Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

[Alizia Tyler]

Nope. Got to the first line and realized it was going to be nothing but projection again. Pretty much everything you try to use to describe me applies to you. You are a conquered people, living in a post-humanist world that respects the rights of gays and minorities but ironically has little respect for white racists such as yourself who more embody the spirit of the Founders, (apart from being a woman of course) than any of us actually do and yet you have no power. We on the other hand keep accumulating more. The kidnapping of Africans by white europeans didn't actually brake us, it broke you. It's your ideology and culture that lays in tatters as we continue to reshape your country and build upon it until it is something new and more acceptable to us. And what can you do about it? Not a damn thing. How's that for conquered?

You read both of those posts straight through. I am pretty sure you've read them more than once! Given your orientation it would be impossible for you not to have read. You are really a wonder, you know!

Still I am very interested in what you write and that you share this perspective. I think that in many ways you are really quite right. You have a knack of cutting through the layers of BS and stating things as they really are.

If what you say is true then I think that what it means, and what you point to intendingly or inadvertently, is why *the social glue* is breaking down and no longer holds the nation together. What I find interesting and curious is that this is occurring within a *democracy*. And what you are describing is a demographic assault that leads -- as you say, as you truthfully explain -- to a strange form of cultural take-over. If this is so then what you reveal here offers a lens to view everything that is goin on in our present.

And this is precisely the argument of those who are actual and dedicated *white nationalists*. That is what they say. And they do not see *democracy* as their friend, if I can put it like this. So here is a strange truth: Democracy must be overcome or over-rided in order to avoid the fate that you outline. This points to numerous very interesting truths.

But that is what interests me: democracy is established in a given polity when the people in that polity *share agreements*. They have to be similar enough, share a range of values (for example to be generally of the same religious orientation) and feel that they are in a cultural setting of friends and like-minded people.

My point has been that I think America is in a severe crisis because this is no longer the case. It is not a *united nation* but a nation with many different cultural, social and ethnological divisions.

For example Greg Johnson [a genuine white nationalist with a too-radical orientation for my taste] was interviewed by a French nationalist magazine-website called Breiz-Info:

«Les Blancs du monde entier sont confrontés au déclin démographique, économique et culturel» ["All the world over Whites face demographic, economic and cultural decline"].

 

[Alizia Tyler]

[cont. from previous]

So in France for example there is a growing awareness that demographic displacement [le gran remplacement] and cultural displacement are realities that must be faced.

You actually explain, and very well! why this is and how it came about. The interviewer asks the question: «Quel est le message fondamental du Manifeste du nationalisme blanc?» [What is the principle argument in the book White Nationalist Manifesto?] Here is a translation:

White people around the world—in all of our homelands—are facing demographic, economic, and cultural decline. Our birthrates are below replacement. Increasing numbers of whites choose partners of a different race. Globalization has brought the Third World to our shores while shipping our industries to the Third World. The integrity and legitimacy of our cultures are under assault by multiculturalism and anti-white ideologies. “Racism” and identity politics are encouraged for every group except white majorities. If these trends are not reversed, every white nation will eventually disappear. The French will be as extinct as the Hittites. The white race will be as dead as the dodo.

These trends were started by powerful people, which means they can be reversed the same way. We simply need new elites, new leadership. White Nationalism, as I define it, advocates sovereign homelands for all white peoples dedicated to their biological and cultural survival and flourishing: France for the French, Hungary for the Hungarians, Sweden for the Swedes, etc. White Nationalists need to take control of their governments and economies. Then we need to reverse the demographic and cultural trends that are leading to our destruction.

My purpose, as I have said numerous times, is to get *the truth* of things out onto the table. And I find you, dear Mr Fight the Power (that be) very helpful in this process. You cannot help yourself because you cannot conceal your intentions and your *true feelings* and perceptions.

 

[Irredentist]

[cont. from previous]

So in France for example there is a growing awareness that demographic displacement [le gran remplacement] and cultural displacement are realities that must be faced.

You actually explain, and very well! why this is and how it came about. The interviewer asks the question: «Quel est le message fondamental du Manifeste du nationalisme blanc?» [What is the principle argument in the book White Nationalist Manifesto?] Here is a translation:


My purpose, as I have said numerous times, is to get *the truth* of things out onto the table. And I find you, dear Mr Fight the Power (that be) very helpful in this process. You cannot help yourself because you cannot conceal your intentions and your *true feelings* and perceptions.

For my part, I find it deliciously ironic that the French, having spent the better part of the last several centuries enforcing their will on other ethnic groups around the world, are now complaining about "demographic displacement" in their own country.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

For my part, I find it deliciously ironic that the French, having spent the better part of the last several centuries enforcing their will on other ethnic groups around the world, are now complaining about "demographic displacement" in their own country.

You are of course absolutely right. And that *irony* needs to be seen and confronted directly.

But do you notice how superficial your observation is? You just notice the irony. You do not seem to realize that even if what you say is true, and in a way it is (it is also untrue in important senses), that France still must choose to resist what is happening, and reverse it.

Is your argument that they should not?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Sure, I refused. But not for the reasons you are supposing.

I'm not, in the first instance, supposing any particular reason--but if you don't show the connection between what you're asserting to be true and what you think everyone else thinks is true, you (by definition) haven't given anyone any reason to think that what you're claiming is true, is really true.

You are a harsh Master!

So my students have sometimes told me--but as I acquired education, it was invariably those who didn't let me get away with one iota of anything that taught me the most. In this case, were you even bound to answer (which you are not, politically speaking, though a commitment to reason and reasonableness should so bind you), you'd still be free to answer however you like. Any answer that showed sufficient valid (truth-preserving) connections between premises I accept as true and your conclusions would force me (again, not politically speaking, but through my commitment to reason and reasonableness) to accept your conclusions. I've laid out my arguments for why I think those connections don't exist, and currently have no reason to accept them. Because I am an expert in reasoning, I can say with considerable (though never total) confidence that no one else has any reason to accept them either.

 

[Master Debator]

You read both of those posts straight through. I am pretty sure you've read them more than once!

I thought you said I didn't read and was in fact illiterate, really, is there no point you make that you won't immediately contradict?

If what you say is true then I think that what it means, and what you point to intendingly or inadvertently, is why *the social glue* is breaking down and no longer holds the nation together. What I find interesting and curious is that this is occurring within a *democracy*. And what you are describing is a demographic assault that leads -- as you say, as you truthfully explain -- to a strange form of cultural take-over. If this is so then what you reveal here offers a lens to view everything that is goin on in our present.

You may find it strange, maybe because you're confused by it? I merely find it funny. Your ancestors invented these powerful concepts that allowed them to change how the average subject saw the role of governments and kings except they drank the kool-aid and in turn became conquered by the very ideas and concepts they themselves created. Thats hilarious. You should be thankful that your conquers are relatively benevolent and seem content enough to allow you and your people to go extinct in relative peace and harmony rather than with the violence your ancestors showed countless others. Your culture is basically in the equivalent of hospice, living out your last days surrounded by palm trees in a Century Village in South Florida.

And this is precisely the argument of those who are actual and dedicated *white nationalists*. That is what they say. And they do not see *democracy* as their friend, if I can put it like this. So here is a strange truth: Democracy must be overcome or over-rided in order to avoid the fate that you outline. This points to numerous very interesting truths.

Finally! All this talk about where you're leading me to and in fact I have allowed you to talk enough to reveal yourself. Of course everyone here has known this all along but doesn't it feel better to get it off your chest? You and yours don't believe in democracy because there is no path to victory there for you. You have lost both culturally and politically and all you have left is violence. Unfortunately for you, you don't have the technological advantages your ancestors had nor do you have superior numbers so I'm not sure what good violence is going to do you at this point except cancel your retirement benefits. If I were you I'd learn shuffle board and karaoke and call it day.

But that is what interests me: democracy is established in a given polity when the people in that polity *share agreements*. They have to be similar enough, share a range of values (for example to be generally of the same religious orientation) and feel that they are in a cultural setting of friends and like-minded people.

My point has been that I think America is in a severe crisis because this is no longer the case. It is not a *united nation* but a nation with many different cultural, social and ethnological divisions.

You imagine divisions because that is your singular white wing perspective. The political goals of a gay Latin woman might be different than my own but they aren't incompatible, they aren't mutually exclusive in the way white supremacy is with allowing any other perspective to be herd. We welcome diversity. You'll die a thousand cuts from a thousand different hands and we might knick each other time to time but we all know who our target is.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I'm not, in the first instance, supposing any particular reason--but if you don't show the connection between what you're asserting to be true and what you think everyone else thinks is true, you (by definition) haven't given anyone any reason to think that what you're claiming is true, is really true.

You speak too generally. Those who oppose my ideas do so entirely reflexively. This is how debate, conflict and conversation occur today. It is certainly evident on this forum. There are established dichotomies and divisions between those understood to be *of the Left* and those *of the Right*, and largely, not entirely, but largely, complex *games* are performed here.

I work in very unpopular areas. But, I work with the idea that the people I speak with, and especially of the Left-Progressive sort, are ensconced within ideological constraints. This is why I speak of *ideological coercion* and really a whole range of things. I think that we live within established *regimes of thought*. And it is in this area -- examining this, talking about it, probing it -- where I place myself.

You are asking questions that have to do with how a stated thing can be true. That is your domain of interest. It is largely too abstract for my purposes. So I do not want to engage with you at that level. But feel free to develop your ideas whatever they may be. I always read what people write.

I believe that a range of advantages was *bequeathed* to Africans by the enslavement they suffered in the United States. I have described this to the degree that I feel is sufficient. I fully accept that you and others dispute the premise, and I understand why! What I stated was stated in Post No. 7. I have further elucidated my perspective in other places (later posts).

So my students have sometimes told me--but as I acquired education, it was invariably those who didn't let me get away with one iota of anything that taught me the most. In this case, were you even bound to answer (which you are not, politically speaking, though a commitment to reason and reasonableness should so bind you), you'd still be free to answer however you like. Any answer that showed sufficient valid (truth-preserving) connections between premises I accept as true and your conclusions would force me (again, not politically speaking, but through my commitment to reason and reasonableness) to accept your conclusions. I've laid out my arguments for why I think those connections don't exist, and currently have no reason to accept them. Because I am an expert in reasoning, I can say with considerable (though never total) confidence that no one else has any reason to accept them either.

You remain within your preferred *abstract* zones here. I can suggest examining the full scope of my thought as expressed throughout this thread and then see if you have any areas that you'd like to engage in. I do not want to bicker over your self-profession of expertise. We work in very different areas of concern though.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I thought you said I didn't read and was in fact illiterate

Were you *literate* you would know that I refer to lack of familiarity with a wide range of literature. You are illiterate in this sense. You have read very very little.

 

[Master Debator]

Were you *literate* you would know that I refer to lack of familiarity with a wide range of literature. You are illiterate in this sense. You have read very very little.

That's not what illiterate means...

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You and yours don't believe in democracy because there is no path to victory there for you. You have lost both culturally and politically and all you have left is violence.

What you do not seem to grasp is that though you want to set me up as your *preferred enemy* in a typical type of forum-battle, I side-step this because I am interested in the *facts* and the *truth*, and on-going exchange and conversation. *Debate* as you define it, and as you enact it (!) is of no interest to me. I use what I can of what you present though.

You continue to make true statements as we clarify what is really going on. When we are done I am going to gift you a medal that you can frame and hang on the wall of your hut!

It is not that I am suggesting the democracy in the present situation of demographic inundation (those social engineering processes begun, for what ever reasons, in the Sixties) is an obstacle, but rather I am interpreting what you yourself write! I am repeating back to you what are the *logical consequences* of what you state and propose. You yourself are saying that democracy if it is based in demographics leads to the social and cultural conditions we now face. And your perspective is precisely what many in different political orientations have noted.

And violence is not necessary what is called for. Political organization is called for -- and *awareness*.

You reveal that 1) what has happened never should have been allowed to happen and it was not a *good* but in fact a *bad*. Not for *you-plural* (whoever you define yourself as being which seems to be based on your color) but for what I have called *America's original demographic*. This is what you establish through your statements.

And 2) you imply that some *action* or other can be taken and indeed should be taken. But you gloat that in your view no action can be taken! I assume because people have been *tricked* or they are frozen like deer in proverbial headlights*.

But what would happen if they clearly saw what was happening? What if you were the one explaining to them what is happening? What if an open and straightforward conversation about all of this were *allowed* to occur? Not blocked?

My objective is to take what you say, what you identify as *real*, and work to get it out on the table so it can be examined. Only then could something, I know not what, be decided. I can say however -- with the reference to France and to Europe -- that there, in those places, the situation is perhaps far easier and more clear than in the States.

But my largest interest is not regional US politics but 'meta-politics'. That has to do with what will happen not this year or this election-cycle but over the next 25 -- 50 -- or even 100 years.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

That's not what illiterate means...

You obviously can write sentences and paragraphs. I obviously refer to cultural, social and perhaps historical and philosophical illiteracy. I gather that you did not understand this. Not a good sign! But now I hope you do.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You and yours don't believe in democracy because there is no path to victory there for you.

And you bring up an interesting issue. Democracies are established where social agreements are established and where they are *believed in*. But at the moment when there are no longer social agreements and the binding social glue comes undone, democracy faces a crisis.

What happens at that point? There are various alternatives. One is civil war. One of them is political division. Secession is another.

I am not proposing that any of these things will occur, I have no idea what will occur. I am more or less restating what you are proposing.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is truly idiotic to suggest that pointing out racism is somehow a “communist plot”.

If modern race-baiting is used not to seek justice but to promote one faction over another for the former group’s personal gain, then the modern race-baiting is being used for purposes comparable to the way Communist provocateurs used their version of the practice.

 

[Tigerace117]

If modern race-baiting is used not to seek justice but to promote one faction over another for the former group’s personal gain, then the modern race-baiting is being used for purposes comparable to the way Communist provocateurs used their version of the practice.

Conservatives have declared every civil rights movement for decades as some sort of “communist plot”. Nobody’s buying it.

 

[Master Debator]

And violence is not necessary what is called for. Political organization is called for -- and *awareness*.

You think more people being aware of your racism is going to help you politically?

You reveal that 1) what has happened never should have been allowed to happen and it was not a *good* but in fact a *bad*. Not for *you-plural* (whoever you define yourself as being which seems to be based on your color) but for what I have called *America's original demographic*. This is what you establish through your statements.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda never helped anyone before but hey maybe you'll be the exception.

And 2) you imply that some *action* or other can be taken and indeed should be taken. But you gloat that in your view no action can be taken! I assume because people have been *tricked* or they are frozen like deer in proverbial headlights*.

No, I imply violence is the only real option you have left though the odds of violence being successful is slim to none. Basically I'm saying you're ****ed.

But what would happen if they clearly saw what was happening? What if you were the one explaining to them what is happening? What if an open and straightforward conversation about all of this were *allowed* to occur? Not blocked?

Who's not allowing you the space to share your perspective? Seems as if you've had plenty. You sure can cry about it though. Over and over again never once realizing the hilarious irony.

Also who's they? White people? More than half of them want nothing to do with you. You offer nothing of value to them because they don't share your values. Has sharing your point of view here endeared any of them to you?

 

[Master Debator]

And you bring up an interesting issue. Democracies are established where social agreements are established and where they are *believed in*. But at the moment when there are no longer social agreements and the binding social glue comes undone, democracy faces a crisis.

What happens at that point? There are various alternatives. One is civil war. One of them is political division. Secession is another.

I am not proposing that any of these things will occur, I have no idea what will occur. I am more or less restating what you are proposing.

What happens is you go extinct. You don't have the numbers for war or session. That's why you have to keep admitting you have no answers for what's currently being done to you and yours. So you go ahead take your time ruminating on that one. I'll be here.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You think more people being aware of your racism is going to help you politically?

First, I think *they* would have to 'get out from under' the way that you use the term 'racism'. It is a devious, multi-layered term that you-plural use as an extraordinarily potent weapon. I fully admit its power, but in doing so I also bring out its deviousness. So, the first step is presenting *them* with the means to disassemble your specific use of the term.

If people -- fair people, ethical people -- were more aware of the history of your-plural use of this term, as a weapon, and if this information could be presented, yes, I believe it would *help politically*.

If the discourse that you provide here, your description of things, the way you talk about it, the gloating and all the rest, were also presented to them, I am reasonably sure that this too would have effect.

You say that I am a 'racist' because I seek clarity in these forbidden zones. But your intention is to absolutely discredit anything and everything I say. And you in concern with some vocal others assert the same things about me. And you do this because your object is *blocking*.

But what I say is that you use ideological and also *emotional* manipulation to trick people into believing that you are working an upright, ethical angle. I think your discourse shows what you are after, where your values lie, and also what you-plural are doing. You *explain* the radicalism that has got hold of many people. Again I refer to Critical Theory as a sort of disease.

So, I have said that I do not eliminate race-consideration or 'ethnicity-consideration' from my group of concerns as I examine the American social scene and what could have or should have been *maintained*. No balanced person (or social planner) should.

Yes, it is true, I do turn my attention to that, to all of that. Because it explains a great deal. The multi-ethnic society and the multi-racial society was not a good plan. That is my opinion. This certainly does not mean I have something against any people per se. Or *hate*.

You are the one filled with hatred. It drips out of everything you write. It gets through even when you might not want it to. Your hatred defines you and in that sense controls you.

You inform me that I am a 'racist'. I do not ever object to any applied terms but what I do is to try to lay them out for examination. You are free to use your labels as you see fit. I am free to demonstrate that the use of these labels is extremely underhanded & devious. All I care to do is to point it out.

No, I imply violence is the only real option you have left though the odds of violence being successful is slim to none.

I very strongly disagree. The best course is exactly what I am doing. Simply talking things through. Presenting alternative views.

I say that this *conversation* is constantly obstructed by *blocking efforts*. Just like what you-plural do but in amplified form. A simple statement of the facts as I see them.

 

[Master Debator]

First, I think *they* would have to 'get out from under' the way that you use the term 'racism'. It is a devious, multi-layered term that you-plural use as an extraordinarily potent weapon. I fully admit its power, but in doing so I also bring out its deviousness. So, the first step is presenting *them* with the means to disassemble your specific use of the term.

If people -- fair people, ethical people -- were more aware of the history of your-plural use of this term, as a weapon, and if this information could be presented, yes, I believe it would *help politically*.

If the discourse that you provide here, your description of things, the way you talk about it, the gloating and all the rest, were also presented to them, I am reasonably sure that this too would have effect.

You say that I am a 'racist' because I seek clarity in these forbidden zones. But your intention is to absolutely discredit anything and everything I say. And you in concern with some vocal others assert the same things about me. And you do this because your object is *blocking*.

But what I say is that you use ideological and also *emotional* manipulation to trick people into believing that you are working an upright, ethical angle. I think your discourse shows what you are after, where your values lie, and also what you-plural are doing. You *explain* the radicalism that has got hold of many people. Again I refer to Critical Theory as a sort of disease.

So, I have said that I do not eliminate race-consideration or 'ethnicity-consideration' from my group of concerns as I examine the American social scene and what could have or should have been *maintained*. No balanced person (or social planner) should.

Yes, it is true, I do turn my attention to that, to all of that. Because it explains a great deal. The multi-ethnic society and the multi-racial society was not a good plan. That is my opinion. This certainly does not mean I have something against any people per se. Or *hate*.

You are the one filled with hatred. It drips out of everything you write. It gets through even when you might not want it to. Your hatred defines you and in that sense controls you.

You inform me that I am a 'racist'. I do not ever object to any applied terms but what I do is to try to lay them out for examination. You are free to use your labels as you see fit. I am free to demonstrate that the use of these labels is extremely underhanded & devious. All I care to do is to point it out.

I very strongly disagree. The best course is exactly what I am doing. Simply talking things through. Presenting alternative views.

I say that this *conversation* is constantly obstructed by *blocking efforts*. Just like what you-plural do but in amplified form. A simple statement of the facts as I see them.

No one is blocking you... ... from giving your alternative view of what racism is and why it doesn't mean advocating for a white only state. But I like the crying. Is there any better indicator than how far you and yours have fallen than crying about how I'm successfully blocking you?

Boo hoo

 

[Alizia Tyler]

No one is blocking you...

I think you fail to understand what I mean by *block*. To block is to keep information from circulating by a) banning people from various platform (there is at least one notorious case I could mention), banning or shadow-banning information-videos on communication-channels like YouTube. There is a range of censhorship-like activities that are carried out and, in many cases, assisted by the tech companies and their algorithms.

From what I have read (I have no way to verify) those same tech companies consciously and as part of policy do tweak their algorithms to disfavor people and ideas they don't like, and accentuate the reach of those they do. Thus there is a 'blocking' effort there, too. It has been suggested that this influenced the last presidential election to some degree. What that degree actually is, I have no idea.

Other *blacking* efforts have been, for example, blocking conservative speakers from talking at universities. There is a wide range of tactics that are used. And the purpose is to block and obstruct the flow of information, idea and opinion.

You also *block* when you refer to people as 'racist' who have ideas about history or interpretations you don't like. Many people use your tactics. And too so does the Conservative side when they smear their enemies. These are common tactics today.

I said:

I very strongly disagree. The best course is exactly what I am doing. Simply talking things through. Presenting alternative views.

I say that this *conversation* is constantly obstructed by *blocking efforts*. Just like what you-plural do but in amplified form. A simple statement of the facts as I see them.

The blocking effort is also carried out by blocking and tainting the conversation and the people who bring forward that conversation. For example the SPLC does this with its Hate Watch List.

All of this I fully understand and I am not complaining and certainly not *crying* as you imply. I am very simply stating facts.

That this forum allows people with ideas like mine to carry on is infinitely in its favor, IMO. Here, you only need to observe the sensible rules and you are free to communicate what you wish without being banned.

 

[Ouroboros]

Conservatives have declared every civil rights movement for decades as some sort of “communist plot”. Nobody’s buying it.

No modern day conservative is bound by the statements of earlier conservatives, just as the deeds of Classic Liberals— say MLK— do not validate the nasty crap of the race-baiting BLM crowd.

 

[Master Debator]

The blocking effort is also carried out by blocking and tainting the conversation and the people who bring forward that conversation. For example the SPLC does this with its Hate Watch List.

All of this I fully understand and I am not complaining and certainly not *crying* as you imply. I am very simply stating facts.

That this forum allows people with ideas like mine to carry on is infinitely in its favor, IMO. Here, you only need to observe the sensible rules and you are free to communicate what you wish without being banned.

Sounds a lot like crying and whimpering to me. No one is obligated to provide you a platform for you to spew your nonsense. That isn't banning or blocking you any more than slamming the door in Jehovah's Witnesss' face is. You being incapable of getting people to take you seriously is a you problem, not a societal one.

 

[Tigerace117]

No modern day conservative is bound by the statements of earlier conservatives, just as the deeds of Classic Liberals— say MLK— do not validate the nasty crap of the race-baiting BLM crowd.

Conservatives spewed the exact same hatred at MLK back then as they do at BLM today.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

INTERMISSION

Feel free to help yourself to the hors d'oeuvres . . .

Tiger, have you been working on your *moves*?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I have to admit I imagine our own Fight the Power in this scene: "Man, give her the f***ng ovehead clause!"

 

[pamak]

That's a very simple and ignorant way to look at a complex series of events. First, you use the term barbarians and civilization in what you claim is an ethnological sense (whatever that is) but you clearly mean it pejoratively.

Indeed, and by th way, the term "barbarian" comes from the Greeks who definitely thought of themselves superiors to everybody who was not a Greek, including people with quite advanced civilizations, such as the Persians.

But the funny thing is that on the one had she tries to argue that the Romans civilized the northern barbarians" (and yes, she uses the term in a derogatory way) and on the other hand she ignores the fact that Rome was sacked by a tribe called "Vandals," and we use this term even today in a derogatory manner to describe uncivilized behavior, LOLOL

Vandals - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Vandals were a Germanic people who first inhabited what is now southern Poland. They established Vandal kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula, Mediterranean islands, and North Africa in the 5th century.[2]

...

In 429, under king Genseric (reigned 428–477), the Vandals entered North Africa. By 439 they established a kingdom which included the Roman province of Africa as well as Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Malta and the Balearic Islands. They fended off several Roman attempts to recapture the African province, and sacked the city of Rome in 455.

Sack of Rome (455) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is obvious that she tries to give lectures about world history without knowing even basic historical facts.