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.

The transformation of Robin Hood during the French Revolution

In modern times, "Robin Hood" is synonymous with robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. But originally, that's not what he stood for. Ironically, in general he stood for the opposite, as the mode and method by which the "rich" got that way was excessive taxation primarily through the oppression of King John. This transformation took place right at the end of the 1700s in the middle of the French Revolution, through the work of one man: Joseph Ritson. Dr. Matthew PhillPott, a researcher at the University of London in the Institute of Historical Research, asks the question "When did Robin Hood start giving to the poor?" and goes on to explain:

One man in particular can be credited with drawing out this moral aspect to Robin’s tales. That man is Joseph Ritson (1752-1803), a Jacobin from Stockton-on-Tees, who collected together all of the remaining extent materials relating to the Robin Hood legend and published them in two volumes in 1795.

Dr. Phillpott quotes from Ritson then explains:

Ritson’s interest in Robin Hood stemmed from his political opinions and fitted into the context of his times.

And "fitted into the context of his times". There's a word for this. That's called revisionism - historical revisionism. That's what Ritson engaged in, in order to release the focus from how the rich got that way - taxation - to merely a focus on their greed and simple size of their monetary holdings.

Historian Stephanie Barczewski, a professor of History now at the University of Clemson agrees, writing:

Not surprisingly, Ritson issued his collection of Robin Hood ballads with a polemical introduction which used the legend as a vessel for expressing his political ideas.

Professor Barczewski highlights a letter of Ritson's where he explains why Robin Hood could be empowered to rob from the rich and give to the poor. Ritson wrote that it was:

That same power which authorises kings to take it where it can be worst spared, and give it where it is least wanted.

In other words, Joseph Ritson saw that the kings were redistributing wealth upward, and thought that it ought to be redistributed the other way. True to the nature of revolutionaries, Ritson wanted revenge. Robin Hood was his vessel to achieve that revenge.

J.C. Holt, a professor of history at the University of Cambridge, wrote an exhaustive study of Robin Hood in 1982 in which he observed the following:

With [Martin] Parker, Robin's Gifts to the poor illustrate Christian charity and penitence for crime rather than any deliberately conceived social policy.

This is critical to understanding the entire Robin Hood lore as it evolved, in particular how it became a point on the political map. Not too much is known about Martin Parker, but professor Holt has one very succinct thing to say about him: "Parker was no revolutionary" It doesn't get any more plain than that. According to Holt, Parker's ballad expansions that stress kindness to poor people were unmoving which "failed to spread into the popular tales which became its common jargon." Again, quoting Holt: "He [Ritson] certainly reconstructed him[Robin Hood] in the image of a radical".

Holt concludes with the following comparative observation about Parker and Ritson:

He became an ardent royalist, best remembered for his When the King Enjoys His Own Again. Ritson was different. Politically, in different circumstances a century and a half later, he went the other way, and transformed Robin into a social rebel.

Three historians, and Ritson himself explaining why he transformed Robin Hood.

Since Ritson, Robin Hood has lost much of his government-oriented connection; that is in relation to specifically government-oriented enemies. The King. The Sheriff, and later officials from the established state-church. These days it could be Robin Hood stealing from Big Oil, from bankers, from pretty much any corporate entity you could name. Robin Hood the social rebel begins with Joseph Ritson. Not with the original lore.

With fake history, as it is with fake news, truth is not the truth

In understanding the fake news that pervades every day life, it is important to understand the fake history which is fueling it. The problem here, is the mistaken belief that all fake history can be sourced back to Howard Zinn's publication of A People's History of the United States.

The critical flaw with this is that Zinn's book was published in 1980, and even those who claim that all of our ills can be traced back to the 1960's can't make this timeline work. The progressives, however, have been manipulating the historical record in a major way since 1913. Preceding Zinn's book by 67 years, Charles Beard practically admits to his scheme with the title of his most well known work An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. "An economic interpretation" is in actuality a re-interpretation - the first of its kind for Americans - under the sole basis that money rules all. A People's History, it can be truthfully stated, is nothing more than the offspring of a much earlier progenitor.

Early in its pages (page 90) A People's History embraces its heritage, quoting directly from the economic re-interpretation. On page 13 of An Economic Interpretation,(as quoted in People's) Beard wrote the following:

Inasmuch as the primary object of a government, beyond the mere repression of physical violence, is the making of the rules which determine the property relations of members of society, the dominant classes whose rights are thus to be determined must perforce obtain from the government such rules as are consonant with the larger interests necessary to the continuance of their economic processes, or they must themselves control the organs of government.

Progressives just cannot handle the concept that government's job is to protect our liberties. It just can't be that, because in the progressive view all rights come from government anyways. It all has to be about money, right, this is a capitalist society, after all. Such flaws in the progressive reasoning. Such profound, staggering flaws.

Reading the introductory pages of Beard's work is very illuminating, as is the rest of the work, because while the arguments we face today have reached their maturity you can see those very same arguments in a more juvenile form right there on his pages.

The most interesting part of Beard's book is that as he introduces three theories of history, his being the third, he can't even give it a name. It's that new. Today we would know it under the name of Critical Theory, but back then it was something..... something, anything we can get onto paper, anything we can grow with, make progress with. Something that can be a brand new beacon with which to remake the very historical record itself. Taken in full, Zinn's book is quite insignificant by comparison.

The progressives knew: We can't make progress until the American people forget about the founding - and the people can't forget it until we force them to forget it. This won't be forgotten, it must be maliciously erased.

And starting with Beard, they did just that. What makes it so devious is the patient and surreptitious nature of how they set out - and achieved their purpose. The most dangerous aspect of progressivism is their patience. They make plans that outlive their human lifespans.

The time is long overdue to abolish the FDA.

In the last several days I've had four different people in discussions about what is going on with cigar regulations. For whatever reason, this story has people talking. On the surface, that's great. The devastation that government regulation wreaks upon our society normally goes unnoticed.

But my answer to solve the problem is one that nobody ever considers: Abolish the Food and Drug Administration. And I know what thoughts people have in their minds because I can see the look of surprise on their faces: "But what about our food?" "what about drug safety?" These and other questions just like them only prove just how well progressives have embedded themselves within our culture. We simply do not need government controlling every aspect of our lives.

Yes, I said control, because that's the real reason why the FDA was invented in the first place. The early progressives are just like today's progressives. They didn't care about our food. What they saw was an opportunity. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste. They even admit it. All of this government usurpation of our food arguably got started with the book "The Jungle", by Upton Sinclair. Sinclair famously stated that "I aimed for the public's heart, and hit it in the stomach". Translation: I was malcontenting for ways to make government bigger and help out my union thug friends, and ended up creating a new kind of opportunity in the process. So I really don't need to hear from anybody that the progressives are oh-so-caring and just had our best interests at heart with their creation of the FDA.

And even if you're the kind of person who refuses to look at ideology, acknowledge the motivation that ideology has in people's lives - even if you would rather play hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil about progressivism, the results of the FDA are just as obvious.

To the progressives, attacking industry is all that matters. That's why they use an organization originally put together for FOOD as a weapon against a non food maker. When is the last time you saw someone eating a cigar? Well the FDA doesn't care about that. They just care about their power. The FDA has proven to be untrustworthy.

And it's not like this is some lone isolated case. Cases like this happen routinely in whatever form they manifest themselves. And then there's the arbitrary roadblocks for experimental medicine. But these one-off examples are actually a distraction. If the progressives couldn't use the FDA for their attacks, they would probably use the ATF to get it done. For them, it's a big fat whatever. They know the media will cover for them anyways.

"But can't we just fix the FDA instead of some extreme measure like abolishing it?" What's broken about it, exactly? The FDA is doing exactly what the progressives designed it for in the first place. It's putting controls into society for the purposes of whatever goals the progressives have in any given month or decade. Oh you meant just fixing the FDA so that it only actually focuses in on Food and Drugs and nothing else? But that's not its true purpose. We have over 100 years of progressivism now to prove this. We have their words to prove it, in book after book after book. Progressives have only ever cared about control and the proof is also everywhere you look.

I would argue that the FDA was the progressive movement's first step toward government control of healthcare in the United States. When did we get the FDA? 1906. When did the progressives start calling for government healthcare? 1912. Anybody who understands progressivism knows that's not a coincidence. It only took them six years to "make progress" and move on to their next goal of usurpation. What about the D in FDA? Does that have anything to do with health or healthcare?

The FDA and the long road to government control of healthcare is actually a tale of progressive greed. Enough is never enough with these people. They simply check off a box, and move on to the next thing hoping to gain more control. They don't just say "We want to control your food, but just your food. After that we're done! We swear! Honest! We won't ask to control anything else, never dream of it! We honestly do not have any other ambitions in your private life." The fact is that the progressives just keep on plotting and scheming and intriguing over the next target.

You want to put a significant crater in the move toward socialized medicine? Then your top priority is the abolition of the FDA. Go right for the source, the foundation. Go for the jugular.

Benjamin Franklin was not referring to the Patriot Act, he was referring to Obamacare

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

What does this quote mean? It doesn't mean anything, when it is disconnected with the full of its author's words. Franklin wrote this in his Reply to the Governor in 1755, but how many people even know that? His letter is less than 2000 words, so it is not a long read. I recommend everybody read the full letter, because that is to the detriment of progressivism.

So, what does this quote mean? It only, only means what Franklin himself meant at the time he wrote it. It does not mean anything else. Here is a large part of what Franklin wrote to the Governor, in 1755:

Our Assemblies have of late had so many Supply Bills, and of such different Kinds, rejected on various Pretences; Some for not complying with obsolete occasional Instructions (tho’ other Acts exactly of the same Tenor had been past since those Instructions, and received the Royal Assent;) Some for being inconsistent with the supposed Spirit of an Act of Parliament, when the Act itself did not any way affect us, being made expresly for other Colonies; Some for being, as the Governor was pleased to say, “of an extraordinary Nature,” without informing us wherein that extraordinary Nature consisted; and others for disagreeing with new discovered Meanings, and forced Constructions of a Clause in the Proprietary Commission; that we are now really at a Loss to divine what Bill can possibly pass. The proprietary Instructions are Secrets to us; and we may spend much Time, and much of the Publick Money, in preparing and framing Bills for Supply, which, after all, must, from those Instructions, prove abortive. If we are thus to be driven from Bill to Bill, without one solid Reason afforded us; and can raise no Money for the King’s Service, and Relief or Security of our Country, till we fortunately hit on the only Bill the Governor is allowed to pass, or till we consent to make such as the Governor or Proprietaries direct us to make, we see little Use of Assemblies in this Particular; and think we might as well leave it to the Governor or Proprietaries to make for us what Supply Laws they please, and save ourselves and the Country the Expence and Trouble. All Debates and all Reasonings are vain, where Proprietary Instructions, just or unjust, right or wrong, must inviolably be observed. We have only to find out, if we can, what they are, and then submit and obey. But surely the Proprietaries Conduct, whether as Fathers of their Country, or Subjects to their King, must appear extraordinary, when it is considered that they have not only formally refused to bear any Part of our yearly heavy Expences in cultivating and maintaining Friendship with the Indians, tho’ they reap such immense Advantages by that Friendship; but they now, by their Lieutenant, refuse to contribute any Part towards resisting an Invasion of the King’s Colony, committed to their Care; or to submit their Claim of Exemption to the Decision of their Sovereign.

In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it.

So, what is he talking about?

He is talking about wealth redistribution, in the context of the legislation itself. What was the Pennsylvania legislature doing at the time? Franklin describes how they were putting together "Supply bills". Supplying what, exactly? It was appropriating money and handing out guns to people who seemingly needed them to fight against the invading British French and Indians. But as Franklin made clear, the people in question not only left the responsibility to others to procure their guns, but they also left the responsibility of actively defending themselves to others.

Now I know a lot of you are going to be shocked to learn that an American government was using wealth redistribution as a means to hand out guns to some of the citizens, but Franklin makes it clear that they were not exactly bitter clingers here. They weren't interested in lifting a finger for themselves in this context. And we shouldn't have a government that redistributes money for guns. Franklin is correct here. Wealth redistribution is evil, and the object sought is completely irrelevant.

He does have a different context for this quote as well, it should be stated. He also means a reference to these people who were beneficiaries of the new colonies, but would not help defend those colonies. They sought safety and security instead with the British crown. But because the King did not represent Liberty and was not offering it either, these people deserved neither safety nor liberty. In this context its actually quite brilliant. To use a word, these people were punks. But I digress.

Let's compare the Patriot Act with Obamacare.

Does the Patriot Act redistribute wealth? No, it does not.

Does Obamacare redistribute wealth? Yes, it does.

Not only that, but a large portion of the arguments surrounding Obamacare are rooted in safety and security. The arguments sound a little like this:

"My family ...... safety and security ...... in times of job loss ...... "

"The evil corporations ........ keep raising their prices ...... we need to be safe from them ......"

We have heard them all and we have heard others as well. There's the constant caterwauling about people who can never afford any kind of healthcare, and are thus insecure. And then there's this: Gallup and other polling agencies are out there running polls from time to time about "healthcare insecurity"!

Well guess what Gallup. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

So then at the end of the day, by definition, Franklin could not have been referring to something like the Patriot Act. To claim as such, is taking him out of context.

Herbert Hoover and the largest tax increase in American History

I like how the constant harping and carping about tariffs these days gets invoked together with fearmongering about Smoot Hawley and the Great Depression. What is missing? The Revenue Act of 1932. After the 1929 crash there was a small tax cut, but this was overshadowed by Smoot Hawley just months later. In the middle of bad economic times, you simply don't raise taxes, and yes, a tariff is a tax. But let's get to the meat of the numbers, shall we?

The Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1921 had a top tax rate of 73%.

The Revenue Act of 1924 reduced this to a top tax rate of 46%.

The Revenue Act of 1926 reduced this again to a top tax rate of 25%.

It was not raised from this number until The Revenue Act of 1932, which had a top tax rate of 63%. This was lower than the ninteen-teens tax rates of 73%, but considering the jump of 25% to 63%, this is over a 100% increase and it indeed was at the time the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.

But that is not what we received in 2017. For all its flaws, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act does a reverse-Hoover by lowering taxes. I can explain; there is a certain formula here:

1929: poor economy, raising tariffs, largest tax increase in American history. (From what I can tell, they were not lowering burdensome regulations in 1929 either)

2017/2018: decent economy, raising tariffs, lowering taxes as well as lowering regulation.

See the stark differences here? Most of the time we hear that these tariffs should not exist and they will only lead to trade wars and other issues. But in reality it is the 16th amendment which should be repealed. The only thing they get correct when talking about this issue is that a mixture of income taxes and tariffs is a deadly combo. They should not be mixed. But it isn't the tariffs which should be eliminated, it is the income tax which should die a horrible and bloody death.

The Founding Fathers used tariffs as the only (or at least main) form of taxation, and that is probably the most proper way of taxation. The irony of tariffs is that they are in general taxes only on the rich - the problem is that it does not grant the kind of authoritarian domestic controls that income taxes bring, which is really what the progressives love and seek.

Even with taxes, the issue is not actually the issue. For progressives, control is the issue and control is always the real issue. Everything else is merely window dressing. It's always been about control and it has been this way going back to 1906 when income taxes were first proposed by the president in his SOTU that year. It's all about control.