Historia Civilis
Published 21 Mar 2017Patreon | http://historiacivilis.com/patreon
Donate | http://historiacivilis.com/donate
Merch | http://historiacivilis.com/merch
Mailing List | http://historiacivilis.com/mailinglist
Twitter | http://historiacivilis.com/twitter
Website | http://historiacivilis.comMusic is:
“Day Bird,” by Broke For Free
“Drums of the Deep,” by Kevin MacLeod
“Flood,” by Jahzzar
Historia Civilis
Published 22 Feb 2017Patreon | http://historiacivilis.com/patreon
Donate | http://historiacivilis.com/donate
Merch | http://historiacivilis.com/merch
Mailing List | http://historiacivilis.com/mailinglist
Twitter | http://historiacivilis.com/twitter
Website | http://historiacivilis.comMusic is:
“Light Thought var 2,” by Kevin MacLeod
“Bird Day,” by Broke For Free
“Drums of the Deep,” by Kevin MacLeod
“Thinking Music,” by Kevin MacLeod
“Flood,” by Jahzzar
“Hallon,” by Christian Bjoerklund
Over the past weekend I watched Trumbo, the story of the Marxist screenwriter blacklisted by Hollywood during the Red Scare back in the 1950s. To say that I watched it with a jaundiced eye would be a very big understatement, because I suspected (just from the trailer) that the movie would just be one big blowjob for both Dalton Trumbo and his merry little band of Commiesymps who infested Hollywood back then.
And it was. Needless to say, the movie made villains of the conservatives who opposed the Marxist infiltration: people like John Wayne and Hedda Hopper in particular, Wayne because Wayne, and Hopper because she had a son serving in the U.S. Navy during the Korean War. Of course Wayne was made out to be a bully and Hopper a vindictive bitch — and the Senators and Congressmen who haled the Commies in front of the Senate and House Un-American Committee (HUAC) were depicted as ideological purists who saw Communists behind every bush — even though, in the case of Hollywood, there were Commies behind every bush at the time.
Of course, much was made of the fact that being a Communist wasn’t actually illegal (then, and now), and Trumbo made a great show of this being a First Amendment issue — which it was — and how these Commies all wanted to improve America, but of course there were evil right-wingers like Wayne, Joe McCarthy and HUAC harassing them at every turn.
The execution of the traitors Julius and Ethel Rosenberg got a little puff piece in the movie, which didn’t — couldn’t — actually say they weren’t guilty of
treasonespionage, so it was brushed over with the throwaway that it was the first execution for espionage in peacetime, as though peacetime should give espionage a pass. And if that wasn’t enough, the Rosenberg children were paraded around as sympathy magnets — as they still are — because Communists have no problem using children to serve their own purposes.Kim du Toit, “Blacklists Matter”, Splendid Isolation, 2020-07-28.
At the Foundation for Economic Education, Lawrence W. Reed recounts the stunning injustice of Soviet “justice”, in the person of Nikolai Krylenko:
Panorama of the west facade of United States Supreme Court Building at dusk in Washington, D.C., 10 October, 2011.
Photo by Joe Ravi via Wikimedia Commons.
As I watched the first day of hearings on Judge Barrett’s nomination, I was reminded of a largely forgotten Soviet legal theoretician from decades ago. His name was Nikolai Krylenko. Judge Barrett is being given the Krylenko treatment by Democrat senators like Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, meaning this: The only thing that matters is whether she will vote their party line in future cases.
Under the communist dictatorship of Lenin and then Stalin, Krylenko (1885-1938) rose through the Soviet Union’s legal system to become People’s Commissar for Justice and a Prosecutor General. He was a leading practitioner of the theory of “socialist legality,” which held that an accused person’s innocence or guilt depended on that person’s politics (real or imagined). It sounds nuts and indeed, it was. It was the stuff of Orwell’s nightmare, and one of the reasons the Soviet Union thankfully perished of its own poison.
In The Gulag Archipelago, the famous Soviet dissident and Nobel laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn recounted an episode involving Krylenko. Shortly after Lenin’s Bolsheviks assumed power in 1917, an admiral named Shchastny was sentenced by one of the regime’s judges “to be shot within 24 hours.” When some in the courtroom expressed shock, it was Krylenko who responded thusly: “What are you worrying about? Executions have been abolished. But Shchastny is not being executed; he is being shot.”
To Krylenko, the only morality was what served the Party and the State, which of course in the Soviet Union were one and the same. If your politics were not correct, you would be “corrected,” one way or the other. In Richard Pipes’ authoritative book, The Russian Revolution, Krylenko is quoted as exclaiming, “We must execute not only the guilty. Execution of the innocent will impress the masses even more.”
At the Senate hearings for the Barrett nomination, it was apparent the first day that the Judge was being Krylenkoed. Hostile senators pronounced their verdicts before she had uttered a word, and those verdicts had nothing to do with Barrett’s stellar qualifications or keen legal mind. Legal analyst and George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley commented,
What they were suggesting is that they will be voting against her because of what they expected her vote would be in a pending case, and that is a conditional confirmation … Here, the senators seem to be saying, “I’m not even going to listen; I’m going to vote against you because I don’t think you’re going to vote the right way …”
Judge Barrett clearly articulated her judicial philosophy, borne out by the way she has ruled at the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: She believes the role of a judge or justice is to follow the Constitution and the law as written, not make stuff up in the service of a political agenda. How ironic that this is a point of fiery contention. Senators who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law hate the guts of a judge who does just that!
CGP Grey
Published 30 Sep 2020
Brad Polumbo on the notion that the politicians in Washington (or Ottawa, or London, or Canberra, …) are in any way capable of sensibly regulating the high tech sector:
While many principled small-government conservatives, such as Sen. Rand Paul, still back a free-market approach to tech policy issues, Hawley is not an outlier by any means.
Indeed, President Trump has also backed the regulation of social media companies to combat perceived anti-conservative bias. And the most popular conservative media personality in the country, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, regularly rails against Big Tech — even agreeing with progressive proposals to use the heavy hand of government antitrust regulation to break up companies such as Facebook and Google.
So, if major figures from both parties can agree on regulating Big Tech, it must be a good idea, right? Not so fast.
From left to right, the intentions behind these regulatory proposals are often good. After all, most reasonable people would likely share Democrats’ desire to see Big Tech better handle misinformation, “fake news,” and foreign election interference, while conservative Republicans’ calls for political neutrality online are no doubt appealing in the abstract.
Unfortunately, in their haphazard rush to score political points through government action, would-be regulators from both parties are forgetting the inevitable “knowledge problem” that plagues any central planners who try to dictate the minutiae of complicated industries from the halls of Washington, DC.
Economic philosopher Friedrich A. Hayek diagnosed this fatal flaw of government control in his seminal work “The Use of Knowledge in Society.”
“If we can agree that the economic problem of society is mainly one of rapid adaptation to changes in the particular circumstances of time and place,” Hayek wrote. “It would seem to follow that the ultimate decisions must be left to the people who are familiar with these circumstances, who know directly of the relevant changes and of the resources immediately available to meet them.”
“We cannot expect that this problem will be solved by first communicating all this knowledge to a central board which, after integrating all knowledge, issues its orders,” he continued. “We must solve it by some form of decentralization. But this answers only part of our problem. We need decentralization because only thus can we insure that the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place will be promptly used.“
Brad Polumbo reports on the split between Republican voters and Republican Senators on ending the US military involvement in Afghanistan:
Leopard 2A6M in Afghanistan
Applied to the Middle East, the America First framework is intuitive — our military misadventures in countries like Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan have cost the U.S. tremendously yet failed to further our interests. Once the party of hawks and idealists, Republican voters are now firmly in the America First camp. According to The Intercept, 81% of 2016 Trump voters support removing troops from Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, this shift in views has not been represented in Congress. Most Senate Republicans just explicitly voted against ending the war in Afghanistan.
On Wednesday evening, Sen. Rand Paul, a libertarian-leaning Kentucky Republican, introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have brought our troops home from Afghanistan, given those soldiers who served a bonus, and repealed the authorization of force Congress passed in 2001. But in a 60 to 33 vote, the Senate shot it down, with only three Republicans in addition to Paul — Sens. Mike Lee, Mike Braun, and Steve Daines — backing the amendment.
“Our amendment [would] finally and completely end the War in Afghanistan,” Paul said on the Senate floor. “Over 4,000 Americans have died in Afghanistan and over 20,000 have been wounded. It’s time to bring our soldiers home.”
“It is not sustainable to keep fighting in Afghanistan generation after generation,” he continued. “In fact, we now have soldiers who were born after 9/11 serving in Afghanistan.”
“We’ve been there for 20 years,” the senator said. “How can we characterize withdrawal after 20 years, after we defeated the enemy, as ‘precipitous’? It’s crazy. The American people say, ‘Come home,’ and this is your chance.”
“Afghanistan 2010 43” by david_axe is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0
Historia Civilis
Published 16 May 2020Patreon | http://patreon.com/HistoriaCivilis
Donate | http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?…
Merch | teespring.com/stores/historiacivilis
Twitter | http://twitter.com/HistoriaCivilis
Website | http://historiacivilis.comSources:
Cicero, “Letters to Atticus” | https://amzn.to/3b8EQby
Cicero, “The Philippics” | https://amzn.to/35EHcOe
Suetonius, “The Life of Julius Caesar” | https://amzn.to/2xJesHH
Plutarch, “The Life of Julius Caesar” | https://amzn.to/35DG6lZ
Plutarch, “The Life of Cicero” | https://amzn.to/2Laca7w
Plutarch, “The Life of Brutus” | https://amzn.to/2SLaWUC
Nicolaus of Damascus, “The Life of Augustus” | https://amzn.to/3dlQeCg
Appian, “The Civil Wars: Book 3” | https://amzn.to/2WbJXU4
Cassius Dio, “Roman History: Book 44” | https://amzn.to/35HC4ce
Cassius Dio, “Roman History: Book 45” | https://amzn.to/35HC4ce
Cassius Dio, “Roman History: Book 46” | https://amzn.to/2WDNIka
—
Barry Strauss, “The Death of Caesar: The Story of History’s Most Famous Assassination” | https://amzn.to/2WAUxTD
Tom Holland, “Dynasty: The Rise and Fall of the House of Caesar” | https://amzn.to/2zjG4n4
Adrian Goldsworthy, “Antony and Cleopatra” | https://amzn.to/2L8MQ1F
Anthony Everitt, “Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome’s Greatest Politician” | https://amzn.to/3bbrKKM
Tom Holland, “Rubicon” | https://amzn.to/3dombKn
Adrian Goldsworthy, “Augustus” | https://amzn.to/3fAInmD
Anthony Everitt, “Augustus: The Life of Rome’s First Emperor” | https://amzn.to/2Wf9CLH
Adrian Goldsworthy, “Caesar: Life of a Colossus” | https://amzn.to/3cfFQvUMusic:
“Moving Forward,” by Adi Goldstein
“Blonde,” by Nctrnm
“Heliograph,” by Chris Zabriskie
“The House Glows (With Almost No Help),” by Chris Zabriskie
“Hallon,” by Christian BjoerklundWe are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
The Great War
Published 10 Apr 2020Sign up for Curiosity Stream and Nebula – and get 40% off annual plans right now: https://curiositystream.com/thegreatwar
The League of Nations was US President Woodrow Wilson’s tool for a new and peaceful world after the war of 1914-1918 — and the US should have been their most important member. But the United States never joined and today the League of Nations is often seen as a failure. Was it doomed from the start?
» SUPPORT THE CHANNEL
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thegreatwar
Merchandise: https://shop.spreadshirt.de/thegreatwar/» SOURCES
“The Treaty of Peace with Germany (The Treaty of Versailles),” June 28, 1919, United States Statutes at Large, art. 1-440.Walters, F.P. A History of the League of Nations. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1952)
Link, Arthur et al., eds., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 45 (1984)
Ray S. Baker and William E. Dodd, eds, The Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson: Authorized Edition, Vol. 1, (New York, 1924)
Matz, Nele, “Civilization and the Mandate System under the League of Nations as Origin of Trusteeship” in von Bogdandy, A and Wolfrum, R (eds.), Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Volume 9, 2005
Braumoeller, Bear F. “The Myth of American Isolationism”, Foreign Policy Analysis Vol. 6, No. 4 (OCTOBER 2010), pp. 349-371
“March 19, 1920: Senate Rejects Treaty of Versailles for Second and Final Time” New York Times, https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/20… /march-19-1920-senate- rejects-treaty-of-versailles-for-second-and-final-time/
Egerton, George W, “The Lloyd George Government and the Creation of the League of Nations”, The American Historical Review, Vol. 79, No. 2 (Apr., 1974), pp. 419-444
Burkman, Thomas W. “Japan and the League of Nations: AN ASIAN POWER ENCOUNTERS THE ‘EUROPEAN CLUB'”, World Affairs, Vol. 158, No. 1, Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations: Part Two (SUMMER 1995), pp. 45-57
Rappart, William E. “Small States in the League of Nations”, Political Science Quarterly Vol. 49, No. 4 (Dec., 1934), pp. 544-575
Cox, James Middleston, Journey Through My Years, (Simon & Schuster: New York, 1946)
“THE BRITISH EMPIRE, THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, AND THE UNITED STATES”, Advocate of Peace through Justice, Vol. 82, No. 7 (JULY, 1920), pp. 229-231
Dorsey, Leeroy G, “Woodrow Wilson’s Fight for the League of Nations: A Reexamination”, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Spring 1999), pp. 107-135
“The Covenant of the League of Nations” AVALON PROJECT, Yale Law School, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_cent…
“Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points”, AVALON PROJECT, Yale Law School, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_cent…
Riddell, George Allardice, The Riddell diaries, 1908-1923, (London ; Dover, N.H. : Athlone Press, 1986)
» SOCIAL MEDIA
Instagram: https://instagram.com/the_great_war
Twitter: https://twitter.com/WW1_Series
Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/TheGreatWarChannel»CREDITS
Presented by: Jesse Alexander
Written by: Mark Newton, Jesse Alexander
Director: Toni Steller & Florian Wittig
Director of Photography: Toni Steller
Sound: Toni Steller
Editing: Toni Steller
Mixing, Mastering & Sound Design: http://above-zero.com
Maps: Daniel Kogosov (https://www.patreon.com/Zalezsky)
Research by: Jesse Alexander
Fact checking: Florian WittigChannel Design: Alexander Clark
Original Logo: David van StepholdA Mediakraft Networks Original Channel
Contains licensed material by getty images
All rights reserved – Real Time History GmbH 2020
This, at least, used to be the case. I am not sure whether it applies to the Brave New Senate that now exists after the somewhat cynical appointments of Stephen Harper and the experimental renovations of Justin Trudeau. But if you have ever wondered why political beat writers and old codger columnists often have surprisingly positive sentiments about the Senate, which nine-tenths of the people reading these words despise, this is probably one reason: a senator might call you back soon enough to be of some use.
And there’s another, related reason. In phoning a senator to chat about issues because you can’t get a “real” politician to return your inquiry, you would (or, anyway, I would) sometimes find surprisingly strong evidence that the Senate quietly lives up to its original constitutional promise. Spared the effort of endless electioneering and toilsome constituent service, senators do have time for deep study of projects and problems, and some freedom to develop independent opinions. I do not say that most of them use the time and the freedom, but it was, and I’m sure it still is, fairly easy to avoid the duds.
Colby Cosh, “R.I.P. Senator Tommy Banks, a figure from Edmonton’s pantheon”, National Post, 2018-01-26.
Historia Civilis
Published 28 Aug 2014Patreon | http://patreon.com/HistoriaCivilis
Donate | http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?…
Merch | http://teespring.com/stores/historiac…
Twitter | http://twitter.com/HistoriaCivilis
Website | http://historiacivilis.com
There’s an earlier video on the functions of the Senate during the monarchy here, but the audio track is rather wonky.
Historia Civilis
Published 18 May 2015Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/HistoriaCivilis
Website: https://www.historiacivilis.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/HistoriaCivilisMusic is “The Life and Death of a Certain K. Zabriskie, Patriarch” by Chris Zabriskie. (http://chriszabriskie.com/)
And this all happened along with the rise of Fox News. Many political scientists have noted that Fox News and the right-wing media ecosystem had an effect on the Republican Party that is unlike anything that happened on the left. It rewards more extreme statements, more grandstanding, more outrage. Many people will point out that the media leans left overall, and that the Democrats did some polarizing things, too. Fair enough. But it is clear that Gingrich set out to create a more partisan, zero-sum Congress, and he succeeded. This more combative culture then filtered up to the Senate, and out to the rest of the Republican Party.
Jonathan Haidt, “The Age of Outrage: What the current political climate is doing to our country and our universities”, City Journal, 2017-12-17.
Senator: “I have here a report from www.gruesomeliesaboutpublicfigures.com that says you like to puree puppies in a blender and drink them as a breakfast smoothie. Why do you do that, Mr. Smith?”
Mr. Smith: “I don’t drink pureed puppies for breakfast.”
Senator: “So you’ve stopped pureeing puppies for breakfast. Was that because you were afraid that it would become public and derail your nefarious secret plan to devastate the U.S. economy from your perch at the Department of Agriculture? Or did you just get tired of puppy blood?”
It’s entertaining viewing, but not really all that informative. And it has little impact when the nomination comes to a vote, which tends to break down on party lines. Mostly, it’s just a way for senators to get themselves on the teevee.
Megan McArdle, “Prescription Drug Imports Are Banned for a Reason”, Bloomberg View, 2017-12-01.
TimeGhost History
Published 24 Oct 2019America is very unprepared for rising tensions in the Pacific and in Europe. US President Franklin Roosevelt tries his best to re-arm the American Army and Navy, but the isolationist opposition is a fierce obstacle.
Join us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/TimeGhostHistory
Subscribe to our World War Two series: https://www.youtube.com/c/worldwartwo…
Hosted by: Indy Neidell
Written by: Joram Appel
Directed by: Spartacus Olsson and Astrid Deinhard
Executive Producers: Bodo Rittenauer, Astrid Deinhard, Indy Neidell, Spartacus Olsson
Creative Producer: Joram Appel
Post-Production Director: Wieke Kapteijns
Research by: Rune Vaever Hartvig, Sietse Kenter and Joram Appel
Edited by: Daniel Weiss
Sound design: Marek KaminskiPicture colorizations by: Norman Stewart, Julius Jääskeläinen, Daniel Weiss and Joram Appel
A TimeGhost chronological documentary produced by OnLion Entertainment GmbH.
From the comments:
TimeGhost History
1 day ago (edited)
This episode is very much about the global ramifications of the US’s foreign policy. American inaction and isolationism left room for other nations to develop imperialist ambitions. There are of course a lot of other factors that influenced the rise of expansionist and militarist governments in Europe and East-Asia, many of which are explained in our other Between Two Wars episodes. In no way does this video have any connection to current-day events or our opinion on them. This is what happened, our future episodes will be about what followed. We’re historians and that’s all we want to do here.
Cheers,
Joram
Powered by WordPress