Trotskyites for Romney

Robert E. Lee foresaw the consequences of Lincoln’s victory in a letter to Lord Acton: “the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”

General Lee was right. The centralized regime that arose during the WBTS has indeed brought ruin, not just to the victims of DC’s wars, but to Americans as well, in the form of crushing debt and assaults on basic liberty. The government justifies its acts at home and abroad with the same assurances Lincoln used: it’s promoting democracy and equality, a scam we have exposed before. But even though the Empire puts a benevolent face on its acts, those acts are still those of a rogue, predatory force that is the world’s greatest threat to peace and liberty. Its campaigns in remote battlefields have rebounded to diminish liberty at home – the news that the government plans to use drones to patrol American skies is just the latest grim proof.

Two powerful and seemingly disparate groups fuel the endless cycle of intervention, pro-war Neocons and pro-equality civil rights activists. Each aids the other: Civil rights activists provide the narrative of government-backed liberation that justifies a government big enough to finance a global military force. And Neocons are happy to reciprocate by backing civil rights initiatives. The result is an ever-expanding central government.

Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com has just published a remarkable piece that reenforces that argument. Despite apparent differences, both Neocons and civil rights activists advocate an all-powerful central government as an enabler of their agendas. So it’s no surprise that both groups evolved from the same source, the ideology of an American Marxist named Max Shachtman. Raimondo writes:

Shachtman … had become an advisor to AFL-CIO chieftain George Meany, and a confidante of Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, the warlike Democratic Senator from Washington state whose foreign policy views often led his critics to describe him as “the Senator from Boeing.” In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Shachtman’s followers became influential in the labor movement and in the budding civil rights movement: Bayard Rustin, the real organizer of Martin Luther King’s famous “March on Washington,” was a Shachtmanite, although kept out of the limelight by his homosexuality.

That’s why I’m pulling for an Obama win in November – DC’s endless wars, which were launched in the name of defending and promoting democracy, are instead accelerating the loss of American liberty. Since 9/11, which was itself blowback from DC’s earlier interventions in the Middle East, we have the two Patriot Acts, the Department of Homeland Security, fusion centers for domestic surveillance, and a chief executive that claims the power to indefinitely detain and even execute Americans without a trial. As bad as Obama is, Romney will be worse – he’ll launch a war against Iran that will further impoverish us and justify even more totalitarianism.

It’s increasingly clear that Leviathan cannot be reformed. The good news is that big government is dissolving in a global movement toward smaller, human-scaled political units. Know hope.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

12 thoughts on “Trotskyites for Romney

  1. Bruce

    HB2,

    Wow! That’s awful.

    This seems to be a common paleocon thing. That the most important thing is DC’s wars and the resulting loss of liberty.
    Do you know that Romney will launch a war against Iran?

    To me, the national question is the most important thing. Romney’s bad, but Obama’s worse. If I can’t stomach voting for Romney, then I’ll vote A3P. I could never vote for a Leftist African.

    I want to see Romney win because there’s a (small) chance that Africans and Leftists will behave so badly after an Obama defeat that European-Americans will wake up. Small chance, but it’s not impossible.

  2. Kirt Higdon

    Too bad they can’t both lose but whichever wins will do so without my vote – I’ll write in Ron Paul. Even if I was a lesser evil voter (and I’m not), I can’t even figure out which of those two is the lesser evil. Raimondo’s article on the Trotskyite origins of the neo-cons is interesting. He’s put out this information before, but it’s worth revisiting or visiting for the first time for anyone who hasn’t seen it yet. Raimondo has said elsewhere he’d rather see Obama win, but not so much that he can stomach voting for him.

  3. HarrisonBergeron2 Post author

    Bruce,

    I think we can bet on a war with Iran if Romney wins. Look at his advisors: “Mad John” Bolton, and Elliott Abrams, the liar. Both are as bloodthirsty as chickenhawks come.

    That said, your point about the instructive value of more black rioting is interesting.

  4. HarrisonBergeron2 Post author

    Kirt,

    I completely understand. If this were a moral political system, I’d agree that we should avoid the lesser evil. But I think Obama in a second term, when he’s more free to impose his agenda, will spark an Incredible Hulk version of the Tea Party.

    So I see voting for Obama as assisted suicide for the Empire.

  5. JDP

    so just to be clear, how would this site prefer the Civil War to have ended? with a permanently divided United States?

    and Romney is not stupid enough to launch a land invasion of Iran. you guys just assume anyone who isn’t reflexively anti-interventionist in absolutely everything is automatically gonna launch Iraq Part II.

  6. Weaver

    JDP,

    why would the US need to remain “permanently divided”? For that matter why must it remain permanently united?

    The South had a right to secede, Northerners had attempted this previously; and the North invaded.

    There weren’t even citizens of the US before the War. We were citizens of the respective states. It’s akin to the EU swallowing Europe, which it does appear to be attempting, and successfully I might add.

  7. Weaver

    The past aside, the South today is somewhat a remnant people but also a land and a set of values, values which the North in large measure used to share.

    Southerners tend to be very tolerant of Northerners who relocate respectfully, showing intention to join as a productive member who respects our heritage.

    On the subject of values, PCUSA has caused recent splits, or polite requests for splits, due to its rejection of the Bible as the Word of God! I can understand rejecting dogmatism, but to many in the South that sounds as if it goes much further. The South is Christian, at least relative to the rest of the US.

  8. Weaver

    Bruce,

    this election has turned my uncle into a Romney activist, haha.

    I’m undecided. I’ll probably vote A3P.

    I’m not sure “waking up” would be an improvement. After reading some of our “New Right” saviours, I’ve decided I’d rather have Obama as absolute monarch.

    If a solution is to come about, leaders will have to stand up and play the game as it exists. It’s just a question of ability and will (which is nourished by the soul – and dies in New Right nihilism).

  9. HarrisonBergeron2 Post author

    JDP,

    I can’t speak for the entire stable of writers who contribute to CHT, but there’s no doubt in my mind that Americans both North and South, and the world, would have been better off.

    The record speaks for itself. The consolidated US regime slaughtered Indians, Filipinos, invaded its neighbors, and disastrously intervened in WWI, paving the way for Lenin, and, ultimately, Hitler.

    So, yes, IMHO, we would have been better off with Southern independence.

  10. Kirt Higdon

    It would have been better if the South could have just peacefully seceeded or, if not, that they had successfully won independence in the war. And I don’t think anyone believes that Romney will launch a massive land invasion of Iran. The current American way of war is to use American spec ops forces, robot drone bombers, and economic and financial sanctions to sow chaos, destroy opposition regimes, and slaughter and terrorize opposing civilians. Where occupation is deemed necessary, client regime mercenaries (e.g. Kenyans, Ethiopians, Ugandans) are used. There won’t be a repeat of Iraq or Afghanistan, but the rest of the world will still be treated as a free fire zone as needed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>