Who devalues the humanities?

A Letter-to-the-Editor of the Wilmington StarNews recently caught my attention. Gary Faulkner made a short plea under the heading, ‘Don’t devalue the humanities.’ He is upset because (higher) education studies of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) from state and federal sources get “the lion’s share of the budgetary pie.”

According to him humanities, arts, social sciences (HASS) get less pie, but I doubt that this would leave them in an academically malnourished condition. Taxpayers send megabucks of “pie” to the North Carolina State behemoth for consumption every year—some of it poorly digested.

First a short discussion about terminology: Humanities are the languages and literatures of ancient Greece and Rome; the so-called classics (not much call for socializing in Greek and Latin these days). Art is the “human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature” (learning to fool Mother Nature seems not to be good use of one’s time). Social science is a group of disciplines including sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, political science, and history (economics and history have been neglected in academia).

Faulkner thinks the world needs “better human relations”; an appreciation of “other religions” (other than Christianity?); an understanding of languages and other cultures (other than English?); a meaningful grasp of our traditions (American?); and critical thinking skills (logic?).

Several generations ago this was a fair description of what was taught in most liberal arts college curricula. But first students were well grounded in American history, math, English literature, Christian philosophy, economics, civics and logic. Today, I doubt that many high schools or colleges require skill in these subjects. Worthless, even foolish, courses have replaced the basics once considered necessary for an educated person.

Mr. Faulkner “would like to hear the reasons why that in a budgetary shortfall the arts and social studies courses are the first to be cut. Given the reality of world conflict, what is the explanation?”

Well, here is my opinion. Given “the reality of world conflict” every college student should be required to complete ROTC training in military science.

In addition, I don’t think that some social sciences should be cut—for example, our college students desperately need courses in history and economics (to have a “meaningful grasp of our traditions”)— many others could be thinned out.

But, of course, those decisions come from college administrative offices. University boards should oversee these judgments.

Looking through almost any modern college course offerings, however, one can find dozens, or even hundreds, of useless courses created by instructors to satisfy their personal agenda; often with frivolous and subversive subjects.

These meaningless and conflict-designed courses on identity politics, gender bias, racial agitation, anti-Western Civilization and other bizarre subjects could easily be stricken from the curricula—along with faculty that offer them. That would improve “human relations,” at least in the colleges.

There are other reasons for disparity in funding academic resources. Not all disciplines have equal value. For example, engineers and mathematicians are more valuable to society than are sociologists and psychologists evidenced by the fact that they are in greater demand and receive higher pay.

(Yet, even engineering studies are being contaminated with “social engineering”—Link below.)

Another reason that taxpayers should not be paying as much for humanities and arts is that these departments and programs are largely dominated by Marxists and people with anti-American views (even some criminal anarchists). Social “justice” has replaced social science. In fact, reduced funding would help get rid of some of the people who indoctrinate students with bad ideas rather than truly educate them.

Finally, the modern student body, by and large, is not prepared for learning what Faulkner thinks they should know, and few faculties are fit to teach classic subjects without bias. That’s why the public colleges and universities have eliminated required curriculum, and offer some valuable courses that require serious time and study only as electives.

In summary, it’s higher education administrators, faculties and students who have devalued the humanities, not our legislators who are probably simply responding to the problem.



Posted in Higher Education Follies | Tagged , | Leave a comment

‘Rules for Radicals’ influences politics in North Carolina

If your organization is small in numbers…conceal the members…but raise a din and clamor that will make the (people) believe that your organization numbers many more than it does.

__Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Although he died in 1972 Alinsky’s tactics detailed in his 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals,” live on in America—maybe nowhere more evident than in North Carolina.

Compared to only a handful of “conservative” groups in the State the radical Left has 140 identified by the Civitas Institute. They are represented by 1,800 activists; yet, in a population of just over 10 million, their numbers are few. By applying Alinsky’s “rules,” however, they are with certain issues deviously effective. Take election fraud, for example.

The chaos, confusion and subversive activities of just two North Carolina radicals, William Barber and Bob Hall, have contributed to major disinformation about elections voter fraud in this State. A battle with these people has been going on for the past five years, spearheaded by Civitas.

Barber is the chief rabble-rouser for the NC National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, operating under the fake morality of Reverend. Hall is a liberal lobbyist with a group called Democracy NC. According to Civitas President Francis DeLuca, Hall “has spent many years shaping our election legislation, policies and state bureaucracy into the nations most liberal and confusing collection of election laws and decisions.”

State legislators, court judges and interest groups have been squabbling over who should draw the district election maps and the need for voter ID for many years. The evidence is clear, requiring identification in elections, used in many States, does help prevent voter fraud.

After much difficulty, Civitas finally acquired more than 5,000 of Hall’s emails and discovered that “he is much more involved in election law than anyone else in the State.” And there is a “direct link between Barber (NCNAACP) and Democracy NC using connections to influence law and policy behind the scenes.”

According to Civitas’ Susan Myrick in an article, “Bob Hall—A Liberal Attack Dog in Watchdog’s Clothing,” written last year: “The mainstream media usually describes Hall and his group either as watchdogs or non-partisans, but the descriptions are ludicrous, knowing Hall’s history as a powerful elections lobbyist with extraordinarily close ties to North Carolina’s progressive elite and the Democrats in the legislature, and especially with his more than 20 years working with, and at times directing, the State Board of Elections.”

Radical organizer Saul Alinsky counseled activists to work “in the system” to bring about revolution. The insidious danger about this “realistic” radical and his followers is found in the Prologue to his book:

That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we think it should be—it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system.

Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future.

People throughout the world have been falling for this utopian sophism for hundreds of years. But when they “chance” the future through radical Leftist revolution most often the result is destruction and death to themselves, their livelihoods and their futures. Only the radical rulers benefit.

Posted in Socialist Planning | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Left’s tactics of conflict and confusion


Conflict is the essential core of a free and open society.

Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals


Historically, political leftists have learned to use vocabulary to promote “human hurts, hopes, and frustrations” that result in “conditioned, negative, emotional response.” These words come from that “realistic” radical, Saul D. Alinsky, in his book Rules for Radicals.

(Two of his highest profile political disciples are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.)

In Alinsky’s chapter A Word About Words he discusses several powerful single words that result in negative, emotional reactions; for example, conflict. Alinsky sees society as in continuous turmoil, “interrupted periodically by compromise” (compromise to the Left is accepting its views and policies).

In the Rules chapter, Tactics, Alinsky discusses more than a dozen. The third rule: “Whenever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.” Note that Alinskyites don’t think of us as opponents, we are the enemy.

That was clearly in play during the Obama/Clinton reign when most Republicans were clueless about how to deal with their avowed enemies on the left.

This rather long, but important introduction brings me to an example of how Leftist Alinsky tactics subvert the political process and attack conservative legislators (the enemy) here in North Carolina.

Susan Myrick, Civitas staff investigative reporter, writes in the July issue of NC Capitol Connection (nccapitolconnection.com) about the confusion and conflict caused by the Left in mapping North Carolina election districts.

Ironically, Ms. Myrick developed a Civitas program called “Mapping the Left” where she exposes who they are and what they are up to in this State. She identifies more than 140 radical Left organizations, 1,800 people and 300 funding organizations operating in North Carolina. They create conflict and confusion in public, attack our State legislators and try to subvert our laws and culture with government corruption. (see Civitas site below)

Their deceptions are familiar to those of us who have followed politics here for many years.

A favorite devious tactic of the Left involves finding left-leaning sympathetic courts with activist judges to help fight their battles. Myrick writes, “Worse than confusion, however, is an ominous trend. The current court battles threaten to turn redistricting into political jockeying, and even turn federal courts into “weapons of political warfare” (remember we on the right side of public issues are the enemy).

Further, the Left has been able to use tactics of conflict, confusion and fear by constantly stirring the racial pot. Thus, in drawing election district maps, when Republicans do it suddenly it becomes “racist,” apparently if too many blacks, or too few, show up in a district—or something like that.

Myrick gives an accounting of State and federal courts’ involvement going back to 2011 when “Republicans relied too heavily on the use of race when they drew the State legislative maps.” She cites one writer’s “Goldilocks Redistricting Rule”: not too many, not too few, but just enough blacks is the right amount. But, that’s a problem….

Myrick says that “confusion is likely to continue. The underlying problem is that the courts are quick to strike down maps, but haven’t provided clear guidelines about what kind of districts are acceptable.”

Of course they don’t. That’s the way the Left wants it. The longer this goes on the more Rev. Barber and the NAACP can accuse Republicans of racism, and the better to keep the media sniffing around the issue to support the Marxist ideas promoted by Alinsky.


Posted in North Carolina Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Democrats in need of reality

A recent editorial headline in the Wilmington StarNews (print edition) caught my attention: Democrats in need of a new strategy. (Link below) The Editorial Board made some good points, but in my opinion they missed the main one. Democrats don’t need a new strategy they need a reality check. Their party no longer represents the majority of Americans or traditional American values. Certainly not in North Carolina.

Editors write, “We believe the state (North Carolina) functions better when there are at least two viable parties debating ideas on a level playing field and—in an ideal world—occasionally compromising with one another.”

Several problems with this: Democrats have shown they do not have a “viable” party (refer to my next to last sentence in the first paragraph); their representatives and supporters are incapable of “debating ideas” (they have no worthwhile ideas); there is no such thing as a “level playing field” in politics; we don’t live in an “ideal (Utopian) world”; and you can’t “compromise with irrational people who hate you.

The StarNews Editorial Board: “The Dems are in sad shape, statewide and nationally.” True. “They’re locked in an interminable debate over message.”

I think they have a “message” problem because most people are tired of hearing their worn-thin social justice messages: they speak only for tribal groups who they represent as victims; Republicans oppress minorities and want to take away their “rights” and government benefits–even illegal aliens; Republicans want to suppress voting – by you-know-who—with limiting early voting, requiring voter ID and drawing election maps.

Dems have an attitude and thinking problem. They look at opposition as enemies— and they are not common sense thinkers; they operate on emotion. Republicans bad; Dems good.

Most of our urban areas are controlled—I use that word loosely—by Democrats; areas where the greatest poverty and criminal activity occurs including frequent murders and riots. Democratic operating policies are destructive and unworkable. Worse, they are often immoral and hypocritically operating under the guise of Christianity.

The second website below illustrates how “social justice” groups in North Carolina work to attack Republicans in this State.

Dems do not accept the reality of the human condition. Nor do they understand or promote the vital virtues of self-discipline, responsibility, work, courage, perseverance, honesty, loyalty, and faith; much less the critical importance of traditional family relationships to a stable society. In short, Dems have no principles.

Rather than develop positive messages with honorable strategies, they wage war on the opposition party and most of the American people. For example, here in North Carolina the State Democrat Party’s tactical effort is called “Break the Majority.”

That tells us all we need to know about why the Dems need a reality check and why they are largely unfit to represent the majority of Americans.




Posted in Irrational Political Views | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Who fights for us?

The following essay (slightly edited by me) by Evan Sayet published at Townhall on July 13, 2017 is worth reading for those who think our current president  lacks “docorum.”

Mr. Sayet reflects my feelings; the hell with decorum we’re in the fight of our political and cultural lives against vicious, nasty, violent, no-holds-barred Leftists–we need people who will fight back, even if they use some of the Left’s own tactics.



My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum.  They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”  Here’s my answer:

We Right-thinking people have tried dignity.  There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.  We tried statesmanship.  Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain?  We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?  And the results were always the same.

This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party.  I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks.  I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent.  Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s (Yes, the 1860s).   To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale.  It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war.  While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety.

With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end.  Donald Trump is America’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors…

General George Patton was a vulgar-talking, son-of-a-bitch.  In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank.  But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum, then Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

Trump is fighting.  And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!”  That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics.

That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis.   It is a book of such pure evil that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do.

First, instead of going after “the fake media” – and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri – Trump isolated CNN.  He made it personal.  Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.”

Everyone gets that it’s not just CNN – in fact, in a world where Al Sharpton and Rachel Maddow, Paul Krugman and Nicholas Kristof are people of influence and whose “reporting” is in no way significantly different than CNN’s – CNN is just a piker.

Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position.  With Trump’s ability to go around them, they cannot simply stand pat.  They need to respond.  This leaves them with only two choices.

They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery.

The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve.  It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive.

Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s, church.

Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.

This makes “going high” a non-starter for CNN.  This leaves them no other option but to ratchet up the fake news, conjuring up the next “nothing burger” and devoting 24 hours a day to hysterical rants about how it’s “worse than Nixon.”

This, obviously, is what CNN has chosen to do.  The problem is that, as they become more and more hysterical, they become more and more obvious.  Each new effort at even faker news than before and faker “outrage” only makes that much more clear to any objective observer that Trump is and always has been right about the fake news media.

And, by causing their hysteria, Trump has forced them into numerous, highly embarrassing and discrediting mistakes.   Thus, in their desperation, they have lowered their standards even further and run with articles so clearly fake that, even with the liberal (lower case “l”) libel laws protecting the media, they’ve had to wholly retract and erase their stories repeatedly.

Their flailing at Trump has even seen them cross the line into criminality, with CNN using their vast corporate fortune to hunt down a private citizen for having made fun of them in an Internet meme.  This threat to “dox” – release of personal information to encourage co-ideologists to visit violence upon him and his family — a political satirist was chilling in that it clearly wasn’t meant just for him.  If it were, there would have been no reason for CNN to have made their “deal” with him public.

Instead, CNN – playing by “Chicago Rules” – was sending a message to any and all: dissent will not be tolerated.

This heavy-handed and hysterical response to a joke on the Internet has backfired on CNN, giving rise to only more righteous ridicule.

So, to my friends on the Left – and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”?  Of course I do.   These aren’t those times.  This is war.  And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting  without opposition for the past 50 years.

So, say anything you want about this president – I get it, he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times.  I don’t care.  I can’t spare this man.  He fights.


By Evan Sayet, from Townhall, July 13, 2017

Posted in cultural corruption, Irrational Political Views, National Politics, Press Bias | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Liberalism and internal wars against Americans

Some American history scholars may dispute this assessment, but in my lifetime we’ve had at least two periods of internal warfare: a Civil Rights War in the 1960s and a Cultural War during the 21st century. Actually, it appears that these conflicts have morphed into a gigantic clash that has split Americans into at least two ideological camps; Traditional and Anti-American (mistakenly called “progressive”).

I use the term war to identify the events when conflicts result in destruction of property, personal injuries and death by large violent street mobs, or individual and small group assassins and terrorists. Clearly, we are at war with radical Islamists—or, more accurately, we don’t know what we are, but they are at war because of their hatred of whatever we are, instead of Muslim.

Astute and honest historians trace our splintered society back to “The Lost Cause,” what I call Lincoln’s war against the Confederate States of America. And after, the vengeful period called “Reconstruction.” Richard M. Weaver was such a historian.

Richard Malcolm Weaver was born in Ashville, North Carolina in 1910. In 1953 he bought a house in Weaverville, North Carolina—a town named for his ancestors—for his ailing mother and other family members.

He died prematurely in 1963 of a sudden heart attack in his apartment near the College of the University of Chicago. Weaver taught undergraduate courses in composition and rhetoric in the English department. He wrote scholarly books and essays about conservatism and Southern history and culture.

In 2000 Ted J. Smith III (no relation) edited many of Weaver’s shorter essays in a book titled, “In Defense of Tradition.” Smith’s Introduction to this work provides details of Weaver’s life and literary accomplishments. He notes that “Weaver is now widely recognized as one of the most original and perceptive interpreters of Southern culture and letters.”

Prof. Weaver’s works were published in a wide variety of outlets including National Review. It is the next to last of his essays published in Smith’s book that I find relevant to my comments above. “Reconstruction: Unhealed Wound” was published in a February 1959 issue of National Review.

Weaver thought the “Civil War” was a “failure” because “there was no sense in its lasting so long…Instead, it turned into a struggle of some twenty major battles and a final war of attrition in the Eastern theater (not to mention the deaths of more than a half-million Americans and the total destruction of Southern farms, homes and cities). The Lincoln administration, though determined on its course, was ignorant of war,” he wrote.

After the shooting-war ended and Lincoln was killed, Congress (mostly from Northern States) took charge of settling scores with the South they hated (They “fought and vilified” President Andrew Johnson “at every step”). Weaver writes, “They saw in their section’s victory an unparalleled opportunity for vengeance, economic exploitation, political domination, and the other attendant benefits of conquest.” Weaver refers to these malicious people as “plotters of Reconstruction.”

He also noted that the “plotters” were shortsighted, not to realize that “if the Southern people were to be forcibly kept in the Union, the rest of the Americans would have to live with them on some terms and might even one day need them.”

Weaver cites a book titled, The Angry Scar by Hodding Carter (“a well-known Southern Liberal”) retelling the story: “He relates the Carpetbagger invasion, the story of the kangaroo governments which were set up in the Southern states, the fury of the Radicals in Congress, and the bleeding of a section (of America) already left bankrupt by the war. The oppressions, knaveries, thefts and debaucheries of Reconstruction were so numerous and so awful that even the unimpassioned historian must present a vivid set of facts.”

In Carter’s book, the Southern resistors to this oppression were called “Redemptionists,” (a religious term) “Conservatives,” and “Bourbons” (sociopolitical reactionaries).

But Weaver thought he missed an important reality: “…people do not behave, nor are they expected to behave, under a state of duress as they do in a free and unforced condition. In times of war, even deception is recognized as a legitimate weapon, and Reconstruction was hardly different from a prolongation of the war. The Ku Klux Klan was a ‘lawless’ organization.” (So was the Union League founded by Northern carpetbaggers to promote hatred of Southern white people by the Negroes.)

Weaver refers to the KKK as the “Confederate Underground.”  It was a resistance movement and a counter force to the Union League terrorizing Negro and white Democrats in the South.

This brings me to a conclusion and today. Weaver sums up his critique of Carter’s thinking, that fifty-eight years later is still relevant when Anti-Americans have turned their irrational wrath on Southern people and their symbols. And it helps explain the roots of why we are still deeply divided as a nation.

Weaver:  “It has been suggested from more than one quarter that a Liberal is unfitted by his presuppositions to understand the tragic aspects of existence and indeed really to deal with the problem of evil…Liberalism is a kind of abstractive process which takes out whatever is unmalleable and fashions the remainder into a dream world of wishful thinking.”

And so, where modern Liberalism persists the internal wars against Americans will continue.

Posted in American history | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Historical ignorance and bias

An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.

__ Credited to Alexander Solzhenitsyn


Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne begins a recent commentary with some patriotic platitudes and ends with arrogant impatience. He writes, “we (Americans) are as badly fractured in approaching history as we are in confronting the present.”

Actually, I would say that we are seriously split on facing the present because of our lack of understanding history—or, more precisely, because of our ignorance of American history.

Mr. Dionne tries on his patriot hat: “…put aside our divisions to celebrate (July 4th) a shared love for our country (but only his part of the country); …we need to nourish this capacity for empathy (but only for certain people he approves of); …rally around the core idea of the Declaration of Independence (but only the idea as it relates history to his current biases).

Then, Dionne lurches into historical mythology. “We fought the Civil War over the question of who was included in the (Declaration of Independence) phrase ‘all men are created equal.’” He is, however, correct to preface this statement with, “But this is precisely where our disagreements about (this) history start.” Yes, they do.

This unnecessary war was vastly more complex than Dionne’s simplistic, misguided thinking reveals: It was about radical, violent abolitionists; new States admitting slavery; high tariffs proposed on Southern trade; excessive central government power; invasion of sovereign States with military force; and a long history of disputes over rights of State citizens versus the growing abuses of federal government.

Many books by independent historians and Southern scholars have been written explaining these and other causes of Lincoln’s war on the Confederate States of America.

Notice that Confederates also considered themselves Americans, but free and independent of the original Union because of its totalitarian abuses against them. Most important, they fought bravely for years against an enemy that waged war on civilians and destroyed everything in its path, including the homes and livelihoods of Negros who were presumed to be “emancipated,” but who Yankees cared little about. Lincoln wanted to ship them all back to Africa.

Dionne went to New Orleans to celebrate Mayor Mitch Landrieu taking down Confederate monuments. He wanted readers to learn about Landrieu’s “exposition”—underscoring “how important it is to see history accurately and not how we might wish it to be.”

Of course, that’s exactly what Landrieu did. He has disdain for Confederate leaders who, even Northerners respected until at least 100 years after the war. He and Dionne believe the Confederacy was “a cult.” Its goal, they say, was “to rewrite history to hide the truth, which is that the Confederacy was on the wrong side of humanity.” And they are on the wrong side of history.

To their distorted thinking Confederate monuments prove their “truth”—“The Confederacy brought back to life as a so-called noble cause to rationalize the post-Reconstruction regime of white supremacy.”

Applying these modern views to long ago conditions, values and culture is a serious error in rational thinking. But, of course, they can’t get past the idea of slavery, so bitterly embedded in their irrational thoughts that they aren’t able to accept it in context with the humanity of the times. They lack humility and respect for fellow Americans.

It’s pitifully sad that people such as Dionne and Landrieu are so vengeful and hate filled as to want to deprive others—who have done nothing to them—of memories of their ancestral American heroes and history; and even their American flags.

Posted in National Disunity | Tagged , | Leave a comment