I had to laugh at the description of HCR subscribers. I'm a White male, gun owning, blue collar retiree who drinks bourbon and I start every morning by reading HCR.
"But what if Trump’s behavior consistently warrants authoritarian interpretation? Then recognizing the pattern isn’t bias—it’s pattern recognition functioning correctly."
There's no such animal as a scholar who never gets anything wrong. Nor do scholars demand such a degree of perfection of each other, else good scholarship would never be done. Richardson is one of the world's top scholars. The breadth and depth of the historical knowledge she brings to her posts is extraordinary.
Despite the scholarly debates involved in all scholarship, is there any established historian of fascism who doesn't easily recognize it in Trump? There are some who still quibble over the term, but none who deny it's close kin, whether or not a textbook illustration. Fascism (or close-kin-to-fascism) denial is as stupid as climate crisis denial at this point.
I think the human default is to presume benevolence without evidence, but when there is a lot of evidence to the contrary as there is with Trump, then we are obviously right to judge him accordingly.
You can get to HCR's conclusion even without answering whether Trump is a dictator/tyrant. By even a cursory observation, and by almost every account, Donald Trump is a narcissist. Whether his narcissism is malignant or benign is irrelevant.
On the (correct) basis that Trump is a narcissist, he does not, cannot, have good and defensible reasons for the things he's doing. To reach that conclusion, one would need to assume there is some limit to a narcissist's narcissism. By definition, there is no such limit. Thus, benevolence cannot be Trump's wherefore.
Is there a decent place that's attempted to track all of Thiel's ever-expanding gaggle of backed publications and demagogues? Whether playing a part reaching for Seven Mountains or not, I'm of Vonnegut's opinion: We are what we pretend to be. Apocalypse seems to be taking over his mind.
If your publication was such a paragon of journalistic integrity and commitment to truth, one might have taken note that Richardson walked back the Groyper affiliation the very next day. Yet, you sit here and have the audacity to lecture on the integrity of others.
If you mean that she didn’t mention it anymore, then you are correct lol. She did not “walk it back.” And she continued to assert that he was right-wing
She absolutely did. Listen to the first 5 minutes of her politics podcast the day afterwards. She acknowledged, explicitly, that she jumped the gun and trusted erroneous online reporting. Go check. I’ll wait.
It’s not in her written post. There’s no correction on the wrong post. And then it’s not brought up again after that. If you mess up in print, you correct in print
Fair enough. But this does little violence on the thrust of my critique. My critique of yours explicitly acknowledges that she’s made errors. And to help close the loop on the broader debate for readers, here’s a link to our other back-and-forth: https://substack.com/@mikebrock/note/c-166758982
Made errors??? Pirate Wires starts off pretty strong with the receipts. I spent 5 minutes on her Substack and came to the same conclusion: historical revisionist. You should criticize her, too.
Her garbage is classic fallacious contemporary leftist dogma: gender and race are the root of social identity; discrimination based on race is the root of social inequality and impedes America's egalitarian progress. Working backwards, you can rewrite all of history to advance a political agenda, which is exactly what she is doing and why Pirate Wires called her out. Sheesh.
It's insanity and gaslighting...and I so appreciate your calling it out. How does one function being aware of so much hatred and dishonesty? (I'm working on that). While it fuels those who would destroy our republic, for now, it cannot endure.
It’s the tyranny of those who think they know better. All these technology morons. I’m done with tech advancement. Thiel think for that I’m the Antichrist. Hogwash. Bollicks. Poppycock. Seriously fuck these people, every last one of them.
OK, Pirate Wires is not worth what they charge, but Heather Cox Richardson's Substack is complete garbage. From what I've viewed in the last few minutes, she's a historical revisionist; she injects prejudice and contempt towards targeted groups and fundamental social institutions into her work products. Her style is a really dangerous form of propaganda and most likely state sponsored.
Why aren't you vigilant against Richardson and Pirate Wires? Taking this further, why support either political party or their sponsored underlings?
Don't try to convince me you can get to 2.7M subscribers (organically LOL) by stating the big takeaway from the great Chicago fire is: 19th century Chicagoans were racist against immigrants. LOLOLOL
In order for historical research, or fiction even, to have value, it has to be affective in some special way or have utility.
What lessons can be learned from the great Chicago fire? This adverse event set modern standards for fire prevention and disaster relief. Chicago rebuilt its core in under three years, birthed modern urban design with elevated sidewalks, alleyways, and strict building codes. In essence, it turned destruction into opportunity for progress - it's an amazing feat in American history and an exemplary historical lesson.
Eyewitness accounts highlighted extraordinary grit and a public determined to succeed and rebuild.. Public and private partnerships were constructed that accomplished what FEMA could only dream of. It debunked myths of inevitable decline, showing how crises can accelerate innovation. Good faith relief and aid societies, nothing like what's going on in the Pacific Palisades, scaled up and expedited growth. As historian Carl Smith notes, Chicago's resurrection became "a monumental tribute to their strength, determination, and character."
The Chicago fire exemplifies what human spirit, collaboration, high morale, and the belief in the American dream can accomplish. Revising it with racial animus purposely taints and distracts from the important lessons. If people realize they don't need excessive taxation and big government to micro manage social processes, power structures will eventually adjust in the public's favor, and that's exactly what big government and multinational interests don't want!
Maybe Richardson is right on some things, but she's obviously revising history to your detriment, and that's why she's a bitch.
So basically according to your preferred reading of history. In your opinion, Smith is a more reliable historian than Richardson. Tell me, why should I trust your instincts of who is a more reliable teller of history over my own.
Your interpretation and perspective is so tortured and misguided I can hardly respond. How is my "reading" preferred? Did Chicago not improve and set standards? There's no debate about anything I stated. I don't understand how you can interpret the rebuilding of Chicago as anything other than an American success story to admire. Are you a nihilist?
Do you understand that there are military manuals floating around on the internet that explain exactly what Richardson is doing and why? In general, what she's doing, poorly, is referred to as heritage destruction; it's a well established tactic. She's literally attempting to undermine our cultural narrative and subjugate us to multinational interests. If we have no culture, no morals, and no cohesion, we have no ability to align on common interests in the face of national security threats. It's a divide and conquer strategy with racial animus poisoning every social interaction - a complete disaster.
"The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common National sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family." - Alexander Hamilton 1802
You write: "There's no debate about anything I stated." But you've stated that Richardson's emphasis on racial dynamics in disaster response constitutes "heritage destruction" and makes her "literally a bitch." That's not historical fact—that's your value judgment about which aspects of history deserve emphasis.
Chicago did rebuild. Standards were improved. That's not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether asking who benefited from that rebuilding and who was excluded constitutes legitimate historical inquiry or "heritage destruction." You've decided it's the latter without explaining why.
You claim there are "military manuals floating around on the internet" explaining what Richardson is doing. This is conspiracy thinking, not historical analysis. You're asserting that a professional historian asking questions about power and exclusion is actually conducting psychological warfare on behalf of "multinational interests"—without providing evidence, without explaining the mechanism, without demonstrating coordination.
When you invoke Hamilton about "common National sentiment" and "uniformity of principles," you're revealing exactly what you want history to do: create unified national identity by emphasizing triumph and excluding examination of who was harmed. That's a political project, not neutral history. There's nothing wrong with that project—but recognize it for what it is.
Your question "Are you a nihilist?" because I won't dismiss Richardson's work as propaganda tells me everything I need to know about your framework: either history celebrates American exceptionalism without complication, or it's nihilistic destruction of culture. There's no middle ground in your thinking where legitimate historians can ask different questions and reach different emphases.
I asked why I should trust your instincts about historical reliability. Your answer is: because questioning the unified national narrative is obviously "heritage destruction" serving enemy interests, and military manuals prove it. That's not an answer—that's an assertion that anyone who asks questions you don't like is engaged in warfare against American culture.
So I'll ask one more time: what makes your judgment about which historical questions are legitimate more reliable than mine, beyond the fact that you prefer narratives that don't complicate national triumphalism?
I'm not saying you can't question the narrative. There's a point where questioning the narrative is extremely counterproductive. There's a point where focusing on racial dynamics is extremely counterproductive. From my perspective, Richardson has exceeded these thresholds and entered the realm of PSYOP. You understand that Pirate Wires pointed her out because she's extremely prominent. I know kids that can find racism in everything but can't figure out the difference between Washington D.C. and Washington state.
The irony is The Good Dr. Richardson is detailing (almost) daily the Trump attack on democracy and the people of our nation. These details will literally become part of the historical record of our present state. Long after we are gone. And what will become of Trump’s version? They will be rotting in the dustbins of history, the stench will finally have burned out.
"If it looks like a duck, swims in the water, has feathers, quacks, has webbed feet, there's a high probability it's a duck."
"The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
"Know a man by his deeds."
"Love is as love does."
These are all short enough for the attention-deficit-affected brains of many Americans to grasp. Yes? Apparently not. Have all history, all the songs, all the poems about freedom, about truth, and the opposites fallen on the deaf, the blind and the dumb? They say that "Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist."
I can only conclude that I am cynical about the majority of Americans and what remnants may exist of common sense, and of the basics in analytical thinking (e.g., 2+2 = 4).
If anyone out there still reads, I give a 10 out of 10 to the provocative essays and poetry of Wendell Berry, now at age 91, living in the very rural town of Port Royal, Kentucky. In his book "A Continuous Harmony" Berry quotes Ezra Pound (from Confucius. The Great Digest and Unwobbling Pivot).
"One humane family can humanize a whole state; one courteous family can lift a whole state into courtesy; one grasping and perverse man can drive a nation to chaos."
I read daily and I have read many of Mr. Berry’s books. The first one about 30 years ago when a religion professor highlyrecommended his books and essays. He’s also a decent poet.
I started reading poetry 70 years ago. I kinda remember the first poem "The Sea." Then it was "If" by Rudyard Kipling and many others followed like Henley (Ivictus), Sandburg, (The Fog), Whitman, Edna St. Vincent Millay, and many others. I am preparing my own book of poems, starting with my first poem in 1968 called Men of Medicine. I find Berry's poetry unique in stirring thoughts few other poets have been able to ignite. My first Berry poem came about after asking an AI assistant to provide a poem akin to the inspiring thoughts I felt per Neruda's El Mar. This is the reply:
The Peace of Wild Things
When despair for the world grows in me
and I wake in the night at the least sound
in fear of what my life and my children’s lives may be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake
rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds.
I come into the peace of wild things
who do not tax their lives with forethought
of grief. I come into the presence of still water.
And I feel above me the day-blind stars
waiting with their light. For a time
I rest in the grace of the world, and am free.
— Wendell Berry, 2012
I would say this goes beyond "decent," but acknowledging how personal poetry is to each human that reads a poem.
I had to laugh at the description of HCR subscribers. I'm a White male, gun owning, blue collar retiree who drinks bourbon and I start every morning by reading HCR.
"But what if Trump’s behavior consistently warrants authoritarian interpretation? Then recognizing the pattern isn’t bias—it’s pattern recognition functioning correctly."
It's Bayesian analysis functioning correctly...
There's no such animal as a scholar who never gets anything wrong. Nor do scholars demand such a degree of perfection of each other, else good scholarship would never be done. Richardson is one of the world's top scholars. The breadth and depth of the historical knowledge she brings to her posts is extraordinary.
Despite the scholarly debates involved in all scholarship, is there any established historian of fascism who doesn't easily recognize it in Trump? There are some who still quibble over the term, but none who deny it's close kin, whether or not a textbook illustration. Fascism (or close-kin-to-fascism) denial is as stupid as climate crisis denial at this point.
I think the human default is to presume benevolence without evidence, but when there is a lot of evidence to the contrary as there is with Trump, then we are obviously right to judge him accordingly.
You can get to HCR's conclusion even without answering whether Trump is a dictator/tyrant. By even a cursory observation, and by almost every account, Donald Trump is a narcissist. Whether his narcissism is malignant or benign is irrelevant.
On the (correct) basis that Trump is a narcissist, he does not, cannot, have good and defensible reasons for the things he's doing. To reach that conclusion, one would need to assume there is some limit to a narcissist's narcissism. By definition, there is no such limit. Thus, benevolence cannot be Trump's wherefore.
Is there a decent place that's attempted to track all of Thiel's ever-expanding gaggle of backed publications and demagogues? Whether playing a part reaching for Seven Mountains or not, I'm of Vonnegut's opinion: We are what we pretend to be. Apocalypse seems to be taking over his mind.
💯%
Trump's authoritarianism is so self-evident HCR has to constantly lie about it. Thank you Mike Brock!
If your publication was such a paragon of journalistic integrity and commitment to truth, one might have taken note that Richardson walked back the Groyper affiliation the very next day. Yet, you sit here and have the audacity to lecture on the integrity of others.
If you mean that she didn’t mention it anymore, then you are correct lol. She did not “walk it back.” And she continued to assert that he was right-wing
She absolutely did. Listen to the first 5 minutes of her politics podcast the day afterwards. She acknowledged, explicitly, that she jumped the gun and trusted erroneous online reporting. Go check. I’ll wait.
It’s not in her written post. There’s no correction on the wrong post. And then it’s not brought up again after that. If you mess up in print, you correct in print
Fair enough. But this does little violence on the thrust of my critique. My critique of yours explicitly acknowledges that she’s made errors. And to help close the loop on the broader debate for readers, here’s a link to our other back-and-forth: https://substack.com/@mikebrock/note/c-166758982
“Does little violence” lmao
Made errors??? Pirate Wires starts off pretty strong with the receipts. I spent 5 minutes on her Substack and came to the same conclusion: historical revisionist. You should criticize her, too.
Her garbage is classic fallacious contemporary leftist dogma: gender and race are the root of social identity; discrimination based on race is the root of social inequality and impedes America's egalitarian progress. Working backwards, you can rewrite all of history to advance a political agenda, which is exactly what she is doing and why Pirate Wires called her out. Sheesh.
Trump's authoritarianism is obvious to those who look.
https://trumptyrannytracker.substack.com/
https://www.plagueisland.com/p/authoritarian-america-trumps-crackdown
https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/markers-to-identify-a-rightwing-authoritarian
https://lucid.substack.com/p/a-holistic-plan-for-an-authoritarian
https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/deconstructing-the-new-american-oligarchy
It's insanity and gaslighting...and I so appreciate your calling it out. How does one function being aware of so much hatred and dishonesty? (I'm working on that). While it fuels those who would destroy our republic, for now, it cannot endure.
Gotta love people who spend more time finding any minute issue with anyone on the left but give a pass to literal Nazis
It’s the tyranny of those who think they know better. All these technology morons. I’m done with tech advancement. Thiel think for that I’m the Antichrist. Hogwash. Bollicks. Poppycock. Seriously fuck these people, every last one of them.
Peter Thiel and the rest of the TESCREAL "elites" see themselves as vastly superior to us mere mortals.
https://www.plagueisland.com/p/the-dark-enlightenment-the-gospel
https://pdjukes.substack.com/p/the-apocalypse-network-dugin-bannon
https://www.altrightdelete.news/p/vance-thiel-yarvin-2024-the-neoreactionary
https://andrawatkins.substack.com/p/why-peter-thiel-really-cares-about
https://counterdisinformationproject.substack.com/p/peter-thiel-and-the-privatised-surveillance
https://davidzmorris.substack.com/p/what-is-tescrealism-mapping-the-cult
https://www.realtimetechpocalypse.com/p/the-political-power-of-eschatological-82b
Wow great resources. Thank you!
You're welcome. The beliefs and actions of these would-be overlords deserve far more attention.
OK, Pirate Wires is not worth what they charge, but Heather Cox Richardson's Substack is complete garbage. From what I've viewed in the last few minutes, she's a historical revisionist; she injects prejudice and contempt towards targeted groups and fundamental social institutions into her work products. Her style is a really dangerous form of propaganda and most likely state sponsored.
Why aren't you vigilant against Richardson and Pirate Wires? Taking this further, why support either political party or their sponsored underlings?
Don't try to convince me you can get to 2.7M subscribers (organically LOL) by stating the big takeaway from the great Chicago fire is: 19th century Chicagoans were racist against immigrants. LOLOLOL
https://substack.com/home/post/p-175660256
I'm really curious to hear how you think injecting prejudice and contempt into history lessons makes the world a better place.
I'm not sure I agree with you that any of this is obviously "revisionist" history. According to who?
In order for historical research, or fiction even, to have value, it has to be affective in some special way or have utility.
What lessons can be learned from the great Chicago fire? This adverse event set modern standards for fire prevention and disaster relief. Chicago rebuilt its core in under three years, birthed modern urban design with elevated sidewalks, alleyways, and strict building codes. In essence, it turned destruction into opportunity for progress - it's an amazing feat in American history and an exemplary historical lesson.
Eyewitness accounts highlighted extraordinary grit and a public determined to succeed and rebuild.. Public and private partnerships were constructed that accomplished what FEMA could only dream of. It debunked myths of inevitable decline, showing how crises can accelerate innovation. Good faith relief and aid societies, nothing like what's going on in the Pacific Palisades, scaled up and expedited growth. As historian Carl Smith notes, Chicago's resurrection became "a monumental tribute to their strength, determination, and character."
The Chicago fire exemplifies what human spirit, collaboration, high morale, and the belief in the American dream can accomplish. Revising it with racial animus purposely taints and distracts from the important lessons. If people realize they don't need excessive taxation and big government to micro manage social processes, power structures will eventually adjust in the public's favor, and that's exactly what big government and multinational interests don't want!
Maybe Richardson is right on some things, but she's obviously revising history to your detriment, and that's why she's a bitch.
So basically according to your preferred reading of history. In your opinion, Smith is a more reliable historian than Richardson. Tell me, why should I trust your instincts of who is a more reliable teller of history over my own.
Your interpretation and perspective is so tortured and misguided I can hardly respond. How is my "reading" preferred? Did Chicago not improve and set standards? There's no debate about anything I stated. I don't understand how you can interpret the rebuilding of Chicago as anything other than an American success story to admire. Are you a nihilist?
Do you understand that there are military manuals floating around on the internet that explain exactly what Richardson is doing and why? In general, what she's doing, poorly, is referred to as heritage destruction; it's a well established tactic. She's literally attempting to undermine our cultural narrative and subjugate us to multinational interests. If we have no culture, no morals, and no cohesion, we have no ability to align on common interests in the face of national security threats. It's a divide and conquer strategy with racial animus poisoning every social interaction - a complete disaster.
"The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common National sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family." - Alexander Hamilton 1802
You write: "There's no debate about anything I stated." But you've stated that Richardson's emphasis on racial dynamics in disaster response constitutes "heritage destruction" and makes her "literally a bitch." That's not historical fact—that's your value judgment about which aspects of history deserve emphasis.
Chicago did rebuild. Standards were improved. That's not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether asking who benefited from that rebuilding and who was excluded constitutes legitimate historical inquiry or "heritage destruction." You've decided it's the latter without explaining why.
You claim there are "military manuals floating around on the internet" explaining what Richardson is doing. This is conspiracy thinking, not historical analysis. You're asserting that a professional historian asking questions about power and exclusion is actually conducting psychological warfare on behalf of "multinational interests"—without providing evidence, without explaining the mechanism, without demonstrating coordination.
When you invoke Hamilton about "common National sentiment" and "uniformity of principles," you're revealing exactly what you want history to do: create unified national identity by emphasizing triumph and excluding examination of who was harmed. That's a political project, not neutral history. There's nothing wrong with that project—but recognize it for what it is.
Your question "Are you a nihilist?" because I won't dismiss Richardson's work as propaganda tells me everything I need to know about your framework: either history celebrates American exceptionalism without complication, or it's nihilistic destruction of culture. There's no middle ground in your thinking where legitimate historians can ask different questions and reach different emphases.
I asked why I should trust your instincts about historical reliability. Your answer is: because questioning the unified national narrative is obviously "heritage destruction" serving enemy interests, and military manuals prove it. That's not an answer—that's an assertion that anyone who asks questions you don't like is engaged in warfare against American culture.
So I'll ask one more time: what makes your judgment about which historical questions are legitimate more reliable than mine, beyond the fact that you prefer narratives that don't complicate national triumphalism?
I'm not saying you can't question the narrative. There's a point where questioning the narrative is extremely counterproductive. There's a point where focusing on racial dynamics is extremely counterproductive. From my perspective, Richardson has exceeded these thresholds and entered the realm of PSYOP. You understand that Pirate Wires pointed her out because she's extremely prominent. I know kids that can find racism in everything but can't figure out the difference between Washington D.C. and Washington state.
Amen! Preach it, brother!!!
So we're going to recycle a tired phrase because if you have Peter Thiel's balls in your mouth, you deserve it:
Never. Stop. Punching. Nazi. Techno. Fascist. Oligarchs. Fucking. Period.
So well said, Mike.
Have restacked several tims with excerpts.
The irony is The Good Dr. Richardson is detailing (almost) daily the Trump attack on democracy and the people of our nation. These details will literally become part of the historical record of our present state. Long after we are gone. And what will become of Trump’s version? They will be rotting in the dustbins of history, the stench will finally have burned out.
I quote the following?
"2+2 = 4"
"If it looks like a duck, swims in the water, has feathers, quacks, has webbed feet, there's a high probability it's a duck."
"The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
"Know a man by his deeds."
"Love is as love does."
These are all short enough for the attention-deficit-affected brains of many Americans to grasp. Yes? Apparently not. Have all history, all the songs, all the poems about freedom, about truth, and the opposites fallen on the deaf, the blind and the dumb? They say that "Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist."
I can only conclude that I am cynical about the majority of Americans and what remnants may exist of common sense, and of the basics in analytical thinking (e.g., 2+2 = 4).
If anyone out there still reads, I give a 10 out of 10 to the provocative essays and poetry of Wendell Berry, now at age 91, living in the very rural town of Port Royal, Kentucky. In his book "A Continuous Harmony" Berry quotes Ezra Pound (from Confucius. The Great Digest and Unwobbling Pivot).
"One humane family can humanize a whole state; one courteous family can lift a whole state into courtesy; one grasping and perverse man can drive a nation to chaos."
I read daily and I have read many of Mr. Berry’s books. The first one about 30 years ago when a religion professor highlyrecommended his books and essays. He’s also a decent poet.
I started reading poetry 70 years ago. I kinda remember the first poem "The Sea." Then it was "If" by Rudyard Kipling and many others followed like Henley (Ivictus), Sandburg, (The Fog), Whitman, Edna St. Vincent Millay, and many others. I am preparing my own book of poems, starting with my first poem in 1968 called Men of Medicine. I find Berry's poetry unique in stirring thoughts few other poets have been able to ignite. My first Berry poem came about after asking an AI assistant to provide a poem akin to the inspiring thoughts I felt per Neruda's El Mar. This is the reply:
The Peace of Wild Things
When despair for the world grows in me
and I wake in the night at the least sound
in fear of what my life and my children’s lives may be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake
rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds.
I come into the peace of wild things
who do not tax their lives with forethought
of grief. I come into the presence of still water.
And I feel above me the day-blind stars
waiting with their light. For a time
I rest in the grace of the world, and am free.
— Wendell Berry, 2012
I would say this goes beyond "decent," but acknowledging how personal poetry is to each human that reads a poem.