Uh-oh.Â The Southern Poverty Law Center has detected yet another deviation from orthodoxy.Â Seems they donâ€™t like Peter Applebomeâ€™s piece on iconoclast Kirkpatrick Sale of the Middlebury Instituteâ€”and if Heidi ainâ€™t happy, ainâ€™t nobody happy:
The Oct. 18 Times article is essentially a pillow-soft feature that paints a picture of Sale as a father figure to the somewhat goofy but nevertheless endearing secessionists. …
What Applebome never says is that Sale arranged a co-sponsoring agreement for the Oct. 3-4 convention with the League of the South. He doesnâ€™t note that most people familiar with LOS consider Saleâ€™s new partner a white supremacist hate group…
Aha!Â Seems part of the problem is that the SPLC thinks it owns the legal rights to all the mainstream mediaâ€™s puff-pieces, and theyâ€™re just jealous that someone else gets some MSM lovinâ€™.Â
Worse, as far as Heidi & Co. are concerned, these terms of endearment were aimed at a prominent critic of the ruling elite, and thatâ€™s a no-no.Â The SPLCâ€™s job is to enforce obedience to the central government and its globalist agenda.Â Itâ€™s one of Big Governmentâ€™s busiest little helpers.Â Randall Williams, who resigned from the SPLC in 1986, said in 1988: â€œWe were sharing information with the FBI, the police, undercover agents. Instead of defending clients and victims we were more of a super snoop outfit, an arm of law enforcement.â€ So obviously, saying or writing anything that the SPLC condemns carries a bit of risk with it.Â Is it possible this money-making machine might abuse that kind of power, and go after someone for purely political or personal reasons?Â
The SPLC is a privatized army enforcing globalism, and it fulfills its function by bashing dissidents.Â Not only is the reader of this latest hit piece supposed to believe that the polymath Sale has been taken in by wily Southern secessionists, but is also expected to swallow the notion that any deviation from mainstream thought is extremist, hateful, and a threat to us all.Â Â The SPLCÂ has bashed opponents of the Iraq War as anti-Semitic, and portrays anyone who opposes the globalist, anti-middle-class Open Borders agenda as racist.Â Like all successful mercenaries, fighting for the regime has paid off well for the SPLCâ€”under Morris Deesâ€™ direction, it has amassed a fortune, and is generally portrayed in the corporate media as Americaâ€™s repository of goodness and light.Â Wampum and worship are high-energy fuels for big-time egos.Â So when anyone utters a word countering its revealed wisdom, Morrisâ€™ Silver Hammer comes down hard.Â The SPLC article continues:
Applebome seems to have a soft spot for Southern secessionists. Author of the 1997 book Dixie Rising: How the South is Shaping American Values, Politics and Culture, Applebome in the Times article describes the secession movement that led to the Civil War as â€œa movement now seen as racist, violent and a loser.â€ Now seen? As every serious scholar of the Civil War knows, there is no question that the war was fought to defend slavery and the system of white supremacy.
So, â€œevery serious scholarâ€ knows this?Â Where do I start?Â I could mention the Crittenden Resolution, which Congress passed in the early days of the war to define WHAT THE CONFLICT WAS ALL ABOUT:
Specifically, the resolution stated that the war was being waged for the reunion of the states, and not to abolish the southâ€™s â€œpeculiar institutionâ€ of slavery. The resolution required the Union Government to take no actions against institution of slavery. It was named for Senators John J. Crittenden of Kentucky and Andrew Johnson of Tennessee (who was later to become President).
The war was fought not for â€œoverthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States,â€ but to â€œdefend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union.â€ The war would end when the seceding states returned to the Union with slavery being intact.
Notice thatâ€™s not anyoneâ€™s opinion on either side of the question, but official US policy.
And if the war was fought over â€œwhite supremacy,â€ how does one explain Abe Lincolnâ€™s attitudes toward blacks, which can hardly be called egalitarian?Â Or Union commanders Sheridanâ€™s, Shermanâ€™s, and Grantâ€™s less-than-hospitable opinions about Jews and Indians?
Thereâ€™s an unsettling logical consistency to the SPLCâ€™s accusations of racial hatred that actually proves the Leagueâ€™s case against the Lincolnian state. DCâ€™s corruption, its escalating war on liberty, and unending bloodlust can be traced directly to Lincolnâ€™s violent counter-revolution against dispersed political power.Â Thatâ€™s why Neocons defending globalism invoke the holy name of Lincoln to justify their unconstitutional power grabs and interventionism.Â Like Lincoln, apologists for DCâ€™s most profitable export, which is subsidized mayhem, defend it as necessary to spread the self-proclaimed nobility of its foreign policy.Â Those who oppose violent liberation must be possessed by hatred, period.Â Therefore, our objections against the ongoing assault on the Bill of Rights, the obscene waste of money and lives, and frightening centralization of power are dismissed as covers for a secret agenda of racial hatred.Â
It is propaganda, pure and simple.Â Judge it by the simple standard of whatâ€™s at stake, and what these â€œchampions of liberationâ€ stand to gain by making these accusations.Â