News & Analysis
Lincoln Must Have Worked for Money Power
New Tim Burton film features Abraham Lincoln, vampires ... "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" to premiere in June 2012 ... While sitting in the theater waiting for "The Hunger Games" to start, I witnessed the most fantastically ridiculous trailer I've seen in a long time. It began when a slender man of large stature with the token beard, chiseled chin and tall top hat appeared on the screen. It was evident that he was Abraham Lincoln. When the trailer began, it looked like this movie might be some interesting, slightly morbid take on our 16th president's life. Or at least something that loosely follows documented history. But then the trailer cut to scenes of Honest Abe wielding an axe like he attended some brute weapons combat school. The slow-motion shot of Abe with his axe, though borderline cheesy, looked edgy. – Daily Wildcat
Dominant Social Theme: Abraham Lincoln − so great he even kills vampires.
Free-Market Analysis: The cult of Lincoln continues unabated. Now comes another movie glorifying the Great Emancipator − see excerpt above.
It is a "mash up" in which several genres are combined, fictionally. This mash up was initially fiction that combined the historical Lincoln with the vampire sub-genre.
The author was purposefully clever − or just lucky − to have featured Lincoln at a time when the powers-that-be are increasingly desperate for pro-government propaganda. We figure in this era of the Internet, Lincoln looks like a valuable figure to those who want to reinforce the primacy of government.
The dynastic families that apparently run central banks along with their enablers and associates are continually attempting to bolster statist heroes like Lincoln because these elites maintain control via mercantilism. They need government, the bigger the better, to efficaciously move toward a New World Order.
The power elite that wants to run the world is having a tough time of it these days. What we call the Internet Reformation is daily exposing the dominant social themes it uses to frighten people into giving up power and wealth to globalist institutions.
One of the biggest dominant social themes is the one of the "leader." We are constantly bombarded, in the West, with the idea that good political leadership will lead to good political results.
In fact, the political process is entirely one of price-fixing. Real leadership is actually practiced within the private sector and is the result of Misesian human action, the only kind that counts.
The Invisible Hand of competition makes society work. The dead hand of legal authoritarianism causes economic problems, recessions, depressions and ultimately war.
The power elite has made Lincoln into a hero and the Civil War into an admirable exercise in freeing slaves. But the slavery economy would have ended anyway with the advent of the industrial revolution. It did in England without a war.
The Civil War − the War Between the States − was a terrible affair and probably hurt black people as well as helped them. The legacy of bitterness and hatred was overwhelming and is only gradually being overcome ... if it actually is.
From our perspective, Lincoln is no hero. He set the South ablaze, killed innocents and virtually knocked down whole cities. Atlanta has never recovered.
He was also a statist politician who believed in the primacy of the state and was willing to arrest people without cause and trample the Constitution to pursue his goal of keeping the union together.
In this modern era, Lincoln has been made a hero by the neo-Greenbacker movement blossoming around the Internet, especially in the alternative press − led in part by Ellen Brown, author of the Web of Debt.
We believe more in private money and competitive money systems, including private clearinghouses, fractional reserve and anything else that someone wants to try. We believe within this context, silver and gold would find their place, as historical bimetallism always has.
Greenbackers, on the other hand, believe that government itself − if properly run "for the people" can issue fiat money and spend its way to prosperity.
Greenbackers make the case that Lincoln was a Greenbacker. And aficionados of "directed history" make the point that Lincoln, alone, stood against a power elite – European – plot to divide the US into two distinct countries to lessen its clout.
This perspective has made Lincoln a "hero" of sorts, even within the alternative media that should know better.
Politicians are not heroes nor can they be, given what they have to do and the alliances they have to make. Lincoln set in motion a war that murdered millions. He didn't likely HAVE to start a war, but he did.
Lincoln was at the center of one of the most powerful countries on Earth. The idea that he was a "killer" of European banking bloodsuckers is an attractive one, but hardly the truth.
The Lincoln portrayed by neo-Greenbackers has been debunked by two Austrian-oriented free-market thinkers, historian Thomas DiLorenzo and economist Gary North.
Interestingly, they come to somewhat different conclusions about Lincoln's statist affections. DiLorenzo believes that Lincoln was pro-central banking and perhaps supported by the New York banking establishment.
Dr. Gary North believes that Lincoln was supportive of gold and silver and disparaging of fiat generally, including Greenbacks.
Whatever the truth, there is no doubt that Lincoln basically suspended the US Constitution and prosecuted a bloody war that he might have been able to find an alternative to.
Bottom line: From our humble point of view, Lincoln was likely in the hip pocket of Money Power.
European Money Power wanted a US war and Lincoln gave it one. When it was over, the US Republican exception was finished. Imperium had arrived. Things have only grown worse since.
The power elite has NEVER started a war, or not for the past 300 years or so, without controlling BOTH sides of the conflict. That's what directed history tells us. Hitler, Napoleon, the Kaiser (WWI) − in each case, Money Power seemingly controlled and funded the "enemy."
Why on Earth are we to believe that Lincoln − above all − was somehow immune to this formula? Most likely he was not.
No, he must have prosecuted a war at the bequest of Money Power and when it was done, they threw him over.
It really doesn't matter whether Lincoln was pro- or anti-Greenbacks. First of all, Greenbackerism doesn't work in the long run. Governments always print too much money when they have the chance and thus debase the currency.
That's why fiat schemes eventually wither − just as the dollar reserve system is withering. It doesn't matter who does the printing. It's the monopoly that matters.
But secondly and more important, Lincoln was evidently and obviously trapped in the elite dialectic − as all others have been in the modern era. To argue otherwise is surely naïve.
To argue that his death was specifically as a result of the intention to create more Greenbacks is equally naïve. He was part of the Money Power that he was supposedly confronting.
He wasn't standing alone, heroically, against Money Power. He was a creature of it. He must have been.
Understand this and the Civil War − and his crazed actions − suddenly snap into focus. It was more directed history, and Lincoln was one more puppet. The result of the war, as planned, was the collapse of American exceptionalism and the rise of Leviathan.
Lincoln, with his profound and absurd veneration for a "nation" (see the Gettysburg address) played his role with greater or lesser enthusiasm. Perhaps he knew his fate would be death; perhaps not.
He needed to justify his actions by using the rhetoric of nation-hood, even though a "nation" is an artificial construct. In the deepest sense there are no nations, for nations are constructs of culture. Those who use the term, like Lincoln, are creating an artifical concept to justify a kind of rhetorical cover.
John Kennedy was not assassinated because he signed an executive order for the issuance of Silver Certificates. Alternative historians have written on this folk theory extensively and proved it to be a modern myth. Lincoln was probably not assassinated simply because he somehow stood up against Money Power ... elites that, in fact, had likely helped place him where he was.
What we CAN draw from ongoing Greenbacker speculation is that the world is not as simple a place as "Neo-Gs" would like to make out.
In this case, it is most interesting − especially given the upcoming Lincoln movie.
Conclusion: All the world's a stage / And all the men and women merely players / They have their exits and their entrances / And one man in his time plays many parts ... − William Shakespeare
Ed Note: This article was inspired in part by a dialogue over at an Alex Jones website that posted an article of ours, "Elite Meme: Anything Is Better Than Gold." A friend alerted us to the thread and his comments.
Posted by Mark Davis on 04/09/12 04:21 PM
The "backwoodsmen" Lincoln is pure myth just like his "high moral fiber". His nickname "Honest Abe" was given to him by competing lawyers who marveled at his ability to lie with a straight face, like calling the fat kid "Tiny".
Lincoln was the highest-paid trial lawyer in Illinois before becoming President whose main client was the Illinois Central Railroad, the biggest corporation in the world. He "was one of the most skillful and highly paid attorneys of the region" who was "ready support either side of any case... . Lincoln's earnings placed him among the wealthy elite." He was essentially a lobbyist for the Northern plutocracy and its anti-populist, mercantilist policies.
Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, ordered the military to arrest tens of thousands of Northern citizens for merely voicing opposition to his administration, signed into law the first military conscription law (which, at the time, was considered to be unconstitutional by the chief justice of the US Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney) and there were violent draft riots in Ohio, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. Lincoln sent troops to New York to shoot down protesters.
The supposed hayseed lawyer was in fact a master politician. This is why a supposed political "novice" got the upper hand over Congress. Lincoln the master politician got himself nominated at a hung Republican convention, won an election without a majority, launched an invasion without consent of Congress, blockaded Southern ports, suspended Habeas Corpus, and essentially declared himself dictator.
Lincoln is responsible for the doctrin of "total war" that targeted civilians which that the time was considered barbaric by civilized countries throughout the world. I could go on. Lincoln was the closest thing the US has ever had to Stalin, if not worse.
Posted by CelticFire69 on 04/09/12 02:01 PM
I have read nothing of Lincoln's that would suggest "high morale fiber". He was a politician by choice and trade. He said what served his purpose at the time, imprisoned or executed those who stood in his way, destroyed the concepts of liberty and consent of the governed for both North and South and forged an empire.
He liberated some negroes from a private master to in turn forge a governmental master for all races. His decendants have continued to manipulate the races in the South to promote division and hated as well as maintain the corporatist perks established by force at reconstruction. He didn't get half what he deserved and his adoring fans need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Posted by seer on 04/09/12 01:13 PM
"Atlanta has never recovered." Matter of opinion-it has risen and fallen and risen and... .
One must understand Lincoln in the context of his backwoods upbringing and his new novel surroundings as President, mostly because the South seceded. We can only judge his actions as he said many contradictory things as most politicians do.
The South was only under attack after they announced a tariff 1/2 that of the North. Thus the North basically said you can go your own way but we will collect our tariffs in Your ports. Lincoln went along with this and the ensuing war, which was illegal as you pointed out. He followed the advice of his cabinet in procuring funding for the war and was like Obama, a hands off President in that he appointed people to do a job and left them alone to do it including his generals( at least in the beginning).
Yes, he did replace generals quite often as they failed to perform and followed their progress more as the war progressed and even made suggestions from time to time as he grew frustrated with the progress. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation in an effort to shorten the war.
One must always remember he was far from being a member of the establishment and thrown into the fire almost as soon as he was elected. He bought into the idea of the Preservation of the Union and this may have been wrong but certainly not undertaken in a devious fashion. Lincoln was a man of high moral fiber and his actions and war caused much personal concern unlike a Hitler, or Stalin.
Reply from The Daily Bell
See this link from which the following is taken regarding Lincoln's "outsider" status:
Click to view link
Lincoln and the Coming of The War
As we have noted previously, Lincoln in the inception of his public career in the Illinois State house took the radical position on slavery by opposing the resolutions intended to soothe public feelings in both sections.
The slavery issue continued to torment and divide the nation. However, it would be a mistake to focus, as do most Northern historians, solely upon the slavery issue as the cause of division between the two sections.
The North was already losing its Anglo-Saxon character and was rapidly changing with the inundation of non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants from Europe. Furthermore, the North was industrializing and her economic interests were in many respects directly antithetical to those of the South. Hence the North desired the erection of a high tariff barrier to enable herself to sell her industrial products with a competitive advantage over imports from Europe. Likewise, most of the nation's foreign exchange was earned by exports from the South. The tariff issue was critical in the division of the nation and probably played the major role in determining the North upon a policy of aggression and conquest when the secession came.
Lincoln had always been a national Whig. His policies were those in favor of a central banking system, which he championed dring his first term in the Illinois legislature.10 The Bank of the United States which Andrew Jackson opposed was similar to our present day Federal Reserve System. Lincoln opposed resolutions in the Illinois legislature supporting President Andrew Jackson, who had vetoed the National Bank.11 Lincoln also favored high tariffs, a strongly centralized government and internal impnvements.12 Lincoln himself had a direct personal reason to support such policies, since he derived a significant portion of his income from serving as attorney for the railroad interests.13
The estrangement and antagonism between the two sections gradually accelerated. In 1858 Lincoln made his famous "House Divided" Speech In this speech, Lincoln declared:
A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new -- North as well so South.14
Entranced by the Lincoln cult, Americans are prone to read or hear the House Divided Speech with a tingling of the spine, impressed by its dramatic tone. Set in the context of developing regional antagonism, however, the speech seems to be that of an irresponsible demagogue. The Union had existed half slave and half free from its inception. There appears to be no logical reason why it could not have continued to have existed in that fashion, given responsible leadership and good will on both sides, until slavery was eliminated by the progress of technology. Certainly the delivery of such a speech was not responsible leadership, as it did much to infuriate and alarm the South. This especially was true with Lincoln's election, which the South saw as the election of a man who seemed to have declared himself on the side of those who intended to violate the constitutional rights and property rights of Southerners and to interfere with their self-government. As is the case with many dramatic speeches, the speech has its thrilling aspects, but was utterly irresponsible and led to tragic results.
Posted by fergie74 on 04/09/12 12:51 PM
was it not albert pike and his cohorts that instigated the war?