Frederick R. Smith Speaks: October 2020

Thursday, October 29, 2020

Jacobins, Illuminati, and George Washington

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

The Jacobins

Established in France in 1789, the Jacobins initially were known as the “Society of the Friends of the Constitution.” Later, as the Jacobin Club, it met in a former convent of the Dominicans (known in Paris as Jacobins). Deputies of the National Assembly formed the Jacobins to protect against a possible aristocratic reaction to the Revolution. Though it did not have a direct role in overthrowing the monarchy in 1792, the club later changed its name to “Society of the Jacobins, Friends of Liberty and Equality.” It accepted leftist deputies of the National Convention and agitated for the king’s execution and the overthrow of the moderate Girondins. In 1793, with about 8,000 clubs and 500,000 members, the Jacobins became instruments of the Reign of Terror (French Revolution). In April 1790 Maximilien Robespierre ascended to president of the Jacobin Club and became increasingly popular as an enemy of the monarchy and as an advocate of democratic reforms.

The Jacobins are well known, and many history books acknowledge their subversive tactics with respect to the French Revolution. In The USA, during the French Revolution, it was common for people to throw the epitaph “Jacobin” out at people who were perceived to be in line with the thinking of the radical aspects of the enlightenment. In fact, Federalists were known to call Thomas Jefferson a Jacobin for his Deist thinking and his outward sympathy with the French Revolution.

Ancient and Illuminated Seers of Bavaria

Jesuit-trained Adam Weishaupt was appointed professor at the University of Ingolstadt in Bavaria, Germany around 1772, and shortly thereafter he rose to the post of professor of Canon Law. He was the first layperson to hold that position as clergy previously held it. In 1775, Weishaupt began planning a clandestine group to challenge the Church. This group coalesced on May 1, 1776 (May Day), as the “Ancient and Illuminated Seers of Bavaria.” This group evolved into the “Illuminati,” which was in line with Enlightenment rationalist ideas. Between 1784 and 1787 the Illuminati faced suppression. In 1785, Bavaria banished Weishaupt. Some writings suggest that the Illuminati used the drug hashish to produce an “illuminated” state.

Unlike the Jacobins, there is scant information about the Illuminati in establishment history books. Alternate sources of information claim that this group was in line with or behind the Jacobins. Some claim that the Illuminati still exist today, and they are the “wealthy people who control the world.” More importantly, some writings suggest that the Illuminati at one time in the past grafted themselves into lodges of some Masonic organizations. Enter the Freemason [1] who was the “Father of our county.”

George Washington and the Illuminati

Before presenting historical information about Washington, this author does not believe that the Illuminati are today hiding under the guise of Masonry. There are many good people, including close friends of this author, who are Masons. As such, I have no personal animosity towards my Masonic friends. Also, Washington (a Mason) is one of my favorite heroes. I only use the historical writings of Washington, which happen to reference Masonry, to prove that the Illuminati existed. This is to thwart the knee-jerk reaction that discussion of the Illuminati is “right-wing wacko conspiracy crap.” Well then, was Washington a “right-wing conspiracy monger?” I do not think so.

As previously mentioned, the Illuminati may have infiltrated only selected branches of Freemasonry in Europe in the distant past. As such, it is important to note that it is common for evil to clandestinely use good things for its purposes and we should not bury our heads in the sand. For example, just because there are some bad priests (e.g., the pedophilia scandal) does not automatically make all the remaining people in this religion bad. Likewise, just because there may have been a bad apple or two that graduated from West Point does not mean we need to shut down this institution. Accordingly, just because the Illuminati may have once grafted itself onto certain branches of Freemasonry in the distant past does not today make all in that organization bad people. Now I would like to indulge in some fascinating history.

The more obscure writings of George Washington were the two letters he wrote to Reverend George Washington Snyder concerning the Jacobins and the Illuminati. The text of these letters comes from the Library of Congress (The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799) and supplied below for your review (emphasis added):

October 24, 1797

Revd Sir: I have your favor of the 17th. instant before me; and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter, is to explain, and correct a mistake which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged, often, to write letters, have led you into.

It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.

The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of separation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a separation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.

My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time. With respect, etc.

September 25, 1798

Sir: Many apologies are due to you, for my not acknowledging the receipt of your obliging favour of the 22nd. Ulto, and for not thanking you, at an earlier period, for the Book [2] you had the goodness to send me.

I have heard much of the nefarious, and dangerous plan, and doctrines of the Illuminati, but never saw the Book until you were pleased to send it to me. The same causes which have prevented my acknowledging the receipt of your letter have prevented my reading the Book, hitherto; namely, the multiplicity of matters which pressed upon me before, and the debilitated state in which I was left after, a severe fever had been removed. And which allows me to add little more now, than thanks for your kind wishes and favourable sentiments, except to correct an error you have run into, of my Presiding over the English lodges in this Country. The fact is, I preside over none, nor have I been in one more than once or twice, within the last thirty years. [3] I believe notwithstanding, that none of the Lodges in this Country are contaminated with the principles ascribed to the Society of the Illuminati. With respect I am &c.

Concerning Washington’s association with Freemasonry, there is little to be found in original writings and history books. Nonetheless, there is an occasional reference to Freemasonry and Washington in modern writings. [4] The bottom line — Washington confirms the existence of the Illuminati and he repudiates any influence it may have had on Freemasonry during his lifetime here in the United States.

Notes:

The Catholic Church first prohibited Catholics from membership in Masonic organizations and other secret societies in 1738. Since then, at least eleven popes have made pronouncements about the incompatibility of Catholic doctrines and Freemasonry. The Church continues to prohibit membership in Freemasonry because it believes that Masonic principles and rituals are irreconcilable with Catholic doctrines.
Among the correspondence of George Washington, are letters from George Washington Snyder, who sent to the President a copy of John Robison’s “Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe,” 1798. This treatise revealed the Illuminist plan for the overthrow of established governments and religions. Mr. Snyder questioned Washington’s membership and position as Grand Master of the Alexandria Lodge No. 22 of Virginia.
It is interesting to note that Washington denies a connection to “English lodges” of Freemasonry. He was involved with Scottish Rite Freemasonry.
Richard Brookhiser’s wonderful 1996 book “Rediscovering George Washington” at page 150 states – “In Europe, Freemasonry was anticlerical, and the Catholic Church was anti-Masonic. (The church would rightly see itself as the Old World.) In the United States, Freemasonry was assailed as irreligious and revolutionary in the late 1790s by Congregationalist divines, the religious right of that day. Thirty years later, the second outbreak of anti-Masonry attacked its rituals as unrepublican and even formed a political party to crusade against the menace. The issue has not died yet; in 1992 Pat Robertson published a book accusing Freemasons of pulling the strings of the Bush Administration, world communism, and other sinister organizations. American anti-Masons have always had to climb over the fact of Washington’s membership. The Yankee preachers, Federalist all, distinguished between ordinary Masons (good) and “Illuminated” mason (very bad), while the Anti-Masonic Party took the tack that Washington hadn’t been told what was going on; to think anything else, declared William Wirt, the party’s presidential candidate, ‘would be parricide.’”

###

Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith
Editor, Sean Tinney

Fred Smith’s clipped news items

Recommended Websites (bold is top shelf)

Recommend (serious) Humor

The Peoples Cube

Recommended Videos (all top shelf)

Monday, October 26, 2020

Hate Crime Horrors

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

One of the key elements of a free society is the freedom of each individual to express oneself. However, there are common-sense limitations to consider when “free speech” affects the safety of individuals. In a society that has morals, values, and principles, it is self-policing; individuals will act within the accepted norm. Unfortunately, the accepted norm has been subjected to relativism, it is super elastic as anything goes. What is the solution? More laws to curb the problem; but are such laws truly applied in an equal manner?

When certain groups perceive special privileges and the legislators change or add laws to fit a perceived special right, we are entering the realm of tyranny. These are tough words, and it is necessary to explain the real horrors of Political Correctness (PeeCee) — the resulting laws that make certain thoughts a crime. Orwell was just a few years off.

The issue to tackle is “Hate Crimes.” If a person commits a physical crime or even just “hate speech” against a person, the perpetrator knows that he or she may serve time if convicted for the act. However, such a person might reconsider when facing stiffer sentencing if the act is a “Hate Crime.” As an example, a person who does not practice sodomy harms a person that performs such acts. He or she goes to jail for the act and the thought (“Hate Crime”). If the reverse occurs and the person who engages in sodomy harms a person who is “straight,” will the sodomite be subject to the same sentencing? We know the answer to that question.

The “Hate Crime” laws on the federal and local levels are nothing more than draconian punishment for not being PeeCee. Some people will snicker at the notion that PeeCee connects to hate crime laws. If you are a new Frederick R Smith Speaks reader and chuckling, then may I suggest that you reconsider? This is a serious business, as any special interest group can and will be successful in getting what they want. There are some immensely powerful groups, no matter how microscopic in relation to the general population, who have gotten and will continue to get their way. Example: 2020 riot age. These people (through their special interest organs) have some immensely powerful allies on their side such as the mainstream media, academia, legal eagles, and legislators. This is dangerous stuff my friends, but most people simply buy into the endless mantra about tolerance and inclusiveness.

How about pedophilia as the next right? As crazy as this may sound, there have been some very influential people who are making the pitch to legitimize this activity. If one believes in moral relativism, this is the logical step, as one must ask where does the elasticity of morality end? For further proof, just think about the trash promoted on television today as compared to say thirty years ago. Monogamous heterosexual relationships face mockery while Hollywood spends immeasurable energy to promote all other types of “relationships.” And the people shell out money to watch movies that glorify debauchery and sodomy. Entertainment that focuses on traditional values fails. But one must ask; does Hollywood spend as much on advertising for wholesome flicks as it does for the putrid ones? While some say that the open promotion of debauchery is like “farting in the wind” with respect to our downfall, I respectfully say otherwise. Acceptance of debauchery in the media is tantamount to death by entertainment.

Senators and Representatives (regardless of party) are pushing more federal “Hate Crimes” legislation. If this occurs from the federal side, we have completely lost any semblance of a local authority. The best people to deal with local crimes are the local professionals and local citizenry (juries). Centralization simply does not work, and it never will. While more Federal Hate Crime laws are on the horizon, there are malignant polyps that have cropped up locally and statewide. For example, back in 2002, Pennsylvania enacted legislation that encourages a pro-sodomy person to report a preacher who may be citing Biblical passages condemning unnatural sexual practices.

While such legislation applies to “hate” and attached physical crimes, we must ask what the thresholds are. What is hate? It is easy to see that we are on a profusely well-lubricated slippery slope. Specifically, not only do we need to worry about an elastic definition of “hate” but also rest assured that these draconian laws will in time apply only to “hate” (no physical violence).

The PeeCee crowd is quick to link the entire conservative movement whenever somebody commits violence against a pro-debauchery person. [1] Even though that person may be on the fringe, we hear the news organ gush forth the mantra of “conservatives fomenting the violence.” Soon (if not now) we will be experiencing the Orwellian controls on the freedom of expression because certain speech alone will be a crime.

It gets even worse because only certain forms of thought/violence are “Hate Crimes.” A quintessential example is the establishment’s penchant for sweeping crimes committed by environmentalists under the rug. There have been many crimes committed by the leftist group called Earth Liberation Front (ELF). However, when was the last time we heard the mainstream debasing the entire environmental movement? Rest assured if a “conservative” committed an act of violence the entire conservative movement would somehow be targeted.

The media is quick to make the pitch that opposition to sodomy and debauchery by conservatives and religious believers creates the climate for these hate-filled crimes. Does the media do the same with respect to the extreme policies of some of the mainline environmental groups that may have “created the climate” (no pun intended). Along with the burning of businesses, the ELF is known to have “spiked” trees, which can be deadly to loggers. With respect to the environmental movement, in general, being willing promoters of the ELF, I do not think so. Just as I do not think so on the other end of the spectrum. As the conservative movement should not blame Al Gore for Ted Kaczynski’s actions (Gore’s book “Earth in the Balance” was among Kaczynski’s possessions), the mainstream should not link the “climate of hate” to conservatives. Nevertheless, we must not forget there are crazies on both ends of the spectrum. Violence committed by the overly zealous anti-abortion types and the extreme environmentalists is both inexcusable.

The media has been predictably lopsided in their coverage of the violent environmentalists vs. the “right-wingers.” The proof is in the pudding as it is easy to find people who consider “right-wing Christians” to be scary or “dangerous.” How many people think environmentalists are scary? For me, I would feel a lot safer in a neighborhood of conservative Christians vs. an enclave of ELF people.

Hopefully, the above illustrates that “Hate Crime” designations can be dangerous principally due to moral relativism.

Note:

To be fair and honest, conservative/right and liberal/left people must avoid the broad-brush tactic.

###

Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith
Editor, Sean Tinney

Fred Smith’s clipped news items

Recommended Websites (bold is top shelf)

Recommend (serious) Humor

The Peoples Cube

Recommended Videos (all top shelf)

Saturday, October 17, 2020

Justice Railroaded

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

As the turn of the new millennium came and went, there was a story that should have made headline news but raised hardly a peep from our friends at the mainstream establishment media. This was a story that should have caused a stir among those who clamor for the legal rights of the people facing charges. So, what was this problem? A person incarcerated for harming the environment. Did you ever hear about the new term “environmental justice?” Some will say, “Frederick so what?” Please stay tuned, but first some legal background.

An increasing number of people who manage others at the workplace face criminal prosecution for the actions of their corporations. This sounds bad enough but what is even more troubling is that some managers have been criminally charged for the actions of their employees even if the subordinates were acting outside what they were told or against the policy of the employing corporation. This is possible because an ever-increasing number of criminal statutes no longer require intent as a factor in prosecuting.

Since many federal laws deal with items considered to be “public welfare,” the lawmakers have this in mind. Some examples of criminal intent removed for the “public welfare” include healthcare statutes, the environment, and antitrust laws. Naturally, the main culprit is the federal government.

Enter the United States vs. Edward Hanousek, a manager with the Pacific & Arctic Railway and Navigation Company. This company does business as the “White Pass and Yukon Route” (WP&YR) [1] and Hanousek was employed there as a “roadmaster.” His responsibilities included the maintenance of railroad track, wayside structures, and marine facilities. Are you ready to know about the “horrendous” crime that this roadmaster committed? Here it goes – Mr. Hanousek faced criminal charges and served time for damaging the environment in 1994. Now for those who worship mother earth, this may be understandable. The devil is in the details.

The excesses of the government with respect to the environment aside, the more essential element of this case is that Mr. Hanousek was not on duty; he was at home when the incident occurred. To add insult to injury, the incident was due to the actions of an employee of a contractor to the railroad. Since Mr. Hanousek oversaw this operation prosecutors tagged him as the responsible “party.”

The particular project under Hanousek’s direction was a rock quarrying effort at a site next to the railroad known as “six-mile” (Milepost 6). This area is 200 feet above the Skagway River and the project involved removing rock and outcroppings alongside the railroad. Workers moved the loose rock from the track using a backhoe to load it onto railroad cars. At Milepost 6, a high-pressure petroleum products pipeline owned by Pacific & Arctic’s sister company, Pacific and Arctic Pipeline, Inc., runs parallel to the railroad within a few feet of the tracks. It was during the rock clearing operation that the backhoe accidentally, I repeat accidentally, struck the pipeline causing 1,000 to 5,000 gallons of heating oil to flow into the Skagway River in Alaska. The word accident has no meaning in the mind of environmental extremists. Are all people who are involved in car crashes criminally or civilly charged if they accidentally cause such incidents?

Remember, Hanousek was off-duty at the time but was imprisoned for failing to appropriately supervise the worker, which obviously was the “direct cause” of the oil spill. In normal times, the railroad would have faced civil liability for damages resulting from the accident, but now we have blurred the legal distinction between civil liability and felony. Rest assured the environmentalists see this damage to the environment of Alaska to be worse than murdering a person. Authorities charged Hanousek and convicted him under the Clean Water Act, for negligently discharging oil into a navigable water of the United States. Fined $5,000, Hanousek faced sequential terms of six months imprisonment, six months in a halfway house, and six months of supervised release. And the government and its symbiotic elites wonder way some people become “anti-government.”

Hanousek’s lawyers argued that a public welfare law that imposes criminal penalties for ordinary negligence (in this case an accidental act) violates due process. Nevertheless, the court emphasized that the criminal elements of the Clean Water Act make up the “public welfare” legislation to protect the public at large from the consequences of water pollution. It also came out that the court declined to instruct the jury that the defendant was not responsible for and could not be held criminally liable for any negligent act or omissions by the person directly responsible for the leak. The court did not tell the jury that under the criminal laws a person holds responsibility for acts he or she performs or causes on behalf of a corporation. Furthermore, the appellate court also found that the jury instruction was insufficient because it required the jury to find that the defendant’s conduct had a “direct and substantial” connection to the incident.

The appellate court upheld the decision despite the aforementioned. Because of these draconian “public welfare” statutes, even individuals who are virtually uninvolved with the conduct of others may face jail.

So where are the civil libertarians who clamor about the constitutional rights of the “poor criminals” who are charged for raping but “wrongly charged” for some nefarious reason? Crickets. Perhaps these stalwarts of equality believe that the WP&YR case is important? Absolutely not — the environment trumps human rights. Meanwhile, in the 2020 Riot Age, looters get an out of jail free card. We should highlight the looters’ fires and the resulting environmental damage. Perhaps that will result in some true justice (dream on). Constitutional due process is now gone with the wind. Frankly, I am concerned that some environmental zealots refuse to see the unintended consequences of their radical inhuman worship of the planet. While some environmentalists will find it necessary to take the words of this paper out of context, it is necessary to say that I do indeed believe in a good environment through reasoned and reasonable measures.

Considering the plight of Hanousek, this author hopes the people who desire a clean environment would realize that there are excesses in this movement. If Hanousek were a close relative to a sincere ecologist, I would like to believe that they would finally come to realize that certain elements of the environmental movement have been hijacked for reasons other than clean air and water. Nevertheless, some of these same people have a penchant for finding “religious extremism” (that is Christian extremism) in every nook and cranny of society. Curious indeed.

The WP&YR, a narrow-gauge railroad, suspended operations in 1982 when Yukon’s mining industry dried up. A part of this line reopened in 1988 as a seasonal tourism operation. Today, the WP&YR operates during the May-to-September tourism season running on the first 40 miles (Skagway, Alaska to Bennett, B.C.) of the original 110-mile line.

Sources:

UNITED STATES v. HANOUSEK

Criminal? – Rebecca Haglin, Heritage Foundation

###

Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith
Editor, Sean Tinney

Fred Smith’s clipped news items

Recommended Websites (bold is top shelf)

Recommend (serious) Humor

The Peoples Cube

Recommended Videos (all top shelf)

Sunday, October 11, 2020

McGuffey’s Eclectic Reader

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

The wonderful series of schoolbooks called the McGuffey’s Eclectic Readers are virtually unknown to the vast majority of people. What is more disturbing is the fact that our teachers today have never heard of McGuffey. Why? The professionals controlling our schools (for lack of a better word) regard the Eclectic Readers as outmoded historical objects from the 19th century. McGuffey’s works are indeed something to scorn as his books provided students with a Christian worldview along with solid morals, values, and principles. Cannot have such things today; this would be a breach of the worshiped wall of separation.

The above aside, the most important consideration with respect to McGuffey’s Readers is the fact is that they are all about something that the school system frowns upon – students reading good wholesome material. In addition, our school system has failed to give people the tools necessary for learning beyond the classroom. Specifically, the ability to read, understand and think. The reading crisis is the direct result of a century of radical educational experimentation. Every day the news abounds with facts about the terrible state of our education system. Unfortunately, just like the church scandal, the mainstream only reports the surface of the educational crisis, not the core of the problem.

Enter one William Holmes McGuffey (1800-1873) the creator of the Eclectic Readers who was known as “the schoolmaster to the nation.” He was born into a Scottish-Irish family in western Pennsylvania. As a youngster, his devout Presbyterian family moved to Ohio. In 1826, William graduated from college then worked in various teaching positions. He quickly rose to the rank of professor of ancient languages at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.

It was during the 1830s that the Cincinnati, Ohio publisher Truman and Smith approached Catherine Beecher [1] with a request to author a series of readers. Beecher declined but recommended William who agreed to develop four readers. He completed the task in just two years and in 1836-37 the four Readers plus a “Primer” got into the hands of teachers.

After completing the first editions of the readers, the noble McGuffey was ordained as a Presbyterian minister and he also served as president of two colleges in Ohio. In 1845 he moved to the Old Dominion and became a professor of moral philosophy at the University of Virginia.

By the time of McGuffey’s death in Virginia (1873), up to 50 million sets of his books found their way to teachers and students. Nevertheless, he never received more than the original amount supplied for writing the readers - $1,000.

After his death, the Readers continued to be a success, and William’s younger brother Alexander (1816-1896) sustained the excellent work by writing the Fifth and Sixth readers. He also authored the McGuffey Eclectic Speller. The Readers continued in wide use after the death of Alexander.

The Readers dominated education from 1836 through to the 1920s. More than 120 million copies of the Reader were sold during this period. As such, they were one of the most widely used works of literature of this period as many as half the children learned to read the “McGuffey way.” Furthermore, the Readers gave students a common sense of experience through knowledge of our founding history and culture. The Readers influenced many of our influential figures from the past in a positive way. For example, Teddy Roosevelt was known to use the phrase “Meddlesome Mary” about some of our governmental shenanigans. He was referring to a character named Matilda [2].

Today, a person who does not know about McGuffey who first picks up a set of the Readers is bewildered by the elevated level of reading, particularly in the Fifth and Sixth books. Even the college student of today would have difficulty studying the contents of these two Readers. The Readers, originally designed for one-room schoolhouses, helped children from age six to late teens who shared the same teacher. In this setting, learning was natural, and each pupil advanced at his or her own pace. So, there was no collectivist educational system with a penchant for “social studies.” McGuffey’s Readers offered an array of great American and English literature. Selections included the Bible (uh oh), poems by Byron, Milton, Wordsworth, Poe, Shakespeare, etc. The Readers also included a range of texts from the works of such greats as James Fennimore Cooper and Blackstone.

Instead of inflammatory rhetoric, the Readers used a more reasonable method to teach about the evils of slavery. For example, in a lesson called “The Birds Set Free,” a rich man approaches a boy who is selling caged birds for 50 cents apiece. The man then buys all the birds and he lets them loose. The man explains to the boy; “I was shut up three years in a French prison, as a prisoner of war, and I am resolved to never see anything in prison which I can make free.” As for morals, values, and principles, the Readers throughout each book hold tales and lessons about the importance of charity, hard work, and honesty.

Teachers throughout America used McGuffey Readers up to the end of World War I. It was during this period that John Dewey as head of the Teachers College at Columbia University (1904 to 1930) and his colleagues started an assault on traditional American education. It was also during this time that the public education system started to inculcate our children to be socialist members of a one-world citizenry.

The frontal assault aside, the McGuffey Readers have enjoyed the enthusiastic support of many important people in addition to Teddy Roosevelt. Henry Ford who left school at the age of 15 had credited the McGuffey Readers for his success. In 1932, Ford bought the log cabin where William Holmes McGuffey was born. Later he moved it to his famous Americana museum at Greenfield Village in Dearborn, Michigan where it is on display to this day.

Today, the Readers are making a comeback but obviously not in the educational (sic) system. Private schools and home school aficionados find the Readers to be the most important and effective true educational instrument, bar none. Any attempt to introduce the McGuffey Readers into government schools would surely bring on the knee jerk reaction of “right-wing Christian plot.” The postmodern liberal Pavlov Dog reaction aside, thank you, William Holmes McGuffey.

Notes:

Sister of the famous Reverend Lyman Beecher. The Beecher name is well known due to Lyman’s daughter Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896) who was the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which helped stimulate the abolitionist cause and contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War. Harriet was the sixth child born to Lyman Beecher and his first wife. Reverend Beecher was a conscientious Presbyterian, unwavering in his social and religious beliefs. He inculcated his children with a sense of social justice for everyone, including women and blacks. Lyman Beecher was, however, an opponent of Roman Catholicism.
“Meddlesome Mary” was a reference to a character named Matilda who appeared in a humorous poem in the Fourth Reader “Matty” who was a curious little girl, could not keep her nose out of her Grandmother’s snuffbox.

###

Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith
Editor, Sean Tinney

Fred Smith’s clipped news items

Recommended Websites (bold is top shelf)

Recommend (serious) Humor

The Peoples Cube

Recommended Videos (all top shelf)

Saturday, October 10, 2020

Dastardly John Dewey

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

John Dewey (1859-1952) was a highly renowned individual who worked in many fields including education, politics, and psychology. His most lasting contribution was his work in the educational system and he was enamored with the concept of “progressive education.” [1] His influence continues today primarily through “The Center for Dewey Studies” at the University of Southern Illinois.

Dewey was born in Burlington, Vermont and grew up in a middle-class family and joined the First Congregational Church at age eleven but later sought an even more progressive religious perspective. In 1875, at the age of 16, he began attending the University of Vermont, in Burlington. While much of Dewey’s studies centered on classical topics such as Latin, Greek, literature, and rhetoric, it was here that he was subject to the beginnings of the radical transformation of our schools.

Upon graduation in 1879, Dewey became a high school teacher in Oil City, Pennsylvania. Dewey returned to Vermont in 1881, and he continued teaching high school while continuing his philosophy studies. In September 1882, Dewey entered Johns Hopkins University to begin graduate studies in philosophy.

Johns Hopkins was one of the first American universities to offer graduate instruction that was considered comparable to the European universities, with emphasis on original scholarly research as an expectation for graduate students as well as faculty members. During this time, Christian theology was a necessary study along with philosophy. However, Dewey shunned Christian studies and he focused on philosophy as a major with history and political science as minors. It was during these studies that Dewey discovered the works of the philosophers, Hegel and Kant.

After completing his Doctorate, in 1884 Dewey received an appointment as an instructor of philosophy at Michigan University. This institution shunned Christian theology. Replacing it was education that focused on British and German philosophy. It was in 1886 that Dewey caught the attention of the academic community for his articles that called for the fusion of philosophy and psychology.

In 1887 Dewey’s had his first book “Psychology” published and in it, he explained a single philosophical system based on the scientific study of psychology and German idealist philosophy. While well received and used as a textbook, one of Dewey’s former professors criticized the book.

In 1888 Dewey’s growing reputation led him to the position of Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy at the University of Minnesota. However, after the sudden death of his mentor George Morris, he returned to Michigan in 1889 to serve as Chair of the Department of Philosophy. In 1894, Dewey joined the faculty at The University of Chicago. It was here that Dewey’s department looked to bring together philosophy, psychology, and the study of pedagogy (relationships between elementary and secondary school teachers and university educators). Dewey contended that pedagogy should be a separate department to train its students to be specialists in education. As a result, Dewey found an appointment to lead the new pedagogy department. Dewey’s writings began to reflect movement toward a new philosophical stance called instrumentalism, which would later be known as “pragmatism.” [2] This philosophical protocol holds that truth is a human tool to solve problems. Accordantly, the truth must change as problems change. Sound familiar? Due to much discord with the faculty in 1904, Dewey resigned from his position at the University of Chicago. Thereafter, he entered a professorship at Columbia University. In 1916 he wrote one of his seminal books titled “Democracy and Education.” Dewey remained at Columbia teaching philosophy until the end of his academic career in 1930. He continued his teaching as an emeritus professor and authored his book “Logic” in 1938 and a year later he retired completely from university activities. Until his death in 1952, Dewey continued to write and speak about intellectual and social issues throughout the world and prepared educational tracks for Turkey, Mexico, and the Soviet Union.

The National Education Association (NEA) [3] recognized John Dewey as the father of modern education as bestowing him high recognition for his works. Dewey admired Charles Darwin and he believed that education and democracy were based on evolution. As such, these ideas were based on the premise that nothing is constant. He said the only constant good is a change for the good (positivism). So, he did not measure anything from any absolute standards. We know this as relativism, which denies absolutes. Dewey’s works are also creeds that espouse the notion that students must not think by themselves; they are a part of the collective.

John Dewey was a signer of the Humanist Manifesto in 1933 (some writings suggest that Dewey was a primary author). Humanism holds that men are their own gods and everything is relative to what the individual perceives with respect to improvement or detriment. Humanists believe they are helping people because they think they are making children happier by looking to end faith in God. [4]

If one could remove people from their roots, it becomes easy to sway them to a particular point of view. It is no question that this is happening at an alarmingly accelerated rate in America today with the destruction of our Godly heritage in public school courses. John Dewey was one of the prime movers of this educational revolution. Today we often hear from the cultural elites, and sad to say from many common people, that the “Christian right” seeks to indoctrinate people and to establish a theocracy. While such notions are baseless, why do these same people who say such things never admit the fact that something might be occurring in a similar manner but of an opposing philosophical worldview?

Notes:

The progressive educational system grew primarily from the concepts of the philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau.
Pragmatism is a type of philosophy by which the truth of a plan is measured by its association with experimental results through a practical outcome. Accordingly, pragmatists aver that truth is modified as discoveries are made and that it is relative to time and place and purpose of the inquiry.
For an expose of the NEA, please refer to Fred Smith’s “Nauseating NEA.”
For more information about Humanism, please refer to Fred Smith’s “Horrors of Humanism.”

###

Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith
Editor, Sean Tinney

Fred Smith’s clipped news items

Recommended Websites (bold is top shelf)

Recommend (serious) Humor

The Peoples Cube

Recommended Videos (all top shelf)

Friday, October 9, 2020

Nasty Neoconservatives

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

The following treatise, written by this author in 2004, is a reality check for today’s dystopian news. Putting aside the incredible rhetoric surrounding the existing Administration, the term “draining the swamp” certainly means the neo-cons.

The most important precept of our Constitutional Republic is a limited government. This should be the platform of any organized party and it is well known that the Democrats are the champions of big government. So, what has happened to the Grand Old Party (GOP)? It is no longer the home to true conservatives; it is now the place for neoconservatives, people who have a love affair with the overarching government.

The neoconservatives have overtaken the GOP and they claim to be in tune with the Constitution. The reality is that they are not in tune; in fact, they are just as bad as the Democrats but worse. At least the Democrats are open about their socialism. Sad to say, but it no longer matters which party is in power as expanded government programs continue to be spawn year in and year out. Same old thing but packaged for the party currently in power. In the case of the Republicans, it is private enterprises working for the government to administer government programs. They claim to make government smaller by giving federal work to private enterprise.

For the true conservatives, who are classical liberals, it is important that we know the roots of this problem. Once found, we can work together to expose the duplicitous demagogues that have completely succeeded in changing our nation into a socialist unit of the new world order. We need to alert the people how wrong it is for the no-conservatives and the democrats to usurp our founding precepts. We need in a peaceful and positive way to inform the people to think about such things as the notion of a strong central government, forced redistribution of wealth, policing of the world, and direct government grants to entities such as the Palestine Liberation Organization. If most people continue to accept the half-truths and deceptions coming from the mainstream, there is little hope.

It is imperative that we provide to the people an alternative that builds on the concepts of life, liberty, and property. This alternative is not really an alternative but a return to the uniquely qualified precepts of limited government, which assures liberty, but with self-imposed social mores. The one problem that we must confront is the groups that are in tune with the aforementioned (but with a missing element – morals). It is here that liberty becomes dangerous, as radicals tend to attract groups such as the Libertarian and Green Parties.

Despite the canard of the Clinton administration that there was a “budget surplus,” for decades the national debt has been growing and continues to rise at an alarming rate. At the same time, the federal government continues to grow. This is no coincidence.

So how do we pay for the copious and never-ending “social needs” and other nefarious programs? How about taxes and deficit spending! The government can go deeper and deeper into debt and print new “fiat money” bills or create new “electronic money” to take care of all those needs, real and perceived. So, what is backing our “money” – nothing but “faith in the government.” Eventually, this “faith” of the people will have a rude awaking to reality when this Ponzi scheme collapses. The national debt is increasing at a rate greater than half-trillion dollars per year; recently Congress increased the debt limit increased by an astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while the total net worth of the U.S. households are just over $40 trillion. [1].

Before getting to the core of the neoconservative problem, it is important to mention that there are indeed true conservatives in society who honestly believe in limited government coupled with mores. Unfortunately, the machine portrays these fine men and women as “radical right-wingers,” or simply ignored. The quintessential example is Rep. Ron Paul from Texas. How many people have ever heard of this exemplary man who follows the Constitution to the core? It is virtually impossible to find any news clips or writings about Mr. Paul in the mainstream.

Congress and the administration continue to take on new commitments such as foreign aid, education, and medicine. The most troubling is the debasing of our military by making it a virtual “meals on wheels” around the world. It is no wonder that the rest of the world hates us as we have over 150,000 troops in over 120 nations around the world. Any talk about bringing our troops home to defend our nation brings on the clarion call of both the liberals and neo-conservatives. Ready aim fire - “isolationist.” Xenophobia is another one.

So where did all this start? Enter one Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) the Italian political theorist who authored the book “The Prince” which describes how a ruler achieves power by deception. While Machiavellian politics has been around for centuries, this philosophy was anchored to the neoconservatives through Professor Leo Strauss’ “Thoughts on Machiavelli.” This book, first published in 1969, and republished in 1995, is a creed that praises Machiavelli. The movers and shakers in the neoconservative camp studied under Strauss and many more ascribe to this philosophy. In 1983, Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, jump-started the Machiavellian movement in his book “Reflections of a Neoconservative.” In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare. [2]

More recently, Michael Ledeen, another neoconservative philosopher king, in his 1999 book “Machiavelli on Modern Leadership” continued the Machiavellian march. The subtitle of this book says it all “Why Machiavelli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago.” This book was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication. Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw “a Pearl Harbor event” that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.” [3]

Neoconservatives have a penchant for many of the same things as many liberals. They love big government, the welfare state, and the reduction of privacy in the name of security. They tout The American Empire and believe that neutrality in foreign affairs is foolish. Neoconservatives adore the Department of Education (no child left behind). Both the Republicans and Democrats support the huge commitment to a new prescription drug program, but this will add more bureaucracy. While some may get a break, we all will pay eventually for higher costs due to the government meddling in health care.

The neoconservatives have many instruments at their disposal such as The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post. In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, American Enterprise Institute led the neoconservative charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. [4]

Some of my conservative friends will not like this but Rupert Murdock also plays a role in promoting neoconservative views through his News Corporation (Fox News Network, [5] the New York Post and Weekly Standard). While Saddam Hussein is (was?) indeed a despot, I continue to have mixed feelings about our raid into Iraq in 2003. [6] However, I detest the people like Ted Kennedy who exploit the war which sends the wrong message to the enemies of our troops. There are many more examples of despots around the world and we did not act in those cases. How about the nuclear threat posed by North Korea and China? The neoconservative ideology is a far cry for our Founding Fathers who advocated no entangling alliances. Neutrality is the proper goal of American foreign policy.

What is most disturbing is a new trend by the neo-conservative camp. Because just a few in the neo-conservative camp are Jewish, there is the canard now floating around that those who are exposing these Machiavellian politics are anti-Semitic! This is a brilliant method by the neoconservatives to defeat any attempt to expose their true agenda. Nevertheless, to expose the nasty Machiavellian programs of these people has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

The bottom line: it is time to be frank and understand that neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and it (along with certain liberals) espouses a foreign policy that creates the very hatred that we must deal with.

Notes:

The Truth About Neoconservatism by Rep. Ron Paul, MD in the US House of Representatives, July 2003.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Some will argue that Fox is conservative but how conservative can it be when it produces some of the most sexually explicit and demonic entertainment shows on television?
This author has mixed feelings with respect to the 2003 Iraq (undeclared) war but not for the same reason as the “peace” protesters who were the darlings of the media. These people were unknowing tools of international Communism, which seemed to be against the war, but their real goal is to bring down the United States. Just the opposite, I believe in a strong military, principally through a Navy, to protect our nation. We need to support our troops and allow then to win the ultimate battle and get the job one in Iraq.