1984 And Reality

Of course our educational system has deteriorated almost to the point of non-existence, but not all of our lack of an educated population can be laid at the doorstep of the NEA.  Unfortunately, some great literary works are simply ahead of their time and because of that they pass into oblivion before their relevance is truly known.  I think this is the case with “Brave New World”, which deals with cloning, drugs, and promiscuity and “1984” which deals with distortion of the truth and government surveillance.

The novel “1984” is a multi-dimensional work that has largely fallen out of favor and I’m not sure why.  Perhaps it is because so much of it is true today that it has lost its impact and the people who should be teaching and reading it, have not experienced the world before these things became commonplace.  It must be remembered that this novel was published in 1934 and television didn’t really exist.  But when it was published the idea of having moving pictures broadcast into your home was revolutionary much less having the television watching you.  Today everyone has a television and while that television doesn’t exactly watch you, we are nevertheless under constant surveillance.  There are cameras everywhere—some obvious but many obscure and others hidden altogether.  This is done for our ‘protection” so it is accepted with few if any complaints – just like “1984”.  However, this isn’t what brings me to contemplate the relevance of this novel, because there are three other things in this novel that I think people should stop and consider.

First, there is the running theme throughout this work that words in “Newspeak” have different meanings than they used to.  This of course is true on the surface but when you stop and think about these words and their meaning today, you will find that perhaps George Orwell wasn’t too far off.  For example, I cite “love is hate and hate is love”.  At the superficial level of Newspeak this is merely a contradiction in terms, but step back and apply this concept to some of our liberal and conservative thought positions, such as; homelessness, welfare, and affirmative action.  These are all things “loved” by the left and “hated” by the right but on closer examination and with a little thought it can be argued that the left actually “hates” the homeless, the poor, and minorities, while the right actually “loves” these. 

For example the left will (and is already) spending large sums of money on the homeless by providing them with shelters, food, clothing, and in some cities (San Francisco) a stipend, thus “proving “ that they “love” the homeless even though living on the street can be exceedingly dangerous, unsanitary, and a threat to public safety.  Being homeless is their ‘right” no matter what its impact is upon society as a whole and it our responsibility to make them as comfortable as possible, thus demonstrating our love and respect for them.  It could be argued that this also demonstrates our superiority – Noblesse Oblige. 

The right on the other hand strives to take the homeless off of the streets by forcing them into shelters, by limiting the amount of time they can receive aid, by forcing them into drug rehabilitation, and putting them into custody if they fail to comply with the law (no public urination or sleeping under overpasses).  All of these actions are viewed as a clear demonstration of the insensitivity of the right-wing, in effect demonstrating that they “hate” the homeless, but do they?   Is giving them food and shelter – forced or not – wrong?  Isn’t the purpose of homeless programs to make them NOT homeless?  Isn’t improving their life, getting them off of drugs, giving them shelter, training them for employment, better than simply enabling their self-destructive behavior?  Or is the purpose of “programs for the homeless” to make them comfortable being homeless?  Note that many of these programs are justified on the basis of reducing the number of homeless but do in fact enable homelessness.  The attitude spoken or not, seems to be that the homeless have a “right” to be homeless and the rest of us must accept their decision regardless of its impact on our lives.  Doesn’t the public good take precedence over an individual’s right to self-determination?  I submit that the liberal left is not only enabling self-destructive behavior but that they and their well meaning programs are a form of class warfare intended to keep some members of society in the lowest class while allowing them to pat themselves on the back for all of their good deeds.  I further submit that the left hates the homeless while the right is attempting to actually help them and thus loves the homeless.  Or as George Orwell so aptly said “Love is Hate, Hate is Love”, but that isn’t all that he said.  What about “War is Peace and Peace is War?”

The left the world over is for peace.  They demonstrate at the drop of a hat over anything that (in their opinion) even remotely appears to be aggressive.  They have demonstrated against the B-1 bomber, the B-2 bomber, Star Wars, military deployments, ROTC, any new weapons, bigger defense budgets, and anything having to do with the American military or American interests.  It is worth pointing out these same peace loving people also demonstrate in support of Fidel Castro, the Palestinian Murderers, Ho Chi Minh, the Arab Cause, the Sandinistas, Saddam Hussein, and generally any regime that announces it is “for the people” regardless of their obvious brutality and subjugation of those same people.   Apparently, Peace in their eyes does not mean freedom from death and conflict, it just means that these are kept out of the public eye.  For these people Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly apparently do not matter as long as there is no American presence and a controlled economy.  The fundamental belief for the Peace activists appears to be that Peace can be defined as a “lack of war”. 

But what about those people who favor a strong defense budget, a large an effective military, programs to defend the weak, and programs intended to thwart terrorism, governmental murder, and the subjugation of their people by a variety of dictators?  Are these people, war mongers?  History tells us just the opposite and in fact history would demonstrate that the very philosophies and positions taken by the Peace Activists lead inevitably to war and bloodshed, while those of the “hawks” either lead directly to peace or to much less bloodshed.  The Roman Empire endured for a thousand years and during that period the people prospered, yet Rome had a huge Army that was engaged in small wars and skirmishes for that entire time.  Had it not been for their well trained Army and a willingness to use it, Rome would have perished.  Of course there are those who would say that the Pax Romana was maintained by the subjugation and oppression of all of those they conquered.  There is a grain of truth to this argument because there were those people who wanted to be free of Rome but not to be free as much as to subjugate and oppress free of Roman interference.  The fact is the greatest majority of the people within the Roman Empire were quite satisfied with the situation.  In fact most of the barbarians who pressed Roman frontiers really didn’t want to crush Rome, they wanted to become Roman. 

This latter point is one that seems to be lost on the “peace at any cost” crowd because most of the world wants to become “American” and those that are opposing American dominance and wish to be “free” from American Imperialism are much like those that opposed Rome, they really want to oppress and subjugate without interference from America.  Unfortunately, American Imperialism is much less overt than Roman Imperialism because it is cultural and economic.  However, that isn’t the point, the point is that what the Peace activists see as “war mongering” might more accurately be viewed as “peace mongering”.  Thomas Jefferson crushed the Barbary Pirates and that ended the piracy issue against American shipping.  General Pershing crushed the Philippine (Muslims) rebels and that ended that until recently when the Muslims once again are in revolt against secular authority.  President Truman dropped the atomic bomb and ended WW II at a stroke, costing hundreds of thousands of lives but saving millions.  This can be contrasted to the peace lobby who prevailed in the 1930’s in their attempts to “give peace a chance”, which was simply interpreted by Hitler as weakness and led directly to WW II.  Therefore, once again George Orwell appears to be correct in that War is peace and peace is war.  But of all of Orwell’s vision of the future none is more clear cut and chilling than the role of his protagonist, Harry Winston.

Harry Winston was charged with “rewriting history”.  When I first read this book, I saw this as an example of how a dictatorship (ala the USSR) laid claim to events that never transpired – in effect a form of propaganda.  Like so many people I dismissed it as a literary mechanism because history is simply recording facts, facts that cannot be disputed because they were witnessed by thousands.  Yet every day I see history being rewritten not through lying but through interpretation and omission.  Thomas Jefferson was a slave owning hypocrite who didn’t believe in nor practice the glorious words he wrote down.  George Washington was another slave owner who didn’t believe in the ideals he fought for and deserves little to no credit for his role in founding the nation.  Harry Truman was a power mad Dr. Strangelove who needlessly slaughtered thousands of innocent people when all he had to do was threaten.  We have been witnesses to the deification of Jack Kennedy at the expense of Lyndon Johnson with the Viet Nam debacle being laid at the doorstep of Nixon and Johnson rather than Kennedy who initiated it.   We find that the Civil War was about slavery rather than about States Rights.  More recently we see the Los Angeles Times digitally altering a photograph to imply a threatening soldier rather than a soldier with his gun pointed away in a non-threatening position.  There is another very famous photo of a Vietnamese Colonel shooting a Viet Cong in the head at point blank range – a summary execution.  What was not reported was that the Viet Cong had MOMENTS before shot an unarmed family of four who were lying at his feet at that very moment.  The colonel simply shot him too late but the implication was that this was the summary execution of an unarmed captive soldier.  So history was written by omitting certain facts that did not support the desired viewpoint, which was the South Vietnamese were thugs, the Americans Imperialists, and the Vietcong valiant patriots. 

History is a fragile thing and historically it has been written by the victors.  Certainly the Gallic Wars would be quite different if they were written by the Germans and Gauls rather than by Caesar.  Still if you read enough history written by various people on both sides you can eventually develop a relatively truthful view of events, but that was before political correctness.  Today history is being rewritten not by the victors but by a small number of activists who wish to twist the facts to support their own agendas, which almost universally are left leaning.  We are rapidly, if we aren’t already there, approaching a point where newspapers cannot be trusted to report the facts, that history books cannot be relied upon to give an accurate view, and pictures are no longer worth 1000 words but are not worth anything because they cannot be relied upon to reflect the truth.  In effect, political correctness has infected our society with multi-culturalism, moral relativism, and immorality masquerading as morality and the victim appears to be history. 

I have no glib answers to this problem but the Alarm was sounded by George Orwell over 70 years ago and it grows louder each day.  1984 is upon us and the words and pictures that surround us carry the aura of Newspeak, where nothing is as it appears and frequently is exactly the opposite of what it appears to be.  Be vigilant.

Soccer Tees, Pluto, and Harris Tottle

There is a fascinating book available titled “”Non Campus Mentis” which is a collection of excerpts and quotes from the various tests and papers of students.  It is always fascinating to look at history through the eyes of the students which is what the author has done and when you read what he has gleaned you don’t know whether to laugh or cry.  The teacher’s present the materials but then something seems to be lost in the translation from mouth to ear because the students don’t seem to hear precisely what is being said or hear it and then don’t have a clue as to what it means, how to spell it, or even how it applies to anything.  So here is a summary of World History which I have compiled based on the responses taken from this treasure trove of school tests and papers[1].  The spellings have been left intact and I leave it to your discerning eye to distinguish between what is written by me and by the students and for this reason I have elected to not use distinguishing quotation marks.

Let us begin with ancient Egypt which has always been a challenge because counter to all logic on a map the Nile runs up (North) rather than down which has always caused consternation for the observer who views Egypt on a map, because as we all know,  there was Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt.   Lower Egypt is actually farther up than Upper Egypt which was – of course – lower down than the upper part.  This is why we learn geography as a factor in history.  Egypt was certainly an interesting and powerful civilization.  The rulers of Egypt were entitled as Faroes with one of the most famous being King Toot.  Of course one of the most famous things in Egypt is the pyramids.  The pyramids were large square triangles built in the desert.  O’Cyrus was a god who lived in a piramid and would give you the afterlife if your sole was on straight.  The Egyptian upper class was able to live posthumously through the arts and facts buried with them. 

And this brings us to that other great civilization – the Sumerian also known as the Mesopotamian which existed in a valley near the Eucaliptus river where flooding was erotic.  Babylon was similar to Egypt because of their differences they had apart from each other.  Egypt for example only had Egyptians but Babylon had Summarians, Acadians, and Canadians, to just name a few.  The Babylonians honored their gods by building pyramids in the shape of zeplins.  Mesopotamia was dominated at various times by the Medes, Persians, and Assyrians.  The Assyrian program of exterminating various ethnic groups failed to promote cultural diversity.  And so closes our tour through the truly ancient cultures and brings us to the Mediterranean and the Classical Age.

Athens, Sparta, and Pluto were Greek city states.  Some were Oglearchies but Athens was a democracy resulting from the reforms of Colon and Percales.  Sparta demanded loyalty, military service, and obscurity from its citizens.  King Xerox of Persia invaded Greace but fell off short at the Battle of Thermosalami.  Religion was polyphonic and featured such gods as Herod, Mars, and Juice.  Thucydides was a noted historian who collected facts objectively and saw himself as responsible only to Clio, the Greek Mouse of History.  Eventually the Greeks were conquered by Phillip of Mastodon who was later killed in a family sprawl.  He was succeeded by Alexander the Great who conquered Persia, Egypt, and Japan.  Sadly he died with no hairs.

The Greeks were important and laid the foundation for western civilization.  They were important at culture and science.  The scientific method came into use when the Greeks learned never to take things for granite when solving a problem.  The Atomists discovered E=MC^2 and other mathematical things.  U Clid proved that there is more than one side to every plane and Pythagasaurus fathered the triangle, while Archimedes made the first steamboat and power drill.  But perhaps the greatest gifts of the Greeks were in the form of philosophy.  The pre-Socratics lived long before Plato and were not decisively influenced by his work.  Perhaps the greatest philosopher was Socrates who was accused of Sophomorism and sentenced to die of hemroyds.  His student Plato invented reality and was teacher to Harris Tottle, author of the Republicans.  Other philosophies included the Epicureans for them lust was a must.  Others were the Vegetarians and the Synthetics who said “if you can’t play with it, why bother”. 

The Greeks were eventually replaced by the great Roman Empire which was founded sometime by Uncle Remus and Wolf.  The Roman upperclassmen demanded to be known as Patricia.  Senators wore purple tubas as a sign of respect.  Around the 120’s B.C the Gretzky brothers failed to stop these and other injustices.  But the Republic carried on and struggled with the other great Mediterranean power – Carthage. Hannabelle crossed the Alps with a herd of eliphants and thus invaded Africa.  After they defeated Carthage the Romans brutaly salted the people and razored the city.  Scipio was called “Africanus” because he served in Spain.  The Republic prospered but eventually it came to be dominated by Julius Caesar who was famous for inspiring his men by saying “I came I saw I went”.  Caesar was assassinated on the Yikes of March and is reported to have said “Me Too Brutus”. 

Following the assassination of Caesar Rome was subjected to many turnoilic events, oncluding Anthony’s elusive affair with Cleopatra.  The shrewd Octavian grabbed hold of the Empire and he kept the people happy by giving them breaded circuses.  Augustus (aka Octagenarian) founded the Roman Catholic Empire and punished those involved in sibilancy and adultery.  The symbol of his authority was the Cross.  He put it everywhere.  Augustus did have to leave the Empire due to his death. 

There are many theories about the fall of the Roman Empire and many were totally not possible and some of them were.  This included more than enough religion, too much slavery, not enough water, and smoking from lead pipes.  Then the Empire was swept with a tidal wave of Goths, Hungs, Zulu’s and others who impacted Rome.  Athena the Hun rampaged the Balkans as far as France, where he plumaged and tortured people of the villages he captured. Thus ended the Roman Empire and Western Civilization entered the Dark Ages where it was mostly dark.

Certainly history is a lot more interesting when you have it explained through the eyes of the students.  Soccer Tees, Pluto, and Harris Tottle – I salute you.

---

[1] Henriksson, Non Campus Mentis, Workman Publishing, New York

Pharsalus, Thermopylae, and History

The study of history is fascinating because it covers the rise and fall of civilizations, but when examined closely the fate of nations and civilizations is in reality the study of a handful of people and some pivotal battles.  Consider that Rome had a million men under arms for most of its history and the city of Rome itself had about a million residents, but if you were to write down the names of every person who is mentioned in the histories of Rome you would not come anywhere near a million names.  In fact the list of names would span several centuries and even then the list would be relatively short with only a few being instantly recognizable.  So the reality is that history – all history is actually based on the writings and actions of a few men and a handful of battles, many of which didn’t involve more than a few thousand soldiers fighting over a small area for a period of hours or at best days.  The result of these battles frequently determined the fate of nations or even empires.  Sometimes even battles that were lost were turning points so the victors may have won the battle but lost the war. 

The common complaint is why do we study history at all?  Who cares what a bunch of old white guys did a zillion years ago?  Of course the younger the person is the shorter the time frame encompassed in a zillion.  World War Two involved millions of people both military and civilian with literally millions of people being killed, yet the number of people still living who experienced that decline daily and virtually no person in high school or college has any real knowledge of this event.  Still even this world shaking event is defined by a few battles, such as : El Alamein, Stalingrad, Battle of the Bulge, Dunkirk, and Midway.  Likewise the number of individuals who define WW II is equally short and includes people like Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Rommel, Patton, MacArthur, Roosevelt, Hirohito, and Mussolini.  There were others of course but the point is that out of the millions of people and the hundreds of battles the actual pivotal events and people is relatively small. 

Perhaps the most famous of these lost battles that resulted in ultimate triumph is the battle of

Thermopylae.  The Battle of Thermopylae was actually a rear guard action and technically a defeat since the entire Greek force was annihilated.  But this heroic battle allowed the Greek Army to escape and regroup while the Greek Navy was able to move into a much more advantageous position.  The result was the defeat of the Persian Army and Navy both of which greatly outnumbered the Greeks.  Had the Spartans not held Thermopylae there is little doubt but that the Persians would have crushed the Greek city states which would have nipped the concept of democratic and representative government in the bud.  Thus a handful of Spartans and their allies fought a heroic battle that changed the course of history and resulted in the concept of representative government.

Another such battle was Pharsalus which sealed the fate of the Roman Republic and set the stage for Imperial Rome.  In hindsight it is unlikely that the Roman Republic could have endured much longer.  Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus, formed the first triumvirate because they could see that the Roman Republic had ceased to exist in any meaningful way.  Even Cicero a strong and dedicated supporter of the Republic had his doubts.  He was a lawyer and could not bring himself to break the law and join Caesar in his bid for total power.  Caesar felt his position was being threatened by Senatorial machinations but Cicero felt he had to support Pompey because Pompey was the leader the Senate had appointed to lead the Army.

At the time Pompey was the power center for the last remaining vestiges of the Roman Republic, although he too had his eyes on absolute power.  Pompey was a successful general and a powerful man and the Senate gave him control of the fleet in order to rid the Mediterranean of pirates and then control of the Army as well.  The Senate had given control of the Armies in Gaul to Caesar but the Senate was very corrupt and under the influence of Pompey.  But votes could be purchased and Caesar was very adept at using his plunder to buy votes which allowed him to rival Pompey in power.  Pompey was the power in Rome and in effect the ruler but Caesar also had his eye on absolute power and was building a power base with the common people.  But as Caesar’s power grew the Pompey felt threatened and schemed to have Caesar recalled by the Senate.  Of course this prompted Caesar to make his fateful decision to cross the Rubicon’

Moving fast with only one legion Caesar was able to arrive at the gates of Rome in a matter of a few days.  This early version of the Blitzkrieg forced Pompey to abandon Rome and move south as he gathered his legions and prepared for battle.  Caesar had carefully wooed the commons in Rome and was immensely popular while the Senate and Pompey were viewed as corrupt and self serving so Caesar was welcomed.  Ironically Caesar did everything he could to avoid a civil war and made several efforts to appease and forgive those who opposed him, but of course he would retain absolute power.  After several preliminary battles Pompey and Caesar met at Pharsalus where there was little doubt but that Pompey’s larger force would crush Caesar’s but Caesar was the better strategist while the Senatorial contingent spent their time dividing up the spoils.  Pharsalus was a pivotal battle that effectively ended the Roman Republic and set the stage for Imperial Rome

The pages of history are filled with similar battles, battles conducted by a few thousand men that changed the course of history and the fate of nations.  The Battle of Hastings ended the rule of the Saxons and introduced the Normans, shifting the focus of England to Europe and of course laying the groundwork for wars that raged over the next 500 years as various Kings fought over their rights. 

Rome and The US And The Roots of Decline

History And Realpolitik

Sometimes it is truly frightening to watch world leaders make decisions and take actions that history clearly demonstrates are doomed to failure. In 2002 a book was published “Warrior Politics” which was an essay on “Realpolitik” In this short book the author uses historical references gleaned from some of the worlds great thinkers and philosophers to put the 20th century into perspective. Certainly the 20th Century will go down in history as a pivotal period. It included the rise of Communism and its ultimate failure. A failure still not recognized by many academics and politicians who still think Socialism and Communism are viable political structures but previous failures were not due to any inherent flaws but because the implementers were incompetent. The 20th Century saw genocides on massive scales, not just in Germany but in Asia, Eastern Europe, and Russia as well.

Without doubt two of the most important events in the 20th Century were the two world wars but it is worth noting that these two wars parallel the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage. In the second century BC Carthage was the dominant power in the Mediterranean but that power was being challenged by Rome After the first Punic War Rome imposed an unjust peace on Carthage which directly led to the succeeding wars which were costly in lives and treasure. This is precisely what happened in the 20th Century. Germany was a newly minted country and a rising power in Europe. This drive for power brought it into conflict with France and England and gave rise to WWI. But the allied powers failed to see the parallel with the Punic Wars and imposed the unjust Treaty of Versailles. But the allied powers failed to see the parallel with the Punic Wars and imposed the unjust Treaty of Versailles Germany. This treaty led directly to WW II.

But these are only the most obvious lessons to be gleaned from history and as the 20th century fades into history we find the 21st Century leaders repeating the mistakes of history. We find the US – much like Rome – embroiled in a seemingly endless series of wars. The Pax Romana taxed the Roman Empire just as the Pax Americana is taxing the American Empire – and for many of the same reasons. America is engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, China, India, and Pakistan. But for what purpose and for what advantage to America? The glib answer of course is that these are necessary to protect America both economically and militarily, which of course would have been the response of any of the Caesars. But there are no specific answers coming out of Washington, because there are no concrete advantages to America. Why is the US subsidizing Palestine (Hamas) when they are clearly the group who are the aggressors against Israel and have never shown even the slightest indication that they want peace. In fact the only thing they want is for Israel to vanish and all Jews (and Christians) to be driven from “Arab Lands”. We entered Afghanistan for the purpose of capturing Osama bin Laden, that is accomplished but once it was clear he was no longer in Afghanistan what was the purpose of us lingering there? An even larger question is why didn’t the US kill all of the poppy fields? The answer has been this would have turned them against us – are they for us now? Aren’t these fields the source of much of the drug trade throughout the world and the revenue source for the Taliban? At least the Romans could justify their military excursions on the basis that conquests generated greater revenues for the state, but for the US these military adventures are costly.

One of the major reasons for the ultimate decline of Rome was the rampant corruption at the top. The Justice system was corrupt as the politicians bought votes, and the politicians were engaged not just in power struggles but in lining their own pockets. Does any of that resemble the US Congress today? The voter roles are clearly corrupt and this is so widely accepted that it is a joke. Key politicians pay no taxes (unless caught) and enact legislation to enrich themselves and to pander to special interests. The Justice system may not be for sale but it certainly is out of control. The courts have begun to act as a legislative branch via their interpretation of laws which has given us rules that are totally counter to the majority will.

The result is American prestige is declining just as America has entered into a decline. Any sense of shame or moral authority is gone via Court decisions that permit everything in the name of free speech. People increasingly look to the government for help and support rather than rolling up their sleeves and taking care of themselves and their families. The Congress has lost any sense of fiscal responsibility as they spend money on special interests while borrowing money to give away. Rome was not conquered it rotted away and there is a message there that should not be ignored by our Congress or the American People.

Rome & The Republic

The study of history has largely been abandoned in the American education system, particularly any study of ancient history but there are many lessons to be learned by simply examining the mistakes of the past. The parallels between ancient Rome and modern America should give pause to our political leaders today. Rome was a Republic that lasted for 482 years. It had an elected body—the Senate led by two Consuls. This was a very successful government until overthrown by Caesar in his drive for total power, but Rome itself lasted for over a thousand years and during that period experienced many problems and situations America faces today.

Rome was expansionist in that it conquered and incorporated territories into the Empire. But Rome was careful to preserve the cultures and leadership of those territories. Kings were left in place but most importantly Rome was careful not to tamper with the local customs and religions, that is until they ran up against the monotheistic Jews and Christians. This religious tolerance was not again experienced until the founding of America who incorporated religious tolerance into the Constitution. The Romans tolerated the Christians at first but the Christians simply would not accept the polytheistic views of the Romans. Eventually the Christians prevailed and the Roman Empire became Christian. Today America tolerates all religions including Atheism and Islam. However, just as the early Christians refused to accept the religious tolerance of the Roman Government so does Islam refuse to accept any religion except Islam. The Muslim community pleads for peace and understanding just as the early Christians did, but it should be noted that the Christians did not Christianize Rome through violence but through creeping influence and conversion until Rome was Christian. How will Islam impact America and America’s religious tolerance?

Rome accepted other people and cultures and the city itself was overflowing with people from all parts of the Empire. The Goths, Gauls, Visigoths, Britons, and others were not trying to overthrow Rome, they wanted to be part of the Roman Empire. They wanted to share the wealth and standard of living that characterized Rome. But in the simplest view, Rome simply could not accept this influx of people and cultures. Today America is under assault from thousands of people crossing our borders not to conquer us but to share the wealth and enjoy the stability of the government. This was a problem the Romans could not resolve for many reasons. They were preoccupied with foreign affairs, various wars, corruption in the government, failure in communications, unemployment, and a weakening economy. All of these issues exist in America today and it doesn’t appear that our government is any closer to solving them than the Romans but perhaps it might be worthwhile examining what the Romans did and try to not do those things.

Initially the Roman Senate was elected by the citizens of Rome and it represented their interests but gradually the Roman Senate became a self-serving group filled with corruption. Posts were bought and sold with the understanding that the person filling the post would enrich himself through corruption. The American Senate isn’t quite that bad – yet, but does the American Congress represent the people who vote them into office or do they represent the special interests and wealthy contributors who pay for their elections? The Romans never resolved this problem and whether America can is yet to be seen.

At one time Rome had over a million men in the Army spread across the Empire. This military presence was very expensive to maintain and it required a huge tax base just to maintain it. Nevertheless this huge Army was simply not enough to protect the borders or to maintain the integrity of the Empire. Today American has a huge military spread around the globe protecting America’s and in most cases international interests. This is being done with American money with only token amounts from other countries in the form of soldiers and money. Can America continue to support NATO? Can America continue to pretend the UN has any relevance and authority? Can America continue to play world policeman? The Romans couldn’t can America?

The lessons are there – is any one listening?

Soccer Tees, Pluto, and Harris Tottle

There is a fascinating book available titled “”Non Campus Mentis” which is a collection of excerpts and quotes from the various tests and papers of students. It is always fascinating to look at history through the eyes of the students which is what the author has done and when you read what he has gleaned you don’t know whether to laugh or cry. The teacher’s present the materials but then something seems to be lost in the translation from mouth to ear because the students don’t seem to hear precisely what is being said or hear it and then don’t have a clue as to what it means, how to spell it, or even how it applies to anything. So here is a summary of World History which I have compiled based on the responses taken from this treasure trove of school tests and papers . The spellings have been left intact and I leave it to your discerning eye to distinguish between what is written by me and by the students and for this reason I have elected to not use distinguishing quotation marks.

Let us begin with ancient Egypt which has always been a challenge because counter to all logic on a map the Nile runs up (North) rather than down which has always caused consternation for the observer who views Egypt on a map, because as we all know, there was Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt. Lower Egypt is actually farther up than Upper Egypt which was – of course – lower down than the upper part. This is why we learn geography as a factor in history. Egypt was certainly an interesting and powerful civilization. The rulers of Egypt were entitled as Faroes with one of the most famous being King Toot. Of course one of the most famous things in Egypt is the pyramids. The pyramids were large square triangles built in the desert. O’Cyrus was a god who lived in a piramid and would give you the afterlife if your sole was on straight. The Egyptian upper class was able to live posthumously through the arts and facts buried with them.

And this brings us to that other great civilization – the Sumerian also known as the Mesopotamian which existed in a valley near the Eucaliptus river where flooding was erotic. Babylon was similar to Egypt because of their differences they had apart from each other. Egypt for example only had Egyptians but Babylon had Summarians, Acadians, and Canadians, to just name a few. The Babylonians honored their gods by building pyramids in the shape of zeplins. Mesopotamia was dominated at various times by the Medes, Persians, and Assyrians. The Assyrian program of exterminating various ethnic groups failed to promote cultural diversity. And so closes our tour through the truly ancient cultures and brings us to the Mediterranean and the Classical Age.

Athens, Sparta, and Pluto were Greek city states. Some were Oglearchies but Athens was a democracy resulting from the reforms of Colon and Percales. Sparta demanded loyalty, military service, and obscurity from its citizens. King Xerox of Persia invaded Greace but fell off short at the Battle of Thermosalami. Religion was polyphonic and featured such gods as Herod, Mars, and Juice. Thucydides was a noted historian who collected facts objectively and saw himself as responsible only to Clio, the Greek Mouse of History. Eventually the Greeks were conquered by Phillip of Mastodon who was later killed in a family sprawl. He was succeeded by Alexander the Great who conquered Persia, Egypt, and Japan. Sadly he died with no hairs.

The Greeks were important and laid the foundation for western civilization. They were important at culture and science. The scientific method came into use when the Greeks learned never to take things for granite when solving a problem. The Atomists discovered E=MC^2 and other mathematical things. U Clid proved that there is more than one side to every plane and Pythagasaurus fathered the triangle, while Archimedes made the first steamboat and power drill. But perhaps the greatest gifts of the Greeks were in the form of philosophy. The pre-Socratics lived long before Plato and were not decisively influenced by his work. Perhaps the greatest philosopher was Socrates who was accused of Sophomorism and sentenced to die of hemroyds. His student Plato invented reality and was teacher to Harris Tottle, author of the Republicans. Other philosophies included the Epicureans for them lust was a must. Others were the Vegetarians and the Synthetics who said “if you can’t play with it, why bother”.

The Greeks were eventually replaced by the great Roman Empire which was founded sometime by Uncle Remus and Wolf. The Roman upperclassmen demanded to be known as Patricia. Senators wore purple tubas as a sign of respect. Around the 120’s B.C the Gretzky brothers failed to stop these and other injustices. But the Republic carried on and struggled with the other great Mediterranean power – Carthage. Hannabelle crossed the Alps with a herd of eliphants and thus invaded Africa. After they defeated Carthage the Romans brutaly salted the people and razored the city. Scipio was called “Africanus” because he served in Spain. The Republic prospered but eventually it came to be dominated by Julius Caesar who was famous for inspiring his men by saying “I came I saw I went”. Caesar was assassinated on the Yikes of March and is reported to have said “Me Too Brutus”.

Following the assassination of Caesar Rome was subjected to many turnoilic events, oncluding Anthony’s elusive affair with Cleopatra. The shrewd Octavian grabbed hold of the Empire and he kept the people happy by giving them breaded circuses. Augustus (aka Octagenarian) founded the Roman Catholic Empire and punished those involved in sibilancy and adultery. The symbol of his authority was the Cross. He put it everywhere. Augustus did have to leave the Empire due to his death.

There are many theories about the fall of the Roman Empire and many were totally not possible and some of them were. This included more than enough religion, too much slavery, not enough water, and smoking from lead pipes. Then the Empire was swept with a tidal wave of Goths, Hungs, Zulu’s and others who impacted Rome. Athena the Hun rampaged the Balkans as far as France, where he plumaged and tortured people of the villages he captured. Thus ended the Roman Empire and Western Civilization entered the Dark Ages where it was mostly dark.

Certainly history is a lot more interesting when you have explained through the eyes of the students. Soccer Tees, Pluto, and Harris Tottle – I salute you.

The Last Lion

I have completed both volumes of the two volume biography Winston Churchill titled “The Last Lion”. Overall this work confirms the old adage that within every fat book there is a thin book struggling to get out. While this is a very complete and detailed biography it is filled with minutiae and asides that are not all that interesting, contribute little to the forward motion of the book, and generally break the flow of the story. Nevertheless, for all of its flaws this is an excellent book and one well worth reading, because it reveals the man as he must have truly been, brilliant but flawed.

There is no doubt and this book confirms the assessment that Churchill was a brilliant and gifted man. However, it also shows his flaws and they were many. He was a man with one foot solidly planted in the 19th Century and one in the 20th Century but clearly he was never comfortable in the 20th. Ironically, he was one of the few – and maybe only – British leaders who actually looked into the future, while most of them couldn’t come to terms with what was obviously the future. Yet Churchill himself maintained many of the same values that characterized his colleagues and 19th Century Britain – the Britain of Empire, pomp, glory, and most of all power.

Churchill was an aristocrat and personified everything that most Americans find distasteful with the aristocracy. He lived his entire life with servants, other aristocrats, and the royal family. He was a “gentleman” and felt that only other ‘gentlemen” were suited to lead. By gentlemen he of course meant other aristocrats or the upper classes, but he didn’t equate upper class to money (he himself always struggled for money) but to birth – either you were born a gentleman or you weren’t and if you weren’t you could never become one. He pulled every string and used every connection to further his own ambitions which were generally to benefit the country but always seemed to benefit him as well. He was soundly disliked by almost everyone who came into contact with him. Some – like General Lord Kitchener—came to respect and admire his abilities and to tolerate him but could not be construed as friends.

Perhaps the most revealing thing about Churchill was the way he conducted himself as a junior officer. He was a subaltern – equivalent to a 2nd Lieutenant – but he regularly went off on his own, ignoring orders from superior officers, pulling strings in London to get different assignments, and simply moving on to other countries and conflicts as it suited him. Had any other junior officer attempted this they would have been court-martialed or at least called on the carpet. He simply had his mother see the King or one of her many connections and got his way. This was the root of the dislike Lord Kitchener had of Churchill. Furthermore, all of his life – including his tenure in the service – he traveled with an entourage. He always had servants and baggage – mountains of baggage that included fine wines and foods – even in the service. Unior officers do not – as a rule – have an entourage and certainly do not travel with mountains of baggage filled with luxuries. So there is no wonder in that he was heartily disliked by virtually all of his superior officers and most of his colleagues.

He was always for the country and could never really accept the loss of empire. He almost single handedly prolonged the First World War by insulting the Turks. When the Turks who were clinging to the tottering Ottoman Empire contacted him to establish an alliance prior to the war—he rejected them because they ‘weren’t gentlemen”. He then added insult to injury by confiscating three battleships built by Britain for the Turks without even offering to pay for them. He needed them – Britain needed them – the Turks were not British and therefore inferior so they had no right to them. This arrogance characterized him his entire life.

He never considered anyone except himself and what he wanted was important and necessary and what anyone else wanted or needed was unreasonable, irrelevant, or unnecessary. Opinions and needs of those not of the aristocracy or ruling class were simply ignored unless he was running for office and in that case he was willing to address their collective needs and desires – as long as it suited him.

His arrogance was monumental and was the root cause of almost all of his problems. His colleagues in Parliament detested him and conspired to keep him out of office. While this was understandable – given his personality – it cost Britain and the world dearly because he had the best grasp on the world situation and a private intelligence network that was probably superior to the governments. The result was he was a voice crying in the wilderness – ignored and vilified until the incompetence of the administration and the inevitability of war became obvious. Of course the result was he was name Prime Minister and led Britain throughout WW II. However, at the conclusion of that conflict he was turned out of office and remained for the rest of his life a man admired but not liked.

Overall – a brilliant man who foresaw most of the woes of the 20th Century but could do little to stop them primarily because of his lack of tact, sensitivity, and overall arrogance based on class.

How The World Turns

I am not a political analyst nor am I a military strategist, but I do read a great deal of history in terms of both subjects. Therefore, as I observe global events over the past several years I am beginning to wonder how much most Americans understand what is behind these events and their headlines. It seems to me that most Americans, like most Westerners, tend to think in terms of their culture and experience rather than historical perspectives, so I thought some insight might be in order.

History
Africa is a mess and it has always been a mess. The African Natives are tribal, they have always been tribal and continue as tribes even today. When a Westerner looks at Africa he sees a continent made up of various countries, but these countries are creations of the European Imperial Powers and bear no relationship whatsoever to the historical tribal boundaries. The result has been off and on again conflict between tribes and countries dominated by various tribal strongmen. It is also worthwhile noting that while the Europeans capitalized on the slave trade, the reality is that trade was going on between various African Tribes and the Arab Muslims to the East before the Europeans came on to the scene. Furthermore this trade continued up until the 1960’s when it was “officially” banned by the Saudi Government but there is every reason to believe it continues even today.

The countries across North Africa, with the exception of Egypt and possibly Ethiopia are creations of the Imperial Powers. Most of these countries as well as those of the Middle East didn’t exist until France and England carved up the Ottoman Empire. It is worth noting that the Ottomans controlled all of what is now known as the Middle East, all of North Africa, Spain, (until the 15th Century), much of the Balkans, Turkey, and Persia. This Empire was larger than the Roman Empire and was Muslim, although Christians and Jews were permitted to live within the Empire. Although the Ottoman Empire was viewed as a political entity by the West, in reality it was a Theocracy dominated by various Emirs, Aga’s, and other Religious leaders, it was never a political organization as experienced in the West.

Then we have the problems associated with the Pacific Rim. China is technically a “communist” nation but in reality it is simply following the historical pattern of a strong central government. It used to be an Imperial Nation but the strength of the central government has always ebbed and flowed dominated now by warlords and then by a strongman. The difference between the old imperial system and the current “communist” system is virtually invisible. The same is true of India, which has historically been fragmented into small states until the British came. Since that time they have more or less been forged into a nation but they continue to teeter on the brink of re-fragmentation. The more interesting point here is that both China and Japan have considered Korea to be source of slaves, to be exploited by first one then the other. Koreans are looked down upon by both the Chinese and Japanese. Until the 1950’s Korea was an insignificant backwater and the incursion of the Chinese Communists have left us with North Korea, which is led by a central figure Kim Il Jong, who is bent and determined to establish himself as a major political figure. All of these are historical perspectives that seem to be lost on the public at large.

Christendom
In this context Christendom includes Christians, Jews, Atheists, and all others who are not Muslim. Christendom is characterized by a series of nation states, some democratic and some not, but all easily distinguished by borders and some sense of national identity. With some minor exceptions these nation states fight each other over various issues, usually regarding territory or economics, but rarely over religion. While it is true that when the West was emerging from the dark ages religion and religious wars were fought,but these largely disappeared by the 1600”s. The result is that today the West is comprised of nation states whose governments have authority and can be relied upon to act with authority.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the flaw in how the West is approaching the war on terror. For the typical Westerner, wars are fought between nation states over territory, economics, or resources, but never over an abstraction like freedom or religion. Because of this ingrained idea, the West continues to perceive Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Syria, and virtually all of the “nations” of the Middle East and Africa as “nations” run by a central government. They attempt to negotiate with these entities and to sign treaties without recognizing that these governments are inherently weak and are not viewed by the Muslim population as being independent of Islam or speaking for them.

The reality is that the Muslims have been dedicated to erasing all people and religions and are not interested in establishing any government other than an Islamic one based on Shar’ia Law. They are not interested in educating their people other than in Islam so they have no interest in technology, economics, education, or any culture other than Islamic. They do not believe in freedom of any kind and are dedicated to enforcing their view of the world. Most recently Israel gave up land to the Palestinians in a futile effort to buy peace and left behind green houses, buildings, and infrastructure. The Muslims came in and promptly destroyed all of it and continued to use the land to attack Israel. The strategy of “Land for Peace” failed and it will continue to fail because the Muslims do not want to create a modern state but want to destroy everything that is not Islamic. They want to return to the seventh century and “pure Islam”.

It is widely recognized that Iran is behind most – if not all – of the terrorism today, but rather than taking the battle to the Iranians, the West continues to focus on the offending “countries” as if the government of these “countries” had any authority over the people.

Islam
Iraq has historically been the seat of the Caliphate and thus the heart of Islam. It has been the seat of Muslim art and culture and has historically had a highly educated population. However, Muslims in general are not a highly educated people but that seems to be more of a symptom than a root cause of the anger and instability that characterizes Islam today. In fact there are two sides to the Islamic issue. On the external side there is the anger aimed at the West that is being channeled through religious activism. On the surface this appears to be the continuing effort by Islam to convert the world and stamp out all other religions. But to a large extent, this is really a ploy being used by Islamic leaders to distract their people from the gross mismanagement of their only revenue source which is oil. In the classic strategy of demagogues these religious leaders are using the West and Christendom as scapegoats for the appalling conditions that exist in most Muslim countries and this represents the internal conflict that is raging throughout Islam.

Islam is actually divided into the Sunni and the Shi’ia and this schism goes back to the 8th Century and rests on the dispute over who was (is) the true successor to Mohammed. Throughout history the Sunni’s have been the minority, but also the dominant sect who have exploited and abused the Shi’ia. With the overthrow of Shah the Shi’ia became the dominant sect in Iran. Iraq was a Sunni nation and Hussein attacked Iran for many reasons, but certainly one was to re-establish the Sunni dominance. When Saddam was overthrown that unleashed the Shi’ia who are out for revenge. But beyond this mundane seeking of revenge, behind the scenes is a power struggle that is raging over the leadership of Islam – the Caliphate. Osama bin Laden was well on the way to becoming the Caliph but when he was forced into hiding his power began to wane and others are attempting to establish their right to the Caliphate by attacking the West and indirectly the Sunni’s or the Shi’ia depending on which sect they belong to. The West is caught in the middle of this power struggle and until that is resolved it is unlikely the Muslims will stablize.

Revolutions and the French

American history in general is not especially interesting since it is mostly composed of political struggles between politicians with some moral relevancies here and there. Nevertheless, in reading the papers of some of the founding fathers, it is fascinating to see their differences, their likes and dislikes, but most interestingly – how they perceived current events. This is especially true of the French Revolution, which today is viewed as an unnecessary bloodbath conducted by extremists in the name of “democracy”. To many people – even today – the French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution, but the only similarities are in the term “Revolution” and beyond that there is no similarity at all.

It is fascinating to read the papers of the Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson during this period and to see how the Americans viewed the French Revolution. Jefferson, like Madison and others saw the French Revolution as a natural result of the American Revolution. The French citizens were simply exercising their right of self-determination. But Jefferson was a Francophile and continued to make excuses for the French even as their excesses grew. He ignored the real meaning of their call for Liberte`, Fraternite`, Egalite` even after Citizen Genet arrived on the scene and Americans began calling themselves “Citizen” in the French Style. He ignored Genet's attempts to undermine the Administration until they became so extreme that even he could no longer ignore them. Eventually even Jefferson had to accept the fact that Robespierre, Danton, and Marat were out of control and were conducting an unnecessary bloodbath. But to criticize the French would have been impolitic since there was such support for the French among the American public. Plus Hamilton and others were highly critical of the French Directory and how they were conducting their affairs.

We tend to forget that the American Revolution was actually just one theater in a global war that had been going on prior to 1776 and raged off and on throughout the period and only ended with the exile of Napoleon. In fact this European War had been going on during the reign of Louis XV and then under Louis XVI as well. Wars cost money and this one was no exception and France was essentially bankrupt. Louis XVI was inept at almost everything and he had simply continued the policies of his father and grandfather without regard to the cost. Consequently the population was restive at first and then moved to rebellion. Whether or not the American Revolution had any influence on this is arguable but some certainly saw that it was possible to throw off the yoke of monarchy. Nevertheless, the country of France was effectively bankrupt and turned to America for the money owed to them by the American Government. Jefferson felt that a failure to support the French Revolutionaries would be hypocritical since they were attempting the same rebellion that the Americans had just successfully accomplished. Besides the French were still enemies of Britain and Jefferson essentially saw Britain as the arch enemy of America. The result was Jefferson recognized the money owed to the French as a legitimate debt owed to a legitimate government while Hamilton saw this as an attempt by an illegitimate group of thugs to get the money they needed to maintain their control over what was clearly a bloody purge.

It is worth noting that during this entire contretemps Washington remained above the fray. Generally his attitude was “the French be damned”. He never forgot nor forgave the way the French and British aristocracy treated him. He felt the Europeans got what they deserved and that the future of America did not lie across the Atlantic but to the West. His policy was always to grow America, to exploit our resources, and to let the Europeans stew in their own juice. This essentially became the cornerstone of American Foreign Policy up to the First World War when America became a world power that overshadowed the Europeans.

The fact is that during this entire period – in fact from the fall of the Roman Empire – the French and English were at war with each other and even today they detest each other. The French have never been able to establish a stable government and the French Revolution was really just another example of that inability. Once Louis XVI was executed and the son Louis XVII disappeared (or died your choice) the rise of a military dictator was inevitable. Napoleon just happened to seize the moment and ultimately the crown as well. However, unlike Washington, Napoleon was unable to relinquish power and establish a democratic government. Instead he succumbed to the intoxication of power and launched France on wars of conquest and thus betraying the revolution.

Washington set an example that has not been duplicated since. Instead we see revolutionaries like Lenin, Stalin, Castro, and Mao Tse Tung, seizing power for themself and failing to give up their power in favor of a democratic government. Only Washington was able to give up total power and step off of the world stage. This has set an example for the world and this example is repeated with every change in administration. Today the French and most European countries are democratic and are able to change administrations without killing each other, but they owe America and George Washington a debt of gratitude. The American Revolution stands unique in history and the French Revolution was typical of all other revolutions where the outs over threw in the ins and then proceeded to continue business as usual.

A Salute to History

As most students understand it today, history is just a bunch of old white guys who have subjugated women, enslaved “people of color”, and generally raped the environment without contributing very much to the world. We are led to believe that the entire concept of “Western Civilization” is nothing short of a manifestation of the arrogance and general ignorance of the (American) white males who refuse to recognize the major contributions of other countries and cultures. Of course anyone who has ever studied history is well aware of the falsity of that proposition so you wonder exactly what students are being taught. Then I remember that Stephen Ambrose – the alleged pre-eminent historian of the Twentieth Century admitted that he was taught a distorted view of American History and then (knowingly) continued to teach these distortions to his students throughout his career. To his credit he admitted this prior to his death and even attempted to rectify some of his more egregious comments in his last book, but even there he was unable to give up some of these distortions because left wing liberals cannot actually attribute anything noble or good to any white man.

For example Ambrose simply cannot get by the fact that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and most of the founding fathers were slave owners. Now this is a historical fact but is that all there is to these men? Should the very carefully chosen facts selected by those who purport to be “historians” define these men? Perhaps the most egregious distortion is from Ambrose who acknowledges Jefferson’s authorship of the Declaration Of Independence but then dismisses Jefferson as a hypocrite for owning slaves. What is totally ignored are the writings and actions of Jefferson in opposition to slavery. He was opposed to it and attempted to have it ended but in the end he came to realize that it was too critical to the economy of the Southern States. Of course none of this is covered by Ambrose, which seems to be typical of what passes for scholarship today.

But what about the Indians? Of course they don’t even exist anymore because they have been replaced by Native Americans, which is another politically correct but factually inaccurate description. The Indians are not native to America and clearly are simply immigrants, possibly from Asia or South America, but being first doesn’t make them “Native”. But this is simply nitpicking and it really doesn’t matter if they are called Indians, Native Americans, or Ewoks because the focus for the historians is how the white man destroyed their culture in what is nothing short of genocide. These are very serious accusations if true but then some historians refer to this time period as the “Indian Wars”. A war is considerably different than genocide because in a war their are winners and losers and deaths on both sides. Genocide is a deliberate attempt to wipe out a culture and kill a specific group of largely defenseless people – e;g; the Jews.

The Indians allied themselves with the French, the British, and even the Americans for various reasons including pay. The Indians frequently came out on top and the Yaqui Apaches have never signed a peace treaty and are technically still at war with the United States. This is not to say that in the end the Americans treated the Indians fairly, because they didn’t but unfair treatment is a far cry from genocide. This of course brings us to Wounded Knee, which is not the greatest moment in American Military History. However, shouldn’t that be placed into perspective? Weren’t the Indians at war with the US? Hadn’t the Indians attacked the Americans and were in fact fleeing from the soldiers? In fact, when viewed from a military perspective the Indians were incapable of winning. There is no doubt that the Plains Indians were some of the finest cavalry in the world – possibly second only to the Mongols but in spite of Hollywood the actual Indian War was largely an infantry affair fought between a disciplined Army with central command and an a fragmented collection of warriors. But even so, the real issue was logistics and the Indians lost because of that. The Army had permanent bases supported by a logistical infrastructure while the Indians were nomadic and without a logistical base. Wounded Knee is a vivid example of this because the warriors that were fighting the Army were hampered by their dependents. The soldiers moved alone but the Indians had to take everything with them. Food was always an issue because they were nomadic and couldn’t stay in one spot long enough to grow crops. So while Wounded Knee wasn’t glorious in some ways it was inevitable due to the nature of the Indian’s logistical structure.

But in their drive to dismiss Western Civilization as anything meaningful, these new historians must show how other cultures are equivalent and have made equal or even greater contributions to the world. Of course foremost among these is China, because after all the Chinese invented practically everything. There is no doubt that the Chinese had a very advanced culture far in advance of the West but precisely what did they do with it? Was there any great influx of Chinese explorers into Europe, Africa, or the new World? The fact is that if it hadn’t been for Marco Polo most of the discoveries of the Chinese would have remained in China.

The Japanese have historically been xenophobic and entered the community of nations only because the United States insisted. To this day the Japanese are very insular and while they build a great many things the list of their inventions is very short and many of their inventions are in fact simply enhancements of inventions by others. Essentially we can dismiss Asia as a source of anything that underpins Western Civilization even though they may have thought of it first. So we can move on to Africa – well once you exclude Egypt there isn’t anything there. However the Egyptians did contribute a great deal to our culture and form one of the roots to Western Civilization or did they? Precisely what have we inherited from the Egyptians – ancient or otherwise? Well mostly history and a lot of interesting artifacts but very little in the form or culture, organization, or government. Mostly the Egyptians fed the west – mostly Romans – who were the actual foundation of Western Civilization. So we can conclude that Civilization as we know it is mostly Western in origin and while others may have invented things the actual builders were in the West and not in the East or in Africa and this brings us back to the contemporary view of history.

It is worth noting that the protagonist in 1984 was charged with rewriting history, which at the time the book was published seemed ludicrous but that is precisely what academia and Hollywood are doing to day. We are being treated to the trashing of the heroes of western culture and the aggrandizement of the counter-culture heroes. Thus Che Guevara becomes a hero rather than the murdering terrorist that he was. The Sandinistas were not Marxists, even though they said they were (what did they know? They were simple peasants) but revolutionaries trying to throw off the yoke of America. Capitalism is bad and exploitive because it places responsibility on the individual so this makes America bad. Marxism and socialism is good because it ensures that everyone shares equally. Of course, these same people ignore George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” just as they ignore “1984”. The fact is Academia today is infested with a gaggle of PhD’s who have never had a job, people who have never had to pay their way or make a profit. These Professors have gone from kindergarten to PhD with out any break for a taste of reality. Stephen Ambrose was just the tip of the iceberg. At least he acknowledged before he died that he had knowingly and deliberately distorted the history that he taught in order to make some left leaning political points. Do you think that pseudo-historian and fake Indian Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado will ever admit that he is an left leaning ignoramus who is actually distorting facts? Not likely – so Academia like the New York Times is no longer credible and any ‘facts” coming from these sources should be taken with a very large grain of salt if not ignored altogether.

Thomas Jefferson

Currently I am reading about Thomas Jefferson and his battles with Alexander Hamilton. This is a complete history that has been painfully researched from the Library of Congress and personal letters from a variety of contemporary sources. This is fascinating reading for a variety of reasons, but one that has most impressed me are the casual references to George Washington, then President of the United States. While Washington is someone whom I greatly admire, he is almost always turned into a marble statue, devoid of any personality, but here we see him attempting to balance between two cabinet officers who are in great disagreement and whose rhetoric becomes more inflamatory by the day. Washington tries to steer a middle course because both men have merits. Woven through this piece is the French Revolution and what we now call "The Terror". Interestingly enough, this didn't carry the same horror at the time as it does now. The position of the Americans was essentially neutral but leaning toward the people rather than the government. The rationale was that to call the French Revolutionaries criminal was to repudiate what we had just done and to set a double standard. It was at this time that Washington and Jefferson set the policy of the United States that endures to this day and that is that we will recognize and support any government brought to power by the will of the people. Admittedly this policy has had some strain put on it because that is how Lenin came to power as well as many other dictators -- the old one person, one vote, one time (Saddam Hussein ring a bell?). Still it is a policy that is fundamentally sound. Not surprisingly, it was the Northern liberals (Bostonians) who went around calling themselves "Citzen" and "Citizeness" while it was the southern pragmentists who thought that was over the top and the revolutionaries were going beyond any acceptable bounds. Nevertheless, Louis XVI was truly seen as a despot who basically got what was coming to him. Fascinating reading.

Perhaps what is more interesting is that there is not one reference to the slave holding status of any of the principals. The focus is strictly on the deeds of the people involved and their personal situation is only mentioned in passing and there is no attempt to subject these people to contemporary standards. In fact their spelling is left intact, which reflects the rather relaxed rules of spelling of the time. The author of this work was born in the 19th century and died around 1960 at the age of 92. A much more reliable historian than what passes for historians today.