Displaying the most recent of 90901 posts written by

Ruth King

There Are Great Books All lists measuring greatness are subject to reconsideration—the truly greats remain on the list with the passing of centuries. Deal Hudson

amgreatness.com/2020/01/04/there-are-great-books/

Those classics that are called the Great Books are most closely associated with Mortimer J. Adler and Robert Hutchins.1 When Hutchins became president of the University of Chicago in 1929, he hired Adler to teach philosophy in the law school and the psychology department. Upon arriving, Adler, rather brashly he admits, recommended to Hutchins a program of study for undergraduates using classic texts. Adler had taught in the General Honors program at Columbia University begun in 1921 by professor John Erskine. Hutchins asked him for a list of books to be read in such a program. When Hutchins saw the list, he told Adler that he had not encountered most of them during his student years at Oberlin College and Yale University. Hutchins later wrote that unless Adler “did something drastic he [Hutchins, referring to himself] would close his educational career a wholly uneducated man.”2 Hutchins remained president for 16 years before serving as chancellor until 1951, and the following year, they did something drastic.

In 1952, Adler and Hutchins published the Great Books of the Western World in 54 volumes.3 Adler and Hutchins included the 714 authors they considered most important to the development of Western Civilization.4 The influence of their Great Books movement on American culture for several decades was considerable and continues to this day.

Their selection of books from over a half-century ago has held up rather well. For example, I compared them to the 2007 list published by journalist and cultural critic J. Peder Zane. Zane asked 125 leading writers to list their favorite works of fiction.5 Zane found that the 20 most common titles listed by the writers were:

Historians Roast the 1619 Project By Rich Lowry

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/1619-project-top-historians-criticize-new-york-times-slavery-feature/

The dissenting historians are performing an important public service by making the dishonesty of The New York Times Magazine’s feature a matter of record.

The reviews of the 1619 Project are in.

It is “a very unbalanced, one-sided account.” It is “wrong in so many ways.” It is “not only ahistorical,” but “actually anti-historical.” It is “a tendentious and partial reading of American history.”

This is what top historians have said of the splashy New York Times feature on slavery in the U.S. that aspires to fundamentally reorient our understanding of American history and change what students are taught in the schools.

Given that the Times can’t necessarily be trusted to give a straight account in its news pages of Mitch McConnell’s latest tactical maneuver, it wouldn’t seem a natural source for objective truth on sensitive historical matters, and sure enough, the 1619 Project is shot through with an ideological radicalism that leads to rank distortions and laughable overreach.

The project has been controversial since it was first published in The New York Times Magazine last year, but its architects sneered at the critics as troglodyte conservatives (or “white historians”) unwilling to grapple with the country’s racial sins. Then the World Socialist Web Site — of all things — begin publishing interviews with eminent historians slamming the project.

No Time for Heroes By Will Collins

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/history-without-heroes-villains-incomplete/

Academic history scorns them, but you can’t keep a great man down

It is a strange irony that heroes and villains have retreated from the classroom just as they’ve become ubiquitous in popular culture. Outsized personalities may be disappearing from social-studies textbooks and college history departments, but they live on in airport bookstores and bestseller lists. On YouTube, amateur historians dissect great battles and famous generals with an enthusiasm usually reserved for secondary Game of Thrones characters. Half-forgotten dynasties populate obscure Twitter feeds. Eccentric historical figures are now fodder for rambling podcast episodes.

Great-man theory has long been out of favor with universities, where structural explanations — class, race, geography, gender, and the like — put Hannibal and Napoleon to flight decades ago. Ron Chernow and Robert Caro, two authors who still produce decidedly old-fashioned historical biographies, are notable for both their success and the fact that they have backgrounds in journalism, not academia. Slowly but surely, a pedagogical approach that emphasizes structural factors over individuals is marching through our institutions. California’s proposed new high-school history curriculum is awash in race, gender, and class buzzwords. The New York Times’ 1619 Project, a monomaniacal reinterpretation of American history through the lens of slavery, comes complete with a high-school teaching guide.

Yet banishing biography and personal drama from the classroom hasn’t suppressed our collective fascination with the great figures of the past. It has merely displaced their study to the Internet, where unfashionable, disreputable, and downright offensive ideas live on forever. Far outside the realm of respectability lies the alt-right, which has enthusiastically appropriated the iconography and heroic pose of various historical figures, from Crusaders to Victorians to the statesmen and generals of classical antiquity.

Iranian Analytics By Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/iranian-analytics/

For all the current furor over the death of Qasem Soleimani, it is Iran, not the U.S. and the Trump administration, that is in a dilemma. Given the death and destruction wrought by Soleimani, and his agendas to come, he will not be missed.

Tehran has misjudged the U.S. administration’s doctrine of strategic realism rather than vice versa. The theocracy apparently calculated that prior U.S. patience and restraint in the face of its aggression was proof of an unwillingness or inability to respond. More likely, the administration was earlier prepping for a possible more dramatic, deadly, and politically justifiable response when and if Iran soon overreached.

To retain domestic and foreign credibility, Iran would now like to escalate in hopes of creating some sort of U.S. quagmire comparable to Afghanistan, or, more germanely, to a long Serbian-like bombing campaign mess, or the ennui that eventually overtook the endless no-fly zones over Iraq, or the creepy misadventure in Libya, or even something like an enervating 1979-80 hostage situation. The history of the strategies of our Middle East opponents has always been to lure us into situations that have no strategic endgame, do not play to U.S. strengths in firepower, are costly without a time limit, and create Vietnam War–like tensions at home.

But those wished-for landscapes are not what Iran has got itself into. Trump, after showing patience and restraint to prior Iranian escalations, can respond to Iranian tit-for-tat without getting near Iran, without commitments to any formal campaign, and without seeming to be a provocateur itching for war, but in theory doing a lot more damage to an already damaged Iranian economy either through drones, missiles, and bombing, or even more sanctions and boycotts to come. If Iran turns to terrorism and cyber-attacks, it would likely only lose more political support and risk airborne responses to its infrastructure at home.

When the Author of the Constitution Denounced the Curse of Slavery By Bryan Preston

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/when-the-author-of-the-constitution-denounced-the-curse-of-slavery/

We need to rediscover America. America isn’t the largest country in the world. We don’t have the most people or the most homogeneous culture. So why have there been more American Nobel Prize winners than from any other country? Why do Americans consistently lead in medical innovation? Why is our entertainment culture so dominant worldwide? Why did we get to the Moon first, and why did we build the Hubble and the other Great Observatories?

Americans led because we’re free to think and create. But we’re in danger of losing this freedom by losing our history. The consequences of forgetting where we came from and how we got here could be catastrophic. It’s leaving too many Americans skeptical of or even disliking our own country — and not understanding or even believing in the freedom that empowers Americans to lead the world.

Misinformation about slavery is the most conspicuous case in point at the moment. The broadly defined left, misinformed by Howard Zinn and Marxists in academia, now believes that the United States was wickedly founded not on the noble ideals of individual freedom written down in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution, but on slavery, white supremacy, and exploitation. They distrust the Constitution and figuratively spit on the founders’ flag. The New York Times’ 1619 Project is intended to make more Americans believe this lie.

The idea of an American nation by James Piereson On the genesis of the American nation-state.

https://newcriterion.com/issues/2020/1/the-idea-of-an-american-nation

“These developments leave the United States without any strong foundations to keep itself together as a political enterprise—in a circumstance when its increasing diversity requires some kind of unifying thread. What will that be? No one now knows. But unless it is somehow found, the United States will be at risk of blowing itself apart in the twenty-first century, as it did once before in the middle of the nineteenth.”

I begin with a conclusion: the United States of America is nearing a point at which it can no longer be described as a nation-state, in the sense that term is generally used, and is evolving into a different kind of enterprise—one lacking the underpinnings of a common culture, language, religion, or nationality that we commonly associate with modern nation-states.

This is due to several intersecting causes: destructive ideas (identity politics); significant and apparently irresistible developments in the world (globalism and large-scale migration); benign conditions that erode national loyalties (peace and prosperity); and the unique character of the American nation (a nation-state built upon universal principles). These have brought into being new lines of conflict in the United States, with some rallying to preserve an inherited idea of the American nation while others promote the forces that are eroding it. Indeed, America’s two political parties seem to be organizing themselves around this fundamental line of disagreement.

If nationalism is bad, then so are nations and nation-states.

Many say that nationalism is a bad thing—that it is a cause of wars, group hatreds, irrational conflicts, and the like—and that we will live better without it. There is some truth to this. But if nationalism is bad, then so are nations and nation-states. Can we have nations without nationalism? Can we have an American nation absent some sense of American nationalism? Obviously not. While nationalism is sometimes taken too far, it is easy to recognize the vices of nationalism without appreciating its virtues. The United States, with its diversity of geography, conditions, and peoples, would have fallen apart long ago without the idea of a nation to hold it together. As a matter of history, nationalism was held up as the antidote to the tendency of the American union to split up and break apart. As the idea of an American nation retreats, the possibilities for break-up will advance at a similar rate.

MY SAY: A TALE OF TWO PRESIDENTS

I still admire and respect the legacy and achievements of President  Ronald Reagan, widely hailed as the best Republican President in recent history. What was the response of President Ronald Reagan to the terrorist bombing of the United States Marine barracks in 1983?

On October 23, 1983  a suicide bomber detonated a truck bomb at a building serving as barracks for the 1st Battalion 8th Marines (Battalion Landing Team – BLT 1/8) of the 2nd Marine Division, killing 220 Marines, 18 sailors and 3 soldiers, making this incident the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States in peacetime. It was no secret that the attack had been carried out by Hezbollah.

Furthermore the evacuation of the wounded was poorly organized and executed. Trauma centers in Israel, arguably the best in the world and in Cyprus  were minutes away by helicopter, but instead transports took them to Europe base hospitals several hours away. A Pentagon commission many years later was critical of those decisions.

Three-and-a-half months after the bombing and after repeatedly pledging not to do so —President Reagan ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Lebanon. Reagan never retaliated against Hezbollah or their Iranian and Syrian sponsors responsible for the bombings, a position widely endorsed by senior military officials. That’s called cut and run.

President Donald Trump did not do that…..rsk

Germany’s Middle Eastern Criminal Clans by Judith Bergman

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15300/germany-middle-eastern-criminal-clans

“For decades, police turned a blind eye to extended criminal families, in part to avoid being accused of racial discrimination. This has made the present-day challenge all the more difficult as clan structures have solidified, parallel societies have formed, and the enemy has grown.” — Deutsche Welle, February 3, 2019.

“There are now half a million people across Germany who belong to a clan…. Clans behave in their German surroundings as if they were tribes in the desert. Everything outside the clan is enemy territory and available for plunder”. — Ralph Ghadban, a Lebanese-German political scientist and a leading expert on clans in Germany; The German Times, October 2019.

“It is known that the Osmanen Germania gang has received financial assistance from Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development (AKP) party. The gang has essentially functioned as [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan’s armed wing in Germany.” — Sebastian Fiedler, head of the Association of German Criminal Investigators.

The clans see the state as, “an object of ridicule, a target for exploitation” — Falko Liecke, Neukölln’s deputy district mayor and district councilor for youth and health. The German Times, October 2019.

In a recently aired documentary by German broadcaster ARD, about Germany’s Middle Eastern criminal family gangs — or clans, as they are called in Germany — the head of Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Agency (BKA) Holger Münch, said “In about one-third of proceedings, suspects also included immigrants — and that means that we need to keep a very close eye on this phenomenon”.

Münch seems to have been referring to the fact that migrants who arrived in Germany from Syria, Iraq and other countries during the migrant crisis in 2015-16 are now starting to compete with Germany’s long-established criminal family gangs whose original founders arrived in Germany from Lebanon in the late 1970s during Lebanon’s civil war.

Actress apologizes to Iran for Trump’s airstrike on Soleimani By Eric Utter

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/actress_apologizes_to_iran_for_trumps_airstrike_on_soleimani_.html

Actress Rose McGowan channeled her inner John Kerry and apologized to Iran for President Trump’s drone-strike that killed Iranian General and terrorist mastermind Qassem Soleimani. The Hollywood luminary took to that bastion of erudition, Twitter, to prostrate herself before the Iranian Mullahs—and tell the world of her hatred for the president and the country in which she resides. She tweeted: “Dear #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us. #Soleimani.”

It is nearly impossible to picture a more inane, hypocritical, sickening utterance or a potentially more harmful attitude. Addressing the terrorist regime as “Dear Iran” is gag-inducing on its own, but pales in comparison to the rest of the tweet. She’s concerned we’ve “disrespected” the Iranian flag? Something tells me she’s probably okay with athletes failing to stand for our own flag and national anthem. Arbitrarily asserting that 52% of us not only don’t fully approve of the action but wish to “humbly apologize” to the Mullahs for it should make 100% of Americans want to vomit.

Obama Sent Them Cash—Trump Turned Them Into Ash Sebastian Gorka

https://amgreatness.com/2020/01/03/obama-sent-them-cash-trump-turned-them-into-ash/

Instead of commending the commander-in-chief, the Left and its lackeys in the media are criticizing President Trump and sympathizing with the mullahs and the “revered Iranian military figure,” Qassem Suleimani.

The following is a simple reminder.

President Obama started his term in office traveling the world apologizing for America. He blamed a YouTuber when our ambassador and three other Americans were murdered by al-Qaeda in Benghazi, Libya. He sent Hillary Clinton to her Russian counterpart to give him a “reset” button. He also sent Putin a personal message to be patient because he would have “more flexibility” after his election.

Obama sent blankets and MREs to Ukraine after Putin invaded and took Crimea. He told us ISIS was just a JV team. Then after they established a caliphate, he told Americans ISIS was a “generational threat” we just had to get used to.