On Dan Carlin...

Under our "favorites" section, you will find a link to a podcaster named Dan Carlin.  This is MUST HAVE ear candy for anyone associated with the Driveway Bund... period.

This is the most in-depth, well-researched look at current affairs (the Common Sense podcasts) and historical reviews (Hardcore History) available to anyone willing to listen to podcasts at all.  I have done more deep-thinking while listening to his shows then I have since the last face-to-face meeting of the Bund in 2008.

I am particularly driven to think of the Bund when I hear his comments on the impossibility of divorcing any single facet of history in favor of all other facets.  In other words, you cannot allow the "good" side of an historical situation to counter or off-set the "bad" side of an historical situation.

We have done this countless times, and (according to Carlin) this is nothing short of pure, revisionist history... something we have all voiced our collective and individual abhorrence to.

Example:  One cannot separate the tactics, strategies and actions of the Wehrmacht in WWII from those of the Nazis and their goals regarding the "Final Solution".  Were there no Wehrmacht, there would have been no opportunity to attempt the "Final Solution" by the Nazi elite.

Example:  How many times have I taken a pro-Confederate position in discussions about the American Civil War?  I routinely put aside the "question" of slavery in favor of the CSA's policies and positions regarding States rights vs Federal authority.  According to Carlin, I cannot do this without taking a revisionist position, because I cannot rationally divorce slavery from the Confederate side of the debate simply because I don't want to try and make that objectionable part of history fit into my view.

Example:  How many times have I argued with Ryan about some obscure facet of Reagan's foreign policy agenda that didn't mesh with the "constitutionalist-ideal" that Ryan and others so want Reagan to fit?  By arguing that any wrongs done or questionable policies applied were easily over-looked in the long term view is "revisionist" and not only rhetorically in error, but morally objectionable to boot.

Please, give the guy a listen at the earliest opportunity, and let me know what you think.