History

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
History.png
This area is about all those popular things people believe happened, but didn't. Or at least didn't in the way they think it happened. Correcting the disinformation that is the foundation of many people's beliefs.

Topics

🏛️ American History

CivilWar.jpg

As the Jewish Marxist Walter Benjamin said, "History is written by the victor", which is another way of saying, "don't believe what you've been told".

When I hear people talk about the civil war and slavery, it reminds me of a movie, "Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter", because I often feel that's as based on reality as their perceptions are (they were believing what they'd been told). A few facts that escape their version of the telling:

  • The first shots in the civil war were fired over taxes and tariffs (Morrill Tariff), not slavery
  • The Corwin Constitutional Amendment (passed by Congress) offered the South to keep slaves forever, the South declined
  • The South offered to give up slaves if the North let them go, the North declined
  • The 3/5th clause was more limiting slavery than condoning it
  • Lincoln was a racist, not an abolitionist
  • Lincoln violated the Constitution more than any other President
  • Lincoln fought for pride and conquest, the South for freedom and self government: slavery was a catalyst, not the cause
  • And so on.
History is rich and complex, not this shallow flat "good vs. bad" or the North was righteous and the South was evil bullshit. Since I care about the uncomfortable truths, more than the comforting fictions, I often discuss these things. Not to diminish what happened, or deny the points of either side, but by remembering the truth of what really happened (from both sides). Of course, since my family came to America, long after this, I have no dog in the fight, and can look at it more objectively than many. But if we care about learning from history, we first have to give up our comforting fictions (caricatures) and learn what really happened. more...
GagLiberty.png
Many on the left claim that Citizens United created/invented Corporate Personhood, and that this makes Corporations People, and this new power puts our political system "up for sale". They're frighteningly wrong on all counts, and most are highly resistant to Historical, Legal and Logical facts. But this article does a fly-over of this history of Corporate Personhood, Citizens United, and why I politically distrust anyone that decries the ruling. more...
RearviewMirror.jpg

A common mistake I've seen businesses repeat, over and over again - or more accurately I've seen many companies do once or twice until they go out of business or the idiots doing it are fired, is to "drive by watching the review mirror".

Instead of analyzing and thinking, learning technology (and markets and customers), they decide, "someone else is doing it, and since it worked for them, it'll work for us".

I want to head-smack them.... and then point out the first rule of Italian racing; "what's behind you, is not important". You're not them, they're not you: different timing, resources, talents, markets, culture, personalities, and so on -- so crushing brilliant new ideas (e.g. my ideas) because that's not what someone else is doing, is just stupid. I have no problems being told "no", if you have an intelligent reason for it, and can back it up. But "that's not what everyone else is doing" is called a bandwagon fallacy, and isn't intelligent or support. So, "everyone else does it that way", makes as much sense to me, as driving while watching all the cars behind you. By the time they slam on their brakes or swerve (and you notice and react), it is already too late. I prefer to keep my eye's on the road, and not try to lead by following. more...
Bomb.jpg
The "defeated Japan” theory, and the idea that “the U.S. didn’t NEED to drop the bomb” is regularly regurgitated by folks like Oliver Stone (the alternative History professor) in articles repeated as News or History by leftist sources such as the L.A. Times. But those who know anything about the actual history of WWII, know better. This article sources a lot of the real history, instead of the fictitious one run by FakeNews outlets. more...
FDR-button.png
FDR is taught as a liberal caricature of a great man and President. But most of the myths around him, are just that: myths. He was a man of some charm, with few strengths and many flaws. He focused power so that he could abuse it, corrupt, vindictive, liar (betrayed most that trusted him). He ignored the Constitution and his oath of office, many of the countries worst shames happened under his watch (and by his hand/guidance). According to those closest to him, he was a lousy diplomat, a poor administrator, not scholarly, nor thoughtful, well read or even bright. He was people smart (manipulator) that enjoyed playing people/groups off of each other. Other than that, he was likable, mercurial, and aloof. more...
Iraq.png
This covers many of the fallacies and bad arguments about the Iraq War. Disagreeing over the cost/benefits of a war is fine, ignoring truths because they get in the way of your agenda is not. more...
Lies.jpg
Judge Napolitano offers a refresher (for political history buffs) of the 17th Amendment and some of the unintended consequences of progressivism: like the scope creep of the federal government once we removed the checks and balances that was the 17th. more...

🔫 Gun History

NPR tries to school the right on something NPR knows little about: in this case anything to do with guns (or canons), or History. Which begs the question, "Why do we have to subsidize them"? It's not that I dislike NPR, but whenever I hear them on conservative issues, they usually fuck it up, big time. Like this example on where Molon Labe comes from, and why it's wrong to use it with AR-15's instead of a canon.
MyGadsden.jpg
There are a few late 20th century inventions in the war against civil liberties (and the 2nd), but few as virulent and wrongheaded as that the 2nd amendment was about "the militia" and the militia meant "National Guard" (something that wasn't invented until 1903). These assumptions fail at Logic, English, History, and Constitutional Law, and there were the founders words, Supreme Court rulings, and experts in language and history that all but unanimously disagree with them. Of course mere facts won't prevent the determined from demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect, but hopefully the evidence can deter a few of them from demonstrating their willful ignorance in the future.
ModernMusket.png
There’s a common argument (fallacy) that the Second Amendment didn't project changes in armament / technology, thus it couldn’t have been intended to apply to modern pistols and rifles (most of whose designs actually go back to the 1800’s or early 1900’s). This argument completely fails on the intent of the 2nd (which was about balancing power), but it even more strongly fails on understanding gun technology and history. At the founding of the country they had 8-shot revolvers, 9 shot "repeaters", 11-shot field artillery pieces, Jefferson even had a 22 shot repeating rifle. Not to mention "burst mode" automatics that fired up to 20 rounds with a single pull of the trigger. And during the remainder of their lives, not one of the founding fathers came forward to complain that technology was advancing beyond the intent of the 1st or 2nd Amendments.
GunControlForDummies.png

Defensive Gun Uses (DGU's for short) is how many times guns are used for good (to stop a crime, or for "defense") as opposed to doing harm. If you don't know how many times a gun is used for good, then how can have context on the good-to-bad ratios? In other words, if guns are used for good, far far more often than they're used to commit crimes, or for bad uses, then gun control could easily do more harm than good.

Best estimates on both are that guns are used in ≈9,000 murders per year (only about 1/2 to 2/3rds of murders are with a gun), but they're used about 2.2 million times a year to stop a crime. That means if you outlawed all guns (pure gun control), and you're naive enough to think that would stop 9,000 murders, you'd probably increase crime (including violent crimes) by a couple million more cases a year? Whether that is a net win for you is based completely on your irrational fear/hatred of an inanimate object (hopolophobia).
The news never likes to talk about GGWG's (Good Guys with Guns), and the many, many more cases, where responsible adults save lives, using guns. This is just a small sampling of the millions of DGU's (Defensive Gun Uses) that happen each year.

Examples: 5 items

  • 2019.02.04 Registered Sex Offender shot breaking in - Homeowner in Elizabeth City, North Carolina woke up to find a stranger (Tyrell Johnson) coming into the home through the locked back door, so he shot him. Twice. Johnson is a registered sex offender that had been convicted of manslaughter.
CiviliansWithGuns.jpg
There are hundreds of examples of Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians. Those claiming that civilians don’t stop school shootings are either either ignorant, liars, or both. Period. So if you hear or read that claim, you can immediately consider the source discredited by their own dishonesty, bias or incompetence.