We Were Almost Free- L Neil Smith


PDA






2dogs
January 16, 2003, 06:49 AM
http://www.rationalreview.com/archive/lneilsmith/lneilsmith011403.html

We were almost free
by L. Neil Smith

Remember 1989, when the Wall fell?

Well, it didn't fall, exactly, it was pushed. It was smashed down, bit by bit with sledgehammers, and torn apart by the bleeding fingers of individuals who burned to destroy the symbol -- and at the same time, the concrete representation -- of government gone mad, and of one nation in particular, that had deliberately turned itself into a vast prison in which simple residence was transformed into a life sentence.

I remember, too, shortly afterward, how eastern Europe shook off its subservience to the Communist Empire and began, very haltingly, very tentatively, to breathe free -- until the talk of freedom mutated into talk of democracy, and a Mordorian darkness fell across the land again.

My own sad, stupid country began violently interfering, as it always has, in the affairs of others, and what might eventually have been an amiable Balkan divorce, like the Czechs and Slovaks enjoyed, was turned into a murderous religious war, instead. It is a murderous religious war that is still going on, and if you want to know what the real intentions of the United States government are, simply look at the way it now approves of the brutal Russian effort to keep Chechnya enslaved.

Following the incident with the wooden horse, people used to say, "Beware Greeks bearing gifts". Today we're better advised to beware politicians -- and mass media hacks -- bearing the dubious gift of democracy. Inevitably they offer it as a substitute more acceptable (to them) than the despised and unthinkable phenomenon of individual liberty.

Early in my life -- I couldn't have been more than five or six, but I was a weird kid -- I saw a Hollywood movie about postwar Berlin, in which the G.I. hero, asked by his German girlfriend to explain the difference between freedom and democracy, could only produce Ralph Kramdenlike gabblings. I guess it was supposed to be funny -- although it accurately reflected an important and lamentable truth about us -- but it piqued my curiosity and explains a lot about the way I turned out.

What I discovered -- in hardly any time and without any effort at all, despite the way most Americans are deliberately miseducated about freedom and democracy -- was that they aren't even closely related political entities. Freedom is the absence of coercion. Period. The end.

Democracy, as the saying goes, is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Hitler claimed to be a democrat, and so did Stalin.

Democracy is also a state of perpetual warfare between voracious special interest groups -- all competing for a cut of trillions stolen for them from the Productive Class by government thugs -- and between the individual politicians, bureaucrats, and lawyers who champion and cater to them. Best of all (from their viewpoint), it means perpetual employment for all three, because it never, ever ends. Last year's "final" vote is always subject to revision or reversal by next year's session of the legislature, if not by "the people" at this year's election.

What keeps it going is this simple fact: the lust for power over other people's lives is a sickness, an incurable, insatiable pathology that leads, when it can, to the accumulation of more and more power. There never lived a city councilman (or woman) or county commissioner, in a brand new cheap blue suit from Sears, who didn't gaze at himself in the full-length mirror on the back of his closet door and imagine himself being called "Mr. President." The ultimate, collectivized expression of that individual lust for power is the 20th century Superstate.

Sociologists will tell you that, in order to build and maintain a Superstate, there always has to be an outside (or an inside) threat to justify binding the lambs and bleeding them dry. Hitler played it both ways, of course, with tremendous success, what with Jews on the inside and Allies on the outside. But what I referred to as "the War Century" in my novel Pallas actually began in the 1860s, with an endless stream of Lincolnian excuses for murdering more than 620,00 men, women, and children. Some of Lincoln's generals took a special delight in executing helpless southern women who were carrying unborn "rebel" babies.

The War century continued escalating with the Spanish American War, which tranformed Lincoln's continental empire into a worldwide concern, stretching from Cuba to the Philippine Islands. Then came World War I -- the only justifications for American participation in that, the infamous Zimmerman telegram and the sinking of the "civilian passenger liner" Lusitania, have since been proven fraudulent -- World War II, the "Cold War", the Korean War, and finally the War in Vietnam.

It must have been a shock to maintainers of the Superstate when the Vietnam war was ended, for all practical purposes, by millions of everyday Americans disgusted by it and by the lies that had supported it. When the latterday Lincolnians were sure that sort of thing would no longer work, the War on Drugs was engineered. And when that finally began to grow tiresome, the War on Terrorism -- beginning with the Persian Gulf War -- was brought in like a wrestler at a tag-team match, thanks to an incredibly convenient attack on the World Trade Center.

When the Wall fell in 1989, for a brief shining moment it looked like we might be free, free from oppressive taxation (people were talking about a "Peace Dividend"), free from being spied on and controlled by an unconstitutional government using unconstitutional laws.

But it was not to be. Far too many jobs depended on keeping the Superstate in place. Too many political careers. Too many diseased minds and hearts would no longer be able to act out their unspeakable contempt for themselves by mutilating the lives and fortunes of others. Now they have their USA Patriot Act and their Department of Homeland Security to guarantee that their insanity is never threatened again.

Or else.

Once upon a time, first in 1776, and again in 1989, we were almost free.

If you enjoyed reading about "We Were Almost Free- L Neil Smith" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Preacherman
January 16, 2003, 08:40 AM
I would have more respect for Mr. Smith if he got his facts right... his diatribe is filled with so many inaccuracies that it's hard to know where to begin in countering them. Just to take one example (lack of time for more right now) - the Zimmermann telegram is anything but a fake! I take this article with rather more than a pinch of salt...

2dogs
January 16, 2003, 08:48 AM
I would have more respect for Mr. Smith if he got his facts right

Preacherman

It is an opinion piece written by a Libertarian sci-fi author- not an attempt to provide historical facts, and allowing for some poetic license it is, IMHO, and interesting and thought provoking piece. Sorry you didn't like it, I guess.:)

Joe Demko
January 16, 2003, 08:58 AM
Some of Lincoln's generals took a special delight in executing helpless southern women who were carrying unborn "rebel" babies.

Documentation?

Chris Rhines
January 16, 2003, 09:36 AM
The Zimmerman telegram was/is indeed real. Point that El Neil was trying to make was that using it as a justification for the US entering WWII was fraudulent. Ditto the sinking of the Luisitania.

- Chris

ArmsAkimber
January 16, 2003, 09:37 AM
I am in the middle of reading The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. Dilorenzo. I have not run across the claim about generals murdering pregnant Confederate women, but from what I have learned in the book, it wouldn't surprise me.

The Emancipation Proclaimation only "freed" slaves who were outside of Federal control. Lincoln's motivation for the EP was primarily to instill a slave insurrection in the unoccupied South. With most able bodies Confederate males engaged in the war effort, what do you think would happen to the women and girls minding the farm if the slaves did rebel?

Lincoln had little regard for civil rights when it interfered with his plans, and this indifference filtered down to the Federal generals who raped the South. Blissninnys who get there panties in a bunch over collateral damage in more contemporary conflicts are content of only sniff over the atrocities Sherman committed. (Well, the war against slavery, you know, so it was OK. yada yada yada)

Abe Lincoln is my hebrew namesake. I grew up on the Lincoln hero worship spoon fed to kids in government schools. Looking back, it makes my stomach turn.

And yes, I think slavery is an abomination. And no, I have never waived a Confederate flag. And no, I am not from the South.

But I am considering moving there. ;)

Oleg Volk
January 16, 2003, 10:18 AM
L.Neil Smith ought to do better reasearch when writing op-eds -- but only because the inaccuracies distract from an otherwise excellent message.

Rangerover
January 16, 2003, 11:23 AM
I have not run across the claim about generals murdering pregnant Confederate women, but from what I have learned in the book, it wouldn't surprise me.
Thomas J. Dilorenzo is yet another in a long line of revisionist twits and his are interpretations are so biased as to be suspect at best. I would place him in roughly the same category as the idiot (I'm not going to waste time looking up his name) whose premise for his latest "historical" work was that Lincoln was a closet homosexual (I'm sure someone on this board remembers his name). The headlong rush to get published in order to obtain tenure and "a name" has spawned a long litany of more and more bizzarre "historical" theories which, though they sell well, are of dubious historical value.

Keep in mind that Dilorenzo is a professional Economist, not a professional Historian. This doesn't preclude his ability to write valid history, but I have yet to see any evidence that he has made any effort to do so.

For the record, I am a born Southerner and still live in the South, but Dilorenzo's pro-Confederate Union bashing gets very old very quickly.

That's my take on Dilorenzo. YMMV. ;)

Ian
January 16, 2003, 11:38 AM
On the historical points - the Lusitania was carrying war material, which is why it was sunk. It was portrayed in the media as the devilish huns deliberately targeting American tourists, though, to encourage war. The Zimmerman telegram was a German suggestion that Mexico invade the US. Oooooo...the Mexican Army! Oh no! Again, it was portrayed as a serious threat (the Mexicans never responded to it, IIRC) to encourage war.

Other similar instances include the sinking of the Maine in Havana and the circumstances regarding the beginning of the Mexican-American War. The Germans tried a similar tact to make Poland look like the aggressor in 1939, but they didn't pull it off nearly as well as the US might have. We just have a lot more practice with this sort of thing, I suppose.

ArmsAkimber
January 16, 2003, 12:26 PM
Your comments on Dr. Dilorenzo did not refute any of the claims made in his book, but rather amount to little more than an ad homenim attack. :scrutiny:

It's unlikely Dr. Dilorenzo would have bashed the Union had Lincoln not undertaken the policies and actions he did, so I think Dr. D, if bashing anything, bashes Lincoln and his policies, not the Union as a whole.

This segue is OT in this forum, as it has nothing to so with RKBA, so I'll not pursue it further.

rock jock
January 16, 2003, 12:30 PM
I have never read any of his books, and after reading this piece of trash, never will.

Ian
January 16, 2003, 03:10 PM
Smith or Dilorenzo?:confused:

Wildalaska
January 16, 2003, 08:22 PM
Boring and stupid.

The Rock
January 16, 2003, 11:18 PM
Ah, yes, Lincoln... Another tyrant that America suffered.

El Neil has some inaccuracies there, but all-in-all, he's right on.

Damn, this is frustrating.

TR

Cadwallader
January 17, 2003, 12:04 PM
Not logically sound or factually accurate=worthless diatribe.

Calamity Jane
January 17, 2003, 01:42 PM
Interesting read - thanks for posting it. I find Smith's message to be spot-on, despite the essay's unfortunate inaccuracies.

Kinda strikes me like the movie Braveheart - the movie was filled with historical inaccuracies, but I'm dadgummed if its message wasn't right on target. ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "We Were Almost Free- L Neil Smith" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!