Stopping Hitler

July 29, 2019

If you had a time machine, would you go back in time and kill Hitler before he became the Fuhrer in Germany? Perhaps you could kill him while he was a homeless artist in Vienna, or arrange to have him shot during World War I. If murdering a person, even Hitler before he committed his atrocities seems wrong, perhaps you could arrange for his parents never to meet. Surely a world in which Adolf Hitler was never born would be a better one.

I would not go back in time to kill Hitler if I had a time machine. I don’t think that killing Hitler would make that much of a difference. Hitler was far from being the only radical, anti-Semitic nationalist living in Germany at the time, and it is likely that if Hitler had not been there someone worse might have seized power. Perhaps someone who actually listened to his generals and won the war.

Probably every country has any number of potential Hitlers living in it at any given time. Usually, these people are cranks who organize minuscule political parties and rant about their eccentric political views. In ordinary times, such people have no chance of obtaining any power. To stop Hitler, we would have to consider what conditions in Germany allowed someone like Hitler to seize power and if those conditions could be changed.

I don’t think that there is much question that World War I created Hitler. If the war had never occurred, Hitler would have remained an obscure artist, living hand to mouth. The economic and political turmoil that followed Germany’s defeat and allowed a demagogue like Hitler to flourish would never have happened. To stop Hitler, we must stop World War I.

But how? It would not be so simple as preventing Gavrillo Princep from assassinating Grand Duke Franz Ferdinand. That assassination was the spark that set off the powder keg that was pre-war Europe, but the powder keg was already there. If the assassination of Franz Ferdinand had not occurred, something else would have been the spark.

I think the root of the problem in pre-war Europe was Germany. This is not to say that the German Empire was solely, or even primarily responsible for the war, every one of the combatants bear at least some of the blame, but the ultimate cause of the tension and uncertainty that made a general war in Europe, if not inevitable, at least highly likely was Germany. To understand why Germany was a problem, we must briefly recall some German history

Unlike countries like England or France, Germany did not emerge from the middle ages as a unified nation-state. Instead, Germany remained a conglomeration of states of various sizes from free city-states to small feudal states to large kingdoms like Prussia and Austria. All these German states were part of the Holy Roman Empire, to be sure, and owed allegiance to the Holy Roman Emperor, but the Emperor never had much power outside his personal territories and as time passed, the Holy Roman Emperors had less and less authority until the Holy Roman Empire became an empire in name only, with the various states gaining almost complete independence, until the farce was ended with the abdication of the last Emperor in 1806.

The Holy Roman Empire

After the Napoleonic Wars, German patriots began to call for German unification, generally based on the liberal ideals of the French Revolution. This did not suit the rulers of the various German states, who preferred to retain their power and privileges, and the German liberals were not very successful. After the failure of the Revolutions of 1848, it became clear that Germany would not be united as a federation of liberal states, but through blood and iron. The autocratic and militaristic Kingdom of Prussia took up the cause of German unification and under the leadership of its able chancellor, Otto von Bismark, Prussia led an alliance of German states in successful wars against Denmark (1864), Austria (1866), and France (1870-1871).

German Unification

After this series of victories, it was easy for those states not already affiliated with Prussia to join together in the new German Empire, and on January 18, 1871, Bismark proclaimed the foundation of the German Empire in the Hall of Mirrors in the palace at Versailles, with his master King Wilhelm I of Prussia becoming Kaiser Wilhelm I.

This new central European power disrupted existing European balances of power and German military and economic might frightened the other powers. This might not have led to disaster if Germany had been led by wise leaders, who could calm the tensions of a rising Germany, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, but leaders of Germany were not wise or disposed to calm the fears of its neighbors.

Wilhelm I had not been particularly enthusiastic about the project of German unification. He was a patriotic Prussian, proud of his kingdom’s conservative, autocratic traditions and he did not want to see Prussia absorbed into a liberal Germany. Bismark, himself a conservative autocrat, assured the King that the German Empire would be a greater Prussian Empire, and while he had to make some concessions to German liberals, such as a constitution providing for a legislature elected by universal male suffrage, permitting political parties, etc, Bismark made sure that all the real political power in the new empire stayed with the Kaiser and his chancellor.

Wilhelm I’s son, Frederick was far more liberal than his father. He was married to Queen Victoria’s oldest daughter, Victoria, and the husband and wife were agreed that the British system of constitutional monarchy was the best system of government. This did not please either Wilhelm or Bismark, and the two conspired to keep Frederick from any position of state that wielded any real power.

Frederick III

 

The old Kaisar couldn’t live forever, and when he died on March 9, 1888, it seemed that the German Empire would take a liberal turn under its new Kaisar Frederick III. There was just one problem. Frederick III was already dying of cancer of the larynx when he succeeded to the throne. Frederick was Kaisar for just ninety-nine days before he succumbed to his illness, clearing the way for his own son, Wilhelm to succeed him as Kaisar Wilhelm II.

Wilhelm II

Politically, Wilhelm II resembled his grandfather, Wilhelm I, rather than his more liberal father. Both Wilhelms prized the conservative Prussian values of autocracy and militarism and had no use for democracy in any form. In personality, however, Wilhelm was very different from his namesake. While Wilhelm I had already gained many years of experience in governing before becoming King of Prussia and later German Emperor, Wilhelm II was young and inexperienced when he ascended the throne. The older Wilhelm was a kindly gentleman who lived a spartan life and left the business of government to Bismarck. Wilhelm II was brash, boisterous, erratic, and impulsive. He tended to be impatient and changed his mind often. He quite likely had some form of attention deficit disorder. Unlike his grandfather, Wilhelm II insisted on ruling the German Empire himself, and it wasn’t long before Bismarck was obliged to resign as chancellor.

This was not a good idea. Wilhelm II’s aggressive manner and imprudent, saber-rattling public statements tended to frighten the other European powers, already alarmed by Germany’s growing economic and military power. Bismarck had been careful not to give the European powers cause to unite against Germany. Wilhelm II was not so careful and eventually, Germany found itself surrounded by enemies. Bismarck had tried to keep the peace in Europe after winning the Franco-Prussian War. Wilhelm II was more reckless. Kaiser Wilhelm’s impulsive nature and inexperience at statecraft led Germany, and Europe to disaster.

What if Frederick III had lived? He was only fifty-six when he succumbed to cancer. Had he survived he could easily have lived into his eighties. Both his father and son were long-lived. Frederick III could have been Kaiser into the 1920s, giving him plenty of time to turn the German Empire into a more liberal direction. If Kaiser Frederick III had died in 1920, he might have left Germany a constitutional monarchy with a strong emphasis on individual liberty. Germany might have shed its Prussian military culture and been a pillar of stability in the center of Europe. The expensive arms race that preceded the Great War need not have occurred and the War itself might have been avoided. Kaiser Wilhelm II would have ascended the throne as a mature and experienced leader in his sixties, hemmed in by constitutional safeguards and perhaps content to be an elder statesman. Adolf Hitler would be an unknown and forgotten painter. It would be a better world.

So there you have it. If you happen to possess a time machine, here is what you need to do to stop Hitler, without killing anyone. Just go back to Germany around 1887 with a cure for cancer, somehow convince Prince Frederick and his court that you are not crazy, and give the prince your cancer treatment. Easy.

Advertisements

The Moon and MAGA

July 20, 2019

On this date fifty years ago, the first men landed on the Moon. I really should have written something in advance the anniversary of one of the most important events in human history, but I have been busy and the date almost slipped past me. I could have written something profound, but I’m afraid this will have to do.

The only thing I really have to say on this anniversary of the first Moon landing is this; why did we stop going to the Moon? Why wasn’t the Apollo program followed up with bases on the Moon, sending men to Mars and the other planets and a long-term commitment to manned space exploration? It is as if we reached the Moon, won the space race with the Soviet Union, and then gave up. We’ve had the space shuttle, but that was just running in place. Private industries could have taken on the load of putting satellites into orbit. There has been spectacular success with unmanned probes to every planet in the solar system, along with asteroids and comets, but that is just not the same as sending people into space.

This was us

What has happened to America? We used to be a people that did great things and dreamed great dreams. We used to build the tallest skyscrapers, construct the biggest dams, and put men on the Moon. Now, we just seem to fight each other and complain about the petty annoyances while living in the wealthiest and freest nation in history. We divided ourselves up into a hundred different factions and declare, in our ignorance, that America was never all that great. We get upset and triggered over things that could not even be dignified with the description of first world problems.

Some people believe the slogan, “Make America Great Again”, is racist, believing that the wearers of those MAGA hats really mean, “Make America White Again”. This is nonsense. I think that few if any, MAGA hat wearers intend to bring back the bad old days of Jim Crow and segregation. Rather, I believe, they want to bring back the America that accomplished great things.

I think they are right. It is past time to bring back that America that could put a man on the Moon. Let’s forget all our petty differences of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation and come together as Americans. Let’s think of ourselves as Americans first and anything else a distant second. Let’s get off our comfortable couches and go back to the Moon. From there, let’s plant the Stars and Stripes on every planet of the solar system and ultimately, let America be the nation that leads the human race to the stars. Together we can accomplish anything we set our minds to. We have nothing to lose in the pursuit of greatness; we have a universe to win.

Trump’s Tempestuous Tweets

July 19, 2019

It has become a familiar story. Once again President Donald Trump has used Twitter to express what was on his mind before thinking very deeply on whether the world needs to read those particular thoughts. Once again Democrats, the party of racism and national division have come forward to denounce Mr. Trump’s tweets as racist and divisive. Sadly, once again, too many Republicans, including former presidential candidate Mitt Romney have taken the opportunity to stab a fellow Republican in the back by echoing the criticisms of leftist extremists who hate them every Republican, even the ones they happen to be using at the moment.

Why do Republicans do this? They are always so quick to denounce their fellow Republicans for allegedly uncivil, inappropriate, or racist statements, that are only uncivil, inappropriate or racist by the definitions that progressives are using. Nothing any Democrat ever says or does is ever considered uncivil, inappropriate or racist by definition. Democrats always stand by each other no matter how vile their statements or actions are. It is as though Republicans are always agreeing to play the game in which their opponents set the rules and appoint the referees. Why not defend Trump by pointing out that what he tweeted was not racist, at least by the definition that normal people use for the word racism,

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or

ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

which is notably different from the leftist definition

Any statement that might disagree with leftist orthodoxy on race, or really any subject.

Maybe we should look at what Trump tweeted before condemning him for racism.

 

 

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Where did he mention race? I don’t see any reference to anybody’s race at all. Trump’s tweets may be racist in the demented minds of the left, but then, they think everything is racist and should be disregarded.

I do have one problem with Trump’s tweets, though. These tweets were directed towards “The Squad“, that group of four extreme left-wing Democratic Congresswomen who manage to make Nancy Pelosi look like a moderate. The problem is that only one of the four is actually from another country, Ilhan Omar, from Somalia. The other three are native-born Americans, so they have no other countries to go to unless you count their ancestral origins. This makes the tweets factually inaccurate, as well as giving the tweets a somewhat xenophobic tone that perhaps might better have been avoided.

The Squad, or the Axis of Evil in American Politics

 

On the other hand, I believe Trump is stating a larger truth here. These four women, Colin Kaepernick, and many, many others of the left should be getting down on their knees and thanking God every day that no only do they live in the greatest and freest nation on Earth but also that they have been able to take advantage of opportunities that would not be available to them at any other time and place. These people have gained success in this country that simply would not be possible anywhere else in the world and they repay all the advantages the country that gave them so much with the worst kind of ingratitude and scorn.

They hate America. These are not patriots seeking to correct their country’s problems. These are people who despise their country. They believe America is flawed from beginning to end. The United States was founded on the principles of slavery and White supremacy. Its history is a history of genocide and oppression against people of color. Contemporary America is a mean country that builds concentration camps to house undocumented immigrants, permits the police to shoot African-Americans with impunity, and has an unjust economic system that takes from the poor to give to the rich. How could they not loathe such a horrible country? I would hate America too if I were as uninformed as they.

The question, then, is why are these people still here? Why do they continue to reside in a country that is so hateful to them? There are many places in the world where their talents could be put to good use. Why don’t they go there? Why doesn’t Ilhan Omar return to Somalia, if the United States is so oppressive? Why doesn’t Alexandria Occasio Cortez immigrate to Mexico or Venezuela? And, why do we put up with these ingrates, anyway? Why are we electing people who hate America to Congress where they can act to undermine the country and act as a fifth column for our enemies.

Trump is right. He may be obnoxious, xenophobic, or racist, but he is right about the Squad and leftists in general. If they truly believe America is a land of racism and oppression, they should go elsewhere.

Who’s the Nazi

July 15, 2019

A couple of weeks ago, a brave man named T. J. Helmstetter bravely confronted a Nazi who was eating a meal in a restaurant and found himself thrown by the pro-Nazi owners of the restaurant. The brave man then bravely took to Twitter to complain, before making his account private because apparently there is a large population of Nazis and Fascists infesting social media who believe in the Fascist idea that you shouldn’t harass strangers in restaurants just because they are wearing a hat you don’t like.

Okay, here is what really happened according to the Washington Post.

A public relations contractor who previously worked for the Democratic National Committee said that he was kicked out of Hill Country Barbecue Market after he confronted a diner wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat on the Fourth of July.

Around 8:30 p.m. — after President Trump had given his speech at the Lincoln Memorial as part of his “Salute to America” program but before the nighttime fireworks display — T.J. Helmstetter headed to Hill Country, a Penn Quarter restaurant that has been one of his favorite stops. In a text-message interview Friday, Helmstetter said that he, his partner and three other people found the place packed when they arrived.

“We had just walked in when I saw the guy sitting by the bar with the MAGA hat,” Helmstetter wrote. “I said, ‘Hey, are you from D. C.?’ ”

The man said no, and Helmstetter said he responded, “We don’t tolerate racism in this city.” The comment, according to Helmstetter, prompted the MAGA cap wearer’s companion to get up and jab her fingers into his chest. “I’m sure I said more things then, don’t remember what,” Helmstetter texted.

Did he curse at the woman?

“I’m from New Jersey, I’m sure I did. I might have said get your f—ing hands off of me or something like that,” he texted.

That’s when a Hill Country manager told Helmstetter, but not the target of his ire, to leave. On Twitter, Helmstetter said that Hill Country “chose to protect the Nazi’s right but not mine” to dine at the restaurant. Helmstetter then walked outside and called a Hill Country manager, who supported his staff’s decision to boot him.

In the cold accounting of Twitter, Helmstetter’s comment was getting “ratioed,” meaning his tweet had received more negative replies than likes. By Friday afternoon, before Helmstetter made his account private, his tweet had garnered nearly 2,300 likes compared with nearly 5,000 comments, many of them negative. Critics said Hill Country made the right call; they considered Helmstetter the aggressor and the intolerant one.

So no, Mr. Helmstetter wasn’t confronting a Nazi. He was bothering people who were minding their own business and trying to enjoy a meal. Wearing a MAGA hat does not make a person a racist who wants to bring back Jim Crow. Maybe they think America was great when you could have a meal in a restaurant without having some jerk decide that you should be made a pariah because he does not like what he assumes are your political opinions. Maybe they think America was greater when we did not call people we disagree with Nazis or Fascists, or when prominent people in the media did not tacitly endorse violence against supposed Fascists. Maybe America was better when you didn’t have to watch every word, for fear of losing your job or business for using the politically incorrect word for describing someone, and you could practice your religion without being called a bigot or having late-night comedians make fun of your beliefs. Making America Great Again could have all kinds of meanings, and I would venture to say that almost everyone wearing one of those hats does not want to bring back the bad things about our past, but restore the good things, like not calling people Nazis at the drop of a hat.

But if there is any confusion about just who the Nazis are out there, I will try to help make things clearer. If you believe it is your public duty to harass people who are minding their own business, you might be the Nazi. If you believe you should confront people at every opportunity, you might be a Nazi. If you believe violence against public figures, especially the president is ever appropriate, you might be a Nazi. If you denounce President Trump as a racist and anti-Semite, even though he is the most pro-Israel president we have ever had and is always bragging about the record low unemployment figures of Blacks and Hispanics during his administration, you might be a Nazi. If you even think of sending death threats to an eight-year-old girl because of her hilarious imitation of Alexandria Occasional-Cortex, you are definitely a Nazi. If you believe that smashing store windows and beating up people is a good way to promote your political viewpoint, you are a Nazi.

You may not share the precise political ideology of the Nazis and Fascists who took over Germany and Italy, but if you find yourself doing any of the above, then you are copying their methods and it is their methods that made them odious. You can have all sorts of ideas and opinions that others may dislike. but that is your business. It is when the ideas become actions that it becomes other peoples’ problem. A man wearing a MAGA hat in a restaurant is not a problem. A jerk trying to make him take it off is a problem. You can hate people all you want and that is your problem. When you act on that hate and performs acts of violence, even against people who really are Nazis and Fascists, then it becomes everyone’s problem, and you are the cause of the problem.

Maybe we should try confronting each other a little less and try talking to each other instead. Maybe if Mr. Helmstetter had simply talked to the man he would have learned that he was not a Nazi, but a decent human being. Maybe it’s worth trying.

Kaepernick Scolded Nike Folded

July 8, 2019

Nike was planning to sell flag-themed shoes starting the week of the Fourth of July, but mediocre former athlete Colin Humperdinck told them the shoes were offensive and asked Nike to pull them. Nike did the reasonable thing and immediately complied with Pumpernickel’s idiotic request because Nike doesn’t want to make any money. They just want everyone to know how woke they are. Here’s the story from the New York Post.

Nike quietly scrapped a plan to sell an American flag-themed sneaker after Colin Kaepernick said he found the image offensive, a report said.

The sneaker company’s Air Max 1 USA featured an early version of the American flag in celebration of the July Fourth holiday and was scheduled to go on sale this week, according to The Wall Street Journal.

After sending the sneakers to retailers, the company asked to have them back.

“Nike has chosen not to release the Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July as it featured the old version of the American flag,” a Nike spokeswoman told the paper.

Kaepernick reached out to the company after images of the sneaker bearing the Betsy Ross flag were posted online, the Journal said.

The former NFL quarterback said the image was offensive because of its connection to slavery.

Here are the offensive shoes

 

Why would anyone care what Colin Kaeperdick thinks on any subject, or care if he is offended? It should be obvious by now that his refusing to stand for the national anthem had nothing to do with protesting police misconduct. This was only his way to distract attention away from his unremarkable performance as a quarterback and to express his hatred for the country which made him a millionaire for throwing a football. Why doesn’t Colin Kaepernick leave this country if everything about the United States is so hateful and oppressive? He certainly has the resources needed to live anywhere in the world. Why stay?

How could anyone be so ignorant as to believe that the “Betsy Ross” flag represents slavery or White supremacy? Don’t they teach history in schools anymore? I guess not, or if history is taught, it is history based on Marxist ideology. Yes, slavery existed in the newly formed United States, and all over the world, at the time the first flag was created, but there is nothing about the symbolism of that flag that, in any way, represents slavery.

 

 

The red, white and blue colors are derived from the British Union Jack, and the thirteen stars and stripes represent the thirteen colonies that became the first thirteen states. There is nothing that could possibly be understood as referring to slavery in this design. On the contrary, the ideals which this flag represented led, eventually, to the abolition of slavery in the United States and throughout the world. Colin Kaepernick should bless this flag rather than condemn it, for the ideal which it represents is the reason a person of his skin color is a free man in America and not a slave.

If we are to erase every flag, symbol or statue from the past because it was created at a time in which slavery existed, if we must forget the accomplishments of every great man because he lived in a time that slavery was legal, then we are not going to have much of a history. History, for us, is going to have to begin today and everything that happened before is a shameful story of oppression and misery, best forgotten, or understood as merely the prologue of our enlightened present.

Maybe this is the goal. Totalitarians always seem to want to erase the past of the countries they take control of. From the French Revolution’s Republican Calendar to the Khmer Rouge’s declaration that the year they seized power was the Year Zero, to Mao’s attempt to destroy three thousand years of Chinese culture in his Cultural Revolution, totalitarian socialists seem to be fond of the idea of destroying everything that has happened before to make way for a glorious new future, unhampered by the baggage of past oppression. It never really works. History is the collective memory of the human race and if we dismiss the past, we are likely to make the same mistakes our ancestors did, without their excuse that they couldn’t have known any better. All these attempts to tear out the old society root and branch, and replace it with utopia, always end in the same sort of tyranny that they were intended to replace.

Perhaps they also believe that a people disconnected from their own heritage are easier to control. Whatever the reason, the would-be totalitarians here in America seem to be intent on conducting their own cultural revolution, albeit so far a nonviolent one. They want us to regard our own history as something shameful and evil, something to get away from. The very idea of the American nation seems hateful to them.

Well, we shouldn’t let them get away with it. There is nothing to be ashamed of in the history of the United States. No, we are not a perfect country. There are no perfect countries in this world. Yes, Americans have done shameful things, even committed crimes and atrocities. That is inevitable given that we are human beings and evil is the common heritage of all of us who have descended from Adam. Yet, given all these caveats, I can say without reservation that the United States has been a force for good in the world. No nation was ever founded on nobler ideals and no nation has ever tried harder to put those ideas into practice, both here and abroad. The United States of America was not founded by a tribe of barbarians invading a decaying empire, as were the nations of Europe, or by a warlord who built an empire by murder and plunder as were the great empires of ancient times. Our nation was founded by some of the greatest men who have ever lived, who wrote boldly in our founding document;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

and who announced in our constitution that it was “We the People” who were to be the rulers and not a king or emperor. We have not always lived up to those noble ideals. We are still a work in progress. But, we have never stopped advancing toward the goal, and hopefully never will.

Our flag, whether the fifty-star flag or the Betsy Ross flag is a symbol of freedom, not of slavery. It is a flag to be proud of, not ashamed of. It is the likes of Colin Humperdinck and the executives at Nike who should be ashamed of themselves for their ignorance.

Independence Day

July 4, 2019

The Fourth of July is the day on which the American people celebrate their independence from Great Britain. It is not actually clear why Independence Day is the Fourth. Congress actually passed the Declaration of Independence on July 2, 1776. It has often been thought that the Declaration was signed on the fourth, but that doesn’t seem to be true. There wasn’t any one time when the members of Congress signed the Declaration and there were a few who didn’t get around to signing it until August. Nevertheless, the fourth is the date that stuck. As John Adams wrote to Abigail.

English: "The Declaration of Independence...

The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.

And so it has been, for the last 243 years. May God bless America and grant us many more years of freedom.

Happy Independence Day.

The Lesson They Should Learn

July 3, 2019

If there are any doubts that the political thugs calling themselves Antifa are the closest thing we have to actual fascists in this country, the recent assault on reporter Andy Ngo in Portland, Oregon should resolve them.  Robby Soave at Reason.com writes about the attack.

Andy Ngo, a photojournalist and editor at Quillette, landed in the emergency room after a mob of antifa activists attacked him on the streets of Portland during a Saturday afternoon demonstration.

The assailants wore black clothing and masks, and were engaged in a counter-protest against several right-wing groups, including the Proud Boys. Ngo is a well-known chronicler of antifa activity, and has criticized their illiberal tactics on Fox News. He attended the protest in this capacity—as a journalist, covering a notable public event.

According to Ngo, his attacker stole his camera equipment. But video footage recorded by another journalist, The Oregonian‘s Jim Ryan, clearly shows an antifa activist punching Ngo in the face. Others throw milkshakes at him:

Throwing milkshakes at right-wing politicians is a tactic of British progressive activists that recently traveled to this side of the Atlantic. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.) was hit with one earlier in June. The tactic has its defenders in mainstream left-of-center media as well: Vox‘s Carlos Maza tweeted “milkshake them all” after a British activist hurled a milkshake at Nigel Farage.

Portland police have claimed that some of the milkshakes thrown by the antifa activists on Saturday contained quick-dry cement. That may or may not be true. What is true is that an antifa mob beat up a journalist—one who is harshly critical of them, to be sure, but who posed no physical threat to them and was only there to document their activities—on a public street. This is indefensible, and yet there are tons of progressive-leaning people currently defending it, or at the very least rationalizing and making light of it.

Antifa, of course, rejects the notion that violence should only be used in response to a physical threat. The group believes that the very existence of far-right people, groups, and ideas is a kind of provocation that justifies violence—against the far-right, and against their enablers.

Evidently, the police were unwilling to prevent this sort of violence, perhaps because of Portland mayor, Ted Wheeler’s “hands-off” approach to violent protests in his city. Whatever the reason, Portland is getting a reputation as a place in which far-left Antifa activists can act with impunity against anyone who could be remotely considered a conservative, even a gay, Asian reporter.

A lot is being said about this incident, and I just want to point out that this is just what the Fascists did to gain power in Germany and Italy. Far-right groups, like the Nazis, would provoke fights with far-left groups like the Communists, and the authorities would ignore any crimes committed by the Fascists because they seemed to be the lesser evil. The threat of Communist revolution was held to be a great enough threat to justify ignoring Fascist violence. The resulting breakdown of law and order discredited those authorities and prompted people to support Hitler and the Nazis, since they seemed to be the only party that could maintain order. Despite the fact that the Nazis were responsible for much of the street fighting, the sight of the Brownshirts marching in ordered columns impressed the German people.

In like fashion, these far-left Antifa activists are provoking fights with alleged far-right activists and the authorities in Portland are ignoring crimes committed by Antifa on the grounds that they are the lesser evil than the Fascists and racists. The only difference that I can see is that the Weimar Republic faced a real danger of Communist subversion, funded by the Soviet Union, while Fascism and White supremacy are non factors in American politics, outside of the fevered imaginations of the left.

The lesson that those authorities who turn a blind eye to Antifa violence is the same, however. Those decent Germans who supported the Nazis as the lesser evil eventually learned, to their cost, that the lesser evil is still evil and that one totalitarian government was very much like another. Those Germans who winked at Nazi lawlessness would have done better to uphold the integrity of the Weimar Republic against all the extremists. Those authorities, like Mayor Wheeler and Antifa’s media cheerleaders, need to learn that their violence is not justified, even if their targets really were racists, and still less since their targets are simply mainstream conservatives.

I do not think that there is a very high probability that the Antifa thugs will gain any political power, although the Democratic Party’s increasing disdain for political and constitutional norms and tolerance for political violence is worrisome. I think that if the sort of violence and incivility represented by the Antifa and Trump opponents in Portland and elsewhere becomes the new norm, then an exasperated American people will turn to any strongman who promises to restore order, by any means necessary. Then, these supposed fighters against an imaginary Fascism will learn what it is like to face the real thing.

Condemned to Repeat the Past

June 22, 2019

The philosopher and novelist George Santayana has famously said, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” No where could that be more true than in Denver, Colorado where an avowed Communist has won election to the city council by promising to impose Communism by any means necessary. Here is the story from the American Mirror.

Candi CdeBaca won a runoff race last week against former Denver city council president Albus Brooks, and she did it by promising to implement communist policies “by any means necessary.”

CdeBaca was among three candidates that unseated incumbents in the Tuesday runoff, preliminary results show, and she’s already drawing comparisons to Socialist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 29-year-old who unseated 10-term incumbent Joe Crowley in New York’s 14th congressional district in 2018.

The upset victory, and two other incumbent defeats, marks the most significant shift in city leadership in over 30 years, and Valverde contends it “began a movement” toward more progressive policies once the new members are sworn in this week, The Denver Channel reports.

One might think that a candidate expressing support and promising to deliver Communism, a political and economic system responsible for the death of at least one hundred million people world wide, with the oppressive tyrannies in history would be absolutely toxic to voters, at least as toxic as a candidate espousing Nazism. Why is that not the case? Are people really that unaware of Communism’s horrifically bloody and repressive history or of the history of the twentieth century? What are they teaching in the schools that has large numbers of young people so ignorant?

Harris poll conducted for Axios on HBO published Sunday found 55 percent of American women between the ages of 18 and 54 would prefer to live in a socialist country like Venezuela than the U.S. More broadly, the four in 10 Americans said the same.

Candi CdeBaca explains the need for Communism.

“I don’t believe our current economic system actually works. Um, capitalism by design is extractive and in order to generate profit in a capitalist system, something has to be exploited, that’s land, labor or resources,” CdeBaca alleged.

“And I think that we’re in late phase capitalism and we know it doesn’t work and we have to move into something new, and I believe in community ownership of land, labor, resources and distribution of those resources,” she continued. “And whatever that morphs into is I think what will serve community the best and I’m excited to usher it in by any means necessary.”

When we are talking about Capitalism, we are talking about the system that has made the world wealthy on a scale undreamed of in previous ages, a system that has lifted millions out of poverty. Look at this chart from Human Progress.

Notice how the world’s wealth has increased dramatically since the industrial revolution and exponentially since the arrival of modern Capitalism. For millennia, economic growth all over the world was very slow or nonexistent. It was Capitalism that changed that. All the various forms of Socialism, including and especially Communism would return us to the bad, old days of slow or no growth.

But Capitalism might benefit the the wealthy one percent, ignoramuses like Candi CdeBaca might argue, but it only promises misery for the great masses of exploited people. Not so fast, here are some more charts from Human Progress.

Contrary to what is often said, the rich may be getting richer, but the poor are not getting poorer. For most of human history, the overwhelming majority of the population lived in poverty with barely enough to eat. Not only is the number, not just the proportion but the overall number in an expanding population, of people living in extreme poverty is declining. For the first time ever, the number of people living in extreme poverty is a rapidly declining minority.

All this is very well, but can we really give credit to Capitalism. Well, yes. Let’s do some comparisons. We’ll start with North and South Korea. They have the same ethnic background, speak the same language and have the same culture. After the Korean War, both countries were equally poor. If anything, one might expect the more industrialized North to prosper.

 

North and South Korea

 

They began to diverge right about the time that South Korea began embracing democracy and the free market. Since then, South Korea has become democracy with one of the world’s largest economies, while North Korea remains a basket case.

What about East Germany and West Germany? Same language and culture, different results. Capitalist West Germany experienced an economic miracle in the decades after World War II. Communist East Germany’s economy was stagnant. In fact, the legacy of Communism has caused the former East Germany to lag behind the West.

One more. Taiwan and China. Before the economic reforms beginning in the 1980’s, the People’s Republic of China was actually poorer than North Korea, while the little island of Taiwan was experiencing phenomenal economic growth. China has been doing very well lately, but Taiwan’s per capita GDP is still much higher. Taiwan is a democracy while China remains a Communist state, albeit one that has made its peace with the somewhat free market. I would rather live in Taiwan than mainland China.

The science is settled, the facts are clear, the verdict is in and Candi CdeBaca doesn’t know what she is talking about. Our current economic system works very well. It is not a perfect system, nothing in this world is perfect, but our free market system has liberated millions of people from poverty and tyranny. Despite its faults, Capitalism works and socialism does not. We learned this fact with many examples in the twentieth century. Will we have to relearn it in the twenty-first? Are we condemned to repeat the bloody past because we cannot learn from the tragedies of others? What are they teaching in our schools?

Buttigieg and Jefferson

June 15, 2019

Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and one of the hundred or so Democratic candidates for president expressed his concerns about Thomas Jefferson’s legacy in a recent interview with Hugh Hewitt.

HH: It’s an interesting part of the book. Let’s go to policy now. A very blunt question, because you talk about going to every Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Indiana when you were running statewide. Should Jefferson-Jackson dinners be renamed everywhere because both were holders of slaves?

PB: Yeah, we’re doing that in Indiana. I think it’s the right thing to do. You know, over time, you develop and evolve on the things you choose to honor. And I think we know enough, especially Jackson, you know, you just look at what basically amounts to genocide that happened here. Jefferson’s more problematic. You know, there’s a lot to, of course, admire in his thinking and his philosophy. Then again, as you plunge into his writings, especially the notes on the state of Virginia, you know that he knew that slavery was wrong.

HH: Yes.

PB: And yet, he did it. Now we’re all morally conflicted human beings. And it’s not like we’re blotting him out of the history books, or deleting him from being the founder fathers. But you know, naming something after somebody confers a certain amount of honor. And at a time, I mean, the real reason I think there’s a lot of pressure on this is the relationship between the past and the present, that we’re finding in a million different ways that racism isn’t some curiosity out of the past that we’re embarrassed about but moved on from. It’s alive, it’s well, it’s hurting people. And it’s one of the main reasons to be in politics today is to try to change or reverse the harms that went along with that. Then, we’d better look for ways to live out and honor that principle, even in a symbolic thing.

 

I think we ought to cut Thomas Jefferson and the others some slack. These people did not invent the institution of slavery. Slavery in some form has been present in every civilization in history. They did not introduce slavery into the British colonies or inaugurate the trans-Atlantic slave trade. That had been done centuries before their births. For the founding fathers, slavery was simply a part of the cultural background. They were as much a product of that background as we are of ours, and could be no more expected to question the basic assumptions of that background then most of us question the basic assumptions of our our culture and society.

It is, in fact, rather remarkable that some of the founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington did come to see that slavery was wrong. They were among the first to realize this. With the exception of the Quakers, no one questioned the institution of slavery before the late eighteenth century. Shouldn’t men like Jefferson and Washington get some credit for realizing an institution that was a integral part of the culture they grew up in was unjust and ought to be abolished?

It is easy for us in the twenty-first century to say they ought to have freed their slaves. It was not as easy for them to actually free their slaves. Slaves were valuable property and made up a considerable portion of a slave owner’s wealth. For a master to free his slaves without compensation might have meant consigning himself to poverty and a lower social position. There have never been many people willing to impoverish themselves for their stated principles. Also, many southern planters, such as Jefferson, were deeply in debt. Even if Jefferson had wanted to free his slaves, he could not necessarily act on such a desire. Not only did he require the income from labor of their slaves to continue payments on their debts, but slaves were often used as collateral. Jefferson’s creditors might have had something to say to him if he had freed his slaves.

It is not certain whether a master who freed his slaves was actually doing them much of a favor, considering the racist nature of southern society. In many slave-owning societies, such as ancient Greece and Rome, there was no racial or ethic distinction between master and slave. A freed slave could take his place as an equal to any free man, with only a slight social stigma about his former status. This was not the case in America, either before or after independence. There, a former slave’s dark skin, forever marked him as a member of an inferior caste. Most slaves were uneducated and illiterate, with experience only in unskilled farm labor. After Nat Turner’s Rebellion, many states actually made it illegal to teach slaves to read and write. There really wasn’t much of a demand in the job market for free Black unskilled farm workers. Moreover, slave owners did not want really former slaves giving ideas about freedom, by example to their own slaves and freed slaves were often compelled to leave their homes and states.

A general emancipation of the slaves would also have been difficult. It may be offensive to modern sensibilities, but the slave owners would have had to be compensated for the loss of their property, otherwise they would not have agreed to emancipation Compensating the slave holders would have been a strain on the young nation’s finances. Then, there would be the vexing problem of what to do with the freed slaves. It would be too much to expect that former slaves and their former masters would live together in a state of equality and harmony. It is more likely that the former slaves would continue be oppressed, holding the lowest positions in society and the economy, as indeed really happened, for the most part, after the slaves were freed after the Civil War.

Instead of condemning the founding fathers for failing to end slavery, perhaps we ought to give them credit for what they did do. The northern states abolished slavery during and after the American Revolution. They included a provision in the constitution banning the trans-Atlantic slave trade twenty years after ratification. The Northwest Ordinance banned slavery in the territories north of the Ohio River, making slavery a regional issue as the nation expanded west. Most of all, Thomas Jefferson’s immortal words in his Declaration of Independence;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

sounded the death knell for slavery in America and throughout the world. No nation whose founding documents averted that all men are created equal could truly regard slavery as simply part of the natural order of things. No matter what excuses apologists for slavery might make, the Declaration of Independence that founded they own nation spoke against them.

The generation that fought for independence and created the republican system of government we still enjoy to this day was truly the greatest generation. They accomplished more than anyone would have a right to expect. It is not reasonable to condemn them for failing to end an evil that had existed since the beginning of history. They did what they could and most of them, including Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, expected their successors to continue to limit slavery until it died out. It is not their fault that succeeding generations of American leader leaders failed to continue the momentum towards eventual emancipation.

I will concede Greg Buttigieg one point, though. It is inappropriate for the modern Democratic Party to hold Jefferson-Jackson Day fundraisers. Both Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson favored small, decentralized government and the concerns of the common man over the elite, two positions anathema to the contmporary Democratic Party. I would recommend the Democrats hold Marx-Lenin Days as more representative of the Democratic Party’s ideology.

Hound Them From Restaurants

May 7, 2019

Freedom of speech is no longer a priority in academia if this article in Campus Reform is any indication.

A professor claimed Sunday that “vile little sh*tlords” who belong to free speech-themed clubs on campus should lose their jobs and be chased out of restaurants.

University of New Brunswick professor Matthew Sears made the assertion on Twitter in response to the San Diego synagogue shooting Saturday.

“We should name every white supremacist,” Sears said. “Name every writer, blogger, YouTuber, and politician that inspires them. Plaster their faces in public. Fire them from their jobs. Hound them from restaurants. Expose them and those that fuel them for the hateful pathetic wretches they are.”

This is an understandable reaction to a recent shooting at a synagogue, and even a staunch free speech advocate might not particularly like defending the free speech rights of the viler racists and anti-Semites, though it is understood that even the vilest among us have the right to speak out. Professor Sears, however, takes it further.

The professor lumped campus free speech activists into this group in a subsequent tweet.

“And that includes every vile little shitlord in a campus ‘free speech’ club who spends his time platforming white supremacist trolls under the banner of ‘free speech,’ and every grifting liar that goes on about campus ‘censorship’ and the ‘marketplace of ideas,'” Sears stated in a since-deleted tweet.

When lawyer Robert Barnes shared this latter tweet with his own followers, appearing to disagree with the professor’s opinion, Sears said “there’s a difference between free speech, and those who use ‘free speech’ as a deliberate strategy to put hateful and discredited ideas into the mainstream and give them academic credibility. But you know that, you liar.”

The professor told Campus Reform that, when he speaks of campus free speech activists, he means merely those who “invite bigoted provocateurs like Richard Spencer and Milo Yannopoulos,” but Sears has previously advocated for the harassment of a far more mainstream and high-profile figure.

After U.S. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders got kicked out of a restaurant in June, the professor tweeted “forget ‘respectability politics,’ forget the ‘politics of division,’ forget ‘civility.’ Let’s denormalize these folks and their ideas every single chance we get, including throwing them the hell out of restaurants. Like we should have done *from the very beginning*.”

Sears also suggested in April 2018 that a “Make America Great Again” hat was “the functional equivalent of a [Ku Klux] Klan hood or Nazi banner.”

“I suppose I reject the notion that civility is the ultimate goal, especially in the face of what are some pretty outrageous human rights abuses, such as what we see along the US-Mexico border,” Sears said, when Campus Reform asked about his Sanders tweet. “If someone like Sanders provides cover and routinely lies for someone like Trump, even if he is the most powerful person on earth, I fail to see how mouthing off to them in restaurants is beyond the pale. Yes, this could go both ways. But appeals to civility often only manage to maintain the status quo, and benefit those in power.”

So it is not just the people who just about everyone disagrees with who should be harassed, but really everyone who is to the right of Professor Sears, and even those who might agree with most of his positions but who happen to think the other side has the same free speech rights. Professor Sears evidently does not value freedom of speech as something good in itself, but only as a method to effect desired change. Speech which opposes change and social justice ought not to be allowed. People who opposed change are beyond the boundaries of decent behavior and do not deserve to be treated decently. It is acceptable to hound them out of restaurants.

I wish that people like Professor Sears would understand that both sides have fists and guns and both sides can hound the other from restaurants if that sort of becomes acceptable behavior. If harassing people with opinions we do not like becomes commonplace, people like Professor Sears may be surprised to discover that they are not in the majority. They may not like to be the ones fired from their jobs and hounded out of restaurants.

These people do not seem to understand that we do not support freedom of speech and, if not civility, some sort of mutually acceptable boundaries in expressing disagreement with one another, not because we want to be goody-goodies or because we want to tolerate hate and racism, but because the alternative is so much worse. As long as we are talking to, or even shouting at, one another, our differences can be resolved. If we give up talking to start persecuting and harassing the other side, the situation can only escalate as each side remembers grievances and injustices inflicted by the other side. It is only a short step to actual violence to resolve political differences. Petty harassment can escalate to street fighting between factions, assassinations and outright civil war. We don’t want that to happen. We also don’t want a nation weary of political violence to turn to a strongman who promises peace and security at the expense of freedom. It may be ironic that people like Professor Sears, who claim to be fighting Fascism are creating the conditions that would allow a Fascist dictator to seize power.

When political violence takes the place of political debate, it is rarely the people with the best ideas who win out. More often, it is the people who can muster the largest mobs, who have the most guns, and who are the most ruthless who win. In the history of revolutions, more often than not, it is the faction who is most ruthless and cruel, most willing to use violence against the innocent, most extreme in their positions and least willing to compromise with either their opponents or with reality who gain the power in the end. It is the thugs most willing to use the guillotine and the gulag, who end up running things. The intellectuals and professors who first agitated for revolutions usually end up in the gulag or up against a wall, devoured by the revolution they helped create. Professor Sears might want to think about that before he sends out more tweets promoting political harassment.


%d bloggers like this: