France, 1930's: A Fatal Flaw in Liberalism

[koshergrl]

They do it in the name of *wisdom* which confirms the bible even more.

 

[regent]

Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?

"Historians" like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are.

So two historians are communists, well then I guess we can trust the rest for the truth. Only two out of what, thousands, well that sure helps?

 

[daveman]

Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?

"Historians" like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are.

So two historians are communists, well then I guess we can trust the rest for the truth. Only two out of what, thousands, well that sure helps?

Oh, I have no doubt there are others. They're the ones that reference Zinn and Chomsky.

And my focus was not on Communism, but on the distortion of history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?

"Historians" like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are.

So two historians are communists, well then I guess we can trust the rest for the truth. Only two out of what, thousands, well that sure helps?

Sometimes, reggie, you seem to know whereof you speak, but here you are, if I can read between the lines, unaware of the leftward leanings of academia in general and the 'social scientists' specifically...

If one wishes to advance in academia, one had best toe the Leftist-line.
Only the bravest pursue the truth, in the way Garraty and Schivelbush do, especially with reference to the saints of the Left.

You do genuflect when you mention FDR, don't you?


Dr. Phillis Chesler, in "Death of Feminism":

1. Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth. [In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understand…and this obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear.

2. In 2004, Klein and Western published a study of the voter registration of the professors at U of C, Berkeley, and at Stanford, over 1000 professors, and concluded that the findings supported the ‘one party campus’ conjecture. At Berkeley, 9.9 to 1, and at Stanford, 7.6 to 1 of Democrats to Republicans. Ideological diversity does not exist on most campuses.
In 2005 Klein and Stern surveyed 1,678 professors, and found that faculty is heavily skewed toward Democratic, and the most lopsided fields are Anthropology (30.2 to 1) and Sociology (28 to 1).

3.: The need to belong, most will sacrifice what makes them ‘different’ in order to belong, to be liked. The tension between the need to belong and the need to think independently can be unbearable.


So, "So two historians are communists, well then I guess we can trust the rest for the truth." in light of the above, seems somewhat disingenuous...does it not?


For the record, I don't believe that most of our Leftist friends who are 'historians' are dishonest....rather they have internalized the need to say, or at least suggest, the 'correct' things. They have given up the ability to be objective in order to live well.

That doesn't apply to Zinn or Chomsky: they are dishonest, as you seem willing to admit.

 

[editec]

Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?

"Historians" like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are.

So two historians are communists, well then I guess we can trust the rest for the truth. Only two out of what, thousands, well that sure helps?

You have been misinformed.

Neither Zinn nor Chomsky advocate communism.

How do I know this?

Well among other things I studied with Zinn and I met and spoke to Chomsky.

Neither are communists.

 

[daveman]

"Historians" like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are.

So two historians are communists, well then I guess we can trust the rest for the truth. Only two out of what, thousands, well that sure helps?

You have been misinformed.

Neither Zinn nor Chomsky advocate communism.

How do I know this?

Well among other things I studied with Zinn and I met and spoke to Chomsky.

Neither are communists.

But their "histories" are wildly inaccurate, sacrificing truth for ideology.

 

[editec]

So two historians are communists, well then I guess we can trust the rest for the truth. Only two out of what, thousands, well that sure helps?

You have been misinformed.

Neither Zinn nor Chomsky advocate communism.

How do I know this?

Well among other things I studied with Zinn and I met and spoke to Chomsky.

Neither are communists.

But their "histories" are wildly inaccurate, sacrificing truth for ideology.

Feel free to point out all the historical inaccuracies you have found in your serious study of Zinn's history, Dave.

My problems with Zinn were never based on any historical inaccuracy he'd foisted.

My problems with Zinn were ALWAYS based on his analysis of what that history was actually telling us.

Tell ya what I think, Dave.

I think you've never actually studied either of what these guys wrote.

The fact that you claim either of them are communists informs me that you've never read anything they've written

I think you're making a statement about them based entirely on what somebody told you those guys thought.

Am I wrong?

 

[regent]

Surprised no one brought up Churchill and his advocating The Rule of Ten. The Rule of Ten that left Chamberlin unable to respond to Hitler at Munich. Was Churchill a liberal?

 

[Dragon]

"Arguably exaggeration"? No, it's unquestionably bullshit. You have to go back to the Dark Ages to find Taliban-like behavior among Christians.

That's because you have to go back to the Middle Ages to find Taliban-like theocratic power among Christians. The motivations of the Christian right and the Taliban are identical (allowing for the different religions involved), but we don't let the Christian right out without a keeper. That's the only difference.

EDIT: Actually, come to think of it what I said is only true in the United States, among the American Christian right. In less advanced countries, Christians can still behave in Taliban fashion.

 

[Dragon]

It's not wrong. Your position is utterly laughable and is in no way backed up by history.

There you go. Now you're being logically consistent, instead of claiming I said the opposite of what I did.

You're still wrong, though. Modern liberals agree with classical liberals on almost everything. Modern conservatives agree with classical liberals on almost nothing.

 

[PeteEU]

"Arguably exaggeration"? No, it's unquestionably bullshit. You have to go back to the Dark Ages to find Taliban-like behavior among Christians.

Your irrational hatred of Christians makes you say stupid shit.

Actually you just need to go to Uganda or Nigeria to see that... anno 2012.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Historians" like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are.

So two historians are communists, well then I guess we can trust the rest for the truth. Only two out of what, thousands, well that sure helps?

You have been misinformed.

Neither Zinn nor Chomsky advocate communism.

How do I know this?

Well among other things I studied with Zinn and I met and spoke to Chomsky.

Neither are communists.

If you don't see that Zinn was a communist, you were subsumed by personality....
...I can understand that.
Hey, bet the same with Bill Clinton...

FBI: “Zinn said that he had participated in the activities of various organizations which might be considered Communist fronts but that his participation was motivated by his belief that in this country people had the right to believe, think and act according to their own ideals,” the files say.
Howard Zinn


The fact that a bright guy like you is ready to stick up for him verifies what I have posted about the ability of self-delusion that many on the Left have developed.

 

[Artevelde]

Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?

"Historians" like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are.

So two historians are communists, well then I guess we can trust the rest for the truth. Only two out of what, thousands, well that sure helps?

Chomsky is not a historian. He's a linguist.
Howard Zinn of course is a historian.

Undoubtedly there are many left leaning historians. But there are also thers.
I'm a historian myself by training and I certainly am not left wing.

 

[Artevelde]

"Arguably exaggeration"? No, it's unquestionably bullshit. You have to go back to the Dark Ages to find Taliban-like behavior among Christians.

Your irrational hatred of Christians makes you say stupid shit.

Actually you just need to go to Uganda or Nigeria to see that... anno 2012.

Nigeria? Where Muslim radicals burn Christian churches and murder Christians in increasing numbers?

You need to get better informed.

 

[UpAndAbout]

Of course, what PC neglects to tell us is that FDR was our greatest Liberal President and that it was the US Conservatives that urged us to mind our own business and stay out of the war

Um FDR won an election by promising to keep us out of the war.

It was my understanding that FDR saw a way to get us out of the depression. War creates jobs producing weapons, ships, etc. And that's what happened, it got us out of the depression.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Historians" like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are.

So two historians are communists, well then I guess we can trust the rest for the truth. Only two out of what, thousands, well that sure helps?

Chomsky is not a historian. He's a linguist.
Howard Zinn of course is a historian.

Undoubtedly there are many left leaning historians. But there are also thers.
I'm a historian myself by training and I certainly am not left wing.

Oh, yeah????
Prove it:
do you have the national anthem on your iPod???



Welcome to the board.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course, what PC neglects to tell us is that FDR was our greatest Liberal President and that it was the US Conservatives that urged us to mind our own business and stay out of the war

Um FDR won an election by promising to keep us out of the war.

It was my understanding that FDR saw a way to get us out of the depression. War creates jobs producing weapons, ships, etc. And that's what happened, it got us out of the depression.

Suggesting that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming?

 

[Artevelde]

So two historians are communists, well then I guess we can trust the rest for the truth. Only two out of what, thousands, well that sure helps?

Chomsky is not a historian. He's a linguist.
Howard Zinn of course is a historian.

Undoubtedly there are many left leaning historians. But there are also thers.
I'm a historian myself by training and I certainly am not left wing.

Oh, yeah????
Prove it:
do you have the national anthem on your iPod???



Welcome to the board.

I don't have an ipod, ergo I don't have any national anthem on it.

I'm a pretty old fashioned guy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Chomsky is not a historian. He's a linguist.
Howard Zinn of course is a historian.

Undoubtedly there are many left leaning historians. But there are also thers.
I'm a historian myself by training and I certainly am not left wing.

Oh, yeah????
Prove it:
do you have the national anthem on your iPod???



Welcome to the board.

I don't have an ipod, ergo I don't have any national anthem on it.

I'm a pretty old fashioned guy.

Oh,... 8-track and betamax....

 

[Artevelde]

Oh,... 8-track and betamax....

Not really, but I still listen to radio on an actual radio (and not only on my PC).

Betamax passed me by and I went straigth into DVD's.

But mainly into books, to tell the truth.

And as far as national anthems go: the dearest to my heart is the Flemish national anthem.