Obama … Lincoln Redux

Years ago, H. L. Mencken exposed the fact that Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, used poetry as opposed to logic to reinvent these united States of America into a National Union from a Confederated Union. Lincoln, by the poetry as expressed in the Gettysburg hijacked these united States vision of itself and largely reinvented the country with that speech. As stated earlier, H.L. Mencken pointed this out in his own illimitable way,

“The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history…the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.”

The reason I bring this up is I believe that Barack Obama was trying to do much the same thing in his 2013 Inauguration speech.

First, Obama has always tried to channel Lincoln. In point of fact Obama used Lincoln’s Bible (along with MLK’s) to take his oath of office. Could this be a indicator that Obama understands what Lincoln accomplished in changing America via his Gettysburg Address, and so aspired to do the same with his Inaugural address?

Second in his Inauguration Obama made more then one reference to the ability of America to reinvent itself. Early on in the Inaugural address Obama said,

“America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: …. an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention.”

Even earlier in his address Obama even refers how the Nation re-made itself in the context of the Lincoln Regime,

“Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.”

Elsewhere we find,

“But we have always understood that when times change, so must we;”

When you combine these quotes it is clear that Obama’s intent is to remake America and my premise is that this Inauguration Address was to Obama what the Gettysberg was to Lincoln in the sense that both speeches, by way of poetry, glommed on to some honored American idea, only to twist it by poetry in a direction that contradicted the original intent of the Founders. For Lincoln, his appeal was to the the American time honored notion of self-determination in order to justify denying the South the opportunity of self-determination. Lincoln, by poetry, was able to justify his crushing of the South in the name of self-determination. Lincoln’s poetry, coloring his brutal use of the sword and the canon, remade the Nation and set it on a different trajectory from which it would never recover.

What Obama is appealing to, by way of poetry, is a twisted idea of equality in order to overturn liberty. In his Inaugural speech Obama returned to the theme of equality over and over again.

… ” what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

“We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.”

“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher …”

“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well….”

Obama’s constant appeal to the traditional American virtue of equality is being used to set the nation on a new trajectory that will overturn the original understanding of equality. It is obvious that the Founders did not believe in the kind of Jacobin equality for which Obama champions. Just the fact that the Founders allowed the individual states to determine who would have the franchise proves that they were not interested in the kind of Marxist equality for which Obama is advocating. The fact that the Founders crafted a document of negative rights where the Federal Government was restricted to very specific enumerated and delegated powers — powers that did not include forcing equality on the population and did allow the people to maintain their cherished liberty — suggest that the Founders “equality” is not the “equality” to which Obama constantly returned.

In Obama’s America, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence that mentions that “all men are created equal, is being used as a talisman in order to reinterpret America. The problem is that the US War for American Independence was not posited on the same premises of the French Revolution where equality as Egalitarianism was the leitmotif. America did not have the watch word of “Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity.” America did not mention “Equality” in her primary document (Constitution), or her Bill of Rights. America was not hung up about addressing everyone as “Citoyen,” (Citizen) in order to reveal a mad allegiance to equality as we find in the French Revolution was. America did not come up with a “Declaration of the Rights of Men,” and enshrine “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights” in its first point. America’s concern was Liberty not equality.

In the twentieth century, scholars like Hayek and Friedman maintain that equality is in conflict with and incompatible with liberty. They maintained that speaking of social justice in a society where individuals are free, any attempt to establish social justice or equality will deprive the people of their freedom because such an attempt requires government intervention to the end of denying liberty in pursuit of equality. A true notion of liberty understands that it includes the liberty to be different, and so unequal, due to the pursuit of individual interests. Obama’s version of “Equality” stands in contradiction to any vision of “Liberty” that isn’t Jacobin at its core. Obama’s equality is a demand for equality of outcome that always achieves a dull, ugly, drab sameness and the only way that can be achieved is by Obama taking away the liberty of American People.

Obama, in his Inauguration Speech is trying to deceptively change America much like Lincoln did at Gettysburg. If Obama is able to foist his vision of equality on America, by sentimentally appealing to the historic American notion of equality, he will succeed in changing the USA into the USSA.

Back To Back Napoleon

21st Century Napoleon

“What makes us exceptional — what makes us American — is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal …”

President Obama
Presidential Inauguration Speech — 2013

Orwell's Napoleon


Napoleon the Pig
President of the Farm

George Orwell
Animal Farm

Brothers Separated By A Century?

From Obama Inauguration Speech

“Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time – but it does require us to act in our time.”

That sounds a great deal like this quote from Karl Marx I am familiar with,

“The point is not to understand the world, but to transform it.”

The above Marx quote is from Karl Marx’s 11th Thesis on Feuerbach.

I’m sure the similarities between the two are sheer coincidence and nothing more.

Characteristics Of A Collectivist Order

You can identify a move towards a collectivist order by seeing the surge towards

1.) Uniformity

Everything must be the same. Remember the Collectivist State is like a Machine and in order for Machines to work they have to be standardized. Standardization in the social order is just another word for Uniformity. The cogs may differ slightly in what the cog’s role is in the machine but all cogs have the same value and worth. (Except of course the Elite running the machine.)

2.) Amalgamation

Everything for the State … nothing outside of the State.

Amalgamation, also serves the end of uniformity. Amalgamation is the process by which uniformity is arrived at. Like a mulligan stew all distinctions among the leftovers must be eliminated by being thrown into the same stew. Amalgamation is arrived at by everything moving down to the least common denominator. This amalgamation process is what Van Til referred to as “integration downward into the void.” Amalgamation explains our current preoccupation with denying gender roles and now even gender distinctions. Amalgamation is typically pursued in the name of “fairness.” Another example of amalgamation in our culture is the “no student left behind program,” in our Government Schools. The program amalgamated the superior students downward to the level of the inferior students as the superior students were not allowed to press ahead at their speed so that they may be yoked to help those slower students. The results has been that no student has been left behind because all students were amalgamated into the left behind status.

3.) Bureaucratization

Since the Collective runs everything there must be a bureaucracy to do the running and then a bureaucracy to make sure the bureaucracy, that is responsible for the machinery, is indeed running the machinery. Then of course there is the bureaucracy to keep an eye on all the cogs to make sure they are not being un-cog like. The collectivist state because of uniformity and amalgamation must have Bureaucrats whose role it is to ensure that everyone is remaining Uniform and that everyone is being amalgamated.

4.) Militarization

It is a police state and so someone has to make sure that everyone stays in line. Keep an eye out for how the local police and County Sheriff become increasingly militarized in their approach to the citizenry. Means of resistance of the citizenry are eliminated.

5.) Centralization

Orders come from on high. Jurisdictional spheres are eliminated. Planning is done by the State and not by the individual. Prices and wages are set. A Borg like existence begins to predominate as the society is identified with and as the State. Formerly mediating institutions are subsumed into the state.

6.) Proliferation of Law

The collectivist state proliferates law so that its citizenry can’t possible know what is legal and illegal. This allows the collectivist state to instantly negate any citizen who isn’t uniform and doesn’t amalgamate. The collectivist State simply arrests said citizen and charges them with any number of laws that are on the books. This allows the State to become the complete arbiter of law. Every citizen is guilty of something whenever the State desires for them to be guilty.

The Times They Are A Changing

“In 1960, only 5 percent of our children were born to unmarried mothers. In 1990 the figure was 28 percent. In 1960, 7 percent of our children under three lived with one parent. In 1990, 27 percent. In 1960, less than 1 percent of our children under 18 experienced the divorce of their parents. In 1990, the figure was almost 50 percent.”

Neil Postman
The End Of Education pg. 48

The culture of un-marriage (which includes children apart from marriage and divorce) has done more harm to our culture then anything that the culture of homosexuality will do. Indeed, it wouldn’t take much creativity to connect dots between the culture of un-marriage in one generation and the culture of homosexuality in the next. Allow children to grow up where the basic structure of family is perverted and bent and it shouldn’t be to much of a surprise if they become individuals whose perversion and bentness manifests itself in a host of areas including sexuality.

Now couple these statistics with the reality that America tries to provide a social safety net for all these casualties in the way of welfare, ADC, low income housing, food stamps, and a plethora of other benefits and it doesn’t take to much brilliance to see that a net that was ill advised, but still sufficient, in 1960 will break apart if the numbers continue apace. A family network financially supporting one or two strung out types is feasible. A family network financially supporting ten or twenty makes the whole family strung out. The same goes for nations.

The only cure for this is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Reversing legislation on no fault divorce, making divorce more difficult again won’t change this because people won’t desire that legislation until enough of them have been convicted of their sin in despising God’s goodness. Preaching at people moralisms on the importance of loving their children more then their selfish desires won’t change this since love of self over love of everything else is at the heart of the sin problem. The only cure for this is the preaching of Law and Gospel. The law must be preached so that people can see the ugliness of their rebellious selfishness against God and their families so that the Gospel can be proclaimed that forgiveness can be genuinely be found in Christ. Only once people look to Christ can we expect the rejuvenation of the individual, family, and culture.

The statistics above are only a symptom of a far greater problem.