When Was The First Lie Constructed???

[PoliticalChic]

1.It is hard to say, with specificity, but I’ll bet it was by the political Left. After all, without lies to advance their narratives, they’d be practically mute. Since Trump’s election alone there have been nearly 40 major lies and hoaxes by that sort.


2. It was a birthday that brought this to mind: Jeffrey Amherst, who was useful in advancing the tale that the ‘Noble Savages’ that lived peacefully, husbanding the land, were slaughtered by those horrid white, Christian, heterosexual pre-America settlers, was born on this date.

January 29th, 1717, Jeffery Amherst born.
He was appointed by William Pitt (E) as English Governor-General of America 1758-1763.
Town of Amherst named in his honor (see 4/10) but involved the first germ warfare when he gave smallpox infected blankets to Indians.



3. None of those slanders of the first colonists, nor the claim that Amherst gave smallpox infected blankets to those wonderful Indians, is true.



4. This is the often repeated story of Lord Jeffrey Amherst ordering the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians, as an example of ‘germ warfare’ used by Europeans. The story is not documented, except as a ‘possibility.’ See the study of Professor d’Errico:

Historian Francis Parkman, in his book The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:

“Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them”. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]

I have not found this letter, but there is a letter from Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763, [189k] three weeks before the discussion of blankets to the Indians, stating that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt (to which Bouquet would be heading with reinforcements) has reported smallpox in the Fort. This indicates at least that the writers knew the plan could be carried out.

It is curious that the specific plans to spread smallpox were relegated to postscripts.

"Some people have doubted these stories; other people, believing the stories, nevertheless assert that the infected blankets were not intentionally distributed to the Indians, or that Lord Jeff himself is not to blame for the germ warfare tactic."
Amherst and Smallpox


Did you note that Parkman "never found the letter"?



5. Many of the lies have a great deal of meaning when they can be put, uncontested, out into the public. That, of course, is exactly what the Left, the destroyers of civilization, have made possible due to control of the means of dissemination of information:

"Over the past several decades, the progressive Left has successfully fulfilled Antonio Gramsci’s famed admonition of a “long march through the institutions”. In almost every Western country, its adherents now dominate the education system, media, cultural institutions, and financial behemoths." Is this the end of progressive America?



I will provide several other broadly accepted lies that have no basis in fact.

 

[JoeMoma]

If you believe the bible, Satan lied to Eve. If you believe abiogenesis + evolution, then the first lie predates human history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you believe the bible, Satan lied to Eve. If you believe abiogenesis + evolution, then the first lie predates human history.

Write some more on this.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. The Left/Democrats control the media, and use same to advance their agenda.

When their beloved Bolsheviks came under serious attack, the author of that attack had to be destroyed.

So J. Edgar Hoover was portrayed as a homosexual…..it was a no-no at the time: today, he’d be made Vice President with that resume.
The tale about Hoover cross-dressing is totally false.





"Did J. Edgar Hoover Really Wear Dresses?

By Ronald Kessler

Mr. Kessler is the author of a new book on the FBI, The Bureau: The Secret History of the FBI, available from Amazon.com.

In 1993, Anthony Summers, in his book Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover, claimed that Hoover did not pursue organized crime because the Mafia had blackmail material on him. In support of that, Summers quoted Susan L. Rosenstiel, a former wife of Lewis S. Rosenstiel, chairman of Schenley Industries Inc., as saying that in 1958, she was at a party at the Plaza Hotel where Hoover engaged in cross-dressing in front of her then-husband and Roy Cohn, former counsel to Senator Joe McCarthy.

"He [Hoover] was wearing a fluffy black dress, very fluffy, with flounces and lace stockings and high heels, and a black curly wig," Summers quoted Susan as saying. "He had makeup on and false eyelashes."[1]

Susan claimed Cohn introduced Hoover to her as "Mary." Hoover allegedly responded, "Good evening." She said she saw Hoover go into a bedroom and take off his skirt. There, "young blond boys" worked on him in bed. Later, as Hoover and Cohn watched, Lewis Rosenstiel had sex with the young boys.

A year later, Susan claimed, she again saw Hoover at the Plaza. This time, the director was wearing a red dress. Around his neck was a black feather boa. He was holding a Bible, and he asked one of the blond boys to read a passage as another boy played with him.

It was episodes such as these, Summers declared, that the Mafia held over Hoover's head. "Mafia bosses obtained information about Hoover's sex life and used it for decades to keep the FBI at bay," the jacket of the book says. "Without this, the Mafia as we know it might never have gained its hold on America."

Rosenstiel, a former bootlegger during Prohibition, was well-acquainted with Mafia figures such as Frank Costello, originally Francesco Castiglia. He was also friends with Hoover, having endowed the J. Edgar Hoover Foundation in 1965 with $1 million. But Susan was Summers's primary source for the cross-dressing story, and she was not exactly a credible witness. In fact, she served time at Riker's Island for perjuring herself in a 1971 case.

Convinced that Hoover had somehow stacked the cards against her during the divorce proceedings, Susan had long tried to interest anyone who would listen that Hoover was a cross-dresser. Susan had taken her allegations to Robert M. Morgenthau, the U.S. Attorney in New York, who himself had no use for Hoover.

"She used to call me after 5:30 p.m. when my secretary had left, so I wound up having to listen to her," Morgenthau said. He said he found her claims baseless. But Morgenthau shared her allegations with William Hundley, who had a Justice Department attorney look into them.[2]

"Susie Rosenstiel had a total ax to grind," Hundley said. "Somebody who worked for me talked to her. It was made up out of whole cloth. She hated Hoover for some alleged wrong he had done. Plus the story was beyond belief. I told Summers this. Then he goes ahead and uses it."[3]

Now seventy-seven and living in a single room in a Manhattan hotel where rooms rent for $98.85 a night, Rosenstiel said Summers paid her for the interviews she gave him, and she wanted to be paid for an interview for this book. Like most journalists and news organizations, I believe paying for information calls into question its credibility. When I told Rosenstiel this and suggested she could generate publicity for herself by telling the truth and admitting she made up the cross-dressing story, she said, "It did happen."[4]

Summers said that after Rosenstiel told her the cross-dressing story, she told him that she intended to give the story to another journalist. Summers said he paid her a fee to hold the story until his book came out. The producer of a documentary made for Frontline and the BBC also paid Rosenstiel for her appearance with Summers, he said.

In an Esquire piece, Peter Maas, a world class journalist who died in 2001, pointed out that Summers's rendition of events has a fatal flaw: After the alleged incident at the Plaza, Hoover assigned agents to investigate Lansky, who supposedly had the goods on him. When the Miami Field Office complained that the investigation of Lansky was not producing enough information to justify the manpower, Hoover wrote back, "Lansky has been designated for 'crash' investigation. The importance of this case cannot be overemphasized . . . The bureau expects this investigation to be vigorous and detailed."

Still presumably cowering because Lansky had incriminating photos of him, Hoover followed up with an order to install bugs in Lansky's apartment. Having been ordered by Robert Kennedy to attack the Mafia as the FBI had attacked Communism, Hoover wrote in the January 1962 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, "The battle is joined. We have taken up the gauntlet flung down by organized crime. Let us unite in a devastating assault to annihilate this mortal enemy." Yet even before Kennedy took over, Hoover, stung by the disclosure of the 1957 Appalachin meeting, had been pursuing the mob aggressively. Doesn't that torpedo Summers= theory? No, Summers told me, by that time it didn't matter to Hoover. But, of course, if there were such photos, they would have been just as embarrassing in the 1950s and 1960s as in earlier years. Summers pointed out that he wrote a lengthy rebuttal to Esquire, and he called the Maas article "inaccurate and abhorrent."

Despite the clear implication in the book that her story was true and the declaration on the book's jacket that the Mafia knew that Hoover was a "closet homosexual and transvestite" and held that over his head, Summers told me that he merely reported what Rosenstiel said, along with what others claimed. He said he holds "no firm view one way or the other" as to whether she told the truth.[5]

While there was always speculation about Hoover and Tolson, there were never any rumors about Hoover cross-dressing. Oliver "Buck" Revell, a former associate director of the FBI, noted that if the Mafia had had anything on Hoover, it would have been picked up in wiretaps mounted against organized crime after Appalachin. There was never a hint of such a claim, Revell said.

Hoover was more familiar to Americans than most presidents. The director of the FBI simply could not have engaged in such activity at the Plaza, with a number of witnesses present, without having it leak out. The cross-dressing allegations were as credible as McCarthy's claim that there were 205 known Communists in the State Department, yet the press widely circulated the claim without further investigation. That Hoover was a cross-dresser is now largely presumed to be fact even by sophisticated people."



Of course, Marxism won the battle.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Anything that fits the template of white America being racist has to be latched onto…..and the morons who vote Democrats will be right there with ‘duh….yup…yup!!!’

The story of Ty Cobb being a racist was far too juicy for the Left/Progressives/Democrats not to embrace and embellish.

Have you noticed that the dumbest profession....maybe second to economists.....are sports announcers?
Might be because they are Liberals to the same extent.

If you heard about Cobb from ESPN or Len Berman et al, you found this:
....overshadowed by his notorious personality. Known for sharpening his spikes in order to cause the most damage to opponents’ legs when sliding, he was one of the most aggressive players in baseball history, and his short temper led to numerous on-field scuffles (he even attacked a heckling fan in the stands on one occasion). Op. Cit.

"But for all that, most Americans think of him first as an awful person—a racist!-and a low-down cheat who thought nothing of injuring his fellow players just to gain another base or score a run. Indeed, many think of him as a murderer. "
Who Was Ty Cobb? The History We Know That’s Wrong



"..... Cobb has been portrayed as a virtual psychotic in articles, books, and films, including Ron Shelton’s 1994 feature starring Tommy Lee Jones and Ken Burns’s epic, 18-hour documentary, Baseball, in which Cobb plays the villain to Jackie Robinson’s hero.

There’s only one problem: this venomous character is predominantly fictional."
A Wronged Man



Ty Cobb on the TV show "I've got a Secret." Sep. 28, 1955
"Ty Cobb appears on the television show "I've got a secret." Since his death, Ty Cobb has been unfairly portrayed as being a very nasty person. The reality is far from this myth. It is nicely presented in the following article:
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/who-wa...



"It is easy to understand why this is the prevailing view. People have been told that Cobb was a bad man over and over, all of their lives. The repetition felt like evidence."
This explanation of the Cobb statement was written by Charles Leerhsen, whose recent book, is about Cobb..."Ty Cobb: A Terrible Beauty."


a. The Boston Globe notes:

"But if veteran sportswriter Leerhsen is correct about Cobb — and his book is assiduously researched and his points lucidly expressed — then “A Terrible Beauty” is not only the best work ever written on this American sports legend: It’s a major reconsideration of a reputation unfairly maligned for decades."
Review of “Ty Cobb: A Terrible Beauty” by Charles Leerhsen - The Boston Globe


".... assiduously researched....a reputation unfairly maligned..."



Wow.....for Liberals, being able to tie (Ty) racism to America's national pastime is a home run (see what I did there?).



So.....once again, Ronaldus Magnus was spot on:
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

 

[whoisit]

1.It is hard to say, with specificity, but I’ll bet it was by the political Left. After all, without lies to advance their narratives, they’d be practically mute. Since Trump’s election alone there have been nearly 40 major lies and hoaxes by that sort.


2. It was a birthday that brought this to mind: Jeffrey Amherst, who was useful in advancing the tale that the ‘Noble Savages’ that lived peacefully, husbanding the land, were slaughtered by those horrid white, Christian, heterosexual pre-America settlers, was born on this date.

January 29th, 1717, Jeffery Amherst born.
He was appointed by William Pitt (E) as English Governor-General of America 1758-1763.
Town of Amherst named in his honor (see 4/10) but involved the first germ warfare when he gave smallpox infected blankets to Indians.



3. None of those slanders of the first colonists, nor the claim that Amherst gave smallpox infected blankets to those wonderful Indians, is true.



4. This is the often repeated story of Lord Jeffrey Amherst ordering the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians, as an example of ‘germ warfare’ used by Europeans. The story is not documented, except as a ‘possibility.’ See the study of Professor d’Errico:

Historian Francis Parkman, in his book The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:

“Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them”. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]

I have not found this letter, but there is a letter from Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763, [189k] three weeks before the discussion of blankets to the Indians, stating that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt (to which Bouquet would be heading with reinforcements) has reported smallpox in the Fort. This indicates at least that the writers knew the plan could be carried out.

It is curious that the specific plans to spread smallpox were relegated to postscripts.

"Some people have doubted these stories; other people, believing the stories, nevertheless assert that the infected blankets were not intentionally distributed to the Indians, or that Lord Jeff himself is not to blame for the germ warfare tactic."
Amherst and Smallpox


Did you note that Parkman "never found the letter"?



5. Many of the lies have a great deal of meaning when they can be put, uncontested, out into the public. That, of course, is exactly what the Left, the destroyers of civilization, have made possible due to control of the means of dissemination of information:

"Over the past several decades, the progressive Left has successfully fulfilled Antonio Gramsci’s famed admonition of a “long march through the institutions”. In almost every Western country, its adherents now dominate the education system, media, cultural institutions, and financial behemoths." Is this the end of progressive America?



I will provide several other broadly accepted lies that have no basis in fact.

Our history has been highjacked to serve the evil forces working behind the lines.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. In their assault on Thomas Jefferson, the America-haters imagined the quintessential death cut to the nation they hate.
After all, a frontal attack on things like this
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. . . ." ….would be too risky.
So, they attacked Jefferson’s character as a proxy.





It is about slavery, about keeping the African-American vote in the Democrat column, and about the perversion of science for their own interests.
It's about smearing the Founders of America as slavers and rapists.
The meme is that Thomas Jefferson kept a slave, Sally Hemings for his sexual pleasure, and had children with his slave.



October 5, 1998: The journal Nature published a report that DNA testing had confirmed (still disputed by some) that a member of Thomas Jefferson's family had fathered a child with the slave Sally Hemings; the testing, however, was unable to definitively prove that Jefferson was the father.
Britannica.com



"Although Nature's retraction and modification of its initial announcement was far more significant than its release, the retraction received little notice. The result is that the reputation of Jefferson has been permanently tarnished by "scientific evidence" which actually did not prove that Thomas Jefferson fatheredanyillegitimate child. But, as the Wall Street Journal noted, "Of course, the backtracking comes a little late to change the hundreds of other headlines fingering Jefferson."11The effect has been unfortunate, for as one reporter who covered the DNA story accurately noted, "Defective scholarship is difficult to recall."12
WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings The Search for Truth


"Since Jefferson had no male descendants, the recent DNA testing was done by comparing the DNA of the male descendants of the sons of Sally Hemings to that of the male descendants of the brother of Thomas Jefferson's father (TJ's uncle). Because the DNA evidence isnotderived in such a way as to exclude any descendantsbutthose of Thomas Jefferson, this means that, from a scientific and technical standpoint, any male of the Jefferson family descended from Jefferson's grandfather and living at that time could have been the father of Sally Hemings' son, Eston. One of the sons of Sally Hemings, allegedly also fathered by Thomas Jefferson, was demonstrated by this testing not to have the Jefferson Y chromosome.

But "could have been" is a hedge term, and is equivalent to admitting that the evidence is not conclusive with respect to Thomas Jefferson."
Jeffersonian Perspective DNA Sally Hemings

"But those tests didn’t even involve DNA from Thomas Jefferson and only established that Eston was probably fathered by any one of more than two dozen Jefferson men living in Virginia at the time, “The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy” asserts. In fact, the scholars point to Jefferson’s brother, Randolph, as the likely father of Hemings’ son."
Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings one of history s myths - CSMonitor.com



No such proof was ever possible.
"In Defense of Thomas Jefferson: The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal"William G. Hyland Jr.
Historians have the wrong Jefferson. Hyland, an experienced trial lawyer, presents the most reliable historical evidence while dissecting the unreliable, and in doing so he cuts through centuries of unsubstantiated charges.

The author reminds us that the DNA tests identified Eston Hemings, Sally's youngest child, as being merely the descendant of a "Jefferson male." Randolph Jefferson, the president's wayward, younger brother with a reputation for socializing among the Monticello slaves, emerges as the most likely of several possible candidates.

Meanwhile, the author traces the evolution of this rumor about Thomas Jefferson back to the allegation made by one James Callendar, a "drunken ruffian" who carried a grudge after unsuccessfully lobbying the president for a postmaster appointment---and who then openly bragged of ruining Jefferson's reputation. Hyland also delves into Hemings family oral histories that go against the popular rumor, as well as the ways in which the Jefferson rumors were advanced by less-than-historical dramas and by flawed scholarly research often shaped by political agendas.
From a book review of the above.



"....flawed scholarly research often shaped by political agendas."


One more myth taken, by many, as fact.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Time and again, when any news or exposition comes to light, the smart thing is to notice how it always benefits the Democrat/Progressive/Marxist narrative.



And that is never better advice than when there is any mention of Senator Jos. McCarthy, and ‘McCarthyism.’

The claim is always some variation of ‘he ruined many innocent lives with his charges of communism.’



Watch this: the claim by the usual Democrat sycophant, and his come-uppance.



“ There were hundreds if not thousands of people who lost jobs, careers, even families based on McCarty's (sic) over reach and list he compiled and interrogated. Innocent people.” Yea Or Nay?
post #151



That dunce, and every other one who parrots the propaganda, couldn’t find a single innocent who was not a subscriber to communism…..

…and, even worse, when actual communists and agents of Stalin were revealed, they never suffered. McCarthy never blackballed any and put none in prison.

But he did spotlight a tremendous problem for America.



He fought against communism and communists.

Senator Joe McCarthy confronted government officials concealing communist involvement and excessively lax security with regards to Communists in sensitive U.S. Government posts. In many cases he was on target, with over 81 of the names he gave the Tydings committee resulting in resignations or movement of security risks.

Given that over 200 of the spies uncovered in the Venona decrypts were never identified, we can only speculate as to the national security impact of removing Communists from key DoD and State Dept posts.

Arthur Herman, author of "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator," says that the accuracy of McCarthy's charges "was no longer a matter of debate," that they are "now accepted as fact."

And The New York Post's Eric Fettmann has noted: "growing historical evidence underscores that, whatever his rhetorical and investigative excesses - and they were substantial - McCarthy was a lot closer to the truth about Communism than were his foes."

The slander of this American hero was neither the first lie, nor the most recent set of lies. That would fall to those about Trump.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.It is hard to say, with specificity, but I’ll bet it was by the political Left. After all, without lies to advance their narratives, they’d be practically mute. Since Trump’s election alone there have been nearly 40 major lies and hoaxes by that sort.


2. It was a birthday that brought this to mind: Jeffrey Amherst, who was useful in advancing the tale that the ‘Noble Savages’ that lived peacefully, husbanding the land, were slaughtered by those horrid white, Christian, heterosexual pre-America settlers, was born on this date.

January 29th, 1717, Jeffery Amherst born.
He was appointed by William Pitt (E) as English Governor-General of America 1758-1763.
Town of Amherst named in his honor (see 4/10) but involved the first germ warfare when he gave smallpox infected blankets to Indians.



3. None of those slanders of the first colonists, nor the claim that Amherst gave smallpox infected blankets to those wonderful Indians, is true.



4. This is the often repeated story of Lord Jeffrey Amherst ordering the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians, as an example of ‘germ warfare’ used by Europeans. The story is not documented, except as a ‘possibility.’ See the study of Professor d’Errico:

Historian Francis Parkman, in his book The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:

“Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them”. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]

I have not found this letter, but there is a letter from Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763, [189k] three weeks before the discussion of blankets to the Indians, stating that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt (to which Bouquet would be heading with reinforcements) has reported smallpox in the Fort. This indicates at least that the writers knew the plan could be carried out.

It is curious that the specific plans to spread smallpox were relegated to postscripts.

"Some people have doubted these stories; other people, believing the stories, nevertheless assert that the infected blankets were not intentionally distributed to the Indians, or that Lord Jeff himself is not to blame for the germ warfare tactic."
Amherst and Smallpox


Did you note that Parkman "never found the letter"?



5. Many of the lies have a great deal of meaning when they can be put, uncontested, out into the public. That, of course, is exactly what the Left, the destroyers of civilization, have made possible due to control of the means of dissemination of information:

"Over the past several decades, the progressive Left has successfully fulfilled Antonio Gramsci’s famed admonition of a “long march through the institutions”. In almost every Western country, its adherents now dominate the education system, media, cultural institutions, and financial behemoths." Is this the end of progressive America?



I will provide several other broadly accepted lies that have no basis in fact.

 

[Libby von H]

1.It is hard to say, with specificity, but I’ll bet it was by the political Left. After all, without lies to advance their narratives, they’d be practically mute. Since Trump’s election alone there have been nearly 40 major lies and hoaxes by that sort.


2. It was a birthday that brought this to mind: Jeffrey Amherst, who was useful in advancing the tale that the ‘Noble Savages’ that lived peacefully, husbanding the land, were slaughtered by those horrid white, Christian, heterosexual pre-America settlers, was born on this date.

January 29th, 1717, Jeffery Amherst born.
He was appointed by William Pitt (E) as English Governor-General of America 1758-1763.
Town of Amherst named in his honor (see 4/10) but involved the first germ warfare when he gave smallpox infected blankets to Indians.



3. None of those slanders of the first colonists, nor the claim that Amherst gave smallpox infected blankets to those wonderful Indians, is true.



4. This is the often repeated story of Lord Jeffrey Amherst ordering the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians, as an example of ‘germ warfare’ used by Europeans. The story is not documented, except as a ‘possibility.’ See the study of Professor d’Errico:

Historian Francis Parkman, in his book The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:

“Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them”. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]

I have not found this letter, but there is a letter from Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763, [189k] three weeks before the discussion of blankets to the Indians, stating that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt (to which Bouquet would be heading with reinforcements) has reported smallpox in the Fort. This indicates at least that the writers knew the plan could be carried out.

It is curious that the specific plans to spread smallpox were relegated to postscripts.

"Some people have doubted these stories; other people, believing the stories, nevertheless assert that the infected blankets were not intentionally distributed to the Indians, or that Lord Jeff himself is not to blame for the germ warfare tactic."
Amherst and Smallpox


Did you note that Parkman "never found the letter"?



5. Many of the lies have a great deal of meaning when they can be put, uncontested, out into the public. That, of course, is exactly what the Left, the destroyers of civilization, have made possible due to control of the means of dissemination of information:

"Over the past several decades, the progressive Left has successfully fulfilled Antonio Gramsci’s famed admonition of a “long march through the institutions”. In almost every Western country, its adherents now dominate the education system, media, cultural institutions, and financial behemoths." Is this the end of progressive America?



I will provide several other broadly accepted lies that have no basis in fact.

"The PC account derives from the Romantic tradition. Namely that the Americas, prior to contact with whites, was an Edenic paradise of bliss and peace, the natives living in perfect harmony with Mother Earth and one another. This myth is actually subtly (or not so subtly) quite racist in its conception, positing indigenous peoples as “noble savages”–to counter the equally immoral line then common of indigenous as just plain old savages. Either way savages and not humans."

What does THE expert say about your contention