I think I found the El Dorado of progressivism

When I got up this morning and sat down at my computer, I started searching. I don't quite know why, but once I got started I had a feeling. This morning, I was going to find something special.

And, I did. As someone who is still realizing just how powerful of a weapon against progressivism that the progressives' own history is against them, I have found many useful things. But nothing like this.

Arguably the most ardent planner of the New Deal, Rexford Guy Tugwell, gave a speech in 1939 titled "The Fourth Power". This speech is amazing for its brevity, its loquacious and direct statement of goals, and also its footnotes. The footnotes, are in some instances even better than the speech itself!

I have always known, even before I officially began the progressingamerica project so many years ago, that the New Deal was a cesspool of progressive authoritarianism; however, I have mostly stayed away from it for three reasons:

1) It is not the beginning of our troubles. Progressivism already had a 30+ year track record by the time the New Deal began. It simply could not as a function of basic mathematical principles be the beginning.

2) Perhaps more importantly, the vast majority of New Deal propaganda is all buttoned up tightly behind a firewall of copyright. There's nothing for me to search and research. Ergo, nothing to blog and nothing to record.

3) Lastly, and I mean both lastly and minorly, most conservatives already recognize the New Deal for what it is, albeit, mistakenly as the beginning. So I don't really have to do much work to educate people of what they already know: The New Deal is a poisonous and unconstitutional chapter in American history.

In "The Fourth Power", Tugwell talks about 'social control', which had been an obsession of progressives for decades, he talks about regulations - which without getting specific, goes back to Theodore Roosevelt. Other topics include collectivism, the failure of free markets, a strikingly honest outline of the concept of Democracy - which to progressives has nothing to do with ballot boxes, scientific management, and other topics. He mentions numerous important authors such as George Soule, John Dewey, Thorstein Veblen, Simon Patten and others. And above all, he goes on and on about planning, planning, planning. And in the last section of the address, he continues the elitism against the Founding that we are all used to from progressives

The best part is, this is not in copyright.

Which means it will be my next audiobook. This is too good to pass up, it is too good to leave hidden and lost. We can use this. This is a powerful, powerful thing in our favor.

Tugwell's "The Fourth Power" can be found here, flip to page 104. I'll post a transcript soon, so that it becomes super easy to find in any search engine.

http://tinyurl.com/hma6hcj

Sometimes, the best way to read progressivism is sideways, not straight down.

As masters of propaganda, progressives are generally good enough to couch their words so as to disarm any critics. Generally speaking anyways. Where things get arguably dark and malicious progressives who misspeak need other progressives who are in high places, most notably journalists and historians, to cover up their misdeeds and miswords. Make them "disappear" by either not reporting it, or not including it in the historical record.

Take Woodrow Wilson, for example, who said the following in an address to the New York City High School Teachers Association:

Let us go back and distinguish between the two things that we want to do; for we want to do two things in modern society. We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.

If this was all you saw, this smacks of elitism. To a certain degree it's(unfortunately) quite accurate particularly once you see the full quote. Here's the larger clip of what Wilson said:

Let us go back and distinguish between the two things that we want to do; for we want to do two things in modern society. We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks. You cannot train them for both in the time that you have at your disposal.

They must make a selection, and you must make a selection. I do not mean to say that in the manual training there must not be an element of liberal training; neither am I hostile to the idea that in the liberal education there should be an element of the manual training. But what I am intent upon is that we should not confuse ourselves with regard to what we are trying to make of the pupils under our instruction. We are either trying to make liberally-educated persons out of them, or we are trying to make skillful servants of society along mechanical lines, or else we do not know what we are trying to do.

And it goes on. He's talking about the difference between trade school education and university training. Now, it's still elitist, but it's not that elitist, not on the surface. This serves a dual purpose: there's what you see on the surface, which is the primary context of separating intellectuals from the service trades. Jobs like electricians, HVAC techs, plumbers, mechanics, welders - all of these(and more) are both great and desirable; and even well paying jobs. In seeing the full quote, that can have the effect of being disarming. Don't fall for the ploy.

The second purpose of this is the ideological component. Other progressives would hear this and immediately fully understand, because they speak a different language, a loaded language. This is where reading sideways becomes important.

This is along the same lines of what Wilson stated in 1909, that "The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible."

I've already gone into detail about that quote, no need to do so again here. Feel free to cut and paste whatever you want from there. But the important point is that the ideology contained in the original quote becomes much clearer when viewed together with the second quote of sons and fathers.

So, back to the original quote. Just because he is separating trades from "higher" educational pursuits, it is still quite elitist when you consider the full context of how Woodrow Wilson viewed the role of education.

He literally means separating out the "best and brightest" so that they can be fully indoctrinated progressives who will then go on to be America's dictators and rulers, or entrenched bureaucrats for life, under the disguise of being democratically elected. That's how progressives think. They talk a good game because they're master propagandists, but on substance all progressives fall short of the mark.

Make the son as unlike the father, and particularly, make the elite sons as unlike their fathers as they possibly can be. That's Wilson's goal, and both quotes go to making that point. The elite sons must be progressives. None can be left behind. There cannot be any of the best and brightest who go over to the other side. The elite sons must worship government. The elite sons must desire never ending expansive government. The elite sons must be fully agenda oriented. The best sons, the most charismatic, the most seemingly trustworthy and outwardly intelligent. All must be captured for the collective.

But you have to read sideways to the next speech in order to get the full picture from the first speech. If you only read straight down confining yourself only to the one speech, you would not have gotten the full picture of what Wilson schemed for your sons.

Woodrow Wilson, self described imperialist

On February 23rd, 1903, Woodrow Wilson said:

I am of the class of men who are described as imperialists, and yet I have had such an intense sympathy with the men on the other side who are getting sat upon that I could almost have wished that my opinions were different that I might join their ranks.

From The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 14, Page 367. Also, here.

See also: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and modern American imperialism

Progressives don't want you to know, and many of them don't even know, that when they lament and bemoan "imperialism" they are more often than not indicting themselves and their own ideology.

http://tinyurl.com/j994h85

How does big government breed lazy, pro-big government journalism?

I tell you, Lippmann's book Public Opinion is the gift that keeps on giving. This little narrative from his book is incredible, it explains so much in regard to the symbiosis that exists between progressive journalists and their masters at city hall. On page 338, Lippmann describes an important aspect of how journalists "collect news":

Newspapers do not try to keep an eye on all mankind. They have watchers stationed at certain places, like Police Headquarters, the Coroner's Office, the County Clerk's Office, City Hall, the White House, the Senate, House of Representatives, and so forth. They watch, or rather in the majority of cases they belong to associations which employ men who watch a comparatively small number of places where it is made known when the life of anyone ...... departs from ordinary paths or when events worth telling about occur."

Amazing. So in many cases, the journalist is not actually the first to discover. Someone else is getting the news, and the journalists simply regurgitate it. Particularly that which is government focused.

Go ahead, turn on your TV tonight and watch the nightly news. Have you ever noticed how city hall-focused the local coverage is? I mean, it comes in waves depending on the items covered. It might be police HQ-centered, or courthouse-focused, or etc. Even when there is a story of corruption - it's never that big government is bad, no no! It's just that one guy, this one guy, he is the problem. He or she is the corrupt one. The machinery of government is never actually hurtful or coercive no sir. We need more government, in fact.

...

Without even knowing it, Lippmann is admitting to a gross, gross conflict of interest here. For the last century, journalists have seen it as their role to "take on" this or that big corporation, but do you see Lippmann saying that reporters are stationed at each big corporation's headquarters? No, of course not, nor should they be. So what is the end result of this?

Journalists know the people at city hall personally. Journalists know the people at the white house personally. Journalists know the people in the Senate, the House of Representatives, etc., etc., etc. Culturally, this is actually quite profound because the converse, the big corporation, becomes an alien. They are the enemy.

So first, not only is government providing news stories on a silver platter to their good friends the journalists(and it's probably not a fully accurate story to begin with; it's probably spun in a pro-government way before being passed off), but secondly, all of the journalists' good friends are in positions of government, and those corporate guys are as alien and evil as their politician friends describe them to be. They're all great friends, they're all yukking it up, at our expense.

It is for this reason, that the journalist pool should be permanently kicked out of the White House and congress, the White House Correspondents Association should be abolished, as should the White House Press Room. All of the above, and similar items, are massive conflicts of interest.

That's not to say that they shouldn't be allowed in. Of course they should be allowed in, provided there is current news to cover. Then, get out.

Currently all they do in there is fester and coalesce and plot and scheme. This is a great example of the very kind of intrigue that the Founders wanted to protect us from. The White House Press Room is a form of intrigue.

http://tinyurl.com/zvlrbde

Patience is the progressives most deadly weapon

Have you ever read Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose party platform? You should. In Chapter 3 of his book "The Art of War", Sun Tzu writes:

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.

That quote has been in the right side bar of the progressingamerica blog since day one, and will never change. We need to know progressives in order to defeat them, that's what guides the progressingamerica project going forward, and it always will. Sun Tzu is right. That's why Tzu's book is still studied, even after this many thousand years. It will be studied a thousand years from now.

So, what does the Bull Moose party platform advocate? The Bull Moosers, the progressive party's 1912 party platform calls for these following things:

* A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.

* Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled

* Limit the ability of judges to order injunctions to limit labor strikes.

* A minimum wage law for women

* An eight-hour workday

* A federal securities commission

* Farm relief

* Workers' compensation for work-related injuries

* An inheritance tax

You will see much of the modern progressive agenda in this old proclamation, in which they still fight for these things in 2016 - keep in mind this was written in 1912. That's how patient the progressives are. They plan for longer than their own lifespans. They plan forward for longer than their children's lifespans.

Think about that, that is a lot of patience. Now, most of the items in this list the progressives achieved long ago. But one item, healthcare, took the progressives 97 years to achieve. The first president to call for government meddling into healthcare was Theodore Roosevelt. And the progressives have been on that agenda ever since, it took Barack Obama to complete the job. Let me state it for you this way:

In Theodore Roosevelt's time, when the progressives wanted government healthcare, everybody involved with that effort - they're all dead. Who was the next progressive president to push toward government healthcare? FDR for certain, made his moves. But Truman is the one. Truman called for government healthcare.

In Truman's time, when the progressives wanted government healthcare, nearly everybody involved with that effort - all but only a small handful are all dead.

And so it goes. And let's also at least make one mention of how the progressives achieved government healthcare. Like so many other of their objectives, they nibbled. First, it was old people. Then it was children. Then it was everybody. They did the same thing with education. They nibbled. First it was one thing, then another, then the Department of Ed, then NCLB, then finally Common Core.

See, the progressives are patient, patient, patient. And they do not let death of the physical body halt them. They just complete the circle with the next guy in line. Here's another one:

* A strong, centralized government.

* An Executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms. In some countries, power is consolidated in a dictator, issuing decrees.

* The control of banking, credit, and security exchanges by the government.

* The underwriting of employment by the government, either through armaments or public works.

* The underwriting of social security by the government - old-age pensions, mothers' pensions, unemployment insurance, and the like.

* The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care, by the government. The United States is already experimenting with providing these essentials. Other nations are far along the road.

* The use of the deficit spending technique to finance these underwritings. The annually balanced budget has lost its old-time sanctity.

* The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies.

* The control of foreign trade by the government, with increasing emphasis on bilateral agreements and barter deals.

* The control of natural resources, with increasing emphasis on self-sufficiency

* The control of energy sources - hydroelectric power, coal, petroleum, natural gas.

* The control of transportation - railway, highway, airway, waterway.

* The control of agricultural production.

* The control of labor organizations, often to the point of prohibiting strikes.

* The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities. The CCC camps have just inaugurated military drill.

* Heavy taxation, with especial emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.

* Not much "taking over" of property or industries in the old socialistic sense. The formula appears to be control without ownership. it is interesting to recall that the same formula is used by the management of great corporations in depriving stockholders of power.

* State control of communications and propaganda.

That's from Stuart Chase, who was an adviser to FDR. He called this "political system x".

At varying degrees throughout our lives, these 18 things have been fought for by progressives. Some of these things have come and gone over the years, but 100 years from now, the progressives will still be fighting to implement these. 500 years from now, the progressives will still be fighting to implement these.

Death does not stop the progressives. That's only a speedbump, an inconvenience, a distraction. That's a serious amount of patience to have. You may still be thinking that I'm kidding. Ok, check this out. A man named Hamilton Fish was a close friend with Theodore Roosevelt and a partisan hack progressive back in the day. Hamilton Fish was an actual Bull Mooser.

Hamilton Fish had a son named Hamilton Fish, who in turn also had a son named Hamilton Fish, who finally again, had a son named Hamilton Fish. Where is Hamilton Fish today?

Hamilton Fish the fifth is the current publisher of the magazine The New Republic. Please, please look it up. This seriously makes me want to start cussing! I couldn't make this up even if I tried. Reality is stranger than fiction. These progressives are the biggest scumbags! They do not stop. They're cockroaches. Once the building has roaches, it needs to be razed. And even that doesn't stop them. You build a new building and their descendants are right there anew.

Do you know what The New Republic is? I mean, do you know what The New Republic actually is? The New Republic was the progressive mouthpiece of Herbert Croly, who as you may know(everybody should know this) wrote a highly influential book titled "The Promise of American Life". The 'Promise' was one of Theodore Roosevelt's favorite books, and is generally believed to be the inspiration for his "New Nationalism" programme. TR also highly recommended Croly's second book, "Progressive Democracy".

This whole thing is incestuous! It's all cyclical for the progressives: Here we have Fish and TR and Croly and back to Fish again. True that its only one anecdote, but it really shows what I mean. There are others.

These progressives will just wait 10 or 20 years or however many they need, and if you've fallen asleep? Now they have you. Because the progressives certainly aren't changing their minds. You're just too stupid to understand their brilliance. They'll just change the people who pursue the agenda. They'll replace one Roosevelt with another Roosevelt, replace a Wilson for a Kennedy, for a Johnson for a Carter, for a Clinton for an Obama, for a Reid for a Schumer for a Pelosi and beyond. And I didn't even name any of the progressive republicans who have played their part either. John McCain anybody? And if you figure out the agenda? Change the title! That's why the progressives have been masquerading under the title of "liberalism" since FDR renamed their entire movement.

The agenda never stops. It only sleeps. Death gets cheated. The agenda is eternal. Big government forever!

http://tinyurl.com/grys6l4

What if the Bureau of Land Management were its own country?

Have you ever heard "what if Texas were its own country" or "what if California", etc.... Hat tip to Mark Steyn for pointing this out. Here we go:

If Alaska were it's own country, because of its size and land mass it would rank 33rd among all of the world's nations.

If Texas were it's own country, because of its size and land mass it would rank 40th among all of the world's nations.

If California were it's own country, because of its size and land mass it would rank 59th among all of the world's nations.

But what of the BLM - the Bureau of Land Management, an out of control behemoth of a federal agency filled with progressives and bureaucrats that you never elected - which, BTW, owes its existence due to the lineage going back to the work of big government Theodore Roosevelt - where would it stand?

If the BLM were it's own country, because of its size and land mass it would rank 26th among all of the world's nations.

Naturally, the BLM would knock Alaska down to the 34th country, Texas to 41st, and California down to 60th, respectively.

You still don't think progressive governance is a problem?

http://tinyurl.com/gmv63oy

Democracy is a relic from a bygone era

This idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. - Ronald Reagan, October 27th, 1964

Democracy, the moldy-oldy discredited system, was introduced in the year 507 BC. That's 2,500+ years, for those of you counting. The American Republic and the Liberty which it was founded on, which was never discredited but simply circumvented by progressives; by comparison was introduced in 1776 AD. That's 240 years. But who's counting?

Democracy carries with it a fatal flaw: tyranny of the majority. The American Republic fixes that flaw. It contains safeguards in it to protect the people from the failures of democracy, so as to ensure the Liberty of every citizen and respect that no other source of power is legitimate except the sovereign people.

Long live the Republic. Now it is true that true republics are necessarily democratic and that's a good thing, however, a republic is far superior to democracy.

But right now, as we speak, tyranny is on the march. Even when they lose elections, progressives do not stop. The agenda moves forward. For the last 100 years, progressives, starting with Theodore Roosevelt, have sought to circumvent the Republic and pervert the Republic into a democracy by introducing measures such as direct election of the senate, an easier way to add in amendments to the constitution, and the last piece of this puzzle, abolition of the electoral college. Two of these efforts are listed in the Bull Moose platform of 1912.

These progressive scumbags are patient sonsabitches, aren't they? Their patience to destroy this country outlasts their own lifespans. They are that committed to seeing it done.

Their final effort to destroy the Republic would have states join what is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would nationalize the Electoral College, and as you probably know is unconstitutional because it is illegal for states to engage in treaties or treaty-like-behavior. Right now, these progressives, they are plotting and scheming yet again to take your Liberty and your Republic away from you and give you something far, far inferior. They seek to abolish the new in favor of the old.

Democracy - old. Outdated. Discredited. Doesn't work - for the progressives, it's not designed "to work"(In the way people generally mean "it's working"). They want democracy because it works in conjunction with their machine: Progressives indoctrinate children from right out of the womb until and including past college age: Pre-k, k-12; and then the indocrination lasts for the rest of their lives with the drive by media. "Who you going to vote for? Well the newspaper said that people who read the constitution are evil, so I'm voting for the progressives. My teacher was a progressive. What a great guy!"

That's the machine that the progressives set up, in order to control your vote. If people only know what the media tells them, and they only know what their teachers taught them, they will vote accordingly.

http://tinyurl.com/zuejezm