Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘1619 Project’

Joe Biden reinvents racism, by Thierry Meyssan

Posted by M. C. on May 12, 2021

by Thierry Meyssan

Contrary to a widespread idea, President Biden does not intend to guarantee “equality in Law” of all Americans without distinction of race. On the contrary, he intends to be the champion of “racial equity”, that is to say a form of equality between, not individuals, but what he considers as distinct racial groups. In this article, Thierry Meyssan will use the term “racism” in its literal sense and not in the common sense of “discriminatory behavior”. He will show that by announcing their intention to extend “racial equity” to the whole world, President Biden and the Democratic Party are threatening world peace.

In a federal state, somewhere in the world, the Department of Education decided to teach in primary and secondary schools that humanity is divided into distinct races.

Although these races are distinct, it is possible to mate them and give birth to children. However, these children will be sterile, like the mules of a donkey and a mare. This is why federal government statistics include whites, blacks, etc., but no mixed-race children.

Since there is an implicit hierarchy between these distinct races and, unfortunately, half-breeds are not sterile, they are automatically counted as belonging to the inferior race. The superior race must be preserved from all defilement.

This federal state was the Nazi Reich, but it is also the United States of Joe Biden and his Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona.

We are witnessing the return of the “scientific racism” that caused the Second World War and its 70 million deaths. No one seems to be aware of the danger, however, and many people think that the U.S. Democrats are examples of openness to others.

Let us remember that the racism of the 1930s had all the trappings of science. It was researched in many scientific institutes and taught in universities in both the United States and Western Europe. To preserve the master race, many “modern” states had banned interracial marriages before World War I.JPEG - 37.6 kbCommemorative medal designed by Karl Goetz (then ranked on the left). On the obverse, a caricature of a black French soldier with the motto “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité”, on the reverse, a German woman bound and raped under a French helmet. This openly racist piece was distributed by a few right-wing organizations and by almost all Western left-wing organizations.

Racism is neither of the right nor of the left

In the collective imagination, racism would only develop in right-wing nationalist circles. This is absolutely false.

For example, at the end of the First World War, France occupied the Ruhr coal region militarily. Among the troops were Africans from Senegal and Madagascar for two years. Soon a protest movement developed in Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada to denounce the ignominy of the French who placed 20,000 blacks to dominate the German whites and rape their women. This racist movement was led by the main anti-racist figure of the beginning of the century, E. D. Morel [1], and gathered all the international feminist organizations in large demonstrations [2].

In France itself, socialists joined this racist movement, including Karl Marx’s grandson, Jean Longuet, a journalist at L’Humanité and future leader of the SFIO (Socialist Party).

It must be admitted that, in troubled times like the interwar period or the one we are living today, people follow their impulses whatever their ideas. They are often in complete contradiction with themselves and do not realize it.JPEG - 24.6 kbDemocratic President Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) was the designer of the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations. He favored the Klu Klux Klan within his party and established racial segregation.

The slavery and racist past of the American Democrats

In the United States, slavery and racism were mostly defended by the Democrats against the Republicans.

- The Democratic Party platforms of 1840, 1844, 1848, 1852 and 1856 asserted that abolitionism diminished the happiness of the people and endangered the stability and permanence of the Union.
- The 1856 program declared that the member states of the Union may or may not practice domestic slavery and write it into their constitutions.
- The 1860 program describes the efforts of abolitionist states that refused to arrest runaway slaves as subversive and revolutionary.
- The 14th Amendment granting full citizenship to freed slaves was passed in 1868 by 94% of Republican Party legislators and 0% of Democratic Party
- The 15th Amendment, which granted the right to vote to freed slaves, was adopted in 1870 by 100% of the members of the Republican Party and 0% of the members of the Democratic Party
- In 1902, the Democratic Party passed a law in Virginia removing the right to vote from over 90% of African Americans.
- President Woodrow Wilson instituted racial segregation of federal employees and mandated a photo on every job application.
- The 1924 Democratic National Convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City was called the “Klan-Bake” because of the influence of the Ku Klux Klan in the party.

Things did not really change until 1964, when, just after the Kennedys’ efforts, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law. This was a painful turnaround, as Democratic lawmakers managed to block the legislation for 75 days.JPEG - 44 kbThe “1619 Project” is an operation of the New York Times Magazine. It aims to rewrite American history.

The “1619 Project”

See the rest here

Thierry Meyssan

Political consultant, President-founder of the Réseau Voltaire (Voltaire Network). Latest work in English – Before Our Very Eyes, Fake Wars and Big Lies: From 9/11 to Donald Trump, Progressive Press, 2019. Joe Biden reinvents racism Language inversion Open letter from retired military : a plot against the Republic ? France The Middle East is reorganizing Will the allies have to die for Kiev? The coup that didn’t happen in Jordan This author’s articles To send a message

Article licensed under Creative Commons

The articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is cited, their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND).

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Rejecting the ‘Proposition Nation’ | Chronicles

Posted by M. C. on April 24, 2021

The left’s ‘1619 Project’ and the conservative 1776 Commission both rely on a distorted picture of the American founding.–proposition-nation-/

By Brion McClanahan


In January, Donald Trump’s President’s Advisory 1776 Commission released its 45-page “1776 Report,” which, according to The New York Times, is “a sweeping attack on liberal thought and activism that…defends America’s founding against charges that it was tainted by slavery and likens progressivism to fascism.” Joe Biden scrapped it the day he entered office, and the report has since been scrubbed from all government websites.   This is perhaps for the best. However noble the intentions of the Commission’s members, their document is a profoundly flawed vision of American history, one that places the Declaration of Independence and Abraham Lincoln at the center of the American experience. That Lincolnian vision is now the accepted “conservative” consensus regarding American history.   American conservatives looking for an intellectual home should avoid claptrap like the 1776 Commission and its intellectual sibling, “The 1619 Project.” They are in reality two sides of the same coin. Both rely on a fantasy about the founding that Lincoln invented at Gettysburg in 1863. Accepting the assumptions behind either view of America is tantamount to a coin toss in which the rules are heads they win, tails you lose.   Trump created the 1776 Commission in September 2020 to combat The New York Times’ “1619 Project,” which paints American history as a story of black slavery and white supremacy. However, his appointments to the Commission led its report down a predictable path.   Trump tapped Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn to head the Commission and appointed 17 other academics and politicians to serve in advisory roles. Vanderbilt University Political Science and Law Professor Carol M. Swain and Hillsdale Constitutional Government Professor Matthew Spalding served as vice-chair and executive director, respectively. Swain’s prior publications focused almost exclusively on race and the dangers of “white nationalism,” including tomes fully in accord with the credo of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Spalding penned the popular We Still Hold These Truths (2009), a book steeped in neoconservative deceit.   Other appointments included Thomas Lindsay, director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, who drafted most of “The 1776 Report,” as well as conservative historian Victor Davis Hanson. While Hanson has recently bemoaned the effects of cancel culture on American history, for years he never found a Confederate statue he did not want removed.    Consider the required reading recommendations for American students from “The 1776 Report,” which include the 1848 Seneca Falls Declaration calling for women’s suffrage, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Stanton looked to the form and substance of the Declaration of Independence in crafting the Declaration, and King asserted that the Declaration and the Constitution constituted a “promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”   No contemporary of Stanton or King would have confused either for a “conservative.” Stanton sided with the Republican Party during the 1850s because she perceived it as a conduit for reform, and complained loudly of betrayal when it refused to back women’s suffrage following the Civil War. King flirted with communism, and like the academics who crafted “The 1776 Report,” viewed the Declaration’s “self-evident” truth that “all men are created equal” as a foundational promise betrayed by bad actors in American history, mostly from the South.   Not to be outdone by King, the 1776 Commission blames John C. Calhoun for modern identity politics, for the distortion of the true founding principles enshrined in the Declaration, and for the deaths of the 600,000 men who perished in the Civil War. If not for Calhoun, “The 1776 Report” authors seem to suggest, the United States would today be a utopia of free-thinking nationalist egalitarians dedicated to the proposition that “all men are created equal.”   Can you guess who else holds similar views? To name two: leftist Civil War historian Eric Foner and Nikole Hannah-Jones, the lead journalist for “The 1619 Project.” In his book The Second Founding (2019), Foner writes:

See the rest here

Brion McClanahan

Brion McClanahan is editor of The Abbeville Review and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers (Regnery, 2009) and The Founding Fathers’ Guide to the Constitution (Regnery History, 2012).

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Good News: Covid Is Driving More Parents to Homeschool | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 7, 2020

Perhaps what’s more important for Americans is to focus more of their time and energy on activities they can actually control, namely taking charge of children’s education and not handing them over to the state for roughly seven hours a day, or even ten hours a day, if Kamala Harris had her way.

José Niño

There might not be a lot to cheer about in 2020. With rioting, looting, and draconian lockdowns, America seems to be on the precipice of social unraveling thanks to misguided policy decisions and the culture of divisiveness fomented by political elites and the media class.

But in any moment of crisis, there are always new avenues for innovation that make people better off. Yes, private individuals can take advantage of precarious situations and turn them around for good purposes. Just look at homeschooling.

In a previous article, I noted that Americans should use the current lockdown mania to explore distinct educational options as opposed to clamoring for schools to be reopened. Americans might actually be getting the memo.

According to certain estimates from Gallup, the percentage of children participating in homeschooling is expected to double based on figures from 2019 to 2020. Further, public schooling has witnessed a concomitant drop in enrollment, with enrollment rates going from 83 percent in 2019 down to 76 percent in 2020.

Parents have every reason to pull their children out of public schools. These institutions are not exactly safe learning environments, nor are they run on a fiscally sound basis. A study from the Manhattan Institute found US per pupil spending has surged in the last fifty years, going from $4,720 in 1966 to $13,847 (in 2018 dollars) in 2016.

Private education is usually viewed as a luxury for the rich. While posh private options such as the Exeter Academy exist, many religious schools provide budget alternatives for families disenchanted with the current school system. The average Catholic school only charges about $8,000 per student, while private schools of other religious denominations charge roughly $10,000. Just like any service available in the private sector, there are diverse choices for families of all economic standings. The same cannot be said about one-size-fits-all public schools, which continue to have money thrown at them regardless of performance.

The education preferences of Americans vary from family to family. Not all parents will turn to private schooling, so many pursue the homeschooling route. Nevertheless, the reasons parents decide to exit the public school system tend to be similar irrespective of which alternative education model they choose. Some parents are sick of the political indoctrination their children receive at public schools. Others have become concerned about the viability of virtual education in addition to the uncertainty of school schedules. For many parents, jumping into the homeschooling realm seems like a risk, but it’s perhaps well worth it after weighing other options.

While the chaotic nature of the current lockdowns and the social unrest across the nation will make many Americans shudder, trying times are when entrepreneurs begin to shine. We must remember that nothing in our world is static. No matter the obstacles that the government and other institutions place in front of us, history has repeatedly shown that enterprising individuals find ways to satisfy the desires of the masses and improve their living standards. Change is the natural order, and the state does an excellent job of propping up moribund institutions that are in need of a facelift.

In one of his more underrated works, Bureaucracy, economist Ludwig von Mises acknowledged the inexorability of change and observed why it’s important for societies to embrace it if they desire to make economic progress:

The actual world is a world of permanent change. Population figures, tastes, and wants, the supply of factors of production and technological methods are in a ceaseless flux. In such a state of affairs there is need for a continuous adjustment of production to the change in conditions.

Public schools have functioned as taxpayer-subsidized daycares where parents can take the easy way and drop their kids off for eight hours a day to receive a subpar education. Nowadays, you can add in a large dose of cultural radicalism thanks to the introduction of the 1619 Project historical revisionism to numerous schools’ curricula. The public schooling skeptics, who have insisted for years that public schools serve as indoctrination centers, don’t look so crazy once people become aware of how ensconced political correctness is in schools. Handing young people over to the state was always a risky proposition. Countless families are starting to see firsthand how far the radicalization rabbit hole has gone. A good portion likely doesn’t want to take the risk of having their children completely brainwashed and will pull them out of modern-day indoctrination centers. Better to do so late than never.

A pivot to nonstate education is not a radical concept by any stretch of the imagination. There are strong residual instincts for alternative education methods among Americans. It’s usually forgotten that compulsory public education has not always dominated American education. Private schooling, homeschooling, and localized forms of public education have been used by Americans throughout their history. It wasn’t until mass public education entered the picture during the Progressive Era—the very period that gave birth to the administrative state—that mass compulsory education began its viral spread nationwide.

The current pandemic environment has opened up new approaches to schooling such as co-ops, learning pods, and unschooling. Despite what critics say, homeschooling is not as uniform as advertised. Parents have lots of choices at their disposal during a time when public schooling is becoming exceedingly cumbersome (as if it weren’t so in the first place).

There is reason to believe the recent wave of first-time homeschoolers may not be a temporary development but rather a budding sign of an educational realignment that is unfolding before our very eyes. The path toward any semblance of economic sanity or limited government is not going to be linear, frankly. When we look at the way markets work, it involves humans recognizing problems and muddling through with solutions that satisfy people’s desires. Oftentimes it takes external shocks to the system to effect change.

Given how the modern-day administrative state has rendered most political elections nothing more than political theater, the very act of exiting the public school system is a much more decisive expression of political action. Forget casting ballots—which will usually ends up favoring candidates who do nothing of substance to roll back public administration—the fact that more Americans are looking for other education options could yield much larger profreedom results than conventional politics.

It’s still up in the air whether Americans will completely follow through with their public school exodus. But if there’s a high-yield form of political activity that can be undertaken now, it’s getting children out of the public education system altogether. Doing so is a much more effective way of bringing about political change than punching a ballot every four years in what’s constantly marketed “as the most important election of our lifetime.”

Perhaps what’s more important for Americans is to focus more of their time and energy on activities they can actually control, namely taking charge of children’s education and not handing them over to the state for roughly seven hours a day, or even ten hours a day, if Kamala Harris had her way. Much more could be achieved by giving public education the cold shoulder than by putting all the eggs in the electoral politics basket. Author:

Contact José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. Sign up for his mailing list here. Contact him via Facebook or Twitter. Get his premium newsletter here.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Erie Times E-Edition Article-Progressives inflict progress in California

Posted by M. C. on September 19, 2020

Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation requiring all 430,000 undergraduates in the California State University system to take an “ethnic studies” course, and there may soon be a similar mandate for all high-school students. “Ethnic studies” is an anodyne description for what surely will be, in the hands of woke “educators,” grievance studies.

California, our national warning, shows how unchecked progressives inflict progress. They have placed on November ballots Proposition 16 to repeal the state constitution’s provision, enacted by referendum in 1996, forbidding racial preferences in public education, employment and contracting. Repeal, which would repudiate individual rights in favor of group entitlements, is part of a comprehensive California agenda to make everything about race, ethnicity and gender. Especially education, thereby supplanting education with its opposite.

The 1996 ban on preferences was not intended to, and did not, end all measures to increase the participation of minorities and women in the state’s post-secondary education, or in doing business with the state government. So, Proposition 16 should be seen primarily as an act of ideological aggression, a bold assertion that racial and gender quotas — identity politics translated into a spoils system — should be forthrightly proclaimed and permanently practiced as a positive good.

California already requires that by the end of 2021 some publicly traded companies based in the state must have at least three women on their boards of directors, up from the 2018 requirement of one woman. Last month, the legislature mandated that by the end of 2021 at least one director shall be Black, Latino, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Alaskan Native, or identify as LGBTQ. And by 2022, boards with nine or more directors must include at least three government favored minorities.

Where will this social sorting end? Proposition 16’s aim is to see that there is no end to the industry of improvising remedial measures to bring “social justice” to a fundamentally unjust state, and nation. The aim is to dilute, to the point of disappearance, inhibitions about government using group entitlements — racial, ethnic and gender — for social engineering. Most important, Proposition 16 greases the state’s slide into the engineering of young souls.

They are to be treated as raw material for public education suffused with the spirit of Oceania in George Orwell’s “1984”: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” Progressives have a practical objective in teaching the essential squalor of the nation’s past. The New York Times’s “1619 Project” — it preaches that the nation’s real founding was the arrival of the first slaves; the nation is about racism — is being adopted by schools as a curriculum around the nation. If the past can be presented as radically wrong, radical remedies will seem proportionate.

Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation requiring all 430,000 undergraduates in the California State University system to take an “ethnic studies” course, and there may soon be a similar mandate for all high-school students. “Ethnic studies” is an anodyne description for what surely will be, in the hands of woke “educators,” grievance studies.

Discussions of the proposed high-school requirement are being conducted in the progressive patois about “collective narratives of transformative resistance” in the “postimperial life” of a nation groaning under the bondage of capitalist, patriarchal and other “systems of power.” Students will be taught to become “positive actors,” with the government’s public-education bureaucracy stipulating what political positions are and are not “positive.”

Coming in the context of such measures, Proposition 16’s proposed repeal of the ban on racial preferences should be understood as repealing all scruples about the government- approved groupthink that Orwell warned against in “1984.” In this enterprise, California progressives have company.

Writing in the British journal Standpoint, Charles Parton, with 22 years of diplomatic experience working in and on China, explains that President Xi Jinping’s hostility to freedom’s prerequisites includes root-and-branch rejection of education, understood as the development of individuals’ abilities to think critically. Xi, who calls teachers “engineers of the soul,” wants education to be, Parton says, “collective, ideological and political.” The Chinese Communist Party says education begins by “grasping the baby,” primary school promotes “loving” the party, socialism and the collective, secondary schools inculcate “the ideology of socialist builders,” and universities must be, in Xi’s words, “CCP strongholds.”

The CCP’s and California’s indoctrinators differ somewhat concerning the particular mentalities they aim to impose. But both groups would extinguish actual education — teaching individuals how, as opposed to what, to think.

The principal difference is that the CCP is more candid than California is about replacing thinking with the regurgitation of governmentstipulated orthodoxies.

In 1932, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis celebrated how a single state “may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” Or as a warning to it. George Will is a Washington Post columnist. Email him at

George Will

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The humiliation of Western history – spiked

Posted by M. C. on August 6, 2020

From this distorted vantage point, the American Revolution is presented not so much as a War of Independence, but as a selfish attempt to preserve the exploitative and oppressive legacy of 1619. The famous founding assertion that ‘all men are created equal’, and are entitled to ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’, is denigrated as mere cover for the practices of a group of unprincipled and dishonest slave-owners.

Clearly for Hannah-Jones, the objective of the project is to alter America’s historical memory in order to gain control of the national narrative.

From the NYT to British schools, powerful institutions are waging war on the past.

Frank Furedi

The most important issue at stake in the culture war is who controls the narrative through which society understands itself. At present, those controlling the narrative appear to be committed to reorganising society’s historical memory, and disputing and delegitimising its ideals, from liberty to equality. Take Netflix, for example. It is dominated by programmes, like Dear White People and Explained: The Racial Wealth Gap, that recast the Western way of life and Western history as irredeemably malevolent.

The humiliation and demonisation of the past and its ideals is now enacted at every important cultural event. Prize-giving ceremonies, be they the Oscars, the Tonys or the Pulitzers, invariably include speeches boasting of the bravery of the recipient for daring to ‘speak truth to power’. Ironically, this supposedly rebellious rhetoric is espoused by those who actually wield cultural power. These cultural elites see it as their raison d’être to denounce the culture into which they were born. Moreover, they do so for the public’s benefit, in order to ‘raise awareness’.

Back in the 1960s, raising awareness was a form of consciousness-raising. It was something one did to change one’s own outlook on the world. But in recent years, especially on social media, it has become a means to raise the awareness of others. As such, many use ‘awareness-raising’ as a way to distinguish themselves from those, who, to use the smug language of the day, ‘don’t get it’.

One powerful proponent of the dogma of awareness-raising is The New York Times, the most influential newspaper in the US. In August 2019, it decided ‘to speak truth to power’ by launching the 1619 Project, an ongoing initiative, featuring essays and other contributions, which maintains that the year 1619, and not 1776, is the true origin of the US. This, the project argues, is because the US was founded for the purpose of entrenching slavery, and 1619 was the year African slaves first arrived in Jamestown. All subsequent US history is therefore shaped by this founding, enslaving moment.

From this distorted vantage point, the American Revolution is presented not so much as a War of Independence, but as a selfish attempt to preserve the exploitative and oppressive legacy of 1619. The famous founding assertion that ‘all men are created equal’, and are entitled to ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’, is denigrated as mere cover for the practices of a group of unprincipled and dishonest slave-owners.


Unlike previous initiatives designed to encourage people to look critically at uncomfortable truths about their past, the 1619 Project offers a ‘take it or leave it’ version of history. Its aim is not to criticise existing historical narratives about the US. It is to negate and even morally annihilate the very foundation on which the US was built. As the NYT put it: ‘Our founding ideals of liberty and equality were false when they were written. Black Americans fought to make them true. Without this struggle, America would have no democracy at all.’

In rejecting the founding ideals of liberty and equality as false, the 1619 Project strips America’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, of every shred of moral authority. It also erases the profound contribution the American Revolution made to the development of the Western ideal of freedom.

The 1619 Project does not offer any new insights into the past. Rather, it seeks to contaminate the past and render it toxic. Indeed, one of the main contributors to the project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, admits that its principal objective is not to shed light on the past, but to undermine the moral authority of the present. ‘I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not history’, she writes. ‘It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative and therefore national memory. The project has always been as much about the present as it is about the past.’

Clearly for Hannah-Jones, the objective of the project is to alter America’s historical memory in order to gain control of the national narrative.


‘The protests were whiter than the police department’


‘The protests were whiter than the police department’

Tom Slater

Through this control over the national narrative, the NYT, like most other leading educational and cultural institutions in the US, is attempting to reinforce its cultural hegemony. The NYT’s webpage on the project even declares that ‘a re-education is necessary’. It is a chilling exhortation, more like something you would hear in a prison camp rather than a news organisation.

Not that influential public- and private-sector supporters of the project are too concerned by the grim totalitarian spectre invoked by the idea of ‘re-education’. On the contrary, they seem to be all for it. For example, to demonstrate its support for the project, the Pulitzer Center awarded Hannah-Jones one of its prestigious prizes, and launched a 1619 Project curriculum to promote its narrative in schools. Several US school districts have now adopted the NYT’s re-education project, presumably in order to teach children to regard the founders of their nation with shame.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Woke Revolution –

Posted by M. C. on July 13, 2020

The signatories to the letter do not understand that time has passed them by. Free speech is no longer a value.  Free speach is an ally of oppression because it permits charges against Western civilization and the white racist oppressors to be answered, and facts are not welcome.  The purpose of the woke revolution is to overthrow a liberal society and impose conformity with wokeness in its place.  Whiteness has been declared evil. There is nothing to debate.

Paul Craig Roberts

150 prominent intellectuals and Ivy League academics of leftish persuasion have signed a letter in Harper’s protesting the breakdown in civilized debate and imposition of ideological conformity.  The signatories made the obligatory bow to denouncing Trump as “a real threat to democracy” and called for “greater equality and inclusion across our society.”  But this wasn’t enough to save them from denunciation for stating these truthful facts:

“The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.”

The signatories to the letter do not understand that time has passed them by. Free speech is no longer a value.  Free speach is an ally of oppression because it permits charges against Western civilization and the white racist oppressors to be answered, and facts are not welcome.  The purpose of the woke revolution is to overthrow a liberal society and impose conformity with wokeness in its place.  Whiteness has been declared evil. There is nothing to debate.

The signatories do not understand that today there is only one side.  In place of debate there is denunciation, the purpose of which is to impose ideological conformity.  It is pointless to search for truth when truth has been revealed: Western civilization and all its works are a white racist construct and must be destroyed.  There is nothing to debate.

To make clear that in these revolutionary times not even prominent people of accomplishment such as Noam Chomsky are entitled to a voice different from woke-imposed conformity, the letter was answered by a condescending statement signed by a long list of woke journalists of no distinction or achievement, people no one has ever heard of. The 150 prominent defenders of free speech were simply dismissed as no longer relevant.

Noam Chomsky and the other prominent signatories were dismissed as irrelevant just as the prominent historians were who took exception to the New York Times 1619 project, a packet of lies and anti-white propaganda. The famous historians found that they weren’t relevant. The New York Times has an agenda that is independent of the facts.

The message is clear: shutup “white, wealthy” people and you also Thomas Chatterton Williams, a black person with a white name.  Your voices of oppression have been cancelled.

The “oppressed” and “marginalized” voices of woke revolutionaries, who have imposed tyranny in universities, the work place, and via social media, are the ones that now control explanations. No one is permitted to disagree with them.

Lining up on the woke side are CNN, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Slate, and other presstitute organizations desperately trying to remain relevant. Everyone of these institutions quickly took the side of the woke revolution against facts and free speech.

The revolution is over unless the guillotine is next. Academic freedom no longer exists. Free speech no longer exists. The media is a propaganda ministry. Without free speech there can be no answer to denunciation.  White people are guilty. Period.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Ideas Have Consequences –

Posted by M. C. on June 8, 2020

I should have said, “the external cost of American police training is very high.”  US police are trained in Israeli practices that view protesters as enemies justifying very aggressive restraint techniques. The training produces such a high level of police anxiety that police feel compelled to handcuff 5-year olds before putting them in a squad car.

The New York Times’ 1619 Project is spreading this genocide of white history to all of North America.  Northern cities are in flames, and Canada won’t escape.  Nor will Europe. The idiot Northern liberals who think they can use black anger against the despised American South are going to find themselves flayed with the same whip.

Paul Craig Roberts

The Saker writes that “the systemic collapse of the US Society has begun.”  Actually, US societal collapse has been underway for a long time.  What The Saker means is that now it is obvious.

Organized violence and looting in many American cities with pre-deliveries of bricks as weapons of destruction.  Police and government officials kneeling in submission to the rioters, thus encouraging the rioters in their actions. The police unsupported and standing down. Destroyed businesses. Looters emptying even the big box stores. Enormous economic loss.  As I wrote, “the external cost of one Minnesota cop is very high.”

I should have said, “the external cost of American police training is very high.”  US police are trained in Israeli practices that view protesters as enemies justifying very aggressive restraint techniques. The training produces such a high level of police anxiety that police feel compelled to handcuff 5-year olds before putting them in a squad car. I doubt the Minneapolis police officer meant to kill George Floyd by employing a restraint technique that is taught to the police.  The Minneapolis cop was  a catalyst, not the cause of consequences set in motion with the second round of Reconstruction imposed on the South.

The first Reconstruction had to be closed down because its excesses were giving rise to a guerrilla movement in the invaded and occupied South.  The second Reconstruction was the  integration of neighborhood schools by force rather than by persuasion.  Force required denunciation, and the white liberals enjoyed their self-righteousness as they sowed the seeds of racial hatred. In the South I grew up in there was no hate. People don’t employ people they hate to look after their children, cook their meals, run their households, and people who hate don’t perform these tasks for those they hate.

As Richard Weaver said, “ideas have consequences.”  We are now experiencing the consequences of decades of teaching black Americans to hate white Americans and of teaching white Americans to accept guilt for the black slave trade that originated in the black Kingdom of Dahomey in 1600.  A black labor force was inherited by the United States and by the Confederate States of America. It was the gift of history.  But in the history that is mistaught, the inherited institution of slavery was imposed on black people by white supremacy.

These lies that have been institutionalized in American education are inconsistent with a diverse multicultural society and are now visibly at work unraveling it.

The Saker thinks that there is no going back from George Floyd. Blacks have gotten away with massive looting. Antifa is not being held accountable for massive violence and property damage. The Democrat and media establishments are using the events against President Trump and all other public officials who tried to protect private property. Leftists have gone beyond justifying violence to glorifying in it.

The Camp of the Saints is playing out before our eyes.  We are living the novel. It is impermissible to put down violent protests of “stigmatized and marginalized” black Americans.  But who is more stigmatized than white people, written off as “Trump deplorables” and “racist white supremacists”?  It is white people, not blacks who have to be careful in their language, to be careful about what parts of what cities they can safely enter. It is white people who are fired, sanctioned, evicted from social media for offending a black person, not the other way around. A white player for the professional soccer team, Los Angeles Galaxy, was let go not because of anything he did, but because his wife posted an Instagram of a black looter holding a shoebox with the caption, “Black Nikes Matter.”

It is perfectly acceptable to offend white people.  All is permissible. The governor of Virginia has ordered the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from Richmond, the Virginia capital that Robert E. Lee honorably defended for three years from being looted and burned by Union invaders. Thanks to Lee, Richmond escaped Atlanta’s fate, but Lee’s statue is being taken down. It was racist of Lee to defend his state and the property and lives of those in Virginia. The truth of the matter is that it is not blacks that have been genocided, it is Southern people and their history.

The New York Times’ 1619 Project is spreading this genocide of white history to all of North America.  Northern cities are in flames, and Canada won’t escape.  Nor will Europe. The idiot Northern liberals who think they can use black anger against the despised American South are going to find themselves flayed with the same whip.

Be seeing you



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Pulitzer Prize to New York Times Essay Falsely Claiming American Revolution Was Fought to Preserve Slavery

Posted by M. C. on May 5, 2020

Not especially news worthy other than to once again emphasize that the NYT and Nobel committee are as embarassing to themselves as they are worthless to us.

by Joel B. Pollak

The 2020 Pulitzer Prize for commentary was awarded Monday to Nikole Hannah-Jones for an essay in the New York Times that falsely claimed the American Revolution was fought primarily to protect slavery.

The essay, titled “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true,” launched the Times‘ controversial 1619 project.

The essay incorrectly claimed that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776 (signing began weeks later, on August 2).

However, the far more egregious error was Hannah-Jones’s claim about the cause for which the Revolution was fought. She wrote: “Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.”

That passage, which appeared in the original text, has since been updated to include the word “some” (emphasis added): “Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons some of the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.”

Historians were outraged by Hannah-Jones’s false claim. One of them, Northwestern University Professor Leslie Harris, was enthusiastic about the 1619 Project, but furious about the inaccurate claim. Harris recalled in Politico:

On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America.

I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war….

Be seeing you



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment » Top Historians Demand ‘Prominent Corrections’ From New York Times Re: 1619 Project/Slavery Reporting

Posted by M. C. on December 22, 2019

James M. McPherson noted below is author of the Civil War classic Battle Cry of Freedom


Many historians apparently are sick and tired of The New York Time lies and distortions in The 1619 Project and the attempt to dismiss, by the leader of the Project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, the criticisms of the Projects as simply criticisms by “white historians.”

Five top historians are firing back with a letter to The New York Times demanding prominent corrections.

The Times has indicated it will publish the letter of the historians in the Dec. 29 issue of The New York Times Magazine.

Here are key snippets: 

We write as historians to express our strong reservations about important aspects of The 1619 Project. The project is intended to offer a new version of American history in which slavery and white supremacy become the dominant organizing themes. The Times has announced ambitious plans to make the project available to schools in the form of curriculums and related instructional material…

[W]e are dismayed at some of the factual errors in the project and the closed process behind it.These errors, which concern major events, cannot be described as interpretation or “framing.” They are matters of verifiable fact, which are the foundation of both honest scholarship and honest journalism. They suggest a displacement of historical understanding by ideology. Dismissal of objections on racial grounds — that they are the objections of only “white historians” — has affirmed that displacement.

On the American Revolution, pivotal to any account of our history, the project asserts that the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain “in order to ensure slavery would continue.” This is not true. If supportable, the allegation would be astounding — yet every statement offered by the project to validate it is false. Some of the other material in the project is distorted, including the claim that “for the most part,” black Americans have fought their freedom struggles “alone.”

The 1619 Project has not been presented as the views of individual writers — views that in some cases, as on the supposed direct connections between slavery and modern corporate practices, have so far failed to establish any empirical veracity or reliability and have been seriously challenged by other historians. Instead, the project is offered as an authoritative account that bears the imprimatur and credibility of The New York Times. Those connected with the project have assured the public that its materials were shaped by a panel of historians and have been scrupulously fact-checked. Yet the process remains opaque. The names of only some of the historians involved have been released, and the extent of their involvement as “consultants” and fact checkers remains vague. The selective transparency deepens our concern.

We ask that The Times, according to its own high standards of accuracy and truth, issue prominent corrections of all the errors and distortions presented in The 1619 Project. We also ask for the removal of these mistakes from any materials destined for use in schools, as well as in all further publications, including books bearing the name of The New York Times. We ask finally that The Times reveal fully the process through which the historical materials were and continue to be assembled, checked and authenticated.


Victoria Bynum, distinguished emerita professor of history, Texas State University;

James M. McPherson, George Henry Davis 1886 emeritus professor of American history, Princeton University;

James Oakes, distinguished professor, the Graduate Center, the City University of New York;

Sean Wilentz, George Henry Davis 1886 professor of American history, Princeton University;

Gordon S. Wood, Alva O. Wade University emeritus professor and emeritus professor of history, Brown University.


Be seeing you

SkuzzFeed News: All the news that gives you fits


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Eugenics and the Racist Underbelly of the American Left | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on October 2, 2019

For progressives, a legal minimum wage had the useful property of sorting the unfit, who would lose their jobs, from the deserving workers, who would retain their jobs. Royal Meeker, a Princeton economist who served as Woodrow Wilson’s U.S. Commissioner of Labor, opposed a proposal to subsidize the wages of poor workers for this reason. Meeker preferred a wage floor because it would disemploy unfit workers and thereby enable their culling from the work force.

The New York Times has created a huge stir with its 1619 Project , which claims that the real founding of the United States was not the American Revolution, but rather slavery and racism. One might mistake the concept as one that said America’s political founders did not hold enlightened racial views, but still helped to create a country with the kind of ideals that finally led to the end of slavery and even undercut racism itself. After all, during the Civil Rights Era, Martin Luther King, Jr., himself appealed to founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in urging Americans to “live up to the ideals” of the nation.

Instead, the NYT, using academics that represent the New History of Capitalism viewpoint, is claiming that racism, brutality, and slavery were the basis of the founding of the country. This is not a case of saying that the founders were racist, but rather that the legal, social, and economic foundations of the USA were racism. Capitalism in this country, the NHC and NYT allege, came about because of slavery, and that everything related to capitalism here exists solely from slavery. Without slavery, the United States as we know it would not exist.

Double-entry bookkeeping and modern accounting methods? Forget their origins in late Medieval Italy; they were developed on the slave plantation to further the institution of slavery. Modern human resources management did not come about in the late 1800s as a way improve workplace productivity and improve worker welfare. No, human resources was born on the southern slavery plantation and without the institution of slavery, it never would have existed.

Although a number of economists and historians such as Phil Magness, Robert Murphy, and others have effectively contradicted the NYT accounts, American progressives simply are accepting the slavery-as-fundamental-to-American-capitalism as true on its face. Sojourners, for example, declared that the only reason one could disagree with the NYT narratives was racism on behalf of those taking issue with these accounts. Thus, even people who agree that slavery was immoral but question the NYT narrative do so because they are racists who “fear black power.”

While I have written my own disagreements with the NYT narrative, I propose this time of pursuing something similar to what the NYT is claiming, but changing the time and circumstances. I ask the following question: What if racism really is at the roots of the creation of modern America, and what if the NYT has played a major role in promoting structural racism? That is what I intend to show. Furthermore, I hold that the year 1896 is the founding of the America that exists today, and that includes the legacies of Jim Crow and the modern dystopian urban culture of murder and violence.

To understand the points I am making, one first must understand what we call the Progressive Era and the vast intellectual and social changes that it brought. Thomas Leonard of Princeton University writes :

American economics transformed itself during the Progressive Era. In the three to four decades after 1890, American economics became an expert policy science and academic economists played a leading role in bringing about a vastly more expansive state role in the American economy. By World War I, the U.S. government amended the Constitution to institute a personal income tax, created the Federal Reserve, applied antitrust laws, restricted immigration and began regulation of food and drug safety. State governments, where the reform impulse was stronger still, regulated working conditions, banned child labor, instituted “mothers’ pensions,” capped working hours and set minimum wages.

Academic historians (who mostly fall in the progressive camp) would present these changes as uniformly positive, the general narrative being that before the progressive reformers began to reshape the economic and social landscape, Americans – and especially American workers – lived a near-hellish existence. The historians, however, also tend to ignore the darker side of the so-called reformers, who believed that the application of science could help them do away with “inferior” races of people and transform humanity into some sort of super-race. Writes Leonard:

Less well known is that a crude eugenic sorting of groups into deserving and undeserving classes crucially informed the labor and immigration reform that is the hallmark of the Progressive Era (Leonard, 2003). Reform-minded economists of the Progressive Era defended exclusionary labor and immigration legislation on grounds that the labor force should be rid of unfit workers, whom they labeled “parasites,” “the unemployable,” “low-wage races” and the “industrial residuum.” Removing the unfit, went the argument, would uplift superior, deserving workers.

Leonard continues:

…the professional economists who wrote on immigration increasingly emphasized not the quantity of immigrants, but their quality. “If we could leave out of account the question of race and eugenics,” Irving Fisher (1921, pp. 226–227) said in his presidential address to the Eugenics Research Association, “I should, as an economist, be inclined to the view that unrestricted immigration . . . is economically advantageous to the country as a whole . . ..” But, cautioned Fisher, “the core of the problem of immigration is . . . one of race and eugenics,” the problem of the Anglo-Saxon racial stock being overwhelmed by racially inferior “defectives, delinquents and dependents.”

While academic historians tend to see the Jim Crow era, which began in the late 1800s and early 1900s, as a logical extension of the racial turmoil of the South following the end of the Civil War and the ending of slavery, history tells a different account. For example, South Carolina, which in later years produced one of the most infamous race-baiting politicians of all time, Ben “Pitchfork” Tillman, for many years was governed by Wade Hampton, a former Confederate general who also was a racial moderate.

While racial discrimination and strife existed in the South (and much of the rest of the country, for that matter) post-Civil War, racial discrimination did not become institutionalized through the vast network of Jim Crow laws until later. For example, in 1898, the Charleston (South Carolina) News and Courier editorialized against a proposed law to segregate railroad passenger cars:

As we have got on fairly well for a third of a century, including a long period of reconstruction . . . we probably can get on as well hereafter without it [the proposed law], and certainly so extreme a measure should not be adopted and enforced without added and urgent cause.

The editorial went on to say that such a law probably would require “Jim Crow eating cars” and the “Jim Crow Bible for colored witnesses to kiss” and so on. In other words, a leading South Carolina newspaper declared such laws ridiculous. Yet, within a short time, there were Jim Crow eating cars on trains, Jim Crow sleeping cars, Jim Crow Bibles, and a host of other measures enforcing racial segregation until well into the 1960s.

Enactment and enforcement of Jim Crow policies were mostly the product of the Democratic Party post-Grover Cleveland, who left the White House in 1897. Cleveland was a racial moderate and one who believed strongly in individual rights, free markets, and individual responsibility , along with “hard” money. He would be the last Democrat president who believed that way, and the Democrats’ rejection of the Founders’ ideals began even before Cleveland left office, as the party in 1896 fully embraced progressivism, nominating free silver advocate William Jennings Bryan , who had electrified party delegates with his “Cross of Gold” speech at the party’s convention that year .

Bryan’s campaign would be the most radical in U.S. History up to that point. His campaign promoted progressive “reforms,” business regulation, and a silver-based monetary inflation. Had he lived long enough, he most likely would have supported Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal just as he supported pretty much every progressive legislative measure in the early 20 th Century. Likewise, the political heirs of Tillman and other southern Democrats that made race the central focus of their legislative policies became the staunchest supporters of the New Deal.

Although Bryan lost the 1896 election to William McKinley, his campaign platform would become America’s future, and it is safe to say that modern America is much more the product of the Democrats’ 1896 progressivism than the southern plantation system that the Civil War destroyed more than three decades before.

In 1896, despite the creeping political centralism that had come with the northern victory in the Civil War, the United States still was a constitutional republic. In 20 years, thanks to progressive governance, the USA was well on its way to becoming a progressive democracy. The Democrats’ wide electoral victory in 1912 gave way to what Thomas DiLorenzo has called the Revolution of 1913 . In that year, the Democrats created the Income Tax, the Federal Reserve System, direct election of U.S. Senators, and a host of legislation that bolstered the Jim Crow system. What began in 1896 began to bear fruit with Woodrow Wilson’s 1912 election to the presidency.

Jim Crow policies and the racial purity theories behind them were at the heart of progressivism, something that few progressives today are willing to acknowledge. Leonard writes that eugenics dominated progressive thinking, and one can seriously doubt that people would impose policies that mysteriously violated their racial beliefs, something that modern progressives want us to believe. Take the minimum wage, for example, for which progressives claim that opposition to it is based in racism . Writes Leonard :

Progressive economists, like their neoclassical critics, believed that binding minimum wages would cause job losses. However, the progressive economists also believed that the job loss induced by minimum wages was a social benefit, as it performed the eugenic service ridding the labor force of the “unemployable.” Sidney and Beatrice Webb put it plainly: “With regard to certain sections of the population [the “unemployable”], this unemployment is not a mark of social disease, but actually of social health.” “[O]f all ways of dealing with these unfortunate parasites,” Sidney Webb opined in the Journal of Political Economy, “the most ruinous to the community is to allow them to unrestrainedly compete as wage earners.” A minimum wage was seen to operate eugenically through two channels: by deterring prospective immigrants (Henderson, 1900) and also by removing from employment the “unemployable,” who, thus identified, could be, for example, segregated in rural communities or sterilized.

He continues:…

Be seeing you

Margaret Sanger and the Forced Sterilization of Americans ...




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »