sábado, 19 de agosto de 2017

A brief list of ways in which the United States can keep from erasing history

How Will We Preserve History Without Confederate Statues?


have compiled a brief and non-exhaustive list of ways in which the United States can keep from erasing history, without maintaining unattractive bronze monuments to white supremacy on municipal land. Feel free to show it to your state representatives and congresspersons. No need to thank me.

1) Books.

2) Coffee table books. These are different from regular books because nobody ever reads the text in these, they just leave them out for company as a conversation piece. But sometimes people leaf through the illustrations in coffee table books, and nice big quality photographs are educational in their own way.

3) Board books. These are coffee table books for infants.

4) Documentaries. I particularly like the kind where trained actors read letters from actual historic persons as brownish cursive text is superimposed over a montage of old photos. It’s kind of like reading a book, but less taxing.

5) Museums. Museums are like documentaries, only you have to leave your house and go walk in front of the displays instead of displays flashing before your eyes. Some charge admission, so remember to bring money.

6) Staged reenactments. These can be lots of fun. It’s like Comic Con only with explosions, and everyone dresses up as the same fandom. Serious men who claim not to be geeks really come alive at reenactments. It’s great.

7) Historic replica villages, with actual miniature farms and blacksmiths and such. Kind of like the Renaissance Fair, but more intense. I once went to an historic replica Civil War village in Ohio, where a bearded man in a blousey shirt was making authentic replica Ohio Union recruitment posters with an authentic replica printing press. He said that once, some Southern tourists visiting Ohio came into his shop and went ballistic. The Southern man literally foamed at the mouth with anger. The Southern woman shouted “They killed our boys!” and had to be escorted from the shop. These people are an example of what happens when you get all your history lessons from Confederate statues.

8) Taking history courses at a community college.

9) Other statues– statues that preserve history more accurately. Statues of enslaved persons with scourged backs, women screaming as their infants are taken and sold, mutilations, torture. Statues of courageous Americans like Harriet Tubman who escaped slavery and then risked her life to rescue others from that horror. Statues of abolitionists and conductors on the Underground railroad. Real American heroes.

10) Video games.

You are welcome to expand the list in the comment section.

Read more:

There are fine people who want to preserve historic Confederate monuments

Interior Secretary and Nat’l. Park Service Defend Historic Value of Confederate Memorials

by Warren Mass

Spokesmen for the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior (the NPS’s parent agency) have both defended Confederate statues, monuments, and flags as important educational tools that help educate park visitors about the Civil War.

“Don’t rewrite history,” Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said during a visit to Antietam National Battlefield in western Maryland last month. “Understand it for what it is and teach our kids the importance of looking at our magnificent history as a country and why we are what we are.”

The Battle of Antietem was the bloodiest single-day battle in American history, with combined casualties on both sides numbering 22,717 dead, wounded, or missing.

In a statement to E&E News on August 16, Jeremy Barnum, public affairs specialist at the National Park Service, said that monuments, markers, and plaques that commemorate those who fought and died in the Civil War are “an important part of our country’s history.”

“The National Park Service is committed to safeguarding these memorials while simultaneously educating visitors holistically and objectively about the actions, motivations and causes of the soldiers and states they commemorate,” said Barnum.

The discussion about whether our national parks should continue to display Confederate historic items along with those representing the Union side in the Civil war has gained relevance in light of recent campaigns to remove statues of Confederate military figures and other memorials in American cities.

As any diligent student of history realizes, the Civil War (also called The War Between the States by some) was fought over multiple issues, including states sovereignty and whether the Southern states should be forced to operate under a system of federal tariffs that favored Northern manufacturers at the expense of the agricultural South. While the institution of slavery was certainly a factor, it was by no means the only factor. Those who maintain that anyone or anything associated with the Confederacy represents a defense of slavery or racism misinterprets history — whether inadvertently or deliberately.

Unfortunately, extremists on both sides of the issue — a small number of racist agitators who have exploited Confederate symbols to further their unsavory goals, and a larger number of leftist (including Marxist) agitators who have fomented violence and destruction in several cities, including Charlottesville, Virginia, and Durham, North Carolina, have squared off against each other and spoiled the peaceful existence that has existed since most Americans on both sides of the conflict heeded Abraham Lincoln’s words in 1865: “With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.”

Those wounds were largely bound up more than a century ago, and stayed healed until the agitators opened them up again.

The Daily Caller reported on August 15 that during a press conference that day, President Trump sparred with reporters over the issue of removing Confederate statues and the violent confrontation that erupted in Charlottesville, Virginia, between the opposing sides.

“You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down … to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name,” Trump said during one spat with a reporter.

“George Washington as a slave owner,” he continued. “So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson?”

“Are we going to take down his statue because he was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue?”

The Daily Caller noted that Trump’s critics accused him of comparing neo-Nazi and white supremacists to so-called “anti-fascist” counter-protesters.

The comparasion is a valid one, however. As was noted in an article posted by The New American about the violent hard-left “Antifa” movement:
On June 12, 2017, the New Jersey Department of Homeland Security and Preparedness officially declared Antifa to be a terrorist group, explaining the following: “Anti-fascist groups, or ‘Antifa,’ are a subset of the anarchist movement and focus on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices.” The New Jersey DHS stressed that the Antifa movement is opposed to “fascism, racism, and law enforcement,” while targeting in particular far-right extremists, including perceived white supremacists.
The writer of that article, Jerome Corsi, noted:
The violent, confrontational nature of Antifa anarchists presents a challenge to U.S. law enforcement that is unprecedented; they reject the free speech principles upon which civil discourse depends, while seeking to achieve the demise of the U.S. Constitution, as it holds as illegitimate any compromise with their communist worldview.
Trump issued a statement condemning the relatively small number of neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally. But he also said that he believed that some of the people who showed up for the protest were “fine people.”

“You also had some very fine people, on both sides,” he said.

However, the radical Left has attacked Trump for acknowledging that there are fine people who want to preserve historic Confederate monuments.

Interior Secretary Zinke said he supports Trump “in uniting our communities and prosecuting the criminals to the fullest extent of the law.”

Katie Lawhon, a Gettysburg National Military Park spokeswoman told the Hanover, Pennsylvania, Evening Sun on August 16 that they were not removing Confederate monuments to those who fought at the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863. “These memorials, erected predominantly in the early and mid-20th century, are an important part of the cultural landscape,” she said.

“This week, it’s Robert E. Lee,” Trump said about the statue removal during an August 15 press conference. “I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week, and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

At least for now, this insanity stops at the boundaries of our national parks.

Related articles:

Milton Friedman speaks on a matter which has likewise been pondered by many of his contemporaries: why intellectuals oppose capitalism.

Why Do So Many Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?

by Alberto Mingardi

llowing the valuable advice of co-blogger David Henderson, I've gotten my hands on Milton Friedman on Freedom, a new collection edited by the Hoover Institution. The book will surprise all of us who never properly appreciated the insights and wisdom of Friedman's political thinking. His own peculiar blend of classical liberalism comes out all the more as subtle and relevant.

Among the several chapters, I did particularly enjoy a 1974 interview with Reason magazine. Friedman was then interviewed by the editorial trio (Tibor Machan, Joe Cobb, Ralph Raico), who were challenging him from what they considered a more consistent libertarian position.

The interview is rich and interesting in many ways. Friedman defends a negative income tax and school vouchers as "devices for enabling the free market to play a larger role." He admits that the work of E.G. West made him revisit his own rationale for compulsory education (but not to abandon vouchers as a practical policy proposal), and he discussesinflation and the gold standard.


Friedman also speaks on a matter which has likewise been pondered by many of his contemporaries: why intellectuals oppose capitalism.

To these questions, some have replied that the main reason is resentment (intellectuals expect more recognition from the market society than they actually get); some have pointed out that self-interest drives the phenomenon (intellectuals preach government controls and regulation because they'll be the controllers and regulators); some have taken the charitable view that intellectuals do not understand what the market really is about (as they cherish "projects" and the market is instead an unplanned order).

Friedman rejects the resentment view and proposes a version of the self-interest thesis by looking at the demand-side, so to speak. And it shows – behind the veil of his civility – very little consideration for the tastes of his fellow intellectuals for complex arguments, which seems to me quite a criticism.


Joseph Stalin, who waged many battles against facts in his time, still had occasion to lament that “facts are obstinate things.”

Essays of the Week

by John Grove
Rather than tactfully recognizing the failings and limitations of our founders, conservatives have developed a tendency to deny that they ever possessed those faults. Furious defenses are mounted to show that all Founders were virulently anti-slavery, possessed no limited or parochial views, and were never influenced by personal advantage. The greatest tragedy of America’s past is that racism was present not only in its worst villains, but also in some of its greatest public figures. We cannot debase the positive contributions of those who had moral failings, but we also cannot idolize the American Founders under the false pretension that vice did not exist alongside virtue...

by Corey Latta
C.S. Lewis’ imagination remained the product of a voracious reading life. But the scholar, apologist, and fantasy writer didn’t just read widely; he read well. Because the imagination was formed by an act of reception, it conceived from what it received. What the imagination takes in, it gives out. As Lewis saw it, bad books make for poor imaginative fodder. Lewis lived by this principle. Both his published works and his personal correspondence testify that the long bookish corridors of Lewis’ mind stayed well-shelved with those works that bolstered his ability to make myth, convey meaning, and create beauty... 

by John Horvat
It all began as one of those Friday afternoon projects that medical researchers sometimes do to satisfy curiosity. No one expected it to work. The researchers were testing medieval medical remedies by replicating a 1000-year-old recipe for an eye salve. They were prepared to see it prove that medieval medicine was backward and even superstitious. When the results came back, they were shocked to find that the recipe was incredibly effective in killing staph infections. Indeed, the medieval salve was actually a powerful antibiotic. Perhaps such studies might broaden into other fields, helping bring to light and build a deeper appreciation for the glories of Christian civilization that were suppressed... [MORE]

by William Watkins
Historians have painted James Madison as a young centralizer and nationalist who later defected to the philosophy of states’ rights and strict construction of the Constitution. Madison was also accused of philosophical apostasy by his contemporaries. Alexander Hamilton, his collaborator on The Federalist, bitterly complained that after 1789 Madison was “seduced by the expectation of popularity” in Virginia and thus opposed his former allies. Madison’s political thought, however, is much more complicated than critics and historians would have us believe. In The Sacred Fire of Liberty, Lance Banning attempts to demonstrate that Madison did not change horses in midstream, but rather acted consistently throughout his career... 

by Darrell Falconburg
In The Quest for Community, Robert Nisbet wove together a historical narrative, beginning in the medieval world and continuing to the twentieth century. In the Middle Ages, Nisbet found, the yearning for community was satisfied by a series of small-scale intermediate institutions: immediate and extended families, gilds, churches, villages, monasteries, and manors. However, as history marched onwardthrough Renaissance, Reformation, and Revolutionintermediary institutions and communities came to be attacked as superstitious, patriarchal, and old-fashioned. The individual would gain his freedom and be freed from the shackles of tradition, progressives thought, by breaking them down through means of the centralized State... 

by Gleaves Whitney
“Small talk eludes me, Mr. Whitney. I loathe chitchat," Professor Stephen Tonsor told me. "What is more, too many academics drown their students in a deluge of verbiage and cant. But I hope you will come to visit regularly during office hours. Conversation is one of the most important aspects of education. To hone one mind against the gritty stone of another is the surest path to intellectual excellence." I found this unusual first conversation with my “prickly” advisor gritty enough. But soon we were talking about a great nineteenth-century historian, the first principles of a European Liberal, and what it all meant to an American conservative. Scarcely did I realize how much I would learn about Tonsor himself – a difficult man who was a contradiction to his age... 

by Alexander Zubatov
Joseph Stalin, who waged many battles against facts in his time, still had occasion to lament that “facts are obstinate things.” If Stalin were around today, he would certainly have far less reason to voice any such lamentation. The would-be totalitarian dictator in our contemporary world does not have to work quite as hard to stave off any single entrenched factual paradigm. When reliable authorities no longer hold sway, unscrupulous authoritarians can step in to fill the void. A democratic society requires an informed base of voters making political judgments on the basis of commonly accepted information. A totalitarian society can do without that luxury. For the dictator, the despot and the theocrat, facts are obstacles to be overcome. With every year that passes, we seem to be erecting fewer and fewer such obstacles... 

« Les 100 jours sous le regard de Frédéric Bastiat. Laissez faire ou se laisser faire ? ».

La fausse morale des politiciens français

Par Patrick de Casanove.

Quand on regarde ce qui s’est déroulé lors des élections présidentielles et législatives de 2017, on constate que l’économie est passée à l’arrière-plan des programmes électoraux. Ceux-ci étaient convenus et parfois très succincts.

La souffrance des Français, leur rejet des politiciens, leur immense espoir de changement et les déboires judiciaires de son principal adversaire ne sont pas des facteurs économiques, mais ils ont entraîné le succès d’Emmanuel Macron.


Cela en dit long sur le désarroi des Français. Ils ont pris acte de l’échec économique de l’État depuis 70 ans, de l’État stratège comme de l’État bâtisseur : 6 millions de chômeurs, plus de 2000 milliards de dette publique, des prélèvements obligatoires atteignant, en 2016, 44,2% des richesses produites et, en 2016 toujours, 56,2% du PIB consacré aux dépenses publiques, une protection sociale, soins comme retraites, en faillite, aucun budget équilibré depuis 1974, etc.

Les Français n’attendent même plus des politiciens une quelconque utilité ou efficacité, mais simplement qu’ils aient, puisque donneurs de leçons, un minimum de moralité.


Emmanuel Macron a engagé trois « grandes réformes » : celle de l’éducation, celle du Code du travail et celle de la fiscalité, en particulier locale avec la suppression sélective de la taxe d’habitation, « compensée » par l’augmentation de la CSG. En vérité ce ne sont que de simples modifications de paramètres, de simples changements des règlements qui régissent la vie des Français.

En complément de celles-ci le Président a décidé de « moraliser » la vie politique. Cette loi de moralisation est la conséquence directe de la très providentielle « affaire Fillon. » C’est donc une loi de circonstance.

Comme tous ses prédécesseurs, Emmanuel Macron est un étatiste, c’est-à-dire qu’il pense que la loi fait la morale et que l’État dit le droit et fait la loi.

Pour Frédéric Bastiat, économiste français du XIXème siècle, l’État n’a rien de moral : « L’État,c’est la grande fiction à travers laquelle tout le monde s’efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde. » (L’État, 1848). Le Fisc et l’URSSAF sont de fidèles et efficaces serviteurs de l’État mais ils n’ont rien à voir avec la morale. Les systèmes policiers et judiciaires appliquent la politique de l’État et, partant de là, n’ont rien à voir non plus avec la morale.


Le Larousse en donne cette définition :
Science du bien et du mal, théorie des comportements humains, en tant qu’ils sont régis par des principes éthiques.(
Pour Frédéric Bastiat la morale est que l’État, comme les individus, respectent les Droits Naturels individuels : la Liberté, la Propriété, la Personnalité.
Quand la loi et la Force retiennent un homme dans la Justice, elles ne lui imposent rien qu’une pure négation. Elles ne lui imposent que l’abstention de nuire. Elles n’attentent ni à sa Personnalité, ni à sa Liberté, ni à sa Propriété. Seulement elles sauvegardent la Personnalité, la Liberté et la Propriété d’autrui. Elles se tiennent sur la défensive ; elles défendent le Droit égal de tous. Elles remplissent une mission dont l’innocuité est évidente, l’utilité palpable, et la légitimité incontestée. (…) Le but de la Loi est d’empêcher l’Injustice de régner. (La Loi, 1850).
Pour Jacques de Guenin fondateur du Cercle,
la morale libérale est une morale altruiste : elle enseigne le respect de la liberté de l’autre. Vouloir qu’un individu soit libre, c’est s’interdire d’obtenir quoi que ce soit de lui par la tromperie, le vol ou la coercition. S’il veut rallier quelqu’un à ses idées, le libéral n’utilise pas d’autres moyens que l’exemple ou la discussion. S’il veut obtenir d’un autre un bien ou une prestation quelconque, il ne procède que par un échange librement consenti (Logique du libéralisme, 2006).
C’est le contraire de ce que fait l’État, qui moralise par la contrainte.

C’est le contraire de ce que fait l’État, qui ne procède que par la spoliation légale.


Pour en arriver là il a fallu pervertir la loi. Bastiat dénonce :
La loi pervertie ! La loi — et à sa suite toutes les forces collectives de la nation, — la Loi, dis-je, non seulement détournée de son but, mais appliquée à poursuivre un but directement contraire ! La Loi devenue l’instrument de toutes les cupidités, au lieu d’en être le frein ! La Loi accomplissant elle-même l’iniquité qu’elle avait pour mission de punir ! (La Loi, 1850).
La perversion de la loi engendre la spoliation légale :
La chimère du jour est d’enrichir toutes les classes aux dépens les unes des autres ; c’est de généraliser la Spoliation sous prétexte de l’organiser. Or, la spoliation légale peut s’exercer d’une multitude infinie de manières ; de là une multitude infinie de plans d’organisation : tarifs, protection, primes, subventions, encouragements, impôt progressif, instruction gratuite, Droit au travail, Droit au profit, Droit au salaire, Droit à l’assistance, Droit aux instruments de travail, gratuité du crédit, etc. Et c’est l’ensemble de tous ces plans, en ce qu’ils ont de commun, la spoliation légale, qui prend le nom de Socialisme. (La Loi, F. Bastiat,1850)
Un fois cela posé on constate que tous les hommes politiques français sont adeptes de laspoliation légale. Seul varie ensuite le niveau de spoliation qu’ils veulent imposer aux populations ; elle est la justification de leur existence, d’où l’intérêt qu’ils ne cessent de lui porter.

C’est pourquoi tous les gouvernements de notre pays se sont appliqués avec constance et aveuglement à l’accroître. Il en découle que la société française n’est ni juste, ni unie, ni fraternelle et que sa prospérité se délite.

La seule véritable moralisation consisterait à mettre fin à un système qui repose sur ce principe de « spoliation légale » :

« Tu ne voleras pas ».

La France traverse une période matérielle et morale difficile. Les Français ne font plus confiance aux hommes politiques et des fissures sociales creusées par 70 ans de socialisme deviennent des failles béantes.
Le déplacement de la responsabilité a faussé l’opinion populaire. Le peuple, accoutumé à tout attendre de l’État, ne l’accuse pas de trop faire, mais de ne pas faire assez. Il le renverse et le remplace par un autre, auquel il ne dit pas : Faites moins, mais : Faites plus; et c’est ainsi que l’abîme se creuse et se creuse encore. (Services privés, service public, F. Bastiat, 1864).
Les valeurs et la culture qui ont forgé leur pays sont mises à mal. Beaucoup désespèrent de sortir par le haut de cette situation. Or dans un tel contexte, les idées de Frédéric Bastiat gagneraient à être connues et mises en œuvre.

Il écrit :
Se conserver, se développer, c’est l’aspiration commune à tous les hommes, de telle sorte que si chacun jouissait du libre exercice de ses facultés et de la libre disposition de leurs produits, le progrès social serait incessant, ininterrompu, infaillible. (La Loi,1850).
Quand l’État entrave « le libre usage des facultés, la libre disposition des produits et des biens », il sort de son rôle. La Loi est pervertie, c’est la spoliation légale ou socialisme. Il est impossible de bâtir une société juste sur la spoliation.


La spoliation ne peut engendrer que la violence. Frédéric Bastiat écrit :
On se plaint des tendances révolutionnaires des hommes. Assurément on n’y réfléchit pas. Quand on voit, chez un grand peuple, les services privés envahis et convertis en services publics, le gouvernement s’emparer du tiers des richesses produites par les citoyens, la loi devenue une arme de spoliation entre les mains des citoyens eux-mêmes, parce qu’elle a pour objet d’altérer, sous prétexte de l’établir, l’équivalence des services; quand on voit la population et le travail législativement déplacés, un abîme de plus en plus profond se creuser entre l’opulence et la misère, le capital ne pouvant s’accumuler pour donner du travail aux générations croissantes, des classes entières vouées aux plus dures privations; quand on voit les gouvernements, afin de pouvoir s’attribuer le peu de bien qui se fait, se proclamer mobiles universels, acceptant ainsi la responsabilité du mal, on est étonné que les révolutions ne soient pas plus fréquentes, et l’on admire les sacrifices que les peuples savent faire à l’ordre et à la tranquillité publique (…) autant de causes de désordre, autant de ferments révolutionnaires. (Services privés, service public, 1850)
La philosophie de Frédéric Bastiat appartient à la pensée libérale classique française. Il a éclairé et rénové l’économie politique du XVIIIème et XIXème siècles puis fécondé la science économique moderne. Frédéric Bastiat est régulièrement présenté comme le précurseur de l’École Autrichienne d’Économie.


L'État islamique poursuit une guerre de conquête sur le plan local et une stratégie de terreur sur le plan international.

La stratégie territoriale de l’État islamique : un califat sans frontière

Par Edern de Barros.

En octobre 2006, le Conseil consultatif des Moudjahidine en Irak, issu de la coalition de mouvements djihadistes pilotés par Al-Qaida en Irak, proclame la création de l’État islamique en Irak (EII).

Il devient en avril 2013 l’état islamique en Irak et au Levant (EIIL) comme pour signifier l’unification de la Syrie et de l’Irak sous son contrôle. En 2007, Al-Qaida en Irak disparait, son chef ayant prêté allégeance à l’EIIL. En juin 2014, l’EIIL annonce le rétablissement du califat, et Abou Bakr Al-Bagdadi, un combattant salafiste djihadiste actif dans les différentes organisations d’alors, s’arroge le titre spirituel et temporel de calife, héritier ou successeur du Prophète Mahomet sous le nom d’Ibrahim. L’organisation prend dès lors le nom d’État islamique (EI).

L’absence de référence géographique dans la nouvelle nomination de l’organisation annonce ainsi ses intentions : elle se présente comme un État salafiste djihadiste sans frontière et de droit divin.

Pour autant, l’EI poursuit une stratégie qui s’inscrit dans une réalité territoriale, à la différence du djihadisme global d’Al-Qaida. C’est cette stratégie d’implantation, sur les terres mésopotamienne et syrienne de l’ancien califat abbasside qu’elle prétend restaurer, qui fonde d’abord sa puissance actuelle. En outre, la politique de conquête locale s’accompagne d’une stratégie de déstabilisation des cibles plus lointaines au moyen d’attentats et de propagandes numériques. L’EI poursuit ainsi une politique de guerre totale à la fois sur le terrain local par la conquête, mais aussi à l’échelle internationale par les armes de la terreur et de la division.


Lire la suite:

Any defense of the West must be clear about those core commitments to reason and the reasonable God that are central to its identity.


Reason, Faith, and the Struggle

for Western Civilization

by Samuel Gregg on August 14th, 2017
Any defense of the West must be clear about those core commitments to reason and the reasonable God that are central to its identity.

by Sherif Girgis on August 15th, 2017
If we believe that all human beings deserve respect, we ought to act like it. That means we should use our rational faculties to understand and answer bad arguments, not ridicule those who make them.

by S. Adam Seagrave on August 16th, 2017
The primary cause of American disintegration is not the proliferation of sources of division, but rather the absence of sources of unity to counterbalance and contextualize them. The racial divide is the most productive place to start in recovering the American mission and restoring national unity.

by Glenn Stanton on August 17th, 2017
If major leaders in the gay movement cannot keep up with its constant invention of new “rights,” then they certainly can’t shame others for failing to do so.

The Legacy of White Supremacy:
Why Confederate Monuments
Should Come Down

by Matthew J. Franck on August 18th, 2017
It is a natural thing for southerners to be drawn to Lee’s memory and to look up in admiration at a statue in his likeness. But the fact remains: such statues say to black Americans, in the voice of the unreconstructed white majority, “We’re back in charge, and don’t you forget it.”