The South was just a wonderful place where the simple, God-fearing folk lived life at a slower, gentler pace, and where their elites were principled men who wanted nothing more than to protect "States' Rights" and all that is beautiful.
NO.
Leaving aside the perversely Old Testament- heavy Christianity that plagues the people of that region to this very day (and even more so than almost any other region in bizarrely and disturbingly Yahweh-friendly America), the Southern elites led their people, the vast majority of whom had no connection to the practice of slavery, to fight AGAINST States' Rights and to protect the spread of slavery into the new territories-- the wishes of the people in the forming states who did not want to tolerate that awful institution and the unwanted population it would bring be damned! And those wonderful, far-seeing "Southern Gentlemen" leaders did this by lying shamelessly and ceaselessly about Lincoln's unambiguous beliefs on race and slavery.
A person can, for very good reasons, despise much of what Lincoln did, as well as loathe what many of his generals did. But a person can manage to do this without romanticizing The South.
@ < A person can, for very good reasons, despise much of what Lincoln did, as well as loathe what many of his generals did. But a person can manage to do this without romanticizing The South>
Romanticizing or 'faking reality in black-&-white terms outside ambiguity and gray-areas' is not good but the person who delves into ambiguity, examines it and makes sense of it becomes, paradoxically, a modern day 'romantic' hero or 'white knight,' as the early 60's Sean Connery James Bond was Ayn Rand's favorite modern day romantic archetype in her book "The Romantic Manifesto." It is not an accident that the James Bond character created by Connery (Ian Fleming was lame enough to want Cary Grant in that role but later admitted Connery had created something better than he had in mind in his novels)is even now some 50 hackneyed years later, still so popular with his imitators. It is the modern day 'romantic' archetype that is both part of ambiguity and stands apart from it, transcending it.
Saying Denmark (before foreign immigration) had the lowest murder rate in the world is not 'romanticizing' Denmark, it was just a fact.
Saying the South was a 'wonderful place' means nothing since facts can be easily dug up to prove otherwise. But saying the South was much better than what is claimed in the official history books is true because many facts can be dug up easily to justifiedly revise history.
Also, the bitter, defeated South that resulted after the Civil War should obviously not be confused with its previous self before the rape or the quality of life and what went on in the pre-Civil-war days.
Anon7351: on Spingola's show near the middle, caller said Duke had finally come out and said jooz/izzy did 911. Anyone know the whats/wheres of this? Duke's milquetoast 911 position has long been a bone of contention for me in trusting him.
Spingola only said she knows he's in europe now where holohoax-truth-speech is verboten. Then the subject changed to DBS blaming the jesuits for such-n-such in his recent JFriend interview.
Few days ago I saw a YT vid with Duke as guest on either PressTV or RT, where they talked about 9/11... now I can't find it. Seems it was about 16 months ago, 10th anniv of 911.
"....the Southern elites led their people, the vast majority of whom had no connection to the practice of slavery, to fight AGAINST States' Rights and to protect the spread of slavery into the new territories--...."
Are you out of your mind???
Are you saying that the South was NOT fighting for States Rights?
I have never heard this theory before. Please explain.
The South seceded and the "Civil War" was begun not because Lincoln or any other individuals in power were striving to abolish slavery where it existed. The South seceded and fired the first shots of the war because more and more people in the newer territories were making it clear that they did not want slavery practiced around them, and they did not want the troubles that would doubtlessly result from having to deal with a large population of a people very different from them. In other words, the forming states and a growing portion of the Northern population did not want the institution of slavery and all the problems that must come with it to expand. Southern elites did not like that at all, and they accused Lincoln of being one of the very small number of idiotic, obnoxious and radical abolitionists and egalitarians, even though that was so obviously untrue.
Lincoln and other influential and powerful people in The North surely could have done things differently-- things that would not have led so many decent and good people to experience such misery. But those who believe that things would have turned out fine if The South had been "left alone" are fooling themselves. War would have been inevitable as the two countries expanded westward.
http://www.grizzom.blogspot.com/2012/12/israel-fingerprints-all-over-9-11.html This is where Dr. David Duke FINALLY came-out-of-the-closet and admitted what he was too terrified to admit many years earlier when it was obvious to the rest of us in the REAL truth-movement--
the demons walking-on-two-legs, their minions and cohorts, and israHell, were truly responsible for what happened on 911, and literally carried-out the operation.
As for the situation with Darryl supposedly saying that "the Jesuits" control or run ANYTHING...he simply did not say that, and that is that.
"....The South seceded and fired the first shots of the war because more and more people in the newer territories were making it clear that they did not want slavery practiced around them...."
For some reason, I have been interested in "The Civil War" since I was a child, and I have read a great many books and articles about the subject from court historians and those anti-court historians who at least try to be objective.
Mark Weber did a podcast on the Lincoln myth that I was very impressed by. He summed up many of my own thoughts in a much more articulate and clear way than I ever could. I would suggest starting there.
Also, there are some concise and excellent articles on "The Civil War" at the IHR website and The Barnes Review.
Lindsey, Thanks so much for the clarification on Dr. Duke (Duke on 9-11 PressTV Israel fingerprints all over 9 11 attacks US lamaker http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jA6Yogbik7c#! http://www.grizzom.blogspot.com/2012/12/israel-fingerprints-all-over-9-11.html ) I have listened intently and he did indeed place the blame on the Israelis. Hope you sent the link to Deanna. You likely also know that today she corrected a dis-info error made in reference to DBS recent interview with Friend; no comments were made concerning the Jesuits! Thanks again Lindsey; Glad for Dr. Duke!
When doing historical research, whether on "The Civil War," WW2, NS Germany or anything else, I have found that the most important insights often occur when you cut out the middlemen (the historians, especially the official ones) and just read what important figures actually said and wrote.**
Something came up very recently that underscores the importance of going to the source. Yesterday and the day before, I had been visiting some relatives, and we watched a few news programs together (usually, I try to avoid watching television). Because of its anniversary, there were quite a number of segments on The Emancipation Proclamation. Well, the talking heads and reporters kept on saying things about it that were patently false. And anybody who actually reads the Proclamation would know that what was being said repeatedly on the news was almost entirely untrue.
** One has to be much more careful going about this when reading about Hitler because, as Deanna Spingola, Veronica Clark, Mark Weber and others have pointed out and demonstrated, many of the statements attributed to Hitler were not made by him.
@ anon 7:21 PM- I have listened intently and he did indeed place the blame on the Israelis. Hope you sent the link to Deanna.
I've just watched again, and have to disagree, technically, that he "placed the blame on the Israelis". He didn't make that key leap from Muslim-blowback/izzy-foreknowledge/LIHOP, to ZIO-MIHOP (or ZIHOP as some call it).
This would've been easy to miss coz Duke served up a lot of 'red meat' in the form of a recital of past izzy false flags, mossad living on same street as Atta, all izzy had to gain from 911 etc- but DD still never crossed that line that izzy/US-zio's DID 911 TOP TO BOTTOM - NOT ARAB MUSLIMS.
The caller during this Spingola Art_from_Philly podcast makes that "Duke finally came out and said ISRAHELL DID 911" at 1:01:10 in the podcast. I'm afraid that's an invalid leap - Duke illustrated that as the YT title says, izzy's fingerprints are all over 911, but not the more truthful izzy did 911 claim, that didn't happen. :(
13 comments:
http://www.darkmoon.me/2012/america-in-ruins-by-john-kaminski/
Oh, great. Here we go again.
The South was just a wonderful place where the simple, God-fearing folk lived life at a slower, gentler pace, and where their elites were principled men who wanted nothing more than to protect "States' Rights" and all that is beautiful.
NO.
Leaving aside the perversely Old Testament- heavy Christianity that plagues the people of that region to this very day (and even more so than almost any other region in bizarrely and disturbingly Yahweh-friendly America), the Southern elites led their people, the vast majority of whom had no connection to the practice of slavery, to fight AGAINST States' Rights and to protect the spread of slavery into the new territories-- the wishes of the people in the forming states who did not want to tolerate that awful institution and the unwanted population it would bring be damned! And those wonderful, far-seeing "Southern Gentlemen" leaders did this by lying shamelessly and ceaselessly about Lincoln's unambiguous beliefs on race and slavery.
A person can, for very good reasons, despise much of what Lincoln did, as well as loathe what many of his generals did. But a person can manage to do this without romanticizing The South.
@ < A person can, for very good reasons, despise much of what Lincoln did, as well as loathe what many of his generals did. But a person can manage to do this without romanticizing The South>
Romanticizing or 'faking reality in black-&-white terms outside ambiguity and gray-areas' is not good but the person who delves into ambiguity, examines it and makes sense of it becomes, paradoxically, a modern day 'romantic' hero or 'white knight,' as the early 60's Sean Connery James Bond was Ayn Rand's favorite modern day romantic archetype in her book "The Romantic Manifesto." It is not an accident that the James Bond character created by Connery (Ian Fleming was lame enough to want Cary Grant in that role but later admitted Connery had created something better than he had in mind in his novels)is even now some 50 hackneyed years later, still so popular with his imitators. It is the modern day 'romantic' archetype that is both part of ambiguity and stands apart from it, transcending it.
Saying Denmark (before foreign immigration) had the lowest murder rate in the world is not 'romanticizing' Denmark, it was just a fact.
Saying the South was a 'wonderful place' means nothing since facts can be easily dug up to prove otherwise. But saying the South was much better than what is claimed in the official history books is true because many facts can be dug up easily to justifiedly revise history.
Also, the bitter, defeated South that resulted after the Civil War should obviously not be confused with its previous self before the rape or the quality of life and what went on in the pre-Civil-war days.
Anon7351: on Spingola's show near the middle, caller said Duke had finally come out and said jooz/izzy did 911. Anyone know the whats/wheres of this? Duke's milquetoast 911 position has long been a bone of contention for me in trusting him.
Spingola only said she knows he's in europe now where holohoax-truth-speech is verboten. Then the subject changed to DBS blaming the jesuits for such-n-such in his recent JFriend interview.
Few days ago I saw a YT vid with Duke as guest on either PressTV or RT, where they talked about 9/11... now I can't find it. Seems it was about 16 months ago, 10th anniv of 911.
"....the Southern elites led their people, the vast majority of whom had no connection to the practice of slavery, to fight AGAINST States' Rights and to protect the spread of slavery into the new territories--...."
Are you out of your mind???
Are you saying that the South was NOT fighting for States Rights?
I have never heard this theory before. Please explain.
for Anon. 9:33 AM
The South seceded and the "Civil War" was begun not because Lincoln or any other individuals in power were striving to abolish slavery where it existed. The South seceded and fired the first shots of the war because more and more people in the newer territories were making it clear that they did not want slavery practiced around them, and they did not want the troubles that would doubtlessly result from having to deal with a large population of a people very different from them. In other words, the forming states and a growing portion of the Northern population did not want the institution of slavery and all the problems that must come with it to expand. Southern elites did not like that at all, and they accused Lincoln of being one of the very small number of idiotic, obnoxious and radical abolitionists and egalitarians, even though that was so obviously untrue.
Lincoln and other influential and powerful people in The North surely could have done things differently-- things that would not have led so many decent and good people to experience such misery. But those who believe that things would have turned out fine if The South had been "left alone" are fooling themselves. War would have been inevitable as the two countries expanded westward.
http://www.grizzom.blogspot.com/2012/12/israel-fingerprints-all-over-9-11.html This is where Dr. David Duke FINALLY came-out-of-the-closet and admitted what he was too terrified to admit many years earlier when it was obvious to the rest of us in the REAL truth-movement--
the demons walking-on-two-legs, their minions and cohorts, and israHell, were truly responsible for what happened on 911, and literally carried-out the operation.
As for the situation with Darryl supposedly saying that "the Jesuits" control or run ANYTHING...he simply did not say that, and that is that.
Lindsey
for Anon. 3:40 AM
I really appreciate your thoughtful response to my comment. It is interesting and enjoyable to read and think about.
"....The South seceded and fired the first shots of the war because more and more people in the newer territories were making it clear that they did not want slavery practiced around them...."
This is a new theory to me. Sounds plausible.
Can you site a book or source? Thanks.
for Anon. 3:30 PM
For some reason, I have been interested in "The Civil War" since I was a child, and I have read a great many books and articles about the subject from court historians and those anti-court historians who at least try to be objective.
Mark Weber did a podcast on the Lincoln myth that I was very impressed by. He summed up many of my own thoughts in a much more articulate and clear way than I ever could. I would suggest starting there.
Also, there are some concise and excellent articles on "The Civil War" at the IHR website and The Barnes Review.
I hope that helps a little.
Lindsey,
Thanks so much for the clarification on Dr. Duke (Duke on 9-11
PressTV Israel fingerprints all over 9 11 attacks US lamaker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jA6Yogbik7c#!
http://www.grizzom.blogspot.com/2012/12/israel-fingerprints-all-over-9-11.html )
I have listened intently and he did indeed place the blame on the Israelis. Hope you sent the link to Deanna. You likely also know that today she corrected a dis-info error made in reference to DBS recent interview with Friend; no comments were made concerning the Jesuits!
Thanks again Lindsey; Glad for Dr. Duke!
for Anon. 3:30 PM continued.
Another thought...
When doing historical research, whether on "The Civil War," WW2, NS Germany or anything else, I have found that the most important insights often occur when you cut out the middlemen (the historians, especially the official ones) and just read what important figures actually said and wrote.**
Something came up very recently that underscores the importance of going to the source. Yesterday and the day before, I had been visiting some relatives, and we watched a few news programs together (usually, I try to avoid watching television). Because of its anniversary, there were quite a number of segments on The Emancipation Proclamation. Well, the talking heads and reporters kept on saying things about it that were patently false. And anybody who actually reads the Proclamation would know that what was being said repeatedly on the news was almost entirely untrue.
** One has to be much more careful going about this when reading about Hitler because, as Deanna Spingola, Veronica Clark, Mark Weber and others have pointed out and demonstrated, many of the statements attributed to Hitler were not made by him.
@ anon 7:21 PM- I have listened intently and he did indeed place the blame on the Israelis. Hope you sent the link to Deanna.
I've just watched again, and have to disagree, technically, that he "placed the blame on the Israelis". He didn't make that key leap from Muslim-blowback/izzy-foreknowledge/LIHOP, to ZIO-MIHOP (or ZIHOP as some call it).
This would've been easy to miss coz Duke served up a lot of 'red meat' in the form of a recital of past izzy false flags, mossad living on same street as Atta, all izzy had to gain from 911 etc- but DD still never crossed that line that izzy/US-zio's DID 911 TOP TO BOTTOM - NOT ARAB MUSLIMS.
http://davidraygriffin.com/articles/was-america-attacked-by-muslims-on-911/
The caller during this Spingola Art_from_Philly podcast makes that "Duke finally came out and said ISRAHELL DID 911" at 1:01:10 in the podcast. I'm afraid that's an invalid leap - Duke illustrated that as the YT title says, izzy's fingerprints are all over 911, but not the more truthful izzy did 911 claim, that didn't happen. :(
Post a Comment