31 January 2017

History: Logic vs Emotion

I couldn't help but chuckle when reading a recent blog post over a discussion (once again) about the removal of a Confederate monument. The vast majority of the comments were, as is normally the case, a classic example of PC Groupthink. When one individual attempted to appeal to logic, i.e., if you're going to remove Confederate monuments over the connection to slavery, then 99% of all monuments to early 20th century and earlier Americans have to go as well. Why? Because logic dictates that none of them can withstand the scrutiny of our modern moral reformers now posing as historians.

But appealing to logic with the PC Groupthink crowd is an exercise in futility. Their actions and motivations are not (for the most part) supported by logic. They're driven by emotions. It's all about how they "feel" about certain topics. Logic is irrelevant. It's about feelings and political agendas. 

It's the same mindset driving the juvenile "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" on college campuses. It really is like arguing with children. 

Save your breath.

30 January 2017

National Review Follows My Lead on California Secession?

Update: While some Californians are channeling Jeff Davis, others are taking a more moderate position: They're channeling John Calhoun. Will we hear condemnation and cries of "extremists" from the Civil War blogosphere? I doubt it. Hypocrites.

End of update. 

Well, maybe. As I noted in my previous post here:
Y'all remember all of the hullabaloo over the discussion of secession by Texans a few years ago? Sure you do. The Fake Civil War Historians in the blogosphere got their panties all knotted up, calling the Texans "extremists, neo-Confederates", blah, blah, blah. It was the perfect opportunity for the Fake Historians to advance their preferred narrative about Southerners.
But you've not heard a peep out of them over what is apparently a much more serious threat of secession by the citizens of California. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that it's because these Fake Historians share the same ideology as their soul-mates in California? Could it be because Californians aren't part of the South?
Now, National Review says something very similar:
Liberals used to hate secession, the notion that states could leave the Union as they did before the Civil War because they didn’t agree with the policies of the federal government. But with Donald Trump’s election, many California liberals suddenly have warm words for a budding ballot initiative that has just begun collecting signatures in order to place secession, or “Calexit,” on the ballot. At the height of the tea-party movement, Texas governor Rick Perry merely hinted at the thought that Texas might react to President Obama’s executive overreach by reclaiming its one-time status as an independent republic. He was denounced as something akin to a traitor; critics lamented that he wanted to return Texas to the era of sharecroppers or Jim Crow.
Note, too, that NR is tying the California effort to the Jim Crow South:
Some of their rhetoric resembles that of the “massive resistance” movement in the 1950s South, which vowed to fight federal intrusion into the right of states to run their own discriminatory elections, segregate public schools, and ignore federal law enforcement.
I wonder how it feels to have the tables so effectively turned on you? Note, again, that the Fake History Civil War bloggers remain silent about California's Jeff Davis Fever. 
What's so funny is the former accusatory hand-wringers (suddenly converted to "radical" secessionists") seem to be blind to the glaring hypocrisy. But those of us who have been following these faux historians, academics, big government pols and pseudo-intellectuals are not at all surprised. They're hypocrites, plain and simple. 

Grab some popcorn, this should be good.

27 January 2017

Are Californians Extremist Neo-Confederates?

Image source.
Y'all remember all of the hullabaloo over the discussion of secession by Texans a few years ago? Sure you do. The Fake Civil War Historians in the blogosphere got their panties all knotted up, calling the Texans "extremists, neo-Confederates", blah, blah, blah. It was the perfect opportunity for the Fake Historians to advance their preferred narrative about Southerners.

But you've not heard a peep out of them over what is apparently a much more serious threat of secession by the citizens of California. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that it's because these Fake Historians share the same ideology as their soul-mates in California? Could it be because Californians aren't part of the South?

You betcha. "Birds of a feather" . . . LOL.
The proposed measure would strike language from the California Constitution defining the state as “an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.” 
Story here.
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced Thursday that a ballot initiative called “California Nation” has been approved by the state to begin collecting signatures to qualify for the 2018 ballot.
More here.

Personally, I have no objection. I think it would be a great experiment in liberty and self-determination. Go in peace my friends, go in peace.

Jeff Davis must be smiling.

Cue the crickets.  

26 January 2017

Removing Monuments - End of an Era

The Charlottesville City Council recently reversed course and voted to remove the Robert E. Lee monument. Yaawwnnn. No real surprise. And, in other news, a monument (of sorts) of ex-President Obama has been removed as well. 

Asked why Ben’s removed it now, he said, “Obama’s not in office. It’s the end of an era.”
Time marches on. Quicker for some, slower for others. Story here.

24 January 2017

Democrats and Secession

One in every three California residents supports the most populous U.S. state's peaceful withdrawal from the union, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll, many of them Democrats strongly opposed to Trump's ascension to the country's highest office.
1861. Southern Democrats opposed to the election of a Republican President favor secession. 2017 . . .  

Story here.

22 January 2017

Our Divided Union

Update: and subdivided as well . . . a self-described "lifelong liberal feminist" writing for the New York Times offers evidence that these marches were little more than a partisan "march for women who are anti-Trump" funded by George Soros. Read her piece here.

End of update.

The day after President Trump's historic inaugural where we witnessed the peaceful transition of power, there were protests in many cities across the nation. (I fully support the right of Americans to protest our government, though I may disagree with them.) Below is some video recorded at one of those marches. Interesting signs. We are a deeply divided nation.

20 January 2017

An Historic Day in America

Historic times. Beating all odds and defying all the prognosticators, professional politicians and elites. Amazing.
. . . pledges to put American first in uncompromising first speech as POTUS 45 in a full frontal assault on elites at home and a warning for nation’s rivals abroad. ~ DailyMail.com
Not since 1980 — or perhaps 1932 — has such a political revolution hit the banks of the Potomac River. ~ Breitbart
And I absolutely love this:
The fabulous, entertaining, funny, unpredictable and daring real estate tycoon achieved this historic political realignment using one very simple strategy: attack political correctness and all its vestiges and all its purveyors at every turn. ~ Breitbart
And one more:
It is that very strategic and serious thinking that is absolute kryptonite in the Cathedral of Political Correctness. And it is quintessentially American. Distrust all the “experts.” Question authority. No problem is so complex that it cannot be solved by common sense. ~ The Washington Times
Political Correctness, along with its complicit deniers, "experts" and supporters in academia and the history blogosphere, could be in for a rough 4 years. Let's hope so. It's about time.

Congratulations President Trump.

Post coming this weekend: Getting it Wrong: Historians & President Obama.

18 January 2017

Shelby Steele on American Exceptionalism & Political Correctness

Societies have many of the qualities individuals have. America is a particularly great society. There's been no country like this ever before in all of human history. And all of the sins that America has committed in its past are nothing that's new. Many countries around the world had slavery and so forth. And America is to be honored and complimented for actually facing these problems and dealing with them.. . . the War on Poverty and the Great Society and welfare, these deferential policies that defer to our history of victimization now victimize us more than racism did. I grew up in segregation. I know exactly what it's like. And I had a more positive attitude toward America than many blacks do today who are the beneficiaries of Affirmative Action. I think that deference has become a very corrupting influence on the people that it tries to help. It's honorable that it wants to help these people but they never ask the people to be responsible for their own transformation and uplift and that's the great tragedy of deference and political correctness.. . . Political correctness is now evil and it is what holds minorities down. ~ Shelby Steele

17 January 2017

Trump's Oath & the Lincoln Inaugural Bible

That news will likely infuriate both the neo-Confederates as well as the anti-Confederates. LOL.
“In his first inaugural address, President Lincoln appealed to the ‘better angels of our nature,’” said Presidential Inauguration Committee Chairman Tom Barrack. “As he takes the same oath of office 156 years later, President-elect Trump is humbled to place his hand on Bibles that hold special meaning both to his family and to our country.”
President Obama also took the oath of office on Lincoln's Bible.

Story here.

16 January 2017

A Week of History

I'll have an important post about the last 8 years and the recent election coming Friday, January 20th. It will be quite historic.

12 January 2017

Peter Thiel Backs Secession

Important update: Peter Thiel is reportedly considering a run for Governor of California. And the Politico story did not fail to mention Thiel's position on California secession:
Adding fuel to the speculation: Thiel raised eyebrows this week when he granted a rare interview to the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. In the interview, he outlined his political worldview and explained his support for Trump.(At one point, Thiel said, perhaps jokingly, that he’d be “fine” with California seceding. “I think it would be good for California, good for the rest of the country. It would help Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign,” he added.) 
"Perhaps jokingly"? Perhaps not.

Story here.

End of update.

Entrepreneur and PayPal founder (and Trump supporter), Peter Thiel, is all "in" for California to go all "out" - out of the Union, that is. A recent "Confirm or Deny" interview with Maureen Dowd in the New York Times revealed this exchange:
Maureen Dowd: California should secede.
Peter Thiel: Confirm. I’d be fine with that. I think it would be good for California, good for the rest of the country. It would help Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign.
I'm not so sure secession would be "good for California" though I am more inclined to accept Thiel's opinion that it would be "good for the rest of the country." Beyond that, this is interesting on a number of levels. For one, Thiel is certainly no "neo-Confederate" as he hails originally from Germany and is considered a Silicon Valley titan. And, of course, California was not part of the old Confederacy. But, at least in the near-term, the likelihood of California seceding from the Union is highly unlikely, barring some unforeseen event. However, in the long-term, I would not rule it out. Let world history be your guide.

11 January 2017

America First Comeback?

Actually, not a comeback. The notion never left the hearts and minds of those of us in the Country Class. But after 8 years of anti-American rhetoric from the Ruling Class, the tables seem to be turning in an ever-growing movement. We'll see how deep it ultimately goes. One indication can be seen in recent developments in corporate America:

". . . nationalist rhetoric and Trump's willingness to use his Twitter account as a cudgel has so rattled some companies that they are putting on hold mergers and acquisitions that may involve significant job cuts or moving production or tax domicile abroad, out of fear that such deals could be seen as "unpatriotic", several top Wall Street bankers said."

More here.

10 January 2017

"Should Historians Speak Out Against Trump?"

Ummm . . . that train's already left the station.

However, the folks over at History News Network are asking the question (again, after the fact), so I thought I'd share this video. Note that no one has or is asking "Should Historians Speak Out Against Clinton?" or "Should Historians Speak Out Against Obama?"

Gee, could it possibly be that Clinton and Obama are liberal Democrats, just like most academic historians? Nah, of course not. Don't be silly.

Seriously though, I must ask, do the historians at HNN really believe that those of us outside the academy who, nonetheless, pay attention to these things, aren't unaware of the rampant leftist bias in academia? That's certainly the way they write. Are they really that detached from reality? I find it amazing that folks as educated as they claim to be can be so ignorant about what's actually going on around them. Absolutely amazing. And you just gotta love the commentary below the video:

"His claims are challenged by historians who believe that they have a moral obligation to engage the public on the issues raised by Trump's candidacy."

A "moral obligation?". Yes indeed, just as Professor Gordon Wood has labeled these folks: "moral reformers"; though it certainly appears their "moral obligations" are rather selective when it comes to politicians. Laughable.

I'm not familiar with the person being interviewed - Stanley Fish - but Wikipedia notes that he's an "American literary theorist, legal scholar, author and public intellectual. He is currently the Floersheimer Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City." 

Mr. Fish seems to be channeling historian Paul Johnson who once wrote, "Beware committees, conferences and leagues of intellectuals. Distrust public statements from their serried ranks. Discount their verdicts on political leaders and important events."

He's spot on. And, no, most of don't think historians "should stay in the archives." That's a red herring. Many of us do believe, however, that simply because you have a degree in history, does not make you any more qualified to make political proclamations than anyone else of average intelligence. Moreover, the fact that there's so much leftist bias among academic historians actually makes these folks less credible. That being said, I do believe that Jonathan Zimmerman's comments near the end of the video are well thought out and bring some common sense to the discussion.

07 January 2017

Gelded History

Political Correctness is still alive and well, despite the naysayers. Just when I think it can't get any more ridiculous or funny, it does. Laughing at historians taking some of this stuff serious does provide lots of opportunity to understand and explain their mindset and agenda. From removing flags to removing monuments, the Social Justice Warrior class continues its march to cleanse the American landscape of everything "offensive". Well, not everything. (That one's ok - fits the agenda, don't you know?) History's symbolism isn't the only thing being torn down. The perpetually offended have broadened their sensitivities.

The latest example is the removing of a Kentucky school district mascot - a stallion. No, I'm not kidding.
Superintendent Manny Caulk announced on Tuesday that the high school would get rid of the stallion mascot in favor of a more gender-neutral horse mascot, which he believes will be more appropriate as a symbol for the several female sports teams that Frederick Douglass High School will field.
After reading this story, I was immediately reminded of a C.S. Lewis quote.

"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful." 

I have a suggestion that might make everyone happy. Keep the stallion, but castrate him. This would make him it gender neutral, right? Make him a gelding for the team mascot.

Go geldings! 

Inspiring, no?

06 January 2017

Academia: "Getting rid of history?"

Not really, just twisting it to fit their agenda.
In a recent interview with Arutz Sheva TV, Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) talked about the left-leaning bias in U.S. academia, saying, the left is trying to “get rid of history.”

“The left is dismantling history and getting rid of philosophy, because that’s the data points for human nature,” Brat said, “and the left would love to be utopian and think we can all just get along if it wasn’t for us capitalists or Christians, right, or other religious groups. They think we’d be in heaven, you know without the bulk of the American people.”
More here.

03 January 2017

Our History of Anti-Elitism

Virginian Patrick Henry going after elites.
I've been dumping on elites (particularly those in academia) on this blog almost from day one. Being "anti-elite" has a long tradition in America, as the elitist New York Times pointed out in a piece today.
The notion that distant elites might be conspiring against the people comes straight from the Founding Fathers, whose Declaration of Independence lamented the “long train of abuses and usurpations” inflicted upon ordinary Americans by an arrogant British king. From there on, United States history might be seen as a repeating cycle of anti-elite revolt. The Jacksonians rebelled against the Founders’ aristocratic pretensions. Northern “free labor” went to war against the oligarchical slavocracy. And the Populist revolts of the late 19th century adapted this story to modern capitalism, with farmers and laborers rebelling against robber barons, bankers, time-management experts and college-educated professionals.
In 2016 we witnessed a seismic shift when it comes to the anti-elitist spirit, i.e. Brexit and Trump. I'm quite proud to be a part of the "anti-elite" revolt. Welcome to the party.

More here.