Posted on 08/25/2018 9:19:05 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
In understanding the fake news that pervades every day life, it is important to understand the fake history which is fueling it. The problem here, is the mistaken belief that all fake history can be sourced back to Howard Zinn's publication of A People's History of the United States.
The critical flaw with this is that Zinn's book was published in 1980, and even those who claim that all of our ills can be traced back to the 1960's can't make this timeline work. The progressives, however, have been manipulating the historical record in a major way since 1913. Preceding Zinn's book by 67 years, Charles Beard practically admits to his scheme with the title of his most well known work An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. "An economic interpretation" is in actuality a re-interpretation - the first of its kind for Americans - under the sole basis that money rules all. A People's History, it can be truthfully stated, is nothing more than the offspring of a much earlier progenitor.
Early in its pages (page 90) A People's History embraces its heritage, quoting directly from the economic re-interpretation. On page 13 of An Economic Interpretation,(as quoted in People's) Beard wrote the following:
Inasmuch as the primary object of a government, beyond the mere repression of physical violence, is the making of the rules which determine the property relations of members of society, the dominant classes whose rights are thus to be determined must perforce obtain from the government such rules as are consonant with the larger interests necessary to the continuance of their economic processes, or they must themselves control the organs of government.
Progressives just cannot handle the concept that government's job is to protect our liberties. It just can't be that, because in the progressive view all rights come from government anyways. It all has to be about money, right, this is a capitalist society, after all. Such flaws in the progressive reasoning. Such profound, staggering flaws.
Reading the introductory pages of Beard's work is very illuminating, as is the rest of the work, because while the arguments we face today have reached their maturity you can see those very same arguments in a more juvenile form right there on his pages.
The most interesting part of Beard's book is that as he introduces three theories of history, his being the third, he can't even give it a name. It's that new. Today we would know it under the name of Critical Theory, but back then it was something..... something, anything we can get onto paper, anything we can grow with, make progress with. Something that can be a brand new beacon with which to remake the very historical record itself. Taken in full, Zinn's book is quite insignificant by comparison.
The progressives knew: We can't make progress until the American people forget about the founding - and the people can't forget it until we force them to forget it. This won't be forgotten, it must be maliciously erased.
And starting with Beard, they did just that. What makes it so devious is the patient and surreptitious nature of how they set out - and achieved their purpose. The most dangerous aspect of progressivism is their patience. They make plans that outlive their human lifespans.
Ping..........
Did Zinn ever do an expose on the horrors of his beloved Communism?
Fake history and fake agenda is all the democrats ever had it never gets better with democrats in power.
Google and Facebook prove it by keeping truth hid members of the good old boy club media winks.
Almost everything that we “know” about our world is fake. It serves the purposes of Satan to keep us in the dark. The Bible tells us that he has been given earthly dominion for the time being.
However, I hear the hoof beats of our Savior riding his stallion leading the cavalry of angels on their way to rescue those who eagerly await redemption.
Then Satan and his disobedient angels will be thrown out of heaven. Revelation 12:7-9
We only have a few days left. How many? I do not know with certainty.
DO NOT PLAY GAMES WITH YOUR SOUL.
Here is how to make sure that you are rescued.
The Gospel in six words:
Created (God created you)
Loved (God loves you)
Sinned (You are separated from God by sin, your own or inherited. The penalty for sin is death.)
Bought (God sent His son to pay the penalty (death) for your sin.)
Believed (You must believe that He has done this for you, both mind and heart. Romans 10:9-10. Accept the gift of life that your Creator is offering to you.)
Saved (If you believe, in true faith, you will be saved.)
Blessings to you and your loved ones.
Do not put off the gift that God is offering to you.
If you do not choose life, what is the alternative?
There will be no second chance.
Excellent work.
All of Progressivism is built on lies and deception.
On the one hand, history is pretty straight forward. It’s “facts”:
The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776.
The US Civil War began in 1861.
etc.
But, really, history is all about interpretation:
What to leave in.
What to leave out.
What to declare Good.
What to declare Bad.
And the “facts” are actually pretty fuzzy:
When did WWII start? The US has one answer, China has a different answer, Poland has an answer, France has an answer.
I have a BA in History and I will say that History books, in general, are all trying to persuade you to think in various directions. But most people read “history” with an uncritical eye.
Yes, my 1950s history books were biased in what they put in and what they left out, and in the interpretation.
But Hollywood has pushed the envelope. Consider Robin Hood. The facts are clear. The king was away fighting a war in the middle east. The war was sucking all the tax money.
The Sheriff of Nottingham was without his normal tax money. So he stole the grain, chickens, livestock and silverware of the middle class. He would have stolen it from the poor ... except the poor did not have anything worth taking.
Robin Hood and his Merry Men returned to their rightful owners the property that the Sheriff had stolen.
Robin Hood did not steal from the rich to give to the poor. Robin Hood did not steal. The Sheriff was big government. Robin Hood was against big government.
Back to Robin Hood, if we want to correct the record it will require highlighting the turning point. See this:
One side will gladly say something is true and the other will gladly deny it, but only those who can contrast the before, turning point, and after can put the issue to bed.
There is no fake history
Only forgotten or destroyed history
You can only lie in the moment
It took US historians like Forrest McDonald, Bernard Bailyn, and Gordon S. Wood almost fifty years to punt that a$$hole Charles Beard where he belongs. Unfortunately, much of the damage he did, like the commie Zinn, was irreversible.
Was the Vietnam War unpopular in the US?
In 1968 there were 4 candidates worth mentioning.
McCarthy was the anti-war candidate in the primaries and lost bigly to Humphrey who was pro-war.
In November 1968 Humphrey, Wallace and Nixon were all pro-war. Nixon was the most pro-war and won easily. It could be argued that the South went anti-Democrat (for Wallace) due to the McCarthy/Days Of Rage/ Democrat Convention as much or more than the racial issue.
In 1972 pro-war, anti-communist Nixon won everything except MN against McGovern of MN. Nixon did not show any weakness on the war until after he was elected.
In both 1968 and 1972 Nixon was known as Tricky Dick and hated by many Republicans and independents ... But they voted for the guy they hated because he was pro-war.
I was in heavily Democrat Chicago inner city during that period, active in Alinsky Community Organizationns, citywide co-chair of several committees with Bob Lucas from CORE and KOCO (Rev Wright’s neighborhood).
Most of the Alinsky activists were pro-war. It was something that united them with the hated Daley machine and kept them in the Democrat fold.
See if you can find that ... even a hint of that ... in any history book. They all say the Vietnam war was unpopular, which was stated falsely by the media at that time.
(PS I hated Nixon. My friends and I voted for libertarian Dick Gregory in 1968 and John Hosper in 1972. So I am not biased for Nixon. I consider Nixon’s revenue sharing the worst idea out of DC in my lifetime.)
The issue here is that of Truth and who’s version is to be disseminated.
For years on end Sean Hannity would, almost daily, point out the inconsistency and out right hypocrisy of the left and their positions. I could never understand how seemingly intelligent people could be utterly immune to logic. How the Left could maintain conflicting positions with a straight face and continue to push their agenda.
It wasn’t until a few months ago that I discovered Melanie Phillips and it became crystal clear.
Melanie Phillips: How the media manipulates truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te01MtCJP0w&t=2093s
The Left understands things based on a “Greater Truth”, in which their prospective and/or process is a more enlightened way of thinking and understanding. A purely post-modernist belief where truth is relative.
The Left believes, with all their heart and soul, that anyone that doesn’t think this way is either a neophyte, a retrograde or simply ignorant. The Left believes that it is their moral duty to re-educate those that retain any beliefs that are absolute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.