Confederate flag represents both heritage and hate
From: bazzchildress@qx.net
To: jeannie@babb.com
Dear Ms. Babb,
I have read the above piece several times now. I had intended to take it apart point by point, but it is so entirely wrong, I simply don’t have time to do so and carry on with the rest of my life.
One of my first cousins used to edit a newspaper and from him I learned that papers are written for no greater than a 9th grade reading level. Evidently they have now improved to the point that they let writers expound from from a 9th great knowledge level to match the reading level. Simply put, you have been indoctrinated (whether you know it or not). If you ever find yourself unhappy with your current state of evident abject ignorance on these matters I offer the attached for a beginning to ending such status. (As a PS I also offer an excerpt from Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind)
See the below as to the source of the indoctrination:
http://www.amazon.com/Destroying-Republic-Jabez-Curry-Re-education/dp/0875864015
DESTROYING THE REPUBLIC: JABEZ CURRY AND THE RE-EDUCATION OF THE OLD SOUTH
By John Chodes
INTRODUCTION
"……The story of Jabez Lafayette Monroe Curry is critically important in the current era. Without understanding his life, his times and its motivations, we cannot grasp why today’s children are declining steadily, according to the test scores and why they are ever more dispirited educationally, emotionally, intellectually. But it will all make perfect sense when we see that it was not the love of children or the love of literacy that spurred Uncle Sam to spend billions of dollars to build schools in every nook and cranny of the United States. No, it was the spirit of hatred and “bad intentions.” By this understanding, the great educational experiment has not failed; it has been a phenomenal success. It was intended to produce passive drones who would never rebel again or defy national authority. And , it has worked perfectly….."
As to the cause and consequences of the War – Quite to the contrary of the picture of sweetness, light and high moral purpose for the South you portray on the part of the north,put plainly and simply – Lincoln to satisfy his ambitions, entered into unholy triumvirate with the northern mercantlist commercial interests (greed) and Puritan moralists. It was they who chose war. They had 3 motivations, greed, a sense of arrogant superiority and a hatred of Negroes.
We live in the world they created (many of the features of which you find so horrible).
I offer all the below for some perspective:
(Methodist Reverend Granville Moody stated that:) "We (the Northern preachers) are charged with having brought about the present (secession) crisis. I believe it is true that we did bring it about, and I glory in it for it is a wreath of glory around our brow" As the Northern preachers stirred an antislavery sentiment in the North, they became a vital factor in promoting the sectionalism whereby the North saw itself as superior to the South; superior morally, intellectually and culturally. Theodore Parker drew the distinction as sharply as any preacher in the North. In an 1848 sermon which smacked of strong provincialism, he proclaimed:
"Who fought the Revolution? Why the North, furnishing the money and the men, Massachusetts alone sending fourteen thousand soldiers more than all the present slave States. Who pays the national taxes? The North, for the slaves pay but a trifle. Who owns the greater part of the property, the mills, the shops, the ships? The North. Who writes the books—the histories, poems, philosophies, works of science, even the sermons and commentaries on the Bible? Still the North. Who sends their children to school and colleges? The North. Who builds the churches, who founds the Bible societies, missionary societies, the thousand-and-one institutions for making men better and better off? Why the North. In a word, who is it in seventy years has made the nation great, rich and famous for her ideas and their success all over the world? The answer is still the North, the North.
Who is most blustering and disposed to quarrel? The South. Who made the Mexican War? The South. Who sets at naught the Constitution? The South. Who would bring the greatest peril in the case of war with a strong enemy? Why the South. But what is the South most noted for abroad? For her three million slaves; and the North for her wealth, freedom, education, religion."
On April 14, 1861, one day after Fort Sumter had surrendered to Confederate forces, (Henry Ward) Beecher (said) "There has been a spirit of patriotism in the North, but never, within my memory, in the South. I never heard a man from the South speak of himself as an American. Men from the South speak of themselves as Southerners…they have been devoid of that large spirit which takes in the race, and the nation, and its institutions, and its history." Later in the same year Beecher complained that "the South had been overrun with pestilent heresies of States rights."
When it was asked in England why the North did not allow the South to secede, Beecher, in a speech at Exeter Hall in London on October 30, 1863 had a reply.
"It is said, "Why not let the South go? Since they wont be at peace with you, why do you not let them separate from you?" Because they would be still less peaceable when separated. Oh, if the Southerners only would go! They are determined to stay—that is the trouble. We would furnish free passage to all of them if they would go. But we say, the land is ours. Let them (leave), and leave the nation its land, and they will have our unanimous consent."
(God Ordained This War, Sermons on the Sectional Crisis, 1830-1865, David Cheesebrough, University of South Carolina Press, 1991)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north42.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis52.html
Basil D. (Bazz) Childress
Lexington, Kentucky
PS “The Closing of the American Mind- subtitled How Higher Education has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students”, by Allan Bloom.
"There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative……….They are unified only in their relativism and in their allegiance to equality…….The relativity of truth is not a theoretical insight but a moral postulate, the condition of a free society, or so they see it. They have all been equipped with this framework early on, and it is the modern replacement for the inalienable natural rights that used to be the traditional American grounds for a free society……….The danger they have been taught to fear from absolutism is not error but intolerance……..the true believer is the real danger….The point is not to correct the mistake and really be right; it is rather it is not to think you are right at all……The purpose of their education is not to make them scholars but to provide them with a moral virtue—openness.
Every educational system has a moral goal that it tries to attain and that informs its curriculum. It wants to produce a certain kind of human being…….Always important is the political regime, which needs citizens who are in accord with its fundamental principle…….This education has evolved in the last half century from the education of democratic man to the education of the democratic personality.
The palpable difference between these two can easily be found in the changed understanding of what it means to be an American. The old view was that, by recognizing and accepting man’s natural rights, men found a fundamental basis of unity and sameness………The recent education of openness has rejected all that…….it does not demand fundamental agreement or the abandonment of old or new beliefs in favor of the natural ones. It is open to all kinds of men, all kinds of life styles, all ideologies. There is no enemy other than the man who is not open to everything. But when there are no shared goals or vision of the public good, is the social contract any longer possible?
……….But the students who have succeeded that generation of the late fifties and early sixties, when the culture leeches, professional and amateur began their great spiritual bleeding, have induced me to wonder whether my conviction—the great old books conviction—was correct. That conviction was that nature is the only thing that counts in education, that human desire to know is permanent, that all it really needs is the proper nourishment, and that education is merely putting the feast on the table…….it is clear to me now that nature needs the cooperation of convention…..At worst, I fear that spiritual entropy or an evaporation of the soul’s boiling blood is taking place, a fear Nietzsche thought justified and made the center of all his thought. He argued that the spirit’s bow was being unbent and risked being permanently unstrung. Its activity, he believed, comes from culture, and the decay of culture meant not only the decay of man in this culture but the decay of man simply……….At all events, the impression of natural savagery that Americans used to make was deceptive. It was only relative to the impression made by the Europeans. Today’s select students know so much less, are so much more cut off from the tradition, are so much slacker intellectually, that they make their predecessors look like prodigies of culture. The soil is ever thinner, and I doubt whether it can now sustain the taller growths……….."
None of what Bloom discusses in the above excerpt has happened by accident. Indeed, the project which has landed us on this shore, was quite purposeful. For some background see the following link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried29.html Please note when you read, the references to Bloom and something called The Frankfurt School. …
