Old Historians

If you are into politics, this post is not for you. It is for those interested in History.

History has always been a fascination of mine. Ever since I was eight. However, being a conservative, means I could never get into a history graduate program, much less a job teaching the subject. So instead I get interested in political stuff. However, most of what I read in my free time involved history.

A lot of it is so-called "popular histories." These are books that are written for a broad audience, not specialty audiences. Despite having taken a lot of history courses, my training was still deficient, so there is a lot to learn in many, many aspects of historical knowledge.

Popular historians, or those that write for more than just specialists, have a little problem. While they may get greater and greater expertise as they age, they seem to lose the ability to lose the big picture. So as they get closer and closer to time, they become chronologists, rather than analysts. Which ruins their books.

Here is how they do it. When they look at the past, before they became specialists, they provide a summary, often a good summary, of what happened, and they often take all factors into account, and try to present all the dominant sides (unless you are Howard Zinn). However, when they start writing about the past when they were living, they provide ever, single, boring, detail, one which is inappropriate for the scope of the book. They have an inability to see the forest from the trees.

There is a place for providing a chronological history. But only if you are writing about a specific period of time, and the book is consistent. For example, if you were writing about contemporary Washington State, a historian could start in 1960, up to today, and say something like "Washington State History as I remember it." That would be an appropriate book, and probably, a good source.

Likewise, if you were going to analyze the past, you could go up to an end of an era, say, 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed. Expecially if you are, say, 40. After that, everything else is mundane, and best be left to future historian to analyze (although you could write a book called "contemporary Russia" and go into all those boring details).

But to present a book like "20th Century Russia" and do the former up to 1945, and the latter beyond 1945, makes for a lousy book. It is essentially bait-and-switch marketing, for you setting a reader's expectations as to what you will present (superior analysis), but only doing that up to a certain point, then going into boring, mundane details, without the analysis.

I really do not think that historians honestly expect to mislead. I think that they simply do not have the ability to analyze their era. That is because they are far too much a part of it. And doing a truly honest analysis leads one to criticize their generation - hence themselves - which most people really do not want to do.

I break these types of historians into two categories. One is the expert. This is a person who often was a professor, and when young, were noticed to have a superior understanding of their field. Hence, they wrote a good history when they were young. However, they were often consulted, and they could sometimes change minor events. So they try to get themselves part of the history. As a result, they keep slapping on chapters to later editions, leading to a decline in the quality of the book

The other type is the observer. This is someone who may not have been an expert early in life, but have observed things, and wrote about them.

Most are the former. A few are of the latter. For many historians, as they come closer to contemporary times, they are not writing about their subject, they are writing about themselves. That is faulty, as almost no historians really get to make history. They are trying to lead the fantasy lead by Hugh Seton-Watson, a slavic specialist at Oxford about 100 years ago, who truly was instrumental in setting up either Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia - don't ask me for details, I kinda forget, so if you want to know, look them up yourselves!

Here is a list of books.

1) Edward Reichshauer, "Modern Japan" (or something like that).
He was a white guy born in Japan, So he really knew the place. In 1945, he wrote an excellent history up to the end of the war. He also was Kennedy's ambassador to the country. Also a leading specialist on it.
This was our textbook for Japanese History class. We had to read a bit each week. Howerver, as the last week was over the previous 40 years, we had to read the last 40 years in the book. Which was 1/2 of the book.
This is important in that the first 1/2 of the book was from 1850-1950. The time in Japanese history when real history took place. After MacArthur left, there really has been no history to write about. This could have been in one-two chapters.
Hence, his book is disjointed, and he tries to insert himself in there, I think at least twice.

2) Donald Treadgold, "Twentieth Century Russia."
Donald Treadgold was a UW professor who was one of the top Russian Scholars in the world. So famous, even my Russian History professor at my school in Russia (Gornyi Institute) knew much about him. Since he was old, and I was fascinated by Russian History 15 years ago, I had to meet him before I died - so I knocked on his door and shook his hand! His book really outlined Russian history well throughout the Revolutionary period, which ended about 1953.
However, after 1953, he does not know the underlying factors of what was happening in Russia. His book drones on and on. And when we get to the collapse of the Soviet Union, he does not even give a preface as to why it collapsed, but merely jumps into the cold water. Thus, it is not that good a book.
My professor of contemporary (i.e., Revolutionary and Soviet - I had her class in 1995) Russia would not use him, probably for this reason. And she taught at the UW. She used a right leaning author, Martin Malia, as her textbook - despite the fact she was a leftist. Malia did provide an analysis as to why everything happened, and since it collapsed at the very end of 1991, thus ending an era, it fit perfectly into our class (what happened three, two years ago is almost never truly "history" as everyone pretty much knows the dominent events of those two years). Her way of getting her point across was to dispute what he said.

3) Paul Johnson's books
Paul Johnson, being an Oxford scholar, likes to put lots and lots of facts into his books. Any one of his books is a mouthful - but so is any book written by a person who came from there (at least until recently). However, he did have an ability to provide relevant analysis in the time period before he came to maturity.
However, he sometimes misses the boat. For example, what was the most important social trent in America after World War II? Not hippiedom. It was the rise of the pop culture - as your average American is saturated in it. He did not notice it - as he should have, as the average Englishman is soaked in it, too. And who are the first real icons of this? Marilyn Monroe and Elvis. Despite their superficiality, they honestly do deserve a place in American history, since they play such an important role in it. However, he ignores it. And, despite the fact that his American history book is excellent before 1945, he kinda gets lost in the forest after that year.

4) Jules Whitcover, "The Party of the People."
Some publisher, I forget which, asked two people to write a history of our two major parties - one for the Democrats, one for the Republicans. The other author (Lewis Gould) wrote a book entitled "GOP". They are about the same length. Which presents a bit of a problem, since the Democrats are anywhere from 30-60 years older than the Republican party, depending on how you intrepet the birth of the Democrat party (there is no definite date one can point to where a bunch of guys got together to form the Democrat Party, as a bunch of guys got together in 1854 in Wisconsin to create the Republican party; and indeed, there is an argument as to who can claim the mantle of Jefferson's party - I will go into this later).
So, Mr. Whitcover, a partisan journalist, has less to work with. Does he find approprate use of the limited space? No. Instead, he rushes thru the book to get to his era, so he can put himself into the book whenever possible His book is about the mundane power struggles for the presidential nomination of the party. Nothing is mentioned about the changes in ideological trends driving the party, barely anything mentioned about the policies of the Presidents, how they governed. etc. For example, the reader walks away having almost no knowledge of what constituted the New Deal, the holy grail of that party. And it's almost like William Jennings Bryant merely walked onto a stage, gave a speech, and - voila! - the Democrats were magically transformed from the party of Wall Street to a populist party. Almost half of the book is beyond 1958, when the author makes his first appearance.
On the other hand, the companion book, GOP, really does a good job of analyzing how overall party history He tells of the shifting ideological trends, gives some of the details of the presidential policies, and talks about more than presidents - a Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, had a big impact on the history of the Republican party. If there was a Democrat Gingrich, for example, he would barely be more than a footnote in Mr. Whitcover's book.
Why the difference? Mr. Whitcover was a partisan Democrat, and Mr. Gould was an admirer of the GOP, but not a partisan. So Mr. Whitcover took too much a part in Democrat history, while Mr. Gould could be a much more impartial observer. Again, that old disease. While some scholars like the Democrat book better than the Republican book, they claim that is because it is "more scholarly". Actually, all these details are outside the scope of the book, for a person who knows as much of the Democrat party as Mr. Gould writes about the Republican party would be a specialist, and does not need a global history of the Democrat party. To be this "scholarly" one needs a book that would constitue The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party" (by Michael Holt.) when he had limited space to do so.

5) "The Conservative Revolution" by Lee Edwards
As "The Conservative Revolution" occurred over most of his lifetime, it makes for a terrible book. He has this same "old historian" disease, and he is an observer.
Lee Edwards did have an influence in the conservative movement since the 1960's. However, he wrote his book in 1998. And his book begins with Robert Taft.
While this is a good attempt to try to outline the conservative movement, he really does the opposite - he analyzes the early days, but spends most of the time in the contemporary era. Hence, it makes for a terrible book, as it reads like my high school newspaper, the Lexington. And almost all high school students really can't write that well (as it takes years and writing hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces to truly develop your own style).
As liberal historians regarded conservatives as mere reactionaries, and part of the past, (so no need to write about them) there has been no honest attempt to seriously analyze how the movement arose, (since, according to them, it would fade soon). However, since it has had a presense as a movement for 50 years, and now completely controls the lawmaking branch of goverment, historians are now beginning to try to address what happened. And a consensus appears to be starting to develop that the American right began not with Robert, but with William, Taft (great-grandfather of current Ohio Governor Bob Taft) - the president Taft,
Mr. Edwards should really have written an autobiography, and waited for other conservative historials to publish a history of the movement. He has a lot to say about his participation, and that could have been used for future uses. However, since he was too much a part of the movement, he really lacks the analytical ability to write a truly representative history of the movement.

One more book is a not a history, but a collection of documents. "Great Issues in American History - 1864 - 1981". The author is Richard Hofstadter. But he died in 1970, so his wife Beatrice threw more stuff in up to 1981, to make it "current."

However, there was a lot chosen since World War II that was not really important, and some important documents were left out. This happens when you are 75. For example, Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" television speech of 1964 is left out. And what is the most important court case of the 20th century. Some may say "Brown v Board" (which is included) but some may saw Roe v. Wade. This very important case is left out. While the "Malaise" speech is left in, Reagan's Inaguaral Address (one of the most memorable and important since Kennedy's) was left out. And although the Carter-Reagan debate is left in, only part of it is - the only important part of that debate, the phrase "There you go again" is left out.

I had first presented this problem in a paper on the history of science (specifically, on the history of Darwininean Evolution). I suggested that the reason why Louis Agassiz did not "get with it" on evolution was he was old and Darwin was not. Now, granted, I was under the influence of Butthead at the time, and my teacher disagreed (they were only a few ages apart), but sometimes, folklore presents where the fool has the wisdom. And as I read these macro- (or global) histories, I can see more and more that my Butthead theory of historical writing does have some merit.

One author appears to have become hooked to slapping more and more parts to his history, but then realized what he had done, so did a hatchet job on those later parts. I have only read the most recent edition of "The Conservative Mind", a series of biographies of conservatives before essentially the birth of the American Right. By Russell Kirk. Pretty much a superb history. However, in his latest edition, he mentions that he had added some contemporary figures in prior editions, but then realized that he needed to take them out. He apparently understood that due to the fact that he was part of the contemporary history, he really did not have the tools to analyze his era, and is letting later historians do the job (although he failed to include Albert J Nock, whom I consider to be the bridge between the "conservative movement" of today and the old style, "traditionalist" conservatives that Mr. Kirk writes about).

While I have not had any course of historiography, I do not know if historians have realized this problem, but I think that they should address. For it will better help out in our understanding of the past, how it is taught, and be able to pass this on to those not so historically inclined.

MLK Day Observations

Today was MLK day. The high day in the leftists' calender. A day to "celebrate diversity."

And what better way to do so than with the Golden Globe Awards. In fact, given the awards, a perfect day to show what they mean by diversity. The winners were Bareback Mounting, a film about the joys of transvestism, and a film glorifying suicide bombing. This is the diversity that should so be honored!!!

Everyone who mentions Bareback Mounting focuses on one thing - the sexual orientation of the gay shephards. That's right, shephards. These men were not cowboys. As I mentioned in a previous post, just because you drive a pickup truck, own a gun, wear a cowboy hat and boots, and live somewhere in the west, does not make you a cowboy. You see, you have to watch over - cows. Those things that go moo. You see, if you are gay, a sissy, wear a pink tutu, drive a Honda prius, and denouce guns, but you watch over cows, then you are a cowboy. Watching over cattle is the one defining thing that make a cowboy (well, at least if you are a male) - all those other cultural artifacts do not matter.

And, given my powers of perception, there have probably been lots of gay cowboy movies, probably since around the time I have been born. I think that a gay cowboy would be the ultimate fantasy of many a gay man, just like a cheerleader is the ultimate fantasy of many a straight man. Remember the Village People? So I would suspect that lots of those movies have been made. Only that you do not read the reviews in the Sunday Times. And those movies probably have next to no plot, either, since that is a genre for which plot doesn't really matter. So Hollywood shouldn't have made such a big deal of this.

Well, time to get on to the other diversity things. As I mentioned before, Martin Luther King Jr was misnamed. He was named after the founder of a competing denomination. He was a Methodist, not a Lutheran, minister. Kinda like the head quarterback of the Seahawks being named Joe Namath Jones.

However, you do not hear about much about his religion - although that was his profession - from the diversity mongers. That is because diversity means no diversity when it comes to religion. There is only one right way to think, that being there is no god. So bigotry of race has been replaced by bigotry of religion in America today.

And we shall completely forget that Martin Luther King Jr's big work day was Sunday. Which is we he is called "Doctor", not "Reverend" Martin Luther King. However, would you entrust him to figure out a solution to that little cancer problem you have? Or would have have put faith in him to fix your fractured tibula. No, I think not. For he had no medical training. So that would mean - he taught in a university? Well, which one? And, what subject? Last I heard, he never taught in a university. That is because he was a minister. Duh. It was hit faith that pulled him through all that hatred that was going on down south, to get accomplished what needed to be accomplished. Even if he engaged in a little extracurricular action.

This leads to my third point (no, not that point - get your mind out of the gutter!) The reason no one celebrates this day, except for government workers. You see, just like he was discriminated against because he could not control the color of his skin, his birthdate will not be celebrated en masse because of something else he could not control - his birthday. He was born twenty days after Christmas. What does that have to do with anything? Well, employees want a break between New Years Day, and Memorial Day. So President's Day is a good day, as it is kinda in the middle. On January 15, they have had too much vacation already - at least four days off from work within a little more than a month. I think most employees like this day, because they can actually get things done. I usually do this day. And, traffic is good; there are no traffic jams. So I would rather get to work on a day with no traffic jams than one with them. I think that the imposition of a holiday two weeks from New Years Day would result in a lot of resistance at a lot of companies.

I have thought that a better day to celebrate, given his profession, could be around his baptismal day. His parents were probably pretty good Christians, so I would guess they would have baptised him within a few months of his birth. They would have needed to get the right baptismal equipment, meaning they may have needed to know his sex, given than in 1929, there was no ultrasound to determine a baby's sex, so it would have taken a while to get the right clothes. If one could look up his baptismal date - if that is available - I would guess it would have been sometime in March or early April. If a day were taken off to commerate his holiday at that time, I think that a lot more employees would push to have it off, a lot more companies would use this day rather than President's Day, and they would seem more diverse.

Not, of course, that they would do anything to honor him. What do most people do on President's Day anyway? Sleep in, run errands, etc. And I can guarantee that is what they would do on that holiday, too.

Of course, there would be tremendous resistance from the left. They would scream "church and state! Church and state!". Like parrots, like many of them are. Even if there were a lot more people taking this day off to commemorate this day, their hatred of Christianity would be much stronger than their committment to honor diversity. I think it would be worth it to propose this just to watch their knee-jerk bigotry flex come into action! Now that would be entertainment!!!

Whatever happend to "By the Content of their Character?"

Tomorrow is Martin Luther King day. You know, the day where we celebrate the life of a Methodist minister named after the founder of a competing denomination. Anyways, the left loves this day. It's almost their favorite day. This is a day they can put multiculturism on full display and make us love the fact we are such a diverse society (which they love, except when it comes to political opinions different than their own. Or diverse forms of Christianity. Then they get into a rage).

I think you remember him well. He is the guy who said "...when my children are not judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Actually, his kids today might be judged by neither, but rather, by the value of their portfolios. But I digress.

Since he made that speech in 1963, Americans are actually much less judged by character than at that time. At one time, character was an important attribute of a person. Today, character does not matter - which is why people scoff when Rush Limbaugh says it does. And which is why the left did not like it when Bill Clinton's character was attacked so much.

What is character. Basically, having good attributes. One who does not lie, cheat, steal, engages not in infidelity, who is honorable, who works for their keep, gives to charity, etc. Basically, a good person. On the other hand, a character is often someone who is the opposite. People with character are often nice people, too.

Over the last generation, with the emphasis on customer service, people without character, in otherwords, jerks, or people who think they are entitled to something they ought not be entitled to, have gotten the upper hand because "the customer is always right." So they get their way, by being mean.

So is this how we want to run society? By caterining the the unvirtuous? Often, it costs businesses a lot of resources to cater to them because "one bad customer tells ten others." I have a different theory. Birds of a feather flock together, so one bad customer tells ten others, most of whom are not quality customers to begin with.

You see, in the last generation, due to the ugly segregation of the past, Americans have gone from judging individuals on many factors (including inappropriate ones like race) to not judging anyone at all. So we still continue to let jerks fall thru the cracks, and give them an inordinate share of attention.

These are the guys yelling at waiters and waitresses over every little thing. These are the fathers screaming at the umpire - or referee - over a disputed call in their kids game. These are the pains-in-the-butt who abuse their power in homeowner's associations and give them bad names. There are many different ways in many aspects of life, both commercially and uncommercially. Rather than assertively (but nicely) pushing for their way, they go into their true natures and demand things be done their way right now!

The cost to society is very high.

Instead, I have a different proposal.

A new way of honoring the Reverand (not Doctor, you anti-Christian leftists) Martin Luther King Jr, to let him have his dream, is to not associate with jerks. If we have to, then make them the very last person on the list to be addressed. Or be put into a position of responsibility - including in many volunteer organizations. (Many volunteer organizations let them run things because they are the only ones to step forward, thinking it will attract more members, but in the long run, it chases members away). This involves backbone, as the jerk will constantly be yelling at you, and demanding attention. You will have to keep smiling and tell said jerk (or bitch, if a female), to wait their turn, as oftentimes, jerks try to circumvent the democratic way of doing things, when all other factors of "getting your way" are equal.

In that manner, by forcing jerks to change, or leave, we will be creating a truly better society.

Seattle's Curse

If you are not from Seattle, what do you associate with it? Usually, the first thing that comes to mind is rain, which we get practically every day here. Then, it's politics, which is only slightly to the right of San Francisco. Also, lattes come up, and so does Grunge.

For many people, too, the spectre of bad sports teams is a common characteristic of Seattle. For some reason, Seattle teams (those that matter, at least) enjoy staying below the .500 record - that is their comfort zone. I think it is due to the curse of Seattle. And, I think that is what will unfortunately lead the Seahawks to lose tomorrow.

Sure, the Seahawks look great. And they have the stats to show they can win. But, supernatural forces (which do exist, I know) can overcome stats. Especially in sports. And the sports gods have been very angry with Seattle for a very long time.

Lets look at Seattle sports history. How many times has Seattle, which is a fairly large city, won a national championship (in a relavent sport - soccer is a sport kids play and no adult watches). 2 1/2 times. We won the Stanley Cup in 1919 (if you think Seattle does not have an NHL team, you are correct - the Seattle team either left or disbanded a long, long time ago), the NBA championship in 1979, and the 1/2 of the National Championship in NCAA football in 1991 (the coaches voted the Huskies the best team, but the sportswriters awarded it to some school in Florida. The leftwing bias in the mainstream media is not the only bias there is - the east coast sports writers have a strong bias against west coast teams).

More evidence. In 2001, the Mariners had the highest seasonal record of any team for a long time. But, they did not make it to the World Series - they were beat out by the Yankees, who lost to the Diamonbacks, a much younger team than the Mariners. It has been a long time since the Seahawks have won a post-season game, and I believe that was in 1989. Holmgren's post-season record in Seattle is .000. And the last time the Sonics played for the NBA title (alright, I am totally ignorant of basketball), they played against Michael Jordan. I think the series was 0-4.

In fact, the Sonics are the only Seattle team to make it to a national championship. Never the Seahawks. Never the Mariners. And the Huskies? Have you seen them play this year? Even though we have had the best wide receiver in NFL history, Steve Largent, he was deprived of the opportunity to play in a Super Bowl by the sports gods.

Even more evidence. When everyone was bemoaning the Mariner's record this last year, I merely mentioned that they are back to their old habits. I.e., being the worst team in baseball, like they were 20 years ago and beyond. And the Huskies are the laughingstock of the Pac-10, if not the rest of NCAA division III. They are even worse than the Mariners!

Thus, I have this fear that tomorrow, there will be an upset in Seattle. I hope to God there is not, but I believe that due to the Seattle curse, there will be. If not tomorrow, it will be next week. If wrong, I will admit it.

Book Review - A Mighty Fortress

Whenever Americans think of Germany, the first thing that comes to mind is Adolf Hitler. Then, the next thing is Grimm's Fairy Tales. Then, beer. Then, regimentation, Mercedes', Porches', and VWs.

The book "A Mighty Fortress" (by Steven Ozment) attempts to tell the tale of Germany, from when the first tribes appeared in the Roman world - before 100 BC - to today. In it, he gives a very brief history of the German people.

First, about some details of the book. His version of Germany narrows throught the millenia. "Germany" essentially goes from the broad Teutonic tribes (which would include the Angles, the Scandinavians, and the Frisians), then narrows to the Frankish empire (from which modern France can claim more direct lineage than Germany), to the Holy Roman Empire, to Deutchland. He focuses a lot on Italy, too, in the early chapters.

There are also some serious deficiencies in his history. As a nation is most often defined by language, he fails to explain how all those dialects became "Deutch." While this may be unimportant in the history of many countries (for example, in the United States, the development of the American ethnicity has almost nothing to do with the miniscule changes in the English language that seperates "American English" (and it's dialects) from "classical English") , for Germany, it is crucial, for the synthetic rump defined the German people. This is why Austria had such a strong pull toward the German ethnicity - despite the fact that Austrian German is kind of like the well-known southern American accent.

He also almost totally leaves out the Swiss. Native German speakers make up the majority of Switzerland. While considered part of Germany in the middle ages, the Swiss Germans eventually seceded from Germany - essentially by the late 15th century - and developed their own, Germanish society. The Swiss story is very interesting, in their love of liberty, and their strong conservatism (in some ways, Switzerland is more conservative than America). The Swiss story is also part of the German story.

He also leaves out other significant gaps, too. Much of the middle ages is ignored. Nary a word about the Hanseatic league. The history of Germany during the period following the Thirty Years War is ignored (except for Prussia, and that is only briefly mentioned until Frederick the Great enters the stage). In fact, the book focuses on personalities - albeit very important personalities. This book is about Charlemaign, the Hohenstaufens (alright, not a personality, but a family, but kind of my drift), Martin Luther, Frederick the Great, Otto von Bismark, and of course, Hitler. Focusing on personalities, despite their impact on a nation's development, does not do justice to a nation's history.

However, he does mention how the Germans transformed themselves during the 19th century. The most important chapter in the book explains how 19th century scholars and intellectuals set the stage for a complete transformation of the German people. This chapter is entitled "Absolute Spirit and Absolute People." Indeed. You see, Germany transformed itself from an enchanted land of castles, fairy tales, and gingerbread, to a nightmarish society Kraftwork, cabaret, and state socialism. From a society where liberty and order to co-exist peacefully, to one that is libertine and regimented, where everyone is a mind-nummed robot. Germany went from a loyally Christian people to a group of faithless automotons. While the French are snotty and smelly, the Germans today are just plain wierd. Why do you think "Mentos, the fresh maker" could catch on so easily? One where Deiter on Sprokets is fully representative of the German people.

"Wait a minute!" you say. "I like cabaret, but I have not an ounce of German in me!" That is because you have been to one too many performances of "Teatro Zinzani" in Seattle, another place that is full of wierdos. And one show of that is one show too many. To think that people doing bizzare things is entertaining, just puzzles the mind. But then again, some people think mimes are entertaining, too.

And "Deiter" was Mike Miers on "Saturday Night Live" as a parody of Germans. And there is a reason why such a parody resonates so well is because it's accurate.

Well, I return to my review. In the 19th century, those scholars collectively generated a faith in das Volk. By doing so, the Germans effectively replaced faith in Christ with faith in an organic "the people" (actually, there is no true English translation of "das Volk," but there is exact translations in other languages - for example, the Russian word is "Narod"). Why do you think the Germans call each other "They?" Worship of das Volk also ruined German individualism, such that they were willing to bend over and pull down their leiderhosen when Adolf came along - and not to moon him, either. When das Volk was totally annihilated after World War II, since Nietze (or however you spell his name) declared God was dead, the Germans had to find something else to place faith in, so they found it in such things like post-modernism and existentialism.

Thus, the super man became the super freak.

Since the time of Hegel, Germans are also suckers for intellectual trends. From romantacism, to anti-Semitism. Then from dialectleticism, to anti-Semitism. Then from nationalism, to anti-Semitism. Then from militarism, to anti-Semitism. Then from Nazism, well, that's anti-Semitism. Then from anti-Americanism, to anti-Semitism. You get idea.

Also having absorbed themselves from a bunch of individuals into the Borg, the Germans are ready to lap up any fad their elite (especially cultural elites) present them, like any docile pet. Anyone who doesn't agree with said elites (no matter how wrong the elites are) are automatically ignorant and dumb.

Thus, individualism=stupidity.

And thus, in the German worldview, American's are stupid.

To me, thinking for yourself, as Americans generally do, is a much stronger indication of intelligence than spewing out dogma, even if such dogma is from the highly brilliant intelligentsia.

Despite the fact our technology whipped their butts, twice. Despite the fact our economy is stronger than theirs (and we in fact subsidize it with our troops who are still stationed over there). If Germans are so smart, how come their cars spend more time in the shop than almost all GM products?

And, if the Germans would remember a bit of history, after Rome essentially neutered the Carthrininians after the second war (kinda like we did to the Germans after WWII), when it got a bit uppidity, it decided to make them good Romans. And the United States is the only nation who ever exceeded Rome in greatness. I think that it would be good if everyone became American...

Speaking of which, it has been the dumb US military which has propped up the German economy since World War II. Certainly not the ideal economic model. It is the American taxpayer who is helping to subsidize the German economy. Well, at least now American policymakers are having the wisdom of putting our troops as needed - I have been told that since American soldiers are no longer in Frankfurt, it is a depressed, rust-belt city.

And if the Germans are so much smarter than Americans, how come their imported food Germany tastes so terrible? Also, due to the popularity of microbrews, Americans very nearly overtook them in the quality of their beer ten years ago (of course, that excludes such brands as "Budweiser", "Miller", etc).

The only good things to come out of Germany over the past 30 years are The Scorpians, Rammstein, and some hot German supermodels. However, when the Scorpians decided to pander to their own ethnic group, they totally ruined their music.

Sure Germany has produced some good things. Like some cultural artifacts, such as Neuschwanstein. However, the Germans have decided to cut of their past completely, so that the best preserved German "village" isn't in Germany, it's 100 miles east of me, in the town of Leavenworth, a faux-German village (an interesting place to go, too, and you don't have to subsidize Germans to see an idealized fairy-tale village). Much of Disney is German heritage recreated.

And, as Thomas Sowell noted, German immigrants and their descendants have always been on the forefront of preserving American liberty. Such figures as General Pershing (the main general in World War I, for those of you who didn't pay attention in history classes) and General Eisenhower (the main general in World War II, and President, for those of you who didn't even attend your history classes) were both of German descent. The main leader of the conservative movement today, Rush Limbaugh, is of German descent. Of course, there are those who hate him, but such people themselves loath freedom - except the freedom to abort, euthanize, participate in promiscuous behavior, make wierd "art" and engage in sedition.

And the Pope is German, too. But then again, he is just about the last Christian left of German nationality.

Of course, most of this has nothing to do with the book, but as I noted in prior posts, book reviews used to be a way for people to get their ideas across (especially as this was the case in 19th century Russia). However, this book is a good read for those who want to know more about Germany besides Hitler, and who want to know how Germany went from the land of Hanzel & Gretel to the land of Deiter.

Broads' Studies

Ever wonder what "Womens' Studies" was all about?

I thought it was a degree where one got to watch a lot of faux lesbian porno films. Well, many of the instructors are lesbians, but they are certainly people you would never want to see naked - much less watch in faux porno films. Anyways, I got over that a long time ago - it's been about a decade since I watched any porno film, so I really do not have that sicko mindset, but I just wanted to give my thoughts. And the instructors are people who really want to deal with in any case.

Women's studies is nothing more than applied Marxism. It is for people too stupid to understand real Marxism anyway, so colleges have to provide a dummed-down version - then since people of today cannot understand concepts without a media patina, like an ice-cream shop, the colleges have to provide some flavors of their dummed-down Marxism - like women's studies, black studies, gay studies, or whatever other "studies" are in vogue. These students would easily get lost in the real stuff that Marx wrote, such as "Communist Manifesto," much less "Das Kapital" and "Philosophical and Dialectical Manuscripts."

Russell Kirk put it simply - almost everyone today is schooled; few are truly educated. In a future post I will put my ideas about education, and you will see why I call this blog "Iconoclast."

Here is an example of what I mean of what I mean. My mother, for mother's day (about five years ago), gave my grandma a book of famous women - found in the "Womens' Studies" section of the bookstore. It included such women as Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Carol Mosley-Braun, Oprah Winfrey, Gloria Steinem, Eva Peron (basically a slut), and Doctor Ruth Westover (?!?!?!?). The author had to add Maggie Thatcher, too, since she was the first woman leader of Great Britain, but however, she can soon be forgotten. And if a few years would have held out, she probably would have removed Golda Mier, since the intelligentsia hates Jews so much today.

What this book did not include were such women like Ayn Rand (who wrote the greatest, and best selling, novel of the 20th century), Phyllis Schaffer (who defeated ERA and was very instrumental in helping to create the conservative movement), Dixie Lee Ray (the first women governer (of my state, Washington) who despite being a Democrat was quite a conservative), Laura Schlessinger (the top rated female talk show host), and if a few more years would have been around, Ann Coulter (the heir-apparent to be head of the conservative movement) and Condi Rice. There are others I cannot name. Basically, most of these women were/are ardent proponnents of the free market philosophy - Ayn Rand was probably the mother of the ideology of capitalism - and since the dimwits in women's studies departments are far too closed minded to see that actually markets work, they cannot promote anybody with a free market ideology, even if they are great women.

In any case, I came across this one night, when finishing my blog. I looked to see if it would pop up, one of them that came up was "The Greatest Blog Ever," and since the author was obviously wrong (because this is truly the greatst blog ever) I had to check it out. Well, while my is way better, this is a pretty darned good blog. This author, which you can find at, jackiethegreatest.blogspot.com/, wrote up this excellent piece on Women's Studies programs. I think it is almost better than what I wrote above. Here it is:

Women's Studies
A gem from the Bucknell website from the women's studies department home page:
Chief Benefits of the Program
· Women's and Gender Studies students are led to new critical perspectives on frameworks, concepts, and methods across several disciplines. (Yes, because prior to coming into the program, most people aren't used to bashing men and hating America as much as radical feminists wish they were!)
· The program is designed to enable students to better understand concepts of gender, race, ethnicity, class, health, and age in the past and in the contemporary world, thereby achieving an understanding of the complexity and wholeness of human experience. (Hmm, can't you understand the complexity and wholeness of the human experience without this degree? Isn't that just called "living"??)
· Small-class settings contribute to a personalized yet collaborative learning environment. Classes provide many opportunities for discussion where students can hone their speaking and thinking skills. (This is a nice way of saying, "Not many people major in women's studies, so at least your classes will be small.")
· Our courses offer multiple opportunities for personal reflection on life experiences. (So do journaling and talking with friends, yet nobody gets degrees for those...)
· A major in Women's and Gender Studies provides the first stage for graduate work in a number of disciplines. (The real discipline will come when you graduate and find yourself unemployed for ten years.)
· Women's and Gender Studies offers a background for careers in fields such as journalism, law, international affairs, teaching, personnel management, public and private corporations, and local and state agencies addressing the needs of girls and women. (In other words, somewhere out there, there just might be a use for your degree, although we have no idea what that would be unless you want to join our cult!)
Conclusion: A degree in women's studies is worthless.