Propaganda, Lies, And War

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by James Miller from the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada

Propaganda, Lies, And War

If I asked what the cause of the American Civil War was, would your first answer be slavery?  Would it surprise you to know that slavery was only one grievance the South had with the Lincoln administration?

Up until the first bullet was fired on Fort Sumter, Abraham Lincoln had been leading a type of economic aggression to force the South into initiating the official version of the conflict.  When Lincoln ran for president, his platform was based on Henry Clay-inspired mercantilism where he promised to maintain a high protective tariff that would serve Northern industrial interests while impoverishing the South’s still predominantly agrarian economy.  This, of course, angered the South much like it did when John Quincy Adams imposed the same type of tariff in 1828 which lead to the Nullification Crisis.  With the Morrill Tariff, which increased the tax on dutiable imports by about 70%, put in place by President Buchanan two days before he left office, the South stood ready to secede.  After Lincoln’s inauguration, he began to maneuver the seceding South into firing the first shot by breaking a previously established agreement to not attempt to restock Fort Sumter.  He secretly sent troops the Fort which escalated into what turned out to be the bloodiest war in American history.  Lincoln’s close friend and confidante Senator Orville H. Browning would go on to write in his diary:

He told me that the very first thing placed in his hands after his inauguration was a letter from Major Anderson announcing the impossibility of defending or relieving Sumter.  That he called the cabinet together and consulted General Scott—that Scott concurred with Anderson, and the cabinet, with the exception of PM General Blair were for evacuating the Fort and all the troubles and anxieties of his life had not equalled (sic) those which intervened between this time and the fall of Sumter.  He himself conceived the idea, and proposed sending supplies, without an attempt to reinforce giving notice of the fact to Governor Pickens of S.C.   The plan succeed.  They attacked Sumter—it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could.

Contrary to popular belief, the Civil War was not a fight over slavery but a fight over whether the South was allowed to secede from the union.  Lincoln thought war would rally the North behind his special-interest driven agenda.  The South sent numerous commissioners to Washington in the hopes of finding a peaceful solution to secession.  Lincoln ignored all of them.  As he stated in a letter addressed to Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

So why is this version of the Civil War not taught in public schools?

It’s a simple answer when you consider the driving force of statism.

When Randolph Bourne opined “war is the health of the state,” he was referring to how war is used as a means to enlarge the authority of government over everyday life.  In times of war, the citizenry is told to sacrifice their material well being and freedom for the sake of winning the war and bringing the troops home.  Taxes are raised, central banks inflate, governments borrow massive amounts of money, and economic resources are confiscated to be used in the war effort.  War quickens the state’s march toward totalitarianism as it rallies the public into unquestioned obedience.  Love of country replaces love of self and family.  Mothers and fathers give up their sons (and now daughters) to fight in the state’s bloody crusade.  The heads of government who initiated the conflict don’t let their offspring go and fight.  Their pampered lifestyles usually don’t see the sacrifice taxpayers must endure.

Romanticized retellings of war assist in convincing the masses that the campaigns of murder carried out by political leaders were for the good of the nation.  It enshrines the state as a life-saving guardian to those fortunate enough to not meet a gruesome death on the battlefield.  In the case of the Civil War, Lincoln didn’t just save the union; he has forever made secession a nonviable solution to an overreaching Washington.  Lincoln’s war of northern aggression turned these united States of America into the United States of America.  It cost the equivalent of 6 million lives today for honest Abe to destroy the volunteerism which defined the union of the states in the decades that preceded the war.

Just as the Civil War was triggered by deceit, many of the wars or military conflicts of the past century have been fought based on the lies of a political class all too enamored with their own power and place in history.

Starting with World War I and Woodrow Wilson’s quest to “make the world safe for democracy,” the popularly spun tail is that America’s entering the conflict was in reaction to Germany sinking the supposedly innocent passenger vessel the Lusitania.  After German subs sunk the ship, thereby killing women and children, popular support reversed and was now in favor of war.  What wasn’t revealed immediately is that the Lusitania was really outfitted to carry armaments for the British.  This was a strategy developed by then First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill to bait a German attack and bring America into the fight.  As classical liberal historian Ralph Raico writes:

The Lusitania was a passenger liner loaded with munitions of war; Churchill had given orders to the captains of merchant ships, including liners, to ram German submarines if they encountered them, and the Germans were aware of this. And, as Churchill stressed in his memoirs of World War I, embroiling neutral countries in hostilities with the enemy was a crucial part of warfare: “There are many kinds of maneuvres in war, some only of which take place on the battlefield. . . . The maneuvre which brings an ally into the field is as serviceable as that which wins a great battle.

Then there is the often neglected role big business, especially JP Morgan & Co, played in the propagandizing of the war.  As one of the largest creditors and underwriters to war bonds issued by the governments of Britain and France, it was in the best interest of the House of Morgan to guarantee the Allies won the war.   As the American economy drifted toward one of top-down command where government cartelized industry to ensure adequate munitions for war, big business was more than happy to play along as it meant stifling regulations placed on their small-time competitors and the opportunity to keep prices elevated.  This perverted form of capitalism would serve as a model to Western nations from the war’s end to the present day.   Murray Rothbard believed the first World War was really a victory for the fascist state:

More than any other single period, World War I was the critical watershed for the American business system. It was a “war collectivism,” a totally planned economy run largely by big-business interests through the instrumentality of the central government, which served as the model, the precedent, and the inspiration for state corporate capitalism for the remainder of the twentieth century.

The beginnings of World War II were engulfed by the same collusion of big business and government along with underhanded tactics to further chip away at the American public’s noninterventionist stance.  The Morgans still had their financial ties with Britain and France while the Rockefellers wanted war with Japan since the country competed for raw materials in Southeast Asia.  Both financial powerhouses lobbied for war early on.  After Franklin Roosevelt was reelected on the platform of keeping America a neutral party, he set about provoking a Japanese attack sometime around the summer of 1941.  This resulted in an oil embargo, the forceful limiting of exports, and freezing the country’s assets within the U.S.  It was the equivalent of an economic fatal wound to resource-poor Japan.  Not only that, but in recent years it has been confirmed that Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack and actually withheld key information from commanders at the naval base.  As Vice Admiral and aid to the Secretary of the Navy Frank E. Beatty noted at the time:

Prior to December 7, it was evident even to me… that we were pushing Japan into a corner. I believed that it was the desire of President Roosevelt, and Prime Minister Churchill that we get into the war, as they felt the Allies could not win without us and all our efforts to cause the Germans to declare war on us failed; the conditions we imposed upon Japan—to get out of China, for example—were so severe that we knew that nation could not accept them. We were forcing her so severely that we could have known that she would react toward the United States. All her preparations in a military way—and we knew their over-all import—pointed that way.

Following World War II, every conflict the U.S. has engaged in has been either to the benefit of wealthy special interests or in reaction to its own misguided policies.  The Cold War was a four decade long gift to the military industrial complex against a supposed world power that collapsed due to its state-run economy.  The various bombings and occupations of Middle Easter countries which followed have only served as excuses to not end the flow of money into the pockets of politically connected military contractors.  And the Iraq War, as everyone now knows, was based on the lie of Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction.

One would think with such a rich history of political patronage in the death industry, Americans would be adamantly opposed to war.  Yet the usual players in Washington are once again pounding on the war drums in the name of spreading American values.  The target this time is Iran and at least one presidential candidate in this fall’s election has vowed to use military force on a nation that hasn’t bowed down and kissed Uncle Sam’s jackboot.  The problem is Iran has the hubris of refusing to be bullied around by the U.S.  Such an attitude undermines American imperialism in front of the rest of the world.   It must be stomped out by any means necessary.

And then there is the big financial push for an Iranian war going on behind the scenes.  The pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has been aggressively pushing for war and appealing to top lawmakers and the heads of Washington’s warmongering apparatus.  President Obama has already assured the flush lobbying group that “the United States will not hesitate to attack Iran with military force to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”  Department of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made the same promise.  Just last week, 44 Senators, including many Democrats, sent an AIPAC letter to the President urging him to consider military action if Iran continues with its nuclear program.  The letter essentially makes war the only option on the table as Glenn Greenwald of Salon points out:

This implication is clear: a military attack by the U.S. on Iran is at least justified, if not compelled, if a satisfactory agreement is not quickly reached regarding Iran’s nuclear program. At the same time, the letter itself virtually ensures no such agreement is possible because the conditions it imposes as the “absolute minimum” are ones everyone knows Iran will never agree to (closing the Fordow facility and giving up its right to enrich uranium above 5 percent).

Not only is the push for war bipartisan, but much of the media establishment has been devoid of criticism of the constant war rhetoric. Even though Israel has nukes of its own, many of its supporters portray the country as a weakling in dire need of assistance from the bully of the Middle East schoolyard.  Worse is the complete disregard of the fact that there is no actual evidence that Iran is concocting a nuclear weapon.  According to the CIA’s own National Intelligence Estimate of 2007, Iran put a stop to the development of nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.  Other Western nations such as Germany, France, and Britain, deny the report’s conclusion.  Meanwhile Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gotten impatient of the reluctance by the U.S. thus far to act militarily against Iran.  Like a good politician, he wants prestige without the dirty work.  That’s what America is for.

Despite already being engaged in drone wars in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and still occupying Afghanistan, the U.S. is being duped into yet another war based on shaky evidence and at the behest of deep-pocketed special interests.  This is coming even while a secretive cyber war already being waged to damage Iran’s nuclear capability.  According to the Pentagon, “computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war.”  Not only that, but the draconian sanctions thus far placed on Iran are doing enormous harm to the citizens who hardly have a say in what their government does.  The Belgium-based SWIFT payment system that facilitates most international payments has already denied service to many Iranian banks.  With the imposing of an oil embargo from the European Union just around the corner (July 1st) that will all but make it impossible for oil tankers to be insured by Lloyd’s of London, an actual naval blockade is being floated by U.S. lawmakers.  Much like the Antebellum South and Japan, Iran too is being pushed into a corner.

What makes the campaign to extend the War on Terror to Iran is that the anti-American sentiment in the higher echelons of its government are only a consequence of previous meddling.  After Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry in 1953, British Petroleum used the CIA to overthrow the popular leader and put the Shah back in power whose authoritarian rule would be financially supported by the U.S. up to the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

Then and now, wealthy special interests are a driving force behind American imperialism.  Lies will be spun till they are seen as facts.  When the truth comes out, the irreparable damage will already be done.  Like anything the state lays its filthy hands on, war is a racket.  The beneficiaries of the ruling class’s gleeful foray into mass murder are few in number.  The masses, still brainwashed into feverish nationalism, end up paying the costs with their pilfered income, eroded liberty, and, ultimately, their own lives.

As Major General Smedley D. Butler wrote in his seminal essay War Is A Racket

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

The only weapon against such an immoral system of mass murder and cronyism is to know the truth and to not fall ill with the fever of war.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
MrRadiologist's picture

Hi there,

I am Iranian myself, my parents fled the country because of this monsterous regime. The islamic republic is probably the most cruel and dirty entity on this planet. They fund most of the terrorism these days and are a serious threat. Perhaps people that are raised in the west are too oblivious to know that Iran is a serious threat to Israel and the west. I mean, Persians are very smart people and know EXACTLY what they are doing. They ARE trying to get their hands on a nuclear bomb... and they WILL use it. I watch a lot of Iranian channels and read Iranian news. The whole goal of Shia Islam (the form of islam ruling Iran) is to destroy the great Satan on earth...which is in their thoughts: USA & ISRAEL...and the rest of the alcohol-consuming west. And they have to do this by ANY MEANS. The government there is drunk off religion. For them this is eternal die for shia islam, it will mean the end of the world and in their minds to them: Paradise.

I am not the type of person that will glorify war...Im a doctor in training, it would be kind of contradictory to want people to die. I opposed the war in Iraq...that money would have been well spent going to war with Iran. Iran is the source of all terrorism. And it is important that the west understands this. Obama is trying to put his feet deep in the ground to prevent a war....but the big lobbies are stronger and will push him into a big epic middle-eastern conflict.


Mitzibitzi's picture

Since you write English passably well, may I suggest that you might find more lucrative employment elsewhere? After all, 'Government Shill - Grade 3' can't be all that well paid, can it? You are aware that the US 'establishment' is now fighting a (for now) Cold War against it's own domestic population, I assume? You might want to think about your role in that, small though it is.

MrRadiologist's picture

Hi Mitzibitzi,

Thank you for your response. I actually reside in the Netherlands. I find myself pretty comfortable in the west enjoying high-quality education. I am thinking about passing the USMLE and becoming a doctor in the US. I would love to work in NYC.
I've always loved that city.


Lebensphilosoph's picture

The whole goal of Shia Islam (the form of islam ruling Iran) is to destroy the great Satan on earth...which is in their thoughts: USA & ISRAEL...


I can't say I disagree with them there.

laosuwan's picture

the goal of shia is not to destroy israel and usa, it is to impose an islamic state and sharia law upon the entire world. they recogjnize that to do that they must first destroy isareal and the usa but this is not the end goal. And the destruction of states is not limited to usa and israel so your agreement would give you pleasure for only a short time were it to happen because eventually you would be next. The same as with suni and other branches.. the danger of course is that these shia really believe they are duty bound to do this and that is what makes them so dangerous.

NuYawkFrankie's picture

Re I am Iranian myself, my parents fled the country because of this monsterous regime....


Sounds suspiciously like the intro to that notorious Nigerian investment/funds-xfer scam email thats been circulating for years....


The Age of Useful Idiots's picture

Hi, I am a Zionist who realises I can't pull the usual bs propaganda here, so please let me reinvent myself as an Iranian. And not just an Iranian, but a doctor too, a compassionate fellow who feels compelled to ask the US to bomb my fellow Iranians for the good of Israel. Because that is the compassionate thing to do. Thank you.

[ No wonder Zionists do so well in Hollywood. ]

JohnFrodo's picture

Che was also a doctor in training. Who could engender more trust than a doctor in training?

laosuwan's picture

"I am a zionist"


Why? Because I said so




Dont need any, He does not share my view so therefore he must be a Zionist.


Four more years!

The Age of Useful Idiots's picture

Yeah, come back with any evidence he is an Iranian doctor and I'll pull some strings to get you the Guardian of Zion award.

laosuwan's picture

does anybody ask you to prove who you are on this site?


So, who gave you the power to ask people for their papers? If you dont believe he is who he says he is, ignore his post and move on.

Inthemix96's picture

Hi there,

I am an bloke from somewhere in the world posting on an internet website under what is not really my name.  I called myself inthemix96 after my favourite CD from you guessed it, 1996, and it sort of stuck.  I am a bonafide paid up member of the zionist regime, and my plan is to take over the world.  This could happen as close as dinner time next tuesday, mind out, you have been warned about all the nefarious stuff we zions get up to mind.  Just last night we were burning kittens and puppies in the log burner while posting inane bullshit on the said interweb.

I was glorried in war at a young age and couldnt help but help it.  I am a window licker in training, and there is not a pane of glass that pilkington has produced that I have not licked.  I spent at least £17.50 on the war of terror for terrorists and have seen a great ROI in my wise zion choice.


laosuwan's picture

you waste your time posting on ZH about iran because there are so many racist anti semites on the non financial posts in this website, their attitude is that anyone who hates israel and their own country must be good. they ignore everythig else in their hate for jews.


I met many iranian friends when in university in california and agree they are good people and the stories they told me about the revolution convinced me its the same old shah only worse.


We buddhists lost many of our cultures to arab and islam like the persian lost their's but I think the spirit is still there and that is why the government and mullahs are so cruel.

cherry picker's picture

They mocked and ridiculed Ron Paul, whose foreign policy made sense to my brain and he appealed to the youth, who are not used to living with garbage in their heads and can sense truth better than most.

But then Ron Paul delivered 4,000 babies as a doctor and is not a lawyer or economist and his doctorate is actually good for something

This time it is going to be different.  I have been around too long.  They have abused common sense to the point that people who even mention it are met with rolling eyes.

Payback time is coming.....

Catullus's picture

Great article.  Thanks for giving the anti-war arguments some space, ZH.

I really like the articles on Greece where the country continues to go deeper and deeper into debt so that their government can to continue to purchase military equipment from... Germany.  And how morons will claim that if the Germans don't bail out the Greeks, the euro will collapse and German exports will in turn be hurt by a Greek default.  Yes, German exports of weapons. For Germans who export goods that can only slaughter people, they'll be fine.

The US is no better.

The F-35 costs are running well over $350bn now and the project is only 20% completed in the development stage.  Yes the entitlements are a problem for the US budget right now, but year after year discretionary spending gets dumped into these weapons projects that will eventually bankrupt the US. 

For those of you who don't care to see articles on military spending on a financial news blog, you're missing where most of the discretionary spending of these countries goes to.  And what the sovereign debts are financing.

falak pema's picture

This article raises one issue and its the basic thread in its thesis : casus belli.

The Greeks invented it with Helen of Troy. JBJ iconised it with Gulf of Tonkin and GWB with Irak WMD. 

So history repeats. As human nature is disarmingly devious in its total conceit to manipulate the people. But we are in the age of the Internet and knowledge of kingly sleight of hand is now available to the most remotely located individual on the globe. From Socrates to Erasmus to Voltaire and Montesquieu, there has only been one position that civil society can adopt to fight the hidden agenda of Political or Industrial Oligarchs.

Disseminate the truth. The greatest antidote to the scheming ways of the statist sons of Machiavelli and their counterparts in the private corporation. Create political awareness and resistance to planned deception from top-down logic. Its consequences could be awesome for those in charge. Ask Mubarak. Bottom up logic can be game changer. History also teaches us that! 

AnAnonymous's picture

But we are in the age of the Internet


We are in the age of US citizenism.

falak pema's picture

I'm glad you recognise that US citizenism has at least this one virtue : of having invented the Internet. Something that riles the French hi-tech industry, who had invented the Minitel, a telephonic version of texted screen messages and did not have the good sense to use GUI (graphical user interfaces, first used by Apple in 1984 for Macintosh computers), thus being unable to convert a text screen using the telephone network into a true multimedia network! They even had a client at that time : Cern in Geneva, who then invented their own first version of intranet that inspired the WWWeb. Citizenism indeed! 

AnAnonymous's picture

Putting words into mouth much?

Lets see how from "We are in the age of US citizenism" you connect to US citizenism has invented the Internet.

Danger game as it is it. I dont expect any cogent answer.

Coincidences happen.

falak pema's picture

incoherent cogency leads to coincidental citizenism running into a deep void to avoid the Internet web, like spiderman on the run. Logic and onomatopoeia make good bed fellows as long as ideology and alliteration do not tear apart its springs. Citizen Kane of ism-lane. 

Inthemix96's picture

Ananonymous has fucking said this, fuck me "i dont expect any cogent answer"

Well you would fucking get one if any fucker on here could understand what in gods green earth your talking about you fucking imbecile.  Fuck off and play in the traffic you daft chinese cunt.

Fucking idiot

Cathartes Aura's picture

whereas your post was perfectly clear.

can you please do a translation into Chinese?

y'know, reverse the challenge and all. . .

Disenchanted's picture





jus sayin...although 'I know' this was all just antisemitic forgery...somebody(Jew or not) had a fucking plan, and it's playing out right before our eyes.



Protocol #7 – World Wide Wars


1.  The increase in size of the military, police forces, and of their armaments, are all essential for the completion of the above plans.

The situation we need to arrive at is that the populations of the world’s nations consist of only: (1) ourselves; (2) the masses of the working class; (3) a few millionaires devoted to our interests; and (4) police and soldiers.


2.  Throughout all Europe and countries that have relations with Europe, and in other continents also, we must create unrest, disagreement and hostility.

This gives us a double advantage.  Firstly, it deters countries from acting against us.  For they will know that we have the power to create disorders or to restore order whenever we like.  All these countries will see us as an unavoidable force of authority.

Secondly, if we threaten to withdraw or muddle up our existing arrangements with these countries, this would also create havoc.  You see, over many years we have inserted ourselves into the administrative machinery of their cabinets, making them dependent upon us.  In order to infiltrate in this manner we must involve ourselves in maters like economic treaties or loan obligations.  We need to use great cunning during negotiations and agreements, but instead of using our usual threatening language, we’ll instead do the opposite and don the mask of honesty and complacency.

In this way the peoples and governments of the Goyim, whom we have taught to look at only the outside of whatever we present to their notice, will continue to accept us as the benefactors and saviors of the human race.


Universal War

3.  If any country dares to oppose us, we must be in a position to respond by way of war.  We will do this by teaming up with the neighbors of that country.  But if those neighbors should also venture to stand collectively together against us, then we must resist with a universal war.


4.  The main factor of success in politics is to operate in secrecy.  A diplomat must say one thing but then do another.


5.  We must compel the governments of the Goyim to take action in the direction favored by our well thought-out plan, which is nearing completion, by what we shall claim is public opinion.  This ‘opinion’ will be secretly promoted by us through the means of that so-called "Great Power" – the media, which, apart from a few unimportant exceptions, is already entirely in our hands.


In order to display our system of keeping the governments of the Goyim in Europe in check, we shall show our strength by committing terrorist attacks against one of them.  If the governments of Europe should collectively rise against us, we shall respond using the military might of America or China or Japan.

Hannibal's picture

Sadly, "reap what you sow" appears to be a farce!

laosuwan's picture

Anybody notice this guy always looks like a salesman who missed his connecting flight due to snowstorm and has been sleeping in the airport terminal for a couple days? And for once I would like to see a picture of him without him pointing his finger at me. I would not mind to see a picture of his Mrs., either, there being no gays in Iran and all.


In your haste to slander jews and condem the usa government please dont overlook that facism comes in many colors and flavors and that this guy is not a victim, but a rival.

JohnFrodo's picture

Come on, a rival. Iran is a thrid world country that can not even produce its own gasoline despite being an oil power. Are they sweethearts, nope. The arab spring almost came, and GWB let them off the hook. Iran is not a credible threat to anyone. Yes they can mess up the oil market, but they can not take over or destroy anyone

laosuwan's picture

No, you come on. Iran is definately not a third world country. It is technologically advanced, has a very well educated and industrius people with a long and rich hitory and culuture.


It cannot produce its own power because its nut and chief has directed all its resources and engineers into producing nuclear technology instead of gasoline.


It was not GWB who let them off but Barry Sotero. When they were shooting down the protestors in the street Barry did nothing but look to the other countries like egypt and kenya and syira, Barry is backing the islamists. Now the usa has dictators in these countries it cannot control instead of those it can.


Iran is a credible threat to its own people, women, the gulf arab states, israel and anyone else that stands in the nut in chiefs way. Ask the Argentines.


Basically, your post proves my point.

Pampalona's picture

Could people please recommend their favorite blogs dedicated to the intl power structure/political power play/current world events such as this article... Am having difficulty in finding anything up to the ZH standard...

Titan28's picture

This piece is nonsense. How old is the person who wrote it? The American Civil War was about slavery or the right of the south to secede or Lincoln's special interest driven agenda? What the hell is Lincoln's special interest agenda? Some historians think the issues that divided north and south, industrialized north, agrarian-manorial south, could have been worked out but for slavery, the one intractable problem. World War II. How the hell can anyone talk about WWII without mentioning Nazi doctrine? Or write about Japan without mentioning fascism? The way I read it, the person writing this piece would have been comfortable in a half-Nazi half free world.

Then there is the Soviet Union. Yes, it imploded. But did we know that was going to happen BEFORE it did? Check out ex post hoc, ergo propter hoc. It's a fallacy, not deep thinking.

I read a lot of smart entries here. Yeah, maybe most are too heavy on the doom and gloom. But every time some whack job writes about how Jews suck and how it isn't our fight the conspiracy twinklers come out of their holes. To people like you, it's never our fight.

Let's say for the sake of argument Iran nukes Israel into oblivion. You think it ends there? And to write about Iran, without once mentioning the Koran and or Islam is idiotic. What do you think motivates them? Sex? Read some legitimate history now and then. Stop believing every dumb idea you stagger across on the web. Look up Whig history, historicism, and paranoia.



PrinceDraxx's picture

You are singularly uneducated in American History. Damn, my 8th grade History teacher would be so proud of me today. Ms. Portia Winifred, you might have inspired thousands to learn and no doubt some did. I am one of them. I will forever be mystified as to how you could sit on a half inch long tack and never act like it stuck you though.


Some times I even feel bad about turning loose those 18 year locusts in the classroom. Well, not that bad as it was fucking hilarious watching you trying to find them all.


But I digress, Titan. The dominant reason for the unCivil War was States Rights. Slavery, while detested by some Union sympathyziers, was a minor issue except as an additional way to piss off the Confederates. It may surprise you to find that many slaves fought beside their masters.


As stated in the article, Lincoln started the war and killed by extension close to a million Americans because he was in favor of big government and wanted the Federal Government to run the show in much the same way it does now. Now that there aren't any slaves, I wonder what excuse they will use to kill millions of Americans now to justify their rape of the Constitution and enslavement of the remainder.

Titan28's picture

The term big government wouldn't really apply to Lincoln's thinking. Did I say state's rights wasn't at issue? Lincoln was less in favor of big government than he was concerned about the Constitution. The right of a state to secede was a Constitutional issue. On a practical level, if states could leave the union, then could the union survive (see Lincoln's House Divided speech, June 16, 1858, Springfield, IL for evidence of his view of the matter). Was the war fought to free the slaves? No. Lincoln, by our standards, was a racist. But the abolition movement, was more important than you give it credit for. And what about items like the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Dred Scott decision? While the main purpose of the war was to preserve the union (more than to inflict BigGov on America), some historians of the period, as I've previously said, credit the crazed New England & other abolitionists with keeping the fire burning (John Brown, Harpers Ferry Raid). Also, why was secession an issue at all? Southern states wanted the right to be able to remain slave-holding, and to insist on the expansion of the privilege to newly admitted territories in the union. Think too of the admission to statehood process. Slavery was involved in that equation as well (one free state, one slave state...).

Thanks for a reasoned response.

Sidebar: I think Lincoln was too intelligent and too astute a student of human nature to even remotely be considered the type of person who would support massive government of the size we have today. Yes, you can fault him for helping to bring it about.


Monk's picture

War is one of the results of free market capitalism, as the latter leads to the formation of big business and big goverment which serves it.