Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Brutal Dictators or Nationalist Leaders?

United Front Against Austerity
Progressive Gazette
April 1, 2014

Photo: Why are so many "independent" voices and whistleblowers of both left and right persuasions in agreement with Western imperial powers when it comes to defaming nationalist leaders?

Assad is a brutal dictator! Putin is a brutal dictator! Gaddafi was a brutal dictator! China is a brutal dictatorship! Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, Chavez, the Egyptian military – all brutal dictators! Even Obama (despite his many problems, still better than Bush) is a brutal dictator!

In the 1860s, the British and French press portrayed Abraham Lincoln as a brutal dictator – typically a monstrous beast-man whose defining characteristic was crushing the American South without provocation.

Is this your reading of Lincoln? Do you choose to ignore the historical context – the Confederate secession before Lincoln's inauguration, their refusal to contain slavery to its existing borders, their attack on fort Sumter? Do you choose to ignore Lincoln's great achievements – emancipation, the homestead act, land grant colleges, the building of America's industrial capabilities? Do you choose to ignore the international politics of the day – in particular Lincoln's friendly relations with Russia and animosity toward the British empire?

Or would you see the unfriendly portrayal of Lincoln (kept alive by neo-confederates of the Ron Paul / Rush Limbaugh persuasion) as an attack by imperial and financier interests against American nationalism?

Next time, before you trust Democracy Now!, the Guardian, or any other source of "independent" analysis, ask whether you're being fed the same opinions held by Wall Street and its political puppets.Why are so many "independent" voices and whistleblowers of both left and right persuasions in agreement with Western imperial powers when it comes to defaming nationalist leaders?

Assad is a brutal dictator! 


Putin is a brutal dictator! 

Gaddafi was a brutal dictator! 

China is a brutal dictatorship! 

Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, Chavez, the Egyptian military – all brutal dictators! 

Even Obama (despite his many problems, still better than Bush) is a brutal dictator!

In the 1860s, the British and French press portrayed Abraham Lincoln as a brutal dictator – typically a monstrous beast-man whose defining characteristic was crushing the American South without provocation.

Is this your reading of Lincoln? 


Do you choose to ignore the historical context – the Confederate secession before Lincoln's inauguration, their refusal to contain slavery to its existing borders, their attack on fort Sumter? 

Do you choose to ignore Lincoln's great achievements – emancipation, the homestead act, land grant colleges, the building of America's industrial capabilities? 


Do you choose to ignore the international politics of the day – in particular Lincoln's friendly relations with Russia and animosity toward the British empire?

Or would you see the unfriendly portrayal of Lincoln (kept alive by neo-confederates of the Ron Paul / Rush Limbaugh persuasion) as an attack by imperial and financier interests against American nationalism?

Next time, before you trust Democracy Now!, the Guardian, or any other source of "independent" analysis, ask whether you're being fed the same opinions held by Wall Street and its political puppets.