Did Jefferson believe that liberty had a nineteen year lifespan?

In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following:

Constitutions - No society can make a perpetual Constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The Constitution and laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every Constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer it is an act of force and not of right.

I think this is important to address, because there have been attempts by progressives to use Jefferson's quote, even to the point of defending Ginsburg's comments. Yes, I purposely asked an absurd question to illustrate the absurdity of the progressives' proposal here. Anyways, regarding Jefferson's letter, there's two things that stand out here to me. First, is the word "law", and second is "usufruct". If we were to just take this at face value, then could it be said that after 19 years we should just run right back into tyranny after throwing it all out? I suspect that's not what Jefferson was saying here. Regarding "law", in searching for this quote from Jefferson, I came across the following: The writings of Thomas Jefferson, 1907. In the section titled "Jefferson and the Land Question"(alternate link to constitution.org), the following is written:

Jefferson is a pole star among political philosophers because he based his politics on the eternal, self-evident, fundamental truths that all men are created free and equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inherent and unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How are the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness primarily to be exercised? Not in the political field, but in the underlying social field. How shall a man get an independent living precedes how shall he participate in general government. He cannot exercise, or fully exercise, his political faculties until, without let or hindrance, he can get sustenance.

Hence Jefferson's political axiom involves as a prerequisite a social or economic axiom, without observance of which political institutions can be only as a house built upon the sand. This economic axiom is that men have equal rights to natural opportunities, to land. On land mankind must have its habitation and from it it must draw subsistence. Nowhere else, from no other source, can it live. Therefore, the rights of life, liberty and the {ii} pursuit of happiness carry with them the inherent, unalienable, equal right of all to land.

And the chapter proceeds from there, including the quote from above about the expiration of all law after 19 years. Now, I focused on the word "law", and not on "constitutions", because it's pretty well known that Jefferson was firm in his belief of liberty. So while we can..... and even should....... throw out laws all the time(and perhaps 19 years may even be too long) that does not mean we throw out everything. We do not throw out that which protects us from an authoritarian. We do not throw out our firm reliance upon the protections of Divine Providence. Unless I'm totally wrong here, to which this second book and it's details would also appear to be wrong.

On to "usufruct". The second book talks about "Jefferson and the Land Question", and puts this letter in that context. The word "usufruct" means:

1: the legal right of using and enjoying the fruits or profits of something belonging to another

2: the right to use or enjoy something

In short, property. Which means that Jefferson was at least in large degree talking about property laws. Now, he does use the word "Constitution" several times, so that can't and shouldn't be ignored. But I have little doubt that Jefferson assumes that the inalienable rights that we've retained by our Creator would be a part of any future constitution which may be formed. So any constitutions which are built upon a basis of social justice need not apply to the United States of America. We are better than that, we have rights which are inalienable by social justice.

http://tinyurl.com/7lp6w7w

Are progressives now out there openly calling for a planned economy?

Normally, progressives will try to hide their claims and goals in dubious sounding fluff code words. "Economic justice" and so forth. But not here. The call has actually been made for a planned economy. I did a little bit of searching, and I think this may be the first sign of it. So if history is our guide, they're going to call more and more for a planned economy in the future. It's what the progressives really want.

A Planned Economy for the 1%

This thing is loaded with fallacies from front to back. First off, if they're "planning for the 1%", then they are necessarily planning for everybody. It's impossible to do the kind of separation that they're implying, this is just a way to sell it better. Second off, right out of the gate, the fallacy is thrown out that 'all economies are planned to some extent', to which they build up as a false either/or; either the government is going to plan it, or the banks plan it. Individuals do most of the planning on their own, when the government is not involved, and the banks don't care enough to do systematic planning, as long as whatever your venture is is making money. It's only when you start not being able to pay your bills, do the banks come sniffing at your doorstep. But with this either/or fallacy as the basis of the whole interview, it follows that the rest is fallacious as well.

For those seeking further background into how dangerous governmental planning is, see "The Road to Serfdom", by Friedrich Hayek, pages 1-283.

http://tinyurl.com/88aqkqw

Woodrow Wilson absolutely hated the principles of the Founding Fathers

"If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface." - Woodrow Wilson

There is so much in that little line. The obvious question is regarding the preface - what's in the preface of the Declaration of Independence that scared Wilson so much? In short, fundamental truths. Timeless, tested, proven to work fundamentals. Our reliance on our creator, and not upon government, for our rights.

In 1911, Woodrow Wilson gave his now infamous speech regarding the Declaration to - of all places, I love this - the Jefferson Club. "An Address to the Jefferson Club of Los Angeles" is the full title of this speech. What's really telling about how much disdain he had for the Founders is the line that precedes the one I opened this up with: (You can read the majority of this speech here)

Now, the business of every true Jeffersonian is to translate the terms of those abstract portions of the Declaration of Independence into the language and the problems of his own day. If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface.

See what I mean? Just with one single sentence, we get a much fuller view of Wilson's contempt for the Founders. Especially when he says 'translate the terms of those abstract portions of the Declaration'. But what's so abstract that needs translation? The natural law portions. Something that progressives have always been consistent about,(and I have a full blog devoted to proving this, in their own words) is the need for bigger and bigger government. But how can you grow government if the foundation is built on the rejection of tyranny? You don't repeat the preface. Just skip it.

And it's not like Wilson only said this once. September 1907, in "The Author and Signers of the Declaration", Wilson wrote the following:

So far as the Declaration of Independence was a theoretical document, that is its theory. Do we still hold it? Does the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence still live in our principles of action, in the things we do, in the purposes we applaud, in the measures we approve? It is not a question of piety. We are not bound to adhere to the doctrines held by the signers of the Declaration of Independence; we are as free as they were to make and unmake governments. We are not here to worship men or a document. But neither are we here to indulge in a mere rhetorical and uncritical eulogy. Every Fourth of July should be a time for examining our standards, our purposes, for determining afresh what principles, what forms of power we think most likely to effect our safety and happiness. That and that alone is the obligation the Declaration lays upon us.

He might as well have said his name was Philip Dru when he wrote this.(though, the book wouldn't have been released at that time) Notice how he throws out that fallacy about worshipping men or a document? That's the stereotypical progressive arrogance, and beyond that - that's ridicule. That might as well have come out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, even though that wasn't written yet either.(Page 128, rule # 5)

So even though the constitution is the law of the land, they don't have to uphold it. And they don't. When progressives get into office, the ends justifies the means, anything goes, and they're free to "Fundamentally Transform The United States of America". Wilson even says so himself - the Declaration only holds them up to one single obligation. All the rest of that stuff about tyranny? Throw it out the window, it's just some dusty old document anyways, it's just a living document anyways. We are the ones we have been waiting for.

Woodrow Wilson also directly rejected the rule-of-law theory, you can read about it here.

http://tinyurl.com/7h6almf

The aim of progressive education is explicitly to indoctrinate

John Dewey, widely considered the father of modern American progressive education, wrote the following in his 1916 book "Democracy and Education" : (Page 82, middle paragraph) (Gutenberg text)

It is the aim of progressive education to take part in correcting unfair privilege and unfair deprivation, not to perpetuate them. Wherever social control means subordination of individual activities to class authority, there is danger that industrial education will be dominated by acceptance of the status quo.

Now this doesn't sound too bad, I suppose. Extreme inequalities? Who wants that? Well, Dewey also further explains this on page 63:

4. The "Individualistic" Ideal of the Eighteenth Century. In the eighteenth-century philosophy we find ourselves in a very different circle of ideas. "Nature" still means something antithetical to existing social organization; Plato exercised a great influence upon Rousseau. But the voice of nature now speaks for the diversity of individual talent and for the need of free development of individuality in all its variety. Education in accord with nature furnishes the goal and the method of instruction and discipline. Moreover, the native or original endowment was conceived, in extreme cases, as nonsocial or even as antisocial. Social arrangements were thought of as mere external expedients by which these nonsocial individuals might secure a greater amount of private happiness for themselves. Nevertheless, these statements convey only an inadequate idea of the true significance of the movement. In reality its chief interest was in progress and in social progress. The seeming antisocial philosophy was a somewhat transparent mask for an impetus toward a wider and freer society—toward cosmopolitanism. The positive ideal was humanity. In membership in humanity, as distinct from a state, man's capacities would be liberated; while in existing political organizations his powers were hampered and distorted to meet the requirements and selfish interests of the rulers of the state. The doctrine of extreme individualism was but the counterpart, the obverse, of ideals of the indefinite perfectibility of man and of a social organization having a scope as wide as humanity. The emancipated individual was to become the organ and agent of a comprehensive and progressive society.

Now, I don't think I'm reading this wrong, but as usual I give the sources so that people can make up their own minds.

Here's how I read what's written: In the 18th century ideals are different than the ideals that existed in the modern 20th century progressive America, where back then "Nature" still meant something antithetical to a centralized state. When he says "social", he does not mean two people sitting at a restaurant having tea and crumpets. But here in the modern 20th century progressive America, "Nature" has new and more diverse meanings, instead of that tired, dusty, and old doctrine of extreme individualism. And where to progressive educators in? They make emancipated individuals (from the doctrines of EXTREME individualism of course) into agents of government, because they've been taught to oppose perceived inequalities and social control through their "industrial education".

This from Dewey, who labeled Horace Mann a "patron saint of progressive education". Let us never forget what Mann said, that "your children are hostages to our cause".

In both instances: Mann with his hostages, and Dewey with his emancipated individuals who are organs and agents of a progressive society - this is aggressive rhetoric. Dark, devious, and aggressive.

Finally, take note of what he wrote on page 66:

Neither phase of the problem can be worked out by merely negative means. It is not enough to see to it that education is not actively used as an instrument to make easier the exploitation of one class by another. School facilities must be secured of such amplitude and efficiency as will in fact and not simply in name discount the effects of economic inequalities, and secure to all the wards of the nation equality of equipment for their future careers.

Wards? That's more aggressive language. And we know what progressives mean by 'efficiency', more centralization and power for the dear leaders.

http://tinyurl.com/72djzof

Journalism and the manufacturing of consent

In his book "Public Opinion, Walter Lippmann(who can be considered the father of modern journalism) explains on page 358:

The hypothesis, which seems to me the most fertile, is that news and truth are not the same thing, and must be clearly distinguished. The function of news is to signalize an event, the function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts, to set them into relation with each other, and make a picture of reality on which men can act. Only at those points, where social conditions take recognizable and measurable shape, do the body of truth and the body of news coincide. That is a comparatively small part of the whole field of human interest. In this sector, and only in this sector, the tests of the news are sufficiently exact to make the charges of perversion or suppression more than a partisan judgment. There is no defense, no extenuation, no excuse whatever, for stating six times that Lenin is dead, when the only information the paper possesses is a report that he is dead from a source repeatedly shown to be unreliable. The news, in that instance, is not "Lenin Dead" but "Helsingfors Says Lenin is Dead." And a newspaper can be asked to take the responsibility of not making Lenin more dead than the source of the news is reliable; if there is one subject on which editors are most responsible it is in their judgment of the reliability of the source. But when it comes to dealing, for example, with stories of what the Russian people want, no such test exists.

The absence of these exact tests accounts, I think, for the character of the profession, as no other explanation does. There is a very small body of exact knowledge, which it requires no outstanding ability or training to deal with. The rest is in the journalist's own discretion.

This is an expansion of what I wrote recently, regarding invisible government. Journalism is one of the most important parts of this. Also relevant, see this: The Journalists Playbook

Now, Lippmann states that 'there is a very small body of exact knowledge', but there is a much larger body than he would like to admit, particularly with respect to his own progressive movement. When guys like Wilson, Croly, and many, many others were out there disparaging freedom and the American way of life, where was Lippmann and other journalists and "muckrakers" to defend the people against it? They didn't, they were in on it! At best, you could highlight his opposition to the propaganda coming out of the CPI, but a very large body of those in the CPI were all journalists. His opposition to CPI was quite frankly not enough, considering how big the body of progressive thought was back then(and still is), and how dark it is. And if you look at what Media Matters/NBC are up to, they are honoring Lippmann's legacy very, very well. The manufacturing of consent continues, and invisible government remains invisible. Lippmann and Bernays (both journalists) had very similar views, see: this. Wheras Bernays talked about the Engineering of Consent, Lippmann talked about the manufacture of consent. They're largely the same, when you consider how much just doesn't get reported, or of what does get reported is favorable to those intelligent minorities (such as journalists) who know how to regiment and guide the masses.

http://tinyurl.com/8yasa8r

What is Environmental Justice? The right virus needs to come along and wipe humanity out

Mark Levin talked about this last night. You can hear it right here. This comes from the first hour of his show. In the LA Times, October 22nd, 1989, David M Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, wrote the following: Mother Nature as a Hothouse Flower : THE END OF NATURE by Bill McKibben

(Paragraph 9)There is no chalk line between man and nature that we have crossed. We contaminated the planet with atmospheric hydrocarbons and metals beginning with the Industrial Revolution. The Atomic Age wrote another indelible signature in radioisotopes on every bit of the Earth's surface. DDT and its kin appear even in the Antarctic ice.

(Paragraph 10)I, for one, cannot wish upon either my children or the rest of Earth's biota a tame planet, a human-managed planet, be it monstrous or--however unlikely--benign.

We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value--to me--than another human body, or a billion of them.

(Paragraph 11)Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line--at about a billion years ago, maybe half that--we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.

(Paragraph 12)It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

Now, I'm not projecting one bit with the hammer and sickle here. The other thing that Levin references in this audio(and on the same page as David Graber's nonsense) is this:

Guided by a philosophy of deep ecology, Earth First! does not accept a human-centered worldview of "nature for people's sake." Instead, we believe that life exists for its own sake, that industrial civilization and its philosophy are anti-Earth, anti-woman and anti-liberty. Our structure is non-hierarchical, and we reject highly paid "professional staff" and formal leadership.

To put it simply, the Earth must come first.

Now, how this becomes relevant to the hammer and sickle is the banner that you will see at the top of this page: (I made a copy of this banner because leftists are notorious for revisionist history, scrubbing the internet of inconvenient things)

Even the most basic knowledge of communist imagery will allow people to recognize that fist sitting right there. Looks like Vaclav Klaus was right all along claiming that communism and environmentalism are alike. Unless you think that just happened, no connection at all. The left will honestly tell you everything you need to know about them, if you just know where to look.

http://tinyurl.com/72loswa

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Government is the granter of Rights

A blog posting about Rousseau from here may seem odd to my two readers. I guess I can't really pull off jokes like that, considering that I've got a whole 44 followers.... whohoo! So why Rousseau? Well, for those of you who have listened to my audio recordings, you know full well that I'm a young man. I have expressly wished for this blog to be one primarily about authoritarian progressives and not myself, but what I'm being exposed to in my re-education camp, my limits are being expanded. The indoctrination on college campus is something I'm going to want to address, even if it's in my own unique 'direct to the source' way. That, and it seems to me that while most of those who write about collegiate indoctrination talk about socialism, marxism, and progressivism, there appears to be scant discussion in this direction about Utilitarianism, Contractarianism, Rawls, Rousseau, and a few other things. Perhaps I can help to fill in that gap. On to Rousseau.
In his book The Social Contract he writes the following:(Page 19)

CHAPTER IX REAL PROPERTY

EACH member of the community gives himself to it, at the moment of its foundation, just as he is, with all the resources at his command, including the goods he possesses. This act does not make possession, in changing hands, change its nature, and become property in the hands of the Sovereign; but, as the forces of the city are incomparably greater than those of an individual, public possession is also, in fact, stronger and more irrevocable, without being any more legitimate, at any rate from the point of view of foreigners. For the State, in relation to its members, is master of all their goods by the social contract, which, within the State, is the basis of all rights; but, in relation to other powers, it is so only by the right of the first occupier, which it holds from its members.

The State is master of all their goods. The State is the basis of all rights. If the state is the basis of all rights, and thus the place where you get your rights, it's no wonder that the French Revolution turned out so badly - to which Rousseau's ideas were so profoundly influential.

I'm sure some may be wondering(because I would be) how Rousseau was mentioned in my college textbooks. I can't go posting pictures of the pages, unfortunately, so it's merely my word about this. But Rousseau is mentioned as a "Swiss philosopher" and a major contributor to the social contract tradition. No mention of the results of his ideas. I'd say that the fact that towards the end of the French Revolution, they were beheading children....... Don't you think that merits at least one small mention? In another version of Rousseau's Social Contract(still mostly in French) the introduction by Charles Edwyn Vaughan, the translator, makes some rather interesting observations about Rousseau's ideology largely within this same context:(page xv)

It is our business to make every individual member absolutely independent of his fellow members and absolutely dependent on the State. It is only by the force of the State that the liberty of its members can be secured.

Now there may be an argument about the validity of the second part of this, but the first part is the bomb blast that demolishes it. Further in the introduction, it says this:(page xxii)

What then are the conditions which, in Rousseau's view, the ends of the Contract thus inexorably impose? They may be summed up in one phrase: 'the absolute surrender of the individual with all his rights and all his powers to the community as a whole'; in other words, the replacement of his own will by that of the community, of his individual self by the 'corporate self' (le moi commun), which he has joined with all the others to create. And if we ask what is the justification for this sweeping sacrifice of individual liberty; Rousseau is at once ready with his answer. By no other means can we form that corporate self, without which there can be no moral life for the individual. By no other means can we secure that absolute equality, without which there can be no such thing as individual liberty. By no other means can we shut the door aga1nst that oppression of the weak by the strong which it is the first object of civil society to prevent.

This is just evil, evil stuff. Especially when you consider the real world application of all this: the necessary growth of big totalitarian government that squashes all who dare oppose it. Rousseau, a major contributor to the social contract tradition - Contractarianism - this is tyranny. No matter how much modern progressive theorists such as Rawls may try, you cannot pick good fruit off of a bad tree.

http://tinyurl.com/7an3v4e