How I Would Fix America


Move Over Washington! It’s my turn!

You know, I talk a good game about how “the American experiment in federal democracy is collapsing under it’s own weight” and “we live in the beginning of the collapse of the American Empire”, but maybe it’s time for me to walk the walk. What do I know anyway? If I’m so smart, why don’t I fix it, huh? Well, I can’t Make America Even A Little Bit Functional Again, but I can talk about how I would do it. I’m going to run through what I see as the major flaws in the current American governmental structure and lay out two plans to correct them, one a minimalist reform and one a maximalist. Please note that I’ll be discussing only constitutional and governmental structures, not the policies I would wish the government to implement once established. Now, let’s begin.

America is a country screwed up in many, many ways, but I believe most of our current governmental dysfunction can be traced to Federalism Run Amuck. Everyone knows the story of our Glorious Founding Fathers and how they compromised between states rights and federal power to protect the sovereignty of the smaller states, yadda, yadda, yadda, etc, etc. All well and good. But what made sense once as the compact between a group of semi-independent states has become increasingly untenable as state population disparities grow larger and larger due to the growth of urbanization. For example: “By 2040, 70 percent of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states, which are also home to the overwhelming majority of the 30 largest cities in the country. By extension, 30 percent of Americans will live in the other 35 states. That means that the 70 percent of Americans get all of 30 Senators and 30 percent of Americans get 70 Senators.” (Source). Rural states are also especially privileged by the Electoral College and the artificially-restricted number of Representatives.

This dynamic of disenfranchised cities plays out internally as well, with states like North Carolina and Texas designing their legislative and congressional maps specifically the break the power of the urban majorities, rendering them impotent.

Continue reading

Napoleon Bonaparte Is History’s Only True Supervillain


Napoleon Escapes Justice On His Super-Horse Of Evil

Napoleon Bonaparte is history’s only true supervillian. This may seem like a controversial statement, but it is one that I can prove with enumerable facts, a number of which I shall enumerate below. Before I present my proof, however, I would like to clarify something: I am not attempting to argue that Napoleon is the most evil man in history. There are at least half a dozen people who committed more evil acts, killed more people, burned more cities, etc, etc than Emperor Napoleon I. This, however, has no bearing on my claim. My argument is that, alone out of history’s great villains and vagrants, Bonaparte possesses a certain set of attributes that set him apart. Rather than a monster or a demon, he is clearly a supervillain.

Napoleon Bonaparte Makes No Sense (Historically Speaking)

Generally speaking, even the most evil of acts can be aligned properly with their historical context. This does not excuse them, but it does serve to explain them. Take Hitler for example. The antisemitism of the National Socialists is derivative of the philosophy pioneered by the Viennese mayor Karl Lueger  and his Christian Socialist Party, and in a broader sense, a tradition of German political antisemitism going back to Martin Luther. Hitler’s short-term aims were the reversal of the Treaty of Versailles and the restoration of German Great Power status. His long-term aims in the East were part of a tradition of German longing for an Eastern Empire that can be traced back the Imperial German policy in the Great War and even further, to the Northern Crusades of the 12th and 13th centuries and the Teutonic Knights colonization of what would become Prussia and the Baltic States.

None of this holds true for Napoleon. Napoleon Bonaparte came from a minor Corsican noble family, one who had been committed to the cause of Corsican independence. As a young man, Bonaparte was a fierce adherent of this cause. He abandoned this in favor of Radical French Republicanism, then dropped that in favor of dreams of Oriental Sultandom, then returned to Earth and became a vaguely classical Military Dictator, and then finally settled on Absolute Divine-Sanctioned Monarchy. All of this would make sense if Napoleon was rapidly acceding to the whims of popular opinion, but this sensible hypothesis is disproved by the facts. When Napoleon was bouncing around Egypt dreaming of converting to Islam and forging an Oriental Empire, this was not a plan supported by either his army, the people of France, the people of Egypt, or any recognized intellectual or political faction. And as for his decision to convert Republican France to a monarchy predicated on an absolutism that most actual kings didn’t believe in! Words escape me.

Continue reading

Abraham Lincoln Was Not A Third Party President


Honest Abe Is Deeply Disappointed In You




I can actually understand where this idea comes from. Our current political system did not fully arise until after the Civil War, and was not fully ossified until after the Second World War, and politics in the 19th century could be much more fluid than today. Still, the sometimes-expressed idea that it was a paradise for Third Parties and Alternative Parties is extremely anachronistic, and comes from historically-illiterate people projecting today’s politics backwards.

Let’s take this from the top, shall we?

Continue reading

Wonder Woman And The Mythology Of The First World War


So I have semi-organized thoughts on Wonder Woman. Unsurprisingly, most of them have to do with it’s treatment of World War One.

1. I LOVED IT SO MUCH! I haven’t seen any of the other DCCU movies so I can’t compare it to them but I thought it was really fun, and really well put together. The final battle dragged on a little too long for my taste but that’s the only real criticism I have in terms of movie construction.

2. So, I legit saw this movie so I could judge its historical accuracy. My judgment: better than expected! Besides obvious historical deviations, there were only two things that really bugged me. First, how did a German destroyer arrive to attack Paradise Island (which I presume is located somewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean) when all German naval units in the Med had been blockaded in Istanbul since 1914? Second, while the scene where Wonder Woman charges across No-Man’s Land and breaks the stalemate is really cool, it………could not have happened. The movie takes place in November of 1918. The stereotypical conditions of the Western Front had not existed since August, when the Allies broke the German lines and began the Hundred Days Offensive. By November, the German military was in complete collapse and full retreat. I was going to write about how silly it was that you see some British Mark I tanks on that German army base at the end but then I remembered that the German army actually captured a number of them and returned them to service in Imperial colors, so the movie’s got me beat there. Also, props for depicting the Imperial German Naval Ensign correctly! Oh, and I think Field Marshal Sir Douglas ‘Butcher’ Haig makes a cameo? Good for him .

Continue reading

Visualizing The Great War

On March 21st, 1918, at 7:15 AM, a charge ignited deep within a monstrosity of steel and concrete buried into the hills of Coucy-le-Château-Auffrique. A 234 lb. shell launched, shredding the lining of the barrel as it punched into the atmosphere. Above the French countryside it rose, higher and higher, five miles, ten, fifteen, twenty-five. Then it fell, stooped like a hawk. At 7:18 AM, the shell slammed into the Quai de la Seine, a full 80 miles away from where it had begun. This was the Paris Gun, and the first man-made object to penetrate the stratosphere.

War had reached new new heights.

The way the history of WWI is taught really bugs me, because it’s nearly always so limited. Nearly everyone only learns about trench warfare on the Western Front, submarine raiding in the Atlantic, maybe the Russian Revolution. The Great War was fought at greater heights than any before, as well as greater depths. Geographically, fighting occurred near or on every continent. Culturally, the armies of the First World War were more heterogeneous than any war fought before the creation of trans-national empires could. On the Western Front alone, the Allied Powers fielded soldiers and laborers from France, Belgium, Italy, Ireland, Scotland, England, Russia, Portugal, Senegal, Algeria, Canada, South Africa, Rhodesia, the United States, Siam, Indochina, India, and China.

To attempt to help rectify this, I decided to try to create a visualization of the war, a map showing just how widespread and all-encompassing this conflict was. And to make this post slightly less self-indulgent, I included a selection of historical maps relating to the war I think help illustrate my point.

Click ‘View Image’ to Embiggen

Same As Above

Continue reading

Feminist Folk Music: Does It Exist?



One of the more tedious forms of mass-produced think-pieces in our internet era is “Is [surprising and unexpected piece of pop cultural ephemera] actually a feminist masterpiece?” At the risk of falling into this I’d like to pose the following question: Is folk music feminist? Well, the answer is no because folk music is a massive category of musical styles and forms stretching back hundreds of years so it’s far too broad a category to draw conclusions about. But let’s restate the question. Is folk music more feminist than people give it credit for? And I’d say yes, yes it is. The usual disclaimers here apply, I am an asexual man, take my opinions about feminist issues and sexual politics with a grain of salt, etc, etc but I really do think that within the vast corpus of folk music exists a number of surprisingly feminist themes.

This may seems surprising, given that folk music is the music of old white people. But folk music is also an extremely populist genre. Though the term is now used to refer to an entire style of music, technically it refers to music of traditional or unknown authorship, music passed from generation to generation orally, music written by communities about their daily lives. This is why I’ve always loved traditional music, because it has the capacity to cut to the core of people’s hopes and dreams in a way nothing else does. Women are people. Women are actually a lot of people! And women wrote and sung and passed down songs as much as men ever did. That’s not to say that all folks songs about women have progressive messages. The number of songs cheerfully recounting men murdering their girlfriends/wives/random women/etc is sort of astounding, just for example. But you also have folk songs forthrightly laying out condemnations of the institution of marriage, folk songs acknowledging women’s sexual agency, and folk songs about defiance, about spitting in the eye of those who would attempt to control you.

That’s what I want to talk about today.

(Trigger Warning: Violence against women, sexual assault, rape)

Continue reading

“There is no Tsar! There is no God!”


A Painting Of Bloody Sunday

January 22nd, 1905.

This is the day the Russian Empire fell.

Oh, the corpse shambled on for another twelve years, but it’s soul was dead, gunned down by soldiers outside the Narva Gate and on the Nevsky Prospect.

Let’s start at the beginning.

1904 had not been a good year for Russia, for reasons that were not new. The rapid pace of industrialization had created a peasant proletariat in the cities, beaten down by the managers and owners and seething with resentment. The bourgeois middle class that should have supported the state against the poor resented the Imperial Government’s autocratic grip on power. Strikes and labor stoppages became more and more common in Moscow and St. Petersburg, as did support for socialists, anarchists, and other subversive groups. Meanwhile, the children of the privileged increasingly turned to revolutionary terrorism, and the number of nobles and generals shot down or blown up increased exponentially. Finally, the spark: war with Japan had begun in the Far East and it was not going well. The Russo-Japanese War was supposed to be, in the words of Interior Minister Plehve “a short, victorious war” that would restore the people’s confidence in the Tsar and his government. Instead, Japan had delivered a series of humiliating defeats to the Russian armies and was even now driving deep into Manchuria. Casualties were reported to have been in the hundreds of thousands. Plehve did not appreciate the depth of his failure, as a Jewish terrorist had thrown a bomb into his carriage last July.

Continue reading

Woodrow Wilson Was The Absolute Worst


Worse Than Hitler

I am a man who hates Woodrow Wilson. That is a central part of my identity. This may not be a thing to be proud of, but it is a thing that is true nevertheless. There’s been a shift in recent years, with President Wilson’s prior status as a progressive icon substantially revised, but I don’t think this revisionism goes far enough. Thus, I will take on the heavy burden myself. Today, in my magnum opus, I will attempt to enumerate the many reasons that Wilson was a Bad Person.

(1) Woodrow Wilson Was A White Supremacist: Wilson believed in the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race, and as President, he took actions to secure it. Under his administration, the Navy Department, the Treasury, and the Post Office were segregated for the first time. He was an open supporter of segregation throughout the south, declaring that “segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen” when African-American leaders protested the discriminatory treatment of Black soldiers in the U.S. Army during the Great War. Though 100,000s of African-Americans served during the war, they were kept segregated in units with all-white officers and the vast majority were placed in noncombat positions. Wilson also wrote defenses of the KKK and of public lynchings, believing them to be necessary for the defense of the South during Reconstruction. Internationally, Wilson opposed all efforts at decolonization or self-determination for anyone who was not white. Misconception over this in East Asia had unfortunate results. W.E.B DuBois refereed to the Wilson Administration as “The worst attempt at Jim Crow legislation and discrimination in civil service that blacks had experienced since the Civil War.”

Continue reading

The Roads Not Taken: Part Two


More Alternate History! Huzzah!

For every decision made, there was an alternative. For every plan put into action, for every policy enacted or project begun, there was another option that was put aside instead. History is littered with the desiccated remains of these alternatives, each one bearing within it the seed of another history or timeline. Their details are unknowable, but we can often catch glimpses of what might have been. This of course is the basis of alternate history, one of my favorite genres of fiction. However, alternate history scenarios usually start from a new reality and work their way backwards to a divergent point in time that could have created it. ‘What if the South won the Civil War?’ ‘What if the Nazis won World War II?’ In this series, I’d like to do something a little different.

Instead of looking at different ways events could have turned out, I’ll be examining specific, concrete historical proposals that would have radically changed the direction of history but, for whatever reason, were never carried out. Each of these schemes were put forward at historical junctures, were examined and considered, and then–cast by the wayside. Usually for good reason, if I’m being honest. In today’s edition, we’ll be looking at proposals that were big, both in their execution and in their implications. I hope you find these as fascinating as I do.

Continue reading

The Greater War


An Excellent Book

This is not one of those blog posts where I astound my loyal audience with my feats of insight and original thought, this is one of those blog posts where I say “Hey! I read this book, let me tell you about it at great length”. I trust you will forgive me.

In my junior year at Brandeis University, I attended a conference on ‘World War One And The Aesthetics of Empire’. Held in an auditorium on campus, it was attended by a few dozen professors, graduate students–and I, the only undergrad to wander in. I had come because there was free food and a lecture on zeppelins, I ended up staying for the entire day because the first presentation, by Professor Erz Manela, completely changed the way I thought about the First World War. Later, I bought the book of essays that he based his lecture on (seen above), and was fully convinced. The idea he and his compatriots argue on behalf, sometimes called ‘The Greater War theory’, is deceptively simple. Contrary to what we all learned in school, WWI did not begin in August of 1914 and end on November 11th, 1918. Instead, it began in September of 1911 and did not conclude until July, 1923. Or rather, the global crisis of Imperialism that the First World War is merely the epicenter of began and ended on those dates.

I like this theory because I think it fully grasps the magnitude of World War One. This was not just a Great Power War like the Napoleonic Wars or the Seven Years War or the War of Austrian Succession, this was a cataclysmic crisis that shook Western Civilization to the core. No Great Power War before this had ended with the outright collapse of four of the world’s most dynastic empires or had so profoundly changed the global geopolitical situation. But I also like it because I think it speaks to a fundamental truth: between 1911 and 1923, there was pretty much constant warfare in Europe and the Near East. It seems almost silly to carve out four specific years from that decade of death and say “Here. These are the true war, nothing else is important”. But this post isn’t really an attempt to ‘prove’ the Greater War Theory–I don’t have the qualifications for that–it’s an attempt to explain it, to lay out what I think is is so interesting and important about it, and to draw out some of the implications. That said, let’s look at these thirteen tumultuous years in some more detail.

Continue reading