Saturday, February 17, 2018

See. Progressives do not separate "society" and "government"

This is progressive ideology 101 here.

Forget that this is gun grabbing. Forget that this is running to the camera seeking the spotlight.

Kamala Harris, who is working very hard to position herself as a future presidential candidate, recently said the following:

When you see the effect of this extreme violence on a human body, and especially the body of a child, maybe it will shock some people into understanding this cannot be a political issue. We have to be practical. I support the Second Amendment, but we have to have smart gun safety laws. We cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride when our babies are being slaughtered.

Yes, it 100% can be a non-political issue.

Our United States Constitution starts out with the phrase "We the People" - and then it sets out to limit government any way it sensibly can. This is an indictment of government. This is a call to action for people to act outside of the governmental sphere.

But progressives do not or are physically incapable of understanding this. I am not a progressive, so I ultimately cannot say for certain if their brains are incapable of it or if this is a bit of propaganda on their part in order to confuse others and promote the sanctity of big national government. However, the end result is the same.

For a progressive, government is society and society is government. There is no distinction, there is no difference, there is no separation. In the dictionary of progressivism, the words "government" and "society have the exact, word-for-word entry.

We conservatives, however, understand that government is a sinister foreign entity in the mix of society.

There is also a part of me who thinks that this is sheer laziness. When some progressive be it Kamala Harris or any other starts some phrase with "I cannot..... a society that..." or "We deserve...... better society than....." and then immediately they leave society and start talking about laws and government instead, it's because they themselves do not want to be involved. They don't want to get their hands dirty. They don't want to do heavy lifting and hard work.

We the people be damned, the progressive says. I'm not lifting a finger here. That's someone else's job. That's not my job! "Somebody should do something!" - just not me.

Ideologically, this very is important to understand. Progressives do not or cannot separate government and society. However, to me that's a foreign concept - they are clearly two different things.

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Progressivism = Henry George. Not Karl Marx.

In the past, I have speculated heavily (based on deeply rooted and provable cultural origins that the original progressives called themselves "progressive" based directly upon the title of Henry George's book Progress and Poverty. (see also 1, 2, and 3)

I speculate no longer. In the Quarterly Register for 1893, the following is written:

The discontent of the workingmen and the mercantile classes in London against the wealthy titled landlords, has been increasing for several years. The latter have always succeeded in the past in minimizing the taxes on their own property, throwing a large part of the burden upon their tenants. The landlord element style themselves "Moderates," and the tenant element are known as " Progressives." The latter claimed that public improvements should be paid for by the land-owners; and the issue was joined on that as well as other points. The triennial election for "the new London County Council on March 6, resulted in the triumph of the Progressives, who elected 83, while the Moderates elected only 35 . The Progressives had formed an alliance with the trades-unions, and nominated labor candidates, including John Burns, the great agitator. The believers in the Henry George theory, claim the election as a decided triumph for the underlying principles of the Single Tax.

I have long stated that I believe progressivism to be worse than communism, and just because I can now verify this direct root does not change that belief. Just because Marx was relatively bad and George was relatively not, does not change what the progressives themselves did with the information.

This timeline is so critical to get nailed down. Yes, the progressives became communists - in the 1960's. All of that is true and its crucial in the later parts of the timeline. But by not nailing down this timeline properly from front to back, we give them an easy escape route, a place to hide and come back later.

We need to eliminate all the shadows, like sunlight to a vampire.

These people are cockroaches. They were cockroaches in the 1890s and 1900s, they were cockroaches in the 1930s, and also in the 1960s. But if we cannot accurately call them out in 1905, then they win. If we cannot accurately call them out in 1924, they win. I'll state this conversely: If the only time we can accurately call them out is in the 1960's or beyond, they win. By not nailing down the beginning, we lose the end.

The onus of proof is on us. Just how bad do you want to save your country from the progressives?

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 - Sun Tzu (Art of War, Chapter 3)

Anybody who simply states that all progressives always = communism, they do not know/understand the enemy. They need to spend more time with Sun Tzu.

Sunday, January 28, 2018

In 1912, the United States Constitution was not "living and breathing"

Timelines are devastating to progressivism.

Over the years, progressive historians have done a good job of insulating their ideology from the question of "when did this happen", by taking quotes out of context, using the power of omission, and other trickery, in order to retroactively cook the books and make some things seem older than they actually are.

The theory of the living and breathing constitution falls under this umbrella. Yet if you examine the history of progressivism itself, you once again see all of their lies on full display.

You needn't look any further than the platform of the Progressive Party. That's right. The progressives were so fed up with how difficult it was to pass amendments that the concept was embedded into their own party platform. That platform says:


The Progressive party, believing that a free people should have the power from time to time to amend their fundamental law so as to adapt it progressively to the changing needs of the people, pledges itself to provide a more easy and expeditious method of amending the Federal Constitution.

Not living and breathing. All of this is very important to understand. The progressives don't want it to be more widely known that this is a doctrine that they themselves cooked up out of whole cloth. They need it to seem as if it simply "just always was".

Now, here is what former president Roosevelt wrote in explaining this:

We propose to make the process of Constitutional amendment far easier, speedier, and simpler than at present.

But this is unnecessary with a living document. No amendment is needed, that whole process can simply be circumvented with judges. He even admits this. He says:

We do not confine ourselves to mere scolding. We do not merely denounce what we do not like. We have a definite plan which has been outlined above. The courts are continuously by their decisions annulling laws which the people desire to have enacted. They are in effect continually amending the Constitution against the deliberate intent of the people who made the Constitution. Judicial amendment to the Constitution is fatally easy. Popular amendment is so difficult that at best it needs ten or fifteen years to put it through. The theory of the Constitution against which we protest takes away from the people as a whole their sovereign right to govern themselves. It deposits this right to govern the people in the hands of well meaning men who either are not elected by the people, or at least are not elected for any such purpose, who cannot be removed by the people, and who too often perversely pride themselves on having no direct responsibility to the people.

Mmmm, give me more of that propaganda. Now, many people who can't stand progressivism could find themselves sucked into this, because on the surface it sounds like really good candy. But the context is so, so important here.

Former president Roosevelt is BITCHING about the fact that as the progressives were proposing and attempting unconstitutional, totalitarian legislative BS: the courts put a halt to it. That's right! The courts in his day stood against progressivism and stood for Liberty and the Constitution. Imagine that! Courts that actually honored and respected the Constitution. Now, suddenly, that paragraph looks just as poisonous to you as it does to me. It's a paragraph that only a dictator could love.

How much better would America be if we had our courts from 100 years ago. It would be great. Constitution up! Liberty up! Tyranny down, down, down. Put it on the ash heap of history.

Now, don't think I'm only saying that it was just the Bull Moosers who put a target upon the Constitution as the finest toilet paper that money cannot buy. Frank Johnson Goodnow, a man whose ideas were highly regarded by Woodrow Wilson, who served as President of Johns Hopkins, wrote the following: (alternate)

The question which has been chosen for discussion this morning is: Can a practically unamendable constitution, adopted in the conditions and under the influences of the political thought prevailing at the end of the eighteenth century, be adapted by judicial interpretation to the needs and thought of the twentieth century without causing us to lose the advantages which are commonly regarded as attached to a written constitution?

So you see, this debate was raging amongst progressives and they increasingly came to believe that the courts were their best course for amending the constitution without ever amending it. It's devilishly, deviously brilliant. No really. How do you do something without doing it? Progressives ask this question of themselves all the time whenever they seek to impose their authority over you and your family, no matter how much you try to prevent it's happening.

Just to show that it wasn't just the high profile progressives, don't forget about Herbert Quick. Quick, who was a supporter of Wilson, also sought a way to get around that pesky, unamendable, not-living constitution. And again, in my last post I discussed Rexford Guy Tugwell, another very important progressive, who also was upset about how immovable the Constitution was.

Now, last but not least, the most important one to consider is the words of Woodrow Wilson. In 1908, when the concept of the living constitution was first introduced, Wilson pointed out the following:

The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick cooperation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. Government is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day of specialization, but with a common task and purpose. Their cooperation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful government without leadership or without the intimate, almost instinctive coordination of the organs of life and action. This is not theory, but fact, and displays its force as fact, whatever theories may be thrown across its track. Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.

During the 1912 campaign, Wilson refined his beliefs. If you contrast his book to this speech, there are only merely subtle differences. But one difference is so important:

Government is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day, of specialization, with a common task and purpose. Their cooperation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful government without the intimate, instinctive coordination of the organs of life and action. This is not theory, but fact, and displays its force as fact, whatever theories may be thrown across its track. Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop.

All that progressives ask or desire is permission — in an era when “development” “evolution,” is the scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.

You notice how in the beginning, he kind of just throws the idea out there about a living constitution based on Darwinian thought instead of that of Newton? He has a lot to say about it in the abstract, but in the second instance he is forceful. Full of conviction. The nation will die unless the constitution is living and breathing, there is no doubt about it that Wilson believes this fully in 1912. But note the contrast between the two. They've made progress, but the question is, progress from what? If the constitution was already living and breathing right from the start, why would so many progressives have been harping and carping to begin with? That, right there, their whining is the point.

I've spent a lot of this writing putting together a contrast of before and after, but actually, Wilson does it far better. He does so the best. Wilson, in admitting that the Constitution is actually Newtonian as originally formulated, is stating that the Constitution is not living and breathing. A machine cannot just change it's shape and form,(Maybe they will one day, but they do not now) you have to "revise" it somehow, by bolting on a new piece. You have to work on it, amend it, by having something mechanically changed, such as the mechanics of a Constitutional Revision Committee; such as an amendment process.

This is why we need to know the history of progressivism, because it is quite distinctly to our advantage. You can tell both in reading these short clips, and even moreso if you opened the links and read additional words, that the progressives knew right from the beginning how they would implement their idea of the living constitution. They just needed to get into office for enough years to nominate enough judges to see it through.

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Listen to this progressive whine about how bad the 14th amendment is

From a Constitutional and therefore conservative(as in modern conservatism) point of view, the 14th amendment is a fantastic bit of work. I don't bring this up too often, because the 14th amendment didn't become a weapon of progressivism until somewhere in the 1950's(and it is thus generally outside of the scope of my focus), but the 14th amendment takes plenty of attacks from many who are not actually attacking that amendment, but rather, the courts' misuse of it.

But they don't know that, which is sad. Most conservatives, if they knew the timeline, would be ardent, ardent defenders of the 14th amendment.(the more I read about it, the more I'm convinced of this) Far too many conservatives think the 14th amendment authorizes all of these christmas tree goodies for progressivism, so therefore the 14th amendment must be the worst on the docket.

In reality, the men who stood together in the mid 1800s and framed it did a masterful work, as is illustrated by the recorded debates for that amendment. (see here) They specifically had as a goal NOT to re-write what the Founding Fathers did, and specifically built the 14th amendment to NOT rock the boat.

The 14th amendment wasn't always a treasure chest for the progressives to continually pull gold doubloons out of, and they knew it.

Rexford Guy Tugwell, who remains to this day an extremely consequential progressive, and probably the main architect of the New Deal, wrote this in 1928:

The grain of grace is familiarly furnished, as in other cases, by the dissent of Justices Stone, Brandeis, and Holmes. The minority opinions of these three are coming to be legal classics. They may in time become the rule of law. But so long as legalists so downright as Justice Sutherland are dominant, progress is definitely blocked. The decision could not be clearer:
An employment agency is essentially a private business. True, it deals with the public, but so does the druggist, the butcher, the baker, the grocer...Of course, anything which substantially interferes with employment is a matter of public concern, but in the same sense that interference with the procurement of food and housing and fuel are of public concern. The public is deeply interested in all these things. The welfare of its constituent members depends upon them...but in none of them is the interest that "public interest" which the law contemplates as the basis for legislative price control. Under the decisions of this Court it is no longer fairly open to question that, at least in the absence of a grave emergency, the fixing of prices for food or clothing, of house rental or of wages to be paid, whether minimum or maximum, is beyond the legislative power. (RIBNIK v. MCBRIDE, (1928))
Freedom of contract and the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have again been made to serve the cause of reaction. Contrariwise, however, the dissenting opinion of Justice is much the clearest analysis ever made of that shadowy legal area within which economic compulsions are disputed. The majority makes no attempt to meet the theoretical objections to its position; its statement is pure and unreasoned dogma, its use of "public interest" an obvious statement of prejudice and dislike for bureaucratic meddling.

Would you listen to that!!! It's the tool of reaction! The 14th amendment in his view is a bomb because of all of you reactionaries out there. But you wouldn't know that today, nearly a century later. The 14th amendment is constantly used as a weapon against "reactionaries".

I sincerely urge all of you to read the debates from the framers of the 14th amendment. There's not one item that progressives claim, that was discussed at the time.

At least, I haven't found one yet. I bet you won't either.

Don't give up on the 14th amendment. It isn't what the progressives claim that it is. As always, progressives are liars.

Sunday, December 31, 2017

Only one hour from now, the ball is going to drop in #FakeNewsSquare

Right there in the heart of downtown Manhattan, thousands of people have gathered in Fake News Square to watch the ball drop.

Boring. Why does anybody care about this anymore? #NewYearsEve2017

Saturday, December 23, 2017

Why conservatives and progressives cannot compromise with each other. One must win, one must lose.

In his book The Promise of American Life, Herbert Croly wrote the following: (page 29)
But although Hamilton is much the finer man and much the sounder thinker and statesman, there were certain limitations in his ideas and sympathies the effects of which have been almost as baleful as the effects of Jefferson's intellectual superficiality and insincerity. He perverted the American national idea almost as much as Jefferson perverted the American democratic idea, and the proper relation of these two fundamental conceptions one to another cannot be completely understood until this double perversion is corrected.

To make Hamilton and Jefferson exclusively responsible for this double perversion is, however, by no means fair. The germs of it are to be found in the political ideas and prejudices with which the American people emerged from their successful Revolutionary War. At that time, indeed, the opposition between the Republican and the Federalist doctrines had not become definite and acute; and it is fortunate that such was the case, because if the opponents of an efficient Federal constitution had been organized and had been possessed of the full courage and consciousness of their convictions, that instrument would never have been accepted, or it would have been accepted only in a much more mutilated and enfeebled condition. Nevertheless, the different political points of view which afterwards developed into Hamiltonian Federalism and Jeffersonian Republicanism were latent in the interests and opinions of the friends and of the opponents of an efficient Federal government; and these interests and opinions were the natural product of contemporary American economic and political conditions.

Now, there is a lot here that I have to ignore. The entire Founding is a testament to Republicanism, but Croly views both Jefferson and Hamilton as Democrats.(I mean[and he meant] the government structures, not the parties) He goes on to write that the Federalists were in favor of a "strong central government".(which they were not) But I don't want to get hung up on these fallacies.

The word for today is "Efficient", because many if not most of us look at the Republican form of government which the Founders gave us as very efficient, precisely because it is completely limited by the Constitution to the point to where it cannot hurt us; yet progressives look at limited government itself(as Croly is writing about here) as completely inefficient. To the progressive, government must be big and within that big structure, it can be made into a sleek and efficient machine.

The fact is this: there simply is no point of compromise between big government and small government.

It really isn't any more complex than that. I could write another 50 paragraphs on it but I really don't need to. It's only one word, "efficient" yet that one word has two diametrically opposite definitions. Either America will have a big government and the progressives win, or we will have a small government limited by the Constitution. There is no middle here. A kind of big, kind of small, kind of limited, kind of unlimited government - that's not making anybody happy here in the 21st century, and it didn't make people happy in the 20th either.

Sunday, December 17, 2017

How many Founding Fathers were themselves held in slavery?

A couple of years ago, I came across and wrote about an article in Ebony magazine on the topic of white slavery.

This highlights yet another miscarriage of fake historians. We are all supposed to collectively shrug our shoulders, wave our hand and say "oh but that was just 'indentured servitude'. That wasn't real slavery." As the Ebony article makes clear, yes, it was very much "just as real" as the slavery we are all constantly made to feel guilty for.

But I've already written what I wanted about that article. Here's the real question:

How many of the Founding Fathers themselves were held in slavery? We know whites were held in bondage by the King. We know it happened well before America was founded. So who?

There were two, in particular, both of whom were signatories of the Declaration of Independence.

The first is Matthew Thornton, and the second is George Taylor.

(Source), (source), (source)