Saturday, February 27, 2021

QUORA: ‘Do you vote for yourself, your own wallet, your own morals, your own good, or do you vote for what is best for everyone?’

 QUORA *: ‘Do you vote for yourself, your own wallet, your own morals, your own good, or do you vote for what is best for everyone?


I posted this answer:


The question implies a false and dangerous dichotomy--me or them. But personal freedom is the only thing that is genuinely good for everyone, so long as each of us respects each others’ liberty rights. Any other way of voting cannot be good for everyone, because it would mean voting to sacrifice the lives, wallets, morals, and good of some for the unearned benefit of the lives, wallets, morals, and good of others. Such a lose-win proposition is clearly not good for everyone. 


I vote for myself, my own wallet, my own morals, and my own good, and expect everyone else to do the same for themselves. You could say it’s not good for “everyone” in one sense: It’s not “good” for predators or power-lusters, for example. But by extension, that’s what’s best for every honorable person. To vote otherwise would be to self-sacrifice my own life, wallet, morals, and good, which by definition would definitely not be good for everyone, since “everyone” means all individuals and I’m part of “everyone.” My right to govern my own life by my own judgement, to earn and use property, live by my own chosen morals, and pursue my own good, is by definition good for everyone, because when you defend your own rights, you defend the rights of all. 


Predators or power-lusters don’t see it that way, of course. People who primarily “vote for what is best for everyone” are declaring that they know what is best for everyone and that they get to impose, through their votes, what they think is good for everyone else’s lives, economic affairs, and morals. Well, I don’t recognize anyone’s right to tell me what is good for my life, my wallet, or what morals I should live by. 


There is no either/or. Every individual has the equal and inalienable moral rights to his own life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. A just society reflects those moral rights in its government, laws, and elections. I have those rights, and I respect the same rights of others, and no government should have power to alienate any of us from those rights. When elections become about what the majority votes is “best for everyone,” we are on our way to totalitarian Democracy, which means tribalism, social breakdown, and civil war. My vote is always guided by who or what is most likely to protect and advance—or least likely to infringe—those rights. 


* [Quora is a social media website founded by two former Facebook employees. According to Wikipedia:


Quora is a question-and-answer website where questions are created, answered, edited and organized by its community of users. The company was founded in June 2009, and the website was made available to the public on June 21, 2010.[3]Quora aggregates questions and answers to topics. Users can collaborate by editing questions and suggesting edits to other users' answers.[4]


You can also reply to other users’ answers.]


Related Reading:


Why I Declined to Wear My 'I Voted' Sticker


Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right


QUORA: "Have you noticed Trump's 'America first' has given license to a 'me first' mindset among Americans?"


It’s MeFirst, or Slavery. Take Your Pick


Books to Aid in Understanding Rational Selfishness


'Social Justice' Collectivism in American School and Culture


Moral Rights and Political Freedom by Tara Smith  


Senator Mike Lee is Right: America ‘is not a Democracy’


America; Democracy or Republic or Both--Why it Matters


Rights and Democracy


The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty—Timothy Sandefur


America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It by C. Bradley Thompson

Wednesday, February 24, 2021

Moran's Climate Change Dogma Discredits His Analysis of the Texas Energy Debacle

After Texas power debacle, count your Jersey blessings, read the headline of a New Jersey Star-Ledger editorial by Tom Moran. The article is supposed to tell us why New Jersey is not susceptible to an electricity meltdown like that experienced in Texas because, after NJ’s own “Texas” disaster called Superstorm Sandy in 2012, NJ utility companies took steps to “fortify” the generation facilities and grid. But it’s hard to take Moran seriously when his article starts out this way:


If any consolation can be drawn from the tragedy in Texas, it is that New Jersey is unlikely to suffer as badly during a similar storm.


For one, we learned a lesson when Sandy knocked us on our back and have spent more than $6 billion since then to fortify our electric and gas systems. It was a costly lesson, but New Jersey is now better prepared for the inevitable wrath of climate change.


In Texas, climate change is still a suspect concept, at least to the Republicans who run the state. In November of 2019, a University of Texas poll found that 55 percent of Texas Republicans said the government should do “little” or “nothing” to prepare for climate change, and 44 percent denied that it exists.


So, naturally, Texas did not require its power plants to be well-insulated, or its gas lines to be buried deep enough to escape the frost. Both failed on a large scale when hit with this historically harsh weather.


[My emphasis]


“Climate Change” has become the quasi-religious rationalization for every weather event that is not perfect. Like a traditional religionist who sees God in whatever observation they feel like, so climate religionists see climate change in any weather event they don’t like. But like God, Climate Change is a convenient way to describe something the observer wishes to be true. But that’s all that Moran is expressing -- a wish, or feeling.  


Moran blames the Texas cold wave and snow and ice storms on climate change, just as he blames Sandy on climate change. But the weather patterns that brought these extreme weather events are not new. One example is the winter of 1962-1963, when a similar pattern of arctic air plunging into the deep south took hold. That cold spell, which lasted much longer, was likewise caused by a north-south jet stream configuration. That brutal winter, which I remember well, was featured on the cover of Life magazine under the headline “1963: Most Savage Winter of the Century.” The article contained a diagram showing a North American jet stream that surged into the arctic over Alaska, then plunged South to Texas and the tropical Gulf Coast--an almost exact replica of the jet stream that engulfed Texas in arctic air. New Jersey has long been known to be vulnerable to the kind of jet stream pattern that freakishly directed Sandy west for a direct hit on the Jersey coast. The 1993 book “Great Storms of the Jersey Shore”, 1st edition, contains a final chapter about a hypothetical storm that slams the Jersey shore in eerily similar fashion, based on an eerily similar weather pattern to as Sandy, so as to be prophetic (Chapter 8, “The Storm That Eats The Jersey Shore”). In other words, Sandy was long expected by meteorological experts. 


More broadly, Roger Pielke Jr. gives a sober analysis of extreme weather history in his book The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change, 2nd Edition. Using widely available data and science, Pielke concludes that weather is by and large not getting more extreme. A report published by the Journal of Geography & Natural Disasters likewise concludes that, according to data, extreme weather was more prevalent in the first half of the 20th Century than in the second half, completely contrary to the narrative peddled by the likes of Tom Moran.


Neither the Texas cold wave nor Sandy were something new “caused by climate change” (which, in any event, is a ridiculous phrase, since climate doesn’t cause weather, weather causes climate). But, hell, these are mere facts. Moran can’t let facts get in the way of his narrative. 


Related Reading:


The Religious Faith Behind Climate Change Fear Mongering


The Heroes who Enabled Advance Warning of Sandy -- My article in The Objective Standard


Droughts No Match for Fossil-Fueled Industrial Agriculture


Are Floods More Frequent, as Climate Alarmists Claim?  by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul Knappenberger


Trends in Extreme Weather Events since 1900 – An Enduring Conundrum for Wise Policy Advice—Journal of Geography & Natural Disasters


It is therefore surprising to discover that by all the various real world data considered here, the weather in the first half of the 20th century was, if anything, more extreme than in the second half. 


It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change. The disconnect between real-world historical data on the 100 years’ time scale and the current predictions provides a real conundrum when any engineer tries to make a professional assessment of the real future value of any infrastructure project which aims to mitigate or adapt to climate change.



The Truth About Sea Levels—Alex Epstein


Assume 6 Feet of Sea Level Rise: Predict Catastrophe—Useful science or worst case scaremongering? by Ronald Bailey


The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change, 2nd Edition, by Roger Pielke, Jr.

Sunday, February 21, 2021

QUORA: ‘Fascism was not opposed to private property or capitalism, so how can it be described as Marxist or socialist?’

 QUORA: ‘Fascism was not opposed to private property or capitalism, so how can it be described as Marxist or socialist?’


I posted this answer:


Fascism was and is most definitely opposed to private property and capitalism


Private property, to be truly private, must be a fundamental inalienable right; meaning, the right of the owner to acquire, use, and dispose of his property according to his own judgement, so long as his property isn’t used in a way that violates the rights of others. True, property under Fascism has a superficial veneer of private ownership. But property that is controlled by the state is not genuine private property, and under Fascism the state has ultimate control over all property. Property is “private” only on paper. “Private property” without the private freedom of use and disposal is a sham.


Under Capitalism, private property is truly guaranteed by constitutional right—as is economic freedom generally, including the right to free trade—along with rights to speech and press, religion/conscience, association, etc.. Under Fascism, all economic activity is controlled by the state. In fact, under Fascism, all life is centrally controlled by the state. 


Fascism cannot be “described as Marxist” in the sense that the means of production are owned by the state. But Fascism is most certainly socialist. Fascism is state control of the means of production. Capitalism is fundamentally individualist, while both Marxism and Fascism are virulently anti-individualist. Fascism and Marxism are united in their opposition to private property and Capitalism. Both are thoroughly collectivist. Both are repressive, authoritarian systems.


Capitalism is the embodiment of The Enlightenment principles of individualism, including the universal guarantee of individual rights, free markets, limited constitutional government, and equality of individual self-government. In THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM, Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile explicitly announce Fascism’s opposition to the Enlightenment principles that underpin Capitalism [my emphasis added]: 


Fascism’s anti-individualism:


Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism [i.e., Enlightenment liberalism].


Fascism’s collectivism:


Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. [sic]


On fascism’s statism:


“No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State.


We are, in other words, a state which controls all forces acting in nature. We control political forces, we control moral forces, we control economic forces, therefore we are a full-blown Corporative state. [*]


On fascism’s socialism:


Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle [i.e., Marxism]. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.


Fascism thus opposes Marxian socialism (communism), not socialism as such. Fascism differs from Marxism in the sense that the means of production are controlled, rather than owned, by the state. And Fascism differs from Marxism in that Marxism is internationally oriented (Workers of the world unite) while fascism is oriented toward national socialism. But these are superficial differences. Fascism and Marxism have much in common. Fascism and Marxism are united in their opposition to private property and Capitalism. Fascism and Marxism are anti-individualist, collectivist, statist, socialist. In other words, Fascism, like Marxism, is everything that Capitalism is not. And wherever Fascism rears its ugly head, some manifestation of these elements are in place, whether in an entire country, like NAZI Germany, or in a political agenda of a mixed economy politician, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposed “Accountable capitalism Act.”  


The basic premise of the question is completely flawed. There is no fundamental difference between Fascism and Marxism. Fundamentally, Capitalism is equally opposed to both Fascism and Marxism, and vice-versa. Capitalism is individualist; that is, the primary unit of moral, political, and economic concern is the individual, which is why Capitalism is based on the universal exercise of individual rights under a government limited to protecting those rights. Both Marxism and Fascism are virulently anti-individualist. Both are thoroughly collectivist, which means a totalitarian state based on the principle that the primary unit of moral, political, and economic concern is the group, as embodied in the apparatus of state. Both are statist. They are opposed to each other only in the sense of two underworld crime families battling over control of the same turf. Both Fascism and Marxism are totalitarian criminal enterprises.


For more of my thoughts on this subject, see my answer to QUORA: ‘Is fascism a capitalist ideology?‘. Also see my answer to QUORA: ‘Do you believe in free market capitalism?’


* [Don’t be fooled by the term “corporate” in Mussilini’s fascist state. The fascist corporation is nothing like the private, free corporations under capitalism. For a proper understanding of the type of corporation that arose under capitalism, as opposed to the state corporation, see Robert Hessen’s In Defense of the Corporation.]


Related Reading:


The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein


Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter


Don't Equate the Essence of Socialism to Capitalism


Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society


Fascism: Back Door to Socialism that Obama and the Left Well Understand


We Need a Deeper Understanding of Socialism


A is A, and Socialism by any Other Name...


Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard


Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Accountable Capitalism Act’ Reprises Benito Mussolini


Why Marxism—Evil Laid Bare--C. Bradley Thompson for The Objective Standard


“Victims” of capitalism? By Jaana Woiceshyn: "Capitalism is the only victimless social system."


Is ‘Stakeholder Capitalism’ Newspeak for Economic Fascism? By Mark Hornshaw for FEE


For his scathing but inescapable insights [Ludwig von] Mises had the honor of being intellectual enemy number one of both the Nazis and the Soviets.

In what Mises called Russian style socialism, the owner of the widget factory would be shot or sent the gulag, to be replaced by a party apparatchik, often with no background in widget production at all. Not only would there be no way of knowing whether widgets were socially beneficial, but you wouldn’t get very good widgets anyway.

Under what Mises called German style socialism, the former owner of the widget factory would be left nominally in charge, but made into a party apparatchik, using as much coercive pressure as necessary to force him to serve the interests of the state. This ownership in name only, is why people sometimes confuse national socialism with capitalism rather than correctly identifying it as another path to socialism. Resources are de-facto nationalized by different means.

Thursday, February 18, 2021

Venezuela: From Stalin to Mussolini

The Foundation of Economic Education is reporting that Venezuela’s socialist government is retreating from its hard core criminal socialist policies. In  Bloomberg: Venezuela Turns to Privatization After Being Bankrupted by Socialism, FEE’s Jon Miltimore reports that “After much pain and suffering, Venezuelan socialist leaders have conceded they cannot effectively run an economy.”


According to Bloomberg News, Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro has quietly begun transferring state assets back into the hands of private owners in an effort to reverse the country's economic collapse.


“Saddled with hundreds of failed state companies in an economy barreling over a cliff, the Venezuelan government is abandoning socialist doctrine by offloading key enterprises to private investors, offering profit in exchange for a share of revenue or products,” write Caracas-based journalists Fabiola Zerpa and Nicolle Yapur.


The transfer, which was not announced publicly but was confirmed by “nine people with knowledge of the matter,” reportedly includes dozens of coffee processors, grain silos, and hotels that were confiscated as part of Venezuela's widespread nationalization that began under Chavez.


Maduro’s effort to quietly form private-public partnerships, a strategy that began in 2017, reveals the total failure of Venezuela’s command economy. Bloomberg points out, for example, that once-successful food processing plants have been “mostly idle” since being seized by the government, plants that could have been feeding a starving population.


This should lead to a modest economic improvement. But make no mistake. Venezuela's "privatization," a shift from total nationalization of private industries (theft) to public/private "partnerships," is NOT a shift from socialism to capitalism. It is a shift from one form of socialism to another. Venezuela is merely moving from communism to fascism. It's akin to replacing Stalin with Mussolini. As Miltimore correctly observes:


It seems that after much pain and suffering, even socialist leaders in Venezuela have conceded that they cannot run an economy with enough efficiency to avoid economic ruin. But while returning enterprises to private owners is a step in the right direction, it’s hardly accurate to call Maduro's strategy “capitalism.”


At best, Venezuela’s current economic system is a form of fascism, which Sheldon Richman once described as “socialism with a capitalist veneer.”


Related Reading:


QUORA: ‘Is fascism a capitalist ideology?


Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter


The Great Reset = Red Fascism


Fascism: Back Door to Socialism that Obama and the Left Well Understand


We Need a Deeper Understanding of Socialism


A is A, and Socialism by any Other Name...


Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Accountable Capitalism Act’ Reprises Benito Mussolini


The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein

Monday, February 15, 2021

The Racism of the Anti-Racists: Dr. Jill Biden, Wanda Blanchett, and Dr. Bob Harris

[Updated 11/3/23]

A Wall street Journal op-ed  by Joseph Epstein, later defended by WSJ editorial page editor Paul Gigot, argued that Joe Biden’s wife, Dr. Jill Biden, should drop the term “Dr.” from her title. 

I have not read the whole article, since it’s behind a paywall. And I am neither endorsing nor rejecting Epstein’s viewpoint. But in a New Jersey Star-Ledger op-ed, Wanda J. Blanchett strenuously rebuked Epstein. That’s OK, except that Blanchett used the op-ed as a springboard to introduce bigotry into the conversation. She lectures us that Epstein is an example of  “white male privilege” and that Gigot and The Wall Street Journal allowed this op-ed because the WSJ staff lacks “diversity”--meaning diversity of skin color and gender. While acknowledging that she is not the only one to criticize Epstein, Blanchett admits that “what strikes me most about it is that the unapologetic white male privilege that Mr. Epstein exercised has largely been ignored.” 


Well, maybe so-called “white male privilege” is being ignored because the “marginalization, misogyny and oppression” of women in general and women if color in particular she sees reflected in the WSJ op-ed is her own biased imagination. There’s no question that human history, including American history, is rife with genuine marginalization, misogyny and oppression of women and blacks. But accusing someone of being guilty of these injustices without evidence is just as wrong as what the real victims of history endured.


Being a life-long weather buff,  I remember the saga of TV/radio weatherman Bob Harris. In 1969, Harris landed a job as the weather forecaster with WCBS-TV in New York by faking a Ph-D on his application. Harris took a few college courses, but he never actually graduated or got a college degree. Harris was essentially a self-taught meteorologist. Nevertheless, Harris spent the next decade introducing himself to his audiences as Dr. Bob Harris. When the truth came to light in 1979, Harris was fired by CBS, as well as The New York Times which also employed his services. Harris left in disgrace and, for a time, his personal life and professional career went into a tailspin. Are we to assume that “black female privilege” was to blame for Harris’s ordeal? Was Harris’s firing proof of marginalization, misandry, and oppression by men in general and men of color in particular? If not, why not? Ridiculous? Sure. But by Blanchett’s loose proof-free standards, anything goes.


I’m not going to get mired into the debate over what criteria qualifies the label “Doctor.” But a disagreement over the criteria shouldn’t justify Blanchett’s accusation. Neither should Epstein’s choice of words. He may be arrogant. He may be disrespectful. But those are not proof of racism or misogyny. 


On the other hand, seeing bigotry based on skin color and gender where no evidence exists, as Blanchett does, is exactly what racism and misandry look like. Racism is the idea that characterological content and moral standing are inherent in a person’s biological chemistry, as in “white” privilege. (“White” is enclosed in quotes because no one actually has white skin. “White” people simply have less melanin, the ingredient that all people have which determines the shading of a person’s skin. All people, “whites” included, are actually “people of color.” It’s just that “whites” have less melanin than other segments of the human race.) If Blanchett actually believes that “privilege” is carried in Epstein’s “white” skin, she is racist. Genuine anti-racism means eliminating skin color, or any other biological connection to character or moral standing, such as blood line or DNA, as a factor in judging a person’s moral standing or character.


Put another way, genuine anti-racism means embracing individualism. I have argued that the Democratic Party, and the American Left generally, is deeply racist. The racist corruption goes so deep, in fact, that Leftist don’t even know that they are racist. Collectivism, the primacy of groups, is automatized in their subconscious, and thus they only see the world through a lens of group, especially racial, identity. This corrupting collectivist mindset leads to “seeing” bigotry everywhere.

I do not know if Epstein or Gigot harbor gender of racial biases. But I do know that Blanchett’s knee-jerk assumption that they are simply simply on their genders and skin color, is wrong—and further proof of the Left’s inherent racism.

Related Reading:


The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’: San Diego’s ‘Educators’


The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’


The Racism of the 'Anti-Racists': 'This New America' - Apartheid?


The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’: The NJ State Budget


The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’: NJ Governor Murphy’s Strange and Discriminatory ‘Baby Bonds’ Scheme


An Anti-Racist Education for Middle Schoolers by ROBBY SOAVE for Reason

Friday, February 12, 2021

Biden’s Revoking of Trump’s 1776 Commission Report Confirms His Allegiance to the Cancel America Movement

Biden Revokes Trump Report Promoting 'Patriotic Education', US News and World Reports. The subheading reads, “President Joe Biden has revoked a recent Trump administration report that aimed to promote ‘patriotic education’ in schools but that historians rejected as political propaganda.”


Here are some excerpts, annotated by me:


In an executive order signed on Wednesday in his first day in office, Biden disbanded Donald Trump’s presidential 1776 Commission and withdrew a report it released Monday. Trump established the group in September to rally support from white voters. 


[Freedom based on individual rights appeals only to "white" voters? What does that tell you about the Left's view of non-whites? Is US NEWS claiming that non-whites are incapable of living in freedom, of possessing personal agency? Your guess is as good as mine. Abolitionist Frederick Douglass would certainly beg to differ.] 


and as a response to The New York Times’ “1619 Project,” which highlights the lasting consequences of slavery in America. 


[Lingering consequences of slavery, such as they are objectively determined should be addressed, of course. But lingering consequences is not the thrust of the 1619 Project. That is a disingenuous deflection. No, the 1619 Project’s primary mission is to reframe America as a slave state, not the anti-slavery free state that the Founders actually created, contradictions, compromises, and hypocracy notwithstanding. The 1619 Project cancels America by whitewashing the Enlightenment, the fundamental catalyst of the American Founding, out of the history of America.  The Enlightenment principles that formed the intellectual Foundation of the American Revolution didn’t start gaining steam until decades after the first slaves arrived in the British colony of Jamestown in 1619, the event that the 1619 Project unjustly claims is the true Founding of America.]


In its report, which Trump hoped would be used in classrooms across the nation, the commission glorifies the country’s founders 


[I have not read the report. And of course the “devil is in the details.” But if it “glorifies the country’s founders,” it is certainly correct. The Founders created the first ever nation Founded explicitly on elevating the individual, all common individuals equally, to the sovereign, relegating the state as servant, by deliberate philosophical design.]


, plays down America’s role in slavery, 


[The 1619 Project inverts the Founding, claiming preservation of slavery, rather than the Enlightenment principles that stand antipodal to slavery, was primary to America. If the 1776 Commission report corrects that hierarchy, it is not down playing the terrible moral and political attrocity of slavery. It is accurately portraying the true history of American slavery as an aberation--a birth defect--that ran in contradiction to this nation’s own stated principles of liberty equality. If this is what Trump’s 1776 Commission accomplishes, then Trump’s commission is correct.]


condemns the rise of progressive politics, 


[The rise of Progressive politics was and is a reactionary collectivist repudiation of America’s individualist Founding principles, and deserves condemnation. See, for example, Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change. Or simply look at any welfare state policies of the Progressives, which uniformly violate people’s inalienable individual rights, and turns government from the institution that “secures these rights” into a rights violator.]


and argues that the civil rights movement ran afoul of the “lofty ideals” espoused by the Founding Fathers.


[The Civil Rights movement of Martin Luther King explicitly espoused the Founding Fathers and their ideals.  To King, these ideals were more than merely “lofty.” He sincerely believed in them, and said so. Contrast that with what the Civil Rights movement, if you can call it that, has morphed into--a racist, collectivist, statist cabal that judges people by their group affiliation rather than the content of their individual character.]


The panel, which included no professional historians of the United States, complained of “false and fashionable ideologies” that depict the country’s story as one of “oppression and victimhood.” Instead, it called for renewed efforts to foster “a brave and honest love for our country.”


Historians widely panned the report, saying it offers a false and outdated version of American history that ignores decades of research. 


[Which historians? Individual Rights outdated? Well, that suits the totalitarian Left just fine. True intellectuals would never view history as "up-to-date" or "outdated", but as true or false.]


“It's an insult to the whole enterprise of education. Education is supposed to help young people learn to think critically,” said David Blight, a Civil War historian at Yale University. “That report is a piece of right-wing propaganda.” 


[Then why oppose an alternative view of the Founding? Either the true beginning of America was 1619 and the United States of America established in 1776 was a fraud to protect slavery, as the K-12 curriculum of the 1619 project claims, or the true Founding was 1776 when the Founding Fathers  “built the new nation ‘upon a set of virtues and values that would create a truly free society,” virtues and values that the Founders believed would “work toward . .  truly delivering on that promise for all,” over time, as the 1776 Unites curriculum teaches, and as Clemson University’s C. Bradley Thompson demonstrates in America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It.


Critical thinking requires objectivity balance. Indoctrination and historical revisionism is the opposite of helping young people learn to think critically. The article goes on, arguing that the report . . .]


attempts to soften America's role in slavery and explain it as a product of the times.


[Why?]


“Many Americans labor under the illusion that slavery was somehow a uniquely American evil,” the panel wrote in the 20-page report. “The unfortunate fact is that the institution of slavery has been more the rule than the exception throughout human history.”


[Doesn’t critical thinking require full context? One does not “soften” American slavery by considering it within the context of slavery over time and human history. Ignoring that full context does not promote critical thinking. Context-dropping makes critical thinking impossible.]


Whatever its inaccuracies and the wisdom of such an endeavor—I don't think the Federal Government should be involving itself in local school curriculums—it's laudable that Trump attempted to counter the fraudulent and philosophically treasonist 1619 Project. But the fact that Biden was so quick to cancel Trump's report tells you he's on the side of the Left's project to cancel America. A good counter to the "1619 Project" is the 1776Unites curriculum, which is


grounded in the Woodson Center Principles and help educators bring their K-12 students encouragement, enrichment, and the genuine empowerment that comes with personal agency.


As 1776 Unites founder Robert L. Woodson put it, America’s founding generation built the new nation “upon a set of virtues and values that would create a truly free society, the freest the world had ever seen. They even knew at the time it was falling short of truly delivering on that promise for all, but they knew what they were working toward.”]


Note, in the article, the appeals to authority--"Historians widely panned the report"--and the ad hominem--"a piece of right-wing propaganda."  Why are only Left-Wing-approved intellectuals  “qualified historians”, but conservatives are not? Why are Larry Arnn of Hillsdale College, Carol Swain of Vanderbilt Law School, Charles R. Kesler, editor of the Claremont Review of Books, and the rest of the 18 member commission not qualified? Because they are conservatives? Indeed, why should the label “professional historians” guarantee accuracy? You do not have to be a historian to analyze and understand history. Otherwise, teaching history to young people is a fruitless endeavor, and “critical thinking” about history is impossible to lay people. It’s the resurrection of the “philosopher-king” folly of Plato, thoroughly discredited by The Enlightenment. 


Note also that the reference to "white voters" is not a quote from a critic. It is part of the report of US News, an allegedly "unbiased" source of mainstream news! This is clear evidence that the Leftism of the press as well as the American Left are inherently racist. Why else would the reference to skin color be raised about a scholarly interpretation of the Founding of the United States of America? 


Finally, note that all of the features of the 1776 Commission project cited in this report is presented in a vacuum, and then brushed off as propaganda and an insult and so on. The argument from intimidation hangs over this whole article.



To be sure, there are valid criticisms presented in this article. As one critic said, it is “government indoctrination of American students” because it has no citations and is incomplete. It is a step toward centralization of education, a very bad, statist idea. Trump should never have attempted to intervene in school curriculums. On these merits, Biden was right to abolish the 1776 Commission and its report. The right way to counter the 1619 Project, a private initiative of the New York Times, is through private initiative.


But make no mistake. Biden’s executive order to abolish Trump’s commission did not spring from any concern with expanding government’s power. He’s committed to expanded government control over our lives. In keeping with his collectivism/statism, and as explicitly endorsed in his campaign and in his inauguration speech, Biden is squarely on the side of the counter-American 1619 Project, which I have argued is an attempt to literally cancel America by discrediting the Founding Enlightenment philosophy of individualism. The Left, after all, represents Americanism’s antipode, collectivism. You can’t push a slow-motion criminal socialist agenda on a Foundation of inalienable individual rights and a government designed to secure these rights. Those Declared principles of the Founding Generation are as much anti-Democratic Socialist as they are anti-slavery, anti-racism, and anti-collectivism. So, they must be cancelled, as if they never existed.


Cancel America: that is the motive behind Biden’s executive order repealing the 1776 Commission and its report. But those of us who believe that America’s true Founding was 1776, not 1619, have a powerful historical wind at our backs--the exact words of the Declaration of Independence. As Harvey Milk put it in his 1978 Gay Freedom Day celebration in San Francisco, 


On the Statue of Liberty it says, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free . . . .” In the Declaration of Independence it is written “All men are created equal and they are endowed with certain inalienable rights . . . .” That’s what America is. No matter how hard you try, you cannot erase those words from the Declaration of Independence. No matter how hard you try, you cannot chip those words from off the base of the Statue of Liberty.


Amen.


Related Reading:


Biden Cancels America


America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It by C. Bradley Thompson.


The ‘1619 Project’ Fraud Begins its Poisonous Infiltration into American Politics


A New Textbook of Americanism — edited by Jonathan Hoenig


The Collectivist Left Appropriates an Inhumane Christian Doctrine to Obliterate Americanism


The 'New American Socialists' Dilemma: The Declaration is as much anti-Socialist as anti-Slavery