Thank you, Gerard, for yet another wonderful bit of writing. This one pretty much says (and has) it all.

Well said. Which reminds me of this 60's slogan:

"Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?"

The clueless lefties conveniently forgot the next line:

"Why, then, war would come to them."

Sad.

Gerard wrote ...."there are many among us who evidently "Clear History" on a daily basis in order to keep their dark dream of a perfect world, a single world, a utopian realm alive in the clear light of day. It is, as you can see today, even possible for these people to "Clear History" of a videotape of a woman having her throat cut and head severed in the name of Islam last Saturday. With "Clear History" all erasures are possible."

Here is a link to the story, of the murder of Atwar Bahjat, one of the country’s top television journalists,an act of exceptional cruelty:

The Fight Against Evil
by Curt at FloppingAces.net

Would not the LSM be screaming "bloody murder" if this had been one of the AP stringers? This was Iraq's Mrs. Jamie Ruben, only she wasn't on the same side as Christina or Eason Jordan.

Read that piece and you will truly understand what Gerard it telling us/teaching us with:

"Clear History" by Vanderleun at American Digest.org

And if you still need more words of sanity to complete your outrage and to implant firmly into your mind why you will not ever, ever, ever give them the power back, read:

The Worst Party in American History: A History of Treason pt.II.
by Robert Farrow of The BaltimoreReporter.com

Gerard, your "own way" is marvelous as usual. Thank you.

Gerard, here's a post by one Zoe Brain. I think you'll find interesting:

http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2006/05/un-natural-selection.html

While not obviously connected to your posting, I do believe you will find areas of commonality. Not least the fact both your postings deal with the destructive effects of misunderstandings and erroneous assumptions.

We are a social animal because it improved our ancestors' chance of survival. We have history because we needed to keep records of what we produced and traded. We work best when we work voluntarily as a group, and when we know what we are doing and what our ancestors have tried in the past. Why re-invent the wheel when you can get Michelins from your auto mechanic?

Breathtaking. "Clearing History" is now bookmarked right next to Bill Whittle's "Sanctuary".

JWM

Finally! An Abbey quote! I knew you had the poison.

Twenty years of schooling and they put him on the night shift?

You speak of a yearning towards a utopia that never comes and the connection of this with a lack of foundation in history. I have a slightly different take (exegesis) on this that also involves history. Consider that the exodus is the mother of the myth of creation. The Jews were brought out of Egypt. The world was brought out of the void. Now, the unadulterated spirit is will and will is power. The urge to go beyond the self (yearning), the daemonic urge, or romanticism, is perversion of this power. Classicism to the extent that it elevates the intellect, or dwells on the distinction that can be made between the power of the mind, rationalism, and mere corporeality, sets up a tendency towards adulteration of the will. The next logical step from classicism is towards romanticism. The daemonic spirit appeared through the movement of Christianity. Romanticism is the daemonic spirit, the erotic in nature. Think of the sensuous genius Don Juan: "My need is too great for anyone to satisfy." His need, having been brought out of the void is based in a state of estrangement from himself which he can never overcome simply by trying through the satisfaction of the senses to turn around and fill the void.

This ubiquitous yearning speaks of the soul's failure to recognize it is essentially complete from its inception. Thus the continuous attempt of the soul to go beyond itself with the concomitant urge to see reality as greater than itself.

The prehuman force existential mass is the most concrete medium while romanticism, the post human force is given perfect expression by the most abstract medium, music, e.g., the music of Mozart.

This leaves us with a "Sickness unto Death".

John Hinds

is not this intense Technocratic state going to drive history underground, as it becomes to complex given its simplicity? For those of you who do not know, a Technocratic state, i may be wrong is saying "state", but whatever, anyhow, It is a society in which the government teaches its bright and young to learn in incredibly technical, and advanced ways, to increase technology. however, such a form of education results in the laymen not understanding anything any one of these professors has to say, resulting in a very ambiguous knowledge of everything, as these confused people go out and try to learn for them selves, and learn wrong.

Outstanding, Gerard. I tried to get at some of this in Dark Gods and Dark Gods Part 2: The War On Truth, but you've outclassed me here. Congratulations!

"All men are created equal". The central problem of democracy, as practised currently in the West, is that the political system is based on that statement - which is just plain WRONG.

Men (and women) are anything but equal. In law in the USA (and in Britain), the vote of someone who can barely write his own name (or possibly that can't even do that) and is poorly enough educated that he can't possibly understand the issues is worth just the same as that of a brain surgeon. The vote of someone who has never done a day's work in his life is worth the same as that of a Medal of Honour (or VC) veteran. Examples could be multiplied.

I believe that there used to be restrictions to voting rights. They ought to come back.

Outstanding, Mr. Van der Luen.

I'll go ahead and cut a firing step for you, too.

My trench will have all the best people in it.

We face dark, dark days. But that is what freedom really comes down to.

"Will you fight for it? No? Then it was never yours to keep."

I fought. I'll fight again, too. I just wish my daughters didn't have this world as our legacy.

A worthy post, indeed.

"The other group is determined to shape History now by fighting and defeating resurgent Islam by any means, any means, necessary."

The fundamental weapon for which, is restoring history and education - that'll help produce more bullets and bombs and people determined to aim them true, than any other arsenal or boot camp.

Fletcher Christian said ""All men are created equal". The central problem of democracy, as practised currently in the West, is that the political system is based on that statement - which is just plain WRONG."

For one thing, the Founders never mistook George III as being the equal of George Washington. The only mistake the Founders made was assuming that Philosophy and Education could not devolve into such a process of diseducation, that their (then) commonly held principles, that all men were born with Individual Rights, could be contorted into all men are literally equal.

For another thing, they explicitly strove to ensure that we would NEVER become a Democracy, they devised a Constitutional 'Republic... if you can keep it", whose Representatives were democratically elected... via delegates. The Founders understood Hierarchy, and that hierarchy has been the target of the proregressives since day one - their 17th amendment a case in point. Another case in point would be their constantly and stridently referring to this nation as a 'Democracy', and stating that 'all men ARE equal' (and the implicit 'those who aren't, we'll forcibly equalize down to the level of the rest'), rather than all men possessed equal rights before the law.

Here, read the constitution line by line, together with the documents which they had in mind when creating it, and the arguments they used in debating for and against ratification, The Founders Constitution, hosted by the University of Chicago Press and the Liberty Fund.

Un-miseducation would be a worthy goal. It would also prevent having history cleared.

Van, the quote "all men are created equal" was a direct quotation from Mr. Van der Leun. Any political system based on that premise, whose falsity is demonstrated many times per day, is doomed to ultimate failure.

I'll take your word on the niceties of the American Constitution and its avoidance of this fallacy. However, I suspect that the recognition of inequality in that document has been rather diluted over the years.

Example: Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it the President is elected by an electoral college with members from each state. However, also as I understand it, many of the states have state laws requiring electoral college members to vote in the Presidential election en bloc, in accordance with the popular vote - which means that the electoral college is worse than useless. In other words, the way the system actually works is at variance with the way it was supposed to.

There is another reason why democracy without any entitlement qualification procedure is doomed, ultimately, to failure. I may not have the words exactly right; but "Democracies last until the masses realise that they can vote themselves largesse from the public purse". The USA is well along that path; so is the UK. This is a very old problem indeed; "bread and circuses".

The solution I personally favour is that of Heinlein. It is never going to happen though, short of complete breakdown and rebuilding of Western civilisation. Another way would be equally simple; if you paid tax last year, you get a vote; if you didn't you don't.

fletcher christian said "the system actually works "

That's a quote from your comment, does it adequately represent your view... or is it perhaps missing some context?

"...requiring electoral college members to vote in the Presidential election en bloc, in accordance with the popular vote - which means that the electoral college is worse than useless...."

The electoral college has always been the weakest creation of the Founders, but it still worked well enough to keep Gore out.

"I'll take your word on the niceties of the American Constitution"

The 'niceties'(?!) of the American Constitution?! You'll take MY WORD for it?! How dare you, you damn fool! The USA and the UK are well along the path they are on, because people like you have been more concerned with complaining (I assume Fletcher Christian is a selected nic), than in learning what is worthwhile and what those things depend upon - and here's a tip - you won't find the answers in Heinlein or H.G. Wells.

Paying for a ticket to vote is not going to solve anything - those able to are just more prosperously ignorant of what they need to know. Abolishing the Income Tax isn't going to solve anything either. Those are just results of the progressive egalitarianism - 'democracy', abolish them, and the people indoctrinated with the ideas will just holler for replacement legislation. It took a good 50+ years to de-educate us into this mess, and it will likely take as least as long to educate us out of it.

There are no easy answers... certainly not through science fiction.

Oh, that was good. That hit the spot.

I got all choked up here:

"America" should terrify tyrants of all creeds. "America" means the finish on Earth, once and for all, of all that is not free. Not soon, and perhaps not for some time to come, but in the end the American idea, if not America itself, will prove to be as unstoppable as man.

I miss my father terribly. He used to talk like that. He was a Korea-era vet and a dyed-in-the-wool-dharma-bum beatnik.

Among other things, he left me his book collection when he died--it's all military history, Jack Kerouac, D.T. Suzuki and Alan Watts zen. I devoured them all greedily. Now it's my history.

Thanks, Gerard.

Van:

Yes, I did mean "how the system actually works". I will expand: As I understand it, the entire concept of the electoral college was created to avoid the problem here being discussed; that unfettered democracy will inevitably lead to "bread and circuses". The idea being, presumably, that the members of the college will be better educated and informed than average (particularly regarding the merits or otherwise of the candidates) and will therefore be more likely to return a candidate capable of doing the job.

However, this requires the college members to have the freedom of their own judgement and conscience in making that selection. Mandate them by law to do what they are told by the mass electorate, and they may as well not be there.

I believe (no time to check) that the majority of American states have that mandate for their collegiates - so the college members from those states might just as well be photocopiers, for all the difference they make.

Incidentally, there is a hidden assumption in your latest post; that it was a good idea to keep Gore out in the first place. I think that a majority of voters at the time, and even more likely now, would disagree with you; and it's certainly arguable. After all, with Gore as President there would now probably be approximately 4000 more Americans, and 650 billion dollars more in the kitty.

"Niceties" was perhaps the wrong word. "Details" might have been better. However, perhaps you can answer a question for me. I'm British. What possible utility is there for me in learning the details of the constitution of a country which I have visited once for two weeks, may never visit again (I have medical problems making it inadvisable for me to fly), have no intention in ever living in and certainly will never be a citizen of, and therefore will never have an influence in?

I don't know for sure, obviously, but I suspect that members of the several states' electoral colleges are all the most reliable of the party members. Perhaps one way out of this impasse would be to make it unlawful for any electoral college member either to be a member of any party or accept money from them?

I agree with you about one thing (I think); democracy, whatever the details of its working, only works if the majority of the electorate is educated well enough to understand the issues and to see through the lies of politicians (what was that quote about statistics, for example?). That assumed education is no longer the case, either in the USA or in the UK. I am a nasty, cynical SOB, so I suspect that state of affairs is deliberate - it's much easier to rule uneducated proles. The people in charge always manage to get THEIR kids a decent education, one way or another - and thus make sure that their little in-group stays in charge.

Where we might differ is in one thing; I think that voting is a privilege that should have to be earned. Heinlein's answer, though incomplete, was one; another might be to restrict the vote to people who pay tax; a property or educational qualification is another. The main point is for those who elect the people who make the decisions to know that if they elect an idiot, a lunatic, a demagogue or a crook, electing him will be paid for one way or another by the people who made that mistake. This is very far from being the case at the moment, in either of our countries.

"The system actually works", although definitely out of context, might actually be accurate. But for whom does it work?

"Incidentally, there is a hidden assumption in your latest post; that it was a good idea to keep Gore out in the first place."

If that seemed hidden, let me correct that - it was a damn good thing that Gore was kept out in the first place. And if you consider his political assexertions in his movies, the idea that his admin would be less expensive is even more ignorant than his glowbull warming preaching’s.

"I think that a majority of voters at the time, and even more likely now, would disagree with you"

Hint: that's actually THE prime purpose of the Electoral College, that the weighted votes of the states are counted, NOT the popular 'democratic' vote.

"However, perhaps you can answer a question for me. I'm British. What possible utility is there for me in learning the details of the constitution of a country which I have visited once for two weeks, may never visit again ..."

Sorry, I'm struggling to forego a few cracks about the extent to which you may suffer from being mentally impaired (I said struggling... not succeeding). Perhaps you can answer a question for me... given THAT position... what in the Heck are you debating the issue at all for? Not only do you not understand the issues and ideas involved (largely derived from your countrymen btw, Locke, etc), but you say they are of no relevance to you?!

"I am a nasty, cynical SOB, so I suspect that state of affairs is deliberate - it's much easier to rule uneducated proles. The people in charge always manage to get THEIR kids a decent education, one way or another - and thus make sure that their little in-group stays in charge."

Yes, on that part we can agree. Might want to look into the educational philosophy which dominates both our systems, descending from Hegel, Wundt, Fichte, Dewey - it's actually quite easy to locate the quotes where they come out and say as much. For example, this from Woodrow Wilson, who prior to becoming President of the United States, was President of Princeton College, and he typified the progressive goal with his advice to the Federation of High School Teachers: "We want one class of persons to have a liberal education and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."

What could be better than an entire class of slaves, who didn’t realize that they were slaves? It also follows that such a statement also betrays not only supreme political ignorance, but economic ignorance as well - typical of Progressives and the modern left.

Van:
"what in the Heck are you debating the issue at all for?"

Simple curiosity. But my curiosity is limited; I cannot possibly affect American politics, so my taking what amounts to an American civics course is somewhat pointless - and of course such a course will be pretty heavy on the propaganda. If I need specific information; well, that's what the Internet is for.

I will take a stab at defining the central issue - one that has been debated for thousands of years, and humanity hasn't got it right yet. That issue appears to be the greatest happiness and freedom of the greatest number. Freedom, that is, consistent with not impinging on the freedom or well-being of others; only real extremists advocate total freedom including the unrestricted freedom to commit violence on anyone else. In any case, anarchy is unstable.

Benevolent dictatorship may be an ideal as far as the happiness is concerned - but that, of course, depends on the benevolence continuing.

...dozens of pages of possibilities omitted...

I believe that it was Churchill who said that "Democracy is the worst political system conceivable, apart from all the others". One specific problem is that unfettered democracy is hard on the minority. Another is that democracy in any form (going back to the roots - "rule by the people") relies on the voters being responsible in the exercise of their vote; which requires as a minimum that the electorate is at least able to understand the issues. Another is the buying of votes by one means or another. (bread and circuses, pork-barrel, heavy lobbying?)

Hell, entire books have been written on this sort of subject. By the way, does being a science-fiction writer mean that you are not allowed to express your ideas, or that others are not allowed to consider them?

Perhaps the Singularity will solve all our problems. Having a non-human entity or entities, with none of our hormonally-based drives, running society might be the best idea of all. I think I'd like to live in the Culture.

"so my taking what amounts to an American civics course is somewhat pointless - and of course such a course will be pretty heavy on the propaganda. "
(blink)

An 'American civics course'!? Propaganda?!

Click the link I left above, the first two references linked to, you'll find are for
1. John Locke, Second Treatise, § 131, 1689
2. William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:157, 1765

You're countrymen. Work on through the site and you'll also find Cicero, Montesquieu, Aristotle, etc. There's no Propaganda, there's the development of, and arguments for and against, a revolutionary development of ideas. 'American civics’ lesson'... the Founders didn't discover an 'American' anything, civics or otherwise, they drew on the lessons of history, found the next lesson to be learned, and put it into practice. There is nothing exclusively American about what they accomplished, only that the time and place it was in America. Sorry, but what you said smacks of (and I don't mean the deeper insult or equivocation here, just the sense) Hitler forcing Einstein out of Germany (to America), saying they didn't ‘need no stinkin' jewish science’. That kind of thinking tends to come back and bite you in the end.

“Another is that democracy in any form (going back to the roots - "rule by the people") relies on the voters being responsible in the exercise of their vote; which requires as a minimum that the electorate is at least able to understand the issues.”

Yep, a Republic (‘if you can keep it’) requires an educated, not schooled, but educated and aware populace. That requires a people who don’t dismiss their most significant ideas and history as propaganda.

"By the way, does being a science-fiction writer mean that you are not allowed to express your ideas, or that others are not allowed to consider them?"

Of course not, and some of the best writing done in recent times has come from science fiction writers, but when considering such issues, the first level or knowledge and understanding ought to come from closer to home, then more abstract considerations have a foundation more worthy of being abstracted from.

"Perhaps the Singularity will solve all our problems. Having a non-human entity or entities, with none of our hormonally-based drives, running society might be the best idea of all. I think I'd like to live in the Culture."

Yeah. Or perhaps you'll be led to the slaughter by those wanting only "To serve mankind" (a little twilight zone (?) science fiction there for ya).

Just finished watching the second episode of HBO's John Adams before reading this. Truly, only those who have "cleared history" can support what is happening in this country right now. To turn our backs on liberty for the soft tyranny of the European welfare state is a damn shame. And a bitter irony. I pray you are right, Gerard, about the Declaration and Constitution being as persistent an idea as "standing up". However, I fear the temptations of socialism are as the serpent with the apple and humanity is doomed for the fall.

dude,

your clerk is all too typical youth, no past, (no history), no future, (thanks barry), living in the moment, the eternal now.

A blissful way of being until its time to open the vein and offer the jugular to the predators.

Nice piece.

Grand and sweeping statement of our situation. Brilliant! Thanks for re-posting.

Last night I stayed up late to watch Ann 'Barnburner' Barnhardt give a speech on the 1793 War against the Vendée. 4 parts. Bloody brilliant.

You learn a lot from clearing out 'useless history' and getting some better history. The kind of wiping of history going on now has happened before, and it's amazing that in this age of archiving everything electronically, that there still exists a 'history eraser' button.

It would be convenient for some enterprising earth worshiper to say, "Now that we have archived every important document of the West, we can just churn these books of old into cement and build prisons with it!" And then, mysteriously, all your books on Kindle will somehow...'vanish'.

History. Erased.

Nice Post,

Clear history...

Pleased to meet you, Hope you guess my name..
But what's puzzling you Is the nature of my game
I stuck around st. petersburg, When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the czar and his ministers Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank, Held a generals rank When the blitzkrieg raged And the bodies stank

I watched with glee While your kings and queens Fought for ten decades For the gods they made

I shouted out,Who killed the kennedys? When after all It was you and me
Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadours
Who get killed before they reached bombay
Pleased to meet you..Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah ..But what's puzzling you, Is the nature of my game,

The nature of the game IS to clear history, that is the only why..

Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.. I think Mick and Keith unearthed an acorn writing Lucifer's theme song..

Some want to build... Some just want to burn...

The "New World Order", that is often discussed by the conspiracy theorists (see the back of a dollar bill), was originally to be the spreading of America's freedoms across the globe, not the spread of a global ruling class, but the spread of true freedom for all of mankind. The rulers today fear personal freedoms just as the rulers of old feared it, for personal freedom is the antithesis of their power. Another excellent piece, Mr. Vanderleun, my thanks and compliments. Pray for America.