The 1776 Report: Addendum


I noted the rapid memory-holing of the Trump Administration’s 1776 Commission’s report yesterday. Then I read this article about the report by the New York Times’ “culture reporter’ whose beat is intellectual life and “the world of ideas.” It is a useful barometer of the biases the Times’ staff has against core American values as well as the Left’s thinly-veiled contempt for much of what our culture is built upon. It also reveals the paper’s assumption about its readership’s biases.

Right at the start, the article thinks it is smearing the report and its authors by asserting “its claims derive from arguments that have long circulated on the right.” Ooooh, “the right.” THOSE demons and troglodytes. In truth, most of the “ideas” have represented majority historical and philosophical thought in the U.S. until the ascent of race conflict as the defining feature of the nation became the cant of the increasingly anti-American educational establishment.

Here are some of the report’s conclusions that the Times mocks:

“Scholars have noted that the report has curiously little to say about the Civil War itself, suggesting that slavery’s end was less the result of a bloody conflict and more a kind of inevitable flowering of antislavery “seeds” planted in the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that “all men are created equal.”

This, of course, comes from the publisher of the discredited “1619 Project.”

“The report argues that while fascism and communism may have been “bitter enemies in their wars to achieve global domination,” they were in fact “ideological cousins” that threatened the principles of “natural rights and free peoples” enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.”

Wait, what? Is there any serious controversy on this point? The Times, incredibly, is still showing signs of its pro-Stalin stance maintained by the infamous Communist-apologist Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty. Stalin murdered more people than Hitler; Mao murdered more than Hitler and Stalin combined. These are all brutal dictators whose totalitarian methods undeniably “threatened the principles of “natural rights and free peoples” enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.”

Now get this head-blaster:

But the report, he added, is perhaps less notable for what it says about America’s relationship to communism and fascism than what it omits.“Note that this historically innocent reader of this report would have no idea that the U.S.S.R. fought on the same side as the U.S. in World War II”

That ignorant reader would have many to blame for the inexcusable gap in his knowledge, but not the report, because which side the USSR fought on is irrelevant to assessing its contempt for individual liberties and human rights.

In its section on early 20th-century “Progressivism,” it describes the rise of the regulatory bureaucracy, a kind of unaccountable “shadow government” that the report characterizes as a betrayal of the founding principles.In order to keep up with the complexity of society, the report writes, early 20th century Progressives like Woodrow Wilson — here compared to the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini — envisioned a regulatory regime run by unelected experts, under which, as Wilson wrote, “the functions of government are in a very real sense independent of legislation, and even constitutions.”

That description of the regulatory government is absolutely accurate. The truth hurts. The Times is also appealing to that previously mentioned “historically ignorant” reader, who probably thinks it is a terrible and undeserved insult to compare a Democratic Party President to a fascist dictator. I think a strong case can be made that Wilson did more damage than Mussolini.

“History underscores the overwhelming importance of religious faith in American life,” it begins. “But some today see religious practice and political liberty to be in conflict and hold that religion is divisive and should be kept out of the public square. The founders of America held a very different view.

The Times uses the cognitive dissonance scale to tie belief in the cultural importance of religion to those bigoted nutcakes, the religious right—you know, with all that laying on of hands and not wanting to bake gay wedding cakes and snakes and stuff. Them. However, the statement quoted from the report is accurate. We know the Founder held “a different view,” because they constantly brought religion and references to “the Creator’ into public discourse.

The Times attempts to expose the biases of 1776 Report, but only exposes its own, and ugly, disturbing biases they are.

6 thoughts on “The 1776 Report: Addendum

  1. “Note that this historically innocent reader of this report would have no idea that the U.S.S.R. fought on the same side as the U.S. in World War II…”

    And those same historically innocent readers would not know that slave holders in the South were largely Democrats. So what? Such statements need context, such as Germany exposed itself as the primary belligerent, invading the USSR and causing millions of casualties, and the USA decided to make a strategic alliance with the one remaining active player in Europe that could slow down Hitler’s advance. It was an alliance of convenience, not of shared ideology. If Hitler had succeeded in the initial siege of Leningrad in 1941, he would have had two years to consolidate his holdings and strengthen his military before the USA could have landed a single soldier in Europe. It is likely the UK would have quit the fight and sued for peace. In a very real sense, the defeat of Hitler only happened because the USA and UK provided the USSR with supplies and arms to keep the USSR in the fight until the USA could directly join the fight. Couple that with the fact the USA was perfectly willing to let the USSR pay the butcher’s bill in part because they were Communists, and we have a situation so dramatically different than the gloss proposed by the Times.

    Unbelievable. Or sadly believable, and we don’t want to believe it.

  2. ““Note that this historically innocent reader of this report would have no idea that the U.S.S.R. fought on the same side as the U.S. in World War II”…”

    This is in keeping with the left-wing narrative that the Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany single-handedly with minimal contribution from Imperial Britain and racist America.

    The whole “fascist” narrative reeks of Soviet propaganda. To them, everyone in the west was a fascist. In East Germany, the Berlin Wall was called the Anti-Fascist Protection Barrier.

    They are literally trying to create fascists in America in order to claim to be fighting them.

  3. Jack, I downloaded the pdf of the report and I am distributing it so others will see it.

    I took note of the following excerpt from the Times because the words Fascist and Nazi are being thrown around by the left with either gross ignorance of what the basis of either is or purposely attempting to mislead. The cornerstone of fascism and Nazi ideology is Statism and the collective of the state outweighs the needs of the individual. It should be noted that Nationalism and Statism are not as interchangeable as are Nationalism and Patriotism. However, Statism and Fascism are inextricably linked. One cannot be a Fascist without the power of law or economy to command obedience of others.

    When people proudly fly the flag of their nation or sing their anthem they are exhibiting a nationalistic behavior. Being country focused and proud of one’s nation does not make them a statist or authoritarian. Only when the state decides what you must think, do, say, or with whom you may associate can we attribute nationalistic behaviors with statism.

    In Nazi Germany Volkisch Equality was group justice over individual justice. It placed the value of the collective over the value of the individual. The Jew was standing in the way of the values of the collective German population, and therefore to protect the collective it was deemed justifiable to murder Jews. In this ideology, the needs and rights of the collective or group always overrule the needs and rights of the individual. The Nazis held a utopian view of the world in which the collective reigned. The Jew stood in the way of the Nazi dream of a thousand-year pure Aryan bloodline. (

    Simply replace the word “Jew” with “those with white privilege or supremacist ” and “murder” with “cancel” or “reprogram” and the parallels to today’s politics to the fascists of the 30’s.

    “Woodrow Wilson — here compared to the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini — envisioned a regulatory regime run by unelected experts, under which, as Wilson wrote, “the functions of government are in a very real sense independent of legislation, and even constitutions.”

    If this statement is not factually accurate why are we being told by our betters “we must follow the science”. Further,more, I ask all those that claim that we are a democracy where the majority should rule, please explain why we need so many employed in so many regulatory agencies. Why aren’t the rules debated on the floor of the House and Senate? How do I get my say in these matters?

    • ”Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” -Richard Feynman

      If you ‘believe the experts’ you will never try anything new. You will never investigate things for yourself, you won’t question. ‘Believe the science, and believe the experts is the OPPOSITE of science’. A few years ago, I asked a group of students to see if they could check the amount of disinfectant in water using electrochemical potential. The literature for the last 30 years says you can’t, but I didn’t see why not. They asked me why they were doing it. I told them, if the results are uninterpretable, you can say that the literature is right. If it is interpretable, we have a very cheap, quick, and easy method of determining the disinfectant level of drinking water. Guess what?

      Remember who Richard Feynman was. From Feynman diagrams for nuclear processes, the Feynman lectures to the Feynman effect. He was a big man in a big field. However, we have to remember he was a man of conscience and we did not recognize this or heed his warning.

      After the space shuttle Challenger disaster, Feynman was placed on the investigation committee along with the normal ‘experts’ to make it seem impartial and valid. The committee came to the conclusion that low-level employees did not do their job property resulting in the destruction of the Challenger. When Feynman was told to sign, he refused. They told him he had to sign and he said “Or what?”.

      Feynman released his own version of the disaster that detailed how the change from Spackle to O-rings to seal the boosters changed the launch criteria. The Spackle could be used at lower temperatures, but the O-rings became too hard to seal properly under similar conditions. When it was launch day, the engineers informed their superiors that the launch needed to be scrubbed due to low temperatures. The non-science trained executives in control of the mission demanded to know why because the Challenger had launched in temperatures that low before (and they had, using Spackle). The engineers explained the change in design, but the launch controllers didn’t understand and dismissed their concerns, launching anyway. Note that Feynman’s account is the exact OPPOSITE of the official account.

      When Columbia was destroyed, it was basically the same set of circumstances. The launch controllers couldn’t understand the engineer’s concerns and so dismissed them. This time, however, the government was smart enough to NOT put an independent person on the committee and the low-level people were blamed. Only ‘experts’ were on that committee.

      Remember Richard Feynman.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.