Via Billy
VERBATIM
by Al Benson Jr.
Those who have studied some world history will recognize the name of
Robespierre, a French socialist revolutionary during the days of the
French Revolution--that epoch of the Enlightenment. Nesta Webster, an
English historian, commented on Robespierre when she said: "Robespierre
regarded anarchy simply as a means to an end--the reconstruction of
society according to the plan he had evolved with the co-operation of
Saint Just, which was simply an embryonic form of the system known later
as state socialism." So, history testifies that Robespierre was a
socialist, out to transform society into what he thought it should
be--and naturally, it was all to be for the "good" of mankind. That
seems to be what socialists do best. The fact that, in their quest for
the "betterment" of mankind they end up killing thousands or hundreds of
thousands never seems to bother them or their adherents all that much.
They did it all for our "good" even if we have to be dead to appreciate
it.
He was willing to justify whatever methods he used to accomplish his
desired ends, anarchy, terror, or whatever. He felt that if any of these
helped to accomplish his agenda (state socialism) then they must
automatically be good. For socialists the ends always justify the means.
That is a cardinal point of their theology--and it is a theology, make
no mistake.
In our own history we have an updated 1860s version of
Robespierre--Abraham Lincoln. The "great emancipator" of abolitionist
myth and legend has been compared to Robespierre by some historians and
writers.
E. A. Pollard, editor of the
Richmond Examiner during the War of Northern Aggression, has written much about how the North prosecuted the war. His 750 page book
The Lost Cause is
worthwhile reading for serious students of that period of our history.
Pollard didn't always agree with the Davis administration, but even for
that, you can still get a lot out of what he wrote.
In writing of the prevailing climate in the North during the early days
of the War, Pollard noted that: "Much of the apparent unanimity which
prevailed in favor of the war was the result of terror. The people of
the North seem to have a peculiar dread of public opinion." In writing
of the actions of the Yankee/Marxist government Pollard said: "But very
effective measures were taken by the Government in aid of this
spontaneous instinct of terror. They revived the system of espionage
and arrests which had been employed in France by Robespierre and Fouche.
At first it was pretended that the arrested persons held secret
correspondence with the Southern authorities; but soon all disguise and
hypocrisy were thrown off, and arrests were made on charges, even
suspicion, of mere disloyalty." In other words, just disagreeing with
the Lincoln administration, without even doing anything, was enough to
get you thrown in the slammer.
Pollard noted, quite accurately, that, in the North, there was really no
need of arbitrary arrests, as the war was far distant and the country
was not really invaded--excepting Maryland and Pennsylvania later in the
war.
However, Pollard stated: "Yet a system of terror was established, which
could only have been warrantable at the South...Yet in the first weeks
of the war, a system of arbitrary and despotic seizure and imprisonment
was inaugurated, which continued even after the surrenders of Lee and
Johnston. The number of arbitrary arrests that were made in the whole
period of the war is variously estimated at from ten to thirty thousand,
the great mass of arrested persons never had a trial, and knew nothing
of the charges, if any at all, on which they were being imprisoned."
Some were even informed that, should they request legal counsel, such an
action would be "distasteful to the Government, and would prejudice
their applications for trial and release." But, then, the quest for
simple justice has, and continues to be, "distasteful" to tyrants!
