Progressivism would not exist without Henry George

I've eluded to this before, but I am more convinced of this than ever.

A "Progressive" gets his name; or rather, originally got his name - because of the book "Progress and Poverty".

That is, this: A "Progressive" is someone who "is in favor of Progress and poverty" (The contents of the book; George's arguments, etc.) But they can't call themselves Progressandpovertyists, who are in favor of Progressandpovertyism. I feel silly even typing that, yet that's ultimately the most accurate way to describe it.

That's what a progressive is. That's how it started. Henry George. Progressivism is progressandpovertyism. Now, you can find plenty of small roots of the evolution of progressive from European authors, because the progressives here found European writing to be more "enlightened" than American writing, but this is a big root. This is the biggest root. Progress and Poverty is the tap root of progressivism. That's why so many early progressives were either directly Georgist themselves, or directly indoctrinated by a Georgist. In a tribute to Henry George, Fabian Socialist Bernard Shaw wrote the following:

When I was thus swept into the Great Socialist revival of 1883, I found that five-sixths of those who were swept in with me had been converted by Henry George. This fact would have been more widely acknowledged had it not been that it was not possible for us to stop where Henry George had stopped.

He continues:

“George actually felt bound to attack the Socialism he had himself created; and the moment the antagonism was declared, and to be a Henry Georgite meant to be an anti-Socialist, some of the Socialists whom he had converted became ashamed of their origin, and concealed it

This presents the fork in the road.

In Europe and Britain in particular, the Georgist activists became socialist very quickly, as tyranny is how European culture is and socialism is tyranny. They had no reason to hide it. They had no reason to fight it. Culturally, it was a match set.

But in America, where socialism was viewed as a rotten set of ideals at the time, the big government types founded their own brand and called it "progressivism". This is why culturally the early progressives are different than the socialists even beyond the simple naming convention, but at the same time its why they(the progressives) had no problem mixing it up as friendly associates with the socialists. In general, they all had a common origin: Georgism. Shaw explains:

While others, including myself, had to fight hard against the Single Tax propaganda. But I am glad to say that I never denied or belittled our debt to Henry George.

Ultimately, the progressives and socialists started to merge back together in the 1930's, and then merged with the communists in the 1960's.

Culturally, American Progressives didn't initially believe in total government ownership of all means of production, they "merely" believed that government should regulate every aspect of business. Generically, the end result is indistinguishable yet culturally this difference must be explored as separate and distinct. That's why I treat progressivism differently than socialism. When Hillary or someone else says "I consider myself a modern progressive" as a way to deflect from them being a socialist, they are 100% lying at the same time they're 100% telling the truth.

They know you won't call Theodore Roosevelt a socialist. Nor should you. But in doing so, the modern progressive has absolutely disarmed the argument and won the discussion. It's a genuine historical paradox that exists only because historians don't tell the story of how progressivism came to be and how it continued to "make progress".

The original progressives weren't socialists, and I'll point to Theodore Roosevelt's own writings as well as the original Red Scare - That was Woodrow Wilson, folks. The progressives hated the socialists. That's historical fact. Today's progressives however, rely upon this relic of the past as if progressivism hasn't changed. It has changed, and today they are mostly socialist. But I still see no reason to let the original progressives get away with it. This a mythology, and we need to smash it. It's fragile, but its large. One person alone can't break it.

As long as the original progressives go unchallenged, today's progressives will continue to win.

https://tinyurl.com/ybzpuv39

Comparing the radicalism of Charles Beard and Howard Zinn

The American Thinker has an interesting piece today about Howard Zinn, in which the claim is made that: "Zinn, more than any other man, turned our history books on their heads, and in a way, changed the contemporary course of history."

Honestly, I'm not sure that's true. In comparing Zinn to Charles Beard, one of the main issues is the simple expanse of time. Sure, Zinn is more acute in the lies he has written, but Beard has had over a century for his poison to become foundational thinking. Here's the thing: Howard Zinn never knew the real America, so his rejection of America is actually easy to comprehend. I reject the lies too, I just go the other way and try to find the truth.

It's Charles Beard's rejection of America, that's the head-scratcher. That's the one that's very difficult to understand. Beard grew up in an era where there were no lies about America - or at least, very few of them. Beard would have been taught the truth about how exemplary of a man George Washington was, it is extremely likely that he read the actual Federalist Papers in school by a teacher who was fond of said papers, and he also would have known of America's early colonial generation and the role that the Church actually played during that time.(not the perverted storylines told today) Beard knew the truth, yet he still rejected America anyways. Talk about radical. Zinn can't hold a candle to that.

I'll put it to you another way. Because of the Beardification of history, that made Zinnification of history possible.

Charles Beard's main claim to fame is that there couldn't have possibly have been any real arguments over Liberty or limited government, no no, that's just school-house fluff and lies.(school houses in his day) The real Founding Fathers were only and solely motivated by money and economics. They were in reality a bunch of greedy SOBs and money grubbers and land-hoarders who had much to gain(in their deep, deep pockets) by agitating for war.

Sound familiar? Zinn doesn't own that storyline. Beard does. And some might even be quick to retort that Beard was discredited. Yes, he was, eventually. But only he was, because his ideal that the Founders were greedy SOBs, that clearly was not discredited. That false narrative has stood the test of time in academia and is alive and well to this very day.

Now it is fair to say that Zinn has expanded that storyline, if not several fold. But let's not grant Zinn all sorts of superhuman powers to which he does not own. His most well known book was published in 1980, compared to 1913 for Beard. From Beard to Zinn, the revisionists between the two, and also let's not forget those who arrived after Zinn and built upon the Zinnified blather is a great example of how progressives "make progress" to new heights.

The real question is, how will the historians be lying about America 40 years from now? Again, just to make sure that the main point is stated twice: Zinn never rejected the real America, because he was never taught it. Beard, on the other hand, rejected the truth outright. The truth is all that existed at the time.

That's truely radical.

https://tinyurl.com/ybbdgrsl

Woodrow Wilson deported 556 communists and anarchists

Common knowledge has it that the Red Scare involved Joseph McCarthy, HUAC, and Cold War highlights. While all of this is true, that's the second Red Scare of the 1950's.

The first Red Scare is far more interesting. The first Red Scare involved progressives using the force of big government against their ideological opponents, the communists. While it is true that (probably) the two most high profile people to be deported were Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman - both anarchists(not communists) - that does not change the fact that one of the main goals of the 1917-1919 purge was to get rid of reds.

Red-deporter in chief, Woodrow Wilson

While thousands of suspected reds were rounded up during the Palmer Raids, the grand total of communists/anarchists deported in the end was 556. For anyone interested, here is a report in front of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization from April 21st, 1920, titled "Communist and Anarchist Deportation Cases".

I've stressed the point on multiple times both directly and indirectly that progressivism and communism are competing big government ideologies, and this is probably one of the most high profile examples.

That does not mean progressives are good people. I still think progressives are more dangerous than communists and this does not change that opinion. It isn't until the 1960's (generally) that progressivism and communism started to mean the same thing.(the merging of the two ideologies)

https://tinyurl.com/y88kyonb

Making socialists out of college students

Making Socialists Out of College Students: A Story of Professors and Other Collegians who Hobnob with Radicals

I don't need to say much about this, except this: Read this book! But, do pay attention to the publication date. 1920. It's out of copyright and free to download from the public domain.

To our friends who believe that all evil begins in the 1960's, I emplore you. Please look back further. To our friends who believe that all evil begins in the 1930's, I emplore you. Please look back further!

Deception is a cornerstone of progressivism

Lies are as important an ingredient in the ideology of progressives as is h20 in water.

Two months ago, a Planned Parenthood pamphlet from 1952 was making the rounds, and everybody was rushing to condemn the organization for it. Here is the pamphlet. Here it is again, and again and again. The last link is the most direct, but at the same time the most problematic. It states at the top "MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH".

This entirely misses the point and as far as I'm concerned, it's dangerous.

If you guys want to attack individual leaves on the tree, you'll never kill the tree itself. That's the problem with this. Every one of these articles - not one of them uses the name of progressivism. Not one. Do you not realize that if you did kill this leaf, the tree would simply grow another leaf?

You won't find a pro-Planned Parenthood comment coming from me, but there's a huge difference between forests and trees.

This pamphlet is actually an indictment of progressivism as a whole, not just this one organization. Progressives have always lived in the "here and now" and this pamphlet is a great example. That is, their primary mode of operation is "what do I have to say here, now, in order to win?"

That's what this pamphlet is all about. They'll deal with the consequences later. Since they control the media, consequences never come. Even our media, focuses on the micro while never pointing to the macro. The big picture. You're right, that one color there in that one section is indeed blue. But the whole picture tells a story! That story is never told.

It's been like this for progressives since the beginning, this isn't anything new. Woodrow Wilson lied about wanting to keep us out of the war. The initiative, referendum, and recall were sold to Americans under false pretenses. The entirety of modern liberalism is a lie! They've been progressives all along, but they spent decades with the shiny new label of "liberalism" from the 1940s until after 2000. That's 60 years! And they're still doing it now, they're not yet ready in total to give up on using the word "liberal" as a hiding ground.

In general, it doesn't matter where you look for progressivism, they must lie, cheat, and steal in order to achieve their purpose.

The only time you find progressives honest enough about their beliefs, is a brief few year period early on in their writings and speeches.

It is especially ingrained after being utterly destroyed after the turn of the 1920's: In order to simply survive, progressives had to come up with a way, and that way was to take over the word "liberal" in the 1930s. Progressives cannot and will not be honest ever again. They've learned their lesson.

We need to learn ours. In this instance, the issue is not the actual issue. The real issue is progressive ideology and how to destroy it.

https://tinyurl.com/yb7c8zpe

Who were America's first 48 welfare queens?

Initiate a discussion about welfare, and inevitably the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt pops up. Often times FDR comes up in the first sentence.

Problem is, this simply is not historically accurate. It is true to say that FDR supercharged welfare, but anything else is fake history. Not only did welfare in America exist prior to FDR, but the first welfare program for citizens was repealed in 1929.

The interesting story, however, is that it was not people who were first at being put on welfare by the federal government. That's what makes the issue of the first 48 welfare queens so interesting. Here are their names:

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Long before Ida May Fuller, the states themselves were being manipulated by the progressives using national money. So what I blogged about earlier about the first welfare program being put in place in 1921 (repealed in 1929), this is not actually true in the fullest sense. (Normally, welfare is only thought of in connection with individual citizens and in that sense, it is true. This is a grave mistake however. The states have consistently been on welfare now for 103 years and it is time to use that terminology - its accurate.)

The first welfare program had its foundation laid in 1914 and expanded in 1917. The 1917 initiative is especially caustic, stating that:

in order to secure the benefits of the appropriation for any purpose specified In this act, the State board shall prepare plans showing the kinds of vocational education for which it Is proposed that the appropriation shall be used; the kinds of schools and equipment; courses of study; methods of instruction; qualifications of teachers; and, in the case of agricultural subjects, the qualifications of supervisors or directors; plans for the training of teachers; and, In the case of agricultural subjects, plans for the supervision of agricultural education as provided for in section 10. Such plans shall be submitted by the State board to the Federal Board for Vocational Education, and If the Federal board finds the same to be In conformity with the provisions and purposes of this act the same shall be approved. The State board shall make an annual report to the Federal Board of Vocational Education on or before September 1 of each year, on the work done in the State and the receipts and expenditures of money under the provisions of this act.

In other words, big daddy government will gladly give you money, but you have to accept these strings attached and do as you're told. The marionette has met its puppetmaster.

This is the real reason why state-level DOTs, and DOEs, and every other department you can name exist. They are not there first and foremost to deal with state-wide policy, they are there to distribute funds from big daddy. I'm sure they do have state-policy input, but that is secondary.

Each Department of X is there to ensure that your state remains a proxy, a purchased agent. An empty suit.

As long as your state continues to receive its welfare dole, it is a slave.

It's time to set the states free from their bondage.

https://tinyurl.com/ycqtnrfr

"What more can I do"

There it was again, I heard that question again. "What more can I do" There's fifty different ways this question can be asked, but I wanted to make sure this time I blogged about it for future reference.

Rush talked to a millennial listener of his, and this was the context:

CALLER: How do we get people to understand the beauty and the power and the greatness of capitalism? Like, what can I do every day?

This question will be answered, because we cannot rely on politics and the political process for answers.

https://tinyurl.com/yd2cwg6e