By Thomas DiLorenzo
Reprinted from LewRockwell.com. Dr. DiLorenzo is a friend of the Society.
According to his Wikipedia entry, New York Times
house neocon David Brooks is a protégé of William Kristol – the two labeled themselves as “national greatness conservatives” back in the ‘90s; predicted in the Wall Street Journal
in 2003 that American forces would be “welcomed as liberators” in Iraq; describes himself as a follower of Alexander Hamilton’s mercantilist economic agenda; has argued that Republicans should abandon completely the limited government philosophy that became popular (at least rhetorically) during the “Goldwater and Reagan years”; wrote his senior thesis at the University of Chicago about a book that argued that humans evolved from “killer apes” (that apparently caught the eye of William F. Buckley, Jr. who offered him a job); is often complimentary towards Barack Obama; and is the proud father of a son in the army – the Israeli Army, not the U.S. Army.
Translating from Washingtonese, this mean that he is somewhat of a fascist who looks down his nose at constitutionalism; an imperialist and propagandist for the state who earns his income spinning tall tales about the alleged benefits of aggressive war; and a nationalist who believes not in national but governmental “greatness.” These are all the main ingredients of a modern Lincoln cultist, as Brooks demonstrated in an April 7 New York Times
column entitled “What Candidates Need.”
“I have two presidential election traditions,” Brooks wrote. “I begin covering each campaign by reading a book about Abraham Lincoln [probably not one by Yours Truly], and I end each election night, usually after midnight, at the statue of the Lincoln Memorial.”
Brooks should be credited with bravery for being anywhere in public in Washington, D.C., The Town That Lincoln Built, after midnight. He does not say if he holds a séance there, or just prays at the foot of the gigantic statue of the corporate lawyer/lobbyist in an armchair that is the Lincoln Memorial.
Reading most books about Lincoln by “Lincoln scholars” will generally make one stupid and misinformed, as Brooks very ably demonstrates. This is because all such books are bundles of excuses, phony rationales, and fabrications. They are all written like defense briefs in The War Crimes Trial of Abraham Lincoln, authored by third-rate lawyers or law students. Being a “Lincoln scholar” means fabricating an excuse for everything
. The bigger and more elaborate the excuse, the more “prestigious” is the “Lincoln scholar.”
For example, when the high priestess of the Lincoln cult, Doris Kearns-Goodwin, wrote in her book, Team of Rivals
, of how Lincoln was actually the source and promoter of the CorwinAmendment to the Constitution, which would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery, shepraised
him for it. Rather than condemning him for supporting the explicit enshrinement of slavery in the text of the U.S. Constitution, Goodwin heaped praise on Lincoln because this slick political maneuver, she said, helped “save” the political fortunes of the Republican Party.
Another example is how, in his last book on Lincoln, Harry Jaffa tried for the ten-thousandth time in his career to explain away Lincoln’s admonition in one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates that he was “opposed to making voters or jurors of Negroes.” Lincoln opposed giving “Negroes” the right to vote in the 1850s, Jaffa wrote, so that they could have the right to vote in the 1950s. This of course is absurd nonsense but also a good example of the dishonest academic hocus pocus known as “Straussianism.”
Then there is the book, Lincoln’s Melancholy
, by Joshua Wolf Shenk. The book describes Abe Lincoln’s various mental illnesses, including severe depression that caused wild mood swings, for which Abe took a mid-nineteenth-century “medicine” that contained a heavy dose of mercury. The book was showered with awards and made into a History Channel documentary.
Most thoughtful people would view this as alarming – that a man with severe mental illnesses was elected president. Predictably, the “spin” that Joshua Shen puts on these facts is that Lincoln’s mental illnesses somehow “fueled his greatness.” He was even greater than 150 years of Lincoln cultism has explained, said Shen, for he accomplished what he did despite the fact that he suffered from mental illness!
Having read a few books on Lincoln, Brooks is apparently familiar with many of the excuses of the Lincoln excuse-making industry. He mentions in his article that “Lincoln had very little formal education.” This is a bit of an understatement, since Lincoln’s formal education consisted of less than one year in elementary school. Again, this would seem alarming to some people but not the very model of a modern Lincoln cultist. Brooks repeats one of the canned excuses of the Lincoln cult by poo-pooing the usefulness of education. “Today we pile on years of education,” he sneered, and “cluster our students on campuses with people with similar grades and test scores.” Education Schmeducation.
Lincoln, on the other hand, “spent his formative years in daily contact with an astounding array of characters.” He admittedly didn’t read much (reminiscent of George W. Bush’s boast that he didn’t read anything
), but what he did read he read “intensely,” says Brooks. How he knows how “intensely” Lincoln read is not explained.
Brooks praises Abe for believing in “hard work,” as though Abraham Lincoln was unique among nineteenth-century Americans in that regard. Brooks praises Lincoln’s “moral vision” that included “a government that built canals and railroads and banks . . .” This, however, was a profoundly immoral
vision for it was based in the immoral mercantilist agenda of corporate welfare for canal-building and railroad corporations. By Lincoln’s time there already had been several decades of immense corruption and financial disaster surrounding state government subsidies for such “internal improvements,” including a colossal financial debacle in Illinois that was the work of Illinois state legislator Abraham Lincoln, leader of the Whig Party in the state in the late 1830s.
The original national bank – the Bank of the United States – was so corrupt and economically destabilizing that Congress refused to renew its original charter, and President Andrew Jackson successfully vetoed its refunding. This “Whiggish vision” of political corruption based on economic ignorance was Lincoln’s “north star,” writes David Brooks.
Brooks has apparently read Lincoln’s Melancholy
, for in his Times
article he repeats the standard excuse but with a minor twist: “His experience of depression and suffering gave him a radical self-honesty.” To some, severe depression that gives a person a psychotic split personality is worrisome; to David Brooks, it meant in Lincoln’s case that “He had the double-minded personality that we need in all our leaders.”
Brooks says that Lincoln was “an exceptionally poor hater,” yet he micromanaged the waging of war on Southern civilians for four long years and praised and promoted generals like Sherman who committed these war crimes. He was supposedly “able to see his enemy’s point of view,” yet he refused to meet with Confederate Peace Commissioners before the war to discuss Southern payments for federal property, and endorsed a military policy of unconditional surrender.
Brooks ends his farcical article with the sad declaration that in the next presidential election, “We will not get a Lincoln.” Amen to that.
Thomas J. DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln;
;Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe
, How Capitalism Saved America
, Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today
. His latest book is Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government
By Jimmy Ward:
Below is an excellent article written in 2001 by Thomas DiLorenzo, a professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland. He has written several books on the subject of Lincoln, along with other historical events. I've underlined and highlighted particular points.
For much of my adult life I've vectored any discussion of Lincoln around his true legacy of unconstitutional actions, specifically the forced illegal invasion of the Southern States and suspension of habeas corpus in the north. However, most heinous and still a contentious boil in the South was the unconscionable warfare Lincoln sanctioned against the civilian populace. Most notable for such atrocities were Union Generals Philip Sheridan and William Sherman, who were rewarded by Lincoln for their cowardly / savage attacks against civilians in the Shenandoah Valley and Georgia-Southern campaigns respectively. Course, there were lesser notable yankee officers who directed their troops against civilians, though not all engaged in this criminal act.
Scripturally speaking, a comparison can be made regarding Amalek, leader of a semi-nomadic people known for their craven, rapacious nature, who attacked the Hebrews during the Exodus. Lincoln acted the role of Amalek, while Sheridan and Sherman, along with their troops, acted the role of the Amalekites. If you recall in a recent post, the Amalekites were distinguished in the holy Scripture by two villainous characteristics: cruelty and cowardice.
In every scriptural story in which an Amalekite is privileged to participate, the reader witnesses this extraordinarily evil people not only committing cruel acts, but at the same time committing those acts in an unashamedly cowardly manner. They were warriors, yes, but they were not noble warriors. They never fought a fair fight, as Moses reported in Deuteronomy 25:17-19. The Amalekites did not attack the army of Israel. Rather, said the man of God, Amalek "smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God." They attacked the stragglers, those in Israel who were too ill, too weak, or too young to protect themselves, perhaps even women and children. This best illustrates what Lincoln and his yankee horde committed against Southern civilians.
Though Obama, our current White House mosqued Muslim Mole, has earned a prominent spot in the "worst Presidents" discussion, no one has eclipsed the magnitude of brutality and destruction against his own people like Lincoln. Before Obama, Lincoln was the template of "fundamental transformation" as our original Constitution was destroyed by his hand, establishing an unsavory precedent for future administrations and Congress. Course, the Greek / Roman-style Lincoln temple in Washington is part of the cloaking device created to deflect the public from the real Lincoln. Most focus on select Lincoln quotes while surrendering to the false delivery of slavery and preserving the union as an excuse for his barbarism.
In Exodus 17:8-16, we are told that the Amalekites "came and fought with Israel", and that the Lord was so furious with the Amalekites that He swore to "have war with Amalek from generation to generation."
Fact is: No one was more worthy of death on April 14th, 1865 than Lincoln - America's Amalek.Article below posted referenced by Jimmy Ward is posted herein by The Confederate Society. Dr. DiLorenzo has allowed the Society to post his essay.
By Thomas DiLorenzo:
One hundred thirty-six years after General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Americans are still fascinated with the War for Southern Independence. The larger bookstores devote an inordinate amount of shelf space to books about the events and personalities of the war; Ken Burns’s "Civil War" television series and the movie "Gettysburg" were blockbuster hits; dozens of new books on the war are still published every year; and a monthly newspaper, Civil War News, lists literally hundreds of seminars, conferences, reenactments, and memorial events related to the war in all 50 states and the District of Columbia all year long. Indeed, many Northerners are "still fighting the war" in that they organize a political mob whenever anyone attempts to display a Confederate heritage symbol in any public place.
Americans are still fascinated by the war because many of us recognize it as the defining event in American history. Lincoln’s war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the "rewriting" of the Constitution by federal judges, "total war," the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big "problem solver." Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln’s war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians.
Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln’s war.
In 1863 there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that sought to codify international law with regard to the conduct of war. What the convention sought to do was to take the principles of "civilized" warfare that had evolved over the previous century, and declare them to be a part of international law that should be obeyed by all civilized societies. Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army.
The Swiss jurist Emmerich de Vattel (1714-67, author of The Law of Nations
, was the world’s expert on the proper conduct of war at the time. "The people, the peasants, the citizens, take no part in it, and generally have nothing to fear from the sword of the enemy," Vattel wrote. As long as they refrain from hostilities themselves they "live in as perfect safety as if they were friends." Occupying soldiers who would destroy private property should be regard as "savage barbarians."
In 1861 the leading American expert in international law as it relates to the proper conduct of war was the San Francisco attorney Henry Halleck, a former army officer and West Point instructor whom Abraham Lincoln appointed General-in-Chief of the federal armies in July of 1862. Halleck was the author of the book, International Law
, which was used as a text at West Point and essentially echoed Vattel’s writing.
On April 24, 1863, the Lincoln administration seemed to adopt the precepts of international law as expressed by the Geneva Convention, Vattel, and Halleck, when it issued General Order No. 100, known as the "Lieber Code." The Code’s author was the German legal scholar Francis Leiber, an advisor to Otto von Bismarck and a staunch advocate of centralized governmental power. In his writings Lieber denounced the federal system of government created by the American founding fathers as having created "confederacies of petty sovereigns" and dismissed the Jeffersonian philosophy of government as a collection of "obsolete ideas."
In Germany he was arrested several times for subversive activities. He was a perfect ideological fit with Lincoln’s own political philosophy and was just the man Lincoln wanted to outline the rules of war for his administration.
The Lieber Code paid lip service to the notion that civilians should not be targeted in war, but it contained a giant loophole: Federal commanders were permitted to completely ignore the Code if, "in their discretion," the events of the war would warrant that they do so. In other words, the Lieber Code was purely propaganda. The fact is, the Lincoln government intentionally targeted civilians from the very beginning of the war. The administration’s battle plan was known as the "Anaconda Plan" because it sought to blockade all Southern ports and inland waterways and starving the Southern civilian economy. Even drugs and medicines were on the government’s list of items that were to be kept out of the hands of Southerners, as far as possible.
As early as the first major battle of the war, the Battle of First Manassas in July of 1861, federal soldiers were plundering and burning private homes in the Northern Virginia countryside. Such behavior quickly became so pervasive that on June 20, 1862 — one year into the war — General George McClellan, the commanding general of the Army of the Potomac, wrote Lincoln a letter imploring him to see to it that the war was conducted according to "the highest principles known to Christian civilization" and to avoid targeting the civilian population to the extent that that was possible. Lincoln replaced McClellan a few months later and ignored his letter.
Most Americans are familiar with General William Tecumseh Sherman’s "march to the sea" in which his army pillaged, plundered, raped, and murdered civilians as it marched through Georgia in the face of scant military opposition.
But such atrocities had been occurring for the duration of the war; Sherman’s March was nothing new.
In 1862 Sherman was having difficulty subduing Confederate sharpshooters who were harassing federal gunboats on the Mississippi River near Memphis. He then adopted the theory of "collective responsibility" to "justify" attacking innocent civilians in retaliation for such attacks. He burned the entire town of Randolph, Tennessee, to the ground. He also began taking civilian hostages and either trading them for federal prisoners of war or executing them.
Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, were also burned to the ground by Sherman’s troops even though there was no Confederate army there to oppose them. After the burnings his soldiers sacked the town, stealing anything of value and destroying the rest. As Sherman biographer John Marzalek writes, his soldiers "entered residences, appropriating whatever appeared to be of value . . . those articles which they could not carry they broke."
After the destruction of Meridian Sherman boasted that "for five days, ten thousand of our men worked hard and with a will, in that work of destruction, with axes, sledges, crowbars, clawbars, and with fire…. Meridian no longer exists."
In The Hard Hand of War
historian Mark Grimsley argues that Sherman has been unfairly criticized as the "father" of waging war on civilians because he "pursued a policy quite in keeping with that of other Union commanders from Missouri to Virginia." Fair enough. Why blame just Sherman when such practices were an essential part of Lincoln’s entire war plan and were routinely practiced by all federal commanders? Sherman was just the most zealous of all federal commanders in targeting Southern civilians, which is apparently why he became one of Lincoln’s favorite generals.
In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson said that any secessionists should be allowed to "stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." But by 1864 Sherman would announce that "to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy." In 1862 Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the war would be "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people" of the South. His loving and gentle wife wrote back that her wish was for "a war of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing."
The Geneva Convention of 1863 condemned the bombardment of cities occupied by civilians, but Lincoln ignored all such restrictions on his behavior
. The bombardment of Atlanta destroyed 90 percent of the city, after which the remaining civilian residents were forced to depopulate the city just as winter was approaching and the Georgia countryside had been stripped of food by the federal army. In his memoirs Sherman boasted that his army destroyed more than $100 million in private property and carried home $20 million more during his "march to the sea."
Sherman was not above randomly executing innocent civilians as part of his (and Lincoln’s) terror campaign. In October of 1864 he ordered a subordinate, General Louis Watkins, to go to Fairmount, Georgia, "burn ten or twelve houses" and "kill a few at random," and "let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon." Another Sherman biographer, Lee Kennett, found that in Sherman’s army "the New York regiments were . . . filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World."
Although it is rarely mentioned by "mainstream" historians, many acts of rape were committed by these federal soldiers. The University of South Carolina’s library contains a large collection of thousands diaries and letters of Southern women that mention these unspeakable atrocities
Shermans’ band of criminal looters (known as "bummers") sacked the slave cabins as well as the plantation houses. As Grimsley describes it, "With the utter disregard for blacks that was the norm among Union troops, the soldiers ransacked the slave cabins, taking whatever they liked." A routine procedure would be to hang a slave by his neck until he told federal soldiers where the plantation owners’ valuables were hidden.
General Philip Sheridan is another celebrated "war hero" who followed in Sherman’s footsteps in attacking defenseless civilians. After the Confederate army had finally evacuated the Shenandoah Valley in the autumn of 1864
Sheridan’s 35,000 infantry troops essentially burned the entire valley to the ground. As Sheridan described it in a letter to General Grant, in the first few days he "destroyed over 2200 barns . . . over 70 mills . . . have driven in front of the army over 4000 head of stock, and have killed . . . not less than 3000 sheep. . . . Tomorrow I will continue the destruction."
In letters home Sheridan’s troops described themselves as "barn burners" and "destroyers of homes." One soldier wrote home that he had personally set 60 private homes on fire and opined that "it was a hard looking sight to see the women and children turned out of doors at this season of the year."
A Sergeant William T. Patterson wrote that "the whole country around is wrapped in flames, the heavens are aglow with the light thereof . . . such mourning, such lamentations, such crying and pleading for mercy [by defenseless women]… I never saw or want to see again."
As horrific as the burning of the Shenandoah Valley was, Grimsley concluded that it was actually "one of the more controlled acts of destruction during the war’s final year." After it was all over Lincoln personally conveyed to Sheridan "the thanks of the Nation."
Sherman biographer Lee Kennett is among the historians who bend over backwards to downplay the horrors of how Lincoln waged war on civilians. Just recently, he published an article in the Atlanta Constitution arguing that Sherman wasn’t such a bad guy after all and should not be reviled by Georgians as much as he is. But even Kennett admitted in his biography of Sherman that: Had the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified…in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violations of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants. Sherman himself admitted after the war that he was taught at West Point that he could be hanged for the things he did.
But in war the victors always write the history and are never punished for war crimes, no matter how heinous. Only the defeated suffer that fate. That is why very few Americans are aware of the fact that the unspeakable atrocities of war committed against civilians, from the firebombing of Dresden, the rape of Nanking, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to the World Trade Center bombings, had their origins in Lincoln’s war.
This is yet another reason why Americans will continue their fascination with the War for Southern Independence.
Marx and Lincoln, pen pals and two peas in a pod.
By Thomas DiLorenzoReprinted from LewRockwell.com. Dr. DiLorenzo is a friend of the Confederate Society.
Should the Polish people memorialize fellow Poles who collaborated with the Soviets? This of course is a preposterous question to ask, yet the “logic” displayed in a recent National Review
article suggests that the answer to the question would be an unequivocal “yes.”
The article in question is “The Romance of the Confederacy” by one Josh Gelernter (March 28 issue), who is identified as someone who “writes for National Review
and The Weekly Standard
.” In this article Gelernter points out that there were Southerners in the Union Army during the War to Prevent Southern Independence. In border states like Maryland, for instance, about half the men who fought were on the Union side. Rather than memorializing the ancestors of the vast majority of Southerners — the foot soldiers of the Confederate Army, almost none of whom owned slaves (as Gelernter admits) — it is this class of traitors who should be honored and memorialized instead, he writes. Southerners should “abandon the Confederacy” and embrace “the heritage of Southern Unionists.” To your average Southerner, this would be identical to the Polish people memorializing and honoring their fellow countrymen who collaborated with the Soviets.
Gelernter begins his preposterous proposal with quotations of some of Lincoln’s more outlandishly false and phony commentary. He quotes Lincoln as being opposed to men who “wrung their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces,” but omits the fact that in his first inaugural address Lincoln pledged his full support of the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering in Southern slavery. In that speech Lincoln declared that, in his opinion, slavery was already constitutional (as opposed to the opinion of Lysander Spooner, author of The Unconstitutionality of Slavery), and that he had “no objection” to making it “express and irrevocable” in the text of the U.S. Constitution. Lincoln’s real position, based on his actions and not just his pretty words, was that it was fine and dandy for a man to wring his bread from another man’s brow as long as he kept paying federal taxes.
In the same sentence Gelernter also quotes another piece of nineteenth-century Republican Party propaganda – that the South seceded to “extend” slavery. The truth is that by seceding the South no longer had any chance of “extending” slavery into the new U.S. government
territories. It was equally absurd for Lincoln to argue that the South would somehow be able to bring slavery back to Massachusetts and other Northern states, yet Gelernter cites such words as though they were Sacred Truth.
Gelernter also quotes Dishonest Abe as accusing the South of wanting “to make war rather than let the nation survive.” But it was Lincoln who invaded the Southern states, committing a clear act of treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, that defines treason as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them
, or in adhering to their
Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort (emphasis added).” The “United States” is always in the plural in all the founding documents, signifying that what is being referred to are the free and independent states, not
something called “the United States government.” Levying war upon the Southern states is of course exactly what Lincoln did. The South seceded; it did not intend to invade and conquer the North. It was the “Yankees” who wanted to invade, conquer, plunder, and occupy the South, and they succeeded.
As to the comment by Lincoln, quoted by Gelernter, that Southerners would “make war rather than let the nation survive,” it is important to note that the founders did not create a consolidated “nation” but a confederacy or voluntary
union of states. Lincoln’s war destroyed
union of states created by the founders. It was the South that fought for the principle of a voluntary union; the North fought to replace it with acoerced
union held together by the mass murder of war and the perpetual threat thereof. If this sounds similar to the Soviet
Union, that’s because it is. That is why, to this day, if someone asks the question, “What do you think the federal government would do if a state seceded?,” most Americans would probably immediately think of some form of mass violence and invasion as the answer.
Gelernter inadvertently illustrates just how unpopular the military invasion of the South was among Northerners. In addition to creating an army of slaves through military conscription, with the Union Army eventually shooting deserters on a daily basis, the Lincoln administration employed at least 1 million foreign mercenaries, as Gelernter admits. While hundreds of thousands of Northern men were evading the draft or leaving the battlefield by the tens of thousands on the eve of battle (seeDesertion in the Civil War
by Ella Lonn), the Lincoln administration was bribing foreigners to join its army with promises of free land under the Homestead Act. Thus hordes of foreign mercenaries, many of who did not even speak English, were recruited to march South to supposedly teach (at gunpoint) the descendants of Southern-born Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Tyler, Taylor, Polk, and Jackson what it really meant to be an American.
The Southern men who sided with the enemy against their own families and neighbors participated in the waging of war on Southern civilians for four long years. This included the bombardment of entire cities like Charleston and Atlanta when there were no enemy soldiers there, massive looting, plundering, and destruction of private property, and the gang rape of Southern women, white and black, but especially black, by U.S. Army “soldiers.” (See Crystal Reimster, “Rape and Justice in the Civil War,” New York Times
, April 25, 2013). According to James McPherson in his book, Battle Cry of Freedom
, at least 50,000 Southern civilians perished during the war. Standardizing for today’s population, that would be the equivalent of roughly 500,000 American civilians murdered by the U.S. government for the “crime” of believing that the union of states was voluntary. But Southern men who assisted in the perpetration of these war crimes deserve to be honored by Southerners according to the New York neocons at National Review
and The Weekly Standard
Gelernter ends his preposterous proposal by invoking a song
(!) written by one of General Sherman’s “bummers” (as his looting, plundering, and murdering-of-civilians “soldiers” were called) that includes lyrics implying that when Sherman’s Army showed up in South Carolina there supposedly many Southern men who “wept with joyful tears” and could hardly “be restrained from breaking forth in tears” upon seeing the U.S. flag. Only a mindless, flag-waving moron could believe such a thing.
Thomas J. DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln;
;Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe
, How Capitalism Saved America
, Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today
. His latest book is Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government
by Al Benson Jr.
On April 6th I read an article by a thoroughly politically correct gentleman named Charles J. Dean on the website www.al.com
dealing with the so-called "end" of the "Civil War." I don't know where Mr. Dean learned his history, but Lenin could not have taught him any better.
Mr. Dean noted in his article: "On April 9, 1865 General Robert E. Lee surrendered his sword and his Army of Northern Virginia to Gen. Ulysses Simpson Grant marking the end of the Civil War." Mr. Dean has swallowed the fiction most of us were programmed with in government schools--namely that Appomattox was the end of the War and that was it.
Actually, all General Lee surrendered at Appomattox was the Army of Northern Virginia and no more. He could have surrendered all the Southern armies in the field but he did not do that. And there were other Confederate armies in the field. Joe Johnston in North Carolina did not surrender until April 26th and there were others after that. And the Confederate Government never did officially surrender. Jeff Davis and his cabinet fled Richmond and continued to try to govern on the road. Some were eventually captured and some were not. But no official surrender. And I think the last battle of the War, officially, was fought at Palmito Ranch in Texas in either late May or sometime in June, I can't recall which right now.
But Mr. Dean, in his verbal assault on the South says: "But all these many years later I sometimes wonder if that bloody war for some of you has ever ended. Or if some of you have ever accepted the defeat the South was dealt." He then went on to write about how the Confederate Flag was "racist" from its inception and how the South fought to maintain slavery. You've seen and heard it all before. Most of it can best be described as the usual Cultural Genocide perpetrated by Yankee/Marxist propagandists since the end of the War--and the fact that it is still being propagated shows that, for the Yankees, the War never really ended. Oh, the shooting part ended alright, but the Cultural part has continued for 150 years now, thanks to Northern vitriol--and shows no signs of diminishing.
Thankfully, quite a number of folks contacted Mr. Dean to disabuse him of the Yankee/Marxist propaganda he was pushing and I guess, from his comments, some of them were rather less than polite. Although from reading his comments, I don't think it would have made any difference if all the replies had been the epitome of politeness and correctness. They would not have been able to confuse him with the facts.
I've told this story before, but it bears repeating. I know a preacher who is also a historian and one time he talked with someone that told him, quite bluntly "You lost the War, get over it." To which he replied that the South could accept having lost the War but what they couldn't accept was the fact that the North tried to destroy their culture (and is still trying). That's what they could not accept. In regard to the South and her culture, Cultural Genocide (Cultural Marxism) has reigned in this country almost since the War ended. "Reconstruction" and Yankee public schools were the start of it and it has gone on, to one degree or another, for decades now. It still continues. The present-day "reconstruction" crowd is bound and determined to remove any and all memories of Southern culture--flags, statues, place names, street and park names, all of it. It must all be annihilated--except for the memory of slavery (which the North also had, but that fact has been conveniently swept under the rug). The memory of slavery will, they hope, produced "white guilt" in the South and maybe from that the reparations crowd can accrue a little of the long green from the guilt-ridden. In other words, much of it is a scam.
And they have made lots of Southern folks feel guilty when the should not have. And as far as "racism" there was every bit as much of that in the North (still is) as there was in the South. It just doesn't get talked about because the real agenda is to prostrate the old, Christian South. That's what it's all about. So, in reality, the North has been fighting a culture war against the South since Appomattox--and before. Southern folks should quit buying into the guilt trip, start doing some homework and pointing out the sins of the North--and there are many to be pointed out.
I speak as someone who was born in the North, but I've lived in the South for over twelve years now, and I've watch how Northern Marxists play this Alinskyite game against the South and most Southern folks seem too polite to resist. Folks, start resisting! Do the homework, find out where your accusers are really coming from (the hard left) and start exposing them as the Scripture commands in Ephesians 5:11.
POSTED BY AL BENSON JR. AT 4/09/2015 0 comments
3/19/2015It's All Cultural Genocide
by Al Benson Jr.
This may not seem to some folks to have much to do with Southern heritage and the Cultural Genocide agenda that is being perpetrated on the South but actually, the two situations run in tandem with one another.
A friend in the Confederate Society of America sent me this. The title of it is: "Black Student Union Wants Campus Building Renamed After Most-Wanted Cop Killer." And this happened, where else, but the University of California at Berkeley, the Marxist Mecca of the West (left) Coast. The commentary I received continues: "UC Berkeley, the pinnacle of activist colleges, allows for a Black student union--a problem in itself, (can you imagine the fuss is someone wanted a white student union). This so-called 'union' is pressing to rename a campus building after a cop-killing black female, who murdered a New Jersey State Trooper in 1973 and then fled to Cuba. Assata Shakur, formerly known as Joanne Chesimard, is a former black panther and the first woman on the FBI's 'Most Wanted' terrorists. I'm sure she's quite worthy of such a distinction at such a liberal/progressive college as UC Berkeley."
My friend noted that, for about 25 years, similar groups across the country, most especially in the South, have been pressing, usually with success, to rename buildings, bridges, streets, parks and all manner of other things that have anything to do with the Confederacy or Confederate Veterans. Groups have been recently involved in removing Confederate flags in Lexington, Virginia at Washington and Lee University which, if some had their way, would probably be renamed Marx and Lenin University! Lee/Jackson Day will soon be only a fond memory in Charlottesville, Virginia, thanks to the efforts of some "community organizers" in that fair city. "Community organizers!" Where have you heard that term before?
A few valiant Confederate heritage groups have protested much of this, but they are small and don't get much help or support from other patriotic groups. Years ago, I recall a flap over Confederate flags in a cemetery where Confederate soldiers were buried and the Sons of Union Veterans spoke up and supported the Confederates. Not much of that going on today. Now there is even a move to remove US flags at certain "progressive" campuses around the country and veterans groups are all up in arms over it. But they weren't too keen on supporting the Confederate groups in a similar situation. I wonder if they expect support now from the Confederate groups in the name of "patriotism."
Years ago, probably about 20 now, some of us said that when these Marxist (and they are Marxist) groups had finished mangling the Confederate flag they would proceed to go after the US flag. Nobody wanted to hear it. Well, folks, the day has arrived and most are still clueless. My friend stated: "This is because too many 'good people' are clueless as to Marxist methodology and therefore are clueless as to how to prosecute a war to stop their aggression/takeover. Eventually, they will show up at your front door."
This is all the result of a century of propaganda against the South first, and then all of America next, by "progressive" (socialist) politicians, college professors, and even some "useful idiot" preachers. This kind of thing is NOT happening by accident and these events are not "coincidental." There is an agenda behind it all and until Southern folks begin to wake up and realize that and to realize they have to help each other combat this sort of thing, it will continue--until all your parks, streets, schools, and whatever else, have undergone name changes and are now named after Marxists and socialists who have been responsible for tearing down the country, beginning with the South.
About now some good Christian folks will speak up and say--"Hey, don't worry about this, the Lord is in control" and He is, no doubt of that. But maybe, just maybe, He might want to use YOU to exercise some of that control in these situations and you ain't having any. Think about that.
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
(reprinted with permission from Lewrockwell.com)
Two weeks ago Starbucks was forced to abandon a widely ridiculed campaign to promote discussion of race in America by writing “Race Together” on coffee cups. The Right criticized it as another self-righteous exercise in p.c., while the Left complained that a discussion starter introduced by a rich product of “white privilege” like Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz wasn’t quite leftist enough.
Over at EPJ, Bob Wenzel pointed out the not-exactly-unexpected finding that Schultz lives in a part of Seattle called Madison Park, whose 1,538 residents include a mere 80 black people. And in fact, Schultz lives in an especially exclusive part of Madison Park: a nine-house gated community that doesn’t exactly “look like America,” if I may borrow a phrase.
To help push the discussion along, Starbucks also ran an advertisement in USA Today
, in the form of a questionnaire, demanding to know how many times per year we’ve hosted someone of another race at our homes, and how many times customers had dined with people of a different race. It is evidently not enough for people to make uncoerced decisions regarding their friendships and social lives; they should instead choose their friends on the basis of percentages and bean counting.
The Starbucks fiasco pointed to a broader point: almost no one calling for a frank discussion of race really wants one. What they want is an echo chamber. They want to hear the same ideological assumptions behind racial differences in income, employment, and education thoughtlessly repeated. Since those assumptions are false, these discussions produce nothing of value. Just more misplaced resentment, anger, and frustration.
The usual “discussion about race” we are supposed to have involves attributing racial differences in income and employment to “discrimination,” oppression, and “white privilege,” and then coming up with suitable programs of penance and redistribution. But as Thomas Sowell has shown, differences in income and employment between groups exist all over the world, in a great multitude of situations; he even points to plenty of cases in which groups suffering official state discrimination have outperformed a country’s majority population. Sowell has also demonstrated that when we correct for age, geographical location, education, and other relevant demographic factors, the racial income gap in the US essentially disappears.
As for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sowell reveals already-existing trends in black employment that few know about and no one mentions, and finds that the Act did not accelerate those trends:
In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s – when there was little or no civil rights policy – than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday.
The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less
than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act). If one takes into account the growing black population by looking at percentages instead of absolute numbers, it becomes even clearer that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented no acceleration in trends that had been going on for many years. The percentage of employed blacks who were managers and administrators was the same in 1967 as in 1964 – and 1960. Nor did the institution of “goals and timetables” at the end of 1971 mark any acceleration in the long trend of rising black representation in these occupations. True, there was an appreciable increase in the percentage of blacks in professional and technical fields from 1971 to 1972, but almost entirely offset by a reduction in the percentage of blacks who were managers and administrators.
By 1980, in fact, college-educated black couples were earning slightly more than whites of the same description. Similar long-term upward trends are evident for Asians and Hispanics as well.
Ah, but correcting for education merely conceals the inequities, a critic might say: given the lousy education they wind up getting, no wonder blacks are underrepresented.
It’s certainly true that the state gives these kids a rotten education. But that can’t be the full explanation of what we are seeing. When students of different races were asked what grades would get them into trouble with their parents, Asian students responded that it was anything below A-. The threshold for white students, on the other hand, was B-, and for black students it was C-. This is the tip of the iceberg of a problem that those who urge us to discuss race don’t really seem to want investigated.
If anything, the so-called privilege we hear so much about runs in reverse. Blacks are admitted into education and employment despite much poorer average credentials.
Some of us are old enough to recall the leak at Georgetown Law School two decades ago, revealing that blacks who had much lower test scores than whites were being admitted. But this wasn’t really news: only 17 black students in the entire country had at least the average LSAT score of a Georgetown student, and Georgetown was admitting 70 black students.
For those who pretend these differences are attributable to class differences, the data provide little comfort. In fact, the racial gap in educational achievement is only slightly smaller when social class is held constant.
Are blacks underrepresented in academia because of “racism”? This thesis began to be advanced in all seriousness in the late 1980s, even though US universities were tearing each other limb from limb in competition for the small number of qualified black candidates. And that, not “racism,” is the issue. The 25 blacks who earned doctorates in mathematics in the US in 2009, for example, were only 1.6 percent of all doctorates in the field given out by US universities. For engineering the figure was 1.8 percent.
That year, not a single black student earned a PhD in agronomy, animal breeding and nutrition, astronomy, astrophysics, chemical and physical oceanography, classics, horticulture, logic, marine science, number theory, nuclear physics, nuclear engineering, paleontology, Spanish, theoretical chemistry, or wildlife/range management. Perhaps this, rather than the automatic assumption of white wickedness, has more to do with it.
Then there is crime. Jason Riley, author of Please Stop Helping Us
, describes the situation:
Today blacks are about 13 percent of the population and continue to be responsible for an inordinate amount of crime. Between 1976 and 2005 blacks committed more than half of all murders in the United States. The black arrest rate for most offenses — including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes — is still typically two to three times their representation in the population. Blacks as a group are also overrepresented among persons arrested for so-called white-collar crimes such as counterfeiting, fraud and embezzlement. And blaming this decades-long, well-documented trend on racist cops, prosecutors, judges, sentencing guidelines and drug laws doesn’t cut it as a plausible explanation.
And according to William Stuntz, the late Harvard Law professor, “High rates of black violence in the late twentieth century are a matter of historical fact, not bigoted imagination. The trends reached their peak not in the land of Jim Crow but in the more civilized North, and not in the age of segregation but in the decades that saw the rise of civil rights for African Americans – and of African American control of city governments.”
The kind of conversation Starbucks and the rest of the “racism” industry wants us to have about race expects us to chalk all this up to “racism” – or “institutional” or “structural” racism, a phenomenon that apparently failed to affect Chinese- and Japanese-Americans, who have been despised by all sectors of American society, whether labor unions in the 19th century or hyper-patriots in the 20th, with Japanese-Americans even being confined in camps during World War II. But they had matched whites in income by 1959, and were earning one-third more just a decade later. The success of Chinese- and Japanese-Americans, in fact, has created such difficulty for the discriminationists that those groups have now been conflated with less successful Samoans, Hawaiians, and Vietnamese, in a category called “Asian and Pacific Islanders,” in order to make their achievements look less impressive.
If anyone wanted a free and genuine discussion of race, it would have to be honest enough to include issues like these. Such a discussion might also include, along the lines of Walter Williams’ book The State Against Blacks
, some mention of how the state makes life difficult for the poor, how the minimum wage eerily parallels black teenage unemployment, and how labor unions have been a protectionist racket intended to protect white workers against competition.
If the phrase “Race Together” can be made meaningful at all, it would have to mean an attitude of genuine good will between the races, as opposed to the condescending oppressor-and-oppressed model that has yielded us such perverse results. Professor Williams jokes that he received his Ph.D. in economics “back when it wasn’t fashionable for white people to like black people.” What he meant by that, obviously, wasn’t that it’s good for members of one race not to get along with those of another, but that in those days his professors felt comfortable treating him just like everyone else, without the condescending tokenism and pats on the head that would later become so prevalent. When he spouted nonsense, they told him so. And he’s a better scholar for it.
What is holding back nonwhites is not a lack of good will by white people, or inadequate wealth redistribution or coercive special privilege. For all the talk of white “racism,” whites have yielded countless university and employment spots, at the expense of their own children, to nonwhites who would not otherwise have been accepted. And for an indication of what trillions in welfare-state spending have yielded, one need only take a glance at Detroit, or take a stroll down the corridor of an inner-city school.
The double standards, the demonization of whites, the use of the “racism” slur, the race hustlers who profit from inciting hatred – all of this would have to go if we are truly to “Race Together.”