The Politically Incorrect Guide to ...

[The Idler]

Regnery Publishing have published a series of Politically Incorrect Guides (http://www.regnery.com/pig.html).
Including The Great Depression and the New Deal, American History, Darwinism and Intelligent Design, the Vietnam War ("the war America never lost but wasn't allowed to win"), Western Civilization, The Middle East and Capitalism.

This needs rebutting from the left but any ideas how? A reading list perhaps?

[#FF0000]

It really doesn't need rebutting at all. Anybody who is going to read something that blames "the liberal media" on the back-cover blurb and not think "this is biased and dumb" is too far gone anyway.

[Drace]

The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the South (and Why It Will Rise Again) (http://www.regnery.com/books/pigsouth.html)
The latest in the bestselling series! If there’s anything the PC police love to hate, it’s the South. And thanks largely to them, Southern history and heritage are under attack. But fear not: author Clint Johnson rises up in fierce resistance to the second war against the South in The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the South (and Why It Will Rise Again). Johnson reveals that, far from being the backwater of the nation, the South has always been the center of American culture and history and that the South is truly rising again. He provides you with the information you need to fight the battles being waged against Southern heritage and pride.Wtf?


Did you know...most textbooks on evolution are written by Darwinists with an ideological ax to grind?Lol, no shit.

And apparently everything is a liberal conspiracy.
Science, evolution, feminism, history, etc.

The descriptions are so full of crap that I think they can alone serve a purpose in rebutting the arguments.

[Dimentio]

It is much like Conservapedia. These books are just open right-wing propaganda. They should probably be examined though.

[Left-Reasoning]

A lot of the writers of these books are "anarcho"-capitalists. They are filled with recommendations for Rothbard's books.

[Raúl Duke]

I bet they can be seen in a funny light.


Johnson reveals that, far from being the backwater of the nation, the South has always been the center of American culture and history and that the South is truly rising again. He provides you with the information you need to fight the battles being waged against Southern heritage and pride.

Oh hell no, fuck the south

[Dimentio]

A lot of the writers of these books are "anarcho"-capitalists. They are filled with recommendations for Rothbard's books.

I do not understand this libertarian fetisch for the Confederacy.

The Confederacy was a pre-capitalist semi-feudal society with a large dependency on slavery. I guess it is something about those protestant land-owners in their manors sipping on their tea and riding their horses all the day long, while Scarlet O'hara is tightening her corset just an inch more...

[Mindtoaster]

I do not understand this libertarian fetisch for the Confederacy.

The Confederacy was a pre-capitalist semi-feudal society with a large dependency on slavery. I guess it is something about those protestant land-owners in their manors sipping on their tea and riding their horses all the day long, while Scarlet O'hara is tightening her corset just an inch more...

capitalism=/=industrialization

[Dermezel]

I do not understand this libertarian fetisch for the Confederacy.

The Confederacy was a pre-capitalist semi-feudal society with a large dependency on slavery. I guess it is something about those protestant land-owners in their manors sipping on their tea and riding their horses all the day long, while Scarlet O'hara is tightening her corset just an inch more...

Smaller governments = More powerful corporations.

[Dimentio]

Smaller governments = More powerful corporations.

Did the Confederacy even have any major corporations? At all? Most of the major corporations in America supported the Union, mostly because it was protectionist.

[Dermezel]

Did the Confederacy even have any major corporations? At all? Most of the major corporations in America supported the Union, mostly because it was protectionist.

No, back then it didn't But now at days it works rather well with a Divide and Conquer strategy. Sort of like how Multi-National Corporations can use the division of governments into Nation-States in order to further exploit people.

That is why the Libertarians and Far Right also decry even moderate bourgeoisie institutions like the UN and EU. Anything that allows the public any sovereignty over the private sphere is to be decried, especially if it is at a strategic level.

The historical roots for this lay back in the day when Bourgeoisie Revolutions were actually progressive. Back then the Bourgeoisie could not fight on their own, and had to ally with petty bourgeoisie, peasant and proletariat forces. In so doing they also established political, economic and legalistic frameworks by which public power was established over Private Monarchies.

Now however in the age of Monopoly Capital they no longer need popular support like they used to. They no longer need to rebel against monarchs and classical tyrants, so they are perfectly fine with dissolving the public sources of power and legitimacy upon which their power used to rest. The reason for this is they now have sufficient capital to hire large mercenary-police forces composed of petty bourgeoisie fascistic military units and lumpenproletariat. Whether this is over-confident or accurate is of secondary importance to their subjective approximations since the Big Bourgeoisie have generally switched from the Mechanistic Materialism which they were forced to employ during their progressive period (since back then they were involved in scientific advancement) , to a Subjective Idealism which characterizes their current lifestyle (where basically anything they request is given on demand with no effort, making it easy to believe reality literally exists in your head) .

[Left-Reasoning]

I do not understand this libertarian fetisch for the Confederacy.

"I saw in States Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of he sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. . . . I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo." - Lord Acton

[Dimentio]

"I saw in States Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of he sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. . . . I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo." - Lord Acton

In what ways did America become more absolutist after 1865 than before? Moreover, the successes (I consider equal rights guaranteed by the law to be successes while you might not share my opinion) won were squandered in 1877 and later on when African-Americans were subjected to an Apartheid-like system as second class citizens.

Even though Lincoln was a racist (like most people in those days) the idea to liberate millions of slaves is an ideal worth cherishing. If any American president could be considered a true, progressive leader, that would be Lincoln.

[Cal Engime]

I do not understand this libertarian fetisch for the Confederacy.

The Confederacy was a pre-capitalist semi-feudal society with a large dependency on slavery. I guess it is something about those protestant land-owners in their manors sipping on their tea and riding their horses all the day long, while Scarlet O'hara is tightening her corset just an inch more...If you believe that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, doesn't that imply a right to secede for any reason? And if you believe in a right to secede, how can you not support the South?

If the South had the right to leave the union through the same process by which it joined, one's view must be that the North waged a war of imperial conquest against a sovereign nation.

After Sherman took the capital of Georgia, his men held a mock legislative session and voted to rejoin the union. I think this is a striking metaphor for the whole war.

[Publius]

Regnery Publishing have published a series of Politically Incorrect Guides (http://www.regnery.com/pig.html).
Including The Great Depression and the New Deal, American History, Darwinism and Intelligent Design, the Vietnam War ("the war America never lost but wasn't allowed to win"), Western Civilization, The Middle East and Capitalism.

This needs rebutting from the left but any ideas how? A reading list perhaps?

I have one of those things, I read it when I was a libertarian in high school (ugh).

They're the biggest loads of shit in the world and are, quite literally, nothing but lies.

Most books of that type flirt with lying and deal in "half-truths", but those books go all the way. There are numerous things in them (Mine was on American History) that are just flat out false.

EDIT: I remember watching one of those libertarian scumbags (I think it was Thomas DiLorenzo) get owned by someone in a Q&A session. Thomas DiLorenzo thinks the civil war was unjustified and shouldn't have been fought and "wasn't really about slavery" anyway, but rather northern aggression, so this questioner asks him if he would have been in favor of military intervention in the south if the south engaged in systematized child abuse, instead of slavery.

He had one of those beautiful, immediate "oh shit" glimpses which people like that have when their worldview gets instantly trashed. But instead he just hand-waved at the questioner and refused to answer it.

[Publius]

Did the Confederacy even have any major corporations? At all? Most of the major corporations in America supported the Union, mostly because it was protectionist.

It had powerful landowners, as it was an agrarian society.

[Cal Engime]

I have one of those things, I read it when I was a libertarian in high school (ugh).

They're the biggest loads of shit in the world and are, quite literally, nothing but lies.

Most books of that type flirt with lying and deal in "half-truths", but those books go all the way. There are numerous things in them (Mine was on American History) that are just flat out false.

EDIT: I remember watching one of those libertarian scumbags (I think it was Thomas DiLorenzo) get owned by someone in a Q&A session. Thomas DiLorenzo thinks the civil war was unjustified and shouldn't have been fought and "wasn't really about slavery" anyway, but rather northern aggression, so this questioner asks him if he would have been in favor of military intervention in the south if the south engaged in systematized child abuse, instead of slavery.

He had one of those beautiful, immediate "oh shit" glimpses which people like that have when their worldview gets instantly trashed. But instead he just hand-waved at the questioner and refused to answer it.If he supports the South when the war was "not about slavery", why wouldn't he support the South if the war was "not about child abuse"? I'm pretty sure DiLorenzo does not consider slavery acceptable, or somehow "better" than child abuse.

[Publius]

If he supports the South when the war was "not about slavery", why wouldn't he support the South if the war was "not about child abuse"?

Because that's such an insane thing to say that even Thomas DiLorenzo couldn't mouth the words.

And of course the obvious point is that the Civil War WAS about slavery.

Let's be pretend-stupid just because Thomas DiLorenzo is actually stupid.


I'm pretty sure DiLorenzo does not consider slavery acceptable, or somehow "better" than child abuse.

But he just happens to spend all his time to defending the Confederate South.

:rolleyes:

[Left-Reasoning]

In what ways did America become more absolutist after 1865 than before? Moreover, the successes (I consider equal rights guaranteed by the law to be successes while you might not share my opinion) won were squandered in 1877 and later on when African-Americans were subjected to an Apartheid-like system as second class citizens.

Agreed.


Even though Lincoln was a racist (like most people in those days) the idea to liberate millions of slaves is an ideal worth cherishing. If any American president could be considered a true, progressive leader, that would be Lincoln.

Lincoln? Lincoln?

He suspended habeus corpus, locked a bunch of political enemies in jail and instituted the first draft in the country's history.

A progressive my foot.

[Raúl Duke]

I do not understand this libertarian fetisch for the Confederacy.

The Confederacy was a pre-capitalist semi-feudal society with a large dependency on slavery. I guess it is something about those protestant land-owners in their manors sipping on their tea and riding their horses all the day long, while Scarlet O'hara is tightening her corset just an inch more... The fetish stems not in part of the societal composition of the confederate society (although I wouldn't be surprised if some entertained such a fixation about being a plantation owner sipping tea, etc while slaves and such work under the sun and whip) but because the issue of secession and slavery was dressed under the cloak of state's rights at the time.

Libertarians, or more specifically the small-government/state-rights conservatives-Republicans, support states rights over/from the federal government.


Lincoln? Lincoln?

He suspended habeus corpus, locked a bunch of political enemies in jail and instituted the first draft in the country's history.

A progressive my foot. This is true, he did suspend habeus corpus and I think the media was under scrutiny plus issued a draft that affected the working class (immigrants, at least if I go by the depiction in "Gangs of New York" and native) of the U.S. The draft also stoked racial tension as the war was painted under the light about eliminating slavery (i.e. white draftees or would-be draftees going into riots and targeting blacks and maybe also the rich, who could pay out of it I think, and draft offices).

[Dimentio]

Agreed.
Lincoln? Lincoln?

He suspended habeus corpus, locked a bunch of political enemies in jail and instituted the first draft in the country's history.

A progressive my foot.

All right, so Lincoln who installed some laws which exist in all countries during times when those countries are put under severe pressure (civil war where the capitol is only a few kilometres from the frontline) was a terrible autocrat, while Davis, who led a confederacy where 5-7 million people were systematically worked to their deaths under the whip for nothing more than living in a cottage, is some sort of liberation hero?

This is like saying:

"Hitler maybe was bad, but Churchill put Oswald Mosley in prison."

As far as I'll see it, the suppression of States Rights in America has almost exclusively been used to further progressive goals. Ban on slavery, ban on segregation and similar anti-discriminatory measures has always been undertaken by the government.

I am curious to hear by what logic the discrimination of blacks is an expression of liberty, while the ban on discrimination on blacks is an expression of tyranny...

[AK]

Soon to become the Official Book of the Tea Party ™

[AK]

capitalism=/=industrialization
What is this bullshit? What do you suppose industrialised every country on Earth?

[AK]

This cover really paints Muslims as friendly people...
http://ebooks-imgs.connect.com/ebooks/product/400/000/000/000/000/051/090/400000000000000051090_s4.jpg
Crusades were defensive conflicts? Uh... what?
And from the wesbite:

The jihad continues today: Europe could be Islamic by the end of the twenty-first century
Islamophobia, much?

Although the book on the Civil War is by far the stupidest: http://www.regnery.com/books/pigcivilwar.html

How, if there had been no Civil War, the South would have abolished slavery peaceablyIt's sad that people will believe this shit, and lap it up.

[Dimentio]

Even if the South had abolished slavery peacefully, it would probably have turned into an apartheid-regime in the style of South Africa. Most likely, the system of slavery would have been replaced with Russian-style Serfdom.

[AK]

Get this:


The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the South gives you the facts behind scores of revelations like these:


How Southerners led the way in drafting the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights
How the Northern victory led to today’s all-powerful federal government
Why race relations in today’s South are much better than in the North—or anywhere else in America
Why the South is naturally conservative (and the North is naturally liberal)
How American jazz, blues, and rock and roll all came from the South
Why Southerners are overrepresented in the military—and no, it’s not poverty
The best American literature? Southern, of course

(http://www.regnery.com/books/pigsouth.html)

[Raúl Duke]

Even if the South had abolished slavery peacefully, it would probably have turned into an apartheid-regime in the style of South Africa. Most likely, the system of slavery would have been replaced with Russian-style Serfdom.

Umm...in a sense that's somewhat what happened even after Civil War.
The war might have preserved the union, bet fell short in providing equality to African Americans.

After the war many blacks became sharecroppers (where you work at a plantation for no to little wages and get a plot of land for yourself to keep and till and use whatever you make on that land to feed yourself or sell for money) and discriminatory laws were set up after Reconstruction.

[Left-Reasoning]

All right, so Lincoln who installed some laws which exist in all countries during times when those countries are put under severe pressure (civil war where the capitol is only a few kilometres from the frontline) was a terrible autocrat, while Davis, who led a confederacy where 5-7 million people were systematically worked to their deaths under the whip for nothing more than living in a cottage, is some sort of liberation hero?

I can't tell you I understand them. But they are most definitely right that Lincoln was a tyrant and deserving of nothing but loathing and hatred.

[Demogorgon]

All right, so Lincoln who installed some laws which exist in all countries during times when those countries are put under severe pressure (civil war where the capitol is only a few kilometres from the frontline) was a terrible autocrat, while Davis, who led a confederacy where 5-7 million people were systematically worked to their deaths under the whip for nothing more than living in a cottage, is some sort of liberation hero?

This is like saying:

"Hitler maybe was bad, but Churchill put Oswald Mosley in prison."

As far as I'll see it, the suppression of States Rights in America has almost exclusively been used to further progressive goals. Ban on slavery, ban on segregation and similar anti-discriminatory measures has always been undertaken by the government.

I am curious to hear by what logic the discrimination of blacks is an expression of liberty, while the ban on discrimination on blacks is an expression of tyranny...I think it might be helpful to draw on a bit of Robert Dahl here and take the notion that in the spirit of seeking a democratic solution to a violation of rights, you should either expand or contract the Demos. By that he means the first thing to be done is to make sure the oppressed have full political rights, but if an oppressed group still can't be protected in such a situation then the scope of politics should be contracted in their case so that they are given autonomy in their affairs and only they can vote on them.

To cut a long story short that seems to entails that whether power sits with the federal Government or the State Governments is not a matter of whether federal or state Governments are better in principal but rather a practical one of working out which protects minority rights better.

The reason I have just described that is because I think it exposes the hypocrisy here. Libertarians reading what I wrote will say I am approaching it wrong and that more localised power should be seen as appropriate on principle. But transfer the situation over to the UK and the situation is reversed, the left on the mainstream spectrum strongly want to devolve power to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and so on and the Right don't. Indeed if you look at the Tories record, Thatcher had such an obsession with centralisation that she all but abolished meaningful local Government.

The Libertarians here are amongst the strongest advocates of Government being centered in London. To be sure they talk about decentralisation, by which they mean transferring power to private groups but they fanatically oppose political power being transferred downwards. The reason is that unlike in America, it is central Government that has done the most oppressing. The right aren't about a State's Rights principal at all, they just instinctively side with the most oppressive group.

[Cal Engime]

All right, so Lincoln who installed some laws which exist in all countries during times when those countries are put under severe pressure (civil war where the capitol is only a few kilometres from the frontline) was a terrible autocrat,I look at it the other way around. Lincoln's subsequent conduct vindicated the South's refusal to submit to his rule.

[Chambered Word]

Omg political incorrectness that's liek, so edgy and cool guise, im gonna go buy those books lol. im such a rebel, ron paul rulzzz!!11 OBAMA IS SOCIALIST

I'd just leave it at that. Look at these, they're fucking ridiculous:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/waronscience.jpg
http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/politically_incorrect_guide_global_warmingjpt.jpg
http://www.lfb.org/images/pig%20capitalism.jpg

I'm tempted to download the one on capitalism and debunk it/laugh til I cry at it. This deserves even less attention than the Tea Party protests, especially because they're trying to appear intelligent and edgy. :rolleyes:

[AK]

Omg political incorrectness that's liek, so edgy and cool guise, im gonna go buy those books lol. im such a rebel, ron paul rulzzz!!11 OBAMA IS SOCIALIST

I'd just leave it at that. Look at these, they're fucking ridiculous:

<Insert Books Here>

I'm tempted to download the one on capitalism and debunk it/laugh til I cry at it. This deserves even less attention than the Tea Party protests, especially because they're trying to appear intelligent and edgy. :rolleyes:
I think I might just cry that these idiots' books were ever published :crying:

[Dimentio]

I look at it the other way around. Lincoln's subsequent conduct vindicated the South's refusal to submit to his rule.

Poor poor slave-owners!

:lol:

[synthesis]

Even if the South had abolished slavery peacefully, it would probably have turned into an apartheid-regime in the style of South Africa. Most likely, the system of slavery would have been replaced with Russian-style Serfdom.

I mean, that's pretty much exactly what happened, minus the first part. The difference between sharecroppers and serfs was circumstantial at best.