Friday, December 30, 2011

"Progressive" polls very high among Americans

According to Pew, as reported by the International Business Times:
Despite the political divides between the terms "liberal" and "conservative," two-thirds of the public reaction to the word "progressive" were positive. While Pew reports there was little difference among Democrats' reaction to liberal and progressive, the discrepancy was clear amongst Republican respondents. Fifty-five percent of Republicans reacted positively to the word, compared to the 20 percent who reacted similarly to liberal. Independents also had a considerably more favorable reaction to progressive (68 percent) than liberal (54 percent.)

Republicans! Unbelievable. No wonder this country is so close to losing her liberty. This is what happens when schools and colleges teach that progressivism is a good thing, despite the fact that historically progressives have long hated the American way of life and our beloved Constitution. Here are some examples:

Progressivism and the origins of the tyrannical administrative state

America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise

The Conservation of Business - Shall We Strangle or Control It?

nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of individuals

Individualistic ideas are discredited and reputiated

The Dictatorship of the Constitution

And there's much more in the archives. I would hope that everybody would note that all I'm doing is channeling their own words. I would also hope that everybody would note that I'm giving out book titles, speech titles, with links, dates, and page numbers, so that should you want you can take these things and blog about these things yourself you can do so on your own with specificity and force. You can take them and do whatever you want with them, directly sourced, in context.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Examining progressivism from a Christian point of view Part 3

Continuing with an examination of the words of Ravi Zacharias, in his message titled "Secularization: It's Power and Control" from the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries parts: (1 2 3 4). I lifted the following small clip out of part 1:

Ravi Zacharias - The truth becomes so blurred

Blurring the lines of truth and reality. How often do we see progressives doing that? For example, very few people look upon the poor the way progressives accuse us conservatives of doing. Those of you who are against wealth redistribution are probably thinking that that's offered as a solution for the issue of poverty. Wealth redistribution is something you find very often in regimes where you have a dictator or set of dictators who need to prop themselves up. Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter on that very issue which was read aloud by another founder(James Wilson) on the floor of the constitutional congress! But at this point, the truth has been blurred, so wealth redistribution has been brought up on par to being on the same level as run of the mill charitable giving. And milk is just the secretion of a cow, no different than it's urine.

From Reformers to Progressives

The Foundation for Economic Education's publication "The Freeman" has an interesting article titled "The Twisted Tree of Progressivism". This is paragraph two:
One portent of Progressivism is found in the Liberal Republican movement of the 1870s. Prone to Paris Commune panics, distressed by strikes and labor trouble, such reformers as Charles Francis Adams (descended from John Adams), Francis Amasa Walker (Boston laissez-faire economist and Indian manager), and E. L. Godkin (Anglo-Irish editor of The Nation) concluded that efficient, inexpensive bureaucracy was just the ticket. It could manage questions too important to be left to democratic processes, especially those touching on the lately acquired government-bestowed advantages of big business. (“Efficiency” had a great future before it.) This movement was urban, basically eastern, and closely connected with economic elites (Nancy Cohen, Reconstruction of American Liberalism).

This really touches a nerve, it's one of the reasons why the Progressing America project even exists. Yes, I think it's great that they gave us names and a background on the topic, and yes, I think this article is worth reading. But what did Godkin, Walker, and Adams say/write to give this author the impression that they supported inexpensive bureaucracy? When did they write it? Essay or book? Title and page numbers? How about a partial quote so someone can track it down? Could you throw me a bone here? I find that there is a great desire, sometimes even a desperation amongst people who seek to advance the cause of liberty to know more about progressivism. I see it in some of the places I post articles, and I have heard it repeatedly from people I've come in contact with. There is such a deficit of knowledge on the progressives, and articles like this are certainly helpful in illuminating their mindset, but we need to know when, where, and in what words did these people put their ideas out.(and citing Nancy Cohen's book isn't exactly helpful)

But just to be fair, this article does do this in some ways. The third paragraph points out the call for more government, and tells us to go look to the Populist Party Platform of 1892. Now that's what I'm talking about, show us where to look! Context is great, but the details do matter. The important thing that this article does is point out that what ended up becoming progressivism is a convergence of multiple ideals, which all converged because at the very foundation of all their beliefs was the one thing they all held in common. Bigger and bigger government. They could squabble about the details later. For now, we just have to make government bigger. That will solve all the problems.

For anybody who's seen me previously touch upon the topic of 'Reformers' but not really go into much detail, this is why. There's too many non-uniform views amongst all these different groups, to the point to where they're not even the same group of people. It's the birth of progressivism, which rose at about the same time as fabianism in Britain, where you see the uniformity of the view of making progress through bigger government. But it's not socialism. It's just progress, it's social regulation. And even within the progressive movement, it's a mistake for us to look at progressives as a monolith. Outside of making progress with more government, there are a multitude of divergent views of how best to use government, and to whom will it be used against.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Just because you vote, doesn't mean you're a free citizen

I cannot wait for Ameritopia to hit. Mark Levin is very articulate when he talks about the dangers we face as free citizens of this country. These are the kinds of comments which are timeless, as the majority of human history is not one of liberty, it's one of administrative states, "the divine right of kings", and even outright brutal bloody tyrannies.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Examining progressivism from a Christian point of view Part 2

America is worth preserving against the assault of progressivism. But what's under assault? What are you really losing? Your faith is certainly a part of that, but it's so much bigger than that. There can certainly be a form of tyranny that's Christian based, but that's one of the very things our Founding Fathers sought to break free of. No religion has a stake above any other to the point of shoving it down people's throat. But the exact opposite can be just as tyrannical, to the point to where you can't even have a display at Christmas time out in your own front yard without catching heat from it. The very concept of calling Christmas the "Christmas holiday" or saying "Merry Christmas" to certain people has become controversial. How? How did we get here? Through the process of secularization. Continuing with an examination of the words of Ravi Zacharias, in his message titled "Secularization: It's Power and Control" from the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries parts: (1 2 3 4). I lifted the following small clip out of part 4:

This is why the first place the progressives started, was in the universities. They knew full well that they had to steal our Founding Fathers away from us before they could ever snuff out our liberty. Today, it's routinely implied, or even outright taught that our Founders were just a bunch of old rich racist white guys(and athiest!) that hated blacks and enslaved them. Sure, there was an abolitionist movement, but often times that's looked at as being separate from the Founders. And the black patriots that were instrumental in the revolutionary war have all but been eliminated from just about every modern text book you could lay your hands on. The revisionism that goes on in education has gone way beyond universities at this point, it's long since perverted the lower levels of education as well. Middle school and high school. So bad has the revisionism gotten and so long has it dominated, that someone who has documents to prove their case such as David Barton does, can easily be laughed off of the stage all the while he points to the very document proving what he's saying. The faith that all our founders had in the Protection of Divine Providence is something that progressives knew they couldn't compete with. So they had to eliminate it. It was Woodrow Wilson who once said that "If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface". Have you read the preface of the Declaration of Independence lately? What do you see there? That's all the stuff the progressives wished wasn't there. And at this point(almost to 2012) it can be said as a matter of practicality, that stuff isn't there. Go ask your high school son/daughter - that's all the proof right there, your high schooler hasn't been taught the preface. This is all being done on purpose.

Sure, there are religious leftists out there, but they're not in the majority. And those who are of a higher profile see the word merely as a tool. Jim Wallis is very open about this, stating that "the gospel is all about wealth redistribution", even though Benjamin Franklin stated rather plainly that wealth redistribution is what tyrants do. And progressives have been abusing their Christian faith for a very long time, to reach an authoritarian end. After the small clip of Ravi you see above(further in part 4), he makes the point that students are lost in high school, they have no meaning in their lives. And isn't that true to a large degree? Has life in America gotten better or worse over time, since all evidence of religion has been expunged from schools. One of the communist goals of 1963 is the elimination of meaningful art(see 22/23), it's certain that they'd target other meaningful things as well. And I'm not advocating that one particular faith be placed above another, rather that certain underlying foundational core beliefs that all religions believe in(even those outside of Christianity) that used to be taught in America's schools are no longer there. What are the results of this? It certainly can't be a coincidence that over time we're not in a better place. For those of you who are fans of the book "The 5000 Year Leap", will be familiar with the following which used to be an elementary school book: A Catechism on the Constitution. Another book titled "The New England Primer is a book that used to be in schools, and is one of the earliest known books printed in America. As Ira Stoll writes in his book "Samuel Adams: A Life", Adams was likely taught as a young boy with this very book, given that there wasn't much else around. That was the book to use back then. Here's a cover picture of one that came from the printing presses of Benjamin Franklin. The New England Primer, which also goes by another name, "The Little Bible of New England" because so much of what's in it is overtly religious. But it doesn't place one over the other.

And now as I look above I see that it's official, I ranted. Oh well. Someone has to put all this stuff together to show it's relevance and relation. Without core, meaningful, and foundational things being taught to students, is it any wonder why school shootings have happened, and have even appeared to be on the rise? When Columbine first happened, everybody was shocked and mortified. Sure, school shootings are still shocking and mortifying to a point, but the numbness has set in because it's happened so many times now. And as I asked in the beginning, why is all of this happening? How did we get here? There's been much that's happened outside of the realm of religion that's salient in answering this question(like what Wilson said above), and that's primary what my blog has been and will continue to be about. But for now, I'll leave you with the words of Benjamin Franklin:(In his letter to Thomas Paine)

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person, whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a great deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Examining progressivism from a Christian point of view Part 1

This message titled "Secularization: It's Power and Control" from the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries parts: (1 2 3 4) is rather brilliant in the examples cited and in it's construction. I cannot recommend it highly enough. In this particular segment, Ravi Zacharias elaborates on a writing from G K Chesterton regarding revolutionists and contradiction. I will be clipping several pieces of this message over the next couple of days and commenting on them, as there are several very deep and thoughtful things in this that we can all learn from, in defending ourselves from progressivism. It needs to be noted that at no time does Zacharias ever use the term progressivism during the entirety of the message. Yet for those of us who find ourselves on the opposite side of the assault by revolutionary progressives, it's very hard to miss how relevant this is to the topic. It will become even more clear as I develop my full thoughts with multiple clips. Here is the first clip:(comes from the end of part 3)

And should anybody from RZIM object to me putting these online in streaming form, just contact me(Facebook primarily, so that I can see who you are and track you to RZIM) and ask, I'll nicely remove the videos from my youtube and popmodal accounts.

Monday, December 19, 2011

President Woodrow Wilson comments on censoring the press

On March 22, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson wrote the following letter:

I have been very much surprised to find several of the public prints stating that the administration had abandoned the position which it so distinctly took, and still holds, that authority to exercise censorship over the Press to the extent that that censorship is embodied in the recent action of the House of Representatives is absolutely necessary to the public safety. It, of course, has not been abandoned, because the reasons still exist why such authority is necessary for the protection of the nation.

I have every confidence that the great majority of the newspapers of the country will observe a patriotic reticence about everything whose publication could be of injury, but in every country there are some persons in a position to do mischief in this field who can not be relied upon and whose interests or desires will lead to actions on their part highly dangerous to the nation in the midst of a war. I want to say again that it seems to me imperative that powers of this sort should be granted.

You think that's bad reading it? Here, listen to it:

The power of the spoken word, and I'm even not a professional speaker. But that doesn't really matter. This is how arrogant these people are, the words are what they are. People need to see this, they need to hear it. A lot of very dark things happened in America during the "progressive" era. And it's a shame that so much was said, written, taught, and actions taken while much was either never recorded in the first place, or said video/audio clips have been lost to time. It's long past time to correct this by recording it ourselves.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

I am a socialist - Theodore Schroeder

The name Theodore Schroeder probably seems like an obscure name to anybody who comes across my blog or happens to be a regular reader. I know it was obscure to me, when I came across a book titled Free Speech for Radicals. Written in 1916, this book is linked with a group which titled itself The Free Speech League.(FSL) The more I dug, the more I realized I found something worth blogging about. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (a place I normally wouldn't want anything to do with) has quite a bit of information about Schroeder

Friends with anarchist Emma Goldman, he founded the FSL with several progressives in 1902, among which was Lincoln Steffens, who famously said "I have seen the future, and it works!" in regards to the newly emerging Soviet empire after a trip to Russia in 1919. Later on, Schroeder's ideas even became influential with Havelock Ellis, who was one of the founding members of England's Fabian Society.

Most importantly though, the FFRF states that the FSL was a precursor to the ACLU. I find it so interesting how all of these people and groups, that all the dots end up being connected. It always ends up coming full circle. One group learns what does and doesn't work, then shuts down(or renames itself) and the new group takes what was learned and implements it. Anyways, Schroeder confirmed his beliefs three times, on page 135 and again on 136 of "Free Speech for Radicals":

(135) I will state now that it became public that I was a Socialist and member of the Free Speech League.
(136) I was employed at the Helping Hand Home and had been there about a year. Third, that I am not an I.W.W. I am a Socialist and member of the Free Speech League. Fourth, I did not disturb the peace, and offered the proof. Part of my papers was taken from my clothes when these were returned to me.
(136) Now, on March 15, 1912, she came back again and asked me if I still persisted in being a Socialist and member of the Free Speech League and reading their literature and taking part in the free speech fight. Yes, I do persist in being a Socialist and believe in free speech. Then, she said, my services were no longer wanted, and she said I could vacate at once.

The man is more than free to believe whatever he wants. My preference would be for their radical beliefs to be widely known as these people thrive on living in the shadows - put it in the headlines and let people see how whacked out they are. But that said, I read through parts of the book, and I have a suspicion that many of the alleged actions on part of 'them pigs' and other authorities are trumped up to make the radicals(and they know full well they're radicals) victims and martyrs. Also, parts of the book seemed pretty standard fare for what the ACLU does today. They'll defend anybody who's subversive of American beliefs and traditions, but if those who defend liberty find themselves in a bad spot, the ACLU is usually nowhere to be found.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

An empire of laws, and not of men

I'm a fan of the founding fathers, they have a lot to say that's worth taking in. That President John Adams made the comment about "an empire of laws, and not of men" is true, but this is an essay that it would be well worth it for you to look into and read. It's a short read, but there's a lot of meat here. Or as soon as I'm finished recording, download it and use it the audio to help reinforce the ideals of liberty. Having done as much recording as I've been doing over the last year or so, I'm getting much more comfortable behind a mic. It's time to raise our founders off of those pages.

Full text: Thoughts on Government: Applicable to the Present State of the American Colonies - John Adams

There's actually a lot here. John Adams was a fan of republics, so much so that he stated that a republican government is the only form of good government. He was not a fan of democracies, and was outspoken about that too. I'll have to put those together at a later time. Here, we have Adams explaining in detail some examples of congressional corruption. How familiar does most of this sound to you?

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Progressivism: Making journalists into associates of the state

In "How we advertised America", George Creel wrote the following: (Page 16/17)
As a matter of fact, I was strongly opposed to the censorship bill, and delayed acceptance of office until the President had considered approvingly the written statement of my views on the subject. It was not that I denied the need of some sort of censorship, but deep in my heart was the feeling that the desired results could be obtained without paying the price that a formal law would have demanded. Aside from the physical difficulties of enforcement, the enormous cost, and the overwhelming irritation involved, I had the conviction that our hope must lie in the aroused patriotism of the newspaper men of America.

With the nation in arms, the need was not so much to keep the press from doing the hurtful things as to get it to do the helpful things. It was not servants we wanted, but associates. Better far to have the desired compulsions proceed from within than to apply them from without.

As I read this, the first thing that came to mind was the journolist. But this is much more insidious. The journolist was just a bunch of conniving leftists posing as journalists getting together in a proverbial 'smoke filled room' to influence an election. What Creel and the boys did was apply pressure from the government. But they're not in favor of nationalization! Not censorship! No. What they want to do is make progress. Abuse the regulatory state perhaps, apply a little pressure where they can. You know, nudge. Nudge them into making "the right decisions" about what they'll report on. Creel continued:

Aside from these considerations, there was the freedom of the press to bear in mind. No other right guaranteed by democracy has been more abused, but even these abuses are preferable to the deadening evil of autocratic control.

Yet if they're going to make "associates" out of the press, then there is no freedom of the press to speak of. It's a lie. It only looks free on the surface. Having the press turn itself into a willing branch of autocracy, now wouldn't that be perfect? And worth note is how this was originally geared just to be strictly about protecting military prospects, actions and so forth. But that's the thing about statists and authoritarians. They can't help themselves but go further. The only way people can be free is if the government is limited. More from Creel: (Page 18)

My proposition, in lieu of the proposed law, was a voluntary agreement that would make every paper in the land its own censor, putting it up to the patriotism and common sense of the individual editor to protect purely military information of tangible value to the enemy. The plan was approved and, without further thought of the pending bill, we proceeded to prepare a statement to the press of America that would make clear the necessities of the war-machine even while removing doubts and distrusts.

And with that, the shadow press was born. They ceased to be a free press(while still looking like one on the surface) and became associates of the state. Wilson and Creel didn't nationalize the press, they just made progress. In what year did you think journalism died? This book is dated 1920, but the CPI was born in 1917.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Obama's executive governance: more 'fabian' than 'napoleonic'?

Obama wants to channel Theodore Roosevelt does he? Makes sense to me that we should talk about this in terms that progressives themselves would have. In an opinion article titled "The Authority of the Executive", the following observations are made: (The Outlook, Volume 93, page 486)
An important difference between the Roosevelt and the Taft Administration has been thus stated by a shrewd observer of public life at Washington: "When a desirable course of action was proposed to the Roosevelt Administration, the proposal was met with the question, 'Is there any law against it?' 'No I' 'Then go ahead and do it.' If it is proposed to the Taft Administration, the proposal is met by the question, 'Is there any law for it?' 'No!' 'Then we must ask Congress for a law.'"

That this somewhat dramatically interprets a real difference between the two Administrations we do not doubt—a difference partly in temperament, partly in principle. In so far as it is temperamental, it is incapable of definition. It can only be said that one Administration is more eager, the other more cautious; one puts greater emphasis on results, the other on methods; one is impatient to achieve, the other waits to consider; one assumes authority if it has not been denied, the other assumes no authority until it has been granted; one is Napoleonic, the other Fabian; one is militant, the other legal; both seek the same end, both are progressive, both approve the proverb, "Make haste slowly," but one lays the emphasis on" haste," the other on " slowly;" the danger in the one temperament is too great expedition, the danger in the other disastrous delay. When the question is, Shall the public welfare or private interests take precedence? the dangers in delay are not inconsiderable.

The Outlook was a New York magazine, to which Roosevelt himself regularly contributed. What an incredible way to discuss the way things are being done, no? I could launch into a week long rant because of this and other things I've already posted.

But I'll keep this short and simple. If you believe as Sean Hannity does(and God love him, I have all the respect in the world for him) that journalism died in 2008, then I really hope that my project here can expose you to new concepts, key words, and ideas. Because journalism died well over a century ago. There's a certain order to things like this. Before progressives can become a huge force in government, they need to subvert the media and turn the entire thing into a mouthpiece for bigger government. And if you read the writings of Lippmann, Creel, Bernays, and others, you will see that that's exactly what they sought out to do, and did.

The Authority of the Executive

An important difference between the Roosevelt and the Taft Administration has been thus stated by a shrewd observer of public life at Washington: "When a desirable course of action was proposed to the Roosevelt Administration, the proposal was met with the question, 'Is there any law against it?' 'No I' 'Then go ahead and do it.' If it is proposed to the Taft Administration, the proposal is met by the question, 'Is there any law for it?' 'No!' 'Then we must ask Congress for a law.'"

That this somewhat dramatically interprets a real difference between the two Administrations we do not doubt—a difference partly in temperament, partly in principle. In so far as it is temperamental, it is incapable of definition. It can only be said that one Administration is more eager, the other more cautious; one puts greater emphasis on results, the other on methods; one is impatient to achieve, the other waits to consider; one assumes authority if it has not been denied, the other assumes no authority until it has been granted; one is Napoleonic, the other Fabian; one is militant, the other legal; both seek the same end, both are progressive, both approve the proverb, '• Make haste slowly," but one lays the emphasis on "haste," the other on " slowly;" the danger in the one temperament is too great expedition, the danger in the other disastrous delay. When the question is, Shall the public welfare or private interests take precedence? the dangers in delay are not inconsiderable.

The difference in principle may be somewhat more accurately defined.

We may hold that the Congress is the sole representative of the people, and that the Executive Department has nothing to do but to carry out the will of the people as it is expressed by the Acts of the Congress. Or we may hold that the Executive is equally with the Congress the representative of the people, and is empowered to exercise for the people all the functions that in free, popular government are exercised by the Executive Department. In the one case the Congress is the servant of the people, and the Executive is the servant of the Congress. In the other case both are servants of the people, with commensurate powers, so that the Executive is no more dependent on the Congress for authority to perform its legitimate executive functions than the Congress is dependent on the Executive for authority to perform its legitimate legislative functions.

The distinction may be made clear to our readers by a historical parallel.

The Constitution of the United States provides for a Judicial, an Executive, and a Legislative Department. It left the Congress to organize the Judicial Department, and the Congress has done so. The Federal courts, though called for by the Constitution, were organized by the Congress. But, having been organized, they are independent of the Congress. They have a right to exercise all the functions which, historically, in a free Commonwealth belong to the courts. They are even, in some respects, superior to the "Congress. For they can, and sometimes do, declare that the Congress has exceeded its Constitutional powers in enacting certain legislation, in which case that legislation is set aside as unconstitutional and void. And this power of the courts to set aside the legislation of the Congress which organized them, though at first resisted, is now universally acquiesced in. The Outlook holds that, in a somewhat analogous manner, the Executive is authorized to exercise all the functions which in free constitutional governments belong to the Executive Department. It is not confined to doing those things which the Congress has authorized it to do. Its authority is not derived from the Congress. It is derived from the same source from which the Congress derives its authority—

the people. It may do without authority from the Congress whatever the principles and usages of free governments allow the Executive Department to do, unless it is prohibited by the Constitution, or by the explicit provisions or the necessary implications of Congressional legislation. How far the Congress can go in limiting the powers of the Judiciary—whether, for example, it can prohibit the courts from issuing injunctions—is a question on which Constitutional lawyers are not agreed. How far the Congress can go in limiting by legislation the powers of the Executive we do not here discuss. It is enough to affirm that the Executive need not wait for a law of the Congress in order to take such executive action as is called for by the public interest and is not prohibited by the Constitution or by law.

We are here attempting to define a principle rather than to defend it. But there are certain fundamental facts which appear to us to sustain the principle that the Executive is not dependent on legislation for its authority. The facts are such as these: The Constitution which creates the Congress creates also the Judicial and Executive Departments; the Judicial Department continually exercises in the public interest authority not specifically conferred by any explicit legislation; it is difficult to see why the Executive Department, deriving its authority through the same instrument, should not act upon the same principle. The Chief Executive is elected by the people and is responsible to the people; he is not, as in England, dependent upon the legislative body, responsible to the legislative body, nor chosen directly or indirectly by the legislative body; he is no longer even nominated by a Congressional caucus. There is therefore little ground to claim that he must look to the legislative body for authority to act.

This question, whether the Executive may do whatever the Congress has not prohibited or only what the Congress has authorized, is not an abstract one, of interest only to the Constitutional lawyer. It is a very practical one, and of immediate and pressing interest to all the people of the United States. They are the owners of large landed estates, including great forests, large mining tracts, and valuable water powers. These estates are held in trust for them by the Secretary of the Interior. If we are right in the view here taken, the Secretary of the Interior has authority, in protecting the interests of the people in these estates, to do whatever any trustee might do to protect the interests of his ward. He is not bound to wait for any special authority from the Congress. He may retain possession of these estates for the benefit of the people until and unless the Congress by definite action requires him to dispose of them to private owners. If he acts upon this principle, the public interests in the public's lands will be safe. For while the inertia of the Congress might prevent it from taking any affirmative action to guard those interests against spoliation, it is reasonably certain that, with public attention focused upon this question, the Congress will not by affirmative legislation dispose of these estates belonging to its constituents without some provision for protecting their rights and safeguarding their interests.

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Progressivism and the quest for state authority, through alcohol

The notion that "social justice" is about freedom is thoroughly laughable. Just look at it's roots, and spend a little time reading about the social gospel, which preceded social justice in America. Even more laughable, is how progressives have re-written history in order to make all of this possible. Today, progressives look back and sneer at those days when the EXTREME CHRISTIANS (I know, how shocking!) actually attempted and succeeded at getting at a constitutional amendment which "legislated morality". I put the phrase "legislate morality" in quotes, because this is one of the most common sneers the progressives use. And of course, it's those hypocritical conservative Christians who are the culprits. Today, we shouldn't dare repeat that mistake and attempt to legislate morality.

Well, when progressives entirely dominate academia, colleges, and the history therein, that's what happens. They'll blame you for what it is that they did. And why not? Do you know where to look for answers? And even if you wanted to look, would you know where to start? While blaming it on Christians isn't a lie, it certainly isn't the whole truth. These people were fairly honest about their goals. They intentionally set their sight on liberty, at least, those who were involved in the upper levels of the movement. Just like progressives do today. Example 1 Example 2 The average OWS person on the streets today actually does hate wall street and wants to do something about it, just like the average person during those days would've only been interested in doing something about the problem of alcohol. They're probably not looking for tyranny, but they've been whipped up into a frenzy. And as you probably know, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

Josiah Strong, who was one of the founding members of the "Social Gospel" movement, wrote this in the magazine 'Homiletic review', which claimed to be all about religion, theology, and philosophy - directly under the banner of "Studies in Social Christianity": (Page 44, "Prophetic Courage")

By common consent the civilized world, backed by moral conviction and scientific knowledge, has abandoned these worn-out experiments, and is settling down upon the basis of common sense, announced by that greatest of leaders, Lyman Beecher: "Temperance in the use of all harmless things, total abstinence from all hurtful things." That alcohol, outside of its well-defined, legitimate uses, is the most destructive foe of human life and welfare, need no longer be argued. He who would question that statement would need the stupidity of ignorance or the triple hardihood of hopeless conservatism. In all countries we find that public opinion is steadily converging upon this perfectly clear, rational judgment—total abstinence for the individual, prohibition for the State. Religion, science, political economy, education, business, are coming into a closer, more consistent solidarity upon that simple basis. The most encouraging indication is that this union of the great interests of humanity against the common enemy is founded in the awakening sense of democracy, and in the new and broader scope of its interpretation. "Personal liberty" is at last an uncrowned, dethroned king, with no one to do him reverence. The social consciousness is so far developed, and is becoming so autocratic, that institutions and governments must give heed to its mandates and shape their life accordingly. We are no longer frightened by that ancient bogy - " paternalism in government." We affirm boldly, it is the business of government to be just that—paternal. As the father of a household must administer its affairs for the equal good of all, and for the equal protection of all, so the government must devote itself to every interest of the people. So Prohibitionists are pushing for an amendment to the national constitution, forbidding the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors.

What a triumph for progressivism! However, most prohibitionists didn't openly talk this way. For them, they truely wanted to solve a problem in a way that they were being told was the right way. This is totalitarianism, take note of how many things I emphasized, there's a lot in this. First, note his attack on hopeless conservatism. So much for blaming it all on those EXTREMIST CHRISTIANS and their awful conservative views, just trying to "legislate morality". Note the two words I underlined: "autocratic" and "administer". Philip Dru, Administrator? Anybody? That book is such a potent blueprint for progressivism. It's all there, and it's not even that long of a book. And you can get it for free online. Either in print or in audio. Both versions are 100% free. Please read it.

But Josiah Strong was not the only one. In his book "Why Prohibition!", progressive labor leader and reverend Charles Stelzle wrote the following: (Page 71)

The doctrine of "personal liberty" as applied to the use of liquor has been over-worked by the liquor men. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as an absolute individual right to do any particular thing, or to eat or drink any particular thing, or to enjoy the association of one's own family, or even to live, if that thing is in conflict with "the law of public necessity."

Of course, below this paragraph Stelzle makes some fairly good observations(and I hope people will click the link and look) regarding any number of things, but any one of these observations or all of them combined is no excuse to further the problem. He makes an abusive, bastardized case for 'the common good'. If state power and the abuse of it is such a problem, then taking the next step to create yet another layer of federal bureaucracy is clearly not the solution. Say what you want about the ills of alcohol, tyranny is a bigger problem. Besides mother nature, isn't tyranny the number one killer of humans throughout history? So don't let any progressive wannabe administrator prattle on about prohibition and Christianity, they're standing in the quicksand of their own history.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

If you want to bring true change to a society, print excessive amounts of money

In his "The Economic Consequences of the Peace", John Maynard Keynes writes the following: (Page 235)
Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become "profiteers," who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

In the latter stages of the war all the belligerent governments practised, from necessity or incompetence, what a Bolshevist might have done from design. Even now, when the war is over, most of them continue out of weakness the same malpractices. But further, the Governments of Europe, being many of them at this moment reckless in their methods as well as weak, seek to direct on to a class known as profiteers" the popular indignation against the more obvious consequences of their vicious methods. These "profiteers" are, broadly speaking, the entrepreneur class of capitalists, that is to say, the active and constructive element in the whole capitalist society, who in a period of rapidly rising prices cannot help but get rich quick whether they wish it or desire it or not. If prices are continually rising, even trader who has purchased for stock or owns property and plant inevitably makes profits. By directing hatred against this class, therefore, the European Governments are carrying a step further the fatal process which the subtle mind of Lenin had consciously conceived. The profiteers are a consequence and not a cause of rising prices. By combining a popular hatred of the class of entrepreneurs with the blow already given to social security by the violent and arbitrary disturbance of contract and of the established equilibrium of wealth which is the inevitable result of inflation, these Governments are fast rendering impossible a continuance of the social and economic order of the nineteenth century. But they have no plan for replacing it.

Wow. If that doesn't describe life under Obama, I don't know what does.(just change one or two words/phrases, such as "of the nineteenth century") Because a 'world reserve currency' was excessively printed, it's value has become disastrously unstable. There have been for quite some time now, food riots all over the globe. Just at the end of last month, it was reported that peanut butter prices were going up.

Now, Keynes attributes this to Lenin. But there seems to be no source for that, so for now it should go like this: John Maynard Keynes says(writes) that the best way to change society is to debauch the currency. And to anybody paying attention, they're doing exactly what Keynes told them to do. You'll get change alright, but it won't bring you much hope.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Happy Thanksgiving

On this Thanksgiving, I would like to give thanks to our Founding Fathers, and keep this posting short. But offer an inspirational message to all who would see my blog:

Sunday, November 20, 2011

History is a map, not a bunch of trivia questions

What academics have done to damage the teaching of history is nearly a crime. There are so many reasons why our society is in trouble, and the teaching of history is certainly one of them. In his "Notes on the State of Virginia", Thomas Jefferson has the following to write:(Page 160)

But of all the views of this law, none is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people the safe, as they are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty. For this purpose the reading in the first stage, where they will receive their whole education, is proposed, as has been said, to be chiefly historical. History, by apprising them of the past, will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times, and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume: and knowing it, to defeat its views. In every Government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate, and improve. Every Government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree. This, indeed, is not all that is necessary, though it be essentially necessary. An amendment of our Constitution must here come in aid of the public education. The influence over Government must be shared among all the people. If every individual which composes their mass participates of the ultimate authority, the Government will be safe; because the corrupting the whole mass will exceed any private resources of wealth: and public ones cannot be provided but by levies on the people.

Now, that's not to say that history can't be trivia. Why congress is referred to sometimes as an upper house and a lower house, is because when Philadelphia was the US Capitol, the Senate was on the second floor and the House of Reps was on the first floor of Congress Hall.

But your children, and all of us were only taught History as a form of trivia; "On what date did blank say blank?" "on what continent or in what city did blank happen?" - they never teach children the utter disdain that Woodrow Wilson and other progressives have for our constitution and our way of life. They don't teach the context of history, why it's useful and relevant. They don't prepare us to defend our liberties against what can only be called a movement to restore tyranny.

Mark Levin: The first Fabian Socialist US President was Woodrow Wilson

At 5:30 of Mark Levin's speech at the Defending the American Dream Conference(Full speech courtesy of Right Scoop, please click here and watch the whole thing), Mark Levin had some comments regarding Fabianism in the United States. Here is a short clip:

What he is referring to comes out of Woodrow Wilson's book "Constitutional Government In The United States". There are two things, actually. One of them is from page 16, which I made a posting about some time ago.

The other begins on page 4

The ideals of liberty cannot be fixed from generation to generation; only its conception can be, the large image of what it is. Liberty fixed in unalterable law would be no liberty at all. Government is a part of life, and, with life, it must change, alike in its objects and in its practices; only this principle must remain unaltered, — this principle of liberty, that there must be the freest right and opportunity of adjustment. Political liberty consists in the best practicable adjustment between the power of the government and the privilege of the individual; and the freedom to alter the adjustment is as important as the adjustment itself for the ease and progress of affairs and the contentment of the citizen.

There are many analogies by which it is possible to illustrate the idea, if it needs illustration. We say of a boat skimming the water with light foot, 'How free she runs,' when we mean, how perfectly she is adjusted to the force of the wind, how perfectly she obeys the great breath out of the heavens that fills her sails. Throw her head up into the wind and see how she will halt and stagger, how every sheet will shiver and her whole frame be shaken, how instantly she is "in irons," in the expressive phrase of the sea. She is free only when you have let her fall off again and get once more her nice adjustment to the forces she must obey and cannot defy. We speak of the 'free' movement of the piston-rod in the perfectly made engine, and know of course that its freedom is proportioned to its perfect adjustment. The least lack of adjustment will heat it with friction and hold it stiff and unmanageable. There is nothing free in the sense of being unrestrained in a world of innumerable forces, and each force moves at its best when best adjusted to the forces about it. Spiritual things are not wholly comparable with material things, and political liberty is a thing of the spirits of men; but we speak of friction in things that affect our spirits, and do not feel that it is altogether a figure of speech. It is not forcing analogies, therefore, to say that that is the freest government in which there is the least friction, — the least friction between the power of the government and the privilege of the individual. The adjustment may vary from generation to generation, but the principle never can. A constitutional government, being an instrumentality for the maintenance of liberty, is an instrumentality for the maintenance of a right adjustment, and must have a machinery of constant adaptation.

Wilson is wrong on all accounts. Levin's explanation of this is fabulous. Even the use of the word mastermind, is worth note. A progressive by the name of Edward House(who was Woodrow Wilson's favorite go-to guy) wrote the book "Philip Dru, Administrator". Mastermind is exactly the phrase used to describe Dru: (Page 148)

GENERAL DRU began at once the reorganization of his army. The Nation knew that the war was over, and it was in a quiver of excitement.

They recognized the fact that Dru dominated the situation and that a master mind had at last arisen in the Republic. He had a large and devoted army to do his bidding, and the future seemed to lie wholly in his hands.

This is not accidental. This is how central planners look at themselves. They're all masterminds.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Look out! Full revolution is on the table

At an Occupy Wall Street offshoot event, an Occupy Oakland protester had the following to say: (Headline: 1,000 at old Occupy Oakland camp to discuss future)
"If they (police) take over the camp, we're going to reoccupy," Ronald "Rasta" Jones, 31, an Oakland resident who had lived in the Occupy Oakland camp since its first day, Oct. 10, said before officers moved in around 5 a.m. to evict people. "Our objective is for them to keep spending money. ... We're not going to stop."

Jones has let the cat out of the bag. Occupy Oakland/Wall Street is the Cloward and Piven strategy, out on the streets. Overload and collapse the system. But what I underlined is also of note. For someone who seems to have such an important thing to say, note how the writers of the article are willing to launder Jones into 'just some protester'. Who is Ronald "Rasta" Jones? And how did they know Jones has been there since day one? Does it strike you odd that they would know that much about him, yet at the same time know absolutely nothing about him? In an article a few days earlier from the same news source, which even includes the same reporter, you will find the following: (Headline: Jean Quan asks Occupy Oakland to cooperate Page 2)

That struck Ronald "Rasta" Jones as a good idea.

Jones has been part of the encampment since the first day and was arrested when police swept the area Oct. 25.

"This is supposed to be a peace movement," said Jones, 31, who is part of the camp's security team and publicly criticizes the defacing and destruction of property. "If we could get City Hall to work with us, it would be a pleasure and an honor."

So the above article misleads all of it's readers into thinking that Jones is just some guy who just so happened to have been there since day one. Yeah, perhaps they could've just asked him, and it's as simple as that. But this second article really casts a huge shadow upon the first one. It's the same author.

But the problem we face is bigger than just the Cloward and Piven strategy being executed on the streets of some major cities. Anti-Capitalist Teach-In Leader: 'We Have People Organizing Inside of the Military'

"The other thing we stress is building a base in the military. If we’re talking about revolution, it means we have to win other some section of the military to be on our side and most of them are working class people just like the rest of us...We have people organizing inside the military...," Rod explained (around 1:50).

The military is, at this point the last bastion of machinery that the progressives have not totally corrupted. If you've ever asked yourself the question as to why it is that they hate the military so much, you're living the answer right now. Here it is. The military is a protection against the tyranny of a revolution. The average progressive can hem and haw all they want about this or that: Iran, Iraq, South America and other examples that are routinely used; when you get to the core leadership of the progressive movement(people you'd likely never run into), people who call the shots and are major players, this is what it's all about. This is why they hate the military.

If you know anybody in the military, you better reach out to them. Invite them over for thanksgiving, thank them for their service to our country, warn them that they're being intentionally targeted with the intent of being used as a tool to permanently end what is the American experiment. If these people are successful, and I cannot stress to you how close.... how so very close they are to achieving their goals. If these people are successful then depending on your age you'll never taste liberty again. Only your children or grand children will. Maybe even regardless of your age, and your children won't see liberty either. Liberty is not the natural state of man, and "once liberty is lost it's typically lost forever". - John Adams

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Progressivism: No human being manages it's affairs as well as a plant

Well, that explains why we need the elites! We need those administrators to run our lives from Washington, because we are utterly incapable of running these affairs on our own. (this is me being sarcastic, I'm sure all will detect that) In his book "Public Opinion" (Page 27) Walter Lippman has the following to say:
Try to explain social life as the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. You will soon be saying that the hedonist begs the question, for even supposing that man does pursue these ends, the crucial problem of why he thinks one course rather than another likely to produce pleasure, is untouched. Does the guidance of man's conscience explain? How then does he happen to have the particular conscience which he has? The theory of economic self interest? But how do men come to conceive their interest in one way rather than another? The desire for security, or prestige, or domination, or what is vaguely called self-realization? How do men conceive their security, what do they consider prestige, how do they figure out the means of domination, or what is the notion of self which they wish to realize? Pleasure, pain, conscience, acquisition, protection, enhancement, mastery, are undoubtedly names for some of the ways people act. There may be instinctive dispositions which work toward such ends. But no statement of the end, or any description of the tendencies to seek it, can explain the behavior which results. The very fact that men theorize at all is proof that their pseudo-environments, their interior representations of the world, are a determining element in thought, feeling, and action. For if the connection between reality and human response were direct and immediate, rather than indirect and inferred, indecision and failure would be unknown, and (if each of us fitted as snugly into the world as the child in the womb), Mr. Bernard Shaw would not have been able to say that except for the first nine months of its existence no human being manages its affairs as well as a plant.

Not much doubt to me, that he is quoting Bernard Shaw approvingly here. But in my infinite curiosity, when I Googled the phrase as it is, no results came up. I do enjoy a challenge, and I did find what I sought. Now I can show others. What Bernard Shaw did actually write is virtually identical, in his "Maxims for Revolutionists", which is at the end of his book "Man and Superman". That is where you can find the following: (on Page 238)

Except during the nine months before he draws his first breath, no man manages his affairs as well as a tree does.

It's nice to know what informs people's opinions. In this case, Walter Lippmann's. Be it Communists, Fabians, Progressives or some other form of centralized planning, it's always the arrogance. It's the arrogance that I just cannot stand.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

What happened to socialism?

One of the best ways to understand where you're going(or being pushed to) is to look back and see what has already occurred. John Rae wrote a book titled "Contemporary Socialism" in which he notes some things about how the old forms of communitarian socialism gave way and the only type of socialism left standing was revolutionary socialism. I find this type of commentary/study to be very instructive in understanding old progressivism from a century ago, contrasted with current revolutionary progressivism, which started in the 60's. The Cloward/Piven strategy(completely collapsing the system) came to life in the 60's wheras in previous generations the progressives followed a more Fabian model and subverted from the inside. Here's what Rae writes in the introduction:(page 2)

Now the present movement is, before all, political and revolutionary. The philanthropic and experimental forms of socialism, which played a conspicuous role before 1848, perished then in the wreck of the Revolution, and have never risen to. life again. The old schools have dispersed. Their doctrines, their works, their very hopes have gone. The theories of man's entire dependence on circumstances, of the rehabilitation of the flesh, of the passional attraction, once in everybody's mouth, have sunk into oblivion. The communities of Owenites, St. Simonians, Fourierists, Icarians, which multiplied for a time on both sides of the Atlantic, are extinct. The socialists of the present day have discarded all belief in the possibility of effecting any social regeneration except by means of political authority, and the first object of their endeavours is therefore the conquest of the powers of the State. There are some exceptions, but these are very unimportant. The communistic societies of the United States, for instance, are mostly organizations of eccentric religious sects which have no part or influence in the life of the century. The Colinsian Collectivists, followers of the Belgian socialist Colins, are a mere handful; and the Familistere of Guise in France—a remarkable institution, founded since 1848 by an old disciple of Fourier, though not on Fourier's plan—stands quite alone, and has no imitators. Non-political socialism may accordingly be said to have practically disappeared.

Not only so, but out of the several sorts and varieties of political socialism, only one has revived in any strength, and that is the extremest and most revolutionary. It is the democratic communism of the Young Hegelians, and it scouts the very suggestion of State-help, and will content itself 'with nothing short of State-transformation. Schemes such as -were popular and noisy thirty years ago—schemes, involving indeed organic changes, but organic changes of only a partial character—have gone to their rest.

So in their day, the socialists gave up on their little communities and turned to the state. In a way, this loosely mirrors what we see today. If you look at the USA as a community, Europe's nations as communities, they are all failing just like the small communities did back then. So what's their solution? Kick it higher. A century ago, they wanted to push it up to the nation, in today's world they want to build one single global governance body.(Search for Agenda 21, for starters) He continues:

This is the form in which socialism has reappeared, and it may be described in three words as Revolutionary Socialist Democracy. The movement is divided into two main branches —socialism proper, or collectivism, as it is sometimes called, and anarchism. There are anarchists who are not socialists, but hold strongly by an individualist constitution of property. They are very few, however, and the great mass of the party known by that name in our day, including the Russian Nihilists, are as ardent believers in the economic socialism of Karl Marx as the Social Democrats of Germany themselves. They diverge from the latter on a question of future government; but the differences between the two are only such as the same movement might be expected to exhibit in passing through different media, personal or national. Modern democrats have been long divided into Centralists and Federalists—the one party seeking to give to the democratic republic they contemplate a strongly centralized form of government, and the other preferring to leave the local communes comparatively independent and sovereign, and free, if they choose, to unite themselves in convenient federations. The federal republic has always been the favourite ideal of the Democrats of Spain and of the Communards of Paris, and there is generally a tendency among Federalists, in their impatience of all central authority, to drop the element of federation out of their ideal altogether, and to advocate the form of opinion known as "anarchy"— that is, the abolition of all superior government. It was very natural that this ancient feud among the democrats should appear in the ranks of socialist democracy, and it was equally natural that the Russian Radicals, hating the autocracy of their country and idealizing its rural communes, should become the chief adherents of the federalist and even the anarchic tradition.

This is the only point of principle that separates anarchism from socialism. In other respects anarchism may be said to be but an extremer phase of socialism.

This too sheds a lot of light on what we see today. Have you ever asked yourself why it is that the anarchists throw in with the socialists? May I suggest you read Rae's book for some of your answers? We see this today, Anarchist groups wearing the Guy Fawkes mask at Occupy Wall Street and other socialist-inspired protests. Read the STORM handbook, or listen to the audio book version of it that I'm currently recording, it's in there too. Various anarchist groups that the STORM marxists are working with, and STORM even had anarchists in it's ranks. There's one more thing in this book I'd like to highlight and see people openly discuss. We didn't learn about this in our public school history lessons:(Page 77)

The United States of America have done more for experimental socialism than any other country. Owenites, Fourierists, Icarians have all established communities there, but these communities have failed long ago, except one of the Icarian, and the only other socialist experiments now existing in America are seventy or eighty religious communities, Shakers and Eappists, whose success has been due to their religious discipline and their celibacy, and whose members amount to no more than 5,000 souls all told. There is indeed a Russian Commune in California, but it remains a solitary Russian Commune still, the "new formula of civilization," as Russian reformers used to call it, showing no sign of further adoption. Nor has the new or political socialism found any better success in the States.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Progressivism and the origins of the tyrannical administrative state

I recently came across this article by Robert J Pestritto on the origins of the administrative state, and I can't recommend it highly enough. Some excerpts:
Relying heavily on European models of administrative power, Wilson laid out a vision for administrative discretion in 1891 that directly rejected the rule-of-law model:
The functions of government are in a very real sense independent of legislation, and even constitutions, because [they are] as old as government and inherent in its very nature. The bulk and complex minuteness of our positive law, which covers almost every case that can arise in Administration, obscures for us the fact that Administration cannot wait upon legislation, but must be given leave, or take it, to proceed without specific warrant in giving effect to the characteristic life of the State

I have seen fit to quote from his article due to the fact that he quotes and footnotes from many things that are still in copyright, so I can't even see them unless I go out an buy them for myself. At the current time, that's not an option.

As Wilson memorably put it in "The Study of Administration":
It is the distinction, already drawn, between administration and politics which makes the comparative method so safe in the field of administration. When we study the administrative systems of France and Germany, knowing that we are not in search of political principles, we need not care a peppercorn for the constitutional or political reasons which Frenchmen or Germans give for their practices when explaining them to us. If I see a murderous fellow sharpening a knife cleverly, I can borrow his way of sharpening the knife without borrowing his probable intention to commit murder with it; and so, if I see a monarchist dyed in the wool managing a public bureau well, I can learn his business methods without changing one of my republican spots

Wilson readily admits that he is importing foreign statist ideals from European nations.

In fact, when he later taught administration in the 1890s, he said that there was only one author other than himself who understood administration as a separate discipline: Frank Goodnow.

As the author notes, Wilson is a critical figure to focus in on with regards to the understanding of the administrative state and the true danger of progressivism. And Wilson's recommendation of Goodnow makes him a critical figure to understand as well. As quoted by the author:(and found directly in public domain writings)

In a word, man is regarded now throughout Europe, contrary to the view expressed by Rousseau, as primarily a member of society and secondarily as an individual. The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.
- Frank Goodnow, The American Conception of Liberty and Government (Page 11, paragraph 3)

But rather by the society. He means, of course, government. Government is where you get your rights. Government is supreme in your life. Government is where you should turn to all that you need. Government should have the freedom to do whatever it wants, and you shouldn't be able to stop them:

The fact is, then, that there is a large part of administration which is unconnected with politics, which should therefore be relieved very largely, if not altogether, from the control of political bodies. It is unconnected with politics because it embraces fields of semi-scientific, quasi-judicial and quasi-business or commercial activity work which has little if any influence on the expression of the true state will. For the most advantageous discharge of this branch of the function of administration there should be organized a force of governmental agents absolutely free from the influence of politics. Such a force should be free from the influence of politics because of the fact that their mission is the exercise of foresight and discretion, the pursuit of truth, the gathering of information, the maintenance of a strictly impartial attitude toward the individuals with whom they have dealings, and the provision of the most efficient possible administrative organization.
- Frank Goodnow, Politics and Administration (Page 85)

And isn't this very thing, administrative bodies shielded from the voters, the exact thing that we see today? The EPA isn't accountable to the people. The IRS is a rogue institution, the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Justice - the judiciary has long since breached the protections that the constitution has in place with the intent of defending the people against the state. And on and on and on! At all levels and in nearly any agency you can name the government is out of control, the administrators are making a ruin of the republic, the civil society, and yours and your children's futures.

It's almost as if the names of "Woodrow Wilson" and "Frank Goodnow"(among many others) are names that you should be just as familiar with as names like Karl Marx. Perhaps even moreso. These are after all, American tyrants I'm posting about in their own writings. Not some far off theoretician from a distant land.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

The Progressingamerica recordings

For those who read my blog, see my ideas and would like to help or even emulate, I'd like to put out a few of my ideas and launch a side project that others can actively participate in, and announce the launch of a group titled 'Progressingamerica recordings' (link) on Freedom Connector, which is probably the easiest way to facilitate discussions and mobilize our activity. Here are my ideas:

First idea: Give history a voice. Our founding fathers have taken a relentless beating over the last century by progressives and leftists in the colleges. We're all worried about the indoctrination that our children face once they go off to get an 'education', even in grade schools. All levels of education are tainted. Many professors would like to make it seem as if history doesn't matter, they're just racist, or they're just a bunch of old dead rich white guys on some dusty old sheets of paper. But we can change that. If you want to reach a Youtube generation, an easy way to do that is to put it on Youtube. Record the things the founders said in context, directly sourced, and put it on Youtube. I've already started doing this in a small way, a small dedicated team could make these things soar. If people wish to reject the founders based on what they actually said, well that's a whole different story. But we have much power to push back. The same goes for the history of progressivism. They too need to speak and be heard. The progressives have been very good at keeping themselves hidden for all these years. It's time we permanently shine a light in their direction.

Second idea: Give history's voice a pretty face. I know full well my limits, and perhaps you know your own as well - you like the idea of giving the founders a voice but know you couldn't pull that off for whatever reason. But you are good with computer graphics and presentation software. Someone else can do the recording, you do what you're good at and make something presentable for Youtube. Giving the founders or early 20th century progressives a voice and letting them be heard can ultimately only have a limited impact if it's simply posted with a still image.

Third idea: Are you good at research? Or do you already have plenty of books with which to start out with? Books like "The Real George Washington", "The 5000 Year Leap", or "A Patriots Guide to American History"? There will be a need for people of sound historical knowledge to make sure that false quotes and writings of the founders are not falsely attributed or recorded and so forth. How about Ronald J. Pestritto's books on "Woodrow Wilson and the roots of Modern Liberalism"? I personally will be primarily focused on progressivism, given how the founders are generally more well known.

Fourth idea: Create your own blogs totally aimed at the progressives of the early 20th century similar to my own, and how it relates to today. There needs to be lively discussion in multiple places about these people. I don't care if you use the sources I've already posted or will post. I'm not getting paid for this anyways. But making it a point to read the old, direct sources should be an important goal at all times, which is what I do.

Fifth idea: For those of you who heard my conversation with Glenn Beck, I certainly cannot transcribe everything he has in his library. So for those of you who can type fast, you could easily help out with this effort as soon as he starts getting the things ready to be released to the internet.

Sixth idea: There will be a need for people who can tell others that this is being done and where to go to join or find others. I hear people around me, even at tea party meetings and rallies that are constantly asking "what can I do?" "what more can I do" and we will have an answer for them. Given as I'm not trying to get people to advertise directly for my blog, you don't have to mention the name of progressingamerica or anything else in any way if you don't want to in any of your recordings, messages, or etc. What I am trying to do is get people to advertise that this is something that they can do or help out with, right from your own computer desk. They can do so as they please, at their own discretion.

These are my ideas, which will no doubt be expanded upon and refined as time goes on. The group "Progressingamerica Recordings" is there so that people can join in the discussion and production in whatever capacity they can. No effort, no matter how small you may think it is will be unappreciated. Even if people don't always directly say thanks. As far as audio/voice production goes, I would direct all general inquiries at They've been doing this for a long time and can offer more help, better help, and more quickly than I ever could. Much of which has gone through a long process of refinement.

I'm looking forward to any and all contributions that can be made in the future, let's make this history relevant again!

Lisa Fithian and the arrestables - OWS organizers are using the tactics of Edward Bernays has an interesting news article titled "Occupy Arrest Scam Unmasked" in which they detail how even the arrests that the protesters are involved with are staged. While that's an important part of the story with regards to how fake all of this OWS nonsense is, there's more context to this story. The Townhall article links to this video: Lisa Fithian Teaching Radical to Chicago Teachers Union which is where you can see what I'm about to write about.

The video highlights how Fithian's signature strategy is to put together a very public event. This is exactly what Bernays did. Fithian has arrestables. Bernays had "torches of liberty". In both instances, the cameras were more than happy to capture dramatic pictures, tipped off by the organizer(s) of the upcoming event. And of course, behind the scenes Fithian is there directing the whole scene. Just like Bernays did. Here are the show notes from the January 13th, 2011 broadcast of "The Father of Spin".

In the 1920s, there was a taboo against women smoking in public. Working for the American Tobacco Company, Bernays commissioned a study by psychologist on what cigarettes meant to women. He concluded they were a phallic symbol and represented power for women and a challenge to men. Bernays sent a group of young models to march in the New York City parade. He then told the press that a group of women’s rights marchers would light “Torches of Freedom.” On his signal, the models lit Lucky Strike cigarettes in front of the eager photographers (he had tipped off). The New York Times (1 April 1929) printed a story headlined, “Group of Girls Puff at Cigarettes as a Gesture of ‘Freedom.’” This helped break the taboo against women smoking in public.
(He later regretted this and worked for anti smoking initiatives)

Also worthy of note is the BBC's documentary called "The Century of the Self", which contains video of Bernays himself as an old man discussing some of the details of the event.

From 10 minutes 20 seconds until 13 minutes and 30 seconds is where this is highlighted at. This three minutes of the Century of the Self, and the segments of the above video about Fithian's signature strategy are in many ways fully interchangeable. It's a different time period, different agenda topic, but the mechanics of how it's being done are no different be it Bernays or Fithian.

Know the history of progressivism, know how and why they do what they do today.

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

John Winthrop's A Model of Christian Charity, as an audio book

We are still that shining city upon a hill, and our best days are still ahead of us. No matter how much work we have to do.

This link is a direct mp3 download.

I recorded it as a standard audiobook. I'd like to see it re-recorded as a sermon, which is what it is and is how it was given.

Monday, October 17, 2011

Progressing America speaks to Glenn Beck

I just got off the phone with Glenn Beck. I will be putting up the audio momentarily.

First blog edit:

I'd like to put out a few initial thoughts, before I have to go out for the day. First, Glenn did not endorse what I'm doing here, just so that's thrown out there. I'm doing this on my own, and I'm sure I'll make my own share of mistakes going forward. Hopefully others who are reading history in general, the progressive in particular will have much to contribute. In just a few minutes, I've had a large stream of people start following what I'm doing, so this coming weekend I will put forth a few of the ideas I've held back, because I fully understand how huge of a project this is, and if I could get anybody's help with all this it would be much appreciated.

Second edit:

The call is up on Popmodal.

Youtube too.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise

At a campaign stop in Scranton, Pa, Presidential Candidate Woodrow Wilson had the following to say:

Of course this was intended to be a government of free citizens and of equal opportunity, but how are we going to make it such--that is the question. Because I realize that while we are followers of Jefferson, there is one principle of Jefferson’s which no longer can obtain in the practical politics of America. You know that it was Jefferson who said that the best government is that which does as little governing as possible, which exercises its power as little as possible. And that was said in a day when the opportunities of America were so obvious to every man, when every individual was so free to use his powers without let or hindrance, that all that was necessary was that the government should withhold its hand and see to it that every man got an opportunity to act as he would. But that time is passed. America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise. It is true that we have come upon an age of great cooperative industry. It is true that we must act absolutely upon that principle.

Let me illustrate what I mean. You know that it used to be true in our cities that every family occupied a separate house of its own, that every family had its own little premises, that every family was separated in its life from every other family. But you know that that is no longer the case, and that it cannot be the case in our great cities. Families live in layers. They live in tenements, they live in flats, they live on floors, they are piled layer upon layer in the great tenement houses of our crowded districts. And not only are they piled layer upon layer, but they are associated room by room so that there is in each room sometimes in our congested districts a separate family.

Now, what has happened in foreign countries, in some of which they have made much more progress than we in handling these things, is this: In the city of Glasgow, for example, which is one of the model cities of the world, they have made up their minds that the entries, that hallways, of great tenements are public streets. Therefore the policeman goes up the stairway and patrols the corridors. The lightning department of the city sees to it that the corridors are abundantly lighted, and the staircases. And the city does not deceive itself into supposing that the great building is a unit from which the police are to keep out and the city authority to be excluded, but it says: "These are the high-ways of human movement, and wherever light is needed, wherever order is needed, there we will carry the authority of the city."

And I have likened that to our modern industrial enterprise. You know that a great many corporations, like the Steel Corporation, for example, are very like a great tenement house. It isn’t the premises of a single commercial family. It is just as much a public business as a great tenement house is a public highway. When you offer the securities of a great corporation to anybody who wishes to purchase them, you must open that corporation to the inspection of everybody who wants to purchase. There must, to follow out the figure of the tenement house, be lights along the corridor; there must be police patrolling the openings; there must be inspection wherever it is known that men may be deceived with regard to the contents of the premises. If we believe that fraud lies in wait for us, we must have the means of determining whether fraud lies there or not.

So you see, they're not going to outright nationalize industry. No no, they're only going to nationalize a small corridor, if they even go that far. They'll just make progress. They'll make haste, slowly. There needs to be inspections, which means they'll regulate everything to death. It's regulation, not socialism. It's social regulation. Ronald Reagan said: (20 minutes in)

Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

That perversion took place in the early 20th century. Under Wilson and two Roosevelts, among many, many other people at the time. Governors, congress, advisors, judges, and more. And we've been stuck with it ever since.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

How would Aristotle classify or describe progressivism?

In his book "The Politics", Aristotle writes about different forms of government, in their upkeep, revolutions, and so forth. I'm going to highlight one particular part of book 5(Part XI), asking a series of questions along with making a couple of observations and let others decide for themselves if it applies. I also use Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" as a reference point. It's available online, but I will not link to it. Instead, I recommend you buy it. If you truely wish to keep your freedom intact, this book is a near must to own. There are other writings which make fair substitutes, such as the STORM manual, but Alinsky's book is the one to have. Regarding the preservation of tyrannies, here's what Aristotle writes:

A tyrant should also endeavor to know what each of his subjects says or does, and should employ spies, like the 'female detectives' at Syracuse, and the eavesdroppers whom Hiero was in the habit of sending to any place of resort or meeting; for the fear of informers prevents people from speaking their minds, and if they do, they are more easily found out.

Cass Sunstein, who is Obama's chief regulatory agent, wrote a paper titled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures" (alternate link Scribd) in which he suggests that:

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).

Now, it's important to note that this paper mentions truthers. So if and when(And I hope you do) go out looking for more information about this paper and Cass Sunstein, you be real careful what you read. Cass Sunstein is a progressive, and this is how progressives act when in power. If what you're reading can't honestly identify these ideological beliefs on it's pages and instead rants about "globalists" or "bankers" or other such vague and ambiguous terms, it probably has something to hide or may even be a progressive website itself. Back to Aristotle. I guess progressives want to or will employ spies after all, and it's not just official government agents. Aristotle wrote of the use of "informers and eavesdroppers". That too has been attempted, multiple times. They created an email in 2009 called flag at During the 2008 election, they had watchdog at and of course that story also details the newest attempt to pit American versus American with the "attack watch" website.

Another art of the tyrant is to sow quarrels among the citizens; friends should be embroiled with friends, the people with the notables, and the rich with one another.

In short: class warfare. Obama routinely employs class warfare, and the progressives in the media back him up by rarely if ever reporting on the following data. According to the IRS's own data spreadsheet the top 1% pay 40% of the tax burden, the top 5%, 60%. The top 10% pay 70%. The top 25% pay 86% of the tax burden. And the top 50% pay nearly all of it. 97%. So who isn't paying their fair share? Don't answer the question. This isn't an issue of who pays what. It's about keeping quarrels among the citizens, friends versus friends, just as Aristotle wrote. The question regarding who is or isn't paying their fair share comes right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which Alinsky writes on page 91, paragraph 5, sentence 4, about asking loaded questions. That's what it is, a loaded question designed to conceal the real goal. See this video of Obama for more on this. What's written above regarding the various snitch email addresses would also help keep Americans against each other in a semi or permanent state of agitated conflict. On page 117, paragraph 2 of Rules for Radicals, Alinsky writes that agitation to the point of conflict is indeed the goal.

Another practice of tyrants is to multiply taxes, after the manner of Dionysius at Syracuse, who contrived that within five years his subjects should bring into the treasury their whole property.

Obama may employ loaded questions regarding who is or isn't paying their fair share, but does anybody really doubt that if he actually had the chance to raise taxes, he'd actually do it? Benjamin Franklin also made a similar observation, I wrote about it here: Ben Franklin: wealth redistribution, that's what tyrants do

The tyrant is also fond of making war in order that his subjects may have something to do and be always in want of a leader.

Obama campaigned against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And what's happened since he got elected? Led by the wants of George Soros, we are now in Libya. And we've also made inroads to Yemen.

Hence tyrants are always fond of bad men, because they love to be flattered, but no man who has the spirit of a freeman in him will lower himself by flattery; good men love others, or at any rate do not flatter them. Moreover, the bad are useful for bad purposes; 'nail knocks out nail,' as the proverb says. It is characteristic of a tyrant to dislike every one who has dignity or independence; he wants to be alone in his glory, but any one who claims a like dignity or asserts his independence encroaches upon his prerogative, and is hated by him as an enemy to his power.

Obama has surrounded himself with radicals and revolutionaries. People like Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, Cass Sunstein, and others. As referenced earlier, the war in Libya. George Soros is the man who broke the bank of England, and gets his jollies off disrupting societies. At 30 seconds into this video, Soros talks about disrupting societies. Bodily expressions can be very informative; you should pause the video and take in the look on his face as he says the word 'disrupting'. It's incredible. This is highly disturbing.

Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him.

What's Obama's stated policy goal on amnesty for illegal aliens? And let's no stop there. It's no secret that progressivism is in both parties, the republicans and democrats. Let it be recorded that George Bush also pushed very hard for amnesty, led by John McCain in the senate, another republican progressive. To add insult to injury, Former President Bush said these things regarding the three isms. I for one, took this very personally, knowing exactly "what kinds of people, and with what kinds of beliefs" he was referring to. Whenever those in the establishment start throwing around the term 'nativism', they're almost always referring to those who want the border secured.

Such are the notes of the tyrant and the arts by which he preserves his power; there is no wickedness too great for him. All that we have said may be summed up under three heads, which answer to the three aims of the tyrant. These are, (1) the humiliation of his subjects;

Humiliation: Our country has been spent into oblivion. And the american people never wanted that healthcare bill. They passed it anyways. We want our constitution to be followed, not ignored and abused. We want our government limited and our children free. Sun Tzu wrote in his book "The Art of War" that:

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.

I won't claim to always get it right regarding progressivism. I can only observe from the outside, I can only read the words they've written and spoken, as well as any legislative history and make judgements based off of that as to their true means and goals. But at least I'm trying to examine their own history along with the history of elsewhere to try to get it right.