To refute the progressives slavery narrative, which three Founding Fathers would you choose?

The progressives over a century ago set about to install a programme which would ensure that Americans would not know anything about American history in general and the Founding Fathers in particular. In the 21st century we see the tree that they planted bearing poisonous fruit in abundance.

By destroying our history, progressives have eliminated the ability for conservative story tellers to tell these stories and keep the historical record intact. This naturally allows the lie to carry the day because it is unopposed. That is why free and open source audiobooks are so important, especially as more of then can be established. We must restore the ability of conservative story tellers and that requires knowledge. Free knowledge that is full and complete in un-quoted form.

To that end, I wanted to highlight what I believe are three great examples of Founders who like most around them, were standing on the correct side of history. Note that I am only highlighting the what and the who, I am not going to highlight the "why" for now because I think that could be instructive.

Here goes. To demonstrate the falseness of the progressive slavery narrative, the three Founders I would choose would be:

* John Hancock

* Samuel Adams

* John Jay

I think Henry Laurens is another good demonstration of the power of storytelling as well. Sure, there are those like Benjamin Franklin who could be cited in this but that's too easy. We aren't going to get traction if all we can do is find time to take the lazy easy route. We need to know what the progressives don't want us to know and we must know it in full detail and abundance. Relying solely on quotes is a sort of self-assassination of the Founders by our own hands.

I would like to highlight this. All three of the Founders I chose are Founders who have been erased. The use of this grants a natural strategic advantage. All of the progressive propaganda surrounds guys like Jefferson and Washington and by rebuilding the many we can save the remaining few.

You shouldn't quote on this issue, as quoting is akin to surrender. We desperately need thoughtful storytelling.

The 1776 Commission report says this about John C. Calhoun

In the PDF file (download here) for the 1776 Commission, a refutation of the 1619 Project, it says the following: (page 12)

Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina famously rejected the Declaration’s principle of equality as “the most dangerous of all political error” and a “self-evident lie.” He never doubted that the founders meant what they said.

To this rejection, Calhoun added a new theory in which rights inhere not in every individual by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God” but in groups or races according to historical evolution.

This isn't usually what is said about leaders from the South in three categories:

• 1 to 2 decades prior to the Civil War
• During the Civil War
• 1 to 2 decades after the Civil war

To be clear, I don't mean that this is what is said from the progressives. We know that the progressives believe without any doubt that all leaders during this time period loved and worshipped the Founding. We also know (because it is proven) that progressives lie. What I waht to know is if those who are not progressives but are Civil War buffs, where are they on this? This sort of history has been erased - the idea that there was in fact a rejection of the Founding in this region during this era that is not just limited to one or two irrelevant people. There needs to be more coverage on this and the 1776 Commission report is now probably the highest profile source illustrating this. The report isn't just 5 words which says "Nuh uh, they are lying!", it actually establishes a base timeline.

The Commission's final report does not contain footnotes, so if you want to see this fully Calhoun's comment can be found in the 1848 "Oregon Bill" speech.

I bring this up because I have in the past (again here) pointed out how Lincoln spoke glowingly of the Declaration and I was trying back then to make the point about the utter depravaty of the progressives' lies. Additionally, I also posted recently about how some unknown number of slave owners felt that Marx and Hegel better represented their views. which again, illustrates lies that progressives tell. I feel the need to show all of you that Lincoln did not (so it appears) just wake up one day and speak in a void. Additionally I wouldn't be doing what I need to do if I didn't follow up on these things. In this context, Lincoln was generally defending the Declaration against those who attacked it on what was a hot button issue in his day. In the Oregon Bill speech, Calhoun does in fact attack the Declaration of Independence, that's just what it is.

One thing I do not know entirely is the timeline: Did Lincoln mention the Declaration first, which led some leaders to say that the Declaration is a lie as a vessel or vehicle to attack Lincoln?(in other words, was this meant only as a personal attack or presidential campaign politics and not really an attack on the Founding) Or did the Declaration come under assault first and Lincoln responded in kind at some later date. I can see this speech is from 1848, well before Lincoln's election. Was there a break or was this a consistent narrative for over a decade? I do not know.

I have this nasty habit of reading more than just "the quotes", and that leads me to read full documents such as the 1776 Commission Report. Nobody else talked about this that I have seen, and it's an important thing to consider.

Please read the full 1776 Commission report. (download here)

Social justice warriors: profiles in weakness or powerful change agents?

There has been an interesting paradox that has arisen in the past decade regarding those agents of social justice. The meme goes that they are weak and frail, incapable of much, and they can't handle it if their feeling gets hurt.

Contrast that with the reality. Books are being burned, history is systemically subject to malpractice, journalists willingly report lies, people are losing their jobs, whole institutions are being razed, monuments torn down, and children's futures are being destroyed.

In the end, only one can be true: Either a social justice warrior is a profile of powerful systemic change or a social justice warrior is weak and nothing will ever come of this.

As for me, I've read Sun Tzu's Art of War. I don't see any wisdom in underestimating the enemy.

Progressives' weakness is in American history. But will that weakness be exploited?

A little over a month ago I asked the question: Progressivism in culture: Where are progressives the weakest?. To recap, here are those cultural items:

• Media
• Academia/universities
• Hollywood
• Government
• Sports
• Protesting (Not rioting)
• Religion/Churches
• Social media
• K12 schools
• Corporations
• Tech
• Talk radio
• Science
• Law
• History

A few were added by suggestions, those are italicized at the bottom. I added the last item, which is the subject of discussion here. One of the things I have noticed is how few conservatives engage in history and specifically American history.

American history is naturally conservative. The concepts and the reasons for why people did things to get out from under the thumb of authoritarianism and most importantly, the hard work they did going forward to keep themselves out from under that thumb and prevent that thumb from appearing is distinctly and uniquely American.

What I can't figure out is why so few Conservatives don't do more with it. Orwell wrote in 1984 that:

History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.

All I see are people around me stuck in the endless present, nonstop modernity. If there are a group of citizen historians out there that I don't know of, I'd like to find out where they are. You might not find so many who would say this, but I don't mind being wrong and I'd like to meet this group if I could just find it.(if it exists, of course)

So what makes history such a weakness to progressives in my view? Look at what progressives have done over the last 120 years. Their own actions are the proof. First, the progressives started out over 100 years ago just eating around the edges - our country's black heros from the Founding were removed; Founders start being quoted shorter and shorter, history books get lighter and lighter, Washington's birthday gets transformed into "President's Day", our Founders get re-written into basically seven people and the rest are completely wiped off of the table, the founding gets re-written from an action based on principles and liberty into (being solely about) base and cheesy economic issues. I could go on and on with this because it does continually build. The point is is that the erasure of our history has been slow and steady.

Why does that erasure matter? It's the single biggest effort of progressivism. They have moved heaven and earth to erase American past. Why? How does that help them?

And therin lies the secret. "How does that help them?" Once you ask that question, all the doors start opening. "How does that help them?" It doesn't take very long to get to the best spot of all.

"Does reviving American history hurt progressivism?"

Yes, it does. In doing such hard work over such a long period of time, they have shown us what hurts them the most. But it only works if we actively pursue it. We could do much to leverage it if we wanted to. Everything the progressives believe is outright lies, and its so easy to just simply tell the truth. But that may be a little bit more difficult than it appears.

I see it all the time, a new list of "Founders quotes" appears, and a large percentage of the list are totally fake or mis-quoted, and very few push back. Nobody questions it. To be fair, I don't either, for several reasons. Mostly, I hope to see some day where there are more conservative historians around and that isn't going to happen if I'm constantly on the hunt for the latest fake quote with a sneering pointer finger. That's just not constructive. But it does highlight one common refrain that demonstrates a real weakness of our own. If we don't actively pursue it, then what's left?

The biggest missing piece is simple curiousity. "Is that quote actually real, where does it come from, and Can I read the whole thing fully to take in that Founder culture and make that culture my own."

I'd like to hear if others disagree as to history being the single biggest cultural weakness that progressives have. This is not a political discussion. They are without any doubt in my mind weaker on history than the media, or hollywood, or in protesting. I'm not sure those can be debated. But let's see.

That's what makes my audiobooks (among other reasons) so important to me. I can highlight things that the progressives want to be hidden, which I know is a great thing. Also, my translations and my transcriptions are equally important in their own way.

There are other things a citizen historian could do as well, but there needs to be more infrastructure built up that precedes a simple "getting the word out" type of effort.

For now, I think its arguable that progressives won the war on history simply because they're the only ones who showed up during the battle. If we want to catch up, it is their most vulnerable position but it's not a quotable victory.