RSS
From The Atlantic:
Where Will the Removal of Confederate Monuments Stop?
An eminent historian explains why taking down Civil War statues doesn’t erase history—and why statues to slaveholding Founding Fathers aren’t next.
DAVID A. GRAHAM 8:06 PM ET IDEAS 2017
Perhaps not since the collapse of the Soviet Union has there been such a vogue for tearing down statues. …
But what about the idea that once the Lees and Stonewall Jacksons and P.G.T. Beauregards are pulled down, the revisionists will inevitably start agitating for pulling down monuments to slave-owning Founding Fathers like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
But Gordon-Reed, who won the Pulitzer Prize for her book on the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, said it was not hard to draw a bright line separating Jefferson’s generation of Virginians from the ones who tried to secede.
“We can distinguish between people who wanted to build the United States of America and people who wanted to destroy it,” she said. “It’s possible to recognize people’s contributions at the same time as recognizing their flaws.”
“You’re not going to have American history without Jefferson,” Gordon-Reed said. Alluding not to the demise of the Lenin statutes but to the infamous deletion of disgraced figures from Kremlin photographs, she added, “It’s not the Soviet Union.”
FDR’s days are numbered
Jefferson? How is Woodrow Wilson doing lately?
So a tenured professor at Harvard says there’s no need to worry because no future SJWs will ever push harder along the iconoclastic path that helped her win tenure at Harvard …
In Palo Alto, the Father of Silicon Valley, Fred Terman, just got his named stripped off the Terman Middle School because of his hereditary taint of being descended from a Known Eugenicist, Lewis Terman.
Eisenhower’s statues will fall over his Operation Wetback deporting illegal immigrants. Ben Franklin will go because his Observations Concerning the Increase in Mankind was anti-Open Borders.
Heck, even FDR’s days are numbered.
Professor Gordon-Reed and Mr. Graham must not read The Atlantic much because The Atlantic’s most strenuously celebrated writer, Ta-Nehisi Coates, goes on and on about FDR’s redlining being a vast crime against today’s African-Americans.
I’d say there is a higher chance that FDR’s statue on the Mall is melted down for the coming Emmett Till / Trayvon Martin / Michael Brown Memorial than that the current controversy over Confederate statues stops with Confederates.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Ahh, Ms Gordon-Reed. I remember her. The anointed keeper of the Jefferson – Hemings narrative.
The MSM have decided that Jefferson must be guilty of jungle fever because racism and slavery. The MSM are heavily invested in the slur against Jefferson, though the science isn’t remotely conclusive.
It does appear that someone in Jefferson’s shared male lineage mixed it up, and that’s more than enough for those (like Ron Chernow, Michael Aeschliman and of course Paul Finkelman who titled his screed in the NYT “The Monster of Monticello”) who seek to besmirch our third president’s good name. Now why would ‘they’ do that?
And so the DNA results, which indicated a link to one of eight Jefferson males, are now transformed via collective journalistic massage into an “overwhelmingly probable” arrow aimed right at the heart of Thomas Jefferson himself.
Sally Hemmings lived to 62. Not bad for a slave and she was definitely pampered as far as slaves go. There is zero evidence Thomas Jefferson was raping her. My best guess is they did have sexual relations on a 100% consensual level. Because she knew her life, workload and status were enhanced by being Jefferson's concubine. No big deal in my book but a huge thing for race obsessed libs and academic blacks to whine about.
Meanwhile current FBI statistics on interracial rape show that it is overwhelmingly a black man on while woman crime.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Lurker
"Old Master's brother, Mass Randall, was a mighty simple man: used to come out among black people, play the fiddle and dance half the night: hadn't much more sense that Isaac."
-Isaac Jefferson, former slave at Monticello, recounted in 1847.
There's supposedly an oral Hemming's tradition that speaks of a Jefferson uncle, thought to actually be his brother Randolph, as Thomas Jefferson's children would have called him "Uncle."
Professor Gordon-Reed forgets that many a hair’s breadth to the left of her know that Jefferson and the like were trying to build the US, but what she fails to realize (or is simply being dishonest about) is that they consider that to be one of the greatest treasons against humanity ever, since they consider the US to be a great evil.
Unfortunately, the deranged guy who killed the people in Charleston released the jackals of the Politically Correct Taliban to attack anything Confederate.
I am only worried that for some reason they will remove the MLK Blvd. signs. Without them how will I know what areas to avoid. Sadly, some people won’t be happy until all the Johnny Rebs’ bodies are disinterred , burned and their ashes scattered in the wind.
“…other faiths…”
VICTOR MAIR: I see the red beard and the red hair parted in the middle. It’s a distinctive style of Tocharians. He’s wearing a coat with wide lapels on both sides, and then folded over. It’s a shame that these figures have all been defaced by people of other faiths at some time in the past. But still, it’s very easy to see what they looked like, and we can tell who they were.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2502chinamum.html
Like no faced…
http://www.china-tour.net/guide-cls6-1.php?id=400&type=
So, maybe SJWs will allow the Jefferson Memorial to stand as a lesson in American racism? School kids will go on field-trips and ritually denounce the Great Defiler of Black Womanhood. The kid who reaches the highest pitch of hysteria will receive the Award for Wokeness.
Actually, I think the logical end-point is to tear down all statues and monuments to any historical figure who didn’t support a right to Gay Marriage.
Since no public figure in the entire history of the world had ever supported Gay Marriage until about twenty-odd years ago, this will make the ISIS people or the Red Guards of Mao’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution looks like the total fuddy-duddies they are…
-And now they can't stop from falling over one another to demonstrate who has greatest loyalty to the rainbow flag.
Conspiracy theorists like myself wonder who is driving the top-down social changes being forced on America that mandate that at least 50% of all advertising include Blacks. (I thought Blacks were 12% of the population, not 50%.) Then (pop !!!), we are assaulted with advertising that includes Black males with White females. Then (pop !!!), we are assaulted with advertising that includes homosexual males and females.
This has nothing to do with marketing in a market-driven economy. All of a sudden, why would businesses focus on marketing diamonds to the lowest economic demographic in the country? I guess that Hispanics, who rate above Blacks in economic status and wealth, have no use for diamonds ... but the inhabitants of Baltimore, Detroit, and Cleveland clearly do.
My guess is that the movement to force the images of Blacks, Gays, and Transgendered people on the populace and the movement to ban Confederate flags (even from the battlefield at Gettysburg) are related.
Then, a realization. Wow! The firms controlling media content and advertising are all located in the megacities that vote Left, think Left, and act Left. They are often called "Cultural Marxists", which is a euphemism for Communist social programs and the global dystopias they hope to impose on the world. This slight-of-hand is similar to renaming Al-Queda as Al-Nursa and hope that no one notices.
We should beware. At the end of the day, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin are still "alive" within the leftist New World Order they are trying to impose on us.
Only the most stupid people assumed the war against the Confederates could be contained with removing everything to do with Confederates. The descendants of Confederates also must be eradicated. And then the forebears, and then everybody white who failed to worship the sacred cow Negro and the sacred cow gays and the sacred cow Moslems and the sacred cow Jews.
The extremely nice Middle Americans are as hopeless as the Russians who assumed that once the Revolutionaries removed the Tsar and outlawed hereditary titles that the horror show was over and decent folks could get back to decent life being decent.
The Revolutionaries will never stop. See China’s Cultural Revolution if Stalin’s great famine and purges fail to open your eyes. The Revolutionaries can have totalitarian control and still feel the burning desire to slaughter millions and violently harass tens of millions more.
Good observation. However, the statue-smashers don't care about historical slave-holding, any more than feminists care about women. The real driver of organized obliteration is cultural Marxism, which holds the destruction of present society as a precondition for progress, as in monoracial socialism. So in most cases, the abolition of gender-separated restrooms, the push to bring women into combat positions and special forces operations, the destruction of livable suburban neighborhoods, the suppression of historical literature, the objective is to destroy the present culture and leave the population rootless and without any common interests or customs to tie people together.
So, of course no concessions will satisfy the demand for cultural obliteration. The issue is not the separate issues, but the obliteration itself.
Viewed in this light, it's completely understandable why feminists would ignore female genital mutilation (FGM). Most feminist organizations are fronts for cult-Marxism, using feminism as a wedge issue. Same for gay rights organizations. Truthfully, I don't know enough about black rights or hispanic rights groups at this point to say whether their primary driver is rampant racial identity or cultural Marxism.Replies: @anonymous, @Jake
But really, where are the descendents of the rich and powerful confederates? I bet plenty are still scamming, still exploiting their fellow human beings. I wouldn't be surprised to see them masquerading as anti-racists. Meanwhile the poor whites whose own children picked cotton barefooted are maligned as "oppressive rednecks." Rednecks have red necks because their white skin got burned red while laboring in the son. Since when did laborers ever have enough power to oppress anyone?
Here’s the #2 Trending Video on Youtube Right Now:
A lot of it is the typical cliches we’ve all heard but some of it is quite eyebrow raising. Sample verse from a latina rapper named “Snow Tha Product”:
Indeed.
The rest of the video displays an even more virulent hatred of the US than the text you display. Like, we should make it easy for people to come in who pick fruits for awhile, but consider the US to be conquered territory from Mexico and a general oppressor in the world. In fact, it's not a bad thing this video is trending on YouTube. For someone still in possession of his brain, it's a POWERFUL inducement to stop immigration.
A friend of mine showed me a book about Thomas Jefferson sent home with his third grader that presented him as the father of Sally Hemings children as an undisputed fact. The narrative is well established on that one. As you point out there is nothing conclusive, but good luck turning back the narrative.
Thomas Jefferson is arguably the most important figure in American history. A relationship with Sally Hemings doesn't change that or diminish his accomplishments one iota. I really don't think it's doing him any favors to be a hero of an unholy alliance of Stormfront and the Flat Earth Society.
Mika-Non:
Chernow…Aeschliman….Finkelman
“I’ll take 3 people descended from Ukrainian peasants who were busy licking Tzarist boots and plotting bolshevism while Jefferson was helping found the country that welcomed the ingrates’ ancestors” for $800 Alex
Since no public figure in the entire history of the world had ever supported Gay Marriage until about twenty-odd years ago, this will make the ISIS people or the Red Guards of Mao's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution looks like the total fuddy-duddies they are...Replies: @syonredux, @2Mintzin1, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Anonymous, @TheJester, @Joe Schmoe
That would only apply to Europeans. Black and Hispanic leaders would be grandfathered in….Nobody is going to be allowed to touch the statue to Martin Luther Mao…..
Fala may get melted down.
FDR’s statue, on the other hand, will likely be repurposed and moved to the Holocaust Museum, where it will be placed in an exhibit depicting FDR turning away Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany.
The statue itself will not need to be changed in any way, with the only addition being the placement of a couple of statues of wretched, prostrate Jews at his feet, as if begging for their lives, while FDR continues to gaze off in the distance, deaf to their pleas, a veritable embodiment of America as the privileged WASP oppressor, prior to the national cultural transformation and redemption that followed the post-war emancipation of American Jews from their segregated country clubs.
Assurances that the Founding Fathers will never be targeted by the Left are meaningless. No one on the Left can predict what issue it will be enraged about a dozen years from now. Would a Leftist in 2005 have predicted WWT? The Battle of the Pronouns? Resurgent Russophobia?
I doubt if the average Leftist likes to admit to himself that, whatever his strongly held views may be at the moment, they will change in an instant to conform to the Party Line.
- Orwell, 1984
The Left was all for National Liberation Struggles in Africa and the rest of the Third World in the 70's. Social Justice required national autonomy. Now Nationalism is a dirty word on the Left and Social Justice requires EU countries (and the U.S.) give up national autonomy.
ADD is the Left's friend.Replies: @Yak-15
Coming weekend & July 4 anti facists plan to invade Gettysburg and destroy the Confederate graves.
Interesting thing about all those schools named after MLK etc. so many of them now have 90 percent Hispanic and or Asian students
If I was inclined to take Professor Gordon-Reed’s assurances at face value and made in good faith (I’m not), I’d point out to her that these spasms of statue-toppling and un-personing of historical figures doesn’t proceed from reasoned argument, but rather from frenzy. And the frenzy is one that is singularly insatiable and grows with each victory. The best way to have kept Washington’s and Jefferson’s status intact was not to have relented with Robert E. Lee. My prediction is that Trump’s affinity for President Jackson will draw the eye of Soros to his memory – hell, they might do something as provocative as replacing him on the Twenty Dollar Bill with another minor historical figure who happens to be black and female.
As a general matter, have these assurances that the Left intends only to take half a loaf ever proven true? “Gay marriage” is the most obvious recent example, but there are enough others to fill a book.
The "slippery slope" argument is indeed a logical fallacy, but it seems to be true nearly all the time anyway. I hope that, somewhere out there, there are ethicists slowly being driven insane by that fact.Replies: @guest, @unpc downunder
Good one, Mr. Joe. Those MLK Blvd. signs usually point the way to areas where I, as a former slave owner, or person who looks like a person who might have been a former slave owner, am not welcome.
Since no public figure in the entire history of the world had ever supported Gay Marriage until about twenty-odd years ago, this will make the ISIS people or the Red Guards of Mao's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution looks like the total fuddy-duddies they are...Replies: @syonredux, @2Mintzin1, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Anonymous, @TheJester, @Joe Schmoe
What, a statue of David Geffen? With Liberaci providing musical accompaniment?
True. Sadly true.
While we have erected no statues or monument in their honor it is also true no charges were ever filed against the vast majority of German and Japanese military commanders in WW2. The regimes they defended may have been despicable but we treated the field commanders of their armed forces as professional soldiers doing their duty on behalf of their nation.
If Heinz Guderian and Adolph Galland can be viewed as honorable men in the eyes of history why is it any different for Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson?
Guderian's enemies = Germany's enemies
Lee's citizenship = USA
Lee's enemy = USA
The respect traditionally afforded people like Stonewall Jackson by northerners is respect for defending a way of life and for conduct as a gentleman and a warrior, not respect for civic duty and military professionalism. Anyone who thinks Jackson's reputation rests on citizenship and professionalism has fallen prey to retconning.Replies: @Autochthon
UGH. White people coming together….How gross.The idea nowadays, of course, is to foster unity among POC by reminding them that they face a common enemy:Whitey.
See,bigot, we’re not erasing history; we’re just correcting it…..
Look, the Confederacy is an easy target, the soft underbelly. Just give us time, though….
Well, not everybody….I mean, no one cares about pleb-tier Whites, right?Who cares if, say, a Malcolm X memorial makes them uncomfortable…..
See how that works?
The real question the modern negro should ponder is if those Union soldiers from Michigan, Ohio and Illinois could have looked 100 years into the future and seen what happened to Detroit, Cleveland and Chicago would they have fought for their generals or Robert E. Lee? Would there even be a Lincoln Memorial?
The Confederacy wanted to destroy The United States of America ? Thought it just wanted to leave the Union .
But "the union" to some means all 31, no less. They don't want any old union, they want the union as it was in 1860, plus whatever else they feel like piling on top.
To me that gives the South a moral position that most don't acknowledge. They did not try to enforce their beliefs on the other states
If a woman wants to leave a marriage, and the man declares that her leaving is harm to him and then he breaks her jaw and ties her up, we know that man to be a monster.
The extremely nice Middle Americans are as hopeless as the Russians who assumed that once the Revolutionaries removed the Tsar and outlawed hereditary titles that the horror show was over and decent folks could get back to decent life being decent.
The Revolutionaries will never stop. See China's Cultural Revolution if Stalin's great famine and purges fail to open your eyes. The Revolutionaries can have totalitarian control and still feel the burning desire to slaughter millions and violently harass tens of millions more.Replies: @(((Owen))), @RonaldB, @SteveRogers42, @Joe Schmoe
Power is a simple thing in some ways.
1984
My earliest memory of political correctness was a segment on Nick News in the early ’90s about students who fought to remove George Washington from the name of their high school for this exact reason.
Also I remember a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, a certain Barack H. Obama won the presidency on a platform of denying same-sex couples the right to marry. The past is a different country.
The beauty of leftward drift, permanent revolution, Saturn eating its young, and so forth, is that there is no end. They could go after Obama, eventually. No one is safe!
The irony is that Jefferson and Washington would have recognised the ambitions and reality of the C.S.A. as much more in line with their visions for the U.S.A. than what it had in fact come to be by 1862; they favoured yeoman farmers and decentralised rule, not urban plutocrats with central authority pursuing empire. In any event, they certainly knew all about wanting to be left alone by people someplace else, and I think we can all agree their sympathies were demonstrably and indisputably on the side of the persons wishing to be left alone and independent in such circumstances….
Perhaps this ostensible historian should dust off her copies of the Articles of … wait for it … Confederation.
Since no public figure in the entire history of the world had ever supported Gay Marriage until about twenty-odd years ago, this will make the ISIS people or the Red Guards of Mao's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution looks like the total fuddy-duddies they are...Replies: @syonredux, @2Mintzin1, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Anonymous, @TheJester, @Joe Schmoe
OTOH, I foresee ‘strange new respect’ for the old Seal of the Templars. Just like in (near-future action flick) Demolition Man, where all restaurants are Taco Bell, all statues will be Turtle Boy.
It has to be Tom Jefferson specifically, because he’s the only one with whom they’re familiar, plus there was a movie about him taking her to Paris. Case closed.
or you could FIGHT BACK and tear down their stuff? like MLK dystopia?
There are some people who desire a future in which every sculpture is one of those twisted hunks of metal randomly welded together that you always see on college campuses and recently-built parks.
Sure, they’re ugly, and they mean nothing, and all they leave you feeling is this weird sense of being out-of-place, but at least they can’t offend anybody. I guess some people find that “comfortable”.
The highest form of big city sculpture are grand equestrian statures of generals, momumental arches, and Italianate white marble fountains.
IIRC that trend started because of literal Russian influence. The soviets paid for a ton of those things to be placed in America. I think it was in one of Mencius moldbugs posts.
As a general matter, have these assurances that the Left intends only to take half a loaf ever proven true? "Gay marriage" is the most obvious recent example, but there are enough others to fill a book.Replies: @anon
As a general matter, have these assurances that the Left intends only to take half a loaf ever proven true?
The “slippery slope” argument is indeed a logical fallacy, but it seems to be true nearly all the time anyway. I hope that, somewhere out there, there are ethicists slowly being driven insane by that fact.
Wikipedia itself I think lists the slippery slope in the "questionable" section of its extensive list of fallacies.
Ah, the time machine option! Let’s see, after viewing the future, I think that the Union troops would have moved heaven and Earth to achieve Lincoln’s preferred solution: preserve the union, end slavery, and expel the free Blacks from the USA.
I love it when Steve comments on ‘enemy territory’ sites:
To be fair, “Hershel liebenfeld” appears to a troll, based on his avatar and a few slip-ups in his comment history. Still pretty convincing here, though. He’s like a Tiny Duck who really cares!
It's also a pretty good way to get kicked out of comments sections, though, so probably better to avoid.Replies: @dcthrowback
does he still need to pay reparations?Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
I think Diamond and Silk nail this one:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nwoudZPeG3c
Democratic politicians curried favor with white voters by supporting the creation of monuments honoring Confederate heroes, then they curry favor with black voters by having them removed generations later.
Perhaps this ostensible historian should dust off her copies of the Articles of ... wait for it ... Confederation.Replies: @syonredux
Dunno. Both Washington and Jefferson hated the institution of slavery. Plus, the South was hardly run by yeoman farmers, as the great plantation owners held the whip-hand (so to speak).Indeed, the yeoman farmers in places like Tennessee loathed slavery and the great plantation owners. Certain counties in the antebellum South were known as “White Man’s counties,” and slave-owners knew that it was not safe to transport slaves through them….
Here are the numbers (courtesy of tainted University of Virginia, and thus not to be trusted because of their Jeffersonian stink, of course...):
Percentage of Slave-Holding Families as a Fraction Total Free Households in Each State (1860)
Mississippi..............49%
South Carolina........46%
Georgia....................37%
Alabama..................35%
Florida.....................34%
Louisiana.................29%
Texas........................28%
North Carolina.........28%
Virginia....................26%
Tennessee................25%
Kentucky..................23%
Arkansas..................20%
Missouri...................13%
Maryland..................12%
Delaware.....................3%Replies: @syonredux
Advanced trolling is when you ask if blacks in America would like to trade places with their cousins who descended from people who were never enslaved and brought to America.
It’s also a pretty good way to get kicked out of comments sections, though, so probably better to avoid.
What the heck is a Gordon-Reed?
There’s a move in Chicago to rename Douglas Park:
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170614/north-lawndale/douglas-park-frederick-douglass-stephen-rekia-boyd-dante-servin/?utm_content=buffer4e901&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=DNAinfoCHI
In San Diego there is a movement to remove the statue of Pete Wilson from a very prominent place downtown: the pedestrian entrance to the big downtown mall.
I don’t think it is going anywhere, San Diego Republicans are far more numerous and bigger mall spenders than SJW, who do their shopping at thrift stores and Etsy.
Well then, they just need re-educating, of course.
See how that works?
All true.
The highest form of big city sculpture are grand equestrian statures of generals, momumental arches, and Italianate white marble fountains.
Mlk jr would need retconning into a Muslim, leaving it as is would run the risk that some future blacks would find a lost National Review magazine and believe it as the truth.
Yes Tiny’s problem is not that he’s a troll, but his lack of wit.
Yes, Jefferson and Washington, like most southerners (including Robert Edward Lee) hated the institution if slavery. Slavers were never a majority of our people, and most of us were in fact yeoman farmers. Slavers had disproportionate sociopolitical influence because they were rich assholes, just as shipping magnates and the owners of manufactories to the north held more influence than did the yeoman farmer or the independent tradesman there. ‘Twas ever so and in all times and places; ’tis so today.
Here are the numbers (courtesy of tainted University of Virginia, and thus not to be trusted because of their Jeffersonian stink, of course…):
Percentage of Slave-Holding Families as a Fraction Total Free Households in Each State (1860)
Mississippi…………..49%
South Carolina……..46%
Georgia………………..37%
Alabama………………35%
Florida…………………34%
Louisiana……………..29%
Texas……………………28%
North Carolina………28%
Virginia………………..26%
Tennessee…………….25%
Kentucky………………23%
Arkansas………………20%
Missouri……………….13%
Maryland………………12%
Delaware…………………3%
Wilson’s statue is doomed. SJW have more pull than ordinary people who just shop someplace. SJW are connected man! They are generally the no-good kids of big shots, its how they afford SJW-ing the first place.
As for Jews they are toast too. Already Israeli flags are banned at gay pride rallies, and the like. Solidarity with Palestine! Look at how Gal Gadot playing Wonder Woman got all the SJW upset because: A. Pretty; B. Israeli; C. Israeli army vet. Hollywood is the early stages of a Jewish purge by Blacks and Hispanics, who know they can seize power by being ultra aggressive.
This is why so much energy goes into movies like that one with Meryl Streep playing the horrifically awful opera singer. Indie movies that are Oscar Bait (but don’t win to keep Blacks happy) are the full employment act for Whites being pushed out of the movie business in favor of that guy from Birth of a Nation and Denzel Washington. You don’t think Meryl Streep would not like some of that sweet, sweet Avengers/Marvel/Star Wars money? But she’ll never get hired and having some crummy indie movie about some obscure historical figure is something to fall back on.
Non Whites are a in a position of demographic strength. They ARE the majority in a functional sense already (counting the babies born) and only extreme White cohesion and inflicting FEAR on other groups is a group survival mechanism. Which because of White genetic flaws — status signaling and the mate market imbalance is highly improbable.
After all, who is more adapted? Africans who seem poised to over-run the planet through sheer population explosion, or the people who created nuclear weapons and went to the moon?
Yeah duh of course all the Founding Father stuff will come down. Why would Africa or Central America or Yemen like the Founding Fathers? Its not as though Afghanistan is big on George Washington. Import enough in, and you’ll get statues to the 9/11 Hijackers and Osama Bin Laden.
I’ve written about this before, but Chernow is an interesting case. He’s a court historian; they wouldn’t have allowed him to be so popular and respected without being such. But he’s also been surprisingly forthright in his various books on High Finance and Big Business, featuring Morgans, Rockefellers and Warburgs.
Which I suppose is allowable because no one respects Robber Barons anymore. Plus, there’s plenty of room for revisionism the other way: “Hey, John D. was a cutthroat, but he also did all good liberal things.” Even so, his books have been gold mines for conspiracy theorists and others outside the mainstream. Murray Rothbard, for instance, pilfered Chernovian sources for his books on Wall Street and foreign policy and the history of banking in the U.S. (I hardly need say those books didn’t flatter their subjects.)
You could grow a healthy distrust of the ruling class by reading Chernow’s opera, even though he’s definitely in favor of the ruling class. Among it, really.
There’s fuzzy thinking on this subject by federal partisans. If 11 states left the union, there were 20 leftover. So there’s still a union.
But “the union” to some means all 31, no less. They don’t want any old union, they want the union as it was in 1860, plus whatever else they feel like piling on top.
“The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried onto the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker’s hand. He unrolled it and read it without pausing his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. [America] was at war with [homophobia]!”
– Orwell, 1984
They can and do offend people with a sense of aesthetics. But those people don’t matter.
Indeed. 20 years ago, more or less, the Black Bloc was trashing Banks and McDonalds in Seattle protesting Globalization. Now the Antifa are trashing Banks and McDonalds (and pesky Rightists) in the name of open borders and, implicitly, Globalization.
The Left was all for National Liberation Struggles in Africa and the rest of the Third World in the 70’s. Social Justice required national autonomy. Now Nationalism is a dirty word on the Left and Social Justice requires EU countries (and the U.S.) give up national autonomy.
ADD is the Left’s friend.
However, white nationalism, GASP...
The "slippery slope" argument is indeed a logical fallacy, but it seems to be true nearly all the time anyway. I hope that, somewhere out there, there are ethicists slowly being driven insane by that fact.Replies: @guest, @unpc downunder
The slippery slope is only fallacious if asserted a certain way. You have to say that some small step by itself *must* inevitably lead to certain consequences down the road, without reference to intermediate causes. If you only say some steps have a greater tendency than others to lead to things down the road if assumptions A and B are maintained, and conditions B, C, and D are present later, that’s perfectly reasonable
Wikipedia itself I think lists the slippery slope in the “questionable” section of its extensive list of fallacies.
Heck, even FDR’s days are numbered.
You’re appropriating Eloi culture here Mr Sailer.
Here are the numbers (courtesy of tainted University of Virginia, and thus not to be trusted because of their Jeffersonian stink, of course...):
Percentage of Slave-Holding Families as a Fraction Total Free Households in Each State (1860)
Mississippi..............49%
South Carolina........46%
Georgia....................37%
Alabama..................35%
Florida.....................34%
Louisiana.................29%
Texas........................28%
North Carolina.........28%
Virginia....................26%
Tennessee................25%
Kentucky..................23%
Arkansas..................20%
Missouri...................13%
Maryland..................12%
Delaware.....................3%Replies: @syonredux
Yeah, I know. My Dad’s side of the family is from the South. Started out in Virginia then migrated to Tennessee. They were anti-Slavery and pro-Union during the Civil War.
The stats on Mississippi and South Carolina are so depressing….
The slave-owning founding Fathers will be obliterated from memory within our lifetimes. No later than two more 20 year academic cycles.
I remember when the film “Malcolm X” was big. Blacks everywhere were sporting baseball-cap-like hats with a big black X on the front. Johnny Reb’s had their own retort, with similar caps carrying the Confederate Battle Flag design. Southerners went on and on about the Lost Cause, how the South would rise again despite its defeat in the War of Northern Aggression, how the brutal industrial North would never dominate the gentlemanly agricultural South, how the Sons of the South would never give up their proud heritage, et cetera, et cetera.
Me, I just silently shook my head, wishing that the Southron planters had picked their own damned cotton.
Then Dylann Roof came along and shot a passel of negroes, and that was the end of the South. What the armies of the North couldn’t do in four years, one skinny White kid did in four minutes.
Ban work!
State control of the economy is no solution. Work is, if anything, more dangerous in the state-socialist countries than it is here. Thousands of Russian workers were killed or injured building the Moscow subway. Stories reverberate about covered-up Soviet nuclear disasters which make Times Beach and Three-Mile Island look like elementary-school air-raid drills. On the other hand, deregulation, currently fashionable, won’t help and will probably hurt. From a health and safety standpoint, among others, work was at its worst in the days when the economy most closely approximated laissez-faire.
Historians like Eugene Genovese have argued persuasively that — as antebellum slavery apologists insisted — factory wage-workers in the Northern American states and in Europe were worse off than Southern plantation slaves. No rearrangement of relations among bureaucrats and businessmen seems to make much difference at the point of production. Serious enforcement of even the rather vague standards enforceable in theory by OSHA would probably bring the economy to a standstill. The enforcers apparently appreciate this, since they don’t even try to crack down on most malefactors.
Along those lines why do we call it the Civil War? It would seem to me that in a civil war two or more sides fight one another for control of the whole enchilada. But the South was not fighting to take over the nation. They were fighting to leave in the manner of a war for independence.
To me that gives the South a moral position that most don’t acknowledge. They did not try to enforce their beliefs on the other states
Haven’t there already been elementary schools named for George Washington that have been renamed because he was a slave owner?
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/12/us/blacks-strip-slaveholders-names-off-schools.htmlThis was a choice quote from the leader of the renaming campaign:There was a more recent controversy in San Francisco, but I don't think anything concrete has happened: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-sf-schools-rename-20160907-snap-story.html
Does anyone know of other George Washington renaming examples?
Guderian’s citizenship = Germany
Guderian’s enemies = Germany’s enemies
Lee’s citizenship = USA
Lee’s enemy = USA
The respect traditionally afforded people like Stonewall Jackson by northerners is respect for defending a way of life and for conduct as a gentleman and a warrior, not respect for civic duty and military professionalism. Anyone who thinks Jackson’s reputation rests on citizenship and professionalism has fallen prey to retconning.
And, for that matter, absent some sort of statute of limitations wherein after a designated number of years rebellions are legitimated:But, of course, consistency and principled reasoning is for suckers, right?Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Chrisnonymous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemings
Sally Hemmings lived to 62. Not bad for a slave and she was definitely pampered as far as slaves go. There is zero evidence Thomas Jefferson was raping her. My best guess is they did have sexual relations on a 100% consensual level. Because she knew her life, workload and status were enhanced by being Jefferson’s concubine. No big deal in my book but a huge thing for race obsessed libs and academic blacks to whine about.
Meanwhile current FBI statistics on interracial rape show that it is overwhelmingly a black man on while woman crime.
However, if you, as a white man, do find black women attractive - that's proof of your appalling racism.
Just keep these simple rules in mind folks and you won't go far wrong.Replies: @Ghost of Bull Moose
Sally Hemmings lived to 62. Not bad for a slave and she was definitely pampered as far as slaves go. There is zero evidence Thomas Jefferson was raping her. My best guess is they did have sexual relations on a 100% consensual level. Because she knew her life, workload and status were enhanced by being Jefferson's concubine. No big deal in my book but a huge thing for race obsessed libs and academic blacks to whine about.
Meanwhile current FBI statistics on interracial rape show that it is overwhelmingly a black man on while woman crime.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Lurker
Maybe she loved Thomas Jefferson?
Maybe they both loved each other? She was after all the (half) sister of his beloved deceased wife. Not that it matters greatly, but she was also three-quarters European.Replies: @Alec Leamas
"Hyland reveals that the oft-repeated claim that Jefferson was at Monticello at the time of each Hemings child's conception failed to stand up under scrutiny even before it was discovered that Sally was not at the plantation throughout the entire period. (It is now known, through the incidental remarks found in various correspondences, that she was periodically hired out to other households and spent time away from the plantation with her mistress Maria.)"
When you add this to that the fact that Jefferson was 64 at the time of Eton Hemings' birth and had health issues at the time, Jefferson's paternity becomes just another scurrilous leftist smear job to tarnish the Founding Fathers. Gordon-Reed herself, an affirmative action negress, is one of the most prominent authors of this lie, one in which she offers no proof but in which she implies that Thomas Jefferson fathered all 6 of Hemings children, not just Eton. But, Sally obviously got around. I'm sure she was raped, though, as everyone knows black women are such paragons of virtue. They would never engage in consensual sex with someone that could benefit their position. Six children? Hmm, must have been rape. At first.
Anyone that has studied Jefferson's writings knows how he felt about the black race. He also had an impeccable reputation in his time. Of course, over two hundred years later, the left knows so much more than the White people living at the same time Jefferson did.
George was no fool.
The "slippery slope" argument is indeed a logical fallacy, but it seems to be true nearly all the time anyway. I hope that, somewhere out there, there are ethicists slowly being driven insane by that fact.Replies: @guest, @unpc downunder
Well the slippery slope to economic communism didn’t happen, Jeff Bezos will vouch for that, but I don’t think the same can’t be said of a number of other slippery slopes.
How can we possibly accept a situation in which there continue to be countless statues and memorials to the prominent Civil War era figure who famously enunciated the following?
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Maybe she loved Thomas Jefferson?
Maybe they both loved each other? She was after all the (half) sister of his beloved deceased wife. Not that it matters greatly, but she was also three-quarters European.
Lincoln will certainly have to go. He wanted to send the blacks back to Africa. And he thought that they were certainly incompatible with whites.
Sally Hemmings lived to 62. Not bad for a slave and she was definitely pampered as far as slaves go. There is zero evidence Thomas Jefferson was raping her. My best guess is they did have sexual relations on a 100% consensual level. Because she knew her life, workload and status were enhanced by being Jefferson's concubine. No big deal in my book but a huge thing for race obsessed libs and academic blacks to whine about.
Meanwhile current FBI statistics on interracial rape show that it is overwhelmingly a black man on while woman crime.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Lurker
Remember, if you, as a white man, do not find black women attractive – that’s proof of your appalling racism.
However, if you, as a white man, do find black women attractive – that’s proof of your appalling racism.
Just keep these simple rules in mind folks and you won’t go far wrong.
Since no public figure in the entire history of the world had ever supported Gay Marriage until about twenty-odd years ago, this will make the ISIS people or the Red Guards of Mao's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution looks like the total fuddy-duddies they are...Replies: @syonredux, @2Mintzin1, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Anonymous, @TheJester, @Joe Schmoe
“Since no public figure in the entire history of the world had ever supported Gay Marriage until about twenty-odd years ago…”
-And now they can’t stop from falling over one another to demonstrate who has greatest loyalty to the rainbow flag.
Beware the hyphenated name. On to Rushmore
Guderian's enemies = Germany's enemies
Lee's citizenship = USA
Lee's enemy = USA
The respect traditionally afforded people like Stonewall Jackson by northerners is respect for defending a way of life and for conduct as a gentleman and a warrior, not respect for civic duty and military professionalism. Anyone who thinks Jackson's reputation rests on citizenship and professionalism has fallen prey to retconning.Replies: @Autochthon
Or, if you prefer (and this must be so following your logic), you may have:
So it’s down with any monuments to that traitorous, slaving bastard too, huh?
And, for that matter, absent some sort of statute of limitations wherein after a designated number of years rebellions are legitimated:
But, of course, consistency and principled reasoning is for suckers, right?
So, no, not Virginia. Lee's citizenship =
VirginiaU.S.A.The idea that the Confederate heroes were citizens of their states rather than of the Union is, as I said, retconning. Virginia was Lee's home, his extended family, but the US was his nation. I think it is safe to describe his position as something like, "if the Union is de facto dissolved, then my duty is de facto with my homies in Virginia". But his decision to fight for the Confederacy as opposed to the North was not because his relationship and duty to the Virginia militia was parallel to German army officers' relationship and duty to the Wehrmacht. (For one thing, if this were the case, he wouldn't have fought for any Confederacy at all.)
Referring back to unit472's comment, it is, in fact, precisely because Lee and others were not fighting just in a professional capacity that any statues were erected to them in the first place. And, sadly, an attempt to save the statues by making out the South's heroes to be acting out of simple professional duty like the Wehrmacht generals leaches any significance out of those statues.This analogy is very poor because we are not from the UK, but if I were to visit London, I would indeed think it very strange to see a monument to Washington. In the USA, Washington is not a traitor. That's how history works.
I would not like Southern generals' statues taken down, but I am not going to start making silly arguments like "Lee was just following orders".Replies: @Autochthon, @Anonymous, @guest
maybe that’s why they called him honest Abe
It's also a pretty good way to get kicked out of comments sections, though, so probably better to avoid.Replies: @dcthrowback
was going to say, “hershel liebenfeld” is doing graduate level work there
#Evergreen
The Left was all for National Liberation Struggles in Africa and the rest of the Third World in the 70's. Social Justice required national autonomy. Now Nationalism is a dirty word on the Left and Social Justice requires EU countries (and the U.S.) give up national autonomy.
ADD is the Left's friend.Replies: @Yak-15
I am on the same page with your sentiments. For the leftist, the currents of nationalism are good when they liberate blacks and browns from the cruel oppression of the white man. They are also good when those same blacks and browns, who yet again proved incapable of making decent countries, decide to land in our nation and wave the flags of their homelands during our election.
However, white nationalism, GASP…
There were some clairvoyants in the north back then: http://www.mihp.org/2015/08/the-illinois-confederates/
Forget statues, there’s a Waffen-SS veteran buried in Arlington National Cemetery: Lauri Torni, aka Larry Thorne.
Time to dig him up?
Maybe they both loved each other? She was after all the (half) sister of his beloved deceased wife. Not that it matters greatly, but she was also three-quarters European.Replies: @Alec Leamas
She probably looked like Rihanna/Halle Berry/Vanessa Williams/Lena Horne or similar, and was raised in a genteel manor house – which would make the whole affair much more understandable and probably reciprocal. It’s not a matter of Jefferson trotting by on his horse and plucking Oprah out of the cotton to scratch an itch.
I say next to go are indian fighters. And good riddance.
The NoLa monuments were always a peculiar institution given the lack of relevence Davis, Lee, and Beauregard had to NoLa. NoLa was also the first major city liberated, mostly with the consent of the locals.
One of the monuments celebrated a popular insurrection, sort of a White Lives Matter riot. We just can’t have that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liberty_Place
What you might be seeing is the first signs of the masses turning apathetic on militarism. Let’s hope.
General Beauregard was the only lost causer to have had a clear shot at Washington DC but chose not to march north, so I think he more than anyone deserves a statue in DC.
That alone should get Lee something.
Jay Winik wrote a book about this called 'April 1865: The Month That Saved America.'
And, for that matter, absent some sort of statute of limitations wherein after a designated number of years rebellions are legitimated:But, of course, consistency and principled reasoning is for suckers, right?Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Chrisnonymous
Nice job, Autochthon! I was going to write the same thing almost to the letter, including the strikes, which you know I like.
Thanks for correcting this guy and saving me a few minutes of my busy day. I don’t always have time for this stuff.
Chrisnonymous, look up the definition of “state”, not US state, but state in general. The idea was not that Virginia was just a province of the country of “US”. It was a sovereign state.
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for "perpetual union," so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution."
Indeed. If the states were sovereign, the Constitution truly would have established an anarchy rather than a government. I think Southerners like Lee had a more complex view of sovereignty and duty than "It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to." That's why they have statues built to them.Replies: @jacques sheete
Randolph Jefferson (sort of like Billy Carter or Roger Clinton) is a much more logical guess than Thomas, in my opinion.
“Old Master’s brother, Mass Randall, was a mighty simple man: used to come out among black people, play the fiddle and dance half the night: hadn’t much more sense that Isaac.”
-Isaac Jefferson, former slave at Monticello, recounted in 1847.
There’s supposedly an oral Hemming’s tradition that speaks of a Jefferson uncle, thought to actually be his brother Randolph, as Thomas Jefferson’s children would have called him “Uncle.”
The extremely nice Middle Americans are as hopeless as the Russians who assumed that once the Revolutionaries removed the Tsar and outlawed hereditary titles that the horror show was over and decent folks could get back to decent life being decent.
The Revolutionaries will never stop. See China's Cultural Revolution if Stalin's great famine and purges fail to open your eyes. The Revolutionaries can have totalitarian control and still feel the burning desire to slaughter millions and violently harass tens of millions more.Replies: @(((Owen))), @RonaldB, @SteveRogers42, @Joe Schmoe
“Only the most stupid people assumed the war against the Confederates could be contained with removing everything to do with Confederates. ”
Good observation. However, the statue-smashers don’t care about historical slave-holding, any more than feminists care about women. The real driver of organized obliteration is cultural Marxism, which holds the destruction of present society as a precondition for progress, as in monoracial socialism. So in most cases, the abolition of gender-separated restrooms, the push to bring women into combat positions and special forces operations, the destruction of livable suburban neighborhoods, the suppression of historical literature, the objective is to destroy the present culture and leave the population rootless and without any common interests or customs to tie people together.
So, of course no concessions will satisfy the demand for cultural obliteration. The issue is not the separate issues, but the obliteration itself.
Viewed in this light, it’s completely understandable why feminists would ignore female genital mutilation (FGM). Most feminist organizations are fronts for cult-Marxism, using feminism as a wedge issue. Same for gay rights organizations. Truthfully, I don’t know enough about black rights or hispanic rights groups at this point to say whether their primary driver is rampant racial identity or cultural Marxism.
Only a damned fool thinks Idi Amin's bloodlust ever could have been satiated. Robert Mugabe, the Left's favorite Negro before Nelson Mandela, would have 0 moral compunction in slaughtering every white on the African continent and then every black that dared resist his tolal rule. Trotsky in power over Stalin likely would have been worse. Che Guevara, 100% pure European in genetics and cultural heritage and raised with a silver spoon, would have been more than happy to see every Latin American who remained Catholic or opposed socialist collectivization slaughtered, or at last imprisoned.
That is what the Left is, and the American Left is itching to get the ball rolling fully here.Replies: @Jack Hanson
https://youtu.be/6_35a7sn6ds?t=1m50s
A lot of it is the typical cliches we've all heard but some of it is quite eyebrow raising. Sample verse from a latina rapper named "Snow Tha Product":Indeed.Replies: @RonaldB, @oh its just me too, @SteveRogers42
Interesting.
The rest of the video displays an even more virulent hatred of the US than the text you display. Like, we should make it easy for people to come in who pick fruits for awhile, but consider the US to be conquered territory from Mexico and a general oppressor in the world. In fact, it’s not a bad thing this video is trending on YouTube. For someone still in possession of his brain, it’s a POWERFUL inducement to stop immigration.
>one of those twisted hunks of metal randomly welded together that you always see on college campuses and recently-built parks.
IIRC that trend started because of literal Russian influence. The soviets paid for a ton of those things to be placed in America. I think it was in one of Mencius moldbugs posts.
They’ll need more metal than that if they’re planning a monument to Michael Brown. Is there a statue of President Taft they could use?
No, because all of these statues will be rendered from photos of the martyrs when they were 10 years old.
A quick search finds one example from New Orleans in 1997:
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/12/us/blacks-strip-slaveholders-names-off-schools.html
This was a choice quote from the leader of the renaming campaign:
There was a more recent controversy in San Francisco, but I don’t think anything concrete has happened: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-sf-schools-rename-20160907-snap-story.html
Does anyone know of other George Washington renaming examples?
Does any resident Civil War history buff know if the legend that Lee surrendered at Appomattox without orders from Jefferson Davis in order to spare the lives of men on both sides from continued conflict as popularized in “God Bless Robert E. Lee” as sung by Johnny Cash has historical merit?
I thought that this dimension of Lee was part of his veneration – exercising agency and leadership to bring the conflict to an end rather than prolong it by attrition of the Union forces after a Southern victory was out of reach.
The NoLa monuments were always a peculiar institution given the lack of relevence Davis, Lee, and Beauregard had to NoLa. NoLa was also the first major city liberated, mostly with the consent of the locals.
One of the monuments celebrated a popular insurrection, sort of a White Lives Matter riot. We just can't have that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liberty_Place
What you might be seeing is the first signs of the masses turning apathetic on militarism. Let's hope.
General Beauregard was the only lost causer to have had a clear shot at Washington DC but chose not to march north, so I think he more than anyone deserves a statue in DC.Replies: @anonymous
Lee could have not surrendered and encouraged a continuation of the war in the form of a guerrilla conflict. A guerrilla conflict was taking place in Missouri and some Southerners thought the same could be done throughout the South. But Lee was adamant that the conflict should end and reconciliation should begin.
That alone should get Lee something.
Jay Winik wrote a book about this called ‘April 1865: The Month That Saved America.’
Race relations made a lot more sense in the 1700s than 2017.
It’s ironic that the people who want whites to disappear into a great coffee-coloured mongrel mass are the same ones who decry Jefferson for his alleged miscegenation.
And as we all know, when Genius T Coates proclaims–people listen.
I thought that this dimension of Lee was part of his veneration - exercising agency and leadership to bring the conflict to an end rather than prolong it by attrition of the Union forces after a Southern victory was out of reach.Replies: @anonymous, @Buffalo Joe, @NorthOfTheOneOhOne
Lee owned slaves. Case closed! As far as they’re concerned he was a “cracker” who was to the manor born. That’s all they care about. Nothing else.
Good observation. However, the statue-smashers don't care about historical slave-holding, any more than feminists care about women. The real driver of organized obliteration is cultural Marxism, which holds the destruction of present society as a precondition for progress, as in monoracial socialism. So in most cases, the abolition of gender-separated restrooms, the push to bring women into combat positions and special forces operations, the destruction of livable suburban neighborhoods, the suppression of historical literature, the objective is to destroy the present culture and leave the population rootless and without any common interests or customs to tie people together.
So, of course no concessions will satisfy the demand for cultural obliteration. The issue is not the separate issues, but the obliteration itself.
Viewed in this light, it's completely understandable why feminists would ignore female genital mutilation (FGM). Most feminist organizations are fronts for cult-Marxism, using feminism as a wedge issue. Same for gay rights organizations. Truthfully, I don't know enough about black rights or hispanic rights groups at this point to say whether their primary driver is rampant racial identity or cultural Marxism.Replies: @anonymous, @Jake
In a previous post I indicated that these Know-Nothings only know “slavery”, hence the desire for the obliteration of any statues honoring Bobby Lee etal. With the exception of people like Genius Coates and a few others, most of these blacks lack the sophistication to understand what cultural Marxism is. For them it’s slavery, but for The Movement it’s, as you put it, cultural Marxism.
And, for that matter, absent some sort of statute of limitations wherein after a designated number of years rebellions are legitimated:But, of course, consistency and principled reasoning is for suckers, right?Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Chrisnonymous
“As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country… and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation… Secession is nothing but revolution.” -Robert E. Lee
So, no, not Virginia. Lee’s citizenship =
VirginiaU.S.A.The idea that the Confederate heroes were citizens of their states rather than of the Union is, as I said, retconning. Virginia was Lee’s home, his extended family, but the US was his nation. I think it is safe to describe his position as something like, “if the Union is de facto dissolved, then my duty is de facto with my homies in Virginia”. But his decision to fight for the Confederacy as opposed to the North was not because his relationship and duty to the Virginia militia was parallel to German army officers’ relationship and duty to the Wehrmacht. (For one thing, if this were the case, he wouldn’t have fought for any Confederacy at all.)
Referring back to unit472’s comment, it is, in fact, precisely because Lee and others were not fighting just in a professional capacity that any statues were erected to them in the first place. And, sadly, an attempt to save the statues by making out the South’s heroes to be acting out of simple professional duty like the Wehrmacht generals leaches any significance out of those statues.
This analogy is very poor because we are not from the UK, but if I were to visit London, I would indeed think it very strange to see a monument to Washington. In the USA, Washington is not a traitor. That’s how history works.
I would not like Southern generals’ statues taken down, but I am not going to start making silly arguments like “Lee was just following orders”.
How do you respond when people point out that Lee turned down command of Union forces in favor of heading a Virginian army against the U.S.? That he wanted to, favoring as he did his country over his state, but he didn't feel like making the trip from Arlington to the White House to pick up his baton?
"I am not going to start making silly arguments like 'Lee was just following orders.'"
Literally no one is making that argument.Replies: @Chrisnonymous
I know someone who disagrees with you. His name is Robert E. Lee. You might have heard of him. He wrote to his son:
“The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.”
Indeed. If the states were sovereign, the Constitution truly would have established an anarchy rather than a government. I think Southerners like Lee had a more complex view of sovereignty and duty than “It’s my party, and I’ll cry if I want to.” That’s why they have statues built to them.
What the cornstitution established was a usurping plutocratic oligarchy.
Two liberal college professors I knew would say “I’m a Party Man.” They were referring to the democratic party and would back ANYTHING this required.
Anonymous, LA is planning to name a street, not a boulevard after Obama. I wonder if it will intersect with MLK Blvd. Better yet, make it a round-about.
We SoCal residents are breathing a collective sigh of relief knowing just how close we came to the Apocalpyse, or maybe it was the Shopocaust, given the name similarity.
Rodeo Drive isn't that far away from Rodeo Road (meh, wrong town) and renaming the hallowed shopping street in the heart of Beverly Hills would've been just too much for local delicate sensibilities.
Now back to our other news, awaiting fires, rain, mudslides and the occasional earthquake while ICE rounds up widows and orphans to deport.
Rob, we have to share our wimin folk, not the other way around.
Yeah, who ever heard of a woman falling for a man who was rich, world-famous, and politically powerful?
I thought that this dimension of Lee was part of his veneration - exercising agency and leadership to bring the conflict to an end rather than prolong it by attrition of the Union forces after a Southern victory was out of reach.Replies: @anonymous, @Buffalo Joe, @NorthOfTheOneOhOne
Alec, Lee’s excursion north, that ended with the Battle of Gettysburg, was an attempt to persuade both sides to find a resolution to the war. He thought Northerners would say enough if he could draw the Yanks into a battle at Harrisburg. Didn’t quite work out that way. Lee had no choice but to surrender at Appomattox , his troops were weary, unshod, hungry, sick and undersupplied.
Good observation. However, the statue-smashers don't care about historical slave-holding, any more than feminists care about women. The real driver of organized obliteration is cultural Marxism, which holds the destruction of present society as a precondition for progress, as in monoracial socialism. So in most cases, the abolition of gender-separated restrooms, the push to bring women into combat positions and special forces operations, the destruction of livable suburban neighborhoods, the suppression of historical literature, the objective is to destroy the present culture and leave the population rootless and without any common interests or customs to tie people together.
So, of course no concessions will satisfy the demand for cultural obliteration. The issue is not the separate issues, but the obliteration itself.
Viewed in this light, it's completely understandable why feminists would ignore female genital mutilation (FGM). Most feminist organizations are fronts for cult-Marxism, using feminism as a wedge issue. Same for gay rights organizations. Truthfully, I don't know enough about black rights or hispanic rights groups at this point to say whether their primary driver is rampant racial identity or cultural Marxism.Replies: @anonymous, @Jake
That is correct. The revolutionaries can never be appeased. Stalin had more total power over a large number of people than any person in history, and he still had to arrange more purges, more show trials, more executions. Ditto Mao.
Only a damned fool thinks Idi Amin’s bloodlust ever could have been satiated. Robert Mugabe, the Left’s favorite Negro before Nelson Mandela, would have 0 moral compunction in slaughtering every white on the African continent and then every black that dared resist his tolal rule. Trotsky in power over Stalin likely would have been worse. Che Guevara, 100% pure European in genetics and cultural heritage and raised with a silver spoon, would have been more than happy to see every Latin American who remained Catholic or opposed socialist collectivization slaughtered, or at last imprisoned.
That is what the Left is, and the American Left is itching to get the ball rolling fully here.
Since no public figure in the entire history of the world had ever supported Gay Marriage until about twenty-odd years ago, this will make the ISIS people or the Red Guards of Mao's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution looks like the total fuddy-duddies they are...Replies: @syonredux, @2Mintzin1, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Anonymous, @TheJester, @Joe Schmoe
Ron, surely you jest … NOT.
Conspiracy theorists like myself wonder who is driving the top-down social changes being forced on America that mandate that at least 50% of all advertising include Blacks. (I thought Blacks were 12% of the population, not 50%.) Then (pop !!!), we are assaulted with advertising that includes Black males with White females. Then (pop !!!), we are assaulted with advertising that includes homosexual males and females.
This has nothing to do with marketing in a market-driven economy. All of a sudden, why would businesses focus on marketing diamonds to the lowest economic demographic in the country? I guess that Hispanics, who rate above Blacks in economic status and wealth, have no use for diamonds … but the inhabitants of Baltimore, Detroit, and Cleveland clearly do.
My guess is that the movement to force the images of Blacks, Gays, and Transgendered people on the populace and the movement to ban Confederate flags (even from the battlefield at Gettysburg) are related.
Then, a realization. Wow! The firms controlling media content and advertising are all located in the megacities that vote Left, think Left, and act Left. They are often called “Cultural Marxists”, which is a euphemism for Communist social programs and the global dystopias they hope to impose on the world. This slight-of-hand is similar to renaming Al-Queda as Al-Nursa and hope that no one notices.
We should beware. At the end of the day, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin are still “alive” within the leftist New World Order they are trying to impose on us.
The seceding states wanted to leave the Union, not replace it. They were not fighting to force the other states to accept Jefferson Davis as President and Judah Benjamin as Secretary of War.
If a woman wants to leave a marriage, and the man declares that her leaving is harm to him and then he breaks her jaw and ties her up, we know that man to be a monster.
The narrative was well established over 200 years ago and Thomas Jefferson, in his infinite wisdom, didn’t deny it because he surely wouldn’t want to sound as foolish as a future US President and middle-namesake (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Hemings”).
Thomas Jefferson is arguably the most important figure in American history. A relationship with Sally Hemings doesn’t change that or diminish his accomplishments one iota. I really don’t think it’s doing him any favors to be a hero of an unholy alliance of Stormfront and the Flat Earth Society.
BFD. Let’s just assume it was Jefferson and not his brother. What’s the big deal about Jefferson banging Sally? There’s absolutely no reason he shouldn’t. He’s widowed. “Jungle Fever”? Sally Hemings was actually his wife’s half-sister–a pretty good wife substitute. And she was at least 3/4 white. (Jefferson’s father-in-law was banging a halfie.) She was whiter than–the pretty cute–Thandie Newton. What, old Jeff’s suppose to beg off on that because of a little “Nubian” blood, log onto tumblr and choke his chicken?
Sally Hemings was almost certainly thrilled by Jefferson’s attentions. Women are hypergamous. They crave high status (and maleness). (Not unreasonably, they want good genes and high-quality provision for their children.) Jefferson was boss. Master of the plantation she was on. Writer of the Declaration of Independence. Ambassador to France. Secretary of State and finally President of the United States. Plus, he made her kids 7/8ths white and they were manumitted and headed out into white society. No she didn’t want any of that cock! She wanted to be a scullery maid and get it from some field buck. Puh-lease.
Modern leftists are just loons and along with their other idiocies have seemingly have no concept of the actual world of sexual relations as they have existed between men and women in the real world since … eternity.
By any social-sexual analysis, Jefferson was indeed alpha af.
How could Sally Hemmings have possibly wanted to console her late half-sister's young widower? It had to have been rape!
Steve, I’m very disappointed. Have you never researched this issue? The Sally Hemings myth is a lie that originated in the early 19th century by a disappointed office seeker and followed the typical journalistic political assassination techniques of the time. DNA results do not prove Thomas Jefferson was the father. It indicates that one of 25 males of the Jefferson line could be the father. The more obvious candidates are his brother Randolph or a nephew. Not to mention that
“Hyland reveals that the oft-repeated claim that Jefferson was at Monticello at the time of each Hemings child’s conception failed to stand up under scrutiny even before it was discovered that Sally was not at the plantation throughout the entire period. (It is now known, through the incidental remarks found in various correspondences, that she was periodically hired out to other households and spent time away from the plantation with her mistress Maria.)”
When you add this to that the fact that Jefferson was 64 at the time of Eton Hemings’ birth and had health issues at the time, Jefferson’s paternity becomes just another scurrilous leftist smear job to tarnish the Founding Fathers. Gordon-Reed herself, an affirmative action negress, is one of the most prominent authors of this lie, one in which she offers no proof but in which she implies that Thomas Jefferson fathered all 6 of Hemings children, not just Eton. But, Sally obviously got around. I’m sure she was raped, though, as everyone knows black women are such paragons of virtue. They would never engage in consensual sex with someone that could benefit their position. Six children? Hmm, must have been rape. At first.
Anyone that has studied Jefferson’s writings knows how he felt about the black race. He also had an impeccable reputation in his time. Of course, over two hundred years later, the left knows so much more than the White people living at the same time Jefferson did.
I thought that this dimension of Lee was part of his veneration - exercising agency and leadership to bring the conflict to an end rather than prolong it by attrition of the Union forces after a Southern victory was out of reach.Replies: @anonymous, @Buffalo Joe, @NorthOfTheOneOhOne
Was that the primary reason for Lee’s surrender? No. Was it a consideration? I’m sure it was.
He was in retreat after a loss at Sailor’s Creek, his supply lines were cut and a large portion of his supply train had been captured by the Union cavalry. His only hope of resupply was in Lynchburg provided he could break through the Union Cavalry lines that stood in the way. Lee attacked and the Union cavalry held. By the time it became clear that he could not break the Union line he was in danger of being flanked by Grant and most likely would have been wiped out.
As Yogi Berra said, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Who would have guessed that 80 years ago the super-fringe far left (representing maybe 1 in a 1000) would win nearly every social battle? And the mainstream left would lose most economic battles?
One of the few cultural battles conservatives have won is gun rights. The great champion of gun rights, the NRA, is notoriously uncompromising. As much as I prefer compromise in general, there is much to be learned by this example, at least in the cultural sphere.
If you care about venerating our great American heroes like Jefferson and Washington, it probably makes sense to draw a line in the sand with Andrew Jackson. Yank his picture off the $20 and I assume Jefferson and Washington will eventually follow. Despite Trump’s praise of our 7th President, I haven’t heard one comment about reversing the idiotic plan to remove him the front of the twenty.
You're quite right about predicting the future though. If you told me in say 1986 that the Supreme Court would impose gay marriage on the nation I'd have laughed at you.
30 years later....Replies: @Clyde
Not brutal enough judging by the current state of Western Civ.
Somewhat Whiskeyish reasoning, but plausible, probable and streets ahead of Whiskey’s “the Jews are toast” and “blacks and Hispanics taking over Hollywood” stuff above.
Take them all down. Seriously. FDR stuck 150,000 Japanese Americans in concentration camps. Many of the founders were slaveowners.
Why should they get a free pass? If White people are going to sit silent while Confederate heroes are torn down, then they deserve what they get.
I guess Jefferson was one of the good slave owners.
In Germany at least, any favorable reference by a public figure to Guderian and Galland as honorable men will elicit a storm of outrage. Very recently, a campaign commenced to expunge any and all depictions or memorabilia of Wehrmacht members from all military facilities of the Bundeswehr. This included a photograph of former chancellor Helmut Schmidt in his officer’s uniform during his WW2 service. He was in the regular army, and the photo had been displayed in a barracks. His postwar service as a universally respected leader of the nation and a Social Democrat (Germany’s centre-left SPD) did not spare him.
“They’ll need more metal than that if they’re planning a monument to Michael Brown.”
No, because all of these statues will be rendered from photos of the martyrs when they were 10 years old.
However, if you, as a white man, do find black women attractive - that's proof of your appalling racism.
Just keep these simple rules in mind folks and you won't go far wrong.Replies: @Ghost of Bull Moose
Maybe a lot of white men did rape black women in the distant past. I wonder why they stopped?
As for black women, I think they are undervalued in the same way (As Steve might have mentioned once or twice) that Julian Edelman is undervalued as a football player. Even white coaches operate under the assumption that blacks are better players. Maybe they are, but that still means you can find bargains among the white players.
Every white guy I know with a black girlfriend of wife benefits from his own perceived value, as well ( *except Bill de Blasio). In other words, their wives are very often much more attractive than you might expect given their man’s apparent market value.
Many non-white women, including black women ( though Latinas & Asians more so), think a white man is a pretty good catch.
White women are over-valued, as a result of the Horde’s obsession with them. Hence the attitude; women want to be wanted, and too much is never enough.
Consider a flood of Filipinas arriving at Frankfurt airport to a crowd of middle-aged incels holding bunches of flowers and signs saying, ‘Immigrants Welcome!’
Only a damned fool thinks Idi Amin's bloodlust ever could have been satiated. Robert Mugabe, the Left's favorite Negro before Nelson Mandela, would have 0 moral compunction in slaughtering every white on the African continent and then every black that dared resist his tolal rule. Trotsky in power over Stalin likely would have been worse. Che Guevara, 100% pure European in genetics and cultural heritage and raised with a silver spoon, would have been more than happy to see every Latin American who remained Catholic or opposed socialist collectivization slaughtered, or at last imprisoned.
That is what the Left is, and the American Left is itching to get the ball rolling fully here.Replies: @Jack Hanson
I keep reiterating your last line but Steve only goes into complicated discussions about gun violence versus confronting the facts his neighbors would likely stuff him into a gulag.
I was going to mock this as “Whiskey you logged in under the wrong name” but as I read I have to admit I agree with you.
By any social-sexual analysis, Jefferson was indeed alpha af.
Jefferson was fairly rich, a good looking guy, about 6’3,” a near-artistic genius in the more practical arts such as architecture and landscape architecture, a successful inventor, great with words (he wrote one of the top few dozen most famous passages in human history), and a man to whom numerous other powerful men looked as their natural leader.
How could Sally Hemmings have possibly wanted to console her late half-sister’s young widower? It had to have been rape!
Joe,
We SoCal residents are breathing a collective sigh of relief knowing just how close we came to the Apocalpyse, or maybe it was the Shopocaust, given the name similarity.
Rodeo Drive isn’t that far away from Rodeo Road (meh, wrong town) and renaming the hallowed shopping street in the heart of Beverly Hills would’ve been just too much for local delicate sensibilities.
Now back to our other news, awaiting fires, rain, mudslides and the occasional earthquake while ICE rounds up widows and orphans to deport.
You guys simply don’t appreciate the Kaufmanesque majesty of Tinys work here!
So, no, not Virginia. Lee's citizenship =
VirginiaU.S.A.The idea that the Confederate heroes were citizens of their states rather than of the Union is, as I said, retconning. Virginia was Lee's home, his extended family, but the US was his nation. I think it is safe to describe his position as something like, "if the Union is de facto dissolved, then my duty is de facto with my homies in Virginia". But his decision to fight for the Confederacy as opposed to the North was not because his relationship and duty to the Virginia militia was parallel to German army officers' relationship and duty to the Wehrmacht. (For one thing, if this were the case, he wouldn't have fought for any Confederacy at all.)
Referring back to unit472's comment, it is, in fact, precisely because Lee and others were not fighting just in a professional capacity that any statues were erected to them in the first place. And, sadly, an attempt to save the statues by making out the South's heroes to be acting out of simple professional duty like the Wehrmacht generals leaches any significance out of those statues.This analogy is very poor because we are not from the UK, but if I were to visit London, I would indeed think it very strange to see a monument to Washington. In the USA, Washington is not a traitor. That's how history works.
I would not like Southern generals' statues taken down, but I am not going to start making silly arguments like "Lee was just following orders".Replies: @Autochthon, @Anonymous, @guest
This piece is all over the place, and much of it responding to what I cannot know (certainly no argument I made). I will, however, make what responses are constructive.
It is helpful to heed Lee’s words rather than to attribute one’s own to him.
Reading these words, most especially those first, written to his son, I see nothing I could add; if it be not clear to the reader that a man can dearly love his nation yet be compelled to resist it should its government turn to tyranny, and then swear allegiance to defend a new state carved out of that nation voluntarily by its oppressed inhabitants to reassert their sovereignty as a free people, and such man be not one whit inconstant, much less traitorous, then the fault lies in the reader, not any shortcoming of Lee’s eloquence. The man needs no defence from me, even in death.
Incidentally, moral principles superseding loyalty is an argument for tearing down Lee's statues nowadays. Good job. I prefer to honor Lee as an honorable man and exemplary gentleman who was complex enough to recognize his own confliction and man enough to resolve it in action.Yeah. Exactly. As I summarized, “if the Union is de facto dissolved, then my duty is de facto with my homies in Virginia”. Thanks for looking that up for me.
https://youtu.be/6_35a7sn6ds?t=1m50s
A lot of it is the typical cliches we've all heard but some of it is quite eyebrow raising. Sample verse from a latina rapper named "Snow Tha Product":Indeed.Replies: @RonaldB, @oh its just me too, @SteveRogers42
VERY obvious that youtube and google and facebook manipulate what’s ‘trending’.
http://archive.is/aPPszAlso, I know youtube made a doodle with their logo that linked to a video that was made by the international rescue committee, but it kinda backfired. Sample from the top comments:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxbdvo2vFwc
More than tearing down statues, the next logical step in the never-ending chain of SJW causes will be white/black-white/asian-white/hispanic interracial marriages and children.
So, no, not Virginia. Lee's citizenship =
VirginiaU.S.A.The idea that the Confederate heroes were citizens of their states rather than of the Union is, as I said, retconning. Virginia was Lee's home, his extended family, but the US was his nation. I think it is safe to describe his position as something like, "if the Union is de facto dissolved, then my duty is de facto with my homies in Virginia". But his decision to fight for the Confederacy as opposed to the North was not because his relationship and duty to the Virginia militia was parallel to German army officers' relationship and duty to the Wehrmacht. (For one thing, if this were the case, he wouldn't have fought for any Confederacy at all.)
Referring back to unit472's comment, it is, in fact, precisely because Lee and others were not fighting just in a professional capacity that any statues were erected to them in the first place. And, sadly, an attempt to save the statues by making out the South's heroes to be acting out of simple professional duty like the Wehrmacht generals leaches any significance out of those statues.This analogy is very poor because we are not from the UK, but if I were to visit London, I would indeed think it very strange to see a monument to Washington. In the USA, Washington is not a traitor. That's how history works.
I would not like Southern generals' statues taken down, but I am not going to start making silly arguments like "Lee was just following orders".Replies: @Autochthon, @Anonymous, @guest
The North won and pushed mass immigration. How’s that working out for you?
So, no, not Virginia. Lee's citizenship =
VirginiaU.S.A.The idea that the Confederate heroes were citizens of their states rather than of the Union is, as I said, retconning. Virginia was Lee's home, his extended family, but the US was his nation. I think it is safe to describe his position as something like, "if the Union is de facto dissolved, then my duty is de facto with my homies in Virginia". But his decision to fight for the Confederacy as opposed to the North was not because his relationship and duty to the Virginia militia was parallel to German army officers' relationship and duty to the Wehrmacht. (For one thing, if this were the case, he wouldn't have fought for any Confederacy at all.)
Referring back to unit472's comment, it is, in fact, precisely because Lee and others were not fighting just in a professional capacity that any statues were erected to them in the first place. And, sadly, an attempt to save the statues by making out the South's heroes to be acting out of simple professional duty like the Wehrmacht generals leaches any significance out of those statues.This analogy is very poor because we are not from the UK, but if I were to visit London, I would indeed think it very strange to see a monument to Washington. In the USA, Washington is not a traitor. That's how history works.
I would not like Southern generals' statues taken down, but I am not going to start making silly arguments like "Lee was just following orders".Replies: @Autochthon, @Anonymous, @guest
“The idea that the Confederate heroes were citizens of their states rather than of their Union is, as I said, retconning”
How do you respond when people point out that Lee turned down command of Union forces in favor of heading a Virginian army against the U.S.? That he wanted to, favoring as he did his country over his state, but he didn’t feel like making the trip from Arlington to the White House to pick up his baton?
“I am not going to start making silly arguments like ‘Lee was just following orders.’”
Literally no one is making that argument.
So that is one answer. What would you do if the police demanded that you turn in your own flesh and blood? Yet, if you say you would not comply with the police demand, are you then saying that you owe no duty to the police, that you bear no allegiance to the government, that you are not a citizen?
So that is another answer. Another is that Lee was a man, not a philosophy. If he were simply an automatonic citizen of Virginia, could he have fought for the Confederacy? Obviously not. Did he have simply shifting loyalties--changing from a long-time 100% pro-USA army officer to a 100% pro-Virginia militiaman to a 100% pro-Confederacy commander (since, obviously, if he were a citizen of Virginia, he could not therefore be a citizen of the Confederacy)? No. So was he a traitor to all? No. He was a man. He was different things at different times and different things at the same time. But at the start of the conflict, he was a citizen of the USA who recognized that fact himself.Can you explain to me what is the difference between "that argument" and the one that unit472 was making that I originally responded to? All my comments are in the context of unit472 saying, essentially, "Lee fighting the North is the same as Guderian fighting Russia." Please explain.Replies: @guest
Black women are of low value, and maybe undervalued. They’re a good place to bargain hunt. White boys don’t cross their paths often enough, given de facto segregation.
They’re lowest on the totem pole for a reason. Not because whites, Asians, and others are overvalued, but because people just aren’t that into black chicks. Better than nothing, though.
You’ve well explained why it wouldn’t have to be rape. Not everyone automatically assumes it was, though that’s obviously behind the left’s black mark against him. But there’s more to the propriety of their alleged relationship than whether or not it was rape, and whether or not she had reason to be attracted to him.
If he was a widower he could have remarried, for instance, and got his rocks off in a publicly-sanctioned relationship. Nevermind old-timey standards, however. We no longer give much thought to sex out of wedlock or race mixing, at least in polite mixed company. Tongues still cluck about other matters. He didn’t claim his kid, if in fact he was the father. Maybe he abused his position, if not as master than as boss, as the older one, as public figure with an example to set.
Not that any of this necessarily matters to you. Just to say more than Sally Hemmings’ tingles matter. People who swallow the red pill on sex have a tendency to flirt with the naturalistic fallacy.
Marion is very far Downstate. Some Copperheads were from areas that were very Northern both geographically and culturally.
Stop making sense.
The extremely nice Middle Americans are as hopeless as the Russians who assumed that once the Revolutionaries removed the Tsar and outlawed hereditary titles that the horror show was over and decent folks could get back to decent life being decent.
The Revolutionaries will never stop. See China's Cultural Revolution if Stalin's great famine and purges fail to open your eyes. The Revolutionaries can have totalitarian control and still feel the burning desire to slaughter millions and violently harass tens of millions more.Replies: @(((Owen))), @RonaldB, @SteveRogers42, @Joe Schmoe
Progressives must continually Progress toward Progtopia. They will never stop until they are stopped.
https://youtu.be/6_35a7sn6ds?t=1m50s
A lot of it is the typical cliches we've all heard but some of it is quite eyebrow raising. Sample verse from a latina rapper named "Snow Tha Product":Indeed.Replies: @RonaldB, @oh its just me too, @SteveRogers42
Me, I just silently shook my head, wishing that the Southron planters had picked their own damned cotton.
Then Dylann Roof came along and shot a passel of negroes, and that was the end of the South. What the armies of the North couldn't do in four years, one skinny White kid did in four minutes.Replies: @The Plutonium Kid
One skinny, mentally disturbed white kid.
bored identiy has such a bad connection in his alt-deplorable Bluegrass trailer park, that he can hardly pick up any of fluffy staple fiber growing on The Atlantic content farm.
does he still need to pay reparations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-3q4iL8sr8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gVUd1WtU9MReplies: @bored identity
There’s a recent thread on this at Scott Aaronson’s blog. The result is similar to what happened in his famous debate with Moldbug:
the least PC, highest-IQ presentation of conventional center-left positions on issues of the day gets destroyed by equally high-IQ alt-right / neoreactionary Trumpists.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3285
A comment there from “Anonymous Berkeley Professor”:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3285#comment-1736117
The same professor had earlier posted a wonderful set of remarks 5 months before the election, prefiguring the Moldbug Event:.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2777#comment-1148039
Anon Berkeley Prof clearly reads Roissy, and surely also Sailer’s blog. Maybe he uses another handle here?
How do you respond when people point out that Lee turned down command of Union forces in favor of heading a Virginian army against the U.S.? That he wanted to, favoring as he did his country over his state, but he didn't feel like making the trip from Arlington to the White House to pick up his baton?
"I am not going to start making silly arguments like 'Lee was just following orders.'"
Literally no one is making that argument.Replies: @Chrisnonymous
For one thing, as I said, “I think it is safe to describe his position as something like, ‘if the Union is de facto dissolved, then my duty is de facto with my homies in Virginia’.” Based on his own words, I read Lee as saying that the US is a legitimate government with legitimate claims on people’s loyalty, but that if the states start leaving the US, it dissolves. I.e., it is not a collection of sovereign states, but without all the states it is dissolved.
So that is one answer. What would you do if the police demanded that you turn in your own flesh and blood? Yet, if you say you would not comply with the police demand, are you then saying that you owe no duty to the police, that you bear no allegiance to the government, that you are not a citizen?
So that is another answer. Another is that Lee was a man, not a philosophy. If he were simply an automatonic citizen of Virginia, could he have fought for the Confederacy? Obviously not. Did he have simply shifting loyalties–changing from a long-time 100% pro-USA army officer to a 100% pro-Virginia militiaman to a 100% pro-Confederacy commander (since, obviously, if he were a citizen of Virginia, he could not therefore be a citizen of the Confederacy)? No. So was he a traitor to all? No. He was a man. He was different things at different times and different things at the same time. But at the start of the conflict, he was a citizen of the USA who recognized that fact himself.
Can you explain to me what is the difference between “that argument” and the one that unit472 was making that I originally responded to? All my comments are in the context of unit472 saying, essentially, “Lee fighting the North is the same as Guderian fighting Russia.” Please explain.
It wasn't. More than 20 states remained in the Union.
"then my duty is de facto with my homies in Virginia"
What on earth is de facto duty? And why did he pick his homies over his country? Not because he considered himself a citizen of Virginia first and the U.S. second, or not at all in the case of the U.S. invading his home state, according to you. But why? Saying it was just a fact that he preferred to stick with his homies is no kind of answer.
Very badly. I have a lot of sympathy for the Confederacy and good feeling toward the antebellum South. But I don’t think Lee=Guderian. Please try to keep up.
You may not recognize it, but you’ve just given your Lee-defense-justification for executing Guderian–i.e., that he could have resisted the Reich, sworn allegiance to a new state and “be not one whit inconstant, much less traitorous.” In other words, the moral principle supersedes loyalty, from which it follows that “following orders” is no defense.
Incidentally, moral principles superseding loyalty is an argument for tearing down Lee’s statues nowadays. Good job. I prefer to honor Lee as an honorable man and exemplary gentleman who was complex enough to recognize his own confliction and man enough to resolve it in action.
Yeah. Exactly. As I summarized, “if the Union is de facto dissolved, then my duty is de facto with my homies in Virginia”. Thanks for looking that up for me.
does he still need to pay reparations?Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
Better learn some work songs, son. Content ain’t gonna pick itself, y’hear?
"What we've got here is failure to communicate. "
Sometimes this Mossadic Gobber acts like some kind of Prison Guard-in-Chief.
Almost like it's in his Atlantic Traded Blood.
Paris gets an app warning people if they are in a ‘no-go’ zone and giving live alerts of sexual assaults
I wouldn’t bet on it. A current meme gaining in the wokesphere is that interracial relationships are becoming, in their words, “black genocide.”
The Islamic State are currently the US biggest competitor in this particular field of human accomplishments.
A species of ape that is allowed to hang about the groves of academia in the manner monkeys do in certain Hindoo temples.
I cannot remember the last time I saw a white or Asian woman pulling this stunt.Replies: @guest
George Washington had the reply to that: A young woman can never love an old man unless there be profit involved.
George was no fool.
Dunno. It seems to me the right to bear arms is safe only as long as there’s a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
You’re quite right about predicting the future though. If you told me in say 1986 that the Supreme Court would impose gay marriage on the nation I’d have laughed at you.
30 years later….
So that is one answer. What would you do if the police demanded that you turn in your own flesh and blood? Yet, if you say you would not comply with the police demand, are you then saying that you owe no duty to the police, that you bear no allegiance to the government, that you are not a citizen?
So that is another answer. Another is that Lee was a man, not a philosophy. If he were simply an automatonic citizen of Virginia, could he have fought for the Confederacy? Obviously not. Did he have simply shifting loyalties--changing from a long-time 100% pro-USA army officer to a 100% pro-Virginia militiaman to a 100% pro-Confederacy commander (since, obviously, if he were a citizen of Virginia, he could not therefore be a citizen of the Confederacy)? No. So was he a traitor to all? No. He was a man. He was different things at different times and different things at the same time. But at the start of the conflict, he was a citizen of the USA who recognized that fact himself.Can you explain to me what is the difference between "that argument" and the one that unit472 was making that I originally responded to? All my comments are in the context of unit472 saying, essentially, "Lee fighting the North is the same as Guderian fighting Russia." Please explain.Replies: @guest
“If the Union is de facto dissolved”
It wasn’t. More than 20 states remained in the Union.
“then my duty is de facto with my homies in Virginia”
What on earth is de facto duty? And why did he pick his homies over his country? Not because he considered himself a citizen of Virginia first and the U.S. second, or not at all in the case of the U.S. invading his home state, according to you. But why? Saying it was just a fact that he preferred to stick with his homies is no kind of answer.
OK, but how many would drop the black genocide talk and marry white if it was more of an option? A lot I think. Then there are Hispanics (and Asians). As for whites, the ultimate in identity destruction and the point where white shaming seems to be leading is affirmative interracial marriage.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if these companies were messing around with this stuff: e.g. it’s clear that youtube had shadowbanned Trump’s final campaign ad.
http://archive.is/MxS8g
http://archive.is/aPPsz
Also, I know youtube made a doodle with their logo that linked to a video that was made by the international rescue committee, but it kinda backfired. Sample from the top comments:
Someone posted here that the reason academic and professional black women like those ridiculous hyphenated last names is that it makes them look respectable and established. That they are married and not running a single parent household.
I cannot remember the last time I saw a white or Asian woman pulling this stunt.
You're quite right about predicting the future though. If you told me in say 1986 that the Supreme Court would impose gay marriage on the nation I'd have laughed at you.
30 years later....Replies: @Clyde
I would have laughed in 2007. I thought gay marriage would be an anarchy, with some liberal states legislating it, with some states like Texas and Oklahoma never approving it.
Since no public figure in the entire history of the world had ever supported Gay Marriage until about twenty-odd years ago, this will make the ISIS people or the Red Guards of Mao's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution looks like the total fuddy-duddies they are...Replies: @syonredux, @2Mintzin1, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Anonymous, @TheJester, @Joe Schmoe
Forget public figures. No farmer, ditch digger, fish monger, butcher, baker, nor candle stick maker ever conceived of something so absurd, let alone supported it.
The extremely nice Middle Americans are as hopeless as the Russians who assumed that once the Revolutionaries removed the Tsar and outlawed hereditary titles that the horror show was over and decent folks could get back to decent life being decent.
The Revolutionaries will never stop. See China's Cultural Revolution if Stalin's great famine and purges fail to open your eyes. The Revolutionaries can have totalitarian control and still feel the burning desire to slaughter millions and violently harass tens of millions more.Replies: @(((Owen))), @RonaldB, @SteveRogers42, @Joe Schmoe
Well, there was Lehman Bros.
But really, where are the descendents of the rich and powerful confederates? I bet plenty are still scamming, still exploiting their fellow human beings. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them masquerading as anti-racists. Meanwhile the poor whites whose own children picked cotton barefooted are maligned as “oppressive rednecks.” Rednecks have red necks because their white skin got burned red while laboring in the son. Since when did laborers ever have enough power to oppress anyone?
I cannot remember the last time I saw a white or Asian woman pulling this stunt.Replies: @guest
“I cannot remember the last time I saw a white or Asian woman pulling this stunt”
Aristocrats like playing the hyphenation game. “Ah, Lady Schleswig-Rothschild! How was Marienbad?”
I imagine nice white academic ladies do it, too, at least to demonstrate dominance over their husbands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-3q4iL8sr8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gVUd1WtU9MReplies: @bored identity
Is that a reason why Atlantic-American Jeffrey Goldberg always scoffs at bored identity and his deplorable brethren in that thick Southern Negev droll ? :
“What we’ve got here is failure to communicate. “
Sometimes this Mossadic Gobber acts like some kind of Prison Guard-in-Chief.
Almost like it’s in his Atlantic Traded Blood.
It was not Thomas Jefferson but his younger brother by 14 years Randolph Jefferson who fathered children by Sally Hemmings.
Unfortunately, the deranged guy who killed the people in Charleston released the jackals of the Politically Correct Taliban to attack anything Confederate.
Most of the men who fought for the Federal govt in 1861-65 didn’t give a fig about Negroes. They were either indifferent to Negroes or were, in today’s terms, virulent racists. What they were fighting for was to have the American West developed by themselves and their descendents rather than plantation owners and Negro slaves. As one of their descendents, I’m glad that they did what they did.
Even??? What??
That low life centralizing scumbag’s days should have been terminated the minute he started appeasing Stalin.
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for "perpetual union," so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution."
Indeed. If the states were sovereign, the Constitution truly would have established an anarchy rather than a government. I think Southerners like Lee had a more complex view of sovereignty and duty than "It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to." That's why they have statues built to them.Replies: @jacques sheete
Wrong. Each state already had a government.
What the cornstitution established was a usurping plutocratic oligarchy.