Saturday, October 7, 2017
Friday, October 6, 2017
Whether conservatives like it or not, the foundations of the traditional system are being tested both by the strain of new social and economic condition and by a flood of suspicion and criticism. If it is going to survive, not only must its adaptability to new exigencies be proved, but also its power to survive the severest possible inquisition.
Public opinion can no longer be hypnotized and scared into accepting the traditional constitutionalism as the final word in politics. If it is successfully to defend its position, conservatism must itself become critical, aggressive, inquisitive and contemporary. The issue has been declared. A momentous discussion has been started. Whether the results of that discussion are beneficial or the reverse will depend chiefly upon the enterprise, the patience, the good humor and the insight with which it is carried on.
Patience is the key here. Even in the early 1900s, progressives were sick and tired of hearing about the Constitution. That's why their level of commitment is as high as it is, that it even spans multiple lifespans. If progressives cannot destroy the Constitution in their own lifespans, they will send out their children as soldiers to continue on the task.(Or indoctrinate our children in colleges to do it) Croly died in 1930, but do we really believe he wouldn't be happy with what is happening today? Of course he would be happy with it.
In order to achieve their purpose, the progressives will lie and cheat so as to foster undue suspicion and false criticism. We see it play out in real time with our own eyes. When facts don't match the progressive agenda? Erase them. When other facts are standing on shaky ground? Send out fake journalists or fake historians to write about it and give the scheme additional credibility. When the final inquisition comes, there won't be a shred of reality on part of the inquisitors, and it will not matter. They will have literally constructed a whole new reality for which all of us can live.
Welcome to the new book burning, where no fire is required. It has been said that the pen is mightier than the sword. That is true, and the indoctrinator is also more powerful than the arson.
Friday, September 29, 2017
As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual-a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax of course, to be imposed by the national and not the state government. Such taxation should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits. Again, the national government must in some form exercise supervision over corporations engaged in interstate business-and all large corporations engaged in interstate business-whether by license or otherwise, so as to permit us to deal with the far reaching evils of overcapitalization."
Perhaps we should propose an amendment which would strike out "We the People" and replace it "We the Government". This is insanely insulting, but it's typical for people who's minds have been infected and polluted by the ideologies of social justice.
I will have to give him this: TR was a masterful, masterful propagandist. His skill was that of omission. Note the things I bolded.
So who will determine which fortunes are "swollen" beyond health limits? Of course! You guessed it, commissars in bureaucracies! Big government will do it.
Who will supervise the supervisors? Nobody. Government controls you.
Who determines what a "healthy limit" is? What if you are just below that "healthy limit", will you be endlessly harassed by overzealous regulators? Well we can't allow you to amass too much, now can we?
It is interesting to note in what speech Theodore Roosevelt made these comments. "The Man with the Muck Rake" That's right! While TR was lauding his journalist friends who were pimping fake news across the country, he was currying favor with them with the sweet, sweet sound of death tax lullibies. Here, read the speech. Right before that paragraph that I quoted, here's what he said:
It is important to this people to grapple with the problems connected with the amassing of enormous fortunes, and the use of those fortunes, both corporate and individual, in business. We should discriminate in the sharpest way between fortunes well won and fortunes ill won; between those gained as an incident to performing great services to the community as a whole and those gained in evil fashion by keeping just within the limits of mere law honesty. Of course, no amount of charity in spending such fortunes in any way compensates for misconduct in making them.
You see, government should be in the business of determining the use of your fortunes.
Government should determine if your fortune was ill won.
Government knows best, not you.
Government, government, government. By leaving so many things open to government, this leads to the largest government the world has ever seen.
Theodore Roosevelt clearly believed that the most beautiful words in the English language were as follows:
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help".
I'm quite convinced that most people don't actually read Theodore Roosevelt's own words or look at his actions directly, thus they don't really know just how big of a big government guy he truely was. Instead, a bunch of propagandist fake-historians have falsely portrayed him in ways that are unwarranted by the facts, thus the re-invention of him as a "conservative".
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
In keeping with the mission of this project, I have completed yet another audiobook for your consumption.
Kicking off a small movement at the time; Technocracy; William Henry Smyth and later Scott, Hubbert, and others gave it their best shot.
Of all the books I've produced so far, this one has one of my least favorite. Once I got about a third of the way in, my motivation went downhill fast and kept going down. It's not a long recording, it was not a long read, and there's plenty of wacky things in here. One of the reasons I recorded this I have already addressed here.
If you're interested in the topic, the recording came out pretty good. Download here. While seemingly irrelevant now, this could be important later on.
Saturday, September 23, 2017
The result is that the constitutional law of the country is not, either necessarily or actually, uniform. For a state court may declare unconstitutional from the point of view of the federal constitution an act of a state legislature which would have been regarded as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. If, therefore, the state courts are more conservative than the Supreme Court, and many believe they are, they determine finally what is, in a particular state, the effect of the limitations of the federal constitution upon state action. This condition of things is, however, not one which need be permanent, nor one which can be changed only through constitutional amendment. For the jurisdiction of the federal courts is in these matters entirely within the control of Congress, which may constitutionally provide, if it sees fit to do so, that all cases both civil and criminal involving a federal question may be removed to the federal courts, and that appeals may go to the Supreme Court from all decisions of the state courts of last instance, whether they affirm or not the constitutionality of state laws.
Therefore, from a constitutional point of view, the attitude of the Supreme Court of the United States is the only really important thing to consider when we are treating of the permanent constitutional obstacles to social reform in the United States. On that account, what will be said as to the effect on the possibilities of such reform of the limitations contained in the federal constitution will in the main be confined to a consideration of the attitude of the Supreme Court towards these questions.
Our attention will naturally be directed, first to an examination of the powers of the Congress of the United States, as they are to be derived from a consideration of the provisions of the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and particularly to those clauses which contain the power to regulate commerce and the judicial power. For it is almost only through the exercise of these powers that any great centralization of our government may be secured.
This is something that progressives have long known, and it is exactly why the devised the scheme of a "living constitution". The supreme court is their holy grail institution for enforcing views upon Americans that Americans do not want and would not vote for on election day. Woodrow Wilson and others have plainly written about the need to get the courts separated from the Constitution and interpreting it in ways never intended.
Subvert and destroy. The progressives knew fully well what they had to do. And their primary target? The commerce clause. This book was written in 1911, only three years after Woodrow Wilson first floated the idea that the constitution should be reinterpreted as a living thing.
Sunday, September 17, 2017
So let me get this straight: Woodrow Wilson as president was so strong and powerful that he reached back in his time machine and got all 40 of those states to ratify, before his inauguration. Do I have that about right?
So how is it that so many conservatives get this so wrong?
It's because the amendment was finalized in 1913, in part. How vacuous is that? Its easy to point to the year and dissemble about the rest.
The real reason why, I suspect, is because any amount of research leads to Theodore Roosevelt. You don't even have to scratch the surface with anything more tough than a piece of balsa wood and TR's name comes popping out. There are a lot of people who want to do something about progressivism, but they become ardent progressivism defenders once the facts get presented and TR's duplicity is proven. This one guy for whatever reason, he has a license for big government that's granted to him by constitutionalists. It's the strangest contradiction.
Well, let's get to the history. There were two efforts to get an income tax within a roughly 10 year period, but the first one failed in a court case so I will primarily focus on the second.
With the failure of the first income tax in the 1895 Pollock case, the progressives let a little time pass so as to let people get lulled back to sleep. The progressives will often times do that - they never give up on their ideas because of course progressivism is perfect, they'll just come back again later when you are convinced it is over. Following that 12 year period of time, the first time Roosevelt talked about the income tax that I am aware of was in his 1907 State of the Union address. That's not an obscure speech. He said:
When our tax laws are revised the question of an income tax and an inheritance tax should receive the careful attention of our legislators. In my judgment both of these taxes should be part of our system of Federal taxation.
Interesting. Not only did TR support the income tax, but I just learned something brand new today. Theodore Roosevelt also supported the death tax. I'll leave that one for another day.
Theodore Roosevelt's presidency concluded in 1908, and his hand picked successor William Howard Taft, continued TR's drive for the income tax by giving a major speech in 1909 which kicked off the move for the 16th amendment. After that, the states started their ratifications in the second half of 1909. During the 1912 presidential campaign and while the states were still individually ratifying the amendment, Roosevelt repeatedly spoke in support for the income tax.
The two most notable moments during the campaign (likely) were the inclusion of the graduated tax in the 1912 progressive party platform, Roosevelt's party, and in what is most likely Roosevelt's best known and perhaps important speech: The New Nationalism.(1912)
So, the point is this: History and the facts force us to blame progressive republicans for the 16th amendment in general and Theodore Roosevelt in particular. He was the first president to push for it, the first former president to push for it, the first presidential candidate to push for it, and it was his hand picked successor who got the ball rolling in congress. Wilson, a guy who doubled down on nearly all of Roosevelt's big government proposals and policies, came into office four days after the entire multi-year cause(1907-1913) would come to a successful end.
Four days. Yeah, it's clearly Wilson's fault. There's no love lost for Wilson around here, check my archives. But we have GOT to get the history correct. Wilson does not own this one, Theodore Roosevelt is to blame for the 16th amendment and the income tax.
Friday, September 8, 2017
But understanding the link between big government and Henry George is not well understood. The fact that George repeatedly agitated for the nationalization of land typically falls on deaf ears. One of the most prominent members of the so-called "Social Gospel", Walter Rauschenbusch, is another who was deeply moved by the politics of Henry George. Rauschenbusch once gave a speech in which he proclaimed:
Mr. George has taught this proposition in his book. He is often called a socialist, but it is very incorrect to call him so; he is not a socialist, but the strongest opponent of socialism in the United States. He is a strong advocate of laissez faire in the highest sense of that term. Therefore he insists that artificial monopolies, such as the tariff, should be swept away, and that freedom should be given to the natural forces of society, and that natural monopolies should be owned and managed by the community to which they naturally belong. These are his propositions in regard to monopoly. Am I right?
By "his book" Rauschenbusch means "Progress and Poverty", George's most well known work.
Now, just earlier this week I pointed out that Progressives do not (and I believe they cannot; they are impaired from doing so) distinguish between "Government" and "Society". For a progressive, society is government and government is society. This speech from Rauschenbusch is no different. Reading the speech, he repeatedly uses "community", "society" and "the State"(and other synonyms) completely interchangeably.
For Rauschenbusch, natural monopolies need to be owned by the big organization of society i.e. government. He doesn't mean shareholders, read his speech. That's not his tone and its not his content. Besides, ownership by only the shareholders does not encompass an entire community. The only way "society" or "the community" can be the owners and managers is if the state at some level begins nationalizing property.
Which is what George was known for supporting anyways, at least in regards to land. It's clear what Rauschenbusch is talking about and clear who he is citing as his inspiration.