ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

The Wilsonian century

David Stockman explains that the 20th Century was a massive mistake and much of the blame for it can be laid at the feet of America's second-worst president to date, Woodrow Wilson:
My humble thesis tonight is that the entire 20th Century was a giant mistake.

And that you can put the blame for this monumental error squarely on Thomas Woodrow Wilson——-a megalomaniacal madman who was the very worst President in American history……..well, except for the last two.

His unforgiveable error was to put the United States into the Great War for utterly no good reason of national interest. The European war posed not an iota of threat to the safety and security of the citizens of Lincoln NE, or Worcester MA or Sacramento CA. In that respect, Wilson’s putative defense of “freedom of the seas” and the rights of neutrals was an empty shibboleth; his call to make the world safe for democracy, a preposterous pipe dream.

Actually, his thinly veiled reason for plunging the US into the cauldron of the Great War was to obtain a seat at the peace conference table——so that he could remake the world in response to god’s calling.

But this was a world about which he was blatantly ignorant; a task for which he was temperamentally unsuited; and an utter chimera based on 14 points that were so abstractly devoid of substance as to constitute mental play dough.

Or, as his alter-ego and sycophant, Colonel House, put it:  Intervention positioned Wilson to play “The noblest part that has ever come to the son of man”.  America thus plunged into Europe’s carnage, and forevermore shed its century-long Republican tradition of anti-militarism and non-intervention in the quarrels of the Old World.

Needless to say, there was absolutely nothing noble that came of Wilson’s intervention. It led to a peace of vengeful victors, triumphant nationalists and avaricious imperialists—-when the war would have otherwise ended in a bedraggled peace of mutually exhausted bankrupts and discredited war parties on both sides.

By so altering the course of history, Wilson’s war bankrupted Europe and midwifed 20th century totalitarianism in Russia and Germany.

These developments, in turn, eventually led to the Great Depression, the Welfare State and Keynesian economics, World War II, the holocaust, the Cold War, the permanent Warfare State and its military-industrial complex.

They also spawned Nixon’s 1971 destruction of sound money, Reagan’s failure to tame Big Government and Greenspan’s destructive cult of monetary central planning.

So, too, flowed the Bush’s wars of intervention and occupation,  their fatal blow to the failed states in the lands of Islam foolishly created by the imperialist map-makers at Versailles and the resulting endless waves of blowback and terrorism now afflicting the world.

And not the least of the ills begotten in Wilson’s war is the modern rogue regime of central bank money printing, and the Bernanke-Yellen plague of bubble economics which never stops showering the 1% with the monumental windfalls from central bank enabled speculation.

Consider the building blocks of that lamentable edifice.

First, had the war ended in 1917 by a mutual withdrawal from the utterly stalemated trenches of the Western Front, as it was destined to, there would have been no disastrous summer offensive by the Kerensky government, or subsequent massive mutiny in Petrograd that enabled Lenin’s flukish seizure of power in November. That is, the 20th century would not have been saddled with a Stalinist nightmare or with a Soviet state that poisoned the peace of nations for 75 years, while the nuclear sword of Damocles hung over the planet.

Likewise, there would have been no abomination known as the Versailles peace treaty; no “stab in the back” legends owing to the Weimar government’s forced signing of the “war guilt” clause; no continuance of England’s brutal post-armistice blockade that delivered Germany’s women and children into starvation and death and left a demobilized 3-million man army destitute, bitter and on a permanent political rampage of vengeance.

So too, there would have been no acquiescence in the dismemberment of Germany and the spreading of its parts and pieces to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Austria and Italy—–with the consequent revanchist agitation that nourished the Nazi’s with patriotic public support in the rump of the fatherland.

Nor would there have materialized the French occupation of the Ruhr and the war reparations crisis that led to the destruction of the German middle class in the 1923 hyperinflation; and, finally, the history books would have never recorded the Hitlerian ascent to power and all the evils that flowed thereupon.

In short, on the approximate 100th anniversary of Sarajevo, the world has been turned upside down.

The war of victors made possible by Woodrow Wilson destroyed the liberal international economic order—that is, honest money, relatively free trade, rising international capital flows and rapidly growing global economic integration—-which had blossomed during the 40-year span between 1870 and 1914.

That golden age had brought rising living standards, stable prices, massive capital investment, prolific technological progress and pacific relations among the major nations——a condition that was never equaled, either before or since.

Now, owing to Wilson’s fetid patrimony, we have the opposite: A world of the Warfare State, the Welfare State, Central Bank omnipotence and a crushing burden of private and public debts. That is, a thoroughgoing statist regime that is fundamentally inimical to capitalist prosperity, free market governance of economic life and the flourishing of private liberty and constitutional safeguards against the encroachments of the state.

So Wilson has a lot to answer for—-and my allotted 30 minutes can hardly accommodate the full extent of the indictment. But let me try to summarize his own “war guilt” in eight major propositions——a couple of which my give rise to a disagreement or two.
There is more, considerably more. Read the whole thing. He is not wrong, except in claiming that either Bush the Younger or Obama are worse than Wilson, or that Wilson was worse than Lincoln.

Labels:

115 Comments:

Blogger njartist January 25, 2015 8:18 AM  

First, had the war ended in 1917 by a mutual withdrawal from the utterly stalemated trenches of the Western Front, as it was destined to, there would have been no disastrous summer offensive by the Kerensky government, or subsequent massive mutiny in Petrograd that enabled Lenin’s flukish seizure of power in November.

There would have been no Balfour Agreement, which by agreeing to, Britain acquired the support of world wide Jewry.

And Lenin's seizure of power was not a fluke.

Anonymous PA January 25, 2015 8:28 AM  

Broad historical sweep narratives are appealing to the male mind and for that reason I enjoyed the piece. However, I've come to be sceptical about theses that establish complicated causality from a single source-event.

With or without American entry into WWI, we'd still have the human constants of political ambition and class/ethnic aggression. With or without Wilson, there would have been opportunustic proto-communists who would have chosen some other host than Russia. After all. America itself had its own black Proletariat. The Sixties soft-bolshevik Civil Rights revolution may instead have happpened earlier and in a more bloody manner. But historical what-ifs are speculation, which is my whole point.

In other words, if one butterfly were eaten by a bird before it had a chance to create a storm, then maybe another butterfly would have made a hurricane.

My second point is a quibble in comparison but it needs to be made. Nowhere in the original article, which catalogues the big evils of the 20th century, is there a mention of immigration or race-replacement. It's become our job to exert pressure on friendly or semi-simpatico writers to name that elephant.

Anonymous zen0 January 25, 2015 8:32 AM  

Guess its time to re-read Liberal Fascism chapter 4.

Stockman didn't once mention liberal fascism........but I guess its because he was preaching to the choir.

Blogger JACIII January 25, 2015 8:33 AM  

You do realize simply writing the name (The Bastard) lincoln in the OP is tempting us rednecks to mount our soapboxes?

I will state the obvious here: For lincoln - The proto Stalin - cemented with blood the now monolithic US which enabled Wilsonian adventurism.

Anonymous Bobo January 25, 2015 8:36 AM  

It'll all make sense one day.
Think of Wilson as a character like Judas Iscariot, they play their part in the machination of history, but you don't want to be them "On That Day".

Blogger Manach January 25, 2015 8:41 AM  

I must respectfully disagree with the article's author. There was a significant difference between the Western Allies democratic states and that of the Central Power's Militarised Prussianism. While the brave sacrifice of US troops on the Western front did not have an immediate effect on US security but by their fighting spirit and elan lead the great breakthroughs of 1918 which managed to halt the expansionist policies of the European powers. The self same Germany that had attempted to use Mexico as a cats-paw to undermine the US South West and whose Imperial ambition had established posts in China and the Pacific, hence beginning the encirclement of the US.

Anonymous zen0 January 25, 2015 8:41 AM  

Think of Wilson as a character like Judas Iscariot

He too thought he did God's work, and he was, but not the way he imagined.

Anonymous zen0 January 25, 2015 8:43 AM  

@ Manach > I must respectfully disagree with the article's author.....

But did you read it? Does not sound like it.

Blogger Salt January 25, 2015 8:53 AM  

It's no abberation the world seems to always end up being run by thugs. All it takes to understand is realizing who currently runs it. Stockman's right from our limited Earthly point of view, the 20th century was indeed a mistake. But as Zeno points out, Judas Iscariot was no mistake at all.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar January 25, 2015 8:54 AM  

This rant is so stupid I'm surprised Vox posted it. Its the same kind of tripe that neo-cons pull to hide the man behind the curtain.
This is like telling Sherlock Holmes that its not Moriarty pulling the strings, but his butler did it! Really?

Blogger Chris Mallory January 25, 2015 8:54 AM  

He left out McKinley and the first idiot Roosevelt. Their foreign adventurism set the stage for Wilson. The Spanish American War was a mistake and helped lead to the later war in the Pacific.

Blogger Josh January 25, 2015 8:57 AM  

He is not wrong, except in claiming that either Bush the Younger or Obama are worse than Wilson, or that Wilson was worse than Lincoln.

Preach

Anonymous SumDood January 25, 2015 9:01 AM  

Where are FDR and Carter on that writer's list of bad presidents?

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 25, 2015 9:04 AM  

...the great breakthroughs of 1918 which managed to halt the expansionist policies of the European powers.

Except that it directly led to the whole WWII thing...

Anonymous VD January 25, 2015 9:04 AM  

The self same Germany that had attempted to use Mexico as a cats-paw to undermine the US South West and whose Imperial ambition had established posts in China and the Pacific, hence beginning the encirclement of the US.

You didn't even read the link. Germany didn't attempt to use Mexico except as a defensive measure. It's ridiculous to complain about GERMAN imperial ambition in defense of the British Empire.

Blogger pyrrhus January 25, 2015 9:05 AM  

I have been saying for years that there is a very strong case for Wilson as the worst President ever. The final American death toll for WW1, according to the War Board in 1930, was more than 400,000 dead.

Blogger Salt January 25, 2015 9:08 AM  

I have been saying for years that there is a very strong case for Wilson as the worst President ever.

Within Empire, yes. But even Julius Caesar was not the worst Caesar, but would Rome have gone to Empire had he not crossed the Rubicon?

Blogger njartist January 25, 2015 9:10 AM  

The person who writes as Lame Cherry is an avid reader of history - pre-1940 history; he has done the research and found that there was a Gentlemen's Agreement in 1897, " the Entente, the "gentleman's agreement" which in 1897, had America agree to back France and England in the destruction of Germany as a competitor in the world politic and commercial."

Elements within the American government made an agreement to back Britain's destruction of Germany; the payment was the seizure of the Spanish colonies.

Anonymous zen0 January 25, 2015 9:11 AM  

@ Joshua Sinistar This is like telling Sherlock Holmes that its not Moriarty pulling the strings, but his butler did it! Really?

And, to complete the analogy, Moriarty IS....................?

(surprise me)

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 25, 2015 9:13 AM  

Where are FDR and Carter on that writer's list of bad presidents?

IMO Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were the Big Three. Next tier would include LBJ, W and maybe Obama (to soon to say).
Carter was one termer who was unfortunate enough to be elected at a very bad time and he didn't catch many breaks. Doesn't really belong on the list because he didn't inflict long term damage like the others....

Blogger njartist January 25, 2015 9:17 AM  

@Vox
You didn't even read the link. Germany didn't attempt to use Mexico except as a defensive measure. It's ridiculous to complain about GERMAN imperial ambition in defense of the British Empire.
True. I have a hard time understanding why supposedly intelligent people do not understand the basic premise behind the folk statement, "What is sauce for the gander is sauce for goose."

Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 25, 2015 9:18 AM  

Brutal wars for imperial acquisition, savage wars of peace, and now, hopeless wars of imperial decline (Iraq, Af/Pak).

Wars for freedom and liberty? Maybe. Join FreeFor today.

Blogger Josh January 25, 2015 9:27 AM  

This rant is so stupid I'm surprised Vox posted it. Its the same kind of tripe that neo-cons pull to hide the man behind the curtain.

Feel free to point out the errors, if you can.

Anonymous PA January 25, 2015 9:34 AM  

In rating presidents, spelled-out criteria are helpful, such as: his impact on the well-being of core Americans and their posterity.

By that metric, I agree with an earlier comment that Carter's administration did little long-term damage. Reagan, arguably in spite of himself, did more harm by signing the 1986 amnesty.

I generally don't rate pre-modern presidents because their achievements or mistakes will have been made moot by history's butterfly effects.

In modern era, the worst presidents by my criterion are Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton. The former for signing off on the Civil Rights soft-Bolshevik revolution. The latter for de-industrializing America and ushering in an anti-white era.

In the just less-worst category, I'd put George W Bush for opening the immigration floodgate after 9/11, when the political climate was favorable for a 1920-style immigration pause. On a more visceral level, I despise W the most, the way one hates a traitor more than he hates an open enemy.

I didn't rank Obama, because his administration in fact accomplished something that is badly needed: the dawn of White awakening.

Anonymous Porky January 25, 2015 9:37 AM  

It appears Stockman read Glenn Beck's book.

Anonymous zen0 January 25, 2015 9:39 AM  

@ Chris Mallory He left out McKinley and the first idiot Roosevelt. Their foreign adventurism set the stage for Wilson

Setting the stage is small potatoes compared to the actor reading his lines and pulling the trigger. If you want to go further back, they were in turn set up by Otto Von Bismark.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar January 25, 2015 9:40 AM  

Why do any of you even care about Presidents? Does anyone believe now that they have any real power? Is Hillary and Jeb Bush the masterminds that run their parties? Is Romney the guy Sheldon Adelson asks for advice about who the candidate he supports should be?
Sheesh! I can't believe the kind of petty squabbles people waste their time with. Maybe you want to bring Schroedinger's Cat into the discussion of America's future too?
Because a pet cat is probably about as influential in politics as a President!

Anonymous zen0 January 25, 2015 9:43 AM  

Joshua, dear, you could save a lot of typing by just using one word. We would get the rest.

Anonymous PA January 25, 2015 9:46 AM  

Why do any of you even care about Presidents?

I agree with the general point that there are string-pullers in the government and that presidents are to some degree (but not close to 100%) tools of others. My suspicion though is that the puppet masters are more involved in selecting candidates in the primary elections than in dictating their actual policies in the elections. Therefore, commenting on the merit of a president is a valid discussion.

Romney or Hillary would still be who they are, had they not been pushed to the front by Adelson or Soros or whoever.

Anonymous PA January 25, 2015 9:48 AM  

Correction: "than in dictating their actual policies AS PRESIDENT."

Anonymous ProgSF January 25, 2015 9:49 AM  

President Hillary will be best ever. She will teach you reichwingers the true meaning of power.

Anonymous Godfrey January 25, 2015 9:55 AM  

In folly ends the grandiose plans of foolish man. He struts on stage with delusions of greatness never realizing he plays the lead part in the tale of an idiot.

Blogger Krul January 25, 2015 9:58 AM  

zen0 - @ Joshua Sinistar This is like telling Sherlock Holmes that its not Moriarty pulling the strings, but his butler did it! Really?

And, to complete the analogy, Moriarty IS....................?


Sinistar

Anonymous Godfrey January 25, 2015 10:03 AM  

ProSF

We already know true meaning of power, that is why we are who we are.

Power = oppression, corruption, misery, poverty and death

It's the Leftist who doesn't understand the true meaning of power.

OpenID ymarsakar January 25, 2015 10:15 AM  

https://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/the-democrat-institution-of-slavery/

There are Americans still attached to the Lincoln=Tyrant Democrat propaganda rewriting of history. That's dangerous in a way because the propaganda rewrite was written by Democrats, founding members of the Leftist alliance in the US.

The Democrat control of southern generations was only broken recently, and the fact that their cultural propaganda transcends the centuries, is proof of how great their control over a region's culture, politics, and economy were. They eventually ditched control of the Southern regions in the US, because they either lost their monopoly on power there or people started voting Reagan. They made up for some of their loss by capturing the blacks back unto the plantation, but the Leftist alliance in the US still does not forgive hillbillies or Southerners for that great betrayal back in the past.

Some of the sources are utilized in the link, such as The Cotton Kingdom : a Chronicle of the Old South.
It helped to see things past the historical propaganda written by various factions.

That is, a thoroughgoing statist regime that is fundamentally inimical to capitalist prosperity, free market governance of economic life and the flourishing of private liberty and constitutional safeguards against the encroachments of the state.

The irony is when people try to fight totalitarianism while utilizing previous wars conducted for totalitarians as case examples. The irony comes when they pick the wrong side. The author is probably correct that his personal side was against Wilson, but any further into the past and there's a loss in accuracy.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey January 25, 2015 10:20 AM  

Interesting. I'll have to read the whole thing. The Great War was a disaster for the West.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler January 25, 2015 10:23 AM  

There is another factor in Woodrow Wilson other than Colonel House and it was Bernard Baruch. Woodrow Wilson's Vice President was a Freemason. Wilson under his presidency gave the women the right to vote, the central bank in 1913, the progressive income tax, and the Senate was changed from being elected by State Legislatures to popular vote thus denying the States any say in the government they elected.

All those points of legislation in America is Marxist--Jewish ideology coming from the Communist Manifesto and woman suffrage from Marxist and atheists like John Stuart Mill.

It is all Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism.

Blogger Chris Mallory January 25, 2015 10:26 AM  

ymarsakar, drop dead yankee. We don't care how you did it up north and the South was right. Lincoln was a tyrant and a traitor to the idea of consent of the governed.

Anonymous Jeromus January 25, 2015 10:30 AM  

I am sure this has been asked before but is there a VD ranked it of presidents from best to worst? If not, I would love to see one.

Also, if Lincoln and Wilson are 1 & 2 worst, who are the 1 & 2 best according to the ilk?

Anonymous Jeromus January 25, 2015 10:31 AM  

List*

Anonymous zen0 January 25, 2015 10:39 AM  

Joshua Sinistar, you should learn from WCW. His stuff is much more interesting than yours.

Anonymous H2 January 25, 2015 10:40 AM  

Washington did say that we shouldn't get too involved with European politics...

Blogger Josh January 25, 2015 10:42 AM  

Also, if Lincoln and Wilson are 1 & 2 worst, who are the 1 & 2 best according to the ilk?

Postwar: Cleveland and Coolidge.

Anonymous Salt January 25, 2015 10:46 AM  

Also, if Lincoln and Wilson are 1 & 2 worst, who are the 1 & 2 best according to the ilk?

"Reassessing the Presidency" is an interesting read in that respect. I recommend it, and it's on Kindle at $2.99 (Pub: Mises)

Anonymous Will Best January 25, 2015 11:11 AM  

Next tier would include LBJ, W and maybe Obama (to soon to say).

Unless you are blaming W for Obama or you are willing to give Obama some sort of pass due to incompetence, I find it impossible to believe you can rank him better than Bush II. First, he hasn't scaled back one offensive element of W's era, and has doubled down on most of them. Plus, he is a gun grabber. He has the DoJ, IRS, etc openly targeting individual citizens. He reorder 17% of the US economy to increase State control of it. He isn't even trying to protect the borders, and trying to convert the hordes into the new citizenry.

Anonymous dw January 25, 2015 11:14 AM  

Top Three Best: Washington, Jefferson, Coolidge

Top Three Worst: Lincoln, Wilson, LBJ.

Blogger Salt January 25, 2015 11:15 AM  

Now that we've experienced Obama, Carter can rest easier.

Anonymous Mike January 25, 2015 11:16 AM  

WWI made WWII inevitable. Thanks, Woodrow.

Anonymous Sam the Man January 25, 2015 11:29 AM  

One thing not mentioned above, but which seems to come into a lot of the hostility of the English to the Germans and hence the split of the traditional allegiance between the Germans and the English against France was the Boer War. One cannot but conclude that the war was an attempt to take over the Boer Gold mines, there really is no other interpretation. In that was the Boers put up quite a fight and the British had to resort to scorched earth tactics, including concentration camps and the like. In any case the Germans, being of the same northern stock as the Dutch-Boer farmers, took a great alarm at what the British did and offered a lot of support to the British. The British press reacted very badly to having their bad behavior pointed out. If you read the diplomatic dispatches and jingo press, it seems the informal alliance between the UK and France comes out of that war. Given the very bad behavior of the brits in the Boer war, it is hard to see the UK in a good light in the 1st WW.

With regards to Wilsons intervention, one of the books I recall reading which dated to the early 1920s (I think) was with regards to how the US intervened due to the substantial loses major US banking interests would have taken had the first World War ended in a stalemate. It seems the amount of money loaned to the UK and France in 1915 to 197 was such that it could not be paid back if the allies could not loot the Germans after a successful war, both France and the UK would have had to default on a portion of the a debt. So the US was drawn into the war over banking interests. Now I read this something like 30 years ago, but the premise was backed up with a lot of info from the day.

In particular it covered the terms of the December 1916 offer from Germany to basically go back to the pre-war status in Western Europe. The book made the argument the reason both England and the UK would not consider this offer was that if they did it would have led to the fall of both governments once the common folks realized how they had given their sons for such fearful slaughter. The working class that gave their sons for made up a lot of Lineburg’s America first adherents two decades later. Certainly a lot of older folks form that period believed that it was money interests and politicians not having to admit they were wrong as being primary reasons we got into WWI.

The allies do not come out of an objective study looking very good at all. Neither do the Germans though.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar January 25, 2015 11:30 AM  

Actually it was planned that there would be Three World Wars. The third was supposed to happen already, but the resurgent United States under the Reagan Revolution fucked up the timetable. Now that the army is tired and defeatism has enshrouded the West, they might dust off World War III to finish off the plan.

Blogger Bob Wallace January 25, 2015 11:34 AM  

"Reagan, arguably in spite of himself, did more harm by signing the 1986 amnesty."

Perhaps worse is appointing Alan Greenspan as head of the Fed.

Anonymous Roundtine January 25, 2015 11:44 AM  

Channeling the NeoReactionaries. Trace Wilson's zealotry back through the Abolitionists to the Puritans.

Anonymous PA January 25, 2015 11:52 AM  

Actually it was planned that there would be Three World Wars. The third was supposed to happen already, but the resurgent United States under the Reagan Revolution fucked up the timetable.

I don't know who was the "it" that planned the three world wars. But to play along, you can say that WWIII already happened -- in the Sixties.

It's not Reagan that fucked up the time table. The time table was kept, but the method of war was changed because the invention of the atom bomb and mass media that made WWI and II-style class of industrial war machines too dangerous. WWIII was fought not with tanks, but with demographic replacement.

Anonymous GK Chesterton January 25, 2015 11:52 AM  

" to the Puritans" << keep going, where did their hellnound heresy originate?

Blogger njartist January 25, 2015 12:42 PM  

@GK
It originated with all those hellhound Christians who actually took the bible and the Gospel as truth...wait...that means the Apostles ...no,wait ...that means the prophets...no, wait...the means Moses..no,no...that means Jacob ... no,no,no...that means it all starts with Abraham who believed on Yahweh!!!

If only Abraham had stuck with that shit coming out of Babylon, we all be good hellbound Romanists.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 25, 2015 12:43 PM  

Within Empire, yes. But even Julius Caesar was not the worst Caesar, but would Rome have gone to Empire had he not crossed the Rubicon? Yes, Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon was really just Caesar taking notes from Sulla. The republic was already essentially dead by that point.

Anonymous GKC January 25, 2015 12:50 PM  

njartist: You are close. And yes, the reformers were all Judaizers.

OpenID simplytimothy January 25, 2015 12:50 PM  

OT: intriguing, eye-opening combat archery techniques: http://youtu.be/BEG-ly9tQGk including literal 'drive by' multiple shots by one archer on target.

Blogger Alexander Thompson January 25, 2015 12:51 PM  

I couldn't get through the whole thing. Monday Morning Quarterback of History.

Blogger njartist January 25, 2015 12:56 PM  

@ GKC January 25, 2015 12:50 PM

njartist: You are close. And yes, the reformers were all Judaizers.
Teach me, Sensei...no, wait...didn't Judaising mean continuing with the rites and ordinances of of the religious worship; it did not mean obeying the Commandments.

Anonymous Anonymous January 25, 2015 1:15 PM  

I can't believe that Franklin Roosevelt's name has not been typed into this board! Of course Lincoln was, by any or no comparison, the most disastrous "president", but I'm afraid Wilson has to share the platform with FDR for second place. Just consider an electoral campaign of "The New Deal". How much more obvious could it be that "the old deal", the alleged Constitution, was being ditched?

Blogger mmaier2112 January 25, 2015 1:19 PM  

"The self same Germany that had attempted to use Mexico as a cats-paw to undermine the US South West and whose Imperial ambition had established posts in China and the Pacific, hence beginning the encirclement of the US."

So sorry, I don't know my bullshit history as well as I'd like.

Was that before or after the USA was illegally aiding GB with supposed deniability?

Anonymous LancersFootball January 25, 2015 1:21 PM  

Aside from Vox's page, could some of you regulars refer me to some history blogs that you guys like?
My history prof actually makes us read some history blogs that are so clearly liberal is sickening. I'm the only one in class that ever questions anything that goof says. And he doesn't even need to reply.... because I'm flooded by all the other students, shouting me down.
No one ever agrees with me and I'm cool with that. But I can't even respectfully disagree with a reading assignment on a website or blog without getting mocked.

Your blog is great because it does occasionally touch on topics of history. But are there others that are more dedicated to it??

Anonymous GKC January 25, 2015 1:40 PM  

njartist: Your rude snark is noted. Nevertheless these ideas are easily researched, start with Moldbug but also read What is Neoreaction: Ideology, Social-Historical Evolution, and the Phenomena of Civilization by Bryce Laliberte.

Anonymous zen0 January 25, 2015 1:46 PM  



@ LancersFootball But are there others that are more dedicated to it??

Your question made me curious, so I tried to search for such a thing and all I got are the 2 below, which I have not read but look like a good start:


Conservative History Journal (mostly UK and Commonwealth)

Church History (by a Christian Libertarian)

Anonymous Ostar January 25, 2015 1:53 PM  

All right, I'm willing to be persuaded that Lincoln was a bad President and all the hatred toward him here is not mostly just sour grapes from those who lost the war and can't get over it a century later.
Can someone point me to some quality sources that don't prominently feature Jewish or Masonic conspiracies?

Anonymous zen0 January 25, 2015 1:53 PM  

Forget the second, its not really about history that much and didn't last long.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 25, 2015 2:07 PM  

By so altering the course of history, Wilson’s war bankrupted Europe and midwifed 20th century totalitarianism in Russia and Germany.

A few folks have mentioned already, those forces were likely to rise up anyway. Russia had barely escaped a revolution in 1905, society there was falling apart anyway, and the Kerensky government didn't seem well-poised to solve them, war or no war. The place was ripe for thugs to take charge regardless.

Likewise, Germany's imperial ruling class was badly discredited by the war already, regardless of Versailles. They were going to have a leadership fight anyway.

What Wilson did was screw up the US. Europe was dead set on committing suicide anyway. Imperial adventurism was just one part of his crap.

Anonymous IM2L844 January 25, 2015 2:15 PM  

Can someone point me to some quality sources that don't prominently feature Jewish or Masonic conspiracies?

Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe

Anonymous PA January 25, 2015 2:17 PM  

A few folks have mentioned already, those forces were likely to rise up anyway

Exactly. Historic "what if" speculations are a fun exercise but that's about it. I've read two separate, well-written alternative history scenarios about what if the South won and what if Hitler won. In both scenarios, the authors convincingly wrote that the North and South would have reunited in a few short decades due to economic and political pressures, and that a victorious Nazi government would have basically become EU-like with newer generations of leaders.

Barring epic acts like nation-founding or land-loss/acquisition, or eradication of rival nations, presidential achievements and mistakes are felt in their time. Longer-term, they drown in the streams or historic tides.

Anonymous Anonymous January 25, 2015 2:23 PM  

@ Ostar

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p319_Dickson.html

Anonymous Anonymous January 25, 2015 2:25 PM  

@ LancersFootball

http://vnnforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26

Blogger Shibes Meadow January 25, 2015 2:27 PM  

TontoBubbaGoldstein: Carter gave us FEMA.

Anonymous Too-Soon-ami January 25, 2015 2:28 PM  

LancersFootball : "I can't even respectfully disagree with a reading assignment on a website or blog without getting mocked."

Stop being respectful to your disrespectful enemies.

Anonymous Anonymous January 25, 2015 2:41 PM  

@ Too-Soon-ami

Well said.

Anonymous Sensei January 25, 2015 2:47 PM  

This is humorously different from Kissinger's respectful take on Wilson in Diplomacy, though clearly as a proponent of realpolitik Kissinger is not a fan of the starry eyed dreamer approach to world politics. Though the seeds of a lot of similar conclusions are there if you read between the lines, Kissinger seems to view Wilson as tapping into the ideals of America at the time.

Blogger Zimri January 25, 2015 2:54 PM  

If I'm not mistaken about Russia, they'd unseated the Tsar in February of 1917 and Wilson mooted entering the war in April. If the Americans hadn't done that by the end of the year (more likely, the summer), the Kerensky government simply would have lost its battles FASTER and HARDER. Lenin would have come to power earlier if anything, and with fewer patriotic armed Russians to oppose him in the civil war to come. Also a less belligerent Wilson might not have sent troops to help the patriotic Russians - so, again, the commies would have won faster and harder.

So this article is simply wrong to blame Wilson for as much as it does. If we care about history, that is.

Anonymous Jeromus January 25, 2015 3:04 PM  

Thanks Salt, I will check it out.

Anonymous LancerFootball January 25, 2015 3:07 PM  

Thanks for the links.

You're right too soon ami, I am too kind.
One thing I did say that almost led to me being kicked out of the glass was that girls in the class seemed to be terrible at handling disagreements. Everything is taken so personally from them, then, they respond by insulting my gender, my skin color, and their wildly incorrect assumptions about my parents wealth.
But, there are like 50 times the amounts of grants out there for these girls.

Anonymous H2 January 25, 2015 3:54 PM  

@LancerFootball

If those girls making fun of your skin color are white and you're not white, you could always call them racist, that will definitely shut leftists up.

Anonymous Amok Time January 25, 2015 4:00 PM  

Also, no V-2 rocket, American Space Program, Man-on-the-Moon, Tang and oh yes, Velcro. What a sad world we would live in. I would be a farmer and raising goats. My neighbor died at age 28 as he got an infection from his tin snips and we had no Penicillin.

But, then no Obama as well. Maybe, that lack of Tang was worth it!

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler January 25, 2015 4:24 PM  

LancersFootball read Mike Anderson's
/Ancient History blog.

But one for modern history one should stick to books and one that covers WWII is Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddihn's Liberty or Equality. That is a very good book on the intellectual currents of the 20th century.

Franklin Roosevelt was a 33 degree Mason and his most often counselor was Bernard Baruch.

For Ostar, here is a book, free and online, that talks of the Jewish-Masonic-Bolshevist connection:
Part I, The Case of the Barefoot Socrates: Academic Myth-Making and the Jewish Transformation of Western Culture

The first half of the book researches the true origin of philosophy and then discusses the transformation of philosophy by Hegel who was a Kabbalist. Kabbalism is the connection between Masonry and Bolshevism.

Eric con Kuenhelt-Leddihn, in his book Leftism Revisited, states categorically that Wislon brought WWII because he made all the German princes and monarchs abdicate thus leaving a vacuum.

WWI was about making the world safe for Democracy. Democracy is Marxism. It is NOT a coincidence that the Weimer Republic was formed by a Jew and Kersensky, head of the Russian Republic, was a Jew. WWI was about making the world safe for Jews to develop their World Unity; democracy which destroys all particularities/divisions.

Blogger luagha January 25, 2015 5:02 PM  

"Carter's administration did little long-term damage"

He did create modern Iran by destroying the Shah.

Blogger scott holland January 25, 2015 5:11 PM  

The Conquest of the United States by Spain (1899)

"We know that these beliefs, hopes, and intentions have been only partially fulfilled. We know that, as time has gone on and we have grown numerous and rich, some of these things have proved impossible ideals, incompatible with a large and flourishing society, but it is by virtue of this conception of a commonwealth that the United States has stood for something unique and grand in the history of mankind and that its people have been happy. It is by virtue of these ideals that we have been “isolated,” isolated in a position which the other nations of the earth have observed in silent envy; and yet there are people who are boasting of their patriotism, because they say that we have taken our place now amongst the nations of the earth by virtue of this war. My patriotism is of the kind which is outraged by the notion that the United States never was a great nation until in a petty three months’ campaign it knocked to pieces a poor, decrepit, bankrupt old state like Spain. To hold such an opinion as that is to abandon all American standards, to put shame and scorn on all that our ancestors tried to build up here, and to go over to the standards of which Spain is a representative."

Anonymous Jill January 25, 2015 5:12 PM  

That is roughly when things started going downhill. Wilson and World War I were almost certainly factors. Intervening in world politics irreversibly altered the course of the nation. But I find it useless to play what-if games regarding history. The funny thing is, I was having the opposite what-if argument w/ a dude not that long ago, in which he told me all the horrible things that would have happened if we *hadn't* joined in World War I and, in general, interventionist politics around the world. It becomes very difficult to argue w/ people who believe America was founded by God to rid the world of evil.

Blogger njartist January 25, 2015 5:29 PM  

@ Jill
It becomes very difficult to argue w/ people who believe America was founded by God to rid the world of evil.

It wasn't.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler January 25, 2015 5:41 PM  

America was founded by a majority of Masons and there are a ton of Masons in America and fellow Travellers. Woodrow Wilson was a fellow traveler of Masonry. The whole point of the Spanish/American War was to "rid world of evil, i.e. Catholic Spain from its control of Cuba and the Philippines. America is the seat of world revolution. Masons believe it is their duty to "rid the world of evil". Wilson, Roosevelt, and others all thought it was their job. What was the American Civil War that the abolitionists used? --to rid America of slavery. The American Civil War was the first of many wars to rid the world of evil---the old order, of kings, and of hierarchy.

Blogger frigger611 January 25, 2015 5:59 PM  

Wow, Wilson gets the blame for all that? That's a lot to lay at one man's feet.

I agree he was terrible for the USA, and I and many friends/colleagues agree that most of our problems in life go way back to when the ideas of the founders were finally abandoned, around the time of WWI - though many predecessors in American politics helped pave the way.

But Wilson was a man of his age, and there were unfortunately many like-minded men as heads of states and nations who also helped to usher in this brave new world.

I think Marx is mostly to blame, the whole world was just itching to overthrow the old systems in favor of this new-fangled thing called communism. Thanks, Bolsheviks. Archduke Ferdinand's demise was just the excuse used to kick things off - then it was a race to see who could establish the worker's paradise first, for that nation would be the head of the inevitable worker's empire. But to win this crown, everybody else had to be defeated.

I am disgusted by Wilson (Obama too) because they believe(d) that they're special, and called by God to achieve things FOR us, which requires a fundamental change to America and to her constitution. We don't need the feds meddling into every aspect of our lives, but these do-gooders always know better. (Sorry, but you don't have a right to just ignore the document and do as you please). But they did. And he does...

I feel like our country once stood up for the citizen, for the individual - but once you adopt a progressive income tax and universal suffrage, and throw in a Federal Reserve, might as well turn out the lights.

I defer to others' knowledge of military and political history of what the specific machinations were at the time, but I think it was bad philosophy from Kant (agree with Rand here) and Marx that inspired a new and toxic zeitgeist. Too many world leaders believed that bullshit, and most still do.

It's gonna take another world-wide convulsion to shake off the pestilence.

Blogger njartist January 25, 2015 6:20 PM  

@W.LindsayWheeler January 25, 2015 4:24 PM
Reading at your link.

I have come across in my reading of the history of the Israelites that the post Ionic Greeks were Israelites: the tribe of Simeon founded Sparta and Athens was founded by Judahites. I just Googled Dorian Greeks and came to information that they were Israelites.

Blogger ashepherd January 25, 2015 6:40 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger ashepherd January 25, 2015 6:43 PM  

I agree that Woody ushered in a sharp left turn in US politics that set the tone for the 20th century. There's no end to modern ills that can be traced to him. Realize that he was the first and only president who was an academic - PhD from John Hopkins and president of Princeton University. At Princeton he led the end of it's conservative Christian era (which, of course, most academics laud as an accomplishment).

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler January 25, 2015 7:09 PM  

NJartist. There is a lot of that on the internet. Karl Otfried Mueller has them coming down from Northern Greece. Greek is an Indo-European language very distinct from Eastern languages. British-Israelitism is the fancy of Englanders wishing to glorify their heritage but there isn't any good archeological evidence for that, including that Sparta was Hebrew. They may have had trading posts in the area like the Phoenicians in Crete and in Sicily but the Dorians migrated from the North. There is ample evidence of that. Check Mueller's "Antiquities and History of the Doric Race".

Blogger njartist January 25, 2015 7:19 PM  

W.LindsayWheeler. The Israelites would have come form the north as they came out of the Caucuses after leaving Assyria: they were the Parthians and the Scythians.

Blogger Manveer Claire January 25, 2015 8:36 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Manveer Claire January 25, 2015 8:44 PM  

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men".

- Woodrow Wilson

At least he had an "oops, I fucked up" moment. That's more than you'll get from Lincoln, Bush, or Obama.

Anonymous H2 January 25, 2015 8:58 PM  

For a book on the Federal Reserve the Ilk might like The Creature From Jekyll Island.

Anonymous Discard January 25, 2015 9:44 PM  

Zimri: As I understand it, without the prospect of America coming in on the British side, the war would have ended in 1916. They knew that Wilson was trying to get us in, and were holding on until he could. Had we made it clear that we were not going to pull their nuts out of the fire, they would have had to settle for the status quo ante.
I think it was Churchill that wrote this in the late Twenties, but I don't swear to it. But it makes sense to me.

Recommended book: "The Illusion of Victory", by Thomas Fleming. He's not a fan of Wilson.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat January 26, 2015 12:43 AM  

TR's second campaign starts the US' downhill slide. Taft is a reasonable president that we could have lived with. Without TR in the campaign, there's very little chance of a Wilson victory in the first place.

Wilson's sins in joining WW1 are IMHO conclusive, but they aren't all one should hate him for. Most of the "modern" Jim Crow laws that had to be fought in the 1950s and 60s were by Wilson or supported in his administration. Wilson re-segregated the US government, and supported efforts by states to increase their own repression of blacks.

Had the Democrats not been given this power in the 10s (and then FDR reinforced it throughout his presidency), IMHO the US could have deconstructed Jim Crow in a constitutional manner WITHOUT creating the welfare state.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 26, 2015 1:09 AM  

"There was a significant difference between the Western Allies democratic states and that of the Central Power's Militarised Prussianism. While the brave sacrifice of US troops on the Western front did not have an immediate effect on US security but by their fighting spirit and elan lead the great breakthroughs of 1918 which managed to halt the expansionist policies of the European powers. The self same Germany that had attempted to use Mexico as a cats-paw to undermine the US South West and whose Imperial ambition had established posts in China and the Pacific, hence beginning the encirclement of the US."

...........

You gotta be amazed at the shamelessness of warmongers.

Why do you think the Germans did that, idiot?

Furthermore, do you honestly think the Germans had the ability to harm America in any way?

Anonymous Discard January 26, 2015 2:08 AM  

Kentucky Packrat: I think that deconstructing Jim Crow was a mistake, as do all the liberals who now have to put their kids in private schools in order that they might learn something and not be assaulted either.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler January 26, 2015 7:00 AM  

NJartist--Have you ever heard of the Bible and the story of Abraham? Abraham came from Ur in Mesopotamia. The Tigris and Euphrates region. He was a Semite. Israelites are the seed the of Abraham, a Hebrew. Israelites spoke Hebrew.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 26, 2015 9:33 AM  

Was Lincoln really that bad?

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/nongqawuse/#comment-15600

"Any state that casually allowed at-will secession would end up like the Holy Roman Empire, or disintegrate. Certainly the Confederacy didn’t: they used force to keep East Tennessee in, tried to get back West Virginia, sat on the hillbillies in Arkansas that wanted no part of the war, sent out troops to enforce the draft among the Germans in the Texas hill country, who were too literate to be true Southerners.

Of course the primary motivation in the North, stronger than antislavery (although that was significant) was support for Union. People didn’t want a rival significant state on the continent, since that would of course mean repeated wars, importation of European struggles, etc – as it had before, when the French still mattered.

The notion that the Civil War initiated an all-powerful centralized state (which I hear fairly often) is something that only an idiot or libertarian (I repeat myself) could take seriously. After the war, the average guy’s interaction with the Feds was largely confined to the Post Office. For example, in 1900, the Federal cut of GNP was 3% – which includes the Navy and the guerrilla war in the Philippines.

Slaves produced more economic value than they consumed – quite a bit more. Otherwise, why would anyone have bothered to buy slaves? After the War of the Rebellion, they got to keep a good deal more of that value for themselves. Their standard of living went up. Labor income was about the same for blacks and whites, after the war. They also didn’t have that annoying thing where other people got to sell their children."

Thoughts?

Blogger Kentucky Packrat January 26, 2015 10:08 AM  

Kentucky Packrat: I think that deconstructing Jim Crow was a mistake, as do all the liberals who now have to put their kids in private schools in order that they might learn something and not be assaulted either.

Jim Crow is completely indefensible. It was solely about using government power to repress a minority population. Had it truly been separate but equal, that might have been one thing, but it never was. It was always about forcing separate and unequal, and that's a violation of their (and our) God-given rights.

Had we let Jim Crow be disassembled in the 10s and 20s, we could have had a chance to avoid the cultural Marxist takeover of the civil rights movement. (Just a chance, mind you, but a real one.) The 60s gave us no such opportunity.

It's the takeover of integration as a tool for the Marxist SJWs that made the process go from correct to hellish. There were a lot of black schools that were defying the lack of money and resources and putting out decently educated kids. Within a generation, these same areas were producing ruined schools and poor students.

If you convince black kids that they're victims, and deserve to break the rules at the very same time effectively take the rules out of schools, of course you're creating a disaster. My father's school didn't have a lot of problems with discipline during integration, because all the students (white and black) were terrified of the teachers. Milady had a teacher still around from the same era, who disciplined using "standing post". You stood holding one thumb in the other hand in a pose that made it hard to breathe. You got to sit back down after you'd passed out from lack of oxygen. It was a rare soul who stood post twice. These guys could go too far, but the SJWs used that to take the pendulum too far the other direction.

If we could have managed desegregation without creating forced integration and Marxist "equal results" planning, the US would have been in a lot better shape.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar January 26, 2015 10:16 AM  

You dirty rat. I'll bet money that you and your offspring stay miles away from those "oppressed" minorities. They hate you more than we do...

Blogger Joshua Dyal January 26, 2015 12:01 PM  

At least he had an "oops, I fucked up" moment. That's more than you'll get from Lincoln, Bush, or Obama.

Except... he probably didn't.

Anonymous Anon123 January 26, 2015 12:37 PM  

Woodrow Wilson is responsible for women's suffrage, the direct election of Senators, and the creation of the Federal Reserve on top of needlessly dragging the US into WWI. I think Wilson should be tied with Lincoln for worst POTUS.

Blogger Hank Brown January 26, 2015 1:20 PM  

Opinions are like bunghole and I have one too: FDR is the worst ever, based on what he started with and what he left us with. Wilson #2. He did get the globalist funny money ball rolling. And for all his faults, Nixon only struck the death blowing to our currency. Those two and Johnson did most of the damage.

OpenID ymarsakar January 26, 2015 1:45 PM  

ymarsakar, drop dead yankee. We don't care how you did it up north and the South was right. Lincoln was a tyrant and a traitor to the idea of consent of the governed.- Chris M

That's a good example of the debate, of course. But while Loyalist forces in the American Revolutionary war were exiled and had their property taken because they lost, I don't hear them complaining about it. Normally because they were exiled and punished to that extent. The Democrat loyalist forces in Civil War II, North or South, are still complaining because Sherman didn't kill most of them even nor was their property confiscated, so they still retained power. That's a much better bargain than the Loyalists had in the 13 Colonies vs UK fight. But people don't feel grateful, and that reason is the Democrat regime, which didn't start in 1930 or 1960 but decades before US Civil War I.

On the topic of Jim Crow, if it was something that guaranteed a white or black man's freedom to associate, that would have been different. The thing is, white and black codes applied to people whether they liked it or not. That included whites that disagreed with their culture about this. They had to obey or suffer the consequences. The KKK enforced these consequences on blacks and whites, Republicans or Democrats. Of course the federal solution in the 20th century didn't solve much of anything, because it was a force top down application. Just like Civil War I, it didn't end slavery or the fundamental problem. It just passed it down the line. The only people that could solve the problem were the creators, the Democrat regime itself, and they weren't going to give up their slave votes or their black intimidation parties, because it would hurt their economic and political control over the people. People fought a war about this control. When that didn't work out too well due to Reconstruction, people complained about Tyrant Lincoln. So the federal government put down the law and made it legal or rather illegal to discriminate. That created more injustice.

The US South didn't give up racism or discrimination until they started kicking off the shackles the Democrats had put on white people. A few planters and land owners having so many slave votes and so much wealth, disenfranchised whites as well as minorities. When people call it welfare now, doesn't make it much better.

Tommy Hass ,

I think it will take some time and effort before both sides are adequately explained. It would be easier if the victory had written the history on US Civil War I, but there was no clear victor. The Republican abolitionists won the war technically, but the Democrats won the peace via the KKK and Reconstruction later. Similar to Vietnam. So there's a fight between narratives, even now generations later. That's because the fight hasn't really ended. Race problems still exist, and it still revolves around the same fundamental issue: voting power and dependence. Democrat land owners had more political votes and wealth because slaves counted for that. Welfare provides Democrats political votes and power because people on welfare are able to vote, and you can pay them to protest, do Occupy WallStreet, and Ferguson epidemics. The Democrats have a long history of using cults like JIm Jones or terrorist orgs like the KKK to produce political influence. They are merely duplicating historical actions by supporting Islamic Jihad and migrant workers. The Democrats of 1840 wanted the new US states to be slave states, because once a state becomes a slave state, the leaders will have to vote for slavery to keep their power over whites and blacks. Demographically.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 26, 2015 2:18 PM  

Though he pegs Wilson well, Stockman is hopelessly optimistic about the prospects for the war ending in negotiated stalemate in 1917. Absent our intervention, Germany was going to win on land. Whether that would have led to a negotiated settlement with Britain is possible, but not certain.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 26, 2015 2:20 PM  

"It's ridiculous to complain about GERMAN imperial ambition in defense of the British Empire."

"The German Empire consists of one small sausage factory in Tanganiyka." - Blackadder.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 26, 2015 2:27 PM  

"Slaves produced more economic value than they consumed – quite a bit more. Otherwise, why would anyone have bothered to buy slaves? "

In total, probably not. Yes, X slave of Y value might produce Z profit, over Y. But that's not accounting for the damage he did through ignorance, negligence, and indifference, nor that the calc misses out on "X slave, of Y Value, prodices Z profit, but only if W land is available for cheaps unto infinity." That doesn't mean that no slave in the south ever produced a profit, but on the whole the institution depended on an infinite supply of something, cheap land that could be worn out, that just wasn't available in infintie supply. I recommend to you, Tommy, Alan Nevins monumental War for the Union (the whole series, including the four volumes leading up to the war), and the chapter, "Cash Account of Slavery."

Anonymous Discard January 27, 2015 1:16 AM  

Kentucky Packrat: I regard Blacks, more or less, as dumb, violent, careless and lazy. They are perpetual children, permanently alien, will never fit into civilization, and will go the way of the Neanderthals. Not everyone agrees with me, but time will tell. And no, I do not hate them, but I do think I see them realistically.
Given that, allowing them them to try and fail and try and fail and try and fail is wrong. It costs civilization too much, as a quick glance at Detroit or any other city with a substantial Black population will show, and it only postpones the inevitable. Jim Crow was a way to limit the chaos that Blacks bring.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat January 27, 2015 3:06 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat January 27, 2015 3:07 PM  

Kentucky Packrat: I regard Blacks, more or less, as dumb, violent, careless and lazy. They are perpetual children, permanently alien, will never fit into civilization, and will go the way of the Neanderthals. Not everyone agrees with me, but time will tell. And no, I do not hate them, but I do think I see them realistically

I was trying to tell my son that we weren't rednecks. He asked me, "Dad, how did your great, great-grandfather make his money?" "Bootlegging". "How did his son lose it?" "Drinking and gambling." "Dad, we're rednecks."

My Scottish ancestors went from running naked with blue paint to being a center of scientific learning in less than 200 years of English influence. The ones that resisted fled to America, where the English did it again within 100 years. (Kentucky's oath not to fight a duel comes from the Scottish Redneck era.)

A lot of american blacks fought Jim Crow and segregation to climb most of the way towards excellence, led by good men like WEB DuBois, Booker T Washington, and Carver. They stood at the cusp of full integration, when someone fooled them that they needed to adopt the Scotch-Irish redneck culture and call it "their own". The depths we see now is a direct result of a culture that has completely bought into a self-destructive mindset fed to them by the same cultural Marxists who had, 10 years prior, put on the white sheets and tried to repress them in the name of the Klan.

Go read Black Rednecks and White Liberals, the first essay in the book by the same name. Sowell is 100% correct in this essay. Blacks took a white trash mentality and took it for their own, and have reinfected large swatches of white culture that had worked to rid it in themselves. My white former neighbor is obsessed with having been "dissed", right out of that culture.

This is why I think the coming zombie apocalypse will be less black versus white as rednecks versus culture. The black rednecks and white ones will happily tear down civilization together, before then turning on each other.

Anonymous Discard January 27, 2015 3:59 PM  

Kentucky Packrat: I do not believe that Blacks ever did, or ever could, stand at the cusp of full integration. I may be misunderstanding you, but the cultural Marxists of the KKK fooled all these nearly excellent Blacks into becoming rednecks? To most Blacks, redneck culture would be something to aspire to, not something they descend to.

Look at Africa. Look at Haiti. No rednecks there to fool Blacks into bad behavior. Your Scottish ancestors could adopt English ways because they were not limited by their DNA, as most Blacks are.

I do agree with you about poorer Whites adopting Black, and Mexican, culture. I sometimes think that the rulers of this country have arranged it as a means of culling the weaker Whites.

As I wrote, I think that most Blacks, and the dumber Whites, will die out. Cut off their various subsidies, stop tolerating their crimes, and they have no means of support in the modern world.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts