Long ago, I saw an older woman, a few years older than I am now. She told me that her Great Aunt B. used to say, “The more you stir it, the more it stinks.” I just thought of a term that might have a similar meaning, “The more you learn, the more it reeks.” To what am I referring? The withholding of information from the American public via most of our history books and present-day purveyors of news. What if they revealed the facts, warts and all?
ENJOY PART 1 BELOW↓
The lesson about our early settlers was that those in Jamestown and Plymouth died due to the harsh winters in those early colonial days. All of us accepted this as an accurate narrative. Right? At first glance, this is correct, but there is more beneath the surface unknown to me until a few years ago. What is that, you might ask? Well, the settlers were like indentured servants. There was no skin in the game individually. Consequently, the idea of participating in a collective agricultural project was not attractive to most of these hearty souls, where everyone’s compensation is equal. This system did not connect effort with reward.
According to Thomas J. DiLorenzo in his book, The Problem With Socialism, Sir Thomas Dale was appointed as “high marshal” of the Virginia colony. He noticed the surviving settlers of those devastations were healthy and engaged in games and other vigorous activities. Sir Thomas determined the problem was socialized land ownership. As a result, each man was given three acres of private land with a small payment requirement to the Virginia company. The rest was up to the landowner whether to keep or sell their goods. Soon, the Jamestown colonists began to prosper. By doing this, failures on a grander scale that affected the early settlers did not occur again.
The same thing happened in Massachusetts. Governor Bradford established a similar occurrence to the events in Virginia. “And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, for present use…and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious….”
What if our studies incorporated these significant notations? Would it impact the perceptions on a system heavily promoted even now?
What if specific facts about particular presidents were not withheld or minimized. One was silent and given very little credit for his nonintervention approaches. Others were more boastful and worshipped by those who shared their belief systems.
One of our presidents is revered by many to this day. What if everyone knew some of the things he instituted or ignored. How about the fact that he gave the black community a raw “deal” by vetoing antilynching laws to get his unpopular policy passed by congress? He also, allegedly, remained quiet about the attempted genocide by a fanatical monster going on across the sea. Finally, he interned Americans of a particular race. Excuses abound in defense of his decisions.
Speaking of presidents, how about one who years ago stayed “mum” when a long-suffering people rose to revolt against the tyranny of the number one terrorist state in the world. You know the one that calls the United States the “Great Satan, our tremendous ally, the “Little Satan,” wreaks havoc all over the world and throws homosexuals off buildings. You know the one I mean? Even the L.A. Times reported that the people said to the leader of the free world, “…., you are with us or against us.” Concerning even rhetorical support, the implicit message from the unusually silent American president was not, “No can’t do, but no, won’t do.” Many thought if he gave some words of cheer, perhaps, the Revolutionary Guards might put down their arms in support of a determined populace. The administration would not budge; the people were crushed and not seen in that fashion again. What if, will never be known.
Of course, his supporters rushed to his defense, indicating we must not meddle in others’ affairs. Really now? Well, some years later, the people of one of our strongest allies decided to vote on a controversial issue. The same President returned to his usual loquacious self and told the citizens of that country they would go to the back of the queue if they voted in favor of a specific exit. For many, his opinion fell on deaf ears.
How about the events of thirty years before the last attempt of the long-suffering people of the number one terrorist state in the world? Another president repeatedly railed against their leader? He thought the head of state was too harsh with his use of the secret police. Yes, that American president’s language helped pour gasoline over an already highly combusted situation. Eventually, someone lit a match, and an exiled religious man who had other ideas for a country too westernized returned to his homeland. Consequently, the new man in charge ended up far more menacing than his predecessor. Imagine that! Things went from purportedly bad to genuinely far worse. This leader, the identified man of faith, murdered more people in one year than the previous one did in twenty-five. What if our righteous president had minded his own business? Would the landscape of the fiery middle east be a different landscape? Again, who knows?
What if many people of influence did not turn a blind eye when it comes to certain people and not others? You know, those hotshot professionals who bring us information or Not?
Oh, the wonder of it all!
Stay tuned for Part Three.