For progressives, society is government and government is society

I've written about this several times, and here is another instance. The Guardian asks: "Is society coming apart?"

Most of the article is throw away, but here we get something extremely important:

According to the Reagan-Thatcher worldview, there is no such thing as society. There are only families, who look after one another, and individuals, who participate in markets. The idea that government is the solution to people’s problems rests on a mistaken belief in the existence of society.

The amount of honesty in these few lines is rather quite remarkable. First off they are completely incorrect about the "Reagan-Thatcher worldview", but that's just window dressing and fluff, likely designed to elicit an outraged response so that the really important thing doesn't get focus. I will focus this properly.

"The idea that government is the solution to people’s problems rests on a mistaken belief in the existence of society." See. Government is society. Society is government. They are one in the same. If you are percieved to be attacking government in any way, then you are against society or simply don't believe that society exists. I'll show you how this works. When Reagan said the words "government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem", that is not what progressives heard. Here is what they heard and what Reagan said:

Society is not the solution to the problem, society is the problem

You think I'm kidding. I'm not. This is what the progressives think Reagan actually said.

Evil never understands the light. "Society" is everything outside of government and without government. Government can only pervert and coerce society as we in our families and we as individuals seek to determine our own individual destinies. But a progressive is incapable of understanding this. I might as well have said something in dolphin clicks. It doesn't compute for them.

King George vetoed abolitionist laws. The Smithsonian omits that fact and then defends him.

As a citizen historian, I find it both "funny" and annoying how skewed history is and how few treat leftist historians compared to their leftist journalist counterparts. Its a huge problem for us.

Pimping a new book that he will hope you will buy, Andrew Roberts (the Book's author) writes this glowing piece for The Smithsonian about you know, George III, he wasn't all that bad of a guy!

Hey I have an idea. Maybe we should've stayed under monarchism. That whole "liberty thing"? Perhaps that's overrated. Sarcasm aside, take a look at paragraph number 2:

We can now see, for example, George’s fervent denunciation of slavery in an essay he wrote as Prince of Wales in the late 1750s, after reading Charles de Montesquieu’s classic enlightenment text, The Spirit of the Laws (1748).

This is historical malpractice. So George wrote some paper some time for some people to read, so what. When the pedal was down against the metal, what did King George actually do? Actions speak louder than words. When King George III had the opportunity, he sided with slave traders over abolitionists. Here's the actual text of the King's veto:

it hath been represented to us that so considerable an increase upon the duties of slaves imported into our colony of Virginia will have the effect to prejudice and obstruct as well the commerce of this kingdom as the cultivation and improvement of the said colony; whereupon we have thought fit to disallow the first mentioned of the laws, leaving the other, which is of short duration, to expire by its own limitation. It is therefore our will and pleasure that you do not upon pain of our highest displeasure give your assent for the future, without our royal permission first obtained, to any law or laws by which the additional duty of five per cent upon slaves imported, imposed by the last mentioned law, shall be further continued or to any laws whatever by which the duties of ten per cent upon slaves imported into our said colony, payable by laws passed antecedent to the seventh day of November, 1769, shall upon any pretense be increased or by which the importation of slaves shall be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.

The text of this is quite clear. Increasing the duties are going to reduce slave imports, and that's going to hurt the empire. Oh woe is me, we can't have that!

How different would this Smithsonian article look if it had included the fact that the King actively stood against abolitionism? Laws such as the one which was vetoed, referenced above, this was happening all over the colonies in the 1770s. This wasn't a one time thing.

I can see I'm going to have to record this veto into audio that everybody can listen to and throw it up on YouTube, since so many historians can't find the time to write the truth. What a bunch of flagrant liars. It isn't just this one guy, the Smithsonian is in on it. What a disgrace. What a historical disgrace this whole thing is. But that's where we are with the state of the "historical profession" in America these days. The article concludes this way:

The time has therefore come for objective Americans to take a fresh look at their last king. It was right for the colonies to break away from the British Empire in 1776 because they were ready by then to found their own nation-state, but despite the rhetoric of their founding document, they were not escaping tyranny, so much as bravely grasping their sovereign independence from a good-natured, cultured, enlightened and benevolent monarch.

Historians will always side against the American Revolution and cling to any whataboutism they can in order to make America look bad, meanwhile anything else must be preferred. "Rhetoric", "rhetoric"??? That's all the declaration is? It's no big deal? Reading the Declaration makes it quite clear that it is just as applicable today as it was back then.

We need new historians just as badly as we need new journalists. None of them are interested in being honest. None of them.

Just by being a listener, you're being a contributor

It's been a good few weeks here for me with hard work reaching the top and paying off. A few weeks ago one group audiobook was completed, the other day I completed a solo that I had been working on for four years, and launched another group book which is piling up very quickly. But I wanted to touch on something in case it never gets said or gets tucked away without the proper focus.

By being a listener, you are being a valuable contributor. Let me explain this.

First, I do not mean the works that I specifically recorded nor works that I had any way at all been involved. And second, I do mean a particular type of content. Example 1: Franklin's Autobiography. Example 2: A George Washington biography. Example 3: Adam Smith I had zero to do with these.

Progressives have stolen American history. It's easy and common to say that "Americans have forgotten this or that", but no. This was malicious and it was by design. It was taken from us by force and coercion. So right there, by listening to the audio or just the same by downloading the text and reading, you're doing something you shouldn't be doing and that makes it provocative.

It's also important to recognize that the negative is just as true. If you're spending time learning American history, that's less time you're investing into being soaked in the never ending cesspool of modernity. I know it's very difficult to stop staring at it, it's so grotesque, but the way to win the game is to not play it at all. That's the only way.

There is also a quality that goes into a listener. For example, I just completed a new recording of a speech by Frederick Douglass which no progressives will ever want to hear since he is forcefully defending the United States Constitution. So we have a situation that could happen that if on the off chance the recording gets into the hands of 10,000 progressives, it likely has no value. Sure, they may hear it but they won't be listening. Of the reverse, if 10,000 conservatives hear the speech nearly all will appreciate and potentially even be influenced by what Douglass said. In the second instance it is not just being heard it's also being actively listened to. Even if you don't like my personal recording, the content will be unmistakable and you'll want it to be known by others.

But at the end of the day I just wanted to make sure I highlighted the fact that audiobooks need listeners, my books or otherwise, and in so doing you are creating a value that has an important place. Who am I recording for?

New audiobook: Herbert Croly's The Promise of American Life

After four years of arduous work, the solo recording of Herbert Croly's The Promise of American Life is now completed. From the viewpoint of "what is progressive ideology", this book explains it better than perhaps any other I could offer. This book is entirely free, it is in the public domain. This is NOT. for sale.

The book can be downloaded from here, and using what I could find which was written by others, I wrote the following book summary:

The book is said to "offer a manifesto of Progressive beliefs" that "anticipated the transition from competitive to corporate capitalism and from limited government to the welfare state." By Croly’s death in 1930, only 7,500 copies of The Promise of American Life had been sold. Despite this, the book was immensely influential, even influencing Theodore Roosevelt to adopt the platform of The New Nationalism.

This is a pretty accurate summary of the work. Why this book is so important, is that it had implications for at least three of the very first progressive presidents in America: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. A book that has that kind of reach MUST be more widely known among conservatives, and what better way to accomplish the necessary task, than to read it to you?

You need to read this. You need to know this. I'll read it to you, I did the hard work for you! It's that important. If you don't like audiobooks, hey that's great now you have options, you can download the PDF or the text and read it, it's all yours. You're missing an important one if you don't. You're missing a very important one here. Here's the book review that former President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in regard to this book. Writing in The New Outlook, an essay titled Nationalism and Popular Rule, he wrote: (p. 96)

In Mr. Herbert Croly's "Promise of American Life," the most profound and illuminating study of our National conditions which has appeared for many years, especial emphasis is laid on the assertion that the whole point of our governmental experiment lies in the fact that it is a genuine effort to achieve true democracy - both political and industrial.

So if nothing else, let's recognize the importance of this work. This book has it all. Progressive education, the need for wealth redistribution, the subjugation of industry to the Nation, the domination of government in the lives of individuals. It's all here. It's ALL here, in these pages. What is happening to our country? The answers are here in these pages. Now it is true that over the years progressives have changed in some ways, but they're still the same. This is not an old outdated irrelevant story from a distant day of "what was". They are still here and this is still current.

We as conservatives, we have a lot of confusion among our people as to whether or not progressivism and socialism is the same thing (which it is not) and this book can clear a lot of that noise up. It's time to part the clouds here.

In the Art of War, chapter 3, Sun Tzu wrote:

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.

We can't win if we're calling them socialists. That's not historically accurate, then or now.

My first audiobook Philip Dru was useful in that it puts into the form of a novel what the goals of progressivism are. But that's a filter. This book is unfiltered. It's just, let's dominate everything, that's what progressives want.

This book is scary. For those of us who want government limitations and free markets, this is a very chilling work. I hope you enjoy. When you are finished with the book, for those of you who take it up, you will come away having learned something and realizing what we're actually up against. These people, are, I'll tell you what. I'll put it to you this way. Progressives are not kidding around. They mean what they say and they mean what they write. They really actually believe this stuff.

It's been over 100 years since this book was published, and we know the progressives actually believe this stuff because so much of it has been implemented. It's horrific to live with.

New audiobook: Anti-slavery in America (1619-1808)

It's been a very exciting week around here. The big ticket item is that I launched a new audiobook titled Anti-slavery in America from the Introduction of African Slaves to the Prohibition of the Slave Trade (1619-1808), and this time I started the work as a group project.

I see it fairly often where people express the sentiment "what more can I do?" and if that is you I would like to work with you on this. Look at the title of the book, you know exactly why I chose it.

Normally I don't mention audiobooks of mine until I have completed them but over the years I have learned more about my capabilities as a producer of free open source conservative audiobooks, I can work on more than one book at a time when I have additional works which are group collaborative efforts. Here is the book:

Anti-slavery in America from the Introduction of African Slaves to the Prohibition of the Slave Trade (1619-1808), by Mary Stoughton Locke

The timing is really good, I just completed my last solo recording(Still editing down the last chapter for final release though) and I know that this is the kind of thing that can have a positive impact on our culture.

In an age where we are surrounded by deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. Despite the fact that this audiobook will not carry any price tag it's value will be quite obvious. Again, just looking at the title tells the story. If you would like to work with me on this, let me know.

My favorite thing about working with public domain content is that Big Tech cannot censor me. Tens of thousands of people will be reached with my message.

The full text of the King's slavery veto

In my most recent prior post I referenced two things: The Wrong of Slavery, the Right of Emancipation, and the future of the African race in the United States - this book(and audiobook) is strongly related to the final report of the Freedmen's Inquiry Commission and bears many likenesses to the text.(source) Additionally: George Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VI.

All I want to do here is give you the full text of the order from the King's own hand so you can read it for yourself. On December 10th, 1770, here was the order given by King George III:

947. No Additional Duties on Slaves in Virginia

Whereas at a general assembly begun and held in our city of Williamsburg in our colony and dominion of Virginia on the seventh day of November in the tenth year of our reign, two laws were framed and enacted by our governor, council, and House of Burgesses of our said colony and dominion of Virginia, entitled An Act for Laying an Additional Duty upon Slaves Imported into This Colony, and the other An Act for the Better Support of the Contingent Charges of Government, by which said laws additional duties, amounting to fifteen per cent were imposed upon every purchase of slaves imported or brought into that colony over and above a duty of ten per cent payable by former laws then in force; and whereas it hath been represented to us that so considerable an increase upon the duties of slaves imported into our colony of Virginia will have the effect to prejudice and obstruct as well the commerce of this kingdom as the cultivation and improvement of the said colony; whereupon we have thought fit to disallow the first mentioned of the laws, leaving the other, which is of short duration, to expire by its own limitation. It is therefore our will and pleasure that you do not upon pain of our highest displeasure give your assent for the future, without our royal permission first obtained, to any law or laws by which the additional duty of five per cent upon slaves imported, imposed by the last mentioned law, shall be further continued or to any laws whatever by which the duties of ten per cent upon slaves imported into our said colony, payable by laws passed antecedent to the seventh day of November, 1769, shall upon any pretense be increased or by which the importation of slaves shall be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.

Virginia: (§939); Dec. 10, 1770.

Source: Royal Instructions To British Colonial Governors 1670 - 1776 Volume II, page 679.(counted as page 232)

A King the Pillar of the Slave Trade

And now for more history that the progressive professors don't want you to know.

In the book The Wrong of Slavery, the Right of Emancipation, and the future of the African race in the United States (Recently released as an open source public domain audiobook), the following is written: (page 85)

Since so small a proportion out of the whole export was directed to the United States, it is evident that the demand for slaves at that time could not have been great. Nor do we find, throughout the Report, any allusion to a direct trade by slavers from the African coast to the Continental colonies. Of course it existed, but evidently not to a large extent. The public opinion, as well as the legislation, of the colonies had uniformly been against it. (footnote 1)

(footnote 1) The agency of the British Government in fastening slavery upon the Continental colonies is well known. Bancroft has placed it distinctly on record: —

"The inhabitants of Virginia were controlled by the central authority on a subject of vital importance to themselves and their posterity. Their halls of legislation had resounded with eloquence directed against the terrible plague of negro slavery. Again and again they had passed laws restraining the importation of negroes from Africa; but their laws were disallowed. How to prevent them from protecting themselves against the increase of the overwhelming evil was debated by the King in Council, and on the 10th day of December, 1770, he issued an instruction, under his own hand, commanding the governor, 'under pain of the highest displeasure, to assent to no law by which the importation of slaves should be, in any respect, prohibited or obstructed.' In April, 1772, this rigorous order was solemnly debated in the Assembly of Virginia. They were very anxious for an Act to restrain the introduction of people the number of whom already in the colony gave them just cause to apprehend the most dangerous consequences. * * * Virginia resolved to address the King himself, who in Council had cruelly compelled the toleration of the nefarious traffic. They pleaded with him for leave to protect themselves against the nefarious traffic, and these were the words: —

"The importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of Africa hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity, and, under its present encouragement, we have too much reason to fear, will endanger the very existence of your Majesty's American dominions. We are sensible that some of your Majesty's subjects in Great Britain may reap emolument from this sort of traffic; but, when we consider that it greatly retards the settlement of the colonies with more useful inhabitants, and may, in time, have the most destructive influence, we presume to hope that the interest of a few will be disregarded when placed in competition with the security and happiness of such numbers of your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects.

Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we most humbly beseech your Majesty to remove all those restraints on your Majesty's governors of this colony which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might check so very pernicious a commerce."

"In this manner Virginia led the host who alike condemned slavery and opposed the slave-trade. Thousands in Maryland and in New Jersey were ready to adopt a similar petition; so were the Legislatures of North Carolina, of Pennsylvania, of New York. Massachusetts, in its towns and in its Legislature, unceasingly combated the condition, as well as the sale, of slaves. There was no jealousy among one another in the strife against the crying evil; Virginia harmonized all opinions, and represented the moral sentiment and policy of them all. When her prayer reached England, Franklin, through the press, called to it the sympathy of the people. Again and again it was pressed upon the attention of the Ministers. But the Government of that day was less liberal than the tribunals; and, while a question respecting a negro from Virginia led the courts of law to an axiom that as soon as any slave sets his foot on English ground he becomes free, the King of England stood in the path of humanity, and made himself the pillar of the slave-trade. Wherever in the colonies a disposition was shown for its restraint, his servants were peremptorily ordered to maintain it without abatement." — Bancroft's History of the United States, vol. vi. pp. 413, 414, 415.

"The English Continental colonies," says Bancroft, "were, in the aggregate, always opposed to the African slave-trade. Maryland, Virginia, even Carolina, alarmed at the excessive production, and consequent low price, of their staples, at the heavy debts incurred by the purchase of slaves on credit, and at the dangerous increase of the colored population, each showed an anxious preference for the introduction of white men; and laws designed to restrict importations of slaves are scattered copiously along the records of colonial legislation. The first Continental Congress which took to itself powers of legislation gave a legal expression to the well-formed opinion of the country by resolving (April 6, 1776) that "no slaves be imported into any of the thirteen United Colonies."

This used to be more widely known, hence why the race card couldn't have been played against the country until the progressives succeeded in removing the entire Founding from the history books. George Bancroft was a prominent and well-known historian in his day with his books widely read.

Relegated to the dust bin by historians with a seething hatred, Bancroft is exactly the kind of historian we all need resurrected and taught once more. Not really for this one item, but for the larger body of his work that seeks to accurately capture the Founding Fathers for who they really were instead of denegrating them at every opportunity.

George Bancroft is the anti-Zinn.