[[email protected]]

((This all evades the more significant fact: had Lincoln had his way,
America would have had essentially no Blacks, as Lincoln's position
was that they should be freed _and sent back to Africa_, or to South
America as the journey was shorter in those pre-ocean-steamer days.
This in essence was the Jeffersonian policy as well. No one before
1870, and no educated person before perhaps 1930 or even 1940,
believed a multiracial society was even possible, and certainly not
any even mildly democratic one. Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore made a
successful career on the principle tthat a biracial society could be
governed only under what Westerners can only call a dictatorship, and
even adopted the logo of Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists for
his People's Action Party. Bret.))


Obama=Lincoln? Does that mean Civil War?

[Patrick Cleburne]


"A stunning amount of nonsense is being spewed by the MSM about the similarities between President-elect Obama and Abraham Lincoln. The simultaneous eruption of these stories in so many places clearly indicates that the Obama publicists have been at work. Consider this credulous gushing from The Washington Times (which once upon a time would have known better):

Mr. Obama’s entire inaugural celebration constitutes a massive
homage to Lincoln, considered one of the country’s greatest presidents
and the most eloquent chief executive ever….Some might shy away from
using Lincoln as a measuring stick, but Mr. Obama appears to relish
the parallels…The official theme of Mr. Obama’s inauguration is “A New
Birth of Freedom,” a phrase taken from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address…
The train trip taking Mr. Obama from Philadelphia to Washington to be
sworn in Tuesday tracks the final leg of Lincoln’s own train trip from
Springfield to Washington for his first inauguration in 1861…At
Tuesday’s inaugural ceremony, first lady Michelle Obama will hold the
Bible used by Lincoln in his first inauguration in March 1861 while
her husband takes the oath of office from Supreme Court Chief Justice
John G. Roberts Jr. Mr. Obama will be the first president to take his
oath on the 1,280-page Bible printed in 1853 since that day. [In ways
great and small, Obama parallels Lincoln, [January 17, 2009]]

(VDARE.com emphasis)

Obviously, WASP traits like reserve and self-effacement are not going
to be part of the new Administration (predictable, I guess,
considering the pattern of appointments so far announced).

But apart from the sacrilegious poor taste shown by Obama and his
managers, the question has to be asked: are they serious? Do they know
what Lincoln actually did?

Even allowing for the fact that most of the crowd around Obama are the
sort who think America was founded at Ellis Island and that the Statue
of Liberty doggerel is part of the American Constitution shouldn’t
they have some idea Lincoln had consequences?

Apart from plunging the country into by far the bloodiest war in its
history–in which virtually only Americans died–and ruining for almost
a century what had been a very prosperous section of the country,
Lincoln was guilty of doing so mainly for the financial and political
gain of his Northern cronies. As luminously and I believe conclusively
demonstrated by Tom Dilorenzo in
The Real Lincoln, Lincoln’s central interest was breaking the South’s
preference for low tariffs and cheap British manufactured goods. The
objective was protection for Northern manufacturers and the funding of
lucrative infrastructure projects–“Internal Improvements”. Slavery
alone was not enough to motivate the war–which is why he tried to
dodge the issue when he took office. He only fully gave in to the
fanatical abolitionists when the war effort was faltering.

Every other country which abolished slavery did so without war.

So what is meant by all this Lincoln trumpeting? Are we being told
that Obama intends another massive economic transfer from one group to
another, engineered by reckless use of state power? That the ends
justify the means? Is the battering of founding-stock Americans the
objective? (Pre 1860, unlike the North, the South had had little
immigration for a several generations.)

The Lincoln myth is essentially a fraud perpetrated on the credulous
and the emotional. The Obama myth is also a fraud, as Steve Sailer has
exhaustively demonstrated in America’s Half Blood Prince. But
unfortunately, Steve also found the truth:

Obama …moved to Chicago to work as an ethnic activist to help the
impoverished black community wring more money and services from the
government. That government money was wrecking the morals of the
housing-project residents never comes up in Obama’s book. (P136)

…community organizing had its upside: Obama made a name for
himself and networked with what has become his political base: the
social services industry. (P137)

The basic social problem that both Farrakhan and Obama want to
alleviate is that, on average, blacks have less money than whites.
Farrakhan‘s plan to create a separate black-only capitalist economy in
which blacks could not be cheated by whites out of the hard-earned
wealth they would create is doubtful on various grounds…..

In contrast, Obama’s plan to get more money for blacks from whites
by further enlarging the already enormous welfare / social work /
leftist charity / government / industrial complex is both more
feasible in the short run, and, personally, more fun for someone of
Obama’s tastes…insulting whites in the Black Muslim manner is counter-
productive, because whites will have to pay most of the bills. (P157)

Steve envisages that Obama will become much more radical in his second
term. I am not so sure we will have to wait. Those who remember the
sudden emergence of Hillary Rodham Clinton after the’92 election and
the massive Health Care Battle which followed will find the stories of
“Barack Hussein Obama” being sworn in significant."

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/...ean-civil-war/