Category Archives: History

A President Who Doesn’t Hate Those People Clinging To Guns & God

America, Britain, Donald Trump, Elections, History

A President Who Doesn’t Hate Those People Clinging To Guns & God” is the current column, now on The Unz Review. An excerpt:

Did Donald Trump unite the American Silent Marjory behind things true and shared?

These are economic prosperity, national pride and unity, recognizable neighborhoods—a yen that demands an end to the transformation of neighborhoods through centrally planned, mass immigration—and an end to gratuitous wars.

Those were the questions asked in “The Trump Revolution The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June 29, 2016), and answered in the affirmative.

Unlike America’s self-anointed cognoscenti, some of us saw this coming. The former recognize truth only once card-carrying members arrive at it independently, grasp and broadcast it, sometimes years too late. Not so America’s marginalized writers. Not in 2012, but in 2002 did we pinpoint the wrongness of the Iraq War. And not in 2016, but in July of 2015 did some of us, not fortuitously, finger Trump as “a candidate to ‘kick the crap out of all the politicians’” and “send the system’s sycophants scattering” (August 14, 2015). His appeal, as this writer has contended since late in 2015, transcended left and right.

Conversely, vaunted statistician Nate Silver “calculated, last November, that Trump’s support was ‘about the same share of people who think the Apollo moon landings were faked.’” (Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University properly downgraded wonder boy Silver’s intellectual prowess. His prose, wrote the good teacher, was a sprawl that “evinces a greater affiliation to rigor with data analysis than to rigor with philosophy of science or, for that matter, rigor with rhetoric.”)

Given the disparate groups that rooted for Mr. Trump’s candidacy, it would appear that he did in fact awaken a historic majority. You could say Mr. Trump was an “omnibus candidate,” a concept floated by historian David Hackett Fischer …

… Read the rest. “A President Who Doesn’t Hate Those People Clinging To Guns & God” is now on The Unz Review.

UPDATE: An interesting perspective on “The Trump Revolution” from a betting man: “I thought this was an interesting read last summer,” writes David Taggart at Amazon.com, “now I realize it was a work of genius. Wish I’d paid closer attention and bet when the bookies were offering 7-2.”

The Expert Idiocracy Is More Dangerous Than Islam. Almost

America, History, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Morality, Pseudoscience, Terrorism, The West

“The Expert Idiocracy Is More Dangerous Than Islam, Almost,” is the latest, weekly column, on Townhall, “the top source for conservative … commentary.” An excerpt:

They’ve been killing their way across Europe and the USA. They’re the Mohameds, Omars, Syeds, Tashfeens, Tareks, Maliks, Ibrahims, Brahim, Yassins, Rafiks, Khalids and Najims; Messrs. Abaaoud, Abdeslam, El Bakraouis, Abrinis, Abballas (blah-blah). But about them, the Twittersphere yields more plain spoken truths than the expert Idiocracy.

The latest Muslim immigrant to unleash himself on a battered France—“France’s terror log: 230+ killed in attacks since 2015, more than previous century of terrorism,”reports RT—was Tunisian-born Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel.

Write his name down. The American media will soon proclaim sanctimoniously, as they did for Omar Mateen, that they’ll not be mentioning names. Wikipedia already minimizes a researcher’s exposure to the names of the Muslim terrorists who roamed free among us, opting for their professional affiliation: “ISIL supporters,” “suicide bomber,” visiting Moroccan student.

Our avatars of morality in media have announced they would not show the mangled bodies Mohamed left when he plowed his hired lorry into crowds celebrating Bastille Day, killing at least 84 and gravely injuring 202.

Seek out those images. You owe it to the dead. You owe it to those still living in la-la land. You owe it to yourself. As anti-Islam warrior Geert Wilders has warned, “The more Islam we get, the less free our societies.”

The more Islam we get, the more bodies will litter our streets à la Nice.

So what has the expert Idiocracy misled you about?

We heard repeatedly about America’s philosophical affinity with the French and their Revolution. “Philosopher” Homer Simpson came closer to the truth about the French—“cheese-eating surrender monkeys,” he called our “closest allies”—than liberals and conservatives alike. Both factions seem afflicted by historical Alzheimer’s about Bastille Day.

Theirs was a blood-drenched illiberal, irreligious, and intolerant uprising. The father of English conservatism, Edmund Burke, was a “great publicist of the American Revolution,” but said that “the French Revolution was murderous …

… Read the rest.  “The Expert Idiocracy Is More dangerous Than Islam, Almost” is on Townhall, “the top source for conservative … commentary.” Share it widely.

AND:

Do review “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” on Amazon. (The book can be bought, too, from Amazon UK, Europe, Canada.)

 

McCain, The POW He Left Behind & The Men Who TRIED To Expose Him

Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, History, John McCain, Military

John McCain owes much more than a mea culpa to POWS and Men Missing in Action is the conclusion of a chapter in the book “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed.” The context: Donald Trump’s unfocused, but correct, move to hate on McCain.

I would have been none the wiser about McCain, the prisoners of war he left behind and the man who tried to expose Sen. McCain’s most covered-up disgrace, were it not for Ron Unz who publicized Sydney Schanberg’s heroic efforts.

Read “American Pravda: The Legacy of Sydney Schanberg”:

The death on Saturday of Sydney Schanberg at age 82 should sadden us not only for the loss of one of our most renowned journalists but also for what his story reveals about the nature of our national media.

Syd had made his career at the New York Times for 26 years, winning a Pulitzer Prize, two George Polk Memorial awards, and numerous other honors. His passing received the notice it deserved, with the world’s most prestigious broadsheet devoting nearly a full page of its Sunday edition to his obituary, a singular honor that in this degraded era is more typically reserved for leading pop stars or sports figures. Several photos were included of his Cambodia reporting, which had become the basis for the Oscar-winning film The Killing Fields, one of Hollywood’s most memorable accounts of our disastrous Indo-Chinese War.

But for all the 1,300 words and numerous images charting his long and illustrious journalistic history, not even a single mention was made of the biggest story of his career, which has seemingly vanished down the memory hole without trace. And therein lies a tale.

Could a news story ever be “too big” for the media to cover? Every journalist is always seeking a major expose, a piece that not merely reaches the transitory front pages but also might win a journalistic prize or even change the history books. Stories such as these appear rarely but can make a reporter’s career, and it is difficult to imagine a writer turning one down, or an editor rejecting it.

But what if the story is so big that it actually reveals dangerous truths about the real nature of the American media, portrays too many powerful people in a very negative light, and perhaps leads to a widespread loss of faith in our major news media? If readers were to see a story like that, they might naturally begin to wonder “why hadn’t we ever been told?” or even “what else might be out there?”

Towards the end of the 2008 presidential campaign, while John McCain battled Barack Obama for the White House, I clicked an intriguing link on a small website and discovered Syd’s remarkable expose, one which had been passed over or rejected by every major media outlet in the country, his enormous personal reputation notwithstanding.

The basic outline of events he described was a simple one. During the Paris Peace Talks that ended the Vietnam War, the U.S. government had committed to pay its Hanoi adversaries $3.25 billion in war reparations, and in exchange would receive back the American POWs held by the Vietnamese. The agreement was signed and the war officially ended, but the Vietnamese, suspecting a possible financial double-cross, kept back many hundreds of the imprisoned Americans until they received the promised payment.

For domestic political reasons, the Nixon Administration had characterized the billions of dollars pledged as “humanitarian assistance” and Congress balked at appropriating such a large sum for a hated Communist regime. Desperate for “peace with honor” and already suffering under the growing Watergate Scandal, Nixon and his aides could not admit that many hundreds of the POWs remained in enemy hands, and so declared them all returned, probably hoping to quietly arrange a trade of money for prisoners once the dust had settled. Similarly, Hanoi’s leaders falsely claimed that all the captives had been released, while they waited for their money to be paid. As a result, the two governments had jointly created a Big Lie, one which has largely maintained itself right down to the present day.

In the troubled aftermath of America’s military defeat and the Nixon resignation, our entire country sought to forget Vietnam, and neither elected officials nor journalists were eager to revisit the issue, let alone investigate one of the war’s dirtiest secrets. The Vietnamese continued to hold their American prisoners for most of the next twenty years, periodically making attempts to negotiate their release in exchange for the money they were still owed, but never found a American leader daring enough to take such a bold step. The Big Lie had grown just too enormous to be overturned.

Over the years, rumors surrounding the remaining POWs became widespread in veterans’ circles, and eventually these stories inspired a series of blockbuster Hollywood movies such as Rambo, Missing in Action, and Uncommon Valor, whose plots were all naturally dismissed or ridiculed as “rightwing conspiracy theories” by our elite media pundits. But the stories were all true, and even as American filmgoers watched Sylvester Stallone heroically free desperate American servicemen from Vietnamese prisons, the real-life American POWs were still being held under much those same horrible conditions, with no American leader willing to take the enormous political risk of attempting either to rescue or ransom them. Over the years, many of the POWs had died from ill-treatment, and the return of the miserable survivors after their secret captivity would unleash a firestorm of popular anger, surely destroying the many powerful individuals who had long known of their abandonment.

Eventually, America’s bipartisan political leadership sought to reestablish diplomatic relations with Hanoi and finally put the Vietnam War behind the country, but this important policy goal was obstructed by the residual political pressure from the resolute POW families. So a Senate Select Committee on the POWs was established in order to declare them non-existent once and for all. Sen. John McCain, a very high profile former POW himself, led the cover-up, perhaps because the very dubious nature of his own true war record left him eager to trade secrecy for secrecy. Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, our media declared that the abandoned POWs had never existed and closed the books on the long, lingering controversy.

As it happens, not long after the committee issued its final report and shut down, a stunning document was unearthed in the newly-opened Kremlin archives. In the transcript of a Hanoi Politburo meeting, the Communist leadership discussed the true number of POWs they then held and made their decision to keep half of them back to ensure that America paid the billions of dollars it had promised. Former National Security Advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger both stated on national television that the document appeared genuine and it seemed undeniable that American POWs had indeed been left behind. Although the national media devoted a couple of days of major coverage to this uncomfortable revelation, it then reported denials from both the U.S. and Vietnamese governments, and quickly dropped the story, returning to the official narrative: There were no abandoned POWs and never had been.

As I reviewed Syd’s massively-documented 8,000 word exposition, …

Read the rest of “American Pravda: The Legacy of Sydney Schanberg.”

A July 4th Toast To Thomas Jefferson, Author of The Declaration

America, Constitution, Founding Fathers, History, IMMIGRATION

For most, Independence Day means firecrackers and cookouts. “The Declaration of Independence—whose proclamation, on July 4, 1776, we celebrate—doesn’t feature. To be fair to the liberal establishment, ordinary Americans are not entirely blameless. In fact, contemporary Americans are less likely to read it now that it is easily available on the Internet, than when it relied on horseback riders for its distribution.”

Back in 1776, gallopers carried the Declaration through the country. Printer John Dunlap had worked ‘through the night’ to set the full text on ‘a handsome folio sheet,’ recounts historian David Hackett Fischer in Liberty And Freedom. And President (of the Continental Congress) John Hancock urged that the “people be universally informed.”

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, called it ‘an expression of the American Mind.’ An examination of Jefferson’s constitutional thought makes plain that he would no longer consider the mind of a Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or the collective mentality of the liberal establishment, ‘American’ in any meaningful way. For the Jeffersonian mind was that of an avowed Whig—an American Whig whose roots were in the English Whig political philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. …

… Jefferson’s muse for the ‘American Mind’ is even older.

The Whig tradition is undeniably Anglo-Saxon. Our founding fathers’ political philosophy originated with their Saxon forefathers, and the ancient rights guaranteed by the Saxon constitution. With the Declaration, Jefferson told Henry Lee in 1825, he was also protesting England’s violation of her own ancient tradition of natural rights. As Jefferson saw it, the Colonies were upholding a tradition the Crown had abrogated. …

Naturally, Jefferson never entertained the folly that he was of immigrant stock. He considered the English settlers of America courageous conquerors, much like his Saxon forebears, to whom he compared them. To Jefferson, early Americans were the contemporary carriers of the Anglo-Saxon project.”

The original Independence-Day column in its entirety is “A July 4th Toast To Thomas Jefferson And The Anglo-Saxon Tradition.”

Certain Americans will never own the founding history of this country and one of perhaps three just wars Americans have fought.

In 2012, the foul-mouthed Chris Rock called July 4th “Happy white peoples independence day.”