the national good was limited; but he was absolutely right about the way in which it was to be achieved.

So we see that Jefferson = "individual" and Hamilton = "collective", in the terms of what Croly is writing. And he is making this quite clear. Whatever you want to do, you weaponize government and get it done. But you see you don't say the words "weaponize government" no no, that's not progressive. You say it's a "national good", because that will win you more supporters. That's the way to ensure proper progress. Government will force everybody to comply. In describing "Jeffersonianism", Croly writes:

Once these conditions were secured, the motto of a democratic government should simply be "Hands Off." There should be as little government as possible, because persistent governmental interference implied distrust in popular efficiency and good-will; and what government there was, should be so far as possible confided to local authorities.

So he has an accurate and firm grasp on the beliefs of the Founding and the Constitution. Above, the section of the "local will" is also for the most part accurately described. He's not like today's progressives who are drunk on their own propaganda and throw the race card out every fourth word. He knew the nature of the Founding specifically, and he specifically rejected it. Again:

In the foregoing type of political organization, which has been very much favored by the American democracy, the freedom of the official political leader is sacrificed for the benefit of the supposed freedom of that class of equalized individuals known as the "people," but by the "people" Jefferson and his followers have never meant all the people or the people as a whole.

Jefferson = "individual" and Hamilton = "collective". He puts together three concepts here. An individual, a group of individuals, and a collective. "the people as a whole" - one single unitary whole or a mass or collective. A collective is always counted as one and not the millions comprising it. In scolding the Abolitionists in some of their tactics, Croly writes:

The Abolitionists, no less than the Southerners, were tearing at the fabric of American nationality. They did it, no doubt, in the name of democracy; but of all perverted conceptions of democracy, one of the most perverted and dangerous is that which identifies it exclusively with a system of natural rights. Such a conception of democracy is in its effect inevitably revolutionary, and merely loosens the social and national bond.

And so again we see two things: Worship the Nation and Natural rights are perverted and dangerous because they are revolutionary. And to this extent he is also correct. For millennia upon millennia humanity was told by false dictators that the emperor was also a deity and you must belong to the government collective. Pharaoh wasn't really all that different than Caesar or Hirohito in that respect. Along comes Natural Rights and God sets us all free.

To a certain extent, the American revolution is the only revolution humanity has ever known. Reagan stated this:

In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world’s history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny.

This is the individual "Jefferson" that Croly despises. Should you worship God? No, You should worship the Nation! Croly writes:

In economic warfare, the fighting can never be fair for long, and it is the business of the state to see that its own friends are victorious. It holds, if you please, itself a hand in the game. The several players are playing, not merely with one another, but with the political and social bank. The security and perpetuity of the state and of the individual in so far an he is a social animal, depend upon the victory of the national interest—as represented both in the assurance of the national profit and in the domination of the nation's friends.

So if you are a friend of the nation, the nation will promote you and redistribute wealth your way. But if you are an enemy of the state and the "national profit", and you believe in these "perverted" conceptions such as "natural rights", you must be destroyed. This is the National interest. The word "nation" appears in this book over 1400 times. He makes it clear the entity he worships. Some might disagree with my use of the word "worship", but when the government is so prevalent and all powerful in one's viewpoint, what other word comes so close to accuracy? How about devotion? How close is the word "worship" to "devotion"? Croly even writes this:

Loyalty to the national interest implies devotion to a progressive principle.

See. The Nation must have its progress! The national interest! Bow down or be shadowbanned. And if the states get in the way? Abolish them. We are a Nation. Get rid of the 10th amendment, get rid of the electoral college. These things are undemocratic and anti-progressive anyways.

So we have proven that progressives are collectivist, dislike the Founding because it is revolutionary, and were intially obsessed with the "national interest". How can the people be converted into a national collective? Croly writes:

If a people, in becoming more of a nation, become for that very reason more of a democracy, the realization of the democratic purpose is not rendered any easier, but democracy is provided with a simplified, a consistent, and a practicable programme. An alliance is established thereby between the two dominant political and social forces in modern life. The suspicion with which aggressive advocates of the national principle have sometimes regarded democracy would be shown to have only a conditional justification; and the suspicion with which many ardent democrats have regarded aggressive nationalism would be similarly disarmed.

That's the goal. Nationalize the people so that they are less individualistic and more of "a nation". A complete rejection and hatred of the American founding.

Now this book was written in 1909, but as collectivists, progressives would have instinctively developed a disdain for the American founding as soon as they appeared a decade earlier and shed their uniquely American individualism.

That is why the progressives began hating America. Evolution vs revolution. The starting point is in the "progress". Making progress requires evolution: moving from A, to B, to C, D, E, etc until you have evolved to reach Z. Isn't progress wonderful? And nobody can explain why nor how it happened. So it's permanent. But the Founding principle that rights come from God and not Government is necessarily revolutionary and therefore it is irrelevant. The Founders wanted to move from A, the position of tyranny under the British National Collective to Z, Liberty under God's tutelage. In one single act they shook off the chains of bondage, a concept that is antithetical at every turn to the principles of progressive ideology.

Millennial dads are not lazy. They are indoctrinated

Here is an interesting news item, right out of progressive ideology. I wanted to highlight this because the role of expertise has been, in my experience, one of the most misunderstood aspects of progressivism.

Millennial dads have pathetic DIY skills compared to baby boomers

In this story, the "shocking" statistics are reported:

Many millennial dads reported not owning a cordless drill (46%), a stepladder (49%), a set of screwdrivers (38%) or even a hammer (32 percent) — an item owned by 93% of boomer dads. Why the decline in DIY?

Now this article tries to chalk it up to increases in technology. Perhaps there's a percentage to which that is true, but lets get real. Tires and tire changing technology have not gone through significant technological changes at the "I gotta get out on the side of this highway and change it" level. You jack the vehicle up, you take the lugs and then the tire off. Hanging pictures hasn't changed. You drill a hole, you secure the anchor, and you hang the picture. Oil changes are still remove a bolt, let the oil drain out. Replacing a ceiling fan is nothing more than a few screws and turning off one circuit breaker. The real stand out item is this from the article:

more than half of millennials prefer to call a professional.

I understand progressive ideology, as I routinely read their works. This story wasn't a shock to me. If anything, these numbers look extraordinary low to me. I would've figured over 50% of millennial dads didn't have a hammer. It's only 32%? Give it time, the numbers will go higher as indoctrination continues. As I talked somewhat about here and even more directly here, this is all about what their professors are teaching them and specifically how it blooms into full blown progressivism.

First, it is important to establish the fact about progressives themselves. Are they collectivists? Or do they believe in individuals? They believe in collectivism. So the structure of progressivism is you have the queen bee, and everybody else are drones. The point about the drone, however, is that they have a deep training and are an expert in their one specific area.

Now, have you heard about millennials and their "gig economy"? These are not lazy people. The facts dictate that we have to look elsewhere. An easy way to understand it is this:

Your job is in the compliance department. You have no business painting a room in your house. The collective didn't teach you how to paint. So why would you need these tools: a paint brush or a stepladder?

Your job is as a recruiter or HR. You have no business with cordless drills or hammers. The collective didn't teach you about the jobs that these tools would be used for in college.

Your job is to be a dentist. Now a dentist at least would have been trained how to use drills. But that wasn't intended by the course syllabus to extend into the kind of work that cordless drills are used for as referenced in the news article. The article intended cordless drills in the context of more saving, more doing - that's the power of home depot.

There's a reason why progressives do this, above and beyond their natural state as collectivists. In the book The Promise of American Life, Herbert Croly wrote the following:

The pioneer Democrat believed that he was as competent to do the work as any member of an office-holding clique, so that when he came into power, he corrected what seemed to him to be a genuine abuse in the traditional way of distributing the American political patrimony. He could not understand that training, special ability, or long experience constituted any special claim upon a public office, or upon any other particular opportunity or salary. One democrat was as good as another, and deserved his share of the rewards of public service.

While Croly is talking specifically about the viewpoint of an expert politician, this ideology is the same across the board. The thing about the pioneers, if I were to bounce off of this article about DIY millennial dads, is that a large majority of the pioneers had stepladders. They had hammers. They had axes, and whatever else technology was in existence in those days.(obviously not cordless drills) They did everything instead of being walled off into expertise. Since the pioneer was qualified to be a farmer, he was also qualified to be a repairman, he was also qualified to be a politician. And Croly cannot stand that. No progressive can stand this, so they have to wipe it out. It's a threat. Everybody must be drones incapable of doing anything but the one thing. Yes, if the progressives had their way it would be against the rules to change a lightbulb and only expert electricians would be allowed. This reminds me of something else that must be stated and stated loudly:

This is not about "professionalism". This is about "expertise". This is key.

While it is true that anybody can be a professional and have a lot of expertise, and also that most experts probably strive to have professionalism in what they do. That is not the point. Here, "expert" isn't entirely about experience and qualifications, it's literally a designation. You are an expert. In the progressive collective, drones are "experts". You're a robot. You have one job. Do it well. You were only trained for one thing. Why are you complaining about congress? You weren't trained for that. You're not an expert! What do you mean the journalist did not tell the whole story? Where did you hear that? Who are you to question us? What do you know about cap and trade? Show us your credentials! Oh you don't have any? So then shut up! You won't shut up? We'll shut you up with Facebook or Net Neutrality or the Fairness Doctrine or we'll just simply call you a racist and we'll dox you. Then we'll have our experts at the SPLC write up a peer reviewed paper just to prove how racist you are. Oh and did you know that SPLC is a non profit? See...... they have absolutely no agenda because everybody knows that money is the ONLY thing that can motivate people.

That's how this machine works. There are a thousand ways that progressives have at their disposal to enforce compliance. And college degrees are the new royalty and fiefdoms and lords and vassals in the progressive collective. They purposefully leave you ignorant of pretty much everything. Well why would you know in-depth about the separation of powers?

That's why you need expert politicians. Croly writes at length about the "pioneer democrats" and the "pioneer democracy", its a very telling tale about the role of expertise(and NOT professionalism) in progressive ideology. If you know how to do 8 things as the pioneers did, you'll have 5 jobs through early and mid-life and then go to congress; then you'll come home and go back to the same or another job and perhaps one more before you get too old to work and expire. But progressives want domination and lifetime careers lording over your life. This is why the Founders didn't give us term limits. They culturally abhorred tyranny. The progressives are the embodiment of tyranny. What do you need term limits for when you have a populace in 1787 that only wants to do 2 or 4 terms and then desires to go home? They self-term-limited 200 years ago. That's not what the progressives desire though.

This is the thing about colleges and universities and yes, also trade schools. They will indeed teach you what you were intent on learning, such as if you went in for a medical degree, or welding, or software developer. But there is no stone left unturned with these progressives. They will saddle you down with the baggage of social justice no matter what point you enter the institutions formerly known as "higher learning". And there are ramifications to this indoctrination. One of the ramifications is the drone mentality and the deep emphasis on being an expert. "I'm a mid level regional manager, x is not my job." "I'm a traveling auditor. x is not my job." "I'm an electrical engineer. That is not my job." "I'm a y, but x is not my job."

Whatever x is, the progressives are doing this on purpose at the indoctrination level. If you have only been taught how to be a creative designer with a dash of social justice, you are incapable of being a citizen. You are a drone. Despotism has drones. Republics require citizens. However, they aren't teaching the republic to these kids(now dads). They aren't teaching the Declaration of Independence, young students haven't been taught the point of our divorce from Britain. They don't get taught the Federalist Papers. They aren't required to read Madison's notes. None of these things: Madison's notes, the republic, the Declaration; has any impact on your career choice of a speech language or communications role. So why are these musty old documents needed? Throw them out.

They have been thrown out.

The further away we get from America's founding principles, the worse everything gets.

Every job I've listed at any point above, BTW are great jobs. But just remember, I'm trying to emphasize progressivism here through the eyes of progressives. Read Croly's book. Don't take my word for it. You'll see.

I don't want to stand where I am standing here and try to understand progressivism. I want to go stand over there, where the progressives are standing, and understand progressives from the progressive point of view. And besides, progressives have acted this way for over a century so the facts are everywhere to be seen. But you should still read Croly's book. Knowledge is power and the progressives have purposefully hid their own history in the shadows because that empowers THEM. These books are so valuable for what they contain and for how it can be used against them. Use their own words against them. What could be more powerful?

Education institutions as only "job centers" is the death of the republic, and millennial dads not knowing how to do anything for themselves is only a small surface level indicator of this much larger problem of progressive indoctrination and poisoning of the processes of learning.

Remember. Millennials don't know how to be citizens either. They were explicitly not taught that by scheming professors. Citizens are a threat to the collective.

How did republican senator Sherman describe Philip Dru?

The progressive era is a mystery to far too many people, and this is by design. One example of this is the book "Philip Dru: Administrator", which is in reality a blueprint of progressive action. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is an agenda - a provable fact. But due to the progressives' need for shadows and darkness with which to hide in, they have erased their own history and put a nice shiny bow on it.

At the time of its publication, Dru was a big deal. We don't know that today, again, by design, but it was so big of a deal that it was discussed on the floor of the senate. As recorded in the Congressional Record for 1918, Senator Lawrence Sherman of Illinois made (in part) the following: (source)

"Here is exhibited the colonel's whole mental viscera. If there be twilight zones in the biography of 1918, the colonel's 312 pages of fiction flashed from the watchtowers of 1912 a searchlight athwart the gloaming so any wayfarer can see everything. Suffice it to know Philip Dru is an autobiography of the colonel himself and solves the Conundrum how to get rid of the Constitution."

A blueprint for how to get rid of the United States Constitution. That is what this book is. The progressives have been attacking our states and our country for 120 years, we just have not been diligent enough in turning on the lights. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Shortly after the Senator's comments, sales of Dru hit new records and caused a second printing. (Source ) By 1920 it had received its third print. (source)

Being as Dru was printed in 1912, its text is free in the public domain. The audiobook recording is also free in the public domain.

Despite their claims, "monopoly" is at the core of progressive ideology

Progressivism has been with us for just under 120 years now, destroying the country. Since day one, these people have staked their claim on the purity that they always have and always will stand against monopoly. Not so fast. Public posturing and the resulting public policy compared with the core ideological belief are two very different things.

Progressives stand for and are ardent believers in the absolute regulation or complete nationalization of everything in sight, believing that government is the only entity that has any responsibility to be engaged in this, that, or the other thing. How dare they claim they oppose monopoly. It's in their blood. They have written it. Two years ago, I completed the recording of a rather short 1922 work called "The Challenge of Waste", by Stuart Chase. Chase was an ardent progressive, and was even the guy who coined the phrase "New Deal". What does Chase believe to be so wasteful?

On page 5, Chase cites British economist Leo Chiozza-Money and makes the following observation:

Sir Leo Chiozza-Money, the noted English statistician and economist, has written an exhaustively documented account of how the British Empire co-ordinated its industrial life as the one method of avoiding defeat and humiliation. He constructs a telling outline of a whole nation turning from the play-things of stock exchanges, haggling of markets, and competitive advertising, to the stark, underlying realities of producing and delivering food, coal, clothing, ships and munitions — on the principle that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

His usage of this phrase "a straight line is the shortest distance between two points" is key. Oh, before I forget, in case you did not catch the footnote that lists the title of the book that Chiozza-Money wrote, the book is called The Triumph of Nationalization. No really, Chase is worshiping monopoly here in this book. When progressives speak of "waste", what they mean is competition. They mean market forces. Chase is very clear about this. On page 6, he makes no bones about defining "waste" as such:

when all is said and done, this type of waste is only a drop in the bucket from the standpoint of an aeroplane view of the whole industrial system.

Business men think of waste as synonymous with "inefficiency," connoting in turn all the hue and cry of the past ten years in pursuit of the goddess efficiency. How many youths have knelt — their correspondence school books in their hands — before this deity. Pep, efficiency, success — the holy trinity.

But efficiency, thus pursued, is only another method of increasing profit under the price system.

The industrial system. That's 1920s era lingo for capitalism. He's talking about the free markets. You see, pursuing profit is in itself wasteful, when it would make much more sense to efficiently and evenly distribute any said gains to all people everywhere. He says this, quite plainly. A large portion of this book is devoted to attacking "luxuries", which he deems entirely wasteful, then he gets to this:

If we only produced basic wants and distributed them equally, there would only be about enough to go around on the basis of the minimum budget.

This goes back to the earlier parts of the book when he was lauding Chiozza-Money, the only things that should be produced (keep in mind this was an emphasis on wartime) are food, coal, clothing, and war supplies. Centralized planners will guarantee this. In peacetime, just produce the three: food, coal, and clothing. For the purposes of a 21st century progressive, just replace "coal" with "solar panels" and the formula is exactly the same. You see, if only these inefficiencies of over production (page 21) could be eliminated, then it would be much easier for the government to come in and nationalize our lives.

it follows relentlessly that the elimination of that waste would double the capacity of the country to make sound goods and services — goods which really mean the satisfaction of human wants. And this would operate to banish poverty, to raise the last family above the line of the minimum budget, and at the same time to provide for moderate luxuries and comforts, and a reasonably wide range of income levels. That is the challenge which the problem of waste presents to those of us who dream of a high central tower directing and simplifying the economic destinies of men.

Yes, he really wrote about a high central tower directing the entire economy. He did so four times in only 32 pages. What is a high central tower? It's a monopoly. So when progressives demand the nationalization of healthcare under medicare for all, or laud the fact that they nationalized all food inspection as early as 1906; they nationalized the railways in 1917. Never forget that the demagogue of monopolization is the biggest monopolist of them all.

Let's also not forget the real definition of a "monopoly", which I put out separately last week. A monopoly cannot be a monopoly without the "sole" legal framework alien to free markets. This is the indictment of progressivism.

Progressives must have sameness and conformity. It is within the monopolist profile. Competition and alternatives is just too wasteful. Their complete system of regulations serves the same purpose. Chase, again, wrote in the 1940s about "Political System X", and had this to say as one of the goals:

17. not much "taking over" of property or industries in the old socialistic sense. The formula appears to be control without ownership.

When progressives say "regulation" they intend to calm your nerves that its only going to be a small amount of rules but then after that the blue sky is the limit. What they mean is total absolute control like what you would find in a marionette and there is no sky, only limits. Regulations can destroy those wasteful competitors Chase so ardently wrote about. He felt so strongly about the evils of wasteful enterprise, that Chase wrote yet another book titled "The Tragedy of Waste" to expand on the theme.

Nationalization = monopoly, as does a complete marionette "you cannot escape" system of regulations.

The definition of the word "monopoly", prior to progressivism

You have to give credit to progressives, when they are intent on achieving their purpose they don't let anything get in their way. Even reality. So the definition of a word in some dictionary stands little chance of being protected from the onslaught of "reform" in the face of the machinations of these people. Realistically, it is to the progressives benefit to take words and weaponize them.

We have all been trained by progressive-dominated media, government schools, and even some of our "leaders" that a monopoly is a purely market-based entity and it's a bad entity. Well, not so fast. Let's take a look at what Merriam-Webster defines has to say about how a "Monopoly" is defined. Looking at the list, it is entirely in stereotypical ways and all of the entries are intended as condemnations of private industry.

One entry says "one that has a monopoly". Another entry says "exclusive possession or control".

This is plain garbage. A monopolist is a monopolist because they are a monopolist. That's basically what these are saying. Even the very first entry, which says "exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action" is polluted. It kind of swerves into the truth with this "legal privilege" phrase, but that phrase is too loose to be useful considering the "or concerted action" nonsense it is connected with. It's the corruption of the language itself. Here is how a "monopoly" used to be defined: (source)

An institution or allowance by the king, by his grant, commission, or otherwise, to any persons or corporations, of or for the sole buying, selling, making, working or using every thing, whereby any person or corporations are sought to be restrained of any freedom or liberty that they had before, or hindered in their lawful trade.

That's really specific, now isn't it? This is Edward Coke's definition of a monopoly, in case you were wondering. In reality, the only kind of monopoly that can possibly exist is a legal monopoly. That is, for example, the Royal East India Trading Company, is rightfully described as a monopoly. It was never a monopoly because it was the only supplier in the field, it was always a monopoly because of the king's charter! But you see, progressives had to blow this definition of a monopoly out of the water because what does it do? It implicates them. Single payer healthcare, government schools, the TVA, utilities, the nationalization of the railways in 1917, the nationalization of student loans, etc etc etc. All of it are legal monopolies. Even where there is not a sole-supplier status, we do find monopolies. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both have a grant or a commission from the king by nature of their very existence. Both are monopolies - in this instance they would be a government sanctioned duopoly. Amtrak is another example of a monopoly. Ever wonder why you can't get CNN out of airports? Air travel is a government controlled monopoly.

In all instances, these government-dominated sectors were brought to you by progressivism. They want government, and only government, to control your health. To control your retirement. To control your food. To control where you can and cannot go via transportation. What you can or cannot see, or what you hear.

I suspect that the Sherman Anti-trust act plays a larger than life role in the re-structuring of the word monopoly, but I cannot say for certain when this ultimately took place. But I do know this. A definite answer as to "when" we went from a sane definition of monopoly and arrived at a pro-big-government definition of it would be to the benefit of constitutionalists and to the detriment of progressives.