Mailvox: the whitewashing of Lincoln

It’s kind of sad when Electric Six presents a more accurate view of Abraham Lincoln than most mainstream historians. AJ wishes to better understand why:

My father recommended to me a book called “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War” by Thomas DiLorenzo. I’m not sure if you’ve read it or heard of it – I’m guessing that you have – but this book’s main focus is Lincoln’s rape of the Constitution, and the downfall of state sovereignty. Checking out the sources DiLorenzo used – as amateur as I may be in that area – they all look legit.

I’ve never really been a Lincoln fan in the first place, but this book made me sick to my stomach. Other books I have read and sources I have looked at, among them Murray Rothbard’s “Just War”, corroborate all of the evidence that Lincoln was a liar, power hungry, and a sociopath of the highest order. His Emancipation Proclamation was designed to provoke slave uprisings in states where the North did not have control, knowing full well that only women and children remained in those areas – yet it is hailed and revered as one of the greatest and most moving speeches ever given by a president. He has his face on Mount Rushmore, on our currency, a memorial in DC, and his own day in February – the same man who suspended the writ of habeas corpus, muzzled the press when it spoke out against him, imprisoned thousands of NORTHERNERS for political dissent (re: clamoring for peaceful secession) and is described as a dictator by even his most ardent of historians (though a benevolent one, they insist).

If people knew the truth about Lincoln – specifically the blacks who hold him up as the Great Emancipator, despite his desire to ship them all out to Africa and/or South America to preserve the “purity” of America – life in America would be drastically changed. And if they saw the similarities between the goings on before the War of Northern Aggression and what’s going on now, they might see some disquieting parallels. The only difference is that our current president doesn’t have to muzzle the media – they’re his already. The least of his crimes were against civil liberties, and the worst was starting the bloodiest war on American soil for the sole reason of destroying state sovereignty. Dishonesty in science and archaeology usually just annoys me, but I consider it par for the course. The same goes for most historians, but this is just too great to ignore. This makes me angry, and it should make everyone else angry, too, if they weren’t so historically ignorant.

I’m sure you know all of this already, and have probably written about it before, but my question is this: WHY have historians ignored Lincoln’s obvious agenda and wickedness? Why have they painted him in such a false light? I understand this isn’t anything new for history writing, but all of the evidence is there. I understand dishonesty in certain arenas, but against a corrupt politician? Historians usually revel in that sort of thing. Why does Lincoln get a free pass?

AJ answered her own question when she said “If people knew the truth about Lincoln… life in America would be drastically changed.” Lincoln is a secular saint for the same reason that the Roman Senate deified Octavian Augustus – he was the first emperor of Imperial America. Lincoln was, without a doubt, the worst president the united States of America because he murdered what had been a free and voluntary republican confederation in the name of a Federal Union imposed by violence.

Naturally, the would-be totalitarians of today revere him. But every freedom-loving American, black or white, should mark the end of the Republic by him. Sic semper tyrannis.

Rookie mistake

Rand Paul hasn’t quite figured out the art of dealing with critics looking for gotchas:

Rand Paul is coming under attack for things he said about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed race discrimination in privately owned restaurants and hotels.

First of all, I would absolutely voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which is an egregious violation against property rights as well as the Constitutional Right of Free Association. That being said, it is remarkably stupid for any politician, of any party, to comment upon what he would or would not have done had he been voting on a bill 46 years ago.

The correct response would have been to say: “Rachel, I have no more intention of speculating about how I would have voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than I have of speculating how I would have voted on the Declaration of War against Spain of 1898 or the Proclamation of Imperial Divinity of 14 AD. I was not a Senator in either Washington DC or Rome at the time of those previous votes, and while hypothetical speculation is always interesting, it’s simply not relevant to a Kentucky Senate campaign in 2010.”

Of course, if she pressed further, I would answer the question as if she had asked about the Augustan godhood. “Well, Rachel, there’s no question that Octavian accomplished great things and reunified the empire after it was riven by a series of failed triumvirates and the subsequent civil wars, but I’m not sure it actually required the mind of a deity to outthink Marc Antony.” If your interlocutor is being silly, the idea is to respond in a way that highlights the inherent silliness of his approach, not be dragged down into the mire of the ridiculous.

Mailvox: where is the love?

KC is concerned about my willingness to express my opinion about others’ capacity for applied intelligence:

Vox, I enjoy reading your blog a lot of the time: you provide interesting stories and insight into them, and I appreciate your faith. However, might I suggest that you refrain from labeling “most people regardless of what they believe” inane/idiots? It seems very judgmental of you and makes me question your fundamental attitude towards humanity or what God is capable of doing in/through the least of us. It often seems as though you place more worth in the intelligence of your fellow man than their fundamental worth in God.

An impoverished farmer in Korea that has received no education and is, by all secular account, worthless intellectually could have MUCH more to teach me about the Kingdom of God due to his close relationship with God than the most highly acclaimed theological intellectuals.

Acts 13When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. 14But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say.

All I am saying is that Jesus “cherished” the unlovely and unintelligent because they were human. You might not have MEANT that uneducated/unintelligent believers are to be “cherished” less in an absolute sense, as I know you are speaking to an intellectual wanting to learn intelligent Christian arguments. However the basis of faith and love of God is not primarily supposed to come from our ability to grasp high falutin arguments but a fundamental heart change and love of God and neighbor. Valuing intellectualism above this makes it an idol as abhorrant as the golden calf. 1st and 2nd commandments, man.

I know, and you know, you’re a lot more intelligent than many people in a lot of ways however that really means nothing in God’s eyes, as he has given us all everything we have. What we will be judged on is our hearts, and our hearts are only changed when we willingly submit ourselves to his desire for us, greatest of which is for us to LOVE. I don’t know you and don’t want to presume to have more insight into your attitude than I do. However, you – I think you know this – very often do not present yourself as loving and hurting for humanity (actually I seem to recall you boasting about your arrogance!), but as an annoyed and in some instances even amused observer at the shortcomings, failings, and sin of your fellow man. For instance, you more quickly laugh at the deeply delusional feminist who is in confusion about how her former choices have led to her current pain than show compassion. Obviously her choices were/are bad and she is not accurately perceiving reality but should we LAUGH AT her? Is that would Jesus would do? Is that the attitude God wants you to cultivate in yourself and share with others? Or should you feel deep compassion for the pain her sins have caused her and the state of the secular world that is so deeply influencing people to make decisions that will lead them to eternal condemnation?

Anyway, I hope that you will receive this with an open heart and not attack me if you do respond to me. I don’t know if anyone else has shared this with you but it from what I have observed, it is area in your life that is not congruent with the way Christ would have you think and behave. We are not to cultivate an attitude of mocking, dismissing, and writing off those immersed in this fallen world, but to continually beseech God for a heart of compassion and desire to see them brought to the Light. Have you meditated at all on 1Corinthians 13?

I think KC is operating under a severe misapprehension with regards to my opinion of intelligence. In my opinion, it is no more judgmental to declare that someone is “an idiot” or “inane” than to declare that he is “short” or “brown-eyed” or “Asian”. It’s just an observable fact, based on the individual’s behavior which indicates either a lack of cognitive capacity or a disinclination to use one’s cognitive capacity in a rational manner. While one can argue over the legitimacy of the application of the observation, once the matter has been demonstrated to a reasonable degree, there is no reason beyond the vagaries of etiquette to shy away from applying the correct label to an individual. And Internet etiquette is a very different thing than RL etiquette.

I would be the very last one to argue that God cherishes the unintelligent. Compared to Him, we are all complete idiots and yet He loves some of us anyhow. [Idiots and the Scripturally ignorant will please submit their erroneous arguments about God loving everyone equally here.] And given that I believe an impoverished, uneducated North Korean farmer is more useful and possesses more intrinsic human value than a Goldman Sachs investment banker with an Ivy League diploma, I don’t find it hard to imagine that God might find genuine value in him as well. But love and an accurate summation of cognitive use and capacity are simply two different things. I think it would correct to chastise me if I was walking around and attempting to hurt people by telling them how idiotic they are without any provocation, but that’s simply not the case here.

The statistical fact of the matter is that most people, the overwhelming majority, are functionally sub-normal. Since 50% of the population possesses IQs below 100 and a majority of the population with IQs above 100 observably spend absolutely no time thinking about anything, one can only conclude that most people are idiots regardless of one’s individual vantage point. And we’re all functional idiots from time to time; I could certainly fill weeks of blog posts about my own lapses into functional idiocy.

But getting back to KC’s primary point, I see no love in indulging the idiocy of others and none in enabling idiotic behavior either. I believe the Biblical model is to speak the truth, to provide a clear warning of consequences, and then to let those who willfully choose or are for one reason or another doomed to idiocy experience the full and unmitigated consequences of their actions.

As for any subsequent pointing and laughing, well, KC has probably got a relevant point there. Mea maxima culpa. I shall in the future endeavor to focus solely upon the surgical dissections and leave any amused appreciation of the artistry to others.