The Most Basic Text For American History

[PoliticalChic]

....was written by a man who died on this day in 1859.....

Alexis de Tocqueville, (born July 29, 1805, Paris, France—died April 16, 1859, Cannes), political scientist, historian, and politician, best known for Democracy in America, 4 vol. (1835–40), a perceptive analysis of the political and social system of the United States in the early 19th century.
Britannica.com



Early on, Tocqueville described Liberalism:


Alexis de Tocqueville, writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”

 

[PoliticalChic]

"This was the fear that Tocqueville brought with him to North America—that the great democratic revolution sweeping the globe in the wake of the American and French revolutions would eventuate not in liberty, but in a soft, gentle despotism welcomed by those subject to it. He came to these shores, hoping against hope that he would discover in our country an antidote to the process that had in France produced a Napoleon and that seemed likely to eventuate in something far less impressive than the great Bonaparte.


And here on these shores, in the United States of America, Tocqueville discovered what he was looking for.

In decentralized administration, local self-government, civic associations, an unfettered press, Biblical religion, and the marital solidarity characteristic of Jacksonian America, he found what he took to be an antidote for the soft despotism that he rightly saw as democracy’s drift.

Above all, he was persuaded that, where there is centralized administration and individual citizens find themselves alone facing the state, they will succumb to the disposition of uneasiness and anxiety that Blaise Pascal, the baron de Montesquieu, and Rousseau had called inquiétude and, in search of a sense of security, gradually become passive subjects who look to an all-powerful, providential, tutelary state for their welfare.


But he also saw that—where there is considerable local autonomy, as there was in the United States, and the citizens experience civic agency and learn the art of association by participating in local self-government; where there is genuine and spirited public debate; where the citizens find in Biblical religion a moral anchor and the foundation for a conviction of their own dignity; and where they are sustained by domestic tranquillity within their own homes—the sense of inquiétude typical of liberal democratic man will give way to a trust in their own capacities, and they will be anything but passive and have the confidence to join together and face down officials intent on lording it over them.

One cannot today read Tocqueville’s description of Democracy in America with equanimity—"

"Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift"

freerepublic.com

 

[rightwinger]

....was written by a man who died on this day in 1859.....

View attachment 324086

Alexis de Tocqueville, (born July 29, 1805, Paris, France—died April 16, 1859, Cannes), political scientist, historian, and politician, best known for Democracy in America, 4 vol. (1835–40), a perceptive analysis of the political and social system of the United States in the early 19th century.
Britannica.com



Early on, Tocqueville described Liberalism:


Alexis de Tocqueville, writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”

Liberals founded this country

 

[odanny]

What Russian outfit pays this troll, and why is this fuck spamming the history forum?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What Russian outfit pays this troll, and why is this fuck spamming the history forum?

The real question is why no one ever loved you enough to teach you how to speak to others like an adult.

Is that the sort of language the family used in communicating with you?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

....was written by a man who died on this day in 1859.....

View attachment 324086

Alexis de Tocqueville, (born July 29, 1805, Paris, France—died April 16, 1859, Cannes), political scientist, historian, and politician, best known for Democracy in America, 4 vol. (1835–40), a perceptive analysis of the political and social system of the United States in the early 19th century.
Britannica.com



Early on, Tocqueville described Liberalism:


Alexis de Tocqueville, writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”

Liberals founded this country

Repeat a lie long enough.....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What Russian outfit pays this troll, and why is this fuck spamming the history forum?

Why are you crying on the board.

Contact a mod or STFU

 

[PoliticalChic]

....was written by a man who died on this day in 1859.....

View attachment 324086

Alexis de Tocqueville, (born July 29, 1805, Paris, France—died April 16, 1859, Cannes), political scientist, historian, and politician, best known for Democracy in America, 4 vol. (1835–40), a perceptive analysis of the political and social system of the United States in the early 19th century.
Britannica.com



Early on, Tocqueville described Liberalism:


Alexis de Tocqueville, writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”

Liberals founded this country

Repeat a lie long enough.....

That one never posts anything but lies.


For those not acquainted with the truth......communist John Dewey had the Socialist Party change their name to 'Liberal,' and the word we use today...'Liberal' is synonymous with Socialist.

And Socialists certainly didn't found this nation.


How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels
by Jim Peron

1. Pity the poor liberal. And I mean the real liberal. Not the modern watered-down socialist who calls himself a liberal but a real, honest, classical liberal. There is so much confusion over the term and real liberals have allowed fake liberals to get away with this subtle destruction of the language.
2. The classical liberals proposed laissez faire and this led to prosperity. The economics of 19th century liberalism brought about a major increase in the standard of living of all people. Thus real liberalism produced the effects which socialists dreamed their system would provide.
   1. Many socialists wanted prosperity and thought socialism would lead to such results faster than classical liberalism. But at the same time many socialists saw their ideology as a means of grabbing power for themselves and it was the power, not the promised prosperity, which attracted them.
3. [Socialists] knew that liberalism had a good reputation with the working classes — the very audience which they were targeting. The idea was to adopt the name liberal to describe socialism. Socialism, as socialism, was harder to sell. But by taking a name they did not deserve they felt they could make political gains on the backs of classical liberalism. And they did.
4. In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and Newargued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America.
   1. But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”
5. Peter Witonski, in his essay The Historical Roots of American Planningsaid: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’.
   1. The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”
6. Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism.
7. [Classical] liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. o-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism.

http://orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/liberal_confusion.htm

Democracy & free markets vs socialism

www.freerepublic.com

http://forum.rottentomatoes.com/topic/show/1369713?page=2

 

[PoliticalChic]

What Russian outfit pays this troll, and why is this fuck spamming the history forum?

Have you read Tocqueville's “Democracy in America” ?


I have.


Coulter says this about your sort:

Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.


If she is incorrect, could you name three or four of the books that have informed your geopolitical perspective?

 

[Marion Morrison]

"This was the fear that Tocqueville brought with him to North America—that the great democratic revolution sweeping the globe in the wake of the American and French revolutions would eventuate not in liberty, but in a soft, gentle despotism welcomed by those subject to it. He came to these shores, hoping against hope that he would discover in our country an antidote to the process that had in France produced a Napoleon and that seemed likely to eventuate in something far less impressive than the great Bonaparte.


And here on these shores, in the United States of America, Tocqueville discovered what he was looking for.

In decentralized administration, local self-government, civic associations, an unfettered press, Biblical religion, and the marital solidarity characteristic of Jacksonian America, he found what he took to be an antidote for the soft despotism that he rightly saw as democracy’s drift.

Above all, he was persuaded that, where there is centralized administration and individual citizens find themselves alone facing the state, they will succumb to the disposition of uneasiness and anxiety that Blaise Pascal, the baron de Montesquieu, and Rousseau had called inquiétude and, in search of a sense of security, gradually become passive subjects who look to an all-powerful, providential, tutelary state for their welfare.


But he also saw that—where there is considerable local autonomy, as there was in the United States, and the citizens experience civic agency and learn the art of association by participating in local self-government; where there is genuine and spirited public debate; where the citizens find in Biblical religion a moral anchor and the foundation for a conviction of their own dignity; and where they are sustained by domestic tranquillity within their own homes—the sense of inquiétude typical of liberal democratic man will give way to a trust in their own capacities, and they will be anything but passive and have the confidence to join together and face down officials intent on lording it over them.

One cannot today read Tocqueville’s description of Democracy in America with equanimity—"

"Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift"

freerepublic.com

I love that! That's the difference US and France back then. They were burning bibles while we were reading it for guidance!
And yes, America was founded as a Christian nation.

 

[odanny]

What Russian outfit pays this troll, and why is this fuck spamming the history forum?

Have you read Tocqueville's “Democracy in America” ?


I have.


Coulter says this about your sort:

Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.


If she is incorrect, could you name three or four of the books that have informed your geopolitical perspective?

At least you don’t deny you’re a Russian troll. In my country, thinking people consider Ann Coulter a joke. Perhaps if you lived here you’d know this.

 

[odanny]

What Russian outfit pays this troll, and why is this fuck spamming the history forum?

The real question is why no one ever loved you enough to teach you how to speak to others like an adult.

Is that the sort of language the family used in communicating with you?

Fuck off you commie Russian troll

 

[PoliticalChic]

"This was the fear that Tocqueville brought with him to North America—that the great democratic revolution sweeping the globe in the wake of the American and French revolutions would eventuate not in liberty, but in a soft, gentle despotism welcomed by those subject to it. He came to these shores, hoping against hope that he would discover in our country an antidote to the process that had in France produced a Napoleon and that seemed likely to eventuate in something far less impressive than the great Bonaparte.


And here on these shores, in the United States of America, Tocqueville discovered what he was looking for.

In decentralized administration, local self-government, civic associations, an unfettered press, Biblical religion, and the marital solidarity characteristic of Jacksonian America, he found what he took to be an antidote for the soft despotism that he rightly saw as democracy’s drift.

Above all, he was persuaded that, where there is centralized administration and individual citizens find themselves alone facing the state, they will succumb to the disposition of uneasiness and anxiety that Blaise Pascal, the baron de Montesquieu, and Rousseau had called inquiétude and, in search of a sense of security, gradually become passive subjects who look to an all-powerful, providential, tutelary state for their welfare.


But he also saw that—where there is considerable local autonomy, as there was in the United States, and the citizens experience civic agency and learn the art of association by participating in local self-government; where there is genuine and spirited public debate; where the citizens find in Biblical religion a moral anchor and the foundation for a conviction of their own dignity; and where they are sustained by domestic tranquillity within their own homes—the sense of inquiétude typical of liberal democratic man will give way to a trust in their own capacities, and they will be anything but passive and have the confidence to join together and face down officials intent on lording it over them.

One cannot today read Tocqueville’s description of Democracy in America with equanimity—"

"Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift"

freerepublic.com

I love that! That's the difference US and France back then. They were burning bibles while we were reading it for guidance!
And yes, America was founded as a Christian nation.

Yup! And that's why France became a slaughter house, with 600,000 dead.

In the course of France's short revolution, 600,000 French citizens were killed, and another 145,000 fled the country. Schom, "Napoleon Bonaparte," p. 253.

"That's in a country with between 24 and 26 million people, about the current population of Texas. In terms of population loss, that would be the equivalent of the United States having a 9/11 attack every day for seven years." Coulter, "Demonic," p. 266.



The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

What Russian outfit pays this troll, and why is this fuck spamming the history forum?

Have you read Tocqueville's “Democracy in America” ?


I have.


Coulter says this about your sort:

Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.


If she is incorrect, could you name three or four of the books that have informed your geopolitical perspective?

At least you don’t deny you’re a Russian troll. In my country, thinking people consider Ann Coulter a joke. Perhaps if you lived here you’d know this.

It was really a simple question, a test of Coulter's accuracy.

Coulter says this about your sort:

Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.


If she is incorrect, could you name three or four of the books that have informed your geopolitical perspective?




Turns out she was correct. Books appear to be anathema to Liberals (better look that up).

Thank you for your participation in the test.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What Russian outfit pays this troll, and why is this fuck spamming the history forum?

The real question is why no one ever loved you enough to teach you how to speak to others like an adult.

Is that the sort of language the family used in communicating with you?

Fuck off you commie Russian troll

I have a gift for making Liberals leap to vulgarity. It’s one of the hoops I make Liberals jump through. Shall I make you roll over and play dead?

 

[odanny]

What Russian outfit pays this troll, and why is this fuck spamming the history forum?

Have you read Tocqueville's “Democracy in America” ?


I have.


Coulter says this about your sort:

Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.


If she is incorrect, could you name three or four of the books that have informed your geopolitical perspective?

At least you don’t deny you’re a Russian troll. In my country, thinking people consider Ann Coulter a joke. Perhaps if you lived here you’d know this.

It was really a simple question, a test of Coulter's accuracy.

Coulter says this about your sort:

Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.


If she is incorrect, could you name three or four of the books that have informed your geopolitical perspective?




Turns out she was correct. Books appear to be anathema to Liberals (better look that up).

Thank you for your participation in the test.

Trust me Vlad, I’ve read far more books than your average target audience ever has (with an emphasis on 20th century military history and your country’s barbarous history under Comrade Stalin, affectionately called Uncle Joe, and comrade Molotov’s and Ribbentrop’s historic cooperative pact) and how you Red commies are at least as murderous as the Nazis were. The Holomdor and Katyn massacre ring a bell?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What Russian outfit pays this troll, and why is this fuck spamming the history forum?

Have you read Tocqueville's “Democracy in America” ?


I have.


Coulter says this about your sort:

Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.


If she is incorrect, could you name three or four of the books that have informed your geopolitical perspective?

At least you don’t deny you’re a Russian troll. In my country, thinking people consider Ann Coulter a joke. Perhaps if you lived here you’d know this.

It was really a simple question, a test of Coulter's accuracy.

Coulter says this about your sort:

Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.


If she is incorrect, could you name three or four of the books that have informed your geopolitical perspective?




Turns out she was correct. Books appear to be anathema to Liberals (better look that up).

Thank you for your participation in the test.

Trust me Vlad, I’ve read far more books than your average target audience ever has (with an emphasis on 20th century military history and your country’s barbarous history under Comrade Stalin, affectionately called Uncle Joe, and comrade Molotov’s and Ribbentrop’s historic cooperative pact) and how you Red commies are at least as murderous as the Nazis were. The Holomdor and Katyn massacre ring a bell?

"Heather Has Two Mommies" doesn't count.

 

[odanny]

What Russian outfit pays this troll, and why is this fuck spamming the history forum?

Have you read Tocqueville's “Democracy in America” ?


I have.


Coulter says this about your sort:

Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.


If she is incorrect, could you name three or four of the books that have informed your geopolitical perspective?

At least you don’t deny you’re a Russian troll. In my country, thinking people consider Ann Coulter a joke. Perhaps if you lived here you’d know this.

It was really a simple question, a test of Coulter's accuracy.

Coulter says this about your sort:

Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.


If she is incorrect, could you name three or four of the books that have informed your geopolitical perspective?




Turns out she was correct. Books appear to be anathema to Liberals (better look that up).

Thank you for your participation in the test.

Trust me Vlad, I’ve read far more books than your average target audience ever has (with an emphasis on 20th century military history and your country’s barbarous history under Comrade Stalin, affectionately called Uncle Joe, and comrade Molotov’s and Ribbentrop’s historic cooperative pact) and how you Red commies are at least as murderous as the Nazis were. The Holomdor and Katyn massacre ring a bell?

"Heather Has Two Mommies" doesn't count.

Comrade Putin has that on the banned list.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What Russian outfit pays this troll, and why is this fuck spamming the history forum?

Have you read Tocqueville's “Democracy in America” ?


I have.


Coulter says this about your sort:

Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.


If she is incorrect, could you name three or four of the books that have informed your geopolitical perspective?

At least you don’t deny you’re a Russian troll. In my country, thinking people consider Ann Coulter a joke. Perhaps if you lived here you’d know this.

It was really a simple question, a test of Coulter's accuracy.

Coulter says this about your sort:

Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.


If she is incorrect, could you name three or four of the books that have informed your geopolitical perspective?




Turns out she was correct. Books appear to be anathema to Liberals (better look that up).

Thank you for your participation in the test.

Trust me Vlad, I’ve read far more books than your average target audience ever has (with an emphasis on 20th century military history and your country’s barbarous history under Comrade Stalin, affectionately called Uncle Joe, and comrade Molotov’s and Ribbentrop’s historic cooperative pact) and how you Red commies are at least as murderous as the Nazis were. The Holomdor and Katyn massacre ring a bell?

"Heather Has Two Mommies" doesn't count.

Comrade Putin has that on the banned list.

So Coulter was correct, you Liberals don't read any books.

 

[Mushroom]

Liberals founded this country

Not really.

The term means nothing today like it did over 240 years ago. "Radical" is more accurate, as the idea at the time of people governing themselves was very radical. But even among those radicals you had many that fell into both "Liberal" and "Conservative" camps, and often swung back and forth.

Just look no further than President Adams and Jefferson. Even Washington was a rather conservative individual. About the closest we would see in the actual founders to a "Liberal" was probably Jefferson. For most, "Libertarian" is really more accurate. With heavy influence by such radicals as John Smith and Thomas Paine.