[Rushtalk] Happy Death-by-Government Day!

Paf Dvorak notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
Mon Jun 10 12:45:08 MDT 2013

At 05:52 AM 6/10/2013 -0700, Tom Matiska wrote:
>I missed the part where the Northern States 
>seceded from the union and fired on Fort Sumter.

Tom, I'm fairly sure you missed the whole article.
Don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs.

>--- On Mon, 6/10/13, Paf Dvorak <notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info> wrote:
>From: Paf Dvorak <notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info>
>Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Happy Death-by-Government Day!
>To: "Rushtalk Discussion List" <rushtalk at csdco.com>
>Cc: hale_bobb at yahoogroups.com
>Date: Monday, June 10, 2013, 4:00 AM
>At 08:33 PM 6/9/2013 -0700, Tom Matiska wrote:
>>When you say "War of Northern Aggression" I 
>>hear a toilet flush. Don't say something that 
>>stupid if you want to be taken seriously.
><http://www.lewrockwell.com/>Home | 
><http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/>Blog | 
><http://www.lewrockwell.com/sub.html>Subscribe | 
>| <https://www.lewrockwell.com/donate/>Donate
>Thomas DiLorenzo: More on the Myth of Lincoln, Secession and the 'Civil War'
>by Anthony Wile
><http://www.thedailybell.com/>The Daily Bell
>Recently by Anthony Wile: 
>Celente on the New Renaissance and Big Non-State Trends Changing the World
>Introduction: Thomas DiLorenzo is an American 
>economics professor at Loyola University 
>Maryland. He is also a senior faculty member of 
>the Ludwig von Mises Institute and an affiliated 
>scholar of the League of the South Institute, 
>the research arm of the League of the South, and 
>the Abbeville Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in 
>Economics from Virginia Tech. DiLorenzo has 
>authored at least ten books, including 
>Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His 
>Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (2003), 
>Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the 
>American Revolution and What It Means for 
>Americans Today (2009), 
>Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of 
>Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present 
>Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know about 
>Dishonest Abe (2007) and most recently, 
>Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government 
>(2012). Thomas DiLorenzo is a frequent columnist 
>for LewRockwell.com, lectures widely and is a 
>frequent speaker at Mises Institute events.
>Daily Bell: Remind our readers about one of your 
>central intellectual passions, which is 
>confronting academic "Lincoln revisionism." Who 
>was Lincoln really and why have you spent so 
>much of your career trying to return Lincoln's academic profile to reality?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Lincoln mythology is the 
>ideological cornerstone of American statism. He 
>was in reality the most hated of all American 
>presidents during his lifetime according to an 
>excellent book by historian Larry Tagg entitled 
>Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: America's Most Reviled 
>President. He was so hated in the North that the 
>New York Times editorialized a wish that he 
>would be assassinated. This is perfectly 
>understandable: He illegally suspended Habeas 
>Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of 
>Northern political critics without due process; 
>shut down over 300 opposition newspapers; 
>committed treason by invading the Southern 
>states (Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution 
>defines treason as "only levying war upon the 
>states" or "giving aid and comfort to their 
>enemies," which of course is exactly what 
>Lincoln did). He enforced military conscription 
>with the murder of hundreds of New York City 
>draft protesters in 1863 and with the mass 
>execution of deserters from his army. He 
>deported a congressional critic (Democratic 
>Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio); 
>confiscated firearms; and issued an arrest 
>warrant for the Chief Justice when the jurist 
>issued an opinion that only Congress could 
>legally suspend Habeas Corpus. He waged an 
>unnecessary war (all other countries ended 
>slavery peacefully in that century) that 
>resulted in the death of as many as 850,000 
>Americans according to new research published in 
>the last two years. Standardizing for today's 
>population, that would be similar to 8.5 million 
>American deaths in a four-year war.
>Lincoln was deified by the Republican Party, 
>which monopolized the government for half a 
>century after the war. The Pulitzer 
>prize-winning novelist Robert Penn Warren wrote 
>in his book, The Legacy of the Civil War, that 
>all of this mythology created an ideology of 
>"false virtue" that was (and is) interpreted by 
>the American state to "justify" anything it ever 
>did, no matter how heinous and imperialistic. 
>The truth about Lincoln and his war "must be 
>forgotten," said Warren, if one is to believe in 
>this "false virtue," which also goes by the 
>slogan of "American exceptionalism."
>Lincoln was a nationalist and an imperialist. He 
>was the political son of Alexander Hamilton who, 
>as such, advocated a government that would serve 
>the moneyed elite at the expense of the masses. 
>Hence his lifelong advocacy of protectionist 
>tariffs, corporate welfare, and a central bank 
>to fund it all. This was called "mercantilism" 
>in the previous centuries, and was the very 
>system the American colonists fought a revolution over.
>Daily Bell: What did you think of the recent 
>Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln? Are 
>defenders of Lincoln getting increasingly desperate?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes, the Lincoln cult is 
>getting desperate. Spielberg hired Doris 
>Kearns-Goodwin, a confessed plagiarist, as his 
>advisor on the movie (See my LewRockwell.com 
>article entitled 
>Plagiarist's Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry"). 
>The main theme of the movie is exactly the 
>opposite of historical truth. The main theme is 
>that Lincoln used his legendary political skills 
>to help get the Thirteenth Amendment that ended 
>slavery through the Congress. But if one reads 
>the most authoritative biography of Lincoln, by 
>Harvard's David Donald, one learns that not only 
>did Lincoln not lift a finger to help the 
>genuine abolitionists; he literally refused to 
>help them when they went up to him and asked him 
>for his help. Lincoln did use his political 
>skills to get an earlier, proposed Thirteenth 
>Amendment through the House and Senate. It was 
>called the Corwin Amendment, and would have 
>prohibited the federal government from ever 
>interfering with Southern slavery. Even Doris 
>Kearns-Goodwin writes about it in her book, Team 
>of Rivals, discussing how the amendment, named 
>after an Ohio congressman, was in reality the work of Abraham Lincoln.
>Daily Bell: Why should that be so? Is the myth 
>of Lincoln a central one to the larger and 
>continued myth of modern US exceptionalism? Who 
>propagates these myths and who benefits?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes, the Lincoln myth is the 
>ideological cornerstone of "American 
>exceptionalism" and has long been invoked by 
>both major political parties to "justify" 
>anything and everything. President Obama quoted 
>and paraphrased Lincoln in a speech before the 
>United Nations last September, and in his second 
>inaugural address, to support his agenda of 
>waging more aggressive wars in Syria, Iran, and 
>elsewhere. Specifically, he repeated the "All 
>Men are Created Equal" line from the Gettysburg 
>Address to make the case that it is somehow the 
>duty of Americans to force "freedom" on all men 
>and women everywhere, all around the globe, at 
>gunpoint if need be. This is the murderous, 
>bankrupting, imperialistic game that Lincoln mythology is used to "justify."
>Daily Bell: Put Lincoln in context. Why is 
>continued mythology so important to the current 
>power structure of the Anglosphere?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: The state cannot tell the 
>people that it is bankrupting them and sending 
>their sons and daughters to die by the thousands 
>in aggressive and unconstitutional wars so that 
>crony capitalism can be imposed at gunpoint in 
>foreign countries, and so that the 
>military-industrial complex can continue to rake 
>in billions. That might risk a revolution. So 
>instead, they have to use the happy talk of 
>American virtue and American exceptionalism, the 
>"god" of democracy," etc. And the average 
>American, whom the great H.L. Mencken referred 
>to as part of the "booboisie," believes it.
>Daily Bell: Let's try to clear up a few more 
>myths. Did Lincoln issue greenbacks in defiance 
>of British "money power"? In other words, was 
>his war waged as an act of rebellion against 
>European colonialism? From our point of view, 
>Lincoln was likely in thrall to the New York 
>banking establishment. How do you see it?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Lincoln spent his entire life 
>in politics, from 1832 until his dying day, as a 
>lobbyist for the American banking industry and 
>the Northern manufacturing corporations that 
>wanted cheaper credit funded by a government-run 
>bank. He spent decades making speeches on behalf 
>of resurrecting the corrupt and destabilizing 
>Bank of the United States, founded originally by 
>his political ancestor, Hamilton. No member of 
>the Whig Party was more in bed with the American 
>banking establishment than Lincoln was, 
>according to University of Virginia historian 
>Michael Holt in his book on the history of the 
>American Whig party. The Whig agenda, which was 
>always Lincoln's agenda, was described 
>brilliantly by Edgar Lee Masters (Clarence 
>Darrow's law partner) in his book, Lincoln the 
>Man. The agenda was to champion "that political 
>system which doles favors to the strong in order 
>to win and keep their adherence to the 
>government." It advocated "a people taxed to 
>make profits for enterprises that cannot stand 
>alone." The Whig Party "had no platform to 
>announce," Masters wrote, "because its 
>principles were plunder and nothing else." 
>Lincoln himself once said that he got ALL of his 
>political ideas from Henry Clay, the icon and 
>longtime leader of the Whig Party.
>Daily Bell: Let's ask you some tough questions 
>that will be of interest to our readers and our 
>critics alike. Charges have been leveled from 
>some (disreputable) quarters that you are 
>somehow conspiring historically with a Jesuit 
>faction to promote historical inaccuracies 
>regarding Lincoln since you are a professor at 
>Loyola. Could you please explain these charges 
>more comprehensively and then use this form to rebut them?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: I don't usually answer "when 
>did you stop beating your wife"-type questions 
>since they always come from people with I.Q.s in 
>the single digits. These are people who do not 
>have the mental capacity to learn real 
>economics, so they blabber on about crazy 
>conspiracy theories. The Jesuits at Loyola 
>actually hate me with a passion since they are, 
>with one or two exceptions, Marxist ideologues 
>and I am a libertarian, i.e., the devil. Read my 
>LewRockwell.com article entitled 
>Tales from an Academic Looney Bin" if you want 
>to learn of my contempt for the Jesuits who run Loyola University Maryland.
>Daily Bell: Thanks for the insights. Now, on to 
>another more serious matter, which has to do 
>with the role of Jefferson Davis as President of 
>the Southern Secession. Let's preface this by 
>proposing it has been proposed that both the 
>Russian Revolution and Germany's rise to power 
>were apparently funded at least in part by Wall 
>Street and British "City" money – especially 
>via Swiss banks. Can you comment on this 
>perspective as it may well have a bearing on 
>Civil War funding? Is it true, for instance, 
>that many wars including the Civil War are not 
>exactly what they seem and that what we call 
>Money Power benefits by backing both sides and 
>profiting from the conflict itself?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: War is always destructive to a 
>nation's economy regardless of whether it wins 
>or loses the war. War is the opposite of 
>capitalism. Capitalism is a system of peaceful, 
>mutually-advantageous exchanges at market prices 
>based on the international division of labor. 
>War destroys the international division of labor 
>and diverts resources from peaceful, 
>capitalistic exchange to death and destruction. 
>However, there are always war profiteers – the 
>people who proffit from selling and financing 
>the military. One doesn't need to invent a 
>conspiracy theory about this: War profiteering 
>is war profiteering and has always existed as an essential feature of all wars.
>Daily Bell: There are even questions raised 
>about Napoleon Bonaparte and whether Money Power 
>utilized the French general's bellicosity for 
>their own purposes. Can you comment? Is it 
>possible the US Civil War was also arranged and 
>funded by those in Europe that had an agenda to 
>diminish the United States's exceptionalism and vitiate its republicanism?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: I prefer not to answer 
>anonymous questions like this. Who says this, 
>and what is his or her credibility? Any 
>credentials? Have they written anything I can 
>read to judge their thinking ability? Any crank 
>can say any crazy thing and suggest any weird 
>conspiracy theory on the Internet. Besides, 
>"American exceptionalism" did not become a tool 
>of American imperialism until AFTER the Civil War.
>Daily Bell: Money Power is a banking phenomenon 
>and much of the banking power was located in 
>Britain during Lincoln's time, as today. New 
>York banks had extensive relationships with 
>British banking power. And from what we can 
>tell, Lincoln derived an extensive funding and 
>power base from these same banks. So here is 
>another question that goes to the heart of this 
>funding issue: Why did Britain supposedly back 
>the South? Is it possible that this is a 
>historical ruse? Was the British banking 
>establishment pro-North even though the 
>aristocracy was pro-South? Did it suit British 
>banking interests to perpetuate this confusion?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: There is no such thing as 
>"Britain" that backed or did not back the South. 
>There were prominent British individuals like 
>Charles Dickens who sided with the South in 
>their writings, but there were also those with 
>similar stature who backed the North. I 
>recommend the book by Charles Adams entitled 
>Secession, and Civil War: Views from the United 
>Kingdom and Europe, 1856-1865. Since the South 
>continued to trade with England during the war, 
>there were British banks that financed a lot of 
>this trade and would therefore have supported 
>the South for that reason. At the end of the war 
>the British government was scared to death that 
>Sherman would take his army across the Atlantic 
>as an act of revenge for this collaboration.
>Daily Bell: Is it possible that the British 
>banking establishment didn't care which side won 
>the war, as the US would be irreparably weakened 
>no matter who triumphed? Were British bankers 
>expecting this weakening would encompass a loss 
>of freedom and a rise of governmental 
>authoritarianism? It certainly did, didn't it?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Since bankers are bankers and 
>not journalists and writers, there is no way of 
>knowing their views on this question without a 
>written record. Anyone who claims to know this 
>without any such record is simply blowing smoke 
>and wasting your time. British intellectuals 
>like Lord Acton understood and wrote about how 
>the result of the war would be a US government 
>that would become more tyrannical and 
>imperialistic. To the extent that some British 
>bankers read such literature and tended to agree 
>with Lord Acton, then that would have been their 
>opinion. Nineteenth-century British bankers were 
>not omniscient, Wizard-of-Oz orchestrators of 
>world events any more than you and I are.
>Daily Bell: Here is an even tougher question to 
>answer and a thoroughly speculative one. Is it 
>possible that Jefferson Davis also had a 
>relationship to British Money Power? One salient 
>fact stands out: Davis served as President 
>Franklin Pierce's war secretary and while Pierce 
>was an ardent states' rights advocate, it was 
>also widely reported that he had relations with 
>a powerful US secret society – the Kniights of 
>the Golden Circle. Can you comment on the 
>Knights of the Golden Circle and what their 
>agenda might have been? We've written about this 
>issue here: 
>Thomas James DiLorenzo on Abraham Lincoln, U.S. 
>Authoritarianism and Manipulated History."
>Here's a brief description from a book on the 
>Knights entitled, 
>Mysterious and Secret Order of the Knights of 
>the Golden 
>... "Few people know of the Knights of the 
>Golden Circle and even fewer know about the 
>purpose for which it existed. It is probably the 
>greatest untold story today in the history of 
>the United States. ... It has been said of them 
>that they were one of the deadliest, wealthiest, 
>most secretive and subversive spy and 
>underground organizations in the history of the 
>world ... The group was heavy on ritual, most of 
>which was borrowed from the Masonic Lodge and 
>later from the Knights of Pythias. Some were 
>also members of the Rosicrucians." To what end 
>was Jefferson Davis involved with the Knights? 
>Was he in a sense set up to fail? Did he willingly participate? Was he a patsy?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: I have no idea. How would 
>anyone know anything about this if it was a 
>"secret" society, as you say? Jefferson Davis 
>was a brilliant and highly educated man who 
>spent a long career in national politics and 
>wrote a great book, 
>Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. It 
>is unimaginable that any American politician 
>since could have performed such an amazingly 
>insightful piece of genuine scholarship. This is 
>not the type of man who would have been easily 
>duped by the local Masonic Lodge.
>Daily Bell: Are these fair questions? Jefferson 
>was President of the Southern Secession but he 
>proved an ineffective leader and his policies in 
>many ways sabotaged the South and its quest to 
>secede. Was his incompetence entirely genuine, in your view?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Davis was not a dictator. He 
>had a lot of help losing the war, especially 
>from his generals who insisted on the Napoleonic 
>battlefield tactics they were taught at West 
>Point and which had become defunct because of 
>the advent of more deadly military technology by 
>the middle of the nineteenth century. One of his 
>biggest failures was waiting until the last year 
>of the war to finally do what General Robert E. 
>Lee had been arguing from the beginning – 
>offering the slaves freeedom in return for 
>fighting with the Confederate Army in defense of their country.
>Daily Bell: A final question. It was Davis who 
>set the war in motion, inexplicably, by 
>declaring formal hostilities, so why didn't he 
>and his generals fight a guerrilla war that they 
>would have been almost certain to win? General 
>Lee insisted on formal engagements with the 
>North but had neither the resources nor the men 
>to win a war of attrition of this sort. Why 
>didn't he pursue well-known guerilla tactics 
>that would have produced a victory or at least a stalemate?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: No, it was Lincoln who 
>launched an invasion of the Southern states. 
>Davis's declarations were just words. Giving 
>guerilla fighters like John Singleton Mosby and 
>Nathan Bedford Forrest more resources may well 
>have won the war for the South, but Mosby was 
>kicked out of VMI and Forrest was almost totally 
>uneducated formally. The Confederate military 
>establishment was controlled by West Point 
>graduates who knew little or nothing about 
>guerilla warfare. When asked after the war who 
>his most effective subordinate was, Lee said it was a man named Forrest.
>Daily Bell: Certainly the arc of Davis's career 
>after the war does little to contradict the 
>hypothesis that there was more to Davis's role 
>than history records. He never served a long 
>jail sentence, visited England later in life and 
>was supported by a wealthy widow, Sarah Anne 
>Ellis Dorsey, who was a primary member and 
>literary representative of Southern aristocracy 
>with its many European connections. This would 
>also seem to show that Davis had deep 
>connections to the British power structure. Is 
>all this merely frivolous supposition?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes.
>Daily Bell: Okay, let's turn to your recent 
>book, False Virtue: The Myths that Transformed 
>America From A Republic to an Empire. Can you 
>explain what this is about to our readers and why you wrote it?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: That's something that I'm 
>still working on. I plan on putting into book 
>form the story of how the Lincoln myth has been 
>used for the past 150 years or so to prop up 
>American foreign policy imperialism.
>Daily Bell: What are you working on now, if anything?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Besides this, I'm working on a 
>book on the politics and economics of war.
>Daily Bell: Do you still believe that secession 
>is in the offing for several or more of "these 
>united States"? Will it come without bloodshed?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Thank God for the former serfs 
>of the Soviet empire that they only had a 
>totalitarian communist like Gorbachev to deal 
>with and not a Lincoln. Peaceful secession is 
>the only way out of the new slavery for the 
>average American, and it will only happen if we 
>have a president who is more like Gorbachev than 
>Lincoln. That is one more reason why the Lincoln myth needs to be destroyed.
>Daily Bell: Are hostilities deepening between Fedgov and US states?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: The booboisie in America for 
>the time being seems happy to endure whatever 
>additional enslavements the federal government 
>proposes for them. That may change, however, 
>when there is hyperinflation and their 
>healthcare system is destroyed by Obama's 
>socialized medicine, or if one of the tiny and 
>relatively defenseless countries that the US 
>government is perpetually picking on figures out 
>a way to retaliate in a big way. That just might 
>cause the booboisie to finally ask such 
>questions as: "Do my children really have to be 
>sacrificed and sent to their deaths so that 
>people in Syria can be ruled by a different dictator chosen by the CIA?"
>Daily Bell: Isn't secession a lawful, constitutional right?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Article 7 of the Constitution 
>explains that the document was to be ratified by 
>the "free and independent states," as they are 
>called in the Declaration of Independence. The 
>union of the founders was voluntary, and several 
>states reserved the right to withdraw from the 
>union in the future if it became destructive of 
>their rights. Since each state has equal rights 
>in the union, this became true for all states. 
>That is why, at the outset of the Civil War, the 
>overwhelming majority of Northern newspapers 
>editorialized in favor of peaceful secession. 
>Most of them quoted Jefferson from the 
>Declaration saying that governments derive their 
>just powers from the consent of the governed, 
>and when that consent is withdrawn it is the 
>peoples' duty to abolish that government and form a new one.
>Lincoln thus destroyed the voluntary union of 
>the founding fathers and replaced it with a 
>Soviet-style coerced union held together with 
>the threat of total war waged on the civilian 
>population of any state in the future that 
>attempted to make Jefferson's argument and act 
>on it. It is telling that on the eve of the 
>Civil War several federal laws were proposed to 
>outlaw secession. This occurred because everyone 
>at the time understood that secession was perfectly legal and constitutional.
>Might does NOT make right, so yes, secession is 
>a right that the people of any free society should have.
>Daily Bell: Is the Internet helping to create an 
>upsurge of freedom-consciousness among the US electorate?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes, without a doubt. That's 
>why some of the most obnoxious and tyrannical of 
>our politicians, like Obama, Lieberman, McCain 
>and Schumer, seem to be constantly conniving to 
>somehow censor or shut down the internet "for national security reasons."
>Daily Bell: How many real "nations" does the US encompass?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Time will tell. Jefferson 
>believed there were at least seven or eight 
>regions that could be created as independent 
>American nations during his time, and he wrote 
>that he would wish them all well as they would 
>all be, as Americans, "our children."
>Daily Bell: What about Europe? Will it also see 
>a fracturing of the euro and perhaps of the EU itself?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: I think we are seeing the 
>collapse of the EU and the Euro along with the 
>European welfare state. We should all pray that 
>it happens a thousand times faster.
>Daily Bell: How about China?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: China is now more capitalist 
>than the US and its government is less 
>tyrannical than the government in Washington, DC.
>Daily Bell: Is the Internet helping to cause these "devolutions"?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: When the AFL-CIO conspired 
>with the Catholic Church in Poland to subvert 
>communism they smuggled fax machines into the 
>country so that the anti-communists could plot 
>and communicate. The internet makes all of this 
>infinitely easier to accomplish.
>Daily Bell: Is the 21st century more hopeful 
>than the 20th and 19th when it comes to 
>large-scale wars and manipulation of various 
>electorates in the West and elsewhere?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: One virtue of the 19th century 
>was that the public school brainwashing 
>bureaucracy was not yet very well developed. It 
>certainly is today, which is why America has 
>become such a nation of statist sheep.
>Daily Bell: Is the current system of Fiat Money 
>Power on the way out? If so, what will take its place?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes. That's what all the 
>economic turmoil in Europe is about. I'd like to 
>see a return to a gold standard. This will have 
>to happen if we are to avoid worldwide economic 
>collapse similar to the Great Depression.
>Daily Bell: How does the Lincoln mythology play 
>out today in light of all these circumstances?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: It is still the ideological 
>cornerstone of American statism, but we are making progress.
>Daily Bell: Will the US revert to a freer, more self-sufficient model?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Only if peaceful secession is allowed to occur.
>Daily Bell: Is the pre-Civil War US model a 
>template for a more viable society in the future?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: Minus slavery, of course. The 
>Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union 
>were far superior to the Constitution that 
>replaced them (and which omitted the world "perpetual").
>Daily Bell: Can we ever go back? Is history linear or cyclical?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: I don't believe in such 
>determinism. We can correct mistakes. We DID 
>deregulate oil and transportation in the 1980s; 
>socialism DID collapse worldwide in the late 
>'80s/early '90s and was replaced by more market-oriented regimes.
>Daily Bell: Any other comments or predictions?
>Thomas DiLorenzo: The Republican Party will 
>continue to become more and more irrelevant and 
>powerless; the Democratic Party establishment 
>will finally strip off their masks and reveal 
>themselves as the totalitarian socialists that 
>they have always been; and the political future 
>will belong to the young Ron Paulians.
>Daily Bell: Thanks for your time once again.
>Daily Bell After Thoughts
>Thomas DiLorenzo got a little irritated with us 
>because we harped on the Jesuit issue (see 
>interview). But we did so because a malicious 
>minority of what we can only call Neo-Nazi 
>"social" and "mutual creditors" have attacked 
>him for being influenced by the Jesuit 
>educational establishment for which he works.
>Money is power and those who challenge the 
>status quo are dangerous to the internationalist 
>impulse. Thus, globalists claim DiLorenzo has 
>attacked Lincoln because he wanted to undermine 
>Lincoln's use of government Greenbacks as effective money.
>Money is a complex system. It is not 
>mathematically reducible. Only the free-market 
>itself, the Invisible Hand, can organize money 
>within the context of the complex relationships 
>that exist in a modern society (though 
>admittedly such relationships could and should be simplified).
>But according to some, only the state, properly 
>guided by responsible politicians, can provide 
>the money society needs. DiLorenzo has also been 
>attacked by this socialist faction because he 
>named Lincoln for what he was: the father of US Empire.
>Before Lincoln, it was common belief that any 
>state could secede from the Union. After 
>Lincoln, it was clear no state could secede 
>without facing military action. That situation continues today.
>DiLorenzo is a consequential writer. He has 
>advanced our understanding of who Lincoln really 
>was and where American exceptionalism took a 
>wrong turn. The attacks of his critics 
>notwithstanding, he is an original and 
>courageous historian, and we look forward to reading more of his work.
>Reprinted with permission from 
><http://www.thedailybell.com/>The Daily Bell<http://www.howtovanish.com/>.
>June 3, 2013
>Anthony Wile is an author, columnist, media 
>commentator and entrepreneur focused on 
>developing projects that promote the general 
>advancement of free-market thinking concepts. He 
>is the chief editor of the popular free-market 
>oriented news site, 
><http://thedailybell.com/>TheDailyBell.com. Mr. 
>Wile is the Executive Director of The Foundation 
>for the Advancement of Free-Market Thinking – a 
>non-profit Liechtenstein-based founddation. His 
>most popular book, 
>Alert, is now in its third edition and available 
>in several languages. Other notable books 
>written by Mr. Wile include The Liberation of 
>Flockhead (2002) and The Value of Gold (2002).
>Copyright © 2013 <http://www.thedailybell.com/>The Daily Bell
><http://www.lewrockwell.com/wile/wile-archive.html>The Best of Anthony Wile
><http://www.lewrockwell.com/>Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page
>Paf Dvorak
><http://thatswaytoomuch.info/>notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>Rushtalk mailing list
><http://us.mc1805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Rushtalk@csdco.com>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com

Paf Dvorak

<http://thatswaytoomuch.info/>notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130610/82d45631/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list