A brief glimmer of hope dashed

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

I saw the author on Hannity and Colmes, and while they were promoting a supposedly factual version of American history (I hate historical revisionism), my BS detector went up as soon as I saw Hannity being nice to the guy.

http://www.nrbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6581

One of the first things Stalin, Hitler, Mao and other totalitarians did was rewrite the histories of their nations, remaking the past to foster their control of the present. The American Left has done the same thing in our country: most American history books - both for students and adults -- are riddled with PC nonsense that makes the Founding Fathers over into racist slaveholders, the settlers of the West into genocidal land-stealers, and the welfare state into the harbinger of the ultimate triumph of liberalism.

But now at last conservatives and patriotic Americans have an antidote: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History is a handy one-volume guide to our nation's glorious past that has one key advantage over today's dozens of dreary PC history books: this one tells you what really happened -- not what liberals wish had happened.

From the Puritans through the drafting of the Constitution, the Civil War, the World Wars, the rise of the "Great Society" all the way up through the fiasco of the Clinton Administration, this brightly written book gives you the whole truth and nothing but the truth about our great nation: history professor Thomas E. Woods presents the Founding Fathers as the visionary heroes they were; discusses the real causes of the Civil War and World War I fairly and objectively; and examines in depth the ravages of statism, high taxes, and the war against American initiative.

Not PC, but all true:

* How colonial quarrels give birth to American religious freedom

* PC myth demolished: the Puritans -- racists? Not quite

* No, the Puritans didn't steal Indian lands

* Why self-government is non-negotiable

* How the American Revolution was not like the French Revolution, with which Leftists love to equate it

* Why "providing for the general welfare" doesn't mean that the federal government gets to spend money on whatever it wants

* The forgotten secret of the First Amendment to the Constitution: how states tell the federal government what it's allowed to do -- not the other way around

* The cardinal importance of the Constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments: Just because it's not in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it's not a right -- and whatever the states didn't let the feds do was left to the states

* The tiny, easily overlooked clause in the Constitution that proved to be the source of the unhindered growth of big government

* Did the states have the right to secede from the Union? A frank examination of the evidence

* Was the war fought to free slaves? How the Civil War was more about other issues than about slavery

* Reality check: Lincoln's views on race

* Why the soldiers fought: the Civil War, in the soldiers' own words

* The Fourteenth Amendment and states' rights: the truth about this much-misunderstood Amendment

* How government promoted waste and corruption in railroad construction

* How "fairness" crippled American farmers in the late nineteenth century

* Why government is itself the true source of monopoly

* Antitrust idiocy: Should antitrust laws be repealed?

* World War I: why Woodrow Wilson favored war

* The post-World War I peace conference: The disaster Wilson pretended not to notice

* How Woodrow Wilson's much-heralded "idealism" paved the way for World War II

* The long forgotten truth about the Roaring Twenties

* Herbert Hoover: A "do-nothing" president? If only he had been!

* How the Left in the 1930s cravenly presented the "Soviet experiment" as a model for America

* The New York Times reporter who had full knowledge of Stalin's crimes but covered them up

* The lunacy of New Deal policies: let's help starving people by destroying food!

* How FDR's anti-business zealotry delayed America's recovery from the Great Depression

* World War II: did it lift America out of the Depression?

* FDR's imperial presidency: did the architect of the New Deal break the law?

* How FDR got Americans into World War II -- and may have made war with Japan inevitable

* FDR and Uncle Joe: the full story of just how friendly President Roosevelt was toward Stalin

* The Cold War: Yes, Soviet spies were a problem in America -- contrary to Leftist myth

* Joe McCarthy: a paranoid idiot? No: the facts about this much maligned figure

* A shameful and forgotten episode: American Presidents send a million Russians back to Stalin

* The Marshall Plan: a great success or another failed giveaway program?

* How President Truman disregarded the Constitution

* Who was the real John F. Kennedy? Straight talk about a figure who has been elevated to mythic status by the Left

* How Chicago mobster Sam Giancana bankrolled JFK's campaign in return for promises that Kennedy would help his mob dodge federal investigations

* Lyndon Johnson: his terrible legacy of failure

* How the liberalism of the 1960s discouraged all the right things and encouraged all the wrong ones

* Ronald Reagan: how he differed from all other modern presidents

* "Decade of Greed"? How charitable giving grew 55 percent faster during the 1980s than it had grown over the previous 25 years

* How Bill Clinton abused power, abetted Islamists, lied, and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars for nothing

* Affirmative Action lunacy: how, on Clinton's watch, special permission was needed at the Pentagon for the promotion of all white men without disabilities

Guess I'll have to keep waiting or look elsewhere.

[Quadlok]

While most of that is at least based on the truth, its been so amazingly distorted as to be almost unreckognisable.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Founding Fathers over into racist slaveholders

Several of them were this.

[SirNitram]

Founding Fathers over into racist slaveholders

Several of them were this.

HOW DARE YOU SAY SOMETHING SO UN-AMERICAN YOU IGNANT LIBERAL COMMIE!

Yea, they were. Since when have little things like 'facts' stopped the Moron Right?

[Gil Hamilton]

For one thing, the one thing they mentioned about the New Deal, which during the Depression food was burned despite people starving was caused by a sound economic reason. The problem was that economic forces were causing food to be worthless in terms of price, at equilibrium had it's way the farmers would end up giving it away. There is a problem with that, with prices so low that the farmers are for all intensive purposes giving it away, there is the slight problem that no price for your good means that they aren't making any money... and farming is not cheap. If no farmer is making any money, they have to close there farms. This means that there won't be much food for anyone and the starvation problem would have gotten much worse. So in order to raise the price of farm products, the farmers had no choice; they had to decrease the supply of foodstuffs in order to cause a raise in market prices. This worked, fortunately, and our farmers stayed in business. It was unfortunate that the food had to be destroyed in order while people were starving, but the alternative was worse.

What I find funny is that they in a previous topic defend Herbert Hoover, the president who signed the Hawley-Smoot Act (a horrifyingly bad piece of legislation crafted by the Republican party at the time), which sent America's economy into a death spiral and help start the Great Depression. Of course, I bet they won't mention that at all and that the Great Depression was a Leftist Plot to Destroy America.

Nextly, I love how they are blaming FDR for the War with Japan. Yes, war with Japan was absolutely inevitable, but it was Japan's actions that made it so. The Oil Embargo that pretty much made war with Japan inevitable was in response to Japan's barbaric invasion of Manchuria, to hamstring Japan's war machine (successfully, to an extent) and pressure them to stop. At that point, Japan had to either go home or declare war on America to help break the embargo that was choking the hell out of them. They had very little wiggle room on the matter. War was inevitable because Japan made it so, not Roosevelt.

That just scratchs the surfaces of possible rebuttles there. Frankly, if they want to make a Republican Circle Jerk book of "Historical Facts", they could do a better job. The only people will find that any way convincing are already convinced. This is just some bullshit to sell to dipshits, who don't know better, in order to tell them things they already believe to be true and give them something to give their kids, who can't know better.

[Frank Hipper]

"Our revisionism isn't revisionism because it promotes our point of view"

What the fuck kind of insanity is this?

[Frank Hipper]

I'm dying to know where they pulled that shit about "leftists" equating the French Revolution with the American from....I'm left with a gargantuan WTF?

[DPDarkPrimus]

I'd sure like to see how McCarthy wasn't a fucking loon.

[RedImperator]

There are probably just enough valid points made in that book that it's defensble--by which I mean, you merely have to be a partisan idealogue, as opposed to a total lunatic, to defend it. It's not a good sign when a conservative history BA like me is mentally tearing apart the bullet points.

[Enforcer Talen]

ann coulter goes on at great length about it =p

[Illuminatus Primus]

Looks like a rotten cornicopia of shitty historical revisionism.

[Ghost Rider]

I'm amazed the fucking thing isn't America: How the Right won everything!

I mean the sheer high points are hilarious on many levels...literally the Republicans did no wrong...the Dems were agents of evil and destroyers of America.

The Joe McCarthy bit seals it...yeah he wasn't a raving paranoid lunatic.

[Steve]

McCarthy was not a loon. He was a vile opportunist who seized upon American fears of Communist subversion (consider how many previously-free European nations in Eastern Europe were subverted by the USSR, plus the Communist victory in China; all of this plus the feeling of betrayal from the WWII alliance served to incite fear and loathing) as a vehicle for further power. Then he screwed up by going after the Army for "Communist subversion" because they refused to waive the drafting of one of his campaign workers (or relatives, I can't recall which), which laid bare his abuse of the public trust.

About the only thing McCarthy managed to accomplish before latching onto the Red Scare was helping to overturn the convictions of the SS men who butchered American POWs at Malmedy by levying charges of unfairness in their trials because, *gasp*, there were Jews involved! (For instance, their translator was an Austrian Jew).

McCarthy was bad because he helped hype a Red Scare that hurt America in two ways: it hurt innocent Americans through the Communist witch hunt and blacklisting, and it hurt America as a whole by discrediting the legitimate cause of trying to prevent Soviet infiltration of our government and society, a clear desire on their part (as their very existance required them to try and eliminate all non-Communist governments and societies). Remember that in the 30s and 40s there were even Congressmen on the take for the Soviets (including, ironically, a member of the House Un-American Activities Commission).

That said, some of the Founding Fathers did own slaves, but that fact alone does not make them evil or make their contributions to our nation's foundations null and void. History, the progress of Mankind, is ultimately an evolutionary process. Even the Fathers recognized this, hence they made the Constitution a document of flexibility, open to being amended if necessary.

I'll go over the list later, but I really need to be going to bed now.....

[HemlockGrey]

I like how they put "The Puritans didn't steal Indian land,", leaving out pretty much all the other shit that was done to the Indians during Manifest Destiny (coughJACKSONcough), plus the "The Puritans weren't racists", well, maybe not racists per se, but certainly prejudiced bigots.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I like how they put "The Puritans didn't steal Indian land,", leaving out pretty much all the other shit that was done to the Indians during Manifest Destiny (coughJACKSONcough), plus the "The Puritans weren't racists", well, maybe not racists per se, but certainly prejudiced bigots.

Puritans were worse than racists; they discriminated based on which copy of Big Sky-God's book you preferred to read rather than any physical trait (which at least has the excuse of looking different, something you can rarely muster fo religious bigotry).

[Iceberg]

I saw the author on Hannity and Colmes, and while they were promoting a supposedly factual version of American history (I hate historical revisionism), my BS detector went up as soon as I saw Hannity being nice to the guy.

This sounds no more factual than America (the Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction and a whole lot less funny.

And why the fuck does the Right have such a goddamn hard-on for Clinton? What, are they acting out a massive collective gay crush by beating the shit out of him every chance they get?

[UCBooties]

Interesting how he wants us to return to our blind deification of the Founding Fathers, ignorring the human traits which make them accessable and understandable as well as giving greater insight into their acomplishments and possible motives, but slams on the popular feeling for JFK. Yeah, JFK was a consumate politician, involved in election fraud, looped on painkillers, and slept around, but this is not new. The question is, who realy cares? The man was ellected, was wildly popular and took some good stands on some good issues and fumbled some others, he did a good job with Cuba, and then he was shot. It's expected for there to be some martyrdom when a President is killed. But so what? Can't we just accept that there are two versions of JFK, the private, pain racked lech who still managed to do his job, and the public, smiling prince of "Camalot," who still managed to do his job. I hope this isn't coming off as a JFK apologist, but it pisses me off when he demands that we deify those of his chosing, but roundly condemns the process in another example. There should at least be some reasonable consistency. This list is nauseating, especialy the bits dealing with Lincoln and the Civil War. We know now that the Civil War was not fought to free the slaves, we found this out before 7th grade. It was fought to preserve the Union, a laudible goal to my mind. But I hope that this jackass isn't trying to make the point (and I fear he is) that the freedom for Black people is somehow devalued just because it wasn't the primary purpose of the war. This seems way too much like American History: The Southern Version. I sense racism and Confederate apologism abounding in this book. I tend to be more conservative than liberal on most things, but I don't understand how they expect a book like this to appeal to me just because it revises history for the sole purpose of bashing on my current policy opponents. Shear nauseating, ideocy.

[UCBooties]

Clinton was extremely popular, presided over a time of ecenomic stability and relative peace, had moderate success in several very difficult foriegn relations situations and was generaly liked by much of our nation and many of our allies. Also, he was the anithema of the Republican social ideal. The Right feel that they must constantly attack him to erode his popularity in hopes that they will be able to turn popular will against another Clintonite should one arise (not meaning Hillary specificly though the point applies).

[Iceberg]

Hillary Clinton's supposed presidential run seems like a boogeyman the Right keeps trumping up to keep the troops in line, far more than something that would actually happen.

Rather like the Apocalypse, come to think of it. Stay a True Believer, or the Beast will get you! SLAVE FASTER! PHARAOH REAGAN WANTS HIS PYRAMID!!! *WHIP-CRACK*

[UCBooties]

Oh, I have little doubt she's going to run. I just can't imagine her forcing the nomination. Honestly if the Dems couldn't quite muster up the support to beat Bush, they'll have to do much better if a more popular Rep runs, I don't think Hillary could beat a McCain or a Guliani. There are some Rumblings from Rendel and he might be able to take such a contest but he's still entirely speculative.

[sulks][whines]and I liked Reagan...[/sulks][/whines]

*Whip-crack* OW! Ok, i have to get back to work now.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

So, they're angry about revisionist history, so they're going to fight it with thinly veiled revisionist history? This has to be the Fox News of history textbooks, in the way that people are complaining about the "liberal bias" that probably doesn't even exist in other books, so they make a blatantly conservative book, and say that it's only fair.

[Darth Wong]

"A fair and balanced look at how 100% of historical revisionism is actually Leftist propaganda."

Tune in next week when we publish our next book: "A fair and balanced look at how the Left is 100% wrong about everything".

Also coming on sale next month: "Fair and balanced proof that right-wing politicians have never been wrong about anything."

[Pablo Sanchez]

Oh, I have little doubt she's going to run. I just can't imagine her forcing the nomination. Honestly if the Dems couldn't quite muster up the support to beat Bush, they'll have to do much better if a more popular Rep runs, I don't think Hillary could beat a McCain or a Guliani. There are some Rumblings from Rendel and he might be able to take such a contest but he's still entirely speculative.

I'm not sure if the Republican establishment would be willing to run McCain or Giuliani, despite the ease with which either of them would trounce anybody in the Democratic Party today. They seem to be on a bullshit neocon kick. Wolfowitz in '08! Nevermind that a McCain-Giuliani ticket would be an unholy vote steamroller of GOP Doom that could probably win with 65%.

But if McCain or Giuliani was run, it would not be that bad from the Democrat perspective. Both of those guys are, in the words of the Club for Growth, RINOs on the majority of issues.

[Stravo]

Wow....just WOW. That is something else. This book should be called "American History - Fuck Yeah!!"

So they combat leftist revionist history with....right wing revionist history. Niiiceee.

[HemlockGrey]

And of course they can't let a single day go by without latching on to another chance to suck Reagan's shriveled cock. Fucking necrophilia it is.