33 Questions about American History You are not Supposed to ask!

Status
Not open for further replies.

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Thomas Woods had earlier devastated the Leftwing/Neocon establishment with his Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Not satisfied with an obvious intellectual win, he decided to rub it in with his newest book, 33 questions about American history you're not supposed to ask.

For the history student who is concerned with liberty and alarmed at the erosion of American historical consciousness, this is arguably our most powerful weapon. This book focuses your brain on the weak points of Left-Wing Neocon Trotsky Politics. To state it in other words, these questions can't be satisfactorily answered. To answer these questions is to concede the debate to the Paleocon.

But what does it matter what history teaches? This is the question Daryl Hart raised in a review of Lillback's biography on George Washington (I was shocked a historian asked this!). Simply, history is a form of philosophy on the offensive. The writing of history shapes a consciousness better than any erudite professorial discourse.

When Moses brought the people of Israel out of Egypt, they didn't simply "worship another god" when Moses was on the mountain. They did that, true, but the manner of their idolatry was a re-writing of history. Nowadays, our professors, along with some Christians, point to a secular basis and say, "Americans, behold thy gods that brought thee out of the land of Britain!" That is just one example of many.

Here is a "battle plan." If these questions are mastered and absorbed by sizable, influential numbers of the populace in key areas of the country, we would very well begin to see the sparks of liberty revived in America. Even if RP loses, which he probably will, too many Americans have seen the emperor naked. Too many Americans will have read Thomas Woods' book. After filet mignon, we are no longer satisfied with Big Macs.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. - ThomasEWoods.com

Contents
Introduction Hoaxes and History
Chapter 1 Did the Founding Fathers support immigration?
Chapter 2 Did Martin Luther King Jr. oppose affirmative action?
Chapter 3 Were the American Indians really environmentalists?
Chapter 4 Were states' rights just code words for slavery and oppression?
Chapter 5 What was "the biggest unknown scandal of the Clinton years"?
Chapter 6 How wild was the "wild West"?
Chapter 7 How antiwar have American liberals really been over the years?
Chapter 8 Did the Iroquois Indians influence the United States Constitution?
Chapter 9 Did desegregation of schools significantly narrow the black-white educational achievement gap?
Chapter 10 Was the Civil War all about slavery, or was something else at stake as well?
Chapter 11 Can the president, on his own authority, send troops anywhere in the world he wants?
Chapter 12 Is it true that during World War II "Americans never had it so good"?
Chapter 13 How does Social Security really work?
Chapter 14 Was George Washington Carver really one of America's greatest scientific geniuses?
Chapter 15 Was the U.S. Constitution meant to be a "living, breathing" document that changes with the times?
Chapter 16 Did Indian wisdom help the Pilgrims grow corn?
Chapter 17 Who is most responsible for the "imperial presidency"?
Chapter 18 Is discrimination to blame for racial differences in income and job placement?
Chapter 19 Where did Thomas Jefferson's radical states' rights ideas come from?
Chapter 20 What really happened in the Whiskey Rebellion, and why will neither your textbook nor George Washington tell you?
Chapter 21 What made American wages rise? (Hint: it wasn't unions or the government.)
Chapter 22 Did capitalism cause the Great Depression?
Chapter 23 Did Herbert Hoover sit back and do nothing during the Great Depression?
Chapter 24 Did Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal lift the United States out of the Depression?
Chapter 25 Does the Constitution's commerce clause really grant the federal government the power to regulate all gainful activity?
Chapter 26 Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to do whatever it thinks will provide for the "general welfare" of Americans?
Chapter 27 Does the Constitution really contain an "elastic clause" that gives the federal government additional, unspecified powers?
Chapter 28 Did the Founding Fathers believe juries could refuse to enforce unjust laws?
Chapter 29 What do foreign-aid programs have to show for themselves?
Chapter 30 Did labor unions make Americans more free?
Chapter 31 Should Americans care about historians' rankings of the presidents?
Chapter 32 Who was S. B. Fuller?
Chapter 33 Did Bill Clinton really stop a genocide in Kosovo?
Conclusion Schools and Superstition

33questions_resized.jpg
 
But what does it matter what history teaches? This is the question Daryl Hart raised in a review of Lillback's biography on George Washington (I was shocked a historian asked this!). Simply, history is a form of philosophy on the offensive. The writing of history shapes a consciousness better than any erudite professorial discourse.

When Moses brought the people of Israel out of Egypt, they didn't simply "worship another god" when Moses was on the mountain. They did that, true, but the manner of their idolatry was a re-writing of history. Nowadays, our professors, along with some Christians, point to a secular basis and say, "Americans, behold thy gods that brought thee out of the land of Britain!" That is just one example of many.

Jacob, that's very quotable. Thanks for the review.
 
Sounds good. The description also reminds me of Larry Elder's The Ten Things You Can't Say In America:

1. Blacks Are More Racist than Whites
2. White Condescension Is as Bad as Black Racism
3. The Media Bias--It's Real, It's Widespread, It's Destructive
4. The Glass Ceiling--Full of Holes
5. America's Greatest Problem: Not Crime, Racism, or Bad Schools--It's Illegitimacy
6. There Is No Health-Care "Crisis"
7. America's Welfare State: The Tyranny of the Statist Quo
8. Republicans Versus Democrats--Maybe a Dime's Worth of Difference
9. The War Against Drugs Is Vietnam II: We're Losing This One, Too
10. Gun Control Advocates--Good Guys with Blood on Their Hands
 
But what does it matter what history teaches? This is the question Daryl Hart raised in a review of Lillback's biography on George Washington (I was shocked a historian asked this!). Simply, history is a form of philosophy on the offensive. The writing of history shapes a consciousness better than any erudite professorial discourse.

Could you kindly supply some type of reference to the D.G. Hart review? I should like to read it (or listen to it or watch it or whatever).
 
When Moses brought the people of Israel out of Egypt, they didn't simply "worship another god" when Moses was on the mountain. They did that, true, but the manner of their idolatry was a re-writing of history. Nowadays, our professors, along with some Christians, point to a secular basis and say, "Americans, behold thy gods that brought thee out of the land of Britain!" That is just one example of many.

Good point; there is no neutrality in historiography.
 
But what does it matter what history teaches? This is the question Daryl Hart raised in a review of Lillback's biography on George Washington (I was shocked a historian asked this!). Simply, history is a form of philosophy on the offensive. The writing of history shapes a consciousness better than any erudite professorial discourse.

Could you kindly supply some type of reference to the D.G. Hart review? I should like to read it (or listen to it or watch it or whatever).

It was in a Modern Reformation issue concurrent with the release of Lillback's book. I read it at seminary and don't have the bibliographic info available (I no longer live in Jackson).
 
Can you clarify "left wing neocon establishment"?

Politically the left-wing and neocons are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I would think the neo-conservatives would love those books and have probably endorsed them in the likes of The Weekly Standard and Commentary magazines.
.
 
Last edited:
Can you clarify "left wing neocon establishment"?

Politically the left-wing and neocons are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I would think the neo-conservatives would love those books and have probably endorsed them in the likes of The Weekly Standard and Commentary magazines.
.

Neocons hate Woods. For all their rhetoric, neocons and liberals have the same view of politics: centralization of power in the government. Liberals want big government at home. Neocons want big govt overseas. .
 
Can you clarify "left wing neocon establishment"?

Politically the left-wing and neocons are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I would think the neo-conservatives would love those books and have probably endorsed them in the likes of The Weekly Standard and Commentary magazines.
.

Neocons hate Woods. For all their rhetoric, neocons and liberals have the same view of politics: centralization of power in the government. Liberals want big government at home. Neocons want big govt overseas. .

So......

Liberals taken to their logical conclusion are essentially Communist.
Neocons taken to their logical conclusion are essentially Globalist Corporate Fascists.

Does that sound about right? Or am I missing the picture entirely.
 
Can you clarify "left wing neocon establishment"?

Politically the left-wing and neocons are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I would think the neo-conservatives would love those books and have probably endorsed them in the likes of The Weekly Standard and Commentary magazines.
.

Neocons hate Woods. For all their rhetoric, neocons and liberals have the same view of politics: centralization of power in the government. Liberals want big government at home. Neocons want big govt overseas. .

So......

Liberals taken to their logical conclusion are essentially Communist.
Neocons taken to their logical conclusion are essentially Globalist Corporate Fascists.

Does that sound about right? Or am I missing the picture entirely.

That is close to Hayek's thesis in Road to Serfdom.
 
Neocons hate Woods. For all their rhetoric, neocons and liberals have the same view of politics: centralization of power in the government. Liberals want big government at home. Neocons want big govt overseas. .

So......

Liberals taken to their logical conclusion are essentially Communist.
Neocons taken to their logical conclusion are essentially Globalist Corporate Fascists.

Does that sound about right? Or am I missing the picture entirely.

That is close to Hayek's thesis in Road to Serfdom.

Would you recommend Road to Serfdom? If so where can I obtain it?
 
Can you clarify "left wing neocon establishment"?


Neocons hate Woods. For all their rhetoric, neocons and liberals have the same view of politics: centralization of power in the government. Liberals want big government at home. Neocons want big govt overseas. .

Neocons want big govt overseas?? I'm not sure where you got that idea. They realize we are in a global economy which might ruffle the feathers of the Pat Buchananites, but the economy is what it is.

The neocons won't cede any sovereignty to overseas govts or corps which is what I infer from your post.
 
Can you clarify "left wing neocon establishment"?


Neocons hate Woods. For all their rhetoric, neocons and liberals have the same view of politics: centralization of power in the government. Liberals want big government at home. Neocons want big govt overseas. .

Neocons want big govt overseas?? I'm not sure where you got that idea. They realize we are in a global economy which might ruffle the feathers of the Pat Buchananites, but the economy is what it is.

The neocons won't cede any sovereignty to overseas govts or corps which is what I infer from your post.

Yes, the neocons want to engage in nation-building overseas. But more importantly, neocons, along with leftists, see the State as a quasi-Messiah. If I can find it, a neocon at the 2004 RNC gave a speech which placed Bush on the throne of God (almost literally speaking...I will try to dig that up).

Of course, leftists believe the exact same things, just different characters.

I am not a Buchananite. I have issues with Pat on a few points.
 
So......

Liberals taken to their logical conclusion are essentially Communist.
Neocons taken to their logical conclusion are essentially Globalist Corporate Fascists.

Does that sound about right? Or am I missing the picture entirely.

That is close to Hayek's thesis in Road to Serfdom.

Would you recommend Road to Serfdom? If so where can I obtain it?

Here is the cartoon version.
The Illustrated Road to Serfdom
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top