Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old January 9th, 2011 #1
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default The jew continues to lie about the Civil War

I am outraged by this pack of lies.

Five myths about why the South seceded

By James W. Loewen About This Jew retelling of American history as it should, and could, be taught
Sunday, January 9, 2011; 12:00 AM

One hundred and fifty years after the Civil War began, we're still fighting it -- or at least fighting over its history. I've polled thousands of high school history teachers and spoken about the war to audiences across the country, and there is little agreement even on why the South seceded. Was it over slavery? States' rights? Tariffs and taxes?

As the nation begins to commemorate the anniversaries of the war's various battles -- from Fort Sumter to Appomattox -- let's first dispense with some of the more prevalent myths about why it all began.

MORE

Last edited by Fred O'Malley; January 9th, 2011 at 10:56 AM.
 
Old January 9th, 2011 #2
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Jews Caused the Civil War - Part 2


The Civil War was actually fought over States Rights but the ownership of the media; the newspapers, magazines, publishing houses and etc., HAVE BEEN USED TO CREATE A HATRED OF THE WHITE RACE BY THE BLACKS, AND THE BLACKS HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO SEE PAST THE END OF THEIR NOSES OR THEIR NEXT WELFARE CHECK HANDED OUT BECAUSE THE JEWS USE THE WHITE RACE TO SUPPLY THE FREE FOOD, MEDICINE, CLOTHING, HOUSING AND ETC. BUT THE BLACKS HAVE REMAINED SLAVES, JUST A DIFFERENT FORM OF SLAVERY.

You think not then just think about this, the old slave owners both white and black had to pay for their slaves food, clothing, medical expenses and provide housing. THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES FOR ITS SLAVES; FOOD, CLOTHING, MEDICAL EXPENSES, AND PROVIDES HOUSING. Exactly the same thing, therefore the Blacks changed from one slavery to another and were simply too stupid to understand what happened to them. And they blamed the White Man when it was really the Jews who did it to them. Is it possible that the Civil War was fought for reasons other than those traditionally offered? Is it possible that the real reasons for the war are among the secrets that some wish not to be revealed? Is it possible that slavery and states rights were not the real causes of the War?
MORE

Last edited by Fred O'Malley; January 9th, 2011 at 11:07 AM.
 
Old January 9th, 2011 #3
John Q. Ferguson
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 312
Default

Quote:
Is it possible that the Civil War was fought for reasons other than those traditionally offered?[U] Is it possible that the real reasons for the war are among the secrets that some wish not to be revealed? Is it possible that slavery and states rights were not the real causes of the War?
No.

Reasons that are “traditionally offered” are backed up by extensive scholarship that looks carefully at letters, diaries, pamphlets, newspapers and other primary sources from that time.

The real problem is that you have to re-word your question. Stop asking “Why did the South go to war?”

The “South” didn’t exist. It is a gross generalization to treat “the South” like a football team where a coach calls the plays.

There was a geographical area called the South and we can all agree where that place was. But places don’t make political decisions – people do.

There were, for example, one million people living in Missouri. Another million lived in Virginia. (See 1860 Census http://www.civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm)

Both those states were deeply divided about their loyalty to the North, slavery, tariffs, jews and going to war.

Within each state, you had formal centers of power – mayors, city councils, governors, legislatures, militia.

You also had informal centers of influence – newspapers, universities, political parties, the very wealthy, plantation owners, manufacturers, etc.

There was consensus about some issues. But even where there was consensus, there was disagreement about specifics. The commitment was also different among various players.

Finally, you had the lemmings – just like today. Most people changed their opinion from week to week.

If you begin to dig into the history of what happened inside each state and why each state legislature voted as it did, you will eventually begin to see what the reasons were inside each center of power and influence. That’s the best way to understand the Civil War from the “South’s” point of view.
 
Old January 9th, 2011 #4
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default The South had every right to secede

When the feral gov't refused to abide by the documents which gave it birth, it became tyranical, this is what caused the war of northern aggression. The Civil War was the enslavement of all Americans by their tyrannical gov't. We all lost that war, the north was just too propagandized to understand what was happening, and they still are.

I believe they meant what they wrote.


Quote:
...the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union;...
http://eweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm

The Articles of Secession of the various Confederate States of America
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/

Last edited by Fred O'Malley; January 9th, 2011 at 01:31 PM.
 
Old January 9th, 2011 #5
H.B.
Senior Member
 
H.B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,749
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
Two big red flags - jewish name and lack of sources cited for its novel claims other than its own very jewish employer (WTF!?). Taken together, that gives you about 90% probability you can throw whatever it says out.
__________________
Smash jewish supremacy. Smash globalism. Smash ZOG. Use ad blockers at all times to starve off the (((beast))).
 
Old January 9th, 2011 #6
H.B.
Senior Member
 
H.B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,749
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by H.B. View Post
... that gives you about 90% probability you can throw whatever it says out.
Actually, I like this formula:



+ a novel claim for which no reliable, independent sources are cited

+ a claim on which interests hinge (in this case, interests via proxy of black interests, i.e., "White guilt" - because Whites pulled blacks out of the jungle into the most advanced civilization the world has ever known and did not immediately bestow upon them lucrative government jobs, eight figure sport and "rap" salaries, crack, malt liquor and White hoes, Whites are forever in debt to the negroes for this -inspired "guilt")

= roughly 90% probability that what is said is crap and should be thrown out.

Throw in the fact that it's the very ish Washington Post publishing this drivel and the bullshit factor skyrockets to 95-99% probability.
__________________
Smash jewish supremacy. Smash globalism. Smash ZOG. Use ad blockers at all times to starve off the (((beast))).

Last edited by H.B.; January 9th, 2011 at 02:21 PM.
 
Old January 9th, 2011 #7
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by H.B. View Post
Two big red flags - jewish name and lack of sources cited for its novel claims other than its own very jewish employer. Taken together, that gives you about 90% probability you can throw whatever it says out.
You might need to know some history and you might need to understand who the author is. The Birdman is a scholar, and his works are always well researched, though he does use logic in his approach.
www.thebirdman.org (see the properties of the MORE link.)

Still, the truth is still the truth, regardless of the side of the mason Dixon Line on which you find yourself. The real question is, do you buy the propaganda or do you think for yourself and dig for the reality which has been intentionally hidden from you?
 
Old January 9th, 2011 #8
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by H.B. View Post
Actually, I like this formula:
Are you talking about the OP or #2 rebuttal? Or has the #4 reality got your skirt blowing in the air?
 
Old January 9th, 2011 #9
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
A Few of the Birdman's Many Quotations on Free Speech and Truth

* Free speech is offensive speech.

* Truth hurts -- especially if it's funny.

* The reason men are silenced is not because they speak falsely, but because they speak the truth. This is because if men speak falsehoods, their own words can be used against them; while if they speak truly, there is nothing which can be used against them -- except force.

* A good writer should be both insightful and inciteful.

* The best ideas are those alive with manly vigor, which rape each virgin mind and fill it with the seed of unborn thoughts.

* You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and well when you are visited by the police.

* Things are interesting to the extent that they arouse controversy; and things which are the most interesting are those which are cursed and consigned to Hell.

* Free speech is an act of desperation. It is a last resort, an onslaught of quiet fury, and -- in most cases -- an insult to, and abandonment of, vital social norms. Men who murder have usually lost their inhibitions only for a moment; but men who speak freely have lost them forever, and are thus as dangerous to a society as a mad dog.

* To be taken seriously, you must first offend. If you do not, people will say, "Oh, he's just like so-and-so, with perhaps a touch of such-and-such", and forget about you entirely; while if you touch a raw nerve, you at least know that you are on the pathway to the brain. The point is, men will rarely think new thoughts without a jolt, and if you expect them to think the ones you have, then you must first crash your way into their consciousness.

* Truth has no manners. It is no respecter of persons. It wounds kings as deeply as commoners. It cuts down the high, and confirms the lowness of the low. It may dress up for formal occasions, but it does so only in order that it may more shockingly expose itself in front of the assembled company. And just as it respects no one, likewise there are few who respect it. But those who do are granted many favors -- power, understanding, dominion, and of course the honor of the unswerving hatred of the ignorant millions.

* What I say may seem outrageous and outre, but my purpose is to push the envelope of discourse to its outer limits on the theory that freedom of speech, like both mind and body, requires vigorous exercise to remain healthy. Beyond this, the act of pushing the free speech envelope will embolden others to speak, and their acts of boldness reinforce the perception that free speech is tolerated, thereby increasing the probability that it will be. But as I embolden others to speak, so I embolden them to act; and in this way I help insure that free speech is more than a sounding gong or a tinkling symbol. Put another way, I hope to make the world safe for bigotry, ie, safe for the opinions to which -- in Ambrose Bierce's words -- others are intractably and vociferously opposed. But if I advocate free speech, I also advocate and impose upon myself the harshest and most demanding discipline on speech: I acknowledge my critics and call attention to their criticism, and I always respond seriously to any serious criticism they may offer. What this means is that I accept and impose the discipline of truth: If someone is right in their criticism, I have an obligation to acknowledge the error -- publicly if possible; and with as stringent a discipline as this, I am forced to be careful in what I say. For all its stringency, however, this discipline offers some very distinct advantages: It ultimately disarms my critics -- not infrequently turning them into friends -- and continually reinforces my reputation among both friends and foes as one who is as intolerant of error in himself as he is intolerant of it in others, and as morally incorruptible as any man who walks the earth. By this means, then, I retain as enemies only the evil and the stupid; and these are those who would be my enemies no matter what. Thus my fights are few, easy and usually small, while my victories are often grand; and in the process I accomplish one of the most desired goals of any man anywhere -- I can sleep at night.
http://www.thebirdman.org/
 
Old January 9th, 2011 #10
H.B.
Senior Member
 
H.B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,749
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
Are you talking about the OP or #2 rebuttal? Or has the #4 reality got your skirt blowing in the air?
Are you trolling, genuinely struggling with reading comprehension, or just an overly compulsive person?

My response was directed at the Washington Post piece - did not even read the Birdman piece. Never really read much of Birdman's material - never was interested - so much of it seemed like a rehashing of what everyone else was saying.

Nor would I waste any time critiquing the Birdman because he was simply a person with a blog and should not be held to the same standard as someone who writes for a living for a major press organ.
__________________
Smash jewish supremacy. Smash globalism. Smash ZOG. Use ad blockers at all times to starve off the (((beast))).
 
Old January 9th, 2011 #11
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by H.B. View Post
Are you trolling, genuinely struggling with reading comprehension, or just an overly compulsive person?

My response was directed at the Washington Post piece -.
Oh! You were ranting about the Post piece in #1, but you quoted the link in post 2, that was confusing. My mistake, I just caught it. "Reading comprehension," I guess.

You really should assess the Birdman's work for yourself, it is well worth the read.

Last edited by Fred O'Malley; January 9th, 2011 at 02:30 PM.
 
Old January 9th, 2011 #12
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by H.B. View Post
Two big red flags - jewish name and lack of sources cited for its novel claims other than its own very jewish employer (WTF!?). Taken together, that gives you about 90% probability you can throw whatever it says out.
I believe in the link I posted about the author, he clearly makes the case for representing history as it clearly was not. His intention is to lie, being a jew, he wants to destroy all vestiges of truthful history and he believes he has hit on a convincing argument the sheeple will accept. It is the jewish way, after all.
 
Old January 9th, 2011 #13
Peer Fischer
Senior Member
 
Peer Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,921
Default

Quote:
In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy now.



Quote:
Since the Civil War did end slavery, many Americans think abolition was the Union's goal. But the North initially went to war to hold the nation together. Abolition came later.
He got that part right anyway.
 
Old January 9th, 2011 #14
John Q. Ferguson
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 312
Default

Quote:
Since the Civil War did end slavery, many Americans think abolition was the Union's goal. But the North initially went to war to hold the nation together. Abolition came later.
It's a subtle, yet important point . . . but the Civil War didn't end slavery.

The Civil War destroyed the Confederacy and all States belonging to it. It allowed the Northern military governments in each occupied Sothern state to put in place traitors and collaborators who were then used to "re-admit" enough of those states to the Union and to ratify the Reconstruction Amendments - among them, the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery.

If you look at the order in which state legislatures ratified it, you'll see it closely matches the advance of Union troops into the Southern states.

Slavery was perfectly legal. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments are probably not.
 
Old January 10th, 2011 #15
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Q. Ferguson View Post
It's a subtle, yet important point . . . but the Civil War didn't end slavery.

The Civil War destroyed the Confederacy and all States belonging to it. It allowed the Northern military governments in each occupied Sothern state to put in place traitors and collaborators who were then used to "re-admit" enough of those states to the Union and to ratify the Reconstruction Amendments - among them, the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery.

If you look at the order in which state legislatures ratified it, you'll see it closely matches the advance of Union troops into the Southern states.

Slavery was perfectly legal. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments are probably not.
Good post.

The fed gov't decided they had the power and the people no longer had any. The Civil War was the exercise of force which decided that question.

States' Rights vs. Monetary Monopoly

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo


Quote:
The federal government today can wage wars without the consent of our congressional representatives, overthrow foreign governments, tax nearly half of national income, abolish civil liberty in the name of "homeland security" and "the war on drugs," legalize and endorse infanticide ("partial-birth abortion"), regulate nearly every aspect of our existence, and there's little or nothing we can do about it. "Write your congressman" is the refrain of the slave to the state who doesn't even realize he's a slave (thanks to decades of government school brainwashing).

But Americans were not always slaves to federal tyranny. Perhaps the best illustration of this is how Americans once utilized the Jeffersonian, states' rights traditions of nullification and interposition to assist President Andrew Jackson in his campaign to veto the re-chartering of the Second Bank of the United States (BUS) in 1832. Jackson essentially ended central banking in America until it was revived thirty years later by the Lincoln administration. The story is told in James J. Kilpatrick's wonderful 1957 book, The Sovereign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia.

The Bank was notorious for fraud, mismanagement, corruption, and attempts to engineer a "political business cycle." Prior to 1861, the American people were still sovereign over their government. They exercised that sovereignty in the way the founders intended: through state political conventions or legislatures. The federal government was their agent.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo45.html

[img]
[/img]

Lincoln Unmasked

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo


Quote:
After the publication of my 2002 book, The Real Lincoln, I continued to research and write on the topic. Among the things I've learned since then is that Abraham Lincoln was a far worse tyrant than I portrayed him as being in that book. A thousand times worse.

I've also learned that there is only one genuine Lincoln scholar in America — David Donald — and he's retired. The rest are all Lincoln cultists and court historians. The cultists, like Harry Jaffa and his merry band of Straussians, ignore actual American history, fabricate a false history, or dabble in semantics and word games in order to portray The Great Centralizer as a god-like figure. They routinely refer to him as "Father Abraham" and compare him to Jesus or Moses. They do this because their agenda is not only the deification of Lincoln, but of executive power and nationalism in general.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo112.html
 
Old January 10th, 2011 #16
majorlee
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 130
Default

when the jews don't lie they keep us in the dark as to the actual reality of a situation and issues. But most of the time its outright lies.
 
Old January 10th, 2011 #17
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Khazar jews are evil monsters

http://vimeo.com/2867710
 
Old January 10th, 2011 #18
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

 
Old January 10th, 2011 #19
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default


Last edited by Fred O'Malley; January 10th, 2011 at 07:50 PM.
 
Old January 11th, 2011 #20
John Q. Ferguson
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by majorlee View Post
when the jews don't lie they keep us in the dark as to the actual reality of a situation and issues. But most of the time its outright lies.
Obviously, I'm not going to object to your general statement. LOL

But when it comes to American history, whites don't need the jews to fool themselves. We do enough of our own myth-making and mis-representation.

The truth is that this never should have been one country. The differences between northern and southern colonies were apparent before the Revolution.

Sure, there were good reasons to form a confederation and then a republic but it was always half-ass. We were always two nations. The history between 1787 and 1860 was a series of compromises trying to keep things together.

The Civil War settled that. The North simply killed and burned its way into total power and subjugated those who disagreed.

Since they won . . . they got to write the history.

Just imagine what you would know about tariffs, the central bank issue, jews, Lincolns, trade issues . . . etc . . . if the South had won the war.

As it is, all that has been lost and replaced with propaganda about the "noble cause of freeing the slaves."
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:36 AM.
Page generated in 0.14733 seconds.