Sunday, August 23, 2015

Views on Socialism, by Thomas Wentworth Higginson


Colonel T. W. Higginson Speaks with His Well Known Conciseness.

Colonel Thomas Wentworth Higginson, the venerable and eminent author, surprised many people, recently, by Signing the manifesto of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, says the New York World. That the wealthy biographer of Longfellow and Whittier, historian, essayist, member of many learned societies and life-long associate of the men of letters should openly advocate socialism astonished all but those who know him intimately. Colonel Higginson received the World's staff correspondent in Boston and expressed himself on socialism as follows, weighing his words with great care:

"The very word 'socialist' has become difficult to deal with, from the fact that it has been vaguely used to express the party of progress, and the progressive body in a community is, by its nature, subdivided, and is never so closely organized and united as the conservative body. This is more visible in America than even in England.

"I never call myself a socialist, because no two persons interpret the word in the same way. But I grew up in the Brook Farm and Fourierite period and have always been interested in all tendencies in that direction. More than this, I have studied more than half a century and observed a steady tendency through our whole society in that direction - that is, the substitution of vigorous social organization for the individualism which once prevailed.

"In my boyhood, for instance, public schools were in their infancy, and, in the vast majority of cases, offered only momentary instruction, public high schools only existing here and there, and, for many years following, there was a vigorous protest against, the introduction of higher branches into these schools. Against the plan of public provision of school books the same hostility was found, and, in more than one town, even after the books had been provided, the action was revoked and the free textbooks temporarily withdrawn; in the same way, free public libraries, now so universal, had an ordeal to go through. "When the great Boston Public Library was first established the prediction was made that it would amount to nothing beyond public documents and a few books bestowed on the institution by their authors.

"Water supplies were at first the property of private companies, not open to the public at large. Bridges were toll bridges, and the only good roads were turnpike roads. In all these cases it was only very gradually that the tolls were abolished and the public at large assumed ownership. In every instance, the movement for public ownership was fought against and regarded as a step toward socialism. The assertion was perfectly correct - the unconscious march of the community was in that direction, and the peculiarity of the case was that neither of these steps was ever taken back again. There was a time when even the post-office was so imperfectly established that an energetic private company in San Francisco competed with it, and, for a time, kept all the local business mainly in its own hands.

"The peculiarity is not so much that these successive changes have been made, but that they have all grown up in one direction and that no step backward has ever been taken. On the contrary, example tells. The individual freedom of municipal governments gives the opportunity to test side by side the profitableness and safety of the two methods. A near-by town in Massachusetts, for instance, has a public water system, while its neighbor, with about the same population, has a private company to supply it, and each family there pays twice as much for water as in the other town. These things tell rapidly, and thus the method of municipal ownership grows.

"Now, municipal ownership is a step toward socialism, as far as it goes, and the fact that all these steps tend one way shows that socialism advances, even if unconsciously, all the time. In 1800, there were sixteen public waterworks in the United States, all privately built and owned, except one in Winchester, Va. Fourteen of these private plants have since become public. Of the fifty largest cities in this country, twenty-one originally built and now own their waterworks, twenty have changed from a private to a public ownership and only nine depend on private capitalists.

"The peculiarity is not so much in these changes as in the fact that they are practically all one way. Those who have once tried the public system would no more consent to changing it than they would think of handing over the post-office to a private corporation. "So far as tendency goes, we are all Socialists in dally life, without knowing that fact. it is useless to deny that obstacles occur at every step, and it is very well to do everything with due deliberation. But that the movement of human history is toward the public ownership of monopolies is unquestionable and, if that be socialism, make the most of it.

"As for the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, it is simply an expression of opinion that a college should not ignore the study of this great movement of the age."

COLONEL T. W. HIGGINSON, Who Gives His Views on Socialism.

Monday, August 10, 2015

Why do some socialists gravitate to evolutionary tactics over revolutionary tactics? And why do some statists gravitate to progressivism instead?

Evolutionary socialism or revolutionary socialism? That is the question.

William James Ghent wrote a pamphlet titled "Reds Bring Reaction", which is a seemingly thin-veiled attack from one leftist on the rest of his fellow leftists. But within these pages lies the answer. Substantively the pamphlet is not what it seems to be. On page vii:

"The revolutionary Communist, for all his stage-play, is a fanatic and a firebrand. So long as society insists upon keeping on hand such stores of inflammable material in the form of large sections of the working class steeped in privation and misery, it must expect, from time to time, what follows from the touch of flame to tinder. But the chief danger lies in the fact that the tumult and shouting of the Left inevitably strengthens the Reaction of the Right."

One of the strengths of so many of today's modern radicals is that they have convinced people that they aren't really as radical as they seem.

In other words, the evolutionaries believe that they are superior to the revolutionaries because they will not see a reaction from the reactionaries. Sadly, we have the last 100 years of American history to prove that the evolutionaries were correct in their supposition.

In a 1920's pamphlet "Making socialists out of college students", the author makes one final point then asks the following question:

The bomb-throwing anarchist and bullet-shooting radical will never retard America. The big job is with the pink variety, - whose poison is injected quietly and where we least suspect it.

What are you going to do about it? Or are you too busy?

So from the viewpoint of a statist, the reason why evolutionary socialism is superior to revolutionary socialism is blindingly clear. But what of progressivism? Why would a statist prefer progressivism over socialism? The evolutionary doesn't engender nearly as much opposition, but what of progressivism? Progressive ideology seemingly abandons government ownership altogether, progressive ideology can then actually bring in supporters that otherwise would not be supporters. We see it all the time, every one of us can cite an example that made us scratch our heads. See Stuart Chase's "Political System X" for more details about how this works. Specifically number 17.

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

See? It's not socialism! It's just regulation. It's centralized planning, it's not wholesale theft of a citizen's private property. Who couldn't support that? It's just the middle road. Are you one of these crazy radicals on either side? Regulation is pure, regulation is clean, regulation is saintly. (content continues below the screenshot)

This was the very first blog post I made, besides announcing "hey, I'm here". The answer is right here in this book, Hise was an adviser to TR.(Chase mentioned above was an adviser to FDR) Look at the language that Hise uses.(contained in the screenshot) It's not socialism, it's just common sense. It's reasonable. It's cooperation, it's the public utilities. We just need fair prices. Blah blah blah blah, we have been hearing this same scripted nonsense for the last 100 years. But most importantly, Hise says this:

"the industrial concentrations remain private property in charge of those who own them just as at present"

Now how many corporations can you think of who mistakenly support progressive causes? How many individuals? Ideologically, both progressivism and evolutionary socialism are virtual unknowns to most Americans, while these two ideologies remain arguably the most dangerous.

"I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends." - Van Jones

Saturday, August 1, 2015

Upton Sinclair noted how the Social Gospellers moved on from hebrew texts

In his book The Profits of Religion: An Essay in Economic Interpretation, Upton Sinclair makes an interesting observation: (page 299/300)
And now the War has broken upon the world, and caught the churches, like everything else, in its mighty current; the clergy and the congregations are confronted by pressing national needs, they are forced to take notice of a thousand new problems, to engage in a thousand practical activities. No one can see the end of this - any more than he can see the end of the vast upheaval in politics and industry. But we who are trained in revolutionary thought can see the main outlines of the future. We see that in these new church activities the clergy are inspired by things read, not in ancient Hebrew texts, but in the daily newspapers. They are responding to the actual, instant needs of their boys in the trenches and the camps; and this is bound to have an effect upon their psychology. Just as we can say that an English girl who leaves the narrow circle of her old life, and goes into a munition factory and joins a union and takes part in its debates, will never after be a docile home-slave; so we can say that the clergyman who helps in Y. M. C. A. work in France, or in Red Cross organization in America, will be less the bigot and formalist forever after. He will have learned, in spite of himself, to adjust means to ends; he will have learned co-operation and social solidarity by the method which modern educators most favor - by doing. Also he will have absorbed a mass of ideas in news despatches from over the world. He is forced to read these despatches carefully, because the fate of his own boys is involved; and we Socialists will see to it that the despatches are well filled with propaganda!

The Desire of Nations

So the churches, like all the rest of the world, are caught in the great revolutionary current, and swept on towards a goal which they do not forsee, and from which they would shrink in dismay: the Church of the future, the Church redeemed by the spirit of Brotherhood, the Church which we Socialists will join.

Within two short paragraphs, there's three really important observations.

First, this viewpoint of Sinclair's that churches don't do anything practical. What he means, of course, is those of us who believe in the Lord and engage in worship on a regular basis. That's a waste of time. Alternatively, he also means (somewhat) charitable work, since as a rule progressives look at charity as insufficient. Real charity obviously comes from and is enforced by a heavy handed redistributive government regime.

Second, this notion that the Social Gospellers spend more time reading newspapers than they do(did) 'ancient Hebrew texts'. I have little doubt that he is including 'translated ancient Hebrew texts' within that. This explains a lot about how corrupt the Social Gospel was, since it was more about being socialist Christianity than it was about being Christian. Which makes sense that if the Social Gospellers had abandoned their bibles and instead were reading only newspapers, they would not be very well versed in the Word as they should be. Particularly since those news dispatches were, by Sinclair's own admission, filled with socialist propaganda.

And finally, Sinclair points out how the Church of the future will be redeemed by the spirit of Brotherhood. This ties together the first, second, and third. The "spirit of brotherhood" means collectivism. Once the churches have embraced collectivism, then socialists can join.

But how are the first second and third tied together? This is a process that Sinclair is explaining. This is the process of how one or more churches can become infected and corrupted by socialism or "social justice". Create a crisis in an attempt to get people's eye off of the ball, get them reading more newspapers filled with propaganda, and the abandonment of the Truth is all but certain.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Government by Journalism, Planned Parenthood style

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody was there to hear it, did it really happen? If baby parts are being sold and nobody is there to report it, were those parts really sold?
"They(journalists) decide what their readers shall know, or what they shall not know" - William Thomas Stead, Government by Journalism

The latest chapter of this grotesque storyline is that Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood is warning the media not to play any of these videos, or even report on them. But it is pretty clear that there was a coverup before that letter was even sent.

To what end would the media cover this up? To influence public policy, clearly. Follow the bouncing ball:

1: The less people who know all of the things that have been said on these videos -

2: The less people will call their representatives to look for something to be done -

3: The less chances there are congress will actually stop giving tax payer funds for this -

Its not a coincidence that conservative activists have to go out themselves and do what 60 minutes and others used to do with groups such as Planned Parenthood. The lack of undercover videos over the years is the real test of: "They decide what their readers shall know, or what they shall not know"

There is a long history of journalists and media personalities using(abusing) their positions of authority for the express purpose of achieving an aimed at goal, with some of this history even being openly discussed or written about by the people on the inside. Due to its directness and perhaps even brevity, the article Government by Journalism is probably the top example.

Here is the article, it explains a lot for those who have been wondering 'how did we get here'.

If we can't even get the truth into the hands of the American people, there is not a reasonable expectation that the people will do the right thing. And by extension, our elected leaders.

Sunday, July 19, 2015





THE "Intercollegiate Socialist Society" will not capture American universities for revolution and anarchy. Its scheme would have been impossible in any event, and it did not threaten any real danger to our social and political structure.

But that men whose names are generally accepted as standing for culture and good citizenship should be permitted deliberately to announce such a project without rebuke would have been to ignore their public challenge to patriotism. It was necessary to consider that there are people in this country who esteem at least some of the signers of the call for the formation of a society to teach Socialism as serious, disinterested, high-minded philanthropists. It may be conceded that the signers are endowed with a large share of these qualities, but with them is now revealed the added fact that in so far as they are Socialists they are opposed to the institutions of this Republic.

A multitude of letters, received from university and college presidents and professors, from ministers of the gospel and from representative men in the professions, have thanked The Review not so much for its disclosure of the real aim of the projected society, which is generally ridiculed, but for its information as to the vigorous and successful opposition of organized labor to Socialism.

That exposure has called forth another kind of response - a response of mingled consternation, evasion, and abuse. The revelation in cold type of the unequivocal and undeniable purposes of Socialism has caused a fluttering among the flock of dilettante sympathizers with the effort to "undermine all society"; to "enact a terrible retribution upon the capitalist class, comparable to the French Revolution and the Paris Commune"; to "fire the heart and nerve the arm of rebellion"; to "confiscate all the possessions of the capitalist class"; etc., etc.

It was to be expected that the signers fully committed to the creed of Socialism would respond with vicious attacks upon the article. It was a plain, straightforward exposition of the doctrines which such a society would undertake to instill into the receptive minds' of American youth, in the course of training for positions of leadership in the rising generation. It placed the signers of the call in the position of subscribing to those doctrines, since its language explicitly stated that the "undersigned" regarded the "aims and fundamental principles" of Socialism "with sympathy" and believed that "in them will ultimately be found the remedy for many far reaching economic evils."

But it is not what most of the signers may say that concerns the general public. The one man in the list whose signature was a surprise to those familiar with his standing in the literary and ethical circles of New England was Thomas Wentworth Higginson.

It is alone with his reply to a criticism in Harper's Weekly that we shall deal in this article. We reprint in full his response:

Dublin, N.H., July 14, 1905.

To the Editor of Harper's Weekly

Sir, - I observe in a recent number of your valuable journal an expression of surprise that my name should be united with others in the formation of an "Intercollegiate Socialist School" which "aims to imbue the minds of the rising generation with socialistic doctrines." This last phrase is your own, for I at least am connected with no organization for the purpose you here state. As to the names with which mine is united I am not concerned; as Theodore Parker used to say "I am not particular with whom I unite in a good action." As to the object in view it is clearly enough stated in the call itself: the movement does not aim to produce socialists, but to create students of socialism.

It is based on the obvious fact that we are more and more surrounded by institutions, such as free schools, free text books, free libraries, free bridges, free water-supplies, free lecture courses, even free universities, which were all called socialistic when first proposed, and which so able a man as Herbert Spencer denounced as socialism to his dying day. Every day makes it more important that this tendency should be studied seriously and thoughtfully, not left to demagogues alone. For this purpose our foremost universities should take the matter up scientifically, as has been done for several years at Harvard University, where there is a full course on "Methods of Social Reform - Socialism, Communism, the Single Tax." etc., given by Professor T.N. Carver. This is precisely what the "Intercollegiate Socialist School" aims at; and those who seriously criticise this object must be classed, I fear, with those medieval grammarians who wrote of an adversary "May God confound thee for thy theory of irregular verbs!"

I am, sir,

Thomas Wentworth Higginson

We regret, Mr. Higginson, to be compelled to prove that most of the statements in your letter are wholly incorrect. We shall give you credit for not knowing the facts when you wrote it. The whole scheme of the Intercollegiate Socialist School - as you should have known before you signed that call - is promoted in this country by the Collectivist Society, whose purpose is not the scientific study of Socialism, but "the spread of its propaganda among the professional classes." The scheme has its root among Socialist groups that day and night are plotting revolution in European cities, as we shall proceed to show you.

First, as to the origin and purpose in this country of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society:

Upton Sinclair, a Socialist writer, whose name appeared with that of Mr. Higginson as one of the signers of the call, recently wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Worker, an official organ of the Socialist party, with the request that it be reprinted promptly by "the rest of the party press." His letter strips all disguise from the purpose of the proposed Society:

To the Editor of The Worker:

I beg to say a few words to the comrades concerning the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, a call to which was sent out recently. The work of this Society will be the organizing of those college men and women who believe In Socialism, to aid in propaganda clubs at our colleges, to select and distribute literature, to furnish speakers, and to aid in every way the work of inducing college students to take an interest in Socialism. That this is a most important movement, capable of wide growth and usefulness, all comrades must admit.

In commenting - upon this letter, the Worker remarked:

While the majority of the students in the colleges and universities are probably children of capitalists, large and small, and while the majority of the children of capitalists are either fanatical believers in the Gospel of Getting-on or else hopeless devotees of the Senior Prom, and the Sophomore Cotillion, yet there remains a number of real men and women - young and full of energy and capable of great things - who belong of right to the Socialist movement.

Again the Worker published on August 5 a call "addressed to all those interested in the formation of an Intercollegiate Socialist Society" - addressed, therefore, to Mr. Higginson. This highly interesting document reveals that it is intended to send the original call for the formation of the Society to "the secretary of every institution of learning, with request to put on bulletin." The announcement continues:

Here is submitted an outline of the ideas of those who have been instrumental in sending out the call:

"The Society should be open to all who are or ever have been students in any American college or are engaged in educational work.

"Its purpose should be the interesting of college students and teachers in the subject of modern Socialism.

"Its methods should be the bringing together in one body of all persons interested in this work, the discussion of plans, the establishing of an agency for their prosecution.

"The forming of clubs for propaganda work In all college and high schools.

"The selection and distribution of literature suitable for college men."

In reply to this communication kindly state name and address, college and high school and year; Socialist organization of which you may be a member, dues you would feel able to pay, any work at which you could help; speaking, organization, correspondence; a list of all persons who would be interested in this plan."

(Signed) M. R. Holbrook, Secretary,

P. O. Box 1663, New York.

An application was addressed to the Secretary for information and literature. Promptly in response came several Socialist pamphlets, all issued by the Collectivist Society, and revealing that its Secretary and headquarters are the same "M. R. Holbrook, P. O. Box 1663, New York." Among the enclosures was a printed request for a contribution, with this added assurance of a secrecy quite appropriate to a conspiracy to "undermine society": "No mention, except by permission, will be made of the name of any one who writes to us." This was signed, as above stated, "The Collectivist Society," with the same address as was affixed to the "Intercollegiate" call. The identity of interests and purposes of the two organizations is thus clearly established.

As to the Socialism of the Collectivist Society, let us again quote the Worker. The recognized mouthpiece of the Debs Socialists stated the purpose of the Collectivist Society to be that of "disseminating Socialist literature among the professional classes, persons not ordinarily reached by the party propaganda, particularly. Originally a kind of Fabian society, this organization has since proclaimed Itself as frankly accepting the fundamental tenets of scientific Socialism" - a term of the cult which signifies outright revolution.

So much for the relation between the Collectivist Society and the Intercollegiate Socialist Society; so much, also, for Mr. Higginson's denial that he is connected with an organization that "aims to imbue the minds of the rising generation with Socialistic doctrines." His denial is thus brought face to face with the official announcement of the purpose of this Society: "The forming of clubs for propaganda work in all colleges and high schools;" "the organizing of those college men and women who believe in Socialism, to aid in forming propaganda clubs at our colleges."

But this proposition to hold what Mr. Higginson would have considered as a harmless academic discussion, in peaceful college class-rooms, of Free Bridges, Free Water, Single Tax, and Irregular Verbs assumes another aspect when its real origin is disclosed. This scheme was not conceived amid the tranquil shades of Cambridge nor yet at a tea-party of the Collectivist Society. It is in reality a cis-Atlantic outcropping of an ambitious international enterprise, whose purpose is to sow the seeds of Socialism in all the universities, colleges, normal schools and lecture-rooms of the world. This movement has manifested itself in the form of three international Congresses of "Socialist Students and Graduates" at Brussels, Genoa, and Paris. At the last Congress, students were present from universities in Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Armenia, the West Indies, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Denmark, Hungary, Germany, Austria, and France. A report of this Congress in the International Socialist Review says:

"The Socialist students of the great American universities, Harvard, Columbia, Brown, and Chicago, had joined the Congress. These comrades showed great activity during several months, and even established an intercollegiate Socialist bureau. For reasons unknown to us, they could not, as expected, be directly represented."

Prof. Enrico Ferri, now of the University of Palermo. Italy, addressed the Congress upon the question of "how to bring into Socialism the greatest number of students." A recent Socialist publication describes this professor as "undoubtedly the greatest living figure in the Socialist movement," and adds the uncomfortable statement that he received, not long ago, "a sentence to sixteen months' imprisonment for a political offense, in the name of the King of Italy." His advice to the Congress may, therefore, be accepted as that of an expert in teaching Socialism both in the lecture-room and the cell. Prof. Ferri said:

"We should introduce Socialism into the students' minds as a part of science, as the logical and necessary culmination of the biological and sociological sciences. No need of making a direct propaganda which would frighten many of the listeners. Without pronouncing the word Socialism once a year I make two thirds of our students conscious Socialists. Among workingmen it Is necessary to add the Socialist conclusions to the scientific premises, because the workingman's psychology permits it, and indeed requires it; before an audience of bourgeois intellectuals, It is necessary to give the scientific premises alone, and let each mind draw its own conclusions."

This Congress made a formal call, says the International Socialist Review, "on the groups of Socialist students to make an active propaganda among normal school professors, who will, in turn, transmit their Socialist convictions to the teachers they will have to train, and who thereby may do a work of capital importance throughout the country."

A further evidence of wily strategy appears in the following resolution adopted by the Congress:

"That the best means of propagating Socialism in the universities is to organize, along with clearly Socialist circles where they are possible, neutral circles for the study of social sciences."

M. Boucher, in a report presented to the Congress in the name of the Group of Collectivist Students in Paris, invited:

"The Socialist students to enter the People's Universities, either as professors or as voluntary critics; there is, apparently, the real battle-field for the Socialist students, there is the role which is most suitable to them In the whole range of the movement; that which will excite the least antagonism, and where they will be the most useful."

The announcement was made at this Congress of the forthcoming of the Socialist Student, edited "by our Brussels comrades," and "designed as the international organ of Socialist students." Doubtless this valuable periodical would be included in the "literature" which Mr. Higginson's proposed Society would consider "suitable for college men."

Here we have, stated in detail, the program of the international organization of "Socialist Students and Graduates." This program includes precisely the insidious device of forming "neutral groups" for the study of social sciences, which Mr. Higginson would persuade himself and his perturbed friends is a wholly innocuous form of mental culture. In its systematic treachery, the plan is in thorough accordance with the Socialist plot to scuttle the ship of organized labor by "boring from within." Socialist students are to be stimulated to "enter the people's universities" for spreading their propaganda in dark and devious ways that will "excite the least antagonism," just as Socialist workingmen are urged to join the unions of their crafts, there to promote, in the phrase of one of Mr. Higginson's fellow-signers, their "insidious propaganda." Teachers are to imitate the example of Prof. Ferri, who does not "frighten" his listeners with frank, plain language; who does not whisper before timid youth the startling word "Socialism," but subtly instills into their ears all the poison of its creed of revolution.

We think that Mr. Higginson can no longer complain that the editor of Harper's Weekly overstated the case in saying that the Intercollegiate Socialist Society "aims to imbue the minds of the rising generation with Socialist doctrines."

Assuredly, Mr. Higginson can no longer plead ignorance of the facts as an excuse for his surprising association with an organization whose purposes and whose origin are utterly at variance with his distinguished record as an American soldier and patriot.

Sunday, July 12, 2015

Theodore Roosevelt's opinion of Croly's book 'Promise of American Life'

In an article titled Nationalism and Popular Rule, Theodore Roosevelt wrote the following:
In Mr. Herbert Croly's 'Promise of American Life," the most profound and illuminating study of our National conditions which has appeared for many years, especial emphasis is laid on the assertion that the whole point of our governmental experiment lies in the fact that it is a genuine effort to achieve true democracy—both political and industrial.

Croly is widely credited as being the actual source of "The New Nationalism", thus having pulled Theodore Roosevelt even further down the rathole of progressivism. This topic, however, has become somewhat of a point of debate among historians.

A month after Croly's passing, Walter Lippmann, the Father of Modern Journalism, wrote this about his TNR co-founder's influence:

Croly had, I think, made articulate for Roosevelt his aspiration to combine the social and political reforms initiated by Bryan and La Follette with a Hamiltonian affection for a strong national government.

Roosevelt was incredibly influenced by Croly's book The Promise of American Life. Roosevelt made it quite clear by his own hand, and historians other than myself have widely written about it as well as many commentators. Judge Learned Hand wrote in private correspondence that he personally sent a copy to Roosevelt. The only question that remains is what rests in the middle, the how and where. Some historians believe that Roosevelt read Croly's book while out on a hunt in Africa.

Matthew Josephson, a journalist and author of the book The President Makers, shared this curious anecdote: (page 369)

In the trunks that went to Africa there had been placed by chance a copy of Herbert Croly's The Promise of American Life, published early in 1909.

In his writing, Josephson seems to indicate that Colonel House placed this particular copy there instead of the copy that Learned Hand made clear that he sent. Which leaves open a debate for whether or not Roosevelt received two copies, did Josephson get it wrong and the copy that went to Africa was the one that Hand sent? It's probably impossible to confirm that level of minutiae, whatever may be the case in this instance.

But we do know two things for certain. First, that Roosevelt wrote about the personal impact of Croly's book Promise of American Life as well as another of Croly's books, Progressive Democracy.

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Rebuttal: 3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake

It really sucks to be a college student.(or a recent grad) I know how true this is, because I happen to currently be a college student. The amount of propaganda that we as college students in America are subjected to would make Ioseb Jughashvili start blushing. So it is with young Dylan Matthews, a writer for Vox Media who has written an absolutely atrocious piece titled "3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake"

Now, since I have the advantage here in that I have a highly tuned sense of curiosity, wheras Mr. Matthews took what his professors fed to him in total without asking one single question to counter what he was being fed, I would prefer to from this point focus on the three arguments in the article, which are as wrong as can possibly be. In particular, the first and the third are of the most interest. The second is so completely laughable that I'm not going to bother spending more than a half paragraph on it.

To begin, I would like to point out that the opening of the article is a picture, a painting really - That of George Washington Crossing the Delaware. The irony is that there's a black person sitting right there in the boat with Washington. Does that make my curiosity a curse or a gift? I know who that man is, too. But I'm not going to footnote this one. I want you to look it up and find his name on your own, I think that would be very useful.

Since there is a black person sitting right there in the boat with George Washington, what does that say about the rest of the article as written on Vox? He has no clue about his history, he only knows what was on the spoon that he was fed by.

Contention #1: "Abolition would have come faster without independence"

Vox Media is an outlet for leftists, so let's start with a concept that they are well familiar with. Outsourcing. This is an easy thing to grasp, so I will quickly move on. In regards to slavery and its abolition, the American Founding presented England with an opportunity to get rid of the institution of slavery. When the colonies were joined together with the kingdom as English subjects and the slave trade was booming, there is no chance that England would do what it did in 1807 and again 1834 with a united force of slavers. Since the colonies split with the kingdom taking some of the slavers with them, that pressure of the slave trade was essentially(partially) outsourced. This is a contention that is even admitted in the piece to a degree, in that "Britain would have had much more to gain from the continuance of slavery". But we can't let facts get in the way of a good guilt trip. Especially, since I brought up the abolition of the slave trade in 1807. Did you notice how that was omitted from the Vox piece? Of course it was. Why? America abolished the slave trade before England did. Again, why let facts get in the way of a good guilt trip?

Let's examine the NIMBY aspect of English slavery at the time. The English abolished slavery on the homefront in 1772, yet the king did everything he could to see to its continuance in his colonies. This is NIMBYism, not any reliance upon some sort of principle. Slavery made the king a lot of money, and he need that money for all of his wars. There were a lot of anti-slavery laws that were being passed by the colonies, and the king would have none of it. Virginia, for example, passed a law in 1761 that met with a Monarchical veto.(1) The king then issued a decree to the Governor of Virginia that:

"upon pain of the highest displeasure, to assent to no law by which the importation of slaves should be in any respect prohibited or obstructed."(1)

When we examine the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, we see a similar situation. The language here is even more striking:(2)

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold

So lets review - in the original article, Lord Dunmore's proclamation is cited. This cite is misused. The king had no interest in abolishing slavery for the specific sake of abolishing slavery. He only was interested in bringing in more soldiers for his fight against liberty. Lord Dunmore's proclamation ends with this phrase "God Save The King". But in reality, those who are against slavery should be saying this: God Damn The King. Not only for what he did to those people back then and for what he prevented from happening(abolition), but for how this legacy is abused today to further the anti-American, anti-Liberty agenda of today's progressives. While we are on this point, it needs to be examined: When the king was leveraging slaves in the American colonies to try to increase his soldier count, what did the king do? He set a precedent that slavery was a bad thing - the very thing he tried fighting against just a few years earlier. This precedent would surely be beneficial to the anti-slavery kind in England, such as William Wilberforce.

The worst part of it is this: the king upheld slavery when it benefitted him, and modern progressives let him get away with it. Hypocrites. All progressives are hypocrites on this point of slavery - for letting the king get away with this.

Note that the first draft is even mentioned in the article, but since all of the anti-slavery colonial laws (and the king's vetos of them) have been wiped from history, that allows progressive writers to cast the original "draught" of the Declaration as merely a response to Dunmore and nothing more, when as can be seen above, it was not. Anti-slavery laws were common in the American colonies(3), but in order to believe what has been written you have to assume that the drive for American Independence only began in 1775. It, of course, did not. Like Lord Dunmore, Lord Norborne Berkeley(Dunmore's predecessor) was also a loyalist monarchist governor. So when the king vetoed colonial anti-slavery laws, it stuck.

Contention #2: "Independence was bad for Native Americans"

A large portion of this section is spent apologizing for Canadian "horrible, indefensible crimes". I could simply just cut and paste the article itself back in here, but that would be a copyright issue. It's a sad fact of humanity that the "big dogs" always pick on the "little dogs". This is probably one of the few areas of agreement I would have since I wish it weren't the case as well, but I am certainly not going to feel guilty about it in the context of America when every society/nation I've ever read about is guilty of this. To point out that Vox is engaging in a futile attempt at navel gazing would be an understatement.

Contention #3: "America would have a better system of government if we'd stuck with Britain"

As I have consistently written, progressives do not like individual liberty. This article is no different. A parliament is inferior to the separation of powers that exists in the United States Constitution. One of the big reasons why progressives going all the way back to Woodrow Wilson love the English style of government is that their constitution, the UK Constitution, is a living and breathing document.(4) I wrote a paper about this already, which will save me time here.(4) The difference between the US Constitution being a "living and breathing" document is de-facto, that is, it is only true because the courts have made it so through force, coercion, and deception. It was never inherently such. But the UK Constitution is de-jure "living and breathing". You can't even print out a copy of it! Go ahead, go to and give it a try. Try printing a copy of the UK Constitution.

Since England is still a monarchy(even limited), its people are still subjects. They are not free citizens. They may have been free from subjection for a short time, at some point after the American Revolution, but their government has controlled their healthcare for generations. This is pretty simple - when the government controls your healthcare, the government controls your body - they control you. Your body is you.(Surprise surprise!) If the government controls you, then you're not a free citizen. You're a subject. (And yes, sadly, I know that I have been a subject myself since March 23, 2010. I do put myself in that lot.) So if the subjects of England did have freedom, they lost it on July 5th, 1948. Mark the date.

And yes, let me make this clear: If the king would have controlled the Founding Fathers' healthcare, there would not have been an American Revolution. There would have been even less of an interest in independence, since government controlled healthcare is in reality all about dependence.

Now, as to the progressives' rejection of individual liberty, I will cite a few here. I have gone in depth with them in the past both in my blog, and there are examples as well written in my paper on the UK Constitution.(4) Both Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey(for example) have quite explicitly rejected individual liberty. John Dewey wrote that liberal schools and the philosophical doctrines that underlay it:(5)

served to break down the idea that freedom is something that individuals have as a ready-made possession

Dewey also wrote that:(6)

The emancipated individual was to become the organ and agent of a comprehensive and progressive society.

Dewey is talking about "emancipating" individuals from the evils of 18th century ideology. That is, the beliefs of the Founders and all of this "Nature" stuff that they(the Founders) kept talking about.

Woodrow Wilson was even more elitist about his rejection of individual liberty. He wrote:(7)

a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.

For people who would prefer not to be slaves of progressivism, yes, individual liberty is indeed a "fundamental principle". You can quote me on that. Finally, one of Wilson's most famous quotes is where he says that "If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface."(8) Make no mistake about it, progressivism is all about government that works "more efficiently" - meaning fast government, faster and faster and faster government. For progressives, they don't mind that authoritarian government exists, as long as they are the ones controlling it. Even monarchism, progressives will support. That's better than individual liberty for them.

King George got a lot of things done. He was very efficient. The irony is that the English people themselves fought for nearly a thousand years to do something about out of control, efficient, fast government. See the 1100 Charter of Liberties, the Magna Carta, the 1628 Petition of Right, the 1642 Grand Remonstrance, and the 1689 Bill of Rights for more details. And yes, this history does matter in the context of American History, see Federalist #84.(9)

Parliamentarian government is "faster government", as has been admitted in the original article. That's what makes it tyrannical. People need time to read, think about, and digest laws. Not pass them to find out what is in them!

In closing, there is only one reason why more conservatives cannot push back against this extreme misuse of the travesty of slavery against America, and it goes right to the heart of progressivism and back to the opening sentences of my writing. Colleges are pushing out nothing but propaganda, so very, very few people even know the king's true role in upholding slavery as well as the Founding generation's valiant efforts to get rid of it.

It's time to start pushing back. Any time the issue of "slavery" comes up, who should be running for the tall grass is progressives. There's no reason why anybody should be afraid of this when it is used. We don't own this. The king does.

God Damn The King

(1) The History of North America, Volume 6; 1904

(2) Jefferson's "original Rough draught" of the Declaration of Independence

(3) The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America: 1638–1870, by W.E.B. DuBois (Note: DuBois makes many of the same errors as are written on Vox)

(4) Honestly questioning the notion of a Living and Breathing Document - The British Constitution

(5) Progressivism: Individuals don't inherently have this thing called "liberty"

(6) The aim of progressive education is explicitly to indoctrinate

(7) Progressivism: nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of individuals

(8) Woodrow Wilson absolutely hated the principles of the Founding Fathers

(9) English history is American history - Alexander Hamilton and John Adams