Posted on 03/14/2026 10:58:26 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Rudyard Lynch, host of “WhatIfAltHist,” explains how World War I turned Western civilization against honor culture and paved the way for the bureaucratic states of the 20th century. In the aftermath of mass mobilization and industrialized trench warfare, Woodrow Wilson’s vision of the global technocracy began to take shape, coming into full force after the even greater devastation of World War II. The organic, honor-based social order of the old world gave way to a managerial system that wields power by creating its own reality.
That does not even make sense.
You asserted that "correlation is not causation."
You then provided mocking examples (Like Pluto and Autism) that implied that causation and correlation are never related.
Just because you pointed out that "correlation is not causation" is a fallacy does not mean there is never a relationship between correlation and causation.
Very often there is.
The only proof you ever offer is easily debunked and shown to be incorrect.
The income tax being the most prime example, but now you also have a fight on your hands with Woodpusher who is demonstrating that birthright citizenship goes back further than Wong Kim Ark. So its not just me.
Coorelation does not equal causation is what people rely on when they’ve been proven wrong but don’t want to give up on the conspiracy theory anyways. “These two appear to be the same so they must in some way be the same”
We make fun of the wokesters for what you’re doing right now.
Let me say this again. "Correlation does not equal causation", but calling it a fallacy doesn't disprove it either.
Sometimes the correlation is exactly the result of a causation.
Yes, when proof is present because it is presented.
Well you have not yet demonstrated that it is wrong.
I cited and quoted Wong Kim Ark and Public Law 414, 66 STAT 163, 169 of June 27, 1952 which explicitly demonstrate that you are still peddling nonsense.
I find it amazing that 2 judges dissented.
I do not find it amazing that U.S. law has followed Calvin's Case since 1776, and British law followed it until 1981 when it changed that law by issuing a new statute law. Neither do I find it amazing that nobody remembers the two dissenting opinions, who wrote them, or what they said.
If you state your opinion on the law, it is predictable that you are on the "2" side of 12-2. Not that you ahave ever actually read the dissents.
You can't answer a question from 1787 by referencing a legal case in 1898.
Well you have not yet demonstrated that it is wrong.
I cited and quoted Wong Kim Ark and Public Law 414, 66 STAT 163, 169 of June 27, 1952 which explicitly demonstrate that you are still peddling nonsense.
I find it amazing that 2 judges dissented.
I do not find it amazing that U.S. law has followed Calvin's Case since 1776, and British law followed it until 1981 when it changed that law by issuing a new statute law. Neither do I find it amazing that nobody remembers the two dissenting opinions, who wrote them, or what they said.
If you state your opinion on the law, it is predictable that you are on the "2" side of 12-2. Not that you have ever actually read the dissents.
"I'm surprised you find the IRS, created to enforce the income tax, to be somehow nebulous."I'm continued to be surprised how at any time it is convenient, you drop the act that Reconstruction after the Civil War was somehow authoritarian and actually leaning into outright tyranny, and at these convenient times you try instead to leverage the notion that it was somehow managerial instead and somehow fitting right in with progressivism.
I am not surprised in the least that a progressive can find nothing wrong with creating the IRS to enforce a notoriously unconstitutional tax, and not notice that said IRS remains with us today. The unapportioned income tax was just as unconstitutional in 1862 as the unapportioned income tax that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1895, and for the same reason — such a tax was explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.
An Amendment was required to reinstitute the unapportioned income tax after it was struck down by Scotus. But an Amendment prevailed. Once the government got addicted to the flow of other people's money that an income tax could supply, it was hooked. And the power of the IRS. Even when Scotus struck down the tax as unconstitutional, the IRS soldiered on. When the Constitution was amended to permit an unapportioned income tax, the IRS was still a going concern just waiting for an income tax to enforce.
Yes, our beloved IRS was created to collect an unconstitutional tax to fund the Union civil war effort, and it has continuously remained one of our most beloved institutions since 1862.
The West adopted paper money in the 18th century, facing controversies over inflation, notably in American colonies and France. Wars prompted the use of fiat currencies, like the American "greenbacks" during the Civil War.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/finance/fiat-money-meaning-advantages-disadvantages-and-examples/
Fiat Money : Meaning, Advantages, Disadvantages and ExamplesLast Updated : 23 Jul, 2025
What is Fiat Money?
Fiat money is defined as a form of currency not tied to any commodity like gold or silver and is typically declared legal tender by the issuing government through a regulatory authority. Its value hinges on the dynamics of supply and demand and the stability of the government that authorizes it. Modern paper currencies, including the U.S. dollar and the euro, are examples of fiat money. Unlike commodity money, which is linked to precious metals, and representative money, which represents a claim on commodities, fiat money relies on the creditworthiness of the issuing government. Various factors, such as inflation, government policies, and economic conditions, can impact the value of fiat money. Introduced as an alternative to commodity money, it represents a flexible yet government-dependent system where broader economic and political contexts shape its worth.
Geeky Takeaways:
Fiat money is a currency that is not backed by commodities like gold or silver and is declared legal tender by the issuing government.
It depends on supply-and-demand dynamics and the stability of the authorizing government.
These include aspects such as inflation, policies, and economic conditions that impact value.
That is an assertion. You know all the examples of cited cases where it didn't. (Such as Sailor's snug harbor)
Neither do I find it amazing that nobody remembers the two dissenting opinions, who wrote them, or what they said.
It's not amazing that people don't remember the dissenting opinions. It is amazing that there WERE any dissenting opinions.
With the entire force of the King coming down on the Judges, and civil war as a prospect for voting against the king, it is amazing that two judges still had the balls to do it.
Am I not explaining the point in a clear enough manner that you can get it?
Those two judges were potentially taking their own life in their hands for voting against the King.
It is unremarkable that the majority will cave if threatened. It is quite remarkable that two of them would not cave under pressure.
The Asch conformity experiment shows that 80% of a population will go along with the majority, while 20% will insist on the truth.
2 out of 12 is close to 20%. (16.6666%)
The Radical Republicans were a diverse bunch. Some of them were proto-Leftists, some not. Most of the really Left RR's became Democrats in the nineteenth century. Others switched their crusading from the plight of blacks to the plight of ex-Confederates (Charles Sumner was one of these) and supported the Liberal Republican Party against Grant and the conventional "Radicals" in 1872.
Some Confederates and supporters also went Left, from the Alabama Confederate soldier who became an anarchist and was killed the the Haymarket affair to the Breckinridge family of Kentucky. It was the Confederacy, not the Union, that experimented with state socialism late in the war.
Also recall that many of these very same early progressives, who were so radical, later became the "Old Right." Herbert Hoover got his start in the Efficiency Movement, which was about as technocratic as you could get.
The fact remains, Woodpusher.
The Civil War was not managerial.
Woodpusher does not argue that the Civil War was managerial. No need to hide from it. Embrace it. Its been your position for probably decades - the Civil War was tyrannical.
This is crucial.
Exactly what Virginia said in their secession statement. It's hard to believe you have decided to support the confederate view of things.
I can believe you did not cut and paste my whole sentence, just the convenient 5 words end of it.
It is quite true that the early Republican party attracted all sorts of leftwing radical trouble-makers in the early days, which is unfortunate because I believe that the cause of preserving the Union to have been a just one. Lincoln started out as a sensible Republican who increasingly had to curry favor with the party's radical factions to prevent a political splinter during the war.
As a case in point, Karl Marx was an international correspondent for the New York Daily Tribune, and he was 100% behind the radical abolitionists and the radical reconstructionists, as were most left wing radicals of the time. It's unfortunate that the union cause became wedded to radical abolitionism and reconstruction, though fortunately the saner elements of the party ultimately prevailed by the 20th century.
The Democratic Party had its origins in Jeffersonian (and Jacksonian) Agrarianism. It only started to resemble anything recognizable to today's liberals and leftists with William Jennings Bryan's candidacy in 1896 and 1900 (despite his religious fundamentalism, Bryan was the economic "progressive" of his day). By the time Wilson was President, northern Democrats at least tended to be solidly progressive, though the South remained the stronghold of conservative Bourbon Democrats for decades to come.
After reading your sentence more carefully, I see that you were articulating that this was woodpusher's position.
So I was mistaken in what I thought you had written.
No problem.
These are highly charged topics.
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.