Lincoln’s appeal to Marxists
Christopher Hitchens, like many other Neocons, is a former Trotskyite, which means he came to realize that the ultimate goal of a global revolution could never be accomplished by socialism. Crony capitalism is a far better engine for revolution, and that revolution will be accomplished through transforming what's left of traditional America into the embryo that will one day become the multicultural, one-world government Trotsky dreamed of.
As we've documented many times before, Lincoln is a mythical figure in the Neocon worldview. It only makes sense: Revolution and Reconstruction require the machinery of a centralized state, and it was Lincoln who strangled the Jeffersonian Republic and replaced it with a regime that Robert E. Lee characterized as "sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home" -- in other words, exactly what the bankers and industrialists in the Northeast dreamed of. So in his review of Michael Burlingame's new Lincoln biography, Hitchens embraces Lincoln as the essential forerunner of the Neocon ideology. Notice how Hitchens (like Lincoln!) perverts the language and meaning of our founding documents as justification for centralizing the Union into a unitary nation-state:
Before Gettysburg, people would say “the United States are …” After Gettysburg, they began to say “the United States is …” That they were able to employ the first three words at all was a tribute to the man who did more than anyone to make that hard transition himself, and then to secure it for others, and for posterity.
One thing you have to admit about the Neocons: They're logically consistent. I have argued until I'm blue in the face with "patriotic" Southerners and conservatives who despise Lincoln but cannot grasp that supporting an aggressive, centralized, open-borders government endorses Lincoln's agenda against the South. If we are to stop the slow bleeding of our liberty and our society, the first step is to understand the philosophy and agenda of our enemies.
posted by Old Rebel @ Saturday, August 08, 2009
16 Comments
Links to this post
16 Comments:
"I have argued until I'm blue in the face with "patriotic" Southerners and conservatives who despise Lincoln but cannot grasp that supporting an aggressive, centralized, open-borders government endorses Lincoln's agenda against the South."
Mike - I'm intrigued by your comment here. Everyone I know personally who has been enlightened re the real Lincoln is also anti-central govt. Your comment suggests otherwise. can you elaborate? Where do you find anti-Lincoln, pro-govt types? Seems like an oxymoron.
Mr. Shivers: I'm afraid Mike is "Spot On." The simple fact of the matter is that the majority of people calling themselves "Conservative" SUPPORT the all-powerful Central State WITH AN ALL-POWERFUL, CENTRALLY CONTROLLED MILITARY. This is amply demonstrated by the popularity of Mark Levin's NaZi-NeoCon book, "Liberty and Tyranny." This rag between two hardcovers is literally nothing more than the same old tripe the Republican con-artists have been "selling" for the last 30 years, only slightly re-packaged! The oxymoronic absurdity of advocating "less gov't." simultaneously with advocatining a huge, all-powerful "globe-trotting" military with world-wide bases simply seems to be beyond their ken. Incredible - talk about "denying Reality" . . .
Also, look at this: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/biden-to-suppor.html
Go to pg.2 of the Comments, and read the Post by "Average American Mom" entitled: "Why I Am Voting Democrat!" This beutiful lady is of sound "conservative" origins, but she supports a Global, all-powerful military to "keep us safe" and "defend our interests"(my words, not hers, paraphrasing what she has written).
The airwaves are not only full of NeoCon Morons, they pre-dominate, almost exclusively: Rush, Savage, Boortz, Hannity, The Ladies, etc. ALL of these people worship at the altar of the Trotskyist State. It appears you suffer from "selection bias," but I'm sure you do so completely innocently. You simply "hangout" with like-minded people, which I do too (it's fundamental to the definition of "friend"). Sadly, if you just "look (and esp. "listen") around," you'll see & hear those voices in opposition to us. They are predominantly Left Coast & Northern (both Eastern & 'Mid-'), which is why Mike & The League are "right-on" to call for Southern independence - the differences between The Sections are just too many and too deep.
R Shivers,
Logically speaking, you're correct. But as Nick illustrates so well, many people are so taken in by the Lincoln myth that they think he "saved" the Union, thereby preserving what the Founders established. In fact, he established the groundwork for total control of the population, which Wilson and FDR used to advance Federal power, and which we're seeing accelerated even more today under Bush/Obama.
No greater evidence of the hypocritical, neo-con, DC first/citizen second, Lincoln worship can be found outside of the illegal state of West Virginia. Lincoln stands in front of the Charleston capitol building, and all those there believe they actually accomplished something by sticking it to Richmond and siding with the despot. 146 years later, they still have no idea how to run a government and constantly require Robert Byrd to bail them out of living in an uninhabitable location. If only those folks knew how much better life could be if Virginia were whole again...
JRA,
Ugh. I wasn't aware of the Lincoln shrine in Charleston.
As you point out, West Virginia was indeed created in total violation of the Constitution.
If it was legal for states to secede from the Union, then how is it illegal for part of a state to secede from another, as in the case of West Virginia?
Beauregard P. Lee, VIII said,
I despise Southerners because you have a real culture. And you have girlfriends and wives, while all I have is a poster of Abe Lincoln and a stack of old Penthouses.
Anonymous,
The formation of WV violated the VA constitution as well as the US constitution, which, in a nutshell, prohibits the US from drawing state lines. WV was a federal form of gerrymandering, or drawing lines to best benefit those in charge. Look at it on a map and then try to explain why one mountain ridge was chosen for a border over another, it makes no sense at all. However, in 21st century America, the principles that lead to WV being created will most likely cause lines to be redrawn in order to ensure that those loyal to the DC machine will be the majority in all regions and districts.
Anonymous,
The 10th Amendment reserves all powers to the States that were not delegated to DC. No State ever renounced its sovereignty. So they still had the right to secede.
However, Lincoln's position was that the Southern States could not secede, and were therefore still under the Constitution. Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution states "no new state shall be formed or erected with the jurisdiction of any other State ... without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned."
Gentlemen - I fully understand your points re "conservatives' who are really under the influence of neo-con dogma and, as a result, continue to engage in Lincoln idolatry. My original query is directed to Old Rebel's comment about people who have been suffienctly de-programmed such that they now see Lincoln as the tyrant-destroyer of the republic, but nevertheless, continue to support the neo-con agenda. I've never encountered anyone like that. Can you prove they exist, or is it just another Loch Ness monster sighting?
R Shivers,
Check out these examples:
http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/search?q=lincoln
But defends torture of suspects:
http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2009/05/liz-cheney-rising-star-in-gop.html
Here's another who despises Lincoln:
http://hillbillywhitetrash.blogspot.com/2009/01/deja-vu.html
But supports gutting the Constitution a la Lincoln in the name of "national defense:"
http://hillbillywhitetrash.blogspot.com/2006/09/stop-aclu-blogburst.html
And both fully supported Bush and his aggressive wars.
The "public fool system" has worked successfully to "educate" students about the War between the States and the legend of Abraham Lincoln, the "great Emancipator".
It is high time the truth goes mainstream. The war Lincoln presided over laid the foundation for a tyrannical federal beast that has vanquished Jeffersonian constitutional republicanism, or true "conservatives", and brought the "NeoCon" platform to power.
Both sides of my parental heritage came from Tennessee. The Confederacy had far more respect for the Founding Father's vision of constitutional restraint than the racist Lincoln and his bankster backers. May the South rise again...with many other states! Don't tread on me!
David McElroy
New Mexico
Statue of Stinkin' Lincoln may be in Charleston, but Jackson's still born in Clarksburg.
In all likelihood, we'll end up in WV within the next year. Will do my very best to convince as many Moutaineers as I can that the cause of the South is the cause of us all. And I'll fantasize about Manassas III - the cleansing of Northern Virginia - and the reunification of the Virginias. Deo Vindice.
Re "If we are to stop the slow bleeding of our liberty and our society, the first step is to understand the philosophy and agenda of our enemies."
Know your friends, know your enemies and, if at all possible, know your enemies just a bit better than you know your friends. =;-D
Lincoln the personality and political/party affliation (just as is the case with Obama the personality and political/party affiliation) is secondary to the specific historical slot that he found himself in. Minus a wider appreciation of exactly what was going on in the mid-19th century (hint: see Bismarck re German unification), most arguments and analyses miss the mark. Missing the mark translates into a political liability. To paraphrase Talleyrand: "It was worse than a crime; it was a mistake."
Which of you morons said the Confederacy was about rights?
Are you insane? The South before the Civil War had no free speech. Did you know that? None.
You could be hung for owning the wrong book. You could be whipped and jailed for owning the wrong pamplet.
No one was allowed to run for office unless the slave owners said. No one could campaign against slavery, or even preach against slavery.
SO was the Founding father's vision no freedom of press no freedom of religion no freedom of speech?
Nor could the Founding fathers ever imagine young girls, 10-11 years old, being sold to whore houses in the South?
Mulatto girls 10 years old or so where the highest priced slaves. Can you guess why? Old slave owners prized mulatto girls as sex slaves, for themselves, and then used in whore houses when they got 15 or so.
Which of you lunatics have any clue that there was no freedom - even for whites - in the South?
Student of American History,
Holy cow, it took you three months to write this?
Could you please edify this insane lunatic moron with some EXAMPLES of whatever it is you're talking about? Otherwise, we'll just have to conclude you're making this bull durham up.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home