http://historyunfolding.blogspot.com/ View Blog History Unfolding: Life in the Blogosphere

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Life in the Blogosphere

[Addendum, November 3, 2012: This post is linked in tomorrow morning's New York Times by "the other David Kaiser," an MIT professor who wrote an op-ed about the hoax email that I first discussed below more than three and a half years ago. Reasonable men and women can differ over the wisdom and propriety of his decision to write the piece and the Times's decision to run it, especially on the very eve of the Presidential election. The author might also have mentioned that the screed made its first appearances, unattributed, in blogs by two especially nasty right wingers, Pam Geller and Pat Dollard. The author remains unknown. May I say to the unknown individual who first put my name on it, you may be having the best day of your life right now, but tomorrow you'll still be a liar and a jerk.

Now that new readers are here I invite you to browse. This weekend's post is a good place to start, and I also recommend "George W. Bush, Man of the Sixties," which appeared on October 21, 2004; "The Regeneracy May Not be Televised," from July 5, 2010; reviews of more or less recent books by Robert Caro and James McGregor Burns, which you can find by searching for their names; my obituary for George McGovern on October 22 of this year; "Struggle," from May 19 of this year; and last, but hardly least, "Ayn Rand's America," which appeared on September 28. Posts appear every weekend.]


During the past seven days this blog has had about 1100 hits, which may be a record. I do hope some of my new patrons will return, but the reason for the outburst of interest is quite ironic: the fraudulent attribution to myself of a piece of right-wing hysteria which continues to circulate around the net. Snopes.com, a site which specializes in exposing fraud, published this almost immediately when I called it to their attention, and during the past ten days 168 hits on historyunfolding.com have come from there. They have traced it to an anonymous comment on a right wing blog last November. It has been misattributed to a couple of other people since then. In addition, another David Kaiser--a scientist at a well-known university--is receiving an average of about one piece of fan mail a day from around the world, praising his perspicacity. (His university publishes his email address on its web site; mine does not.) We have been in touch, and he has a form letter which he uses to reply, making it clear that 1) he isn't the David Kaiser they are looking for and 2) that the David Kaiser they are looking for didn't write it, either. I have queried at least half a dozen of his and my "fans" asking them who sent the article to them, in an effort to start tracing the fraud back to its source, but that seems to be a fruitless endeavor--only a couple have replied and in both cases the trail immediately went cold.
I suppose it's another indication of the world that we are living in that, after a remarkably steady readership of about 800 readers a week for the last few years, the hits could have increased by about 40% thanks to my association with right-wing paranoia. (The full text is available, among many other places, here. This has not actually disturbed me very much. Perhaps because I have taken so much heat for things I actually did say, especially over the last year, I am merely amused by the interest in something that I did not say. But this piece of anti-Obama lunacy--so similar to much of what circulated in the 1930s about FDR, and probably to things written about Lincoln as well--has resonated among a measurable segment of the population, it seems, in a way that the kind of commentary that appears here every week does not. I should not be surprised. Crisis eras bring crazies out of the woodwork. So far we, unlike the French in the 1790s or the Germans in the 1930s, have been able to avoid having them in charge--may it continue to be so. Now, back to work.

Bernhard von Bülow, born in 1849 to a noble German family of diplomats and soldiers, served in the latter stages of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-1, spent more than twenty years in the diplomatic service, and became German Foreign Secretary in 1897 and Chancellor in 1900, holding that position for the next nine years. After the Emperor William II asked for, and accepted, his resignation in 1909 (more later), he went into retirement, but returned to the government as Ambassador to Italy in 1914-5 (he had an Italian wife) in an unsuccessful attempt to keep Italy from entering the war on the side of the allies. In 1917, when his successor, Bethmann Hollweg, fell from power, some thought that he would return, but instead the Emperor picked a cipher who essentially fronted for the High Command, who ruled Germany, in effect, for the last disastrous 18 months of the war. In the 1920s Bülow published four volumes of memoirs, one of the most sensational such works ever issued in the western world. They were translated into English and published in the United States, and in the early 1990s, shortly after returning to New England, I found a full set among the library of William Langer, for many years a distinguished Harvard professor (who coincidentally retired the year before I arrived there), whose books were on sale at the late, lamented Pangloss book store. (When I was a grad student there were at least four major used bookstores in Harvard Square; now all have disappeared.) I have read a volume from time to time and am now in the middle of the third one, chronologically, which covers most of his time as Chancellor.
Bülow's memoirs caused an uproar for two reasons. Because the Versailles Treaty had not only blamed Germany and its allies for the war, but imposed reparations upon the Germans for that very reason, it had become an article of German national faith during the 1920s that Germany was not to blame for the conflict. But Bülow put the blame squarely upon his successor, Bethmann Hollweg, for whom he had nothing but contempt. He also reproached the government for its failure to make peace until it was too late, arguing at one point that Germany should even have willingly given up Alsace-Lorraine, the spoils of the war in which he himself had been fought, if necessary to secure a compromise. Having himself steered Germany through two major crises without war--the Moroccan Crisis of 1905-6 and the Bosnian crisis of 1908-9--he felt no need to make excuses for anyone else or spare his countrymen any unpleasant facts. Knowing every major European language fluently, having lived much of his adult life abroad, and having read widely in both the ancient and modern languages (although, most untypically for a German, he had no interest in music), he balanced his passionate loyalty to his own country with an acute sense of its strengths and weaknesses in comparison to others. Here, for instance, is a characteristic passage about German attitudes towards Britain and France:
"Even those Germans who were familiar with England's long and successful history, and who were not so naïive in judging her unlimited political egotism as the majority of their fellow countrymen, had only an incomplete idea of the strength of the English people and of the English national character generally. The old German mistake of interpreting important questions of international policy and events on the world's stage and the peoples of the world in the light of narrow German Party politics also affected the Germans' judgment of hte English. The German Democrat, and particularly the German Social Democrat, looked at Tsarist Russia with grim eyes; his thoughtful forehead grew red with 'angry indignation' when good or will more intimate relations with this 'barbaric country' were suggested to him. For a long time many democratic Germans judged all Frenchmen in the light of the Dreyfus affair. . . .German conservatives, on the other hand, regarded the 'nation of shopkeepers' [Britain] with contempt. They looked with mocking eyes upon Wellington who, when he was surprised by a sudden rain while he was conducting a parade, quickly opened an umbrella which some one handed to him, and they scorned a country where the sons of dukes became clerks in banking houses."
Although Bülow never seems to have visited the United States--certainly not before the First World War--he had a keen sense of our potential importance on the world stage, and, as he explains, worked for good relations with the US as feelings between Britain and Germany became worse. "Kaiser William II," he wrote, "was not difficult to win over to my standpoint and my efforts to promote it. The active, enterprising, daring and unwearied American was a type who by reason of his very individuality was bound to appeal to His Majesty the Kaiser. The American multi-millionaire, who was then beginning to come over to Europe more often, pleased the German Emperor in a veyr high degree. . . .Theodore Roosevelt, the President of the United States, exercised a quite particular fascination over the Kaiser. 'That's my man!' he used to say, as soon as the name of Roosevelt was mentioned. He read in dispatched from our ambassador that Roosevelt performed feats of riding equal to those of a cowboy, that he could hit the bull's-eye with deadly marksmanship at a prodigious distance, that his spirit was unquenchable, fearless, and ready for anything. But, as was often the case with William II, the danger of exaggeration marred ideas that were correct enough in their inception."
Bülow's relationship to his sovereign, indeed, provides most of the drama of the two middle volumes of the memoirs. Reading about William II, and thinking meanwhile of American Presidents like Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush, it seems astonishing how little influence forms of government, whether democratic or monarchical, seem to have upon the personalities of those who, by such different routes, become heads of state. (Of course, in Bush's case the results were not altogether different from those of a European monarch.) The split between Bülow and William was largely generational. Bülow, who in the Franco-Prussian war had participated in the last act of Bismarck's creation of the German Empire, and who had spent the first twenty years of his career as a diplomat under Bismarck, was as devoted to the memory and the legacy of the Iron Chancellor as LBJ was to that of FDR. He shared Bismarck's view that Germany was already large enough--indeed, perhaps a little too large--and that there was nothing to gain from any European war. He also understood the domestic compromises between absolutism and constitutional government that Bismarck had forged, and knew that the German people, while loyal to the monarchy, no longer had any use for absolutism. But William II (like Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson) had been merely a child during his country's last great crisis, and made up for his lack of actual military experience with emotional bombast. His lack of self-restraint, like Johnson's, Nixon's, and (as I believe we shall eventually learn) Bush's, gave his subordinates many difficult problems to solve. Again and again Bülow listened to William make an impromptu and indiscreet speech on the danger of foreign war or the divine right of kings, and hastened to plead with any reporters present not to report the Emperor's remarks until he, Bülow, had had a chance to edit them. I always feel that Bülow's memoirs resemble what Henry Kissinger's might have been had he been willing to tell the exact truth about his own head of state. And never is Bülow, the combat veteran, more scathing than when he dismisses his chief's warlike statements and marginal notes on diplomatic documents. "William II," he wrote, "did not want war. He feared it. . . .William II did not want war, if only because he did not trust his nerves not to give way in any really critical situation. The moment there was danger, His Majesty became uncomfortably aware that he could never lead an Army in the field. He knew that he was neurasthenic, without real capacity as a General, and still less able, despite his naval hobby, of commanding a squadron or even captaining a ship."
One does not have to look far, indeed, for passages reminiscent of recent American history. "[William II] never understood that one cannot imitate genius. He wanted to substitute genius by 'Divine Right,' but the latter cannot be acquired by force, even if the ruler, who craves divine grace, proclaims himself again and again to be an instrument of heaven and a keepr of God's household. There were times when William II, as the son of his rationalist mother, believed that considerable innate talents, activity and English common sense played a greater role in the world than genius. If necessary, he would attain his ends by force, by the police and the army. Kaiser William II's megalomania was encouraged by flattering courtiers and, regrettable as it is, by unscrupulous scholars as well, just as the megalomania of other rulers, such as blind King George of Hannover, as the Stuarts in England, and the Bourbons in France, was encouraged by their entourage."
Bülow's fall, ironically, took place largely because he failed in 1908 to perform his most critical task, and allowed an interview William had given to a British correspondent of the Daily Telegraph to be published without having gone over it himself. In it, the Emperor took credit for having given the British the plan that had enabled them to win the Boer War, thereby enraging not only the British public, but his own, since Germans had almost unanimously sympathized with the Boers. The storm of protest threatened to bring down the monarchy, and William, who did not feel that Bülow had taken enough of the responsibility for the disaster, took the next opportunity to accept his resignation.
The qualities of real statesmanship to which Bülow so often refers--especially the need to see the world as it is, to understand the thoughts of feelings of other nations, and realistically to assess the needs of one's own nation--seem to be both rare, and distributed more or less at random throughout the human race. To have such a person actually ascend to a position of great power seems to be a fortunate accident--and such men and women, like all the rest of us, eventually fall from power and die. Thus it behooves us both to study and to understand them. That is why it is so sad that college history students are given so little opportunity to do so now.
This blog is about current and historical events, not the state of academia, but I have referred frequently to the decline of my profession, an opportunity has now arisen for me to let readers see what I am talking about. During the last month there has been another controversy about the state of history on the internet list, H-Diplo, which deals with the history of international relations, and on which I have been a very regular contributor for about 15 years. The thread can be followed on the net--it begins innocently enough here, but eventually becomes quite a bit more heated and revealing. It will give any lay person, I think, a good idea of what is going on in the halls of academe, which in my opinion are every bit as much in need of a housecleaning and a re-orientation as Wall Street.

26 Comments:

Anonymous Jim Baxter said...

2009 AD: The Season of Generation-Choicemaker
Joel 3:14 Psalm 25:12 kjv
Consider:
The missing element in every human 'solution'
is an accurate definition of the creature.

In an effort to diminish the multiple and persistent
dangers and abuses which have characterized the
affairs of man in his every Age, and to assist in the
requisite search for human identity, it is essential to
perceive and specify that distinction which naturally
and most uniquely defines the human being.

Because definitions rule in the minds, behaviors, and
institutions of men, we can be confident that delineating
and communicating that quality will assist the process
of resolution and the courageous ascension to which
man is called. As Americans of the 21st Century, we are
obliged and privileged to join our forebears and participate
in this continuing paradigm proclamation.

"WHAT IS MAN...?" God asks - and answers:
HUMAN DEFINED: EARTH'S CHOICEMAKER
by James Fletcher Baxter (c) 2009 AD

The way we define 'human' determines our view of self,
others, relationships, institutions, life, and future. Many
problems in human experience are the result of false
and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised
in man-made religions and humanistic philosophies.

Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe.
The balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human
reason cannot fully function in such a void; thus, the
intellect can rise no higher than the criteria by which it
perceives and measures values.

Humanism makes man his own standard of measure.
However, as with all measuring systems, a standard
must be greater than the value measured. Based on
preponderant ignorance and an egocentric carnal
nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton
task of excuse-making in behalf of the rule of appe-
tites, desires, feelings, emotions, - and glands.

Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament,
cannot invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist
lacks a predictive capability. Thus, his man-made criteria
rises no higher than eyebrows - and too often, no higher
than pubic hair! Without instinct or transcendent criteria,
humanism cannot evaluate options with foresight and
vision for progression and survival. Lacking foresight,
man is blind to potential consequence and is unwittingly
committed to mediocrity, collectivism, averages, and re-
gression - and worse. Humanism is an unworthy worship.

The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with
a functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the
foot-dragging growth of human knowledge and behav-
ior. Faith, initiated by the Creator and revealed and
validated in His Word, the Bible, brings a transcend-
ent standard to man the choice-maker. Other philo-
sophies and religions are man-made, humanism, and
thereby lack what only the Bible has:

1.Transcendent Criteria and
2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation.

The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival
equipment for today and the future. Only the Creator,
who made us in His own image, is qualified to define
us accurately.

Human is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by
nature and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of
Criteria. Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive
characteristic is, and of Right ought to be, the natural
foundation of his environments, institutions, and re-
spectful relations to his fellow-man. Thus, he is orien-
ted to a Freedom whose roots are in the Order of the
universe. selah

At the sub-atomic level of the physical universe quantum
physics indicates a multifarious gap or division in the
causal chain; particles to which position cannot be
assigned at all times, systems that pass from one energy
state to another without manifestation in intermediate
states, entities without mass, fields whose substance is
as insubstantial as "a probability."

Only statistical conglomerates pay tribute to
deterministic forces. Singularities do not and are
therefore random, unpredictable, mutant, and in this
sense, uncaused. The finest contribution inanimate
reality is capable of making toward choice, without its
own selective agencies, is this continuing manifestation
of opportunity as the pre-condition to choice it defers
to the natural action of living forms.

Biological science affirms that each level of life,
single-cell to man himself, possesses attributes of
sensitivity, discrimination, and selectivity, and in
the exclusive and unique nature of each diversified
life form.

The survival and progression of life forms has all too
often been dependent upon the ever-present undeterminative
potential and appearance of one unique individual organism
within the whole spectrum of a given life-form. Only the
uniquely equipped individual organism is, like The Golden
Wedge of Ophir, capable of traversing the causal gap to
survival and progression. Mere reproductive determinacy
would have rendered life forms incapable of such potential.

Only a moving universe of opportunity plus choice enables
the present reality.

Each individual human being possesses a unique, highly
developed, and sensitive perception of variety. Thus
aware, man is endowed with a natural capability for enact-
ing internal mental and external physical selectivity.
Quantitative and qualitative choice-making thus lends
itself as the superior basis of an active intelligence.

Human is earth's Choicemaker. His title describes
his definitive and typifying characteristic. Recall
that his other features are but vehicles of experi-
ence intent on the development of perceptive
awareness and the following acts of decision and
choice. Note that the products of man cannot define
him for they are the fruit of the discerning choice-
making process and include the cognition of self,
the utility of experience, the development of value-
measuring systems and language, and the accultur-
ation of civilization.

The arts and the sciences of man, as with his habits,
customs, and traditions, are the creative harvest of
his perceptive and selective powers. Creativity, the
creative process, is a choice-making process. His
articles, constructs, and commodities, however
marvelous to behold, deserve neither awe nor idol-
atry, for man, not his contrivance, is earth's own
highest expression of the creative process.

Human is earth's Choicemaker. The sublime and
significant act of choosing is, itself, the Archimedean
fulcrum upon which man levers and redirects the
forces of cause and effect to an elected level of qual-
ity and diversity. Further, it orients him toward a
natural environmental opportunity, freedom, and
bestows earth's title, The Choicemaker, on his
singular and plural brow.

Deterministic systems, ideological symbols of abdication
by man from his natural role as earth's Choicemaker,
inevitably degenerate into collectivism; the negation of
singularity, they become a conglomerate plural-based
system of measuring human value. Blunting an awareness
of diversity, blurring alternatives, and limiting the
selective creative process, they are self-relegated to
a passive and circular regression.

Tampering with man's selective nature endangers his
survival for it would render him impotent and obsolete
by denying the tools of variety, individuality,
perception, criteria, selectivity, and progress.
Coercive attempts produce revulsion, for such acts
are contrary to an indeterminate nature and nature's
indeterminate off-spring, man the Choicemaker.

Until the oppressors discover that wisdom only just
begins with a respectful acknowledgment of The Creator,
The Creation, and The Choicemaker, they will be ever
learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.
The rejection of Creator-initiated standards relegates
the mind of man to its own primitive, empirical, and
delimited devices. It is thus that the human intellect
cannot ascend and function at any level higher than the
criteria by which it perceives and measures values.

Additionally, such rejection of transcendent criteria
self-denies man the vision and foresight essential to
decision-making for survival and progression. He is left,
instead, with the redundant wreckage of expensive hind-
sight, including human institutions characterized by
averages, mediocrity, and regression.

Humanism, mired in the circular and mundane egocentric
predicament, is ill-equipped to produce transcendent
criteria. Evidenced by those who do not perceive
superiority and thus find themselves beset by the shifting
winds of the carnal-ego; i.e., moods, feelings, desires,
appetites, etc., the mind becomes subordinate: a mere
device for excuse-making and rationalizing self-justifica-
tion.

The carnal-ego rejects criteria and self-discipline for such
instruments are tools of the mind and the attitude. The
appetites of the flesh have no need of standards for at the
point of contention standards are perceived as alien, re-
strictive, and inhibiting. Yet, the very survival of our
physical nature itself depends upon a maintained sover-
eignty of the mind and of the spirit.

It remained, therefore, to the initiative of a personal
and living Creator to traverse the human horizon and
fill the vast void of human ignorance with an intelli-
gent and definitive faith. Man is thus afforded the
prime tool of the intellect - a Transcendent Standard
by which he may measure values in experience, anticipate
results, and make enlightened and visionary choices.

Only the unique and superior God-man Person can deserved-
ly displace the ego-person from his predicament and free
the individual to measure values and choose in a more
excellent way. That sublime Person was indicated in the
words of the prophet Amos, "...said the Lord, Behold,
I will set a plumbline in the midst of my people Israel."
Y'shua Mashiyach Jesus said, "If I be lifted up I will
draw all men unto myself."

As long as some choose to abdicate their personal reality
and submit to the delusions of humanism, determinism, and
collectivism, just so long will they be subject and re-
acting only, to be tossed by every impulse emanating from
others. Those who abdicate such reality may, in perfect
justice, find themselves weighed in the balances of their
own choosing.

That human institution which is structured on the
principle, "...all men are endowed by their Creator with
...Liberty...," is a system with its roots in the natural
Order of the universe. The opponents of such a system are
necessarily engaged in a losing contest with nature and
nature's God. Biblical principles are still today the
foundation under Western Civilization and the American
way of life. To the advent of a new season we commend the
present generation and the "multitudes in the valley of
decision."

Let us proclaim it. Behold!
The Season of Generation-Choicemaker Joel 3:14 KJV

CONTEMPORARY COMMENTS
"I should think that if there is one thing that man has
learned about himself it is that he is a creature of
choice." Richard M. Weaver

"Man is a being capable of subduing his emotions and
impulses; he can rationalize his behavior. He arranges
his wishes into a scale, he chooses; in short, he acts.
What distinguishes man from beasts is precisely that he
adjusts his behavior deliberately." Ludwig von Mises

"To make any sense of the idea of morality, it must be
presumed that the human being is responsible for his
actions and responsibility cannot be understood apart
from the presumption of freedom of choice."
John Chamberlain

"The advocate of liberty believes that it is complementary
of the orderly laws of cause and effect, of probability
and of chance, of which man is not completely informed.
It is complementary of them because it rests in part upon
the faith that each individual is endowed by his Creator
with the power of individual choice."
Wendell J. Brown

"These examples demonstrate a basic truth -- that human
dignity is embodied in the free choice of individuals."
Condoleeza Rice

"Our Founding Fathers believed that we live in an ordered
universe. They believed themselves to be a part of the
universal order of things. Stated another way, they
believed in God. They believed that every man must find
his own place in a world where a place has been made for
him. They sought independence for their nation but, more
importantly, they sought freedom for individuals to think
and act for themselves. They established a republic
dedicated to one purpose above all others - the preserva-
tion of individual liberty..." Ralph W. Husted

"We have the gift of an inner liberty so far-reaching
that we can choose either to accept or reject the God
who gave it to us, and it would seem to follow that the
Author of a liberty so radical wills that we should be
equally free in our relationships with other men.
Spiritual liberty logically demands conditions of outer
and social freedom for its completion." Edmund A. Opitz

"Above all I see an ability to choose the better from the
worse that has made possible life's progress."
Charles Lindbergh

"Freedom is the Right to Choose, the Right to create for
oneself the alternatives of Choice. Without the possibil-
ity of Choice, and the exercise of Choice, a man is not
a man but a member, an instrument, a thing."
Thomas Jefferson

THE QUESTION AND THE ANSWER
Q: "What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son
of man that You visit him?" Psalm 8:4
A: "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against
you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing
and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and
your descendants may live." Deuteronomy 30:19

Q: "Lord, what is man, that You take knowledge of him?
Or the son of man, that you are mindful of him?" Psalm
144:3
A: "And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose
for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the
gods which your fathers served that were on the other
side of the river, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose
land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will
serve the Lord." Joshua 24:15

Q: "What is man, that he could be pure? And he who is
born of a woman, that he could be righteous?" Job 15:14
A: "Who is the man that fears the Lord? Him shall He
teach in the way he chooses." Psalm 25:12

Q: "What is man, that You should magnify him, that You
should set Your heart on him?" Job 7:17
A: "Do not envy the oppressor and choose none of his
ways." Proverbs 3:31

Q: "What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son
of man that You take care of him?" Hebrews 2:6
A: "I have chosen the way of truth; your judgments I have
laid before me." Psalm 119:30 "Let Your hand become my
help, for I have chosen Your precepts."Psalm 119:173

References:
Genesis 3:3,6 Deuteronomy 11:26-28; 30:19 Job 5:23
Isaiah 7:14-15; 13:12; 61:1 Amos 7:8 Joel 3:14
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

DEDICATION

Sir Isaac Newton
The greatest scientist in human history
a Bible-Believing Christian
an authority on the Bible's Book of Daniel
committed to individual value
and individual liberty

Daniel 9:25-26 Habakkuk 2:2-3 selah

"What is man...?" Earth's Choicemaker Psalm 25:12

http://www.blogger.com/profile/4744267


An old/new paradigma - Mr. Jefferson would agree!
(Alternative? There is no alternative.)

No one is smarter than their criteria. selah


Semper Fidelis
Jim Baxter
Sgt. USMC
WW II and Korean War
point-man/follower of The Lion of Judah

8:40 AM  
Blogger Antiquated Tory said...

Thanks for the Bulow stuff. Dead interesting, and I'll be following your blog from now on.

Sorry about the crazy people.

If you develop a taste for crazy, I have this acquaintance in S Saxony who keeps forwarding me the most mind boggling Christian-antigov-rightist American conspiracy crap you ever could(n't) imagine. For extra bizarreness, her source is from Ohio, my home state (yes, I'm American, wife's English, live in CZ, write in a particular style, long story). So I ended up getting a petition for Ohio to secede from the Union, forwarded by someone living in Seifhennersdorf. Would be happy to share it with you. Some fine FEMA death camp amateur YouTube footage, too.

No, I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to take me up on that offer...

10:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a good thing God is in charge and not you people!

10:45 PM  
Blogger Andy said...

Dr. David Kaiser,
Thank you for your commitment to express your opinions. I have recently read a few of your postings, one forwarded via email, and have found reason and strength in your thought processes. I will continue to forward your links with the emails I send.
I would like to request your email address so others may forward their responses to you also.

Thank you again,

Andrew

2:17 PM  
Blogger Kelana Latimer said...

I am one of the many people who found your blog while researching the incorrectly attributed article you have mentioned. Let me just say that I am SO relieved you didn't write it. I suspected the attribution was false because I couldn't imagine that a person with your credentials would write such a piece and with such wording. As soon as I saw the snopes entry I replied all with the correct info as well as a link to your blog.

I also want to say that I am sorry I didn't know you existed before. I am very happy to have found your blog and plan to continue to read it. I am a 20 something woman with a wider worldview than most of the people around me. It can be very difficult at times being the only person interested in truly understanding the truth of what is, and has been, going on in the world, while everyone around me seems happy to forward inflammatory political articles without checking sources. I was beginning to despair that no one actually researches anything before making an argument.

Thank you for writing this blog. I am now inspired to read some of your books as well as others. I feel I can no longer afford to be in the dark about what has been happening in the world, as history is the key to understanding what is happening now.

Thanks again,
Kelana Latimer

12:34 PM  
Anonymous Neil said...

Doctor, as a degreed student of History, a soldier of 33 years, a non-Republican, successful family man and a citizen of some 64 years I find your diatribe lacking i objectivity and soaked in the fluids of pure progressivism. Much to your non amazement you have left out a vital set of data concerning the American Socialist Party and their leading candidate, Norman Thomas, who espoused Democratic Socialism. Thomas, also a founder of the ACLU, determined that there was no further need for the Socialist Party because the Democratic Party had adopted their platform. Sir, you have lost your objectivity and found a marvelous way of articulating data into you opinion, just what you accuse the 'post-print media'. Burton Folsom Jr. does an equally wonderful job of using economic facts to dispel your Roosevelt sveltness. Thomas Sowell discredits your understanding, and I might add your fear mongering opinion, of the influences of capitalism and the essence of sound economic policy devoid of non-economic social rhetoric.

Your use of data and the mixture of facts to promulgate an opinion and your outright political support of any political agenda, is shameful. Your excellent placement of Roosevelt's splendid oration at his inauguration speech is a classic example. The man was an unequivocal failure at every business venture he attempted, and there were many. To suppose that his oratory was indicative of his “brilliance” at leading the country out of the depression is ludicrous factually. The nation was worse of in 1938 in every aspect of recovery than it was in 1933, as reported by the Roosevelt administration!

Sir, I am unsettled by the extreme lack intellectual honesty our leadership has displayed over my recent lifetime. I am dismayed that the average American can not and does not read. I am dismayed that the average American does not seek discernment of issues. I am dismayed that the average American looks for help rather than helping. Yet sir, espousing that equality of outcome, a pot in every home, government ownership of manufacturing, government ownership of banking, government marriage to labor unions and congressional legislation of hate speech is a new order brought in by a new yet more brilliant leader is a great disservice t the public and your profession.
Neil Nelson

10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, stay with me on this...it might get a little confusing.

Orwell is laughing has ass off right now and saying to himself, SEE!? I TOLD you how it would one day be.

I forwarded you this email earlier regarding this historian, who, after reading his article, I felt it worthy to share with you because it does indeed draw historical corollaries to where we stand at this moment as a nation.
But, as someone once said...no good deed goes unpunished!

Now, pay attention, because here is, as Paul Harvey used to say, the REST of the story.

David Kaiser is actually a rabid proponent of so-called "progressive" (read socialist) thought.

THAT'S RIGHT Virginia, he is on the opposite side!!!!

Well, then, why would he write this? That is a very, very good question. It all begins with a "stalking horse" and a man trying to tell you that there is no elephant in the room...when there damn sure is. In this case, the stalking horse is the truth, stated plainly with no obfuscation, a bare description with nothing for it to hide behind or be assaulted as not being based on fact. But a stalking horse, in debate, is (shrewdly) built to knock down in front of your opponent, after you have trapped him. It is the debate equivalent of the ropa-dope.

Now, here is what could be seen as confusing...wait for it....

He put the truth out there, so that on his blog he could deny it, NOT because it isn’t true to the facts of history, but because he is a long time progressive and he can therefore obfuscate these blatant truths by now claiming he didn’t write them, and thus, they must be patently false, otherwise (as he says when he claims he didn’t write it) why would not the REAL writer lay claim to it. He is laughing at those who are not "down" with the progressives agenda and at the same time saying we are all too stupid to perpetrate a false attribution correctly - which he knows it isnt false, because he wrote it in the first place and went viral with it to bring people to his website!

This is truly brilliant. How do you deny the truth, if you are on the side of lies, and the truth is slowly trying to come to the fore, no matter what you do to stop it? You tell the truth in your own name and then claim false attribution, which makes it seem as if the actual facts in the article are also somehow suspect in and of themselves. THEY ARE NOT. FACTS ARE FACTS.

See? Told you it might sound confusing.

We are being lied to people. By professional LIARS. By artful LIARS. By thieves who tell LIES to steal. (And what they are stealing is your FREEDOM and the FREEDOM of our children!) They will even tell you the truth in such a way that LIES can be used to repudiate it. Conniving, scheming, disingenuous LIARS. When you are in the bread line, remember who deserves your anger...it will be your own private hell of self recrimination. (I say "you" only to distinguish from my own person...because I am getting the hell out before that. And I hope and pray none of us end up in a bread line...but that wont matter because you cant eat HOPE.)

5:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How long are the people of this country going to continue going home each night and turn on the "Mind numbing media” and allow themselves to be FORCE FED LIES.

I am telling you all now, this country is in for one hell of a shock soon. And if we don’t wake up, act like grown ups, DEMAND that our reprehensable representatives do the peoples work - well, there will just be one more sad sack, third world, corrupt to the core, nation sitting in that den of thieves at the UN...The United States of America.

All we have to do is continue to do nothing. Don't trouble yourself with repealing the 17th amendment, dont fire every single congresman on the hill, don't stand up for your rights Guaranteed by God (as our Creator) and the Constitution. Dont stand up...KNEEL before the throne of Federal POWER.

NO. I WILL NOT. No Man is My Master.

OR....Teach your kids the humanist salutation now, so they can blend in more effectively when the brown shirts knock on your door.
ALL HAIL NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM

Sure, go on and laugh...(I can hear you from here.) Some of the jokes are only funny now. They wont be later.

5:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RX Pharmacy Online. Get Cheap Medication online. Buy Pills Central.
[url=http://buypillscentral.com/buy-generic-viagra-online.html]Get Cheap Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, Tamiflu[/url]. canadian generic pills. Discount medications pharmacy

7:20 AM  
Blogger bitheads said...

I don’t know If I said it already, but this so good stuff keep up the good work. I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part Berita di Blogosphere just wanted to make a quick comment to say I’m glad I found your blog. Thanks.

Best regards
Seo Motivation Blogosphere news

2:06 PM  
Anonymous Vienka said...

Berbagi Informasi Menarik dan Tips Bermanfaat All About Photography

3:04 PM  
Anonymous Aku Cuma Seorang Blogger Yang Cinta Seo said...

Aku Cuma Seorang Blogger Yang Cinta Seo

11:52 PM  
Anonymous Black Tungsten Wedding Bands said...

Nice sharing :)

9:14 PM  
Anonymous Florida DUI Lawyer said...

Great sharing brother

5:48 PM  
Anonymous Tungsten Wedding Bands said...

Thanks very much

5:48 PM  
Anonymous Mens Wedding Bands said...

Great sharing .. thanks

5:49 PM  
Anonymous Lala said...

It's really a nice article. I also agree with you. Your suggestion is also very unique and fruitful.
Thanks.

3:35 PM  
Anonymous instant weight loss said...

Interesting! I like your blog. You make a lot of sense. I was reading it and somehow I learned something new. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

Learn more about instant weight loss at http://www.fastestwayweightloss.com/ .

2:33 AM  
Anonymous Lowongan Kerja Favorit said...

i found your article through search engine. thanks for the share. maybe i'll back later.

11:50 PM  
Anonymous Katrina said...

I like the way you write. Your style is very smooth and I enjoy reading your posts. I'm headed to the dentist but will be back later

9:13 AM  
Anonymous Nefa said...

You got a really useful blog. I have been here reading for about an hour. I am a newbie and your success is very much an inspiration for me.

5:59 PM  
Anonymous Wedding dresses 2010 said...

Let me start by saying nice post. Im not sure if it has been talked about, but when using Chrome I can never get the entire site to load without refreshing many times. Could just be my computer. Thanks.

4:32 AM  
Anonymous Rizals said...

What youre saying is completely true. I know that everybody must say the same thing, but I just think that you put it in a way that everyone can understand. I also love the images you put in here. They fit so well with what youre trying to say. Im sure youll reach so many people with what youve got to say.

7:58 AM  
Anonymous Lunch in Dublin said...

Interesting! I was reading it and somehow I was enlighten of what matters in our lives. I know that this post is quit old but still makes a lot of sense with me and it was a great help. Thanks for sharing it with us. Kudos!

8:49 AM  
Anonymous lesbian bondage said...

Great website, looks very clean and organized.

2:55 PM  
Blogger WaaayNorthOf96th said...

I had been initially confused by your statement, "Reasonable men and women can differ over the wisdom and propriety of his decision to write the piece and the Times's decision to run it...," but, having read the comments on this post, I am afraid I understand it too well.

I have gotten away from reading history and historiography over the years. Perhaps I shall begin reading your blog.

Thank you.

9:03 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


Stereo 411