Thursday, June 25, 2020

Influenced by Farrakhan's Nation of Islam? 1619 Project's History "Expert" Believes the Aztecs' Pyramids Were Built with Help from Africans Who Crossed the Atlantic Prior to the "Barbaric Devils" of Columbus (Whom She Likens to Hitler)


My first thought when reading the The Federalist article by Jordan Davidson was how distorted, how egocentric, how self-serving, and how demented the worldview of Nikole Hannah-Jones is (thanks to Instapundit's Ed Driscoll and Stephen Green).

Speaking of delusional, I am reluctant to share my second thought because it sounds like conspiracy theory, but it cannot escape my mind.

My second thought, then, was to ask whether it could be possible that the founder of the 1619 Project ever was, and perhaps still is, a member of, or is/was at least influenced by, the Nation of Islam. "Barbaric devils" is typical Farrakhan-speak for whites, after all, and the "argument" (sic) of calling all who disagree "racist" and "liar" comes directly from Louis Farrakhan's playbook. To believe that Africans crossed the ocean to help the Aztecs build their pyramids is a typically deluded Farrakhan narrative. (Incidentally, that scenario also resembles those of the Scientology movement, which ought to be mentioned because Farrakhan has lavished Dianetics with praise, calling for all whites to ditch their mainstream churches for the L Ron Hubbard creed.)

Meanwhile, the quest for reparations, or  for contributions, or for a tax, from
The concealment of links to Louis
Farrakhan is hardly unheard of
unbelievers or infidels (dhimmis, regularly described by such terms as "pigs" and "devils") is not unheard of, far from it, in Islam. As for the destruction of statues, nobody can deny that that has been par for the course for Muslims since the time of Mohamed. Of course, the former Nicole Hannah may simply be an agnostic or an atheist non-follower who simply is fond of, indeed delighted about, the Reverend Farrakhan's teachings. This, incidentally, can only lead to another inescapable question: How about Black Lives Matter? How much influence or backing, if any, did Louis Farrakhan and/or the Nation of Islam have in its creation?

My third thought was, how on earth can such a sizeable part of the American population allow for such a distorted view of their country to become commonplace? Is this a takeover of American institutions — especially American education — by neo-Marxists, or by radical Islamists, or by both?

My final thought, how can the mainstream media (a media that is at once delusional and cynical, systematically using the NOI terms "racist" and "liar" about anyone who loves America and treating Republicans like unwashed kafirs, who ought to shut up, straighten up, and get up on the bandwagon) — especially the so-called newspaper of record — allow such a prominent place (directly on its staff, in the case of the the "New Woke Times") for a person (who may, or may be not, if not close to radical Islam, then heavily influenced by it) to allow her self-serving, her delusional, and her demented view of American history (as well as world history) to qualify as school material?

Equally important: Does the "college campus paper" have any knowledge of any allegiance, past or present, and however small, Nikole Hannah-Jones ever had to the Nation of Islam? If so — if for instance "Nicole Hannah" used to be a member during her college days or at least attended a service occasionally — why would a(n obviously brief) mention of that be hidden from the public in her biography?

It is one thing to say that the whites are "barbaric devils" and that Columbus is Hitler; it is another to say (this usually means you have gone off the deep end) that Africans crossed the Atlantic (with the Ashanti Navy?) before said Columbus, and that they helped the Aztecs build their pyramids…

As Tyler O'Neil puts it:
Nikole Hannah-Jones, the founder of The New York Times‘ “1619 Project,” showed her true colors in a racist letter to the editor … in 1995. …  Is it any surprise that the Notre Dame sophomore who wrote that “white America’s dream is colored America’s nightmare” would later go on to lead The New York Times in a project to redefine American history, centering the founding on the arrival of the first black slaves in 1619, rather than on the Declaration of Independence in 1776? 
Just read what Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote in 1995:
Nikole Hannah-Jones, [later] the lead essayist on New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project, wrote a letter to the editor in Notre Dame’s The Observer stating that “the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world.”

Hannah-Jones claimed that the actions of European settlers and explorers such as Christopher Columbus were “acts of devils” and likens them to Hitler.
“[The whites] lasting monument was the destruction and enslavement of two races of people,” Hannah-Jones wrote.
Hannah-Jones claims Africans arrived in North America long before Europeans, but that unlike Europeans, Africans befriended and traded with the indigenous people. She claims pyramids in Mexico are a symbol of said friendship.
 … The Times did not respond to a request for comment on whether their employee maintained these beliefs.
 … This isn’t the first time the New York Times has hired and kept a writer with a history of racism and radical views. In 2018, the NYT hired Sarah Jeong despite a long string of racist tweets that littered her Twitter calling white people “goblins,” likening their smell to dogs, and asking to “#cancelallwhitepeople”.
 … Hannah-Jones’s latest piece for the New York Times Magazine calls for race-based reparations.

RELATED: 1619, Mao, & 9-11: History According to the NYT — Plus, a Remarkable Issue of National Geographic Reveals the Leftists' "Blame America First" Approach to History

• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: quite a few contemporary Black problems have very little to do with slavery

NO MAINSTREAM HISTORIAN CONTACTED FOR THE 1619 PROJECT

• "Out of the Revolution came an anti-slavery ethos, which never disappeared": Pulitzer Prize Winner James McPherson Confirms that No Mainstream Historian Was Contacted by the NYT for Its 1619 History Project

• Gordon Wood: "The Revolution unleashed antislavery sentiments that led to the first abolition movements in the history of the world" — another Pulitzer-Winning Historian Had No Warning about the NYT's 1619 Project

• A Black Political Scientist "didn’t know about the 1619 Project until it came out"; "These people are kind of just making it up as they go"

• Clayborne Carson: Another Black Historian Kept in the Dark About 1619

• If historians did not hear of the NYT's history (sic) plan, chances are great that the 1619 Project was being deliberately kept a tight secret

• Oxford Historian Richard Carwardine: 1619 is “a preposterous and one-dimensional reading of the American past”

• World Socialists: "the 1619 Project is a politically motivated falsification of history" by the New York Times, aka "the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party"

THE NEW YORK TIMES OR THE NEW "WOKE" TIMES?

• Dan Gainor on 1619 and rewriting history: "To the Left elite like the NY Times, there’s no narrative they want to destroy more than American exceptionalism"

• Utterly preposterous claims: The 1619 project is a cynical political ploy, aimed at piercing the heart of the American understanding of justice

From Washington to Grant, not a single American deserves an iota of gratitude, or even understanding, from Nikole Hannah-Jones; however, modern autocrats, if leftist and foreign, aren't "all bad"

• One of the Main Sources for the NYT's 1619 Project Is a Career Communist Propagandist who Defends Stalinism

• A Pulitzer Prize?! Among the 1619 Defenders Is "a Fringe Academic" with "a Fetish for Authoritarian Terror" and "a Soft Spot" for Mugabe, Castro, and Even Stalin

• Influenced by Farrakhan's Nation of Islam?! 1619 Project's History "Expert" Believes the Aztecs' Pyramids Were Built with Help from Africans Who Crossed the Atlantic Prior to the "Barbaric Devils" of Columbus (Whom She Likens to Hitler)

• 1793, 1776, or 1619: Is the New York Times Distinguishable from Teen Vogue? Is It Living in a Parallel Universe? Or Is It Simply Losing Its Mind in an Industry-Wide Nervous Breakdown?

• No longer America's "newspaper of record," the "New Woke Times" is now but a college campus paper, where kids like 1619 writer Nikole Hannah-Jones run the asylum and determine what news is fit to print

• "Full of left-wing sophomoric drivel": The New York Times — already drowning in a fantasy-land of alternately running pro-Soviet Union apologia and their anti-American founding “1619 Project” series — promises to narrow what they view as acceptable opinion even more

• "Deeply Ashamed" of the… New York Times (!),  An Oblivious Founder of the Error-Ridden 1619 Project Uses Words that Have to Be Seen to Be Believed ("We as a News Organization Should Not Be Running Something That Is Offering Misinformation to the Public, Unchecked")

• Allen C Guelzo: The New York Times offers bitterness, fragility, and intellectual corruption—The 1619 Project is not history; it is conspiracy theory

• The 1619 Project is an exercise in religious indoctrination: Ignoring, downplaying, or rewriting the history of 1861 to 1865, the Left and the NYT must minimize, downplay, or ignore the deaths of 620,000 Americans

• 1619: It takes an absurdly blind fanaticism to insist that today’s free and prosperous America is rotten and institutionally oppressive

• The MSM newsrooms and their public shaming terror campaigns — the "bullying campus Marxism" is closer to cult religion than politics: Unceasingly searching out thoughtcrime, the American left has lost its mind

Fake But Accurate: The People Behind the NYT's 1619 Project Make a "Small" Clarification, But Only Begrudgingly and Half-Heartedly, Because Said Mistake Actually Undermines The 1619 Project's Entire Premise

THE REVOLUTION OF THE 1770s

• The Collapse of the Fourth Estate by Peter Wood: No one has been able to identify a single leader, soldier, or supporter of the Revolution who wanted to protect his right to hold slaves (A declaration that slavery is the founding institution of America and the center of everything important in our history is a ground-breaking claim, of the same type as claims that America condones rape culture, that 9/11 was an inside job, that vaccinations cause autism, that the Moon landing was a hoax, or that ancient astronauts built the pyramids)

• Mary Beth Norton:  In 1774, a year before Dunmore's proclamation, Americans had already in fact become independent

• Most of the founders, including Thomas Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, writes Rick Atkinson, despite the fact that many of them owned slaves

• Leslie Harris: Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies (even the NYT's fact-checker on the 1619 Project disagrees with its "conclusions": "It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies")

• Sean Wilentz on 1619: the movement in London to abolish the slave trade formed only in 1787, largely inspired by… American (!) antislavery opinion that had arisen in the 1760s and 1770s

• 1619 & Slavery's Fatal Lie: it is more accurate to say that what makes America unique isn't slavery but the effort to abolish it

• 1619 & 1772: Most of the founders, including Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, despite many of them owning slaves; And Britain would remain the world's foremost slave-trading nation into the nineteenth century

• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: Slavery was legal in Britain in 1776, and it remained so in all overseas British colonies until 1833

• James Oakes on 1619: "Slavery made the slaveholders rich; But it made the South poor; And it didn’t make the North rich — So the legacy of slavery is poverty, not wealth"

TEACHING GENERATIONS OF KIDS FALSEHOODS ABOUT THE U.S.

• 1619: No wonder this place is crawling with young socialists and America-haters — the utter failure of the U.S. educational system to teach the history of America’s founding

• 1619: Invariably Taking the Progressive Side — The Ratio of Democratic to Republican Voter Registration in History Departments is More than 33 to 1

• Denying the grandeur of the nation’s founding—Wilfred McClay on 1619: "Most of my students are shocked to learn that that slavery is not uniquely American"

• "Distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods": Where does the 1619 project state that Africans themselves were central players in the slave trade? That's right: Nowhere

• John Podhoretz on 1619: the idea of reducing US history to the fact that some people owned slaves is a reductio ad absurdum and the definition of bad faith

• The 1619 Africans in Virginia were not ‘enslaved’, a black historian points out; they were indentured servants — just like the majority of European whites were

"Two thirds of the people, white as well as black, who crossed the Atlantic in the first 200 years are indentured servants" notes Dolores Janiewski; "The poor people, black and white, share common interests"

LAST BUT NOT LEAST…

Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech"

• Victoria Bynum on 1619 and a NYT writer's "ignorance of history": "As dehumanizing and brutal as slavery was, the institution was not a giant concentration camp"

• Dennis Prager: The Left Couldn't Care Less About Blacks

• The Real Reason Why Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and the Land O'Lakes Maid Must Vanish

• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History

Who, Exactly, Is It Who Should Apologize for Slavery and Make Reparations? America? The South? The Descendants of the Planters? …

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

From U.S. Grant and Union Soldiers Fighting the Slavocracy to John Brown and Abraham Lincoln, All Statues Must Come Down


Dear fellow Scandinavians
(dear Danes, dear Norwegians, dear Swedes),
have you heard the latest news
about Hans Christian Heg?
Have media outlets in Scandinavia
mentioned him in recent days?

Who is H C Heg, you ask?
The Scandinavian is no longer alive.
In fact, he died in America in 1863.
He was shot from his horse wearing a blue uniform
fighting the South's slave power in gray.

The colonel was about to be made
brigadier general when he was killed at
Chickamauga, the most brutal battle for
the 15th Wisconsin Volunteer regiment, which
had so many Norwegians, Danes, and Swedes
among its ranks that it was known at the
Scandinavian regiment (just about every other
soldier seemed to be named Ole or Jens)

In June 2020, his statue in Madison was toppled,
beheaded, unceremoniously dragged through the street,
and dumped in a pond.


Between 1850 and 1920, a full tenth of the 
Danish population, or 300,000 souls, emigrated to the new world.
In
Ole Sønnichsen's massive 600 page opus about 
Denmark's emigrants, "The Journey to America" (Rejsen til Amerika),
August Rasmussen explains why he left Denmark 

at the age of 26 in 1856:
"For my own part, I can say this: I gave my spine to 
the landowner's cane and the back of my jersey to 
the lieutenant's blade and my ears to the overseer's 
whacks. Whippings, punches, and blows were not 
allowed, but the big ones beat the little ones anyway. 
They knew our rights was nonexistent."
That's right, ladies and gents: Denmark's nobles carried
canes and/or whips. And it wasn't for the cattle…
I have a question for you:
Would you care to answer it?
What kind of "white privilege" is that?!


No doctor was ever called for the average dirt-poor Dane, and
in 1890, one Jeppe Aakjær visited Skive, where
a sick man had been allowed to rest, in… the filth of a… barn!

"How had this man been treated. Lain down here, 
where the animals stood and soiled and stank; …
a portion of the wall over the door frame was missing,
and the door, formed by rough, stubborn boards, could
not be closed at all, but allowed the unstable atmosphere
of the barn [with barely any light] to streak over the sick 

man. … This was how the room was, where the young man
lay in the flimsy blankets under which one saw the lean limbs
— on all sides surrounded by a wreath of musty, stinking bed 

straw. This is where he had been lying for six weeks, 
in the disgusting filth."
I have a question for you:
Would you care to answer it?
What kind of "white privilege" is that?!

 
In Sweden and Norway, it was… worse:
the poverty was such that

one fourth of the Swedish population
and one third of the Norwegian population
emigrated. Four years after the Civil War ended,
famine broke out, and the Scandinavians
starved.
I have a question for you:
Yep, that's right, it hasn't changed —
What kind of "white privilege" is that?!

With the Irish
(and its' many redheads' pasty
white skin)
, the three Scandinavian countries

— whose inhabitants are supposed to be the
epitome of Adolf's Aryan race incarnate — formed the
four nations where the people were so dirt-poor 

that of all the peoples that emigrated to the new world,
they figure in the top quatuor of the ones who sent the
largest proportions of their populations thereto.


 
Do you know what word
Ole Sønnichsen uses to describe
the
framework under which the largest part
of the Danish population lived?
In Danish, the word he uses is called "slaveri."


August Rasmussen and his newly-wed wife, Ana,
decided to emigrate in 1856, he writes, because they did not want 
their children to grow up in "the same type of slavery" 
as they had.

As for the Scandinavians' Scandinavians,
the Icelanders (whose hair is so blond that
it is almost white) say they lived in slavery 
until the 20th century or more than 40 years
after Appomattox, and whose only "redemption"

is that their race or skin color was the same 
as that of the enslavers, their fellow countrymen.
Yes. Yes. I'm going to ask the question again:
Will somebody be so kind to tell me exactly how
poverty, how famine, and how slavery (or bondage) 

is supposed to fit in with "white privilege"?!

(On the other hand, there is one thing I cannot deny:
it would be much harder to teach about the horrors
of "white privilege" if students (whatever their race,
whatever their nationality) knew that in 1869,
Northern Europeans were starving to death…)

BACK TO MODERN TIMES
— to 2020 or, rather, to 2015:
the "mostly peaceful" protestors started out
five years ago or so protesting the Stars and Bars
(the Confederate flag) and tearing down statues of
Confederate generals, making it sound like
they were acting out of patriotism
and revolted at traitors to the USA

They were lying.

As I mentioned to friends at the time,
it is/it was merely a preview of going on to protest
the Stars and Stripes and the National Anthem
and destroy the statues of everyone involved
with American history, indeed with Western
civilization
(You think sportsmen are right to kneel
before the National Anthem? I would be more
convinced if American sportsmen allowed
themselves to stand up (so to speak — or kneel,
for that matter), just, y'know, once 

in a while, when people in China (notably in
Hong Kong) are beaten by Chinese police
— my hunch is that there are more Chauvins
among the police in China or Russia than in
the US of A and that, indeed, their recruitment
may be actively encouraged there)

• Now the protestors in Madison, Wisconsin
have torn down the statue of Colonel Heg,
"a Wisconsin abolitionist who died trying to end
slavery during the Civil War"; the Norwegian
immigrant was a member of "the Free Soil Party,
which was centered around opposing the
expansion of slavery into the western United States.
He was also a leader of Wisconsin's Wide Awakes,
an anti-slave catcher militia."

I'm all for trying to understand the protestors,
and — in the wake of the death of George Floyd —
everyone in America and around the world
was in (full) support of the protests and against the
type of policeman who kept a knee on his neck
for 8-9 minutes — initially

But no, I'm sorry, I must be a racist because
I do not see what tearing down the statue of
Colonel Heg has to do with honoring the memory
of any victim of the police (in America or elsewhere)
or the protesting of police brutality (idem) (nor, for
that matter, the theft of sneakers or the setting of
businesses, black or white, in flames)

But my (open or subconscious) racism is, must be,
much worse because I do not understand the
defacement or tearing down of the following statues
either (if not the calling for the defacement of
the statues), in America as well as in Europe

• Winston Churchill defaced in London. Do the
Antifa-type protestors — who love nothing less
than calling their (alleged) adversaries fascists,
Nazis, and… Adolf Hitler — not have any idea of
who, during Sir Winston's lifetime, was his
major and mortal enemy?! What on earth are kids
being taught in school nowadays?!

• Why would a statue of John Brown be defaced?
John Brown was an abolitionist hanged after an
(admittedly ill-conceived) attempt to start a revolt
among the South's slaves, arm the blacks, and
free them all. Why the devil would Antifa be
(rightly or wrongly) against such a scenario?!

• Ulysses Simpson Grant. Some people mention
that U.S. Grant was a slaveholder, making it sound
that with a whip by his side, he oversaw a plantation
with dozens of slaves pickin' cotton; in fact (and
no doubt to his surprise), when his father-in-law died,
Grant, who was married to a Southern gal, inherited 
one black slave. In any case, no man did more militarily
than Grant to crush the Southern armies and ensure
the freedom of the South's slaves. No president,
besides Lincoln, did more to fight for black rights
(they didn't teach you in school — American or
European — that Grant sent the U.S. army troops
to fight the KKK?! Well, why on earth would teachers
be expected to teach you something like that?!)

• a monument to the 54th Massachusetts
Volunteer Infantry Regiment in Boston. Note:
the 54th Massachusetts was composed
entirely of… black soldiers (it was featured
in the movie "Glory") and the statue shows
crowds of infantrymen hurrying forward to
charge the army of Robert E Lee, all of
whom are… black

• they have promised to bring down a statue of
Abraham Lincoln in Washington standing next
to a freed slave or two. Note: this statue was
paid entirely by private contributions, but not just
just any private contributions; to wit, exclusively
from the pockets of… former slaves

• one mostly peaceful protestor has called
for the removal of statues portraying… Jesus Christ!
(it is time we all realized that JC was a racist
using his whip on Africans in the cotton fields
of Judea)

Will someone please answer this question:
what on earth is it that our schools (in America,
in Europe) are teaching our kids?!

Monday, June 22, 2020

From Washington to Grant, not a single American deserves an iota of gratitude, or even understanding, from the head of the 1619 Project; however, modern autocrats, if leftist and foreign, aren't "all bad"


Nikole Hannah-Jones, staff writer at The New York Times and lead essayist in The New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project, just endorsed the nationwide destruction of statues as a product of her historically inaccurate work.
Thus writes The Federalist's xAllison Schuster about the founder of the 1619 Project, who displays not an iota of love or gratitude or even simple (if critical) understanding towards her nation or towards a single one of the nation's past leaders (thanks to Instapundit's Ed Driscoll).
the project’s influence truly revealed itself in the recent removal of historical symbols in nearly every major city across the U.S.

Claremont’s Charles Kesler wrote a column in The New York Post … titled “Call them the 1619 riots,” blaming the indignation and utter lack of regard for the nation’s greatest men on the misinformation stemming from The 1619 Project.

Hannah-Jones responded to the article on twitter saying she would be honored to claim responsibility for the defamation of American heroes and Founding Fathers such as George Washington.
“America is burning,” Kesler writes. “Rioters set fire to police stations and restaurants. Looters have ravaged shops from coast to coast. And now they’re coming for the statues — not just of Confederate generals, but the republic’s Founders, including George Washington, whose statue was torn down in Portland, Ore. Call them the 1619 riots.”
In her online tweet discussions with people attempting to be civil and reasonable, like Hot Air's John Sexton himself, Nikole Hannah-Jones never finds it appropriate to display the slightest ounce of gratitude to, or even understanding for, the nation who fought a bloody war that resulted in freedom for the slaves. Instead she takes offense at General Grant, the man who destroyed the slave power, and whines how (perfectly valid) arguments are allegedly offensive and ought to be verboten.

To show the abhorrent double standards prevalent in leftists, as I have written before, a foreign autocrat and a foreign dictator such as Castro "clearly wasn't all bad," in Nikole Hannah-Jones's viewpoint. "And everything he did in Cuba wasn't all bad." (This ties in with the presence of that fellow 1619 academic of hers who displays "a Soft Spot" for Mugabe, Castro, and Even Stalin.) But the same can not be said, can never be said — who they were and what they did was perhaps "not all bad" — about such people as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ulysses S Grant, and even, arguably, Jefferson Davis or Robert E Lee?

But there is a second double standard here: certainly, if mainstream Americans (whatever the color of their skin) can agree to consider, practically as well as theoretically, the supposed evil of their ways and the alleged sins of their ancestors (real or otherwise) and the alleged mistakes in the nation's past without resorting (honestly or otherwise) to calling narratives such as the 1619 Project "offensive", then certainly people like Nikole Hannah-Jones and Gerald Horne can, and must, agree to the same standards (i.e., not falling back on the "that's offensive" line all the time?…
 … The project’s scope, however, had already reached young Americans. As evidenced by the mayhem of recent weeks, so many Americans were taught an altered form of history, one riddled with mistruths that discounted the value of the Founders’ work.

Kesler’s article accusing The 1619 Project of inciting this type of defamation with its wrong portrayal of American history divulges truth to those who already saw the project’s inherent dishonesty. Hannah-Jones’ proud ownership of the accusation, however, is far more telling of her own motivation for the project.
 
RELATED: 1619, Mao, & 9-11: History According to the NYT — Plus, a Remarkable Issue of National Geographic Reveals the Leftists' "Blame America First" Approach to History

• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: quite a few contemporary Black problems have very little to do with slavery

NO MAINSTREAM HISTORIAN CONTACTED FOR THE 1619 PROJECT

• "Out of the Revolution came an anti-slavery ethos, which never disappeared": Pulitzer Prize Winner James McPherson Confirms that No Mainstream Historian Was Contacted by the NYT for Its 1619 History Project

• Gordon Wood: "The Revolution unleashed antislavery sentiments that led to the first abolition movements in the history of the world" — another Pulitzer-Winning Historian Had No Warning about the NYT's 1619 Project

• A Black Political Scientist "didn’t know about the 1619 Project until it came out"; "These people are kind of just making it up as they go"

• Clayborne Carson: Another Black Historian Kept in the Dark About 1619

• If historians did not hear of the NYT's history (sic) plan, chances are great that the 1619 Project was being deliberately kept a tight secret

• Oxford Historian Richard Carwardine: 1619 is “a preposterous and one-dimensional reading of the American past”

• World Socialists: "the 1619 Project is a politically motivated falsification of history" by the New York Times, aka "the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party"

THE NEW YORK TIMES OR THE NEW "WOKE" TIMES?

• Dan Gainor on 1619 and rewriting history: "To the Left elite like the NY Times, there’s no narrative they want to destroy more than American exceptionalism"

• Utterly preposterous claims: The 1619 project is a cynical political ploy, aimed at piercing the heart of the American understanding of justice

• One of the Main Sources for the NYT's 1619 Project Is a Career Communist Propagandist who Defends Stalinism

• A Pulitzer Prize?! Among the 1619 Defenders Is "a Fringe Academic" with "a Fetish for Authoritarian Terror" and "a Soft Spot" for Mugabe, Castro, and Even Stalin

From Washington to Grant, not a single American deserves an iota of gratitude, or even understanding, from Nikole Hannah-Jones; however, modern autocrats, if leftist and foreign, aren't "all bad"

• No longer America's "newspaper of record," the "New Woke Times" is now but a college campus paper, where kids like 1619 writer Nikole Hannah-Jones run the asylum and determine what news is fit to print

• "Full of left-wing sophomoric drivel": The New York Times — already drowning in a fantasy-land of alternately running pro-Soviet Union apologia and their anti-American founding “1619 Project” series — promises to narrow what they view as acceptable opinion even more

• "Deeply Ashamed" of the… New York Times (!), An Oblivious Founder of the Error-Ridden 1619 Project Uses Words that Have to Be Seen to Be Believed ("We as a News Organization Should Not Be Running Something That Is Offering Misinformation to the Public, Unchecked")

• Allen C Guelzo: The New York Times offers bitterness, fragility, and intellectual corruption—The 1619 Project is not history; it is conspiracy theory

• The 1619 Project is an exercise in religious indoctrination: Ignoring, downplaying, or rewriting the history of 1861 to 1865, the Left and the NYT must minimize, downplay, or ignore the deaths of 620,000 Americans

• 1619: It takes an absurdly blind fanaticism to insist that today’s free and prosperous America is rotten and institutionally oppressive

• The MSM newsrooms and their public shaming terror campaigns — the "bullying campus Marxism" is closer to cult religion than politics: Unceasingly searching out thoughtcrime, the American left has lost its mind

Fake But Accurate: The People Behind the NYT's 1619 Project Make a "Small" Clarification, But Only Begrudgingly and Half-Heartedly, Because Said Mistake Actually Undermines The 1619 Project's Entire Premise

THE REVOLUTION OF THE 1770s

• The Collapse of the Fourth Estate by Peter Wood: No one has been able to identify a single leader, soldier, or supporter of the Revolution who wanted to protect his right to hold slaves (A declaration that slavery is the founding institution of America and the center of everything important in our history is a ground-breaking claim, of the same type as claims that America condones rape culture, that 9/11 was an inside job, that vaccinations cause autism, that the Moon landing was a hoax, or that ancient astronauts built the pyramids)

• Mary Beth Norton:  In 1774, a year before Dunmore's proclamation, Americans had already in fact become independent

• Most of the founders, including Thomas Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, writes Rick Atkinson, despite the fact that many of them owned slaves

• Leslie Harris: Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies (even the NYT's fact-checker on the 1619 Project disagrees with its "conclusions": "It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies")

• Sean Wilentz on 1619: the movement in London to abolish the slave trade formed only in 1787, largely inspired by… American (!) antislavery opinion that had arisen in the 1760s and 1770s

• 1619 & Slavery's Fatal Lie: it is more accurate to say that what makes America unique isn't slavery but the effort to abolish it

• 1619 & 1772: Most of the founders, including Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, despite many of them owning slaves; And Britain would remain the world's foremost slave-trading nation into the nineteenth century

• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: Slavery was legal in Britain in 1776, and it remained so in all overseas British colonies until 1833

• James Oakes on 1619: "Slavery made the slaveholders rich; But it made the South poor; And it didn’t make the North rich — So the legacy of slavery is poverty, not wealth"

TEACHING GENERATIONS OF KIDS FALSEHOODS ABOUT THE U.S.

• 1619: No wonder this place is crawling with young socialists and America-haters — the utter failure of the U.S. educational system to teach the history of America’s founding

• 1619: Invariably Taking the Progressive Side — The Ratio of Democratic to Republican Voter Registration in History Departments is More than 33 to 1

• Denying the grandeur of the nation’s founding—Wilfred McClay on 1619: "Most of my students are shocked to learn that that slavery is not uniquely American"

• "Distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods": Where does the 1619 project state that Africans themselves were central players in the slave trade? That's right: Nowhere

• John Podhoretz on 1619: the idea of reducing US history to the fact that some people owned slaves is a reductio ad absurdum and the definition of bad faith

• The 1619 Africans in Virginia were not ‘enslaved’, a black historian points out; they were indentured servants — just like the majority of European whites were

"Two thirds of the people, white as well as black, who crossed the Atlantic in the first 200 years are indentured servants" notes Dolores Janiewski; "The poor people, black and white, share common interests"

LAST BUT NOT LEAST…

Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech"

• Victoria Bynum on 1619 and a NYT writer's "ignorance of history": "As dehumanizing and brutal as slavery was, the institution was not a giant concentration camp"

• Dennis Prager: The Left Couldn't Care Less About Blacks

• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History

Who, Exactly, Is It Who Should Apologize for Slavery and Make Reparations? America? The South? The Descendants of the Planters? …

Sunday, June 21, 2020

What Does the Leftists' "Prank" at Trump's Tulsa Rally Show Other than Their Teenage Mentality?


Donald Trump, conservatives, Republicans, and, not least, Americans in general, should be very grateful for the lack of attendees at Trump's campaign rally in Tulsa, and that for the following reason: it shows exactly what the true nature of the Left is.

The partial lack of spectators in Oklahoma was artificial. Entirely artificial.

How on Earth can a successor of Walter Duranty at the so-called "newspaper of record" write that Trump's Tulsa Rally Fizzles as Seats Go Empty when that outcome was manufactured?

It was a "narrative" that was phony and it was a narrative that led to another round of fake news.

Indeed, it was a crisis of sorts (a knee-slappin' crisis in this case, according to the Left) created by the party of government. (Thanks for the instalink, Stephen Green.)

But there is more — as Dom Calicchio and Tyler Olson write on Fox News:
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared to take pleasure Saturday night in reports that the turnout for President Trump’s Tulsa, Okla., rally was lower than expected.

In a Twitter post, Ocasio-Cortez claimed the Trump campaign had been scammed by teenage anti-Trump activists who allegedly reserved scores of tickets for the Tulsa event online – then failed to show up, thus preventing others from being able to attend.

“Actually you just got ROCKED by teens on TikTok,” the New York Democrat wrote in response to a Twitter message by Trump 2020 Campaign chief Brad Parscale, who argued that “Radical protestors” in Tulsa had prevented some of the president’s supporters from entering the BOK Center, where the rally was held.
Scammed; scammed by teenagers: How appropriate. You start gaining wisdom in this world when you realize that the entire structure of the Left is a world of drama queens and scammers operating on a teen-age mindset.

Leftists are obsessed with race. Leftists are obsessed with sex. Leftists are obsessed with melodrama. Leftists are obsessed with private lives; the private lives of every citizen.

In case you are wondering, rules and laws and rights and politics all have to do, or ought to have to do, with the public sphere, and with the public sphere alone. A home is a man's (and a woman's) castle, and what goes on inside (notably in the bedroom) and in private life in general should have no bearing on rules and regulations.

But in that case, of course — if you cannot bring in private lives, sexuality, racism, and other like personal sins — the Left has nothing left to run upon.

The left's teenage-mentality-driven Drama Queens are also obsessed with tearing down everything before them. (By the way, isn't it time time that the 26th Amendment be repealed?)

When members of the White House Press Corps shoot questions at the president or at his press secretary, you get the impression that the whole night prior, the editors of mainstream media outlets such as the Washington Post and the New York Times had been chortling like Beavis and Butt-Head until the sun rises.

Let us imagine this conversation as an example: Trump sucks! What can we do about it? Listen to this plan: if we take the president's Charlottesville speech, and leave in the middle part of “You also had some very fine people on both sides” while leaving out the final part — heh-heh-heh — not to mention the sentence where he specifically says “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists [who] should be condemned totally” — uh-huh-huh-huh — we can make it appear that he is a racist calling neo-Nazis (and, more generally, white supremacists) “very fine people” — heh-heh-heh. Oooh, man, coo-ool! That's awesome!
“Shout out to Zoomers. Y’all make me so proud,” Ocasio-Cortez added.

 … “KPop allies, we see and appreciate your contributions in the fight for justice too,” the congresswoman wrote.
The fight for… justice?!

The entire thing was artificial — AstroTurf as you leftists love to call events involving non-leftists, such as the Tea Parties.

It turns out that the party always singing the praises of solemnity, responsibility, and truth — i.e., the necessity for government intervention — while castigating the despicable Republicans, the odious Donald Trump, and his allegedly immature tweets are nothing less than elated with teen-age pranks.

What does this say about the Left's angry or merry denunciations of AstroTurf, Republicans' alleged lack of manners and intelligence, conservatives' purported eliminationist rhetoric, and the opponents they call names such as POS and Adolf Hitler, not to mention… voter suppression?

Doesn't psychology tell us that imagining what is in others lies in fact in yourself?

It wasn't Trump, or another Republican, charging that his or her adversaries belong in the trash heap of history, but a top Obama aide. (Every time I hear such a quote — and in view that every person not a leftist is a despicable deplorable or some other such inhuman monster, there is a myriad of such quotes — I say that conservatives should thank them publicly for showing exactly to what extent our founding fathers were prescient in deeming the Second Amendment necessary.) Thanks to Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, who writes, tongue in cheek,
DEMOCRATS: TRUMP IS DIVIDING AMERICA.
ALSO DEMOCRATS: Susan Rice Says Trump Supporters Belong In ‘Trash Heap Of History.’
(More about "America divided" in the conclusion.) This ties in with The Divine Right of Democrats, in which Kevin Williamson discusses the liberation of the Donkey party by the practical elimination of the Republican party (America is "suffering from a kind of infection in the form of the Republican party, which inhibits the normal and healthy — meaning Democrat-dominated — political life of the United States").

What does it say about leftists, when they claim that, say, there are no blacks, or very few, in attendance at a campaign involving any Republican. Isn't it from the same artificial accounts? After years and decades of MSM outlets and teachers hammering home the "fact" that Republicans are supposed to be racist trash hostile to African-Americans (see Charlottesville above) and other like "narratives", why would anyone (white or black) be surprised at a lack of black supporters at their rallies or among their ranks?

And let it be known that the most stunning false narrative of all, the 1619 Project, got started only last year, in order to further make Americans become revolted at the United States, at its people, and at its history

Incidentally, the most important policy for the Republicans today — certainly, in Trump's next term — is getting rid of all the far leftists in public education (sic), if necessary by simply getting rid of Jimmy Carter's education (sic) department once and for all, and returning the subject matter to the states and to various sub-localities, where, as has been known since the days of Tocqueville, citizens and parents can have some input into the subjects that their children are being taught. 

To return to the Tulsa event, let's try the put-the-shoe-on-the-other-foot approach:

What if a Republican-led initiative had resulted in a significant downturn at a rally for Barack Obama, for one of the Clintons, for Joe Biden, or — for that matter — for AOC? The Democrats would be — rightly — outraged (and FYI, a good number of conservatives would join in the condemnation of that "prank", which would be called something far worse, something closer to a crime, by the powers-that-be).

In that case, indeed, the Democrats would call the "prank" what it truly was: a "dirty tricks" campaign to sabotage an opponent's rally.

But there are more ominous questions: imagine if a Republican-led initiative had led to a full turnabout of a strictly Democratic-voting county, just like, in real life, the Democrats managed to do in California's Orange country. The Democrats would go berserk.

Here is the million-dollar question: What does this glee about their ability to influence the turnout of a Republican rally say about Democrats' approach and attitude to elections (local as well as national)?

When you are constantly running against Adolf Hitler — meaning a Democrat running for office is never anything less than a figure of heroic proportions — isn't cheating, er, isn't taking liberties with the election process something acceptable, even valorous, to do?

From ballot harvesting and mail-in ballots to motor voter and same-day voter registration through the lack of voter IDs — all items that are present (certainly not to the extent as in the U.S.) in no other country — all are designed to ensure a one-party banana republic.

In that perspective, Glenn Reynolds mentions a Facebook user opining that Ocasio-Cortez deserves our gratitude:
“Fraudulent ticket reservations? I think we just learned exactly what will happen with mail in voting. We should thank AOC for demonstrating this.”
Have you heard the meme that America is divided? Uncountable times, doubtlessly. Well, it's true; but what we are not told is that America is divided between Americans who believe in facts and teenage-mentality-driven Drama Queens who live by the existence of their melodramatic fairy tales.

Related: The Era of the Drama Queens — Every Crisis Is a Triumph
Leftists are drama queens. Leftists constantly erupting in hysterics — male (girly men?) or female — rule the roost.

Racism! Patriarchy! Sexism! Rape on campus! Global warming! Christianity's bigotry! The reactionary average American! Republicans' hate speech and hate thought! US history, a litany of racism and oppression! All the founding fathers, hypocritical sonzabitches! All our ancestors, imperialist mongrels! Oppression of women, and gays, and transgenders!

(The only person, the only people, who come out positive in this (self-serving) world view are — surprise, surprise — the drama queens themselves! Also known as the wise men, and the wise women, arriving as knights in shining armor on their white steeds to fight for the victims and the martyrs of the world.)
Whenever there is drama — whenever there is a crisis (or the semblance of a crisis) — the left's  drama queens win.

There must be constant drama — crises, if you prefer — or the movement loses momentum and/or comes to a standstill and/or dies out. 
The Leftist Worldview in a Nutshell: A world of Deserving Dreamers Vs. Despicable Deplorables