Question: What do elitist professors have in common with Adolf Hitler & Saul Alinsky?
Answer: They masterfully use the powerful art of innuendo to falsely defame those with which they disagree.
Definition of Innuendo: A derogatory hint or reference to a person or thing.
The internet is abuzz today with leftwing bloggers, elitist professors, and downright jealous peers licking their chops and rubbing their hands in excitement as they repeat the juicy quotes about David Barton books being full of “embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims.”
Yet not a single article can point to a single factual error, quote out of context, or misleading claim.
How ‘bout that.
These articles are all celebrating the fact that Thomas Nelson is pulling “The Jefferson Lies” because “…there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported.”
Does “not adequately supported” mean the same as “not supported?”
Of course not!
Let’s see if I get this right. Barton has about 100,000 original documents and backs up everything he says with original sources, yet some critics claim the stack of evidence is not quite enough, so that makes it “not adequately supported?”
How about simply letting free speech occur, let people read Barton’s book and the support therein (756 footnotes), and then compare to the critics?
But do you follow the innuendos and the power of destruction they have? These people have not pointed out even one inaccuracy or false statement. Yet through innuendo they have painted a picture that universally gives the reader the feeling that Barton is just making stuff up out of thin air, has nothing at all to back up what he is saying, and is clearly not a “historian.”
None of this, of course, is even close to being true.
But the innuendo is so, so powerful. No one is bothering to ask for evidence of such claims. No one seems to care about the details and the truth because the headline is just too juicy.
Hitler and Alinsky were both masters of this tool. Having just read Eric Metaxes’ great book about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Hitler’s tactics are on my mind and he said: “All propaganda has to … accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”
These elitist professors and reporters attacking David Barton know that most people will not actually go read the supporting material behind David’s books…certainly not the bloggers and reporters who have so quickly jumped on the attack wagon. They are exactly the “least intelligent” Hitler was able to fool, Alinksy taught radicals to fool, and now even Christian “leaders” are joining.
Barton’s Jefferson book has 756 footnotes. These critics could not possibly be reading the supporting material because their claims of inaccuracy just do not match up.
In fact, most of the book is simply quoting and allowing Jefferson to tell his own story, rather than some boring professor’s “interpretation” of Jefferson’s words.
And that’s exactly where the rub is with Barton. These elitists do not enjoy seeing themselves replaced.
They believe they are the high priests of history and the law.
I was debating an elitist professor at Baylor once over the issue of “separation of church and state” and our freedom of religion. He got so frustrated when I kept quoting the founding fathers that he finally said “well, these concepts are very complicated, but we professors and the judges on the Supreme Court are trained and equipped to deal with them and work out the details for you.” I looked at the crowd and said “what he just told you is that you are too stupid to understand this very basic concept of freedom, but that’s okay because he and his elitist friends will take care of all that complicated stuff for you.”
The exact same thing is happening here with David Barton’s scholarly works. The elitist professors like Kidd, Throckmorton, Coulter, & Jenkinson write boring books that very few people read and they give boring lectures that are only attended by students forced to do so in order to get a grade.
When these guys see Barton telling history in a way that is BOTH accurate and fun and they see millions of people are captivated and want to learn more, then perhaps it could be just a little jealousy could be causing them to lash out at Barton with innuendoes backed by no actual merit. But the bigger issue is that they do not want to lose the power of being the keepers of the keys to history. They want their “interpretation” of historical figures to control how generations view history, rather than letting historical events and historical figures speak for themselves.
And by the way, if you’re wondering why Thomas Nelson would pull the book, perhaps you should know that HarperCollins (secular publisher) recently purchased Thomas Nelson (Christian publisher). I wouldn’t have expected Deepak Chopra (New Age Atheist) and David Barton to remain under the same publisher for long.
In the meantime, I’m still waiting for someone to show me a specific inaccuracy or false claim by Barton. Every author, including these elitists, makes mistakes and we could do several more blogs about the hilarious publishing mistakes by some of the most respected authors in history. (quick read here for some famous ones) That’s not what I’m talking about and that’s not what these critics are claiming. They are claiming that Barton is purposefully presenting a false picture of history and using inaccuracies and distortions to do so. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is these critics who are using inaccuracies, innuendo, and distortions to attack Barton in the first place.
If you can show me specifics that back up the image created by the critics innuendo, I’ll post it right here for the world to see.
Bueller, Bueller? Yes, Ben Stein’s character in that movie is EXACTLY what I picture with most of these critics!!!!
*Update* Yes, I deleted Hitler from the title because too many people were hung up on that, rather than focusing on the actual tactic of innuendo being used!
Also, let’s be clear that all the people being quoted by the press are not equally guilty of innuendo, some area probably being misquoted and taken out of context.