Sunday, July 23, 2017

Is "reactionary" a communist word?

Generally speaking, if someone is running into a litany or a rant and denouncing you as a reactionary, that person is probably a communist. That is, in the 21st century. But what if the year is 1912? "Reactionary" is a word that statists of all stripes love to use, even those who do not behold the Communist viewpoint.

In a speech denouncing the GOP, the DNC, and anybody else who he didn't like, Theodore Roosevelt said the following:

I merely want to discuss the difference of policy between the Progressive and the Democratic Party and to ask you to think for yourselves which party you will follow. I will say that, friends, because the Republican Party is beaten. Nobody need to have any idea that anything can be done with the Republican Party.

When the Republican Party - not the Republican Party - when the bosses in the control of the Republican Party, the Barneses and Penroses, last June stole the nomination and wrecked the Republican Party for good and all; I want to point out to you nominally they stole that nomination from me, but really it was from you. They did not like me, and the longer they live the less cause they will have to like me. But while they do not like me, they dread you. You are the people that they dread. They dread the people themselves, and those bosses and the big special interests behind them made up their mind that they would rather see the Republican Party wrecked than see it come under the control of the people themselves. So I am not dealing with the Republican Party. There are only two ways you can vote this year. You can be progressive or reactionary. Whether you vote Republican or Democratic it does not make any difference, you are voting reactionary.

It is important to keep in mind here, that the "party bosses" at the time that were against statist Roosevelt, they were the exact opposite of then of what they are today. That's what he is whining about, but keep in mind that in the end he did win and the GOP became a statist party. Could you imagine today, if we didn't have to worry that the GOP was going to shaft us over Obamacare? What would it be like if we didn't have to say one word, and knew that the Republicans were going to fight this hard against the forces of big government? That's how it was back then. Theodore Roosevelt would be proud of today's Republican Party for not listening to the forces of limited government. "Those guys are just reading their Constitutions, you don't pay any attention to them, they're just reactionaries".

Now, about this word "reactionary". It's important to focus in on because it's a key word that gives you insight into the person who is using it. Just be careful about what your insights are. Roosevelt was not a communist. He wrote about communists, and he hated communists. While they also claim to stand for "progress", communism is the wrong kind of "progress". It's the wrong utopia. This utopia is better than that utopia.

So what does he mean by the word "reactionary" then? Roosevelt means, obviously, that while he is "making progress" toward progressive(not communist) utopia and the biggest government that man has ever seen, you are "reacting" to his proposals to progress, and you are the enemy. The reactionary enemy of progress. You're "reacting", specifically with outdated ideas, which is what makes you a reactionary. You have nothing new to add. You and your ideas are old. Old and tired. Worn out. You're a has-been. Your constitution is a has-been. You're clinging to your guns and your bibles and your antipathy toward others. To use TR's own words, your ideas of Federalism are "the old flint-lock, muzzle-loaded doctrine of States' rights." The word has more depth than just simple "act-react". It's deeply ideological across multiple ideologies. A fascist would likely call people a reactionary too, as the fascists also love big government and view big government as the ultimate in progress.

A quick web search for the word reactionary returns this as one of the top results, and confirms what I am saying. TR could call you a lover of the outdated and "flint-lock, muzzle-loaded" ideas of states rights, and spend hours lecturing you on why we should move on from the constitution, or he could just do it in one word. It saves him time.

There are no communists on Mount Rushmore. There is one Republican, the first Republican, there are two Founding Fathers, and then there's a lowly progressive. "Reactionary" is every bit a communist word as it is a progressive word. You're standing in the way of progress! Stop being a reactionary already.

But here is the really fun question: If Theodore Roosevelt hated Communists so much, why (and more importantly) how did he and other progressives of his ilk come to use the word "reactionary" so often? That's a question for another day.

https://tinyurl.com/y9tfw4dp

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Are universities bad for America?

Now this is a very interesting poll. 58% of republicans think colleges have a negative impact on the country.

I've seen several reports about this poll, and surprisingly, every single report omits the most important word:

INDOCTRINATION.

The real question isn't if republicans have a negative opinion of universities. The real question is: Does America even have universities?

I'm very serious about that. A "university" that engages primarily in progressive and communist propaganda and indoctrination and does not actually educate, can it legitimately be called a college or a university?

I would answer that question quite firmly as a no. America has very, very few actual universities and colleges.

And I say that as someone who recently graduated. I can confirm with first hand accounts, "college" "professors" are an important source of social justice propaganda. "College" "professors" are likely the single most important single source of social justice propaganda. They're not engaging in education. They're engaging in something very akin to what happens in a re-education camp. If parents accompanied their kids and actually saw what professors say and do, and actually read the books that are assigned, parents would be pissed and would have every right to be pissed. These aren't universities, they're re-education camps. Their primary goal is to roll back all that damage you did as a parent, and show your kids "the correct way".

If a Cuban re-education camp can't be called a university, why should we call American re-education camps universities? Cuban, Chinese, Russian, there are(or have been) re-education camps all over the place. They're not universities.

Sunday, July 9, 2017

Target the top first

How is it that progressives and other ideologues end up recruiting rich friends? You would think that would be an unfavorable group, but that's simply not so.

In the magazine The Nationalist, the following is written:

"In one respect the Nationalists and the Christian Socialists, who are attempting practically the same work, are right. They are applying to the advance of their reform the system which long and painful work has shown to be the best; they are beginning at the top, and their propaganda is to be carried on, not among the humble and the suffering, where it would, at best, but foster a futile discontent, but among the favored classes, who by virtue of their advantages, should be the readiest to hear and the promptest to act.

It is noblesse oblige now, as ever, and their battle cry has the ring of high minded endeavor, the touch of self abnegation which has never yet failed of a response."

Progressives heard this message loud and clear. It is even the case that in the book Philip Dru: Administrator, there is a full chapter devoted to going out and recruiting along these very lines.

Chapter X: Gloria Decides to Proselyte the Rich

Its true that the chapter in Dru is less than 5 full pages long but still, they understand very well how to recruit from within their targeted echelon.

The rich fall prey just like anybody else does, because the propaganda that's being used is tailor made just for them. Be it that guilt is used, or excessive praise - playing to a person's sense of pride. Maybe greed is what is used to recruit the rich into the cause. Saul Alinsky has also noted this process, when he wrote:

I have on occasion remarked that I felt confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday.

Lies, deceit, trickery, fear; whatever it takes. The end justifies the means for a progressive.

https://tinyurl.com/ybo5o65k

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

"The Root" magazine engages in gross historical malpractice

It's such a shame to see a magazine that claims to be "The Root", be so willing to ignore "the roots" of what you would think would be their own history.

Recently, The Root engaged in gross historical malpractice by giving voice to people who would benefit greatly from learning their own true history. They created a short video titled "No Country for Me." (And if this was independently produced, well, then, they do nothing to correct the record. So either way, they are at fault for not doing more to get down to "the root". Pun intended.)

This is (among many reasons) one of the reasons why I recorded William Cooper Nell's 1855 book The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution as an audiobook. There are many outlets out there, even outlets such as The Root who benefit greatly from lying about black history.

The only reason why The Root is able to get away with this is that for so long the progressives who control our school systems have engaged in a mass coverup of the truth of American history.

Shame on The Root for lying to its own readers and perpetuating this coverup! Shame on The Root for not pointing out that Britain brought slavery to this continent!

The Fourth of July, Independence Day, is worth of celebrating, by both whites and blacks!

https://tinyurl.com/ybhkukdg

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Did Woodrow Wilson read James Madison's debate notes?

This is fully conjecture, but I'm convinced that the answer is yes.

During the time in which Wilson was inventing the concept of the "living and breathing constitution", Wilson made the following observations: (Constitutional Government, page 55)

The government of the United States was constructed upon the Whig theory of political dynamics, which was a sort of unconscious copy of the Newtonian theory of the universe [see: Newtonian government]. In our own day, whenever we discuss the structure or development of anything, whether in nature or in society, we consciously or unconsciously follow Darwin; but before Darwin, they followed Newton. Some single law, like the law of gravitation, swung each system of thought and gave it its principle of unity. Every sun, every planet, every free body in the spaces of the heavens, the world itself, is kept in its place and reined to its course by the attraction of bodies that swing with equal order and precision about it, themselves governed by the nice poise and balance of forces which give the whole system of the universe its symmetry and perfect adjustment. The Whigs had tried to give England a similar constitution.

The planets.

The sun.

Other celestial bodies that may or may not be seen in the sky or through a telescope.

What would possibly have urged Wilson to use this as his example, of all the things he could have used? Some might say "that's obvious", and I would tend to agree, but for completely different reasons. On Thursday, June 7th, 1787, John Dickenson made the following comment:

The preservation of the States in a certain degree of agency is indispensable. It will produce that collision between the different authorities which should be wished for in order to check each other. To attempt to abolish the States altogether, would degrade the Councils of our Country, would be impracticable, would be ruinous. He compared the proposed National System to the Solar System, in which the States were the planets, and ought to be left to move freely in their proper orbits. The Gentleman from Pa. [Mr. Wilson] wished he said to extinguish these planets. If the State Governments were excluded from all agency in the national one, and all power drawn from the people at large, the consequence would be that the national Govt. would move in the same direction as the State Govts. now do, and would run into all the same mischiefs. The reform would only unite the 13 small streams into one great current pursuing the same course without any opposition whatever. He adhered to the opinion that the Senate ought to be composed of a large number, and that their influence from family weight & other causes would be increased thereby. He did not admit that the Tribunes lost their weight in proportion as their no. was augmented and gave a historical sketch of this institution. If the reasoning of [Mr. Madison] was good it would prove that the number of the Senate ought to be reduced below ten, the highest no. of the Tribunitial corps.

Interesting. Of course, James Wilson's reply continued along the planetary theme. On Friday, June 8th, James Madison made the following comment:

Mr. MADISON seconded the motion. He could not but regard an indefinite power to negative legislative acts of the States as absolutely necessary to a perfect system. Experience had evinced a constant tendency in the States to encroach on the federal authority; to violate national Treaties; to infringe the rights & interests of each other; to oppress the weaker party within their respective jurisdictions. A negative was the mildest expedient that could be devised for preventing these mischiefs. The existence of such a check would prevent attempts to commit them. Should no such precaution be engrafted, the only remedy wd. lie in an appeal to coercion. Was such a remedy eligible? was it practicable? Could the national resources, if exerted to the utmost enforce a national decree agst. Massts. abetted perhaps by several of her neighbours? It wd. not be possible. A small proportion of the Community, in a compact situation, acting on the defensive, and at one of its extremities might at any time bid defiance to the National authority. Any Govt. for the U. States formed on the supposed practicability of using force agst. the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, wd. prove as visionary & fallacious as the Govt. of Congs. The negative wd. render the use of force unnecessary. The States cd. of themselves then pass no operative act, any more than one branch of a Legislature where there are two branches, can proceed without the other. But in order to give the negative this efficacy, it must extend to all cases. A discrimination wd. only be a fresh source of contention between the two authorities. In a word, to recur to the illustrations borrowed from the planetary system. This prerogative of the General Govt. is the great pervading principle that must controul the centrifugal tendency of the States; which, without it, will continually fly out of their proper orbits and destroy the order & harmony of the political System.

One of the things that Woodrow Wilson was, was a learned, well read man. He read the Founders in much the same way that I read his(Wilson's) words - for ways to deconstruct them.

This may only be my belief, but I believe it to be true. Wilson read the debate notes. And he hated every minute of it.

https://tinyurl.com/yab8ylpj

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Progressivism would not exist without Henry George

I've eluded to this before, but I am more convinced of this than ever.

A "Progressive" gets his name; or rather, originally got his name - because of the book "Progress and Poverty".

That is, this: A "Progressive" is someone who "is in favor of Progress and poverty" (The contents of the book; George's arguments, etc.) But they can't call themselves Progressandpovertyists, who are in favor of Progressandpovertyism. I feel silly even typing that, yet that's ultimately the most accurate way to describe it.

That's what a progressive is. That's how it started. Henry George. Progressivism is progressandpovertyism. Now, you can find plenty of small roots of the evolution of progressive from European authors, because the progressives here found European writing to be more "enlightened" than American writing, but this is a big root. This is the biggest root. Progress and Poverty is the tap root of progressivism. That's why so many early progressives were either directly Georgist themselves, or directly indoctrinated by a Georgist. In a tribute to Henry George, Fabian Socialist Bernard Shaw wrote the following:

When I was thus swept into the Great Socialist revival of 1883, I found that five-sixths of those who were swept in with me had been converted by Henry George. This fact would have been more widely acknowledged had it not been that it was not possible for us to stop where Henry George had stopped.

He continues:

“George actually felt bound to attack the Socialism he had himself created; and the moment the antagonism was declared, and to be a Henry Georgite meant to be an anti-Socialist, some of the Socialists whom he had converted became ashamed of their origin, and concealed it

This presents the fork in the road.

In Europe and Britain in particular, the Georgist activists became socialist very quickly, as tyranny is how European culture is and socialism is tyranny. They had no reason to hide it. They had no reason to fight it. Culturally, it was a match set.

But in America, where socialism was viewed as a rotten set of ideals at the time, the big government types founded their own brand and called it "progressivism". This is why culturally the early progressives are different than the socialists even beyond the simple naming convention, but at the same time its why they(the progressives) had no problem mixing it up as friendly associates with the socialists. In general, they all had a common origin: Georgism. Shaw explains:

While others, including myself, had to fight hard against the Single Tax propaganda. But I am glad to say that I never denied or belittled our debt to Henry George.

Ultimately, the progressives and socialists started to merge back together in the 1930's, and then merged with the communists in the 1960's.

Culturally, American Progressives didn't initially believe in total government ownership of all means of production, they "merely" believed that government should regulate every aspect of business. Generically, the end result is indistinguishable yet culturally this difference must be explored as separate and distinct. That's why I treat progressivism differently than socialism. When Hillary or someone else says "I consider myself a modern progressive" as a way to deflect from them being a socialist, they are 100% lying at the same time they're 100% telling the truth.

They know you won't call Theodore Roosevelt a socialist. Nor should you. But in doing so, the modern progressive has absolutely disarmed the argument and won the discussion. It's a genuine historical paradox that exists only because historians don't tell the story of how progressivism came to be and how it continued to "make progress".

The original progressives weren't socialists, and I'll point to Theodore Roosevelt's own writings as well as the original Red Scare - That was Woodrow Wilson, folks. The progressives hated the socialists. That's historical fact. Today's progressives however, rely upon this relic of the past as if progressivism hasn't changed. It has changed, and today they are mostly socialist. But I still see no reason to let the original progressives get away with it. This a mythology, and we need to smash it. It's fragile, but its large. One person alone can't break it.

As long as the original progressives go unchallenged, today's progressives will continue to win.

https://tinyurl.com/ybzpuv39

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Comparing the radicalism of Charles Beard and Howard Zinn

The American Thinker has an interesting piece today about Howard Zinn, in which the claim is made that: "Zinn, more than any other man, turned our history books on their heads, and in a way, changed the contemporary course of history."

Honestly, I'm not sure that's true. In comparing Zinn to Charles Beard, one of the main issues is the simple expanse of time. Sure, Zinn is more acute in the lies he has written, but Beard has had over a century for his poison to become foundational thinking. Here's the thing: Howard Zinn never knew the real America, so his rejection of America is actually easy to comprehend. I reject the lies too, I just go the other way and try to find the truth.

It's Charles Beard's rejection of America, that's the head-scratcher. That's the one that's very difficult to understand. Beard grew up in an era where there were no lies about America - or at least, very few of them. Beard would have been taught the truth about how exemplary of a man George Washington was, it is extremely likely that he read the actual Federalist Papers in school by a teacher who was fond of said papers, and he also would have known of America's early colonial generation and the role that the Church actually played during that time.(not the perverted storylines told today) Beard knew the truth, yet he still rejected America anyways. Talk about radical. Zinn can't hold a candle to that.

I'll put it to you another way. Because of the Beardification of history, that made Zinnification of history possible.

Charles Beard's main claim to fame is that there couldn't have possibly have been any real arguments over Liberty or limited government, no no, that's just school-house fluff and lies.(school houses in his day) The real Founding Fathers were only and solely motivated by money and economics. They were in reality a bunch of greedy SOBs and money grubbers and land-hoarders who had much to gain(in their deep, deep pockets) by agitating for war.

Sound familiar? Zinn doesn't own that storyline. Beard does. And some might even be quick to retort that Beard was discredited. Yes, he was, eventually. But only he was, because his ideal that the Founders were greedy SOBs, that clearly was not discredited. That false narrative has stood the test of time in academia and is alive and well to this very day.

Now it is fair to say that Zinn has expanded that storyline, if not several fold. But let's not grant Zinn all sorts of superhuman powers to which he does not own. His most well known book was published in 1980, compared to 1913 for Beard. From Beard to Zinn, the revisionists between the two, and also let's not forget those who arrived after Zinn and built upon the Zinnified blather is a great example of how progressives "make progress" to new heights.

The real question is, how will the historians be lying about America 40 years from now? Again, just to make sure that the main point is stated twice: Zinn never rejected the real America, because he was never taught it. Beard, on the other hand, rejected the truth outright. The truth is all that existed at the time.

That's truely radical.

https://tinyurl.com/ybbdgrsl