Review: Bernard DeVoto, The Year of Decision 1846, Published 1943

Bernard DeVoto's Year of Decision 1846 is a classic work that provides a clinic on how to write a complex narrative history. He skillfully interweaves many story lines of the American conquest and initial settlement of the far west. Although considered a "popular" history, this work is thoroughly researched and provides much insight into its period. DeVoto was a part-time academic who failed in acquiring a full-time professorship at Harvard. His loss is our gain, since he devoted much of his time to writing fascinating books on the American west. 

Manifest Destiny by John Gast (1872)

The main thread of the book is the eighteen month period from early 1846 to September 1847 when General Winfield Scott's army captured Mexico City. This timeframe was the culmination of Manifest Destiny. As newspaper editor John L. O'Sullivan famously wrote in 1845 in reference to American claims on the Oregon Territory:

And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.

DeVoto magnificently chronicles how the far west became American in his multifaceted work. He follows events by focusing on the actions of four board groups: the pioneers traveling to California, New Mexico and Oregon; the campaigns of the US Army during the Mexican-American War; political events in Washington D.C.; the attitudes of Boston intellectual types such as Henry David Thoreau. 

A significant part of the pioneer story is told through the eyes of historian Francis Parkman who spent the spring and summer on The Oregon Trail. The highlight of the settlers' story is his close following of the Donner Party. Since their story has been well documented, it does provide a detailed account on what it was like to cross the plains in a covered wagon. Contrary to current Political Correct "truth," these are the people who built America:

"I told them," Mary Graves said, "I would go too, for to go back and hear the cries of hunger from my little brothers and sisters was more than I could stand. I would go as far as I could, let the consequences be what they may."

Mary Ann Graves, twenty years old, born in Illinois of parents who had emigrated there from Vermont. An undistinguished item in the year's migration, one dot of Manifest Destiny, who had set out to find the West with her parents, five sisters, two brothers, and a brother-in-law. A person of no moment making the western traverse. The children of her children in California today are also commoners of the Democracy ... There is nothing remarkable about Mary Ann Graves, except that mankind can be staunch. "I would go as far as I could." (pp. 386-7)

She just barely made it:

Before long, four Americans [from Sutter's Fort] were hurrying back to find the six survivors whom [William] Eddy had described, and were able to find them by following his bloody footprints. The Forlorn Hope had reached the succor of their own kind, seven of the fifteen who had started out, thirty-seven days after the beginning of the effort for which they had laid in six days' rations of two mouthfuls a day. (p. 411)

Unfortunately, the Donner Party is most well-known for the cannibalism required by some members to survive the ordeal. What's largely forgotten is the epic heroism of William Eddy, William Stanton, Tamson Donner, James Reed, the delightful twelve-year-old Virginia Reed along with many others. 

Donner Party Memorial: Donner Lake California

The Mexican-American War must be one of the most lied about events in American history. DeVoto provides a lucid account of its causes and course. He doesn't sugar coat the story. For example, he makes clear his low opinion for both John Charles Fremont and General Zachary Taylor. On the other hand, he makes clear that General Winfield Scott and colonels Stephen Watts Kearny and Alexander Doniphan are among the most gifted leaders the US Army has every possessed. 

This work was originally published in 1943, which is the edition I'm using. Consequently, DeVoto is not filled with the anti-American self-loathing that animates more recent offerings on this topic. For example, he explains why the recently created state of Mexico had no valid claim to the disputed territories. He had enough objectivity and good sense to understand the Mexico was not the victim. In fact, the stupid and arrogant Mexican elite actually thought they would win a war with the United States. They were wrong and have been whining and plotting ever since 1848. 

Moreover, it is a fundamental mistake to think of Mexico, in this period, or for many years before, as a republic or even a government. It must be understood as a late stage in the breakdown of the Spanish Empire. Throughout that time it was never able to establish a stability, whether social or political. Abortive, discordant movements of revolution or counter-revolution followed one another in a meaningless succession, and each one ran down in chaos from which no governing class ever rose, or even a political party, but only some gangs. Sometimes the gangs were captained by intelligent and capable men, sometimes for a while they stood for the merchants, the clergy, the landowners, or various programs of reform, but they all came in the end to simple plunder. (pp. 12-13)  

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. 

The author appears ambivalent about the figure of President James K. Polk. But, he acknowledges that he was one of the most successful presidents in American history. He deftly examines Polk's skillful handling of both Congress and the British in the acquisition of the Oregon Territory up to the 49th parallel. He also chronicles Polk's long running feuds with his senior generals who were far more political than would be acceptable in the twentieth century. 

It may appear to some readers that DeVoto spends too much time on the utopian community of Brook Farm in Massachusetts. But, these Boston Brahman dreamers provide an important thematic point for the story. It is no accident that the attitudes of these secular puritans sound very familiar.

The literary will accept no hybrid of brute and angel; they desire Utopia and will not settle for the human race. They love people but hate the mob. On George Ripley's word, and he was the founder of Brook Farm, mankind is dwarfed and brutish. In that common despair ended all that Association had to say. (p. 33)

The demented descendants of these collectivist Brahmans are more focused with their hate. The make clear their contempt for the United State and the American people - most especially white Americans. For example, in academic history it's standard practice to always write "Manifest Destiny" within sneer quotes. The actual building and existence of the American west deeply offends or triggers them. This is why there are now two large and influential groups working hard to erase America's southern border. First, there is the hostile government of Mexico City that has never accepted the settlement of 1846. Second, there are the traitors within who control the media, academia, the deep state and much else. By means of demographic reconquista, they seek to reverse the decision of 1846. 

General Winfield Scott, Washington D.C. Soon to be removed?

 

Yaron Brook's Trump Derangement Syndrome and the Words of Guru

Currently, Yaron Brook is chairman of the board of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). He recently stepped down as ARI's CEO, who is now Jim Brown. Despite this change, Brook still remains the public face of ARI and is its most well-known and traveled figure. Not long ago he joined the Blaze "radio network" and still does his other audio uploads such as his Yaron's News Briefs. Sadly, these efforts are largely failures on his part. He often uploads several times a week and never suppresses the temptation to rattle on at great length. He would be more effective simply writing an 800-1000 word weekly column. Writing would be nice in that what he actual thinks on any given topic would be available to interested parties in objective black-and-white. 

I recently watched Brook's 100 minute long bombast (really, there is no other word for this speaking style) on the "year in review" that was uploaded on 2 January 2018. 

This episode was divided into two parts. The first twenty-five minutes was devoted to extolling the virtues of business, most especially that of high-tech. The second half was a nearly one hour long diatribe on Brook's bete noire President Donald Trump. It is difficult to analyze a nearly 100 minute stream-of-consciousness rant. But, I'll give it a try.

The chief intellectual error in this thing, of many, is Brook's gross over-generalizations. The repetition of his delivery is very tiresome. The message is clear within five minutes: multinational corporations (especially tech companies) can do no wrong and Donald Trump is the Devil - he's even worse than Obama. He seems to approach his topics from a Manichean perspective. Complex organizations or individuals are presented as wholly good or evil. There is no grey or people of mixed premises in Brook's world. 

A case in point is Brook's corporation worship. He seems to actually believe that most CEOs and businessmen are giants of productive ability who don't have serious flaws. There are few, if any, Hank Reardens in the American corporate world. At best, most are a amalgamation of Orren Boyle and Mr. Mowen with hopefully a little Dagny Taggart mixed in. Brook doesn't even make the distinction between real entrepreneurs who create new businesses and the top management class of CEOs who basically inherit someone else's creation. 

An example of the latter is the notorious Robert Nardelli who almost managed The Home Depot into the ground. It's a well-known story, except to Brook, so I don't need to go into the details. Nardelli did great damage to the firm, some of which will probably never be undone. But, he represents a familiar pattern. Genuine businessmen have a vision and create a successful enterprise. They eventually retire or die. Then along comes some Nardelli who doesn't share the founders' vision, or is even aware of it. He then causes untold damage by following some generic Harvard Business School playbook. Nardelli accepted a $210 million kiss-off to leave The Home Depot. What man of any integrity or honesty would accept such a sum for complete, utter and disgraceful failure? These types of "businessmen" are far from admirable. And they exist in far greater numbers than Brook would ever want to admit. Incredibly, Nardelli became CEO of Chrysler in 2007. Chrysler filed for bankruptcy in 2009. 

Even real entreprenuers who create successful companies are not necessarily decent or respectable human beings. Silicon (Soviet) Valley that Brook idealizes provides many good examples of this complex reality. The creator (or alleged creator) of Facebook is a case in point. Just today PJ Media posted a story of Facebook banning a bestselling author whose book criticizes Obama. 

Shockingly, Margolis paid for this ad to be "boosted" throughout Facebook using the advertiser program they offer. Facebook had no problem taking his money for this ad but banned him directly after he posted it to several groups. The groups he sent it to were all conservative-friendly groups that normally welcome such announcements and buy conservative books.

Such action is called fraud. But that social media companies violate their own terms of service (arguable breach of contract) is hardly news. Twitter is on fire with outrage over President Trump's alleged "shithole" remark. Meanwhile, this is what Twitter thinks of anyone to the right of Jeb! Bush!  

Olinda Hassan, Policy Manager for Twitter Trust and Safety explains, “we’re trying to ‘down rank’… shitty people to not show up,” “we’re working on [that] right now”   

The issue here is not whether these corporations have the right to be dishonest scum. The issue is why anyone would heap unqualified praise upon such vicious scum. Apparently, Brook has never heard the name James Damore. Some of the people running and working for Google sound certifiable. Clearly, their actions are in violation of numerous employment laws. 

Brook says that the politics of the country's richest people doesn't matter. I don't know if this statement is the result of naivete or evasion. Obviously, the political agenda of the leaders of corporate giants that control much of the world's information flow is of immense importance. What to do about it is another question. 

Another example is Jeffrey Bezos who is reportedly the richest man in the world. Bezos founded Amazon and made it a success. Good for him. He has reaped the rewards of his success. His politics matter. He purchased the Washington Post. The newspaper is now just a purvayor of fake news and Progressive propaganda. Why such a successful businessman is a leading cheerleader for naked fascism is an interesting question. But, Brook will never consider it. One has to seriously wonder about the nature of Bezos' character. One would think that he would be able to at least treat his employees as human beings. But, for some people, the bottom line supersedes common decency. No wonder all these CEOs want to import large numbers of indentured servants, which Brook wholeheartedly supports. Brook's callowness is limitless. Obviously, he has never worked for the nasty people he praises.

Brook also briefly comments on the great work being done by American energy companies. Of course, he gives President Trump no credit for deregulation and reining in the EPA. The last hour of the show is devoted to a diatribe on how President Trump is Satan. In fact, Donald Trump may be the only successful businessman that Brook doesn't uncritically adore. 

Instead he devotes much time to repeating such bon mots as Trump's being "the most mindless administration ... anti-reason administration, ever! Trump is the first post-modern president ... more so than Obama."  After creating a cartoonish image of President Trump, he then ridicules his own cartoon monster. After attacking President Trump as a liar, Brook pulls out this whopper: 

I'm not going to get into an argument with you guys [?] on trade, because there is no argument on trade ... Trade is a settled issue ... Trade with [Red] China's a fantastic thing. Trump announces trade is bad. 

Of course, the president has never said that trade is bad. He has said that certain trade deals have been bad for America and he will renegotiate them. It's not surprising that Brook doesn't want to have an "argument" about trade policy. He apparently believes that sweetheart deals between corrupt cronies on one hand and Red China's People Liberation Army (PLA) on the other are both "free trade" and good for America. Brook doesn't see any downside to funneling more $trillions into the coffers of the PLA.   

Seriously, what could go wrong with financing the ChiComs hegemony in East Asia? Brook sees none. 

After spending the better part of an hour castigating the president as a pathological liar with no concern for truth, Brook goes full Russian conspiracy. By the way, Brook views Russia as the greatest potential threat to American security, not Islam and certainly not his ChiCom pals. Anyways, at nearly the end of the show, Brook provides this bit of wisdom, "Do I buy that Trump colluded with the Russians? Yeah, I believe that ... I don't have any evidence to support this." He then hedges, then concludes, "It doesn't strike me as science fiction." Trump Derangement Syndrome means never having to cite any actual evidence for anything. 

While listening to Brook, the phrase "The Words of Guru" came to mind. It's the title of a science fiction short story by C. M. Kornbluth. Published in 1941, it's more a fantasy story of a young boy who comes under the spell of Guru whose words can alter reality. An old man in the story gives the boy some good advice for the present context, 

"Guru?", he asked. "Who is Guru? Some foreigner, I suppose. Bad business mixing with foreigners, young fellow. Who is Guru?" 

In the present, Brook would like to be a Guru whose endless barrage of verbiage could somehow alter reality. For example, he spends some time on how America is becoming tribal. His evidence is the growing concern over immigration. He views such concerns as being based largely on "racism" and "xenophobia." Financial wizard Brook should reconsider the effectiveness of calling many in his audience "mindless racists." I doubt it is good for business or very convincing to those not already in complete agreement with his dogma.

One can almost observe the hamster wheel spinning in his head: If he says this ad hominem enough, it will become true; All the legitimate concerns over immigration will go away; People will forget the rank hypocrisy of applying the "open immigration" principle to the United States while ignoring the border fortifications of Israel and India; Americans will forget about the massive damage done to their country by "globalism." One can almost smell the smoke from overheating ball-bearings as he labors with his denials and evasions.  

In any event, the Ayn Rand Institute would be well served by severing all connection with Brook. A most thorough housecleaning of all Brook's comrades at ARI is also needed. Maybe then, ARI can again become a philosophical organization promoting Objectivism instead of an adjunct to the CATO Institute.

Ayn Rand Institute Speakers Accept False Alternative and Evade the Obvious on the Stealth Jihad

I recently came across this video clip from a much longer discussion from June 2017. It's a discussion on threats to free speech. 

The clip is around ten minutes long and is the panelists' response to a question: "How would you apply the question of free speech to radical Islamic preachers like Anjem Choudary ... should they be silenced or should they be free to say what they feel." Such an artfully presented false alternative. 

Not one of the three panelists, who all responded to the question, challenged its false premise. The panelists were Dave Rubin of the "Rubin Report," Fleming Rose whose cartoon was an object of the notorious "cartoon jihad," and Steve Simpson of the Ayn Rand Institute. The panel discussion was a presentation during the week long Objectivist Conference (OCON) in June of 2017. 

Each of the panelists address the question in turn beginning with Rubin. Rubin's response is the most predicable and pedestrian. He states that only direct calls to violence are actionable because there's no such thing as "hate speech," thus conflating "hate speech" with sedition, treason and fifth-column conspiracies. They're saying vile things but, "you have to let these people speak." He makes the distinction between jihadists (who commit acts of violence) and "islamists" who are just stealth jihadists using the West's tolerance against us. By the way, "Islamist" is one of the terms made up by Western squishes that actual Moslems never use when referring to themselves.

Flemming Rose's response is downright bizarre. The jihadists "are doing what the Communists did during the Cold War and we managed pretty well ... I think we did pretty well ... In Denmark the Nazi Party also wasn't banned ... I think we have been pretty good at fighting totalitarian ideas...." (Emphasis added) Those Danes tortured and murdered by the Gestapo would probably disagree on how well things worked out. And, what's this we stuff? 

Defeating Totalitarianism in Reality

Denmark was occupied by the Nazis from 1940 to 1945. It was liberated by General Eisenhower's American and British armies. If General Montgomery's forces had not cut-off the Jutland Peninsula from the East, Russian would be Rose's native tongue. Needless to say, Denmark had little to do with the American victory over the Soviets in the Cold War. The unstated premise is "after we give our country away to invading Moslem barbarians, the Americans will come and save us for a third time." Don't count on it. 

To his credit, Steve Simpson gives the most in-depth and sensible answer to the question, but he still evades the elephant pooping on the rug. He correctly observes that European, and the American, Communist parties were agents of a hostile power. He states that they should have been treated as criminal conspiracies - as should various (stealth) jihad organizations in the West. He argues for this analogy by using the example of the mafia and that the government can treat it as a criminal organization - he doesn't mention the propriety of RICO. His use of the "Italian mafia" and not MS-13 is an interesting tell. 

Simpson's analogy is only valid to a limited extent. Communists and Moslem fifth-columnists are far more dangerous than criminal gangs that just seek loot. The political, social and cultural agendas of such seditious enterprises make them far more insidious and threatening. Their avowed purpose is to destroy our way of life, undermine the culture that makes liberty possible and fundamentally transform the USA into some form of police state. These conspiracies do so not by "shaking down" the corner grocer, but by infiltrating, subverting and taking over key social institutions, including government agencies. 

I think the elephant being ignored in this discussion couldn't be more obvious. The real question is why should civilized Europeans and Americans suffer the likes of Anjem Choudary in their midst? Although an "anchor baby" born in England, the only rational way to deal with the Choudarys is to strip them of their British citizenship and ship them back to Pakistan. In Pakistan the jihadists can exercise their "right" to foment hatred for all infidels. The all too obvious response to the question is "they have to go back if they attempt in any way, shape or form to undermine our liberty and way of life." And, "needless to say, the further immigration of Moslems must be immediately halted." 

The Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) would never allow such a question to be raised, much less openly debated, in any venue they control. Any response that conflicts with ARI's no-borders (for Europe and America) dogma will be suppressed, deleted and banned. That's their right. They have the absolute right to be dishonest evaders. And, the rest of us have the right to point out the cowardice at every opportunity. 

Review: Richard Grenier, Capturing the Culture, 1991

Capturing the Culture is one of my favorite books. It must have been late 1991 when my good friend Edward Cline recommended that I buy it. It was the best twenty dollars I ever spent. Richard Grenier (1933-2002) had a varied career, which fortunately included that of movie reviewer for Commentary magazine. His insightful, iconoclastic comments on Hollywood's latest offerings were the highlight of the periodical. 

Ostensibly, Capturing the Culture is a collection of movie reviews from the 1980s that should garner little interest today. Actually, as the introduction by Robert Bork makes clear, these reviews are tour de force historical analyses of how the Hollywood left has been corrupting American culture for many decades. The title is in reference to Marxist Antonio Gramsci's famous call for the left to seize Western society's cultural high ground with a "long march through the institutions." Unlike Marx, Gramsci understood that cultural ideas and values are more than just "superstructure." He knew that politics is downstream of culture and sought to poison the culture to make way for his desired Soviet police state. Beginning in America's "Red Decade," leftists of all stripes have been working diligently to fulfill the cultural Marxist agenda. 

Hollywood was, of course, an early, high priority target for the leftist takeover. In the 1930s many successful movies were produced that contained overt political messages from the left. Some of these movies are actually very good and are still entertaining. One interesting aspect of this phenomenon is how low Hollywood's propaganda efforts have sunk. Most of the more recent work examined by Grenier is of much greater artistic merit than such rubbish as The Last Jedi.  

Grenier divides his book into two sections. The first section titled "Feature Films" contains twelve masterful essays that represent some of his best work. The second half "Quick Takes" is thirty-four short reviews on various films and other cultural artifacts. Some of these movies are well-known, popular films that met box office success. Some of the reviews are of lessor known or long-forgotten films that failed to make money. But, these failures make the point that while a business, Hollywood will sacrifice monetary concerns to get their message out. 

One of the "Feature Films" is Grenier's original review of Gandhi. The article "The Gandhi Nobody Knows" was later expanded into a much longer monograph. It's a much needed antidote to ceaseless Gandhi idolatry. In fact, the cultural elites' Gandhi fetish is an excellent example of the left's inculcation of "Other" worship. In this review the gross historical falsehoods on Gandhi, his life and politics, Hinduism and India are cataloged. Grenier uses both wit and the telling anecdote to make his case. There is this example of how media lies become the "conventional wisdom," 

On my second viewing of Gandhi, this time at a public showing, I happened to leave the theater behind three teenage girls, apparently from one of Manhattan's fashionable private schools. "Gandhi was pretty much an FDR" one opined ... "But he was a religious figure, too," corrected one of her friends, adding somewhat smugly, "It's not in our historical tradition to honor spiritual leaders." Since her schoolteachers had clearly not led her to consider Jonathan Edwards and Roger Williams as spiritual leaders, let alone Joseph Smith and William Jennings Bryan, the intimation seemed to be that we are a society with poorer spiritual values than, let's say, India. (p. 101)

I'm willing to bet that these girls, now women, are still smugly ignorant and voted for Obama, twice. 

The best essay in this collection is "The Uniforms That Guard: Kipling, Orwell, and Australia's Breaker Morant." It's a dual review of Bruce Beresford's masterpiece (1980) and the popular Hollywood film Fort Apache: The Bronx (1981) starring Paul Newman. Intertwined in the review are observations on both Kipling's and Orwell's views on the "uniforms that guard you while you sleep." Harry "Breaker" Morant was an Australian officer railroaded and executed by the British for war crimes during the Boer War. Grenier notes the many similarities between it and the war in Vietnam. Grenier observes, 

But, on the most profound level, it is about something even larger. It burns with a white rage against societies as a whole, from military leaders and chiefs of state to (more common in our time) comfortable civilians in easy chairs, who send rough men out to serve their interests brutally, murderously (what is war), and then--when circumstances change and in the exquisite safety and fastidiousness of their living rooms they suddenly find these rough men's actions repugnant--disown them. (pp. 25-26)

The defense attorney's closing remarks at the trial is one of the greatest soliloquies in film history.  

Needless to say, Hollywood's Fort Apache has a different view on the uniforms that guard: 

It must be obvious that what we are dealing with here is nothing less than the full "liberal" doctrine on crime ... Some wealthy Hollywood entertainers, along with many of the tenured professors in our universities, are members of our "permanent and pensioned" opposition, and the quality of their thought has, indeed, deteriorated appallingly. For all I know, the authors of Fort Apache, The Bronx think themselves perfectly capable of making "real" decisions, and even preeminently suited to take over command of New York's Police Precinct 41. (pp. 33, 37)

I recently got into an argument with a couple of leftists who deny that there was any cultural Marxist messaging in The Last Jedi. I suspect that with the propaganda content of "popular culture" being so flagrant, and so awful, that the "it's just a movie" defense will become the Current Truth. Richard Grenier's body of work is an refutation of such nonsense. Read this book for edification and self-defense.