Ordered by how hard-core their deaths were. Hard to top Valerian.
…that weren’t “The Crusades.” An excerpt from Jonah Goldberg’s new book.
Some thoughts from Mark Steyn:
It was, in a certain sense (and putting Russia and Japan to one side), a “western civil war” between the Anglophone democracies and Continental Fascists – but for some reason that’s far less congenial an interpretation to EU myth-makers.
The continuing fantasies (well, OK, lies) of the “progressives.”
Some thoughts on Napolean, power, and modern academia.
In attacking his critics as “flat earthers,” Obama screws up.
Yes, people who, unlike him, actually understand the math and physics (and business prospects) of alternative and conventional energy are “flat earthers.” Once again, the man is impervious to irony. And how insufferable this kind of thing is.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Heh: “Obama in Tucson & today: “Make sure we talk with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds, you Flat-earthers.”
[Update a few minutes later]
Where Obama gets his history.
Doesn’t explain the Rutherford B. Hayes slander though. And against a man who was wounded four times freeing Obama’s ancestors. Wait, what?
[Update a while later]
Don’t know much about energy, either. The US has sixty times as much oil as Obama claims.
It’s almost as though he just makes stuff up.
[Update mid afternoon]
“Purple Hayes” was the first Jim Hendrix song about a president.
They’re hilarious. I think I’ll steal MfK’s from comments and add it to the mix.
Some questions about Cambodia:
…what happened in Cambodia is what happened in the French Revolution, and in Stalin’s purges and mass collectivization campaigns, and in Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, only on a proportionately larger scale. It was mass murder in the name of equality. It wasn’t “genocide”; it was Communist utopianism carried to its logical extreme. The Khmer Rouge, who called themselves Maoists, believed that the most important social and political value was equality and that in order to create their new, classless society in which everyone was equal, it was necessary to exterminate anyone who might be smarter, or better educated, or wealthier, or more talented than anyone else. Thus, they killed the educated, the bourgeoisie, the middle classes, and the rich; movie stars, pop singers, authors, urban residents, and workers for the former government; and anyone who protested — as well as the families of all the above. Towards the end, they also killed cadres who were thought to be a political threat. Whatever their crimes were, the Khmer Rouge do not seem to have been motivated by racial, ethnic, or religious hatred.
Why then do Cambodians and the world call the mass murders by the Khmer Rouge “genocide”? I can think of several possible reasons. One is the superficial similarity to other mass slaughters — as noted earlier, the pictures of the Cambodian killing fields look very much like the pictures from the German concentration camps. Surely many people who are largely ignorant of history know only that similarity. Another reason is the fact that the victims of genocide are sympathetic. The U.N. creates commissions, and wealthy countries send money. Cambodia today is filled with NGOs bringing aid of various kinds. The desire for international sympathy might explain why Cambodians use the genocide label.
However, I suspect that the most important reason for the usage worldwide is that many people in the international media, international agencies, and international NGOs (not to mention academia) are reluctant to face up to the crimes committed by Communism in the name of equality. To do so might call into question the weight attached by them to equality as the most important social value and undermine the multicultural faith that evil is predominantly the product of inequality, racism, ethnic hatred, or religious fanaticism. That cannot be permitted, so such crimes must be either ignored or mislabeled. And, of course, the remaining Communist regimes in the world are only too happy to cooperate in characterizing the killing fields as the products of irrational paranoia on the part of Pol Pot and his gang rather than the perfectly rational result of the quest for perfect equality.
It’s useful to remember (or to be aware, if one wasn’t) that Pol Pot was educated (so to speak) in Paris. That was where he was radicalized, another child of the malignant Rousseau.
And when you hear some of the hate and misanthropy coming from the American Left (and too many of the Watermelon Greens), it could easily happen here as well, if they ever are given the power they crave. Particularly if they ever achieve their ongoing goal of disarming the people.