It's happening again. Progressives always reach a place to where they want to kill people.

A few days ago, an article titled "Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists" appeared in a journal for bio ethics. More than anything, note the context. This is being discussed by those who are "the experts" of ethics, by researchers from Duke University and the National Institute of Health. So we're supposed to take this seriously, that this is an enlightened and reasoned discourse on the matter. All of that gets shattered if you look at the verbage they use at the bottom:

This radical conclusion may shock some readers, but the authors are not murderers. They want to bring greater precision to what we mean by killing. Rendering someone totally and permanently incapacitated is just as bad as taking a life, or so they contend. Killing totally disabled patients does them no harm.

"Then killing her cannot disrespect her autonomy, because she has no autonomy left. It also cannot be unfair to kill her if it does her no harm."

Nor, they say, is life "sacred". The only relevant difference between life and death is the existence of abilities – and a brain-damaged person no longer has these.

"[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong."

So they know full well their proposal is radical, yet they've proposed it anyways. I can't get past the words they're using, they have made a 'good' attempt to soften the ground. Where have I heard such vile nastyness before? Oh yeah! Margaret Sanger. In her 1922 book "The Pivot of Civilization", Sanger incredibly wrote the following:(Page 265)

At the present time, civilized nations are penalizing talent and genius, the bearers of the torch of civilization, to coddle and perpetuate the choking human undergrowth, which, as all authorities tell us, is escaping control and threatens to overrun the whole garden of humanity.

Margaret Sanger also justified her radicalism by cloaking it in science. In 1925, "Birth Control: Facts and Responsibilities" was published. Now, being as this is still under copyright, I can't do anything with it. But Margaret Sanger did, repeatedly, imply or outright say and write things in reference to "human weeds".(as you can see)

This is always how it begins. Go after the "lowest hanging fruit" as they see it. The feebleminded, the neuronic, the idiots and imbeciles, the illiterate, the undesirables, the defectives. Those are all terms that were used by early eugenicists and progressives to denote their superiority above others. As we have seen from history, doctors should not have the power to make these decisions. Even when individuals make this sort of choice is bad enough, as noted by The Blaze, this: is the result of the devaluation of human life. But this kind of thing is nothing new. Let's get back to Margaret Sanger. In 1932, she penned an article titled "MY WAY TO PEACE" (From the Sanger public documents archive)

have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems, and appoint a Parliament of Population Directors representing the various branches of science.

How nice. A politburo which will decide if you are worthy of life or not. And aptly named! The Parliament of Population.

(f) the whole dysgenic population would have its choice of segregation or sterilization.

(g) there would be farm lands and homesteads where these segregated persons would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

Yes, you read that right. This is where it always ends up. And note, as I go through all of this, how every bit of this relates back to what those bioethicists wrote just a week ago. They did everything but use the word 'feebleminded'. What Sanger wrote here sounds very similar to this:

"I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board, just as they might come before the income tax commissioners, and say every 5 years or every 7 years, just put them there, and say, sir or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?
If you're not producing as much you consume, or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the big organization of our society, for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of any use to yourself

Would you say Shaw's proposal sounds like a proposal for a Parliament of Population? I think it does. Now, you don't have to go digging very far before you start to learn that Sanger was well acquainted with Fabian Socialism, having relationships with both Havelock Ellis(who was a contributor The Birth Control Review) and H G Wells. All one big happy circle.

Know history, and you know the future. While I don't expect that modern bio ethicists will go around talking about the feebleminded any time soon, I cannot say it won't happen. They're already going around talking about "human weeds". They have already placed themselves on this path. So what's next?

Making a revolution constitutional: Progressivism and the "Gateway Amendment"

The Gateway Amendment is a simple thing, really. As it was explained in The Public, a Chicago based newspaper:

The gateway amendment proposed by Mayor Quick, of Sioux City, and recommended by the democratic convention of Iowa, is receiving favorable attention of labor organizations. The last labor organization to recommend it was the Machinists union, which did unanimously. We have commented favorably upon this amendment. Its object is to make possible to amend the federal constitution without a revolution, by providing that a majority vote of houses of congress, followed by a majority vote of the people of the States, shall make any immediately effective. The theory of the "gateway" amendment is constitutions should reasonably be under the control of the living; not wholly under that of the dead. People who are satisfied with things as they are, will naturally enough not favor its adoption; but people who want the gate opened for wise constitutional amendments will as naturally support Quick's "gateway" amendment.

Note, that's a simple majority. Not a 2/3s or 3/4 majority.

The preamble to the resolutions in favor of the "gateway" amendment adopted by the machinists convention, contains a succinct and admirable statement of the function of written constitutions. It is well preserving. The chief use of a written constitution, it says:

is to place certain legislative functions beyond the power of legislatures and congresses, and the object of these reservations is to preserve those functions for the people themselves and to protect them against the venality or folly of their representatives

This parallels Colonel House's book "Philip Dru, Administrator", Theodore Roosevelt(link) Woodrow Wilson(who cited a third person, Frank Goodnow), all of whom called for bureaucracies which were completely removed from the voters. The "Gateway" Amendment was their attempt to codify the progressive revolution into the constitution as an amendment. The wording here is not accidental, these progressives knew back then what their goals were, just as they did today.

In The American Magazine during the 1912 election, Herbert Quick was a big, big Woodrow Wilson Supporter. Here is the caption underneath his picture:(page 15)

THE FATHER OF THE "GATEWAY AMENDMENT" This important plank for the easier amendment of the Constitution in the Bull Moose platform was first proposed by Herbert Quick, who put it across in the Iowa Democratic platform in the late nineties. He has been agitating it ever since practically alone. He regards it as the most important plank in any political platform this year. Nevertheless Mr Quick is for Governor Wilson

Page 12 of 'The American' states that it has taken opinions from leading progressives of the day. While Quick may be forgotten to us today, he was well known back then. He was a prolific writer, which is all that Wikipedia's sanitized web page says about him. Here is a detailed bio should someone decide to change that.

What he wrote in his article in support of Wilson is very telling. He delights at the progressive revolution which is now(then) already well underway:(page 14)

Progressives like myself who regard the thing rather than the name are blest with an embarrassment of riches this year. It is a proof of the enormously rapid progress of the progressive movement in American politics that we, who have in the past fully expected that reactionary forces would in any given case control both old parties save when the perennial Bryan might wrest dominion temporarily from them, are now actually given a choice between two genuinely progressive candidates and two really advanced platforms. More wonderful still, these two are the real contenders for the victory. Standpatism, represented by the once great Republican party, is matched with Socialism for third place It is a most astounding revolution.

During the progressive era of American politics in the early 20th century, our country really was re-founded. Thankfully, they didn't get as much done as they wanted back then. Not foundationally, as this amendment would have done. It's taken them generations to do it through the back door via the courts.

And you know what's the funny thing, is I started out my research this morning on Theodore Roosevelt's third term. This is what I ended up digging out.

The New Nationalism

Recorded the speech (transcript), it's up on Youtube.

Highlights of the speech on the Youtube page. It's recorded more like a general audiobook than a political speech, that's what I can do. But at least it's now in a higher profile place - Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Theodore Roosevelt's letter to Charles Benedict Davenport, on eugenics

Want to be looked at by government like a farm animal? If your stock isn't good enough, perhaps we could just sit people in front of the politburo and force them to justify their existences. Doesn't sound good to you? Would it be too far to go out on a limb and say that Theodore Roosevelt would've agreed with the notion? In his letter to Charles Davenport, people's stock being 'farmed', is exactly the notion he advances. You can read the letter here, but I would much prefer you listen to it. Youtube link. (Also, Popmodal. But the audio doesn't seem as good.)

It has a much greater impact in audio, doesn't it? This(among many other things) is the danger of progressivism. Big governments inevitably become abusive.

This would have an even greater impact if it were recorded by a professional. And one day, I hope that happens. It needs to happen. We simply cannot afford to allow progressives to run away from their history any longer.

What is the role of the modern progressive teacher? Use children effectively in any crisis

Hat Tip to Michigan Capitol Confidential:

Teachers' Union Manual Shows How to Organize Illegal Strikes, Use Children During Bargaining

This is evil, evil stuff. You want to know just how deep down the rathole that the school systems have gone? Take a look inside this crisis manual. On page 17 of the manual(searchable alternative link here) it says "Pick a target - personalize - and polarize the opposition" which is right out of Saul Alinsky.

It was Horace Mann who said it best: We, then, who are engaged in the sacred cause of education, are entitled to look upon all parents as having given hostages to our cause

All answers are in history. Your children are hostages to the Michigan Education Association's cause.

State Control to Insure Equality But Not Socialism

Source 1 The Woodrow Wilson House

Source 2 The papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 67

Date: Sunday, August 03, 1919

Title: Wilson: State Control to Insure Equality But Not Socialism
In a memo from Wilson's brother-in-law Stockton Axson dated "one Sunday night in August 1919," [Sun. Aug. 3 chosen arbitrarily as a result. WP Addenda Vol. 67] Wilson is quoted as `a Liberal from a family gathering on the White House rear portico.

"I am perfectly sure that the state has got to control everything that everybody needs and uses. This means the state must control the means of distribution -the transportation facilities, the railroads; that the state must control the coal mines and the iron mines; that the state must control the water sources, the lighting facilities. These things must be controlled by the state in order to secure equality of opportunity among individuals." Wilson gave as an example how railroads favor large shippers giving them rebates and the like. "The little man must have just the same rights as the big man, and state control provides for this....But there is a point beyond which I cannot go with the socialists, because...their further programmes are not for the individual benefit of the individual."

This is one of my newest finds, I blogged about Wilson not too long ago and this was toward the bottom of that posting.(I had actually found this that day) But I wanted it to be up front and center being as it seems like nobody's ever noticed it before, certainly not any that I can see on the internet. Now, 1919 was not a good year for Wilson but this was written by him before he had that incapacitating stroke.

This book(volume 67) and it's contents are heavily blockaded behind a firewall of copyright, so I can't do much else with this. But I'm very sure I want to spread this around so others will be able find it, should the Progressingamerica project become what I want it to become and others follow in my footsteps of digging into the history of progressivism. This book will not be in copyright forever. :-)

Why did the progressives have to steal our founding fathers away from us?

There are many reasons, of course, but here is a good illustration:

This would have resonated very well among Americans in 1912, because back in those days we knew full well who the founders were, it had been in the textbooks. Even a century after Washington's passing, his star was so bright, he was such an incredible role model, that the point of this cartoon is impossible to miss - "Theodore Roosevelt, YOU are no George Washington!"

What the progressives had to do, is clear. Revise history. One of the first places that progressives established as a stronghold was academia, you may know that Woodrow Wilson was the president of Princeton for 6 years. Having complete control over the universities afforded progressives a great opportunity. Someone gets the bright idea about removing The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution from school books, give it a short time for people to forget, then they've given themselves a convenient way to now attack the Founders for being racists. Then they could remove from the textbooks that several of our Founders were dirt poor. Now the progressives can sneer at our Founders for being nothing but a bunch of rich white racist elitists. And finally, it's put into motion to take the Founder's faith out of the textbooks, now the Founders really aren't even the Founders. Rich athiest racists, a bunch of white elitists who now only exist on a bunch of old dusty documents. Why on earth would you consider any of them a role model?

This was done so the progressives could rule over us. Sun Tzu said:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle - Sun Tzu (Chapter 3)

You don't know who you are as an American, and you don't know who the progressives are. Both have been removed from the textbooks. You're ripe for the taking.