There are many very bad things that happened because of Lincoln's war. It was the end of Jackson's golden age. It was the end of America. Lincoln's actions may have ended up with slavery in the southern sense becoming illegal, but it ended up with slavery in the Banker sense becoming reality for every single American.
We lost America directly because of Lincoln's war.
I have no idea what side Lincoln was really playing for. I have no idea of his intentions. I don't know if he was coerced, or duped, or purposefully tricked America into that Banker war. No matter what Lincoln meant to do, that we lost America the day he declared war on the south is completely evident once you look at the economic data, and the legal data.
Here's an interesting take on why war was declared on the south. The best corroboration for my statements is in the economic and legal data though. The pattern becomes clear once you look.
Agree with the overall story, but believe that Lincoln would've kept the union strong and free, extending that golden age if he had lived. That said, the cabal killed Lincoln precisely because that was his plan. After the victory, he said it was right to begin playing Dixie again, symbolizing a much kinder reunification than what actually happened. Other actions of his demonstrated the sane thinking. He slowed down their plans, which were to carve up America into smaller and smaller chunks in a typical divide-and-conquer strategy. He kept the union together. Despite the problems, that's part of what allowed our dreams of and hopes for Q to take place. It's difficult to argue what-if scenarios, but if the South had successfully seceded, is there any doubt that the bankers and cabal would've destroyed the USA entirely, leaving us with 5-30 nations across the continent, ripe for more royal and tyrannical conquests?
That said, the cabal killed Lincoln precisely because that was his plan.
There is evidence that supports that statement. That is why I stated explicitly I don't know what Lincoln's intentions really were. The evidence suggests the war was not caused by what we believe it was. And why would that be a surprise? EVERY single other war that America has been involved in was caused by a false fucking flag or was instigated by forces pulling strings, having nothing to do with the official narrative. People don't want to believe that is true about the Civil War because they need Lincoln to be a good guy. They need at least that one hero.
Maybe he was. I have no idea. I have seen evidence that suggests that. The Greenback was a big blow to bankers and likely was the reason he was killed, but at the same time there is a fair bit of evidence, even in his speeches, that he was not quite as good of a guy as people believe. He was perhaps just another duplicitous politician. If that is true, then the Greenback and his assassination doesn't make a lot of sense, but whatever the Truth is, I assert it is not as straight forward as the official narrative, or even a first glance at the evidence.
He slowed down their plans, which were to carve up America into smaller and smaller chunks in a typical divide-and-conquer strategy.
I don't think this was ever their plan. I think this went against their plan. A unified American Government (in the all powerful sense) which is exactly what the Civil War established was always their plan, from the beginning of America.
The more I look, the more things are just not as straight forward as they seem. You really need to dig to even have any idea of the level of fuckery these people are capable of.
is there any doubt that the bankers and cabal would've destroyed the USA entirely
They did destroy the USA entirely. Keeping America together allowed them to create the illusion of losing, when in fact it was their greatest victory. Without the strength of a unified America (singular all powerful government) creating their Machine (The Fed, The Matrix, Megacorp, etc.) would have been impossible.
Hmm. I think 30 countries would have been easier to conquer, and civil war was their first crack. So I suspect that Lincoln made them take their Plan B, which is what developed over successive years, including the fed-based slavery system. But I could be mistaken, and could do with more research on the topic, especially before defending it more. But the cabal's smears of Lincoln make me think he was a good guy. On the wars, would you say the War of 1812 and the Barbary Coast Wars were based on deception as well?
Hmm. I think 30 countries would have been easier to conquer
In a kinetic war this might be true. The real enemy is not a "fighter", they are a manipulator. Taking over 30 sovereign states would have been a fucking nightmare. And it wouldn't have been their machine. The fed was not "Plan B". The fed was the plan from the 18th century. They needed a strong America, a "one American government" to create the Fed to take over the world. America was their tool. The play goes back so much further than people realize. At least that is where my investigation has led. Evidence will be forthcoming soon enough.
War of 1812
The War of 1812 was the weirdest shit ever. In addition to no one agreeing on what happened in that war, or why it even started, it seems to me that mostly what they did was come in and destroy some documents (and the White House/Capitol) and then left. Why did they come in and destroy documents and leave? What were those documents?
I wish I could answer that question. It could be absolutely massive. Barbary coast I haven't looked at. I will only say every single war I have looked at so far, which has been most, was filled with fuckery that is not taught in our history.
1812 was bigger than Dolly Madison and the capitol buildings; it was the empire's attempt to ignore and undo the revolution. They also attacked New Orleans and tried to make it a beachhead for further incursions, and threatened from Canada. Imo it was the real deal, and legit on its face. Same with Barbary Coast. Both involved ignoring US sovereignty and impressing its merchants and ships into involuntary servitude of one type of another. The research is fascinating, but it takes time and (especially if you're into obscured history) records are ever harder to find.
1812 was bigger than Dolly Madison and the capitol buildings; it was the empire's attempt to ignore and undo the revolution. They also attacked New Orleans and tried to make it a beachhead for further incursions, and threatened from Canada. Imo it was the real deal, and legit on its face
It may have been that to an extent, but there may have been a primary Banker goal and a secondary Crown goal. I think the burning of documents was the primary Cabal goal. I think undoing the revolution was a Crown goal. (Note I don't have great evidence to support this statement. ATM it is a hunch that fits the evidence.)
Imagine this: Jafar goes to the Sultan and gets him to attack his Persian neighbors because they are upstarts. Jafar sends along a squad of his own choosing to steel the Lamp of Aladdin from the enemy palace. Jafar doesn't actually care about what happens in the war. He may even think it is very unlikely to be won. Maybe, because he controls the actual money supply, he makes sure that once the lamp has been captured, the war ends due to "Oops, we ran out of money."
I am not saying that is what happened, but the more you dig into this shit, the more crazy the story that unfolds. My research is primarily a following of the money. I strongly suggest that path to take in research. It produces the best stories.
Sorry, but Democrat created Lost Cause propaganda has no place in civilized society. Lincoln didn't "declare war on the south." Rebels made war upon the United States of America, in defense of the immoral institution of slavery. Lincoln fulfilled his constitutional duty to put down the insurrection and rebellion, to preserve the nation, to defend those Americans whose rights were being denied (not just slaves, but white Americans loyal to the Constitution). Yes, bankers benefited. Yes, they likely helped spur on the inevitable. But the question you should be asking, is who pushed the slaveholding elites to dupe the masses of poor whites in the deep south who didn't own slaves, to rebel, fight and die for an evil cause? The next question you should be asking is, WHY did said people agree to support said evil cause? Expand your thinking. Don't buy into the Democrat revisionist bullshit.
Every time I have looked deeper into the past, the more fuckery I have found. I presented a single point of view in that video. I never stated it as truth, but when you look there is a lot of corroborating evidence.
Your statements are the "official version" of events. Every single time I have looked at the official version of events I have found evidence of fraud upon deeper inspection.
Everyone really wants that one thing to hold on to from our learning that is "truth". Stop believing you know the truth of anything and just look at the evidence.
Calling evidence "Democrat created Lost Cause propaganda" to discredit it is in no way a refutation of the evidence itself, it is an attack on the presenter, which in this case has no basis in fact, or if it does, you have not presented any evidence to support that claim.
Expand your thinking.
I did not state that that video suggested the whole story. On the contrary I stated you needed to dig much deeper, especially in the laws (e.g. Organic Act of 1871, Coin Act of 1873, etc., etc.), and the economics (e.g. U.S. debt burden, inflation data, housing cost data, GDP, etc., etc.).
You suggesting that my intent was to present that video as a meaningful end to an argument is a fallacy of argument. That was explicitly stated as not my intent.
I presented evidence against the official narrative (which you espouse). There is more than just that one point of view to corroborate the evidence I presented. The Civil War didn't just "benefit the Bankers". It was literally the end of America by ALL counts. We were no longer a collection of sovereign states after the War, in effect, and to an extent by law (because we exist under Common Law and thus precedence was established by the war). The war caused us to turn into a single government over vassal states directly afterwards. This was the complete destruction of the intent of the Constitution.
It wasn't just the most massive economic burden, through loans to Rothschilds and English Banks far beyond anything previous because of the war (from which we never recovered), it was the literal destruction of the intent of the DoI and Constitution. Not just soon after, but during and forever after the Civil War.
Stop needing heroes, or truths. Look at evidence. The need for heroes and truths causes you to find them in places they don't actually exist.
Sorry, but the narrative in that one video you posted, is Lost Cause propaganda bullshit that has been debunked time and time and time again. Check my post history and you should find several instances where I've discussed the Rebellion of 1860 in depth, addressing the Democrat lies alluded to by multiple Q posts, with substantial evidence.
While I don't intend to claim an appeal to authority, my masters is in American History, with specialization in the Revolutionary period and the Civil War. I taught multiple classes at the college level covering Sectionalism, the Civil War and Reconstruction. I'd happily walk you through that content.
Whatever bad happened as a result of the failed rebellion, could have been avoided had the rebels not rebelled. The results were the consequences of the cause initiated by those who rebelled against the United States because they bought into bullshit fear mongering over a man who had yet to even take office, and a political party that had yet to take control of Congress. You're blaming the wrong people for the negative things that unfortunately did happen.
Truth is truth fren. For far too long, the official narrative taught in our schools, at least in the South, BY DEMOCRATS, was that it was the Lost Cause myth. Well meaning, good conservative people particularly in the former rebel states, have been duped into accepting such nonsense. It's a tough red pill for many to swallow.
Lost Cause propaganda bullshit that has been debunked time and time and time again
“Debunked” is a fraud. It is the idea that an argument is closed because it has been rebutted. Usually, within the absolutely amazing fraud that we call “debunked”, all that is required is a single rebuttal. That is not how we find the Truth. Investigations into the truth never close any doors. New evidence is always allowed to be presented, rebuttals rebutted, etc.. There is no such thing as debunked in the effort to find the Truth.
my masters is in American History
Part 2 of my report is on The Matrix. The reason we are stuck in the Matrix, the way it was created in the first place was by taking over all of the information sources. The first thing they took over was the book publishers (they were the first book publishers). That’s not actually true. The first thing they took over was Religion, but that’s going back too far. We will start with the publishers. Then they took over all media.
See Sir Evelyn de Rothschild who gave a talk at Peking University (which was created by Rockefeller) at which he said (@7:20):
[Talking about his families banking empire] We covered Europe. We covered the European Union that we have today. From that grew a business which was successfully built upon an understanding between the five brothers. The five brothers used to talk to each other through writing. That was one side. They were also the first client of a man called Mr. Reuter. Mr. Reuter made his name by flying pigeons around the world, and if you couldn’t send messages, you used a pigeon. And that’s why we were the first client of the great house of Reuter. Which as you know became the most important messaging company in the world today. And from that it grew, over a period of time.
This is not intended to be a full argument. I have 500 pages of argument in my report. I am giving you a taste of what’s coming when I present it to the world.
Then they took over schools. In 1903 Rockefeller started the General Education Board for example. Again, just one piece of a thousand pieces of evidence.
In 1954 the Reece Committee looked at Foundations influence in schools. Foundations drive all research. You can’t even get funding for any project if you don’t follow what they want you to research. You can’t publish in any journal, you can’t get any degree if you don’t toe the line of the official narrative. That doesn’t mean you can’t think outside the box, but you can’t think too far outside of it or you are effectively deleted (called a crackpot, or a quack, etc.).
In 1982 Norman Dodd talked about his experience during this congressional Committee to find evidence. The video of his interview is at the bottom of that link. The video starts at 14ish minutes in. His exposition of History begins within ten minutes of that I think.
He tells about how his assistant got access to the Carnegie (same as Rockefeller) minutes of Foundation meetings. He talks about how they took over all of what was allowed to be taught and what was the allowed printing of material in American History. He suggests all official history that is allowed to be taught is fraudulent with the intention of bringing America into a one world government of Communism. These minutes are from 100 years ago. They have been working on this project for a very long time (much longer than that, but this is evidence of at least that time frame).
Him saying these things, and me presenting them doesn’t make his statement true, but it does make his evidence compelling (I HIGHLY recommend you listen to it). That evidence is “primary” in the sense that Norman Dodd is saying it, and given everything that he was a part of (the Reece Committee e.g.) he is a credible witness. Again, not necessarily true, but his interview seems to me that he believes it. Just one more piece of the puzzle. There are hundreds more.
Whatever bad happened as a result of the failed rebellion, could have been avoided had the rebels not rebelled.
I suggest this is completely incorrect. Nothing could have been avoided. Look at it again with that in mind. Or rather, try to prove that statement incorrect.
You're blaming the wrong people for the negative things that unfortunately did happen.
I am blaming the Bankers. I stated that explicitly. I assure you, they are not the “wrong people.”
Truth is truth fren.
Truth is Truth, i.e. Truth is What Is. “truth” (lower case) is what people think they see, or have read, or were told, etc. that they interpret as Truth. If you own all the sources that show, tell, write, etc. what kind of fraud could you perpetrate? Could you create an entire world of fraud? Could you create, using pieces of the Truth, but hiding all the really important bits, an entire fraud of History? Could you create The Matrix?
the Democrat lies
This suggests to me you are still stuck in The Matrix. “The Democrat Lies” is the lie. There is no such thing as a “Democrat” in the way you mean it. Nor is there a “Republican.” They are two sides of the same controlled slave caste. Both are lies. All are lies. The whole world is The Matrix. Until you see who the real enemy is, you are bound to (bounded by) the fraud. In fact, I suggest in your investigations you keep in mind the question “who is the real enemy” in every situation. The more you dig, the more surprising the apparent answers become.
If you wish to present evidence to back up your claims instead of ad hominem attacks (“Democrat lies”/”Debunked”/etc.) or appeals to authority I am all ears. I will not be looking through your post history, but if you wish to link specific ones that you feel present an argument I will look. Please do your best to present primary evidence. As in, recognize that what you are presenting is someone’s words. It is not Truth. It is especially not Truth if it was from some book. If I have to go digging through a book to find their references to then go looking through that reference to find another reference etc. I will not consider your evidence credible. I need to see what people say. Court cases are a great source. Laws in the books are great. Black’s Law Dictionary is a great source. Congressional investigation Committees are great. Websites in someone’s own words (like the Rockefeller websites telling me themselves about their fuckery). Government websites are great (like SEC reports that tell of Rockefuckery), etc. FOIA request documents, also fantastic.
It is so hard to write. I'm trying to red-pill the entire planet. Hopefully I can at least get a substantial portion of a mostly brain dead reddit (Superstonk/GME etc. to start). Even people here are going to be shocked by what I report. It's all primary evidence. The evidence is fucking nuts. We really live in The Matrix, even if it isn't exactly as portrayed by the movie. The parallels are unreal. Whoever wrote that movie knew exactly what was going on.
The hardest part is the amount of evidence. I can't stop writing. I can't fucking finish it. I try to finish one part and I find too much damned evidence!
Once I finish I will have to pare it down by so much. It's gonna be rough.
I will be creating a website. Maybe i will put a longer version there, or break it up into small sections (probably both).
It's the hardest thing I've ever done, writing this report. Just because there is so much.
Yes. Nothing is ever isolated. It's all a tangled web the branches put and each branch has its own network of branches that is perpetual.
Even the spygate scandal was such a web that Dan Bongino wrote two phenomenal books and has a daily hour long podcast dedicated to the subject for well over a year (I had actually stopped listening to his podcast because I was so sick of the subject matter and following every connection xD
That's just spygate xD
And primary sources is the way to go. It is why we are so informed and the normies who follow the "news" talking points are so damn wrong.
Studies, interviews, emails, documents, boots on the ground, THAT is how you approach truth (although sometimes unabashed pure truth is unobtainable but we can get damn close)
because of Lincoln's war... We lost America directly because of Lincoln's war... he declared war on the south.
This is your central claim. You laid blame on Abraham Lincoln. The way you falsely portray the rebellion as a "war" that Lincoln started, is simply untrue. He dutifully responded to the insurrection and rebellion being levied against the USA. Again, I don't disagree with you that there was fuckery afoot, instigated and exploited by some evil people. But your understanding of what transpired, just isn't correct.
This is your central claim. You laid blame on Abraham Lincoln.
Completely incorrect. Nothing I have stated relies on that statement.
Please do a better job of presenting evidence. I am not going to go through all that shit. I am writing something that I hope will help a lot of people escape The Matrix. How many hours do you think I should waste on your non-primary evidence before I get to a primary source that may or may not support your claims?
If you want to present evidence, give me a synopsis of your link (one sentence is fine). Note the source of your evidence. If someone gives evidence in a video, give me a synopsis and an approximate time to look at that supports your claims. Please let that source have at least primary references within it.
I don't want to listen to someone else's shit. I seriously doubt you listened to my video past the first couple minutes (if at all). I admit that was not the best way to present any evidence, but it was a quick reply and it was not an important piece of evidence (even though for some reason you think it was my "central claim").
Evidence please, not someone else's words, unless you want me to take THEIR words as meaningful. I.e. if any of those links go to Abraham Lincoln himself, or maybe some other meaningful primary source then please point out which ones.
Coincidentally I actually watched the video you posted, back on September 21st. Would you like to see my YouTube watch history to confirm? Livingston just regurgitated the same crap spewed by other Lost Cause apologists. Your first red flag, if you did your research about him, should have been his membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans. During my years living in South Carolina, I became well acquainted with many other native South Carolinians like Livingston. He means well, but his delusional love of "HeRitAgE" and refusal to accept that he was duped growing up and being educated in South Carolina, by promoters of Lost Cause fake history, is clearly evident. Not surprising that he's the founder of the Abbeville Institute, associating himself with Thomas DiLorenzo, an even bigger con artist masquerading as a "historian"... more bluntly put, he's an idiot profiteering off gullible people. Fren, please better research your sources.
I gave you a synopsis of the Rebellion of 1860 already, one you just didn't like. You asked for references. I gave them to you. If you actually watch the videos and read the books, you'll see that they are all backed by primary sources. You can choose to watch, listen and read them, or be lazy and remain in your state of delusion. Good luck fren.
Tension over slavery kept raising, until a breaking point, slave owning democrats were clearly scared that Lincoln would free the slaves due to his personal hatred towards the evil institution of slavery but he stated time and time again that the preservation of the union was more important to him, and seemed to be agnostic on whether or not blacks became citizens. Then South Carolina tried succeeding, sparking several other states to follow, Lincoln had no choice but to go to war to preserve the union.
I've not published anything but bachelor's and master's in American History and Government, and taught several classes on the subject at a highly rated private Christian university... Hopefully that will suffice as I'd prefer to not divulge too much more of my identity.
I am creating a website on US history (very unfinished and not fully working) but would like your thoughts on it, I am sure I am missing important factors or events. Could I PM you the site and have you take a look?
This is so important and I post about it whenever it comes up. Lincoln was an attorney and at that time in the Republic attorneys were prohibited from being president. When they elected Lincoln president they made him president of the corporation and not the republic. This is what made the southern states walk out of Congress and that is really what ended the republic. Lincoln forced some southern people into Congress to make it appear as he was keeping the union together and I suppose he did keep the union together but the republic was dead the day the south walked out and Congress was adjourned without setting a day to reconvene. Everything after that has been done under the corporation and not the republic.
This answers so many questions about why the USA is the way it is now and how we got here. I wish more people knew about these things and actually cared because if they did we could probably fix it.
“Bar” means “whole body of lawyers ... the legal profession.”
It also means the place where the business of court is done. “Bar” in this sense had become synonymous with “court” by 1330.
In 1559, “bar” literally meant the railing that separated people on the bench from those conducting law on the other side.
After 1600, “bar” was popularly assumed to mean the bar in a courtroom, which was the wooden railing marking off the area around the judge's seat and where a barrister stood to plead his prisoner’s case.
It is to test a candidate's ability to think like a lawyer and prove that they have the “minimum competency” to practice law in that state. It's a competency test. Similar to the NCLEX for nurses.
Lincoln personally opposed slavery but didn't really care about the Civil rights of the black man. When he was elected, states panicked and south Carolina was the first to try secession. He really cared about keeping the union together either by banning slavery, or not and this is what led to the war, to prevent a breakup of the union.
In the beginning with the he didn't free all slaves, just the ones of confederate states. Showing that slavery although he would prefer it gone, was less important then keeping states happy to be in the union.
He didn’t free a single slave in the confederate states bc had NO jurisdiction in the sovereign county. The emancipation proc was useless, simply a political tool, just like the slaves themselves. Why didn’t he free union slaves?
He didn't free union slaves because his goal wasn't to free slaves, but to keep the union together no matter what. Only freeing confederate states made them weaker, and kept the union side of slave owning states happy. Abe personly wanted to abolish slavery but not at the cost of the union.
Again, he never freed a single slave in the CSA. iIt was a political stunt by a monster that TRASHED the Constitution. Slavery was on its way to die a natural death and he had to go around killing people and incarcerating even Yankees just for disagreeing with him. Fuck Lincoln.
Slavery was not on its way out by any means. The slave trade was abolished but states were free to choose as the Missouri compromise was removed. You have a narrow view of hostory
Touche. Agreed. Although I wouldn't really classify Christ's sermon as a speech per se... how about we call the GA the greatest political speech in human history? 😁
Lincoln was a British BAR endorsed attorney, an "esquire", which is a "Title of Nobility". In other words, his ultimate loyalty was to the Crown.
The ORIGINAL 13th amendment, nearly perfectly vanished by TPTB, was lost in the fire of 1812 in the DISTRICT (cabal ownership) of Columbia. The ORIGINAL 13th amendment stated that nobody holding a "Title of Nobility" could hold any office in the federal (contract) government. It was slowly suppressed and then forgotten by the time Lincoln started running for the House and Senate.
The "Civil War" was a privateer mercenary war, ostensibly between the Crown and the Vatican. It had nothing to do with slavery as only 1% of people in the southern states owned slaves. It was about power, money and control - as always.
When the war started, Congress went into "interregnum" status and has never reconvened as per the original Constitution. After the war ended, the south was held under martial law for over a decade as surrogate "Congressmen" and "Senators", loyal to the Crown, were placed in their positions.
Under martial law, the devastating 14th amendment was passed, creating the political status known as "U.S. Citizen", which was "passed off" to the ignorant masses as a status the newly freed slaves could hold. A DIMINISHED status, where all natural rights are surrendered in order to receive "Privileges & Benefits" from the de facto federal government. Obviously, this political status was extended to 99% of the population in the ensuing 60 years.
Shortly thereafter, the private corporations known as "the United States of America (Inc) {Crown} and "UNITED STATES (Inc) {Vatican - municipal} were established as part of the 1871 Organic Act and other "Acts" that followed in the next few years (it's a winding maze that's very difficult to follow).
The "Department of Justice" was founded in 1870 during this period, not to protect the people, but to protect the usurpers.
And in 1878, the "American Bar Association (ABA)" was established to further protect the usurpers and to upend our previously LAWFUL nation, and subvert it into the British maritime/admiralty LEGAL system, effectively turning everything and, more importantly, everyone into a FICTIONAL ENTITY, known as a "PERSON" or "PERSONS". The word "legal" derives from "Allegiance" and is best cousins with "Liege Lord", who were the owners of the peasants and serfs in England. Same system, same root etymology.
The word "person" is a LEGALESE TERM, which can mean either a "Natural Person" (which is what all of us non-attorneys believe a "person" is), or an "ARTIFICIAL PERSON" which is a fictional "corporate" entity. In our case, it is the private TRUST that is created in your name upon birth (The Strawman for those of you who have done a bit of research). All civil and "crimes against the state" cases (e.g. parking, speeding tickets, tax issues, COVID defaince, etc.) are dealing with the ARTIFICIAL PERSON styled on ALL LEGAL DOCUMENTS as your "ALL CAPS NAME".
The quick explanation difference is: LEGAL refers to an INCORPORATED (Corpse/Dead/Fictional) entity and LAWFUL refers to an UN-INCORPORATED entity, e.g. a living, breathing man or woman. Your strawman "trust" becomes a corporation when they INCORPORATE your given Christian name, e.g. "John Quincy", with your family name, e.g. "Adams". In days gone by, people once called themselves "John Quincy of the Adams family".
My working theory is; After the cabal failed with the First Bank of America, which Thomas Jefferson shuttered, and the Second Bank of America, which Andrew Jackson shuttered, they shifted tactics to undermine our nation and chose the LEGAL route, which worked a charm. After it was in place, it opened the doors for the IRS and Fed (the "Third Bank of America) in 1913. While many of us realize both of these entities are completely unconstitutional, and therefore UNLAWFUL, they are both perfectly LEGAL in relation to the private corporations currently ACTING as our federal government.
There's a reason there are 80,000+ (out of 500,000) attorneys living in the DISTRICT of Columbia. Quite simply, this is how they do it. By blurring the lines of legal/lawful that we were deliberately never educated on.
Shortly thereafter, the private corporations known as "the United States of America (Inc) {Crown} and "UNITED STATES (Inc) {Vatican - municipal}
Do you have evidence that supports this? I can't find this anywhere, and I have looked. I could not find evidence in the Organic Act of 1871 that supports this. All that seems to do is create a municipal corp for D.C., which is owned(?) by the United States Government. I'm not sure if the United States government that owns D.C. is the same government that was incorporated by the Constitution (it incorporated the sovereign entity (governing body) we call the U.S. of A) or if it is some other United States government created after (for which I can't find documentation). The CEO for that corp is The President, the Congress is the ruling body, etc. It seems to be an independent city state, since it is technically (legally) foreign to all states.
So it is technically a foreign corporation, but that's not as damning as it sounds because each State is a foreign corporation to every other state. D.C. is a foreign (municipal) corporation to all of them. So it is, just like the Vatican and London, an independent City State.
But linking that to the Crown, or the Vatican by any measure I just have not been able to do. I can't find any connection of ownership or allegiance in any law, or financial record, or treaty, etc. That doesn't mean it isn't there, even where I have looked. It can get confusing, and seeing the essential pieces takes intense concentration on otherwise dry documents, but I have looked quite a bit and i can't find this connection (in a real document).
If you have that evidence, or have any idea where to find it, that would be absolutely huge for my report.
D.C. could be owned through municipal bonds. I have tried to find bond ownership for D.C. bonds but I can't find any documentation. I can only find that they exist.
I did find documentation that shows that the Queen has control over the Social Security Fund. Not a huge corroboration, but a decent red-pill.
Actually, if you have any primary sources (or solid secondary sources with primary references) for some of the other statements you have made, that would be absolutely awesome. Specifically, the creation of the Capitalized LEGAL person AKA Trust in your name. I just can't find the documents that support that as a legal structure. (Nor how it ties to the SSA or Birth certificates, etc.).
I have been trying to verify most of this, and have gotten not very far until I get to The Fed and the IRS (and other Banks). There I have a ton of solid evidence of rather unbelievable fuckery (beyond that which is commonly stated in even the most damning reports). That's gonna be a big fat red-pill once I get that part of the report out.
Also, reading that last paragraph, consider that the groundwork laid enabling the FED and IRS f*&kery was all performed following the implementation of all the corporations and legal society taking over in the 1870s, slowly boiling the frog for another 25-30 years before ushering them in. The cabal plays the loooonnggg game always. They never try to implement their plan all at once, much like cooking the frog.
Technically speaking, the Fed and the IRS are 100% LEGAL entities, as per THEIR rules. However, both are 100% UNLAWFUL according to our founding documents.
And here's a mind-bender for ya, an oldie but a goodie, that should be helpful for your efforts in connecting all the dots, fully sourced with footnotes as well:
I forgot to add the simple comment that none of our "State Governments" were originally, nor should they ever have been "Corporations". Corporations are dead/fictional "corpses/entities" that draw you into the British Admiralty/Maritime legal jurisdiction where they hold sway and ultimate authority.
Neither the original federal government nor state governments were corporations. They all became these after the coup we call "The Civil War". For example, prior to the Civil War, you lived in "California" or the "Texas State". After the civil war coup, these names were all changed to "State of States", e.g. "State of California" or "State of Texas". The former being the sovereign governments, the latter being the corporations. They aren't the same thing, even though the "names" are quite similar.
It's worth noting that your birth certificate is the INCORPORATION of your given Christian name, e.g. "John Quincy" with your family name "Adams". Thus, the INCORPORATING of the two, creates your strawman CORPORATION.
Corpses/Fictions/Corporations are the domain of the LEGAL (British maritime) realm.
Men/Women/Business are the domain of the LAWFUL, (Common Law) realm.
In short, it is in fact most "damning" that all our government entities, businesses and even "ourselves" have all been UNLAWFULLY CONVERTED into "corporations" so that we can be controlled by the creators of "corporations", which is effectively the Crown Corporation - the first and original at the top of the pyramid.
Indeed. It's a messy, highly obfuscated mess to understand and then unwind. Suffice it to say, making the full connections in publicly accessible documentation is nearly impossible, but not entirely.
The best source out there is Anna Von Reitz, hands down. She has written some 3400 articles on her website that delve into all of this, here -> http://www.annavonreitz.com/
She'll point you in the correct direction, just search for terms that you're looking for. For example the 1871 Organic Act was quickly usurped by several other "Acts" that followed shortly thereafter. The Scottish "United States of America" was established and incorporated in this timeframe. She's written several articles on the 1871 Act, but this is a good place to start, Articles #2933, 2934 & 2935, entitled "Misinformation About the Act of 1871 is an Ongoing Problem -- Part 1/2/3". You'll get a sense as to how they try to hide their tracks at every turn.
Anna has also written 3 books. The introductory book (written at an 8th grade level) is a good start -> "You Know Something is Wrong When.....: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause". After that, you should read "Disclosure 101 - What You Need to Know", and most recently, "Blood Money" (which you can also read for free directly on her website through the appropriately named articles).
Anna is the closest to having figured this whole thing out, along with her team of former attorneys that she calls "The Living Law Firm". You could probably spend months, even years reading all she has written about.
I'm not going to link any Vatican articles, there are hundreds on her site for you to research.
I could list off probably 25 more people for you, but Anna is the best of the best. A close second would be Kenneth Scott who runs "Gemstone University" and "The Panterra Society". He's a little less willing to openly discuss things like Anna, holding his cards a little closer to the vest. But his information is rock solid. I recommend his YouTube channel and his recent series "Overview of the World System of Bondage" in 21 parts, here: https://www.youtube.com/user/GemstoneUniversity/videos
I also really like the work of Thomas Clark Nelson which you can find here on this archive.org site. There are several links here and he does a spectacular job of describing what the (British) TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT really is, how they pulled it off in statutes, and how simple the con really is once you understand all the keywords used to deceive. It helps to to understand the Roman Maxim "Inclusio, Exclusio" trick which really helps shed light on things. Here's his stuff: https://archive.org/details/PurgingAmericaOfTheMatrix
Once you've untangled it all, you'll see how simple the trick really is - semantic stratagems and deceit at every turn. That's the trick of tricks - the deceptive use of words, meanings and definitions. One definition for them and another for us. Case in point: "Person" (Artificial Person).
The birth certificate scam is perfectly straightforward. I'm not sure you're going to find any "official legislation" or documents that directly tie to it, but it's beyond obvious. Why else would all our LEGAL paperwork since the 1930s, when they changed "Birth RECORDS (recordings)" to "Birth CERTIFICATES", where certificates are negotiable financial instruments --- be styled with ALL CAPS LETTERS. It isn't because "that's just the way we do things now". The ALL CAPS NAME is a foreign situs trust registered in Puerto Rico. Anna can give you all the information you could ever want about that. Search for "The dead baby scam" on either of her websites above.
It's worth noting that Jordan Maxwell was really the first to uncover this whole maritime/admiralty law of the sea business. You can find a ton of videos out there where he was talking about this back in the 1980s, and maybe even earlier.
You could also check out the "Justinian Deception" channel, now heavily censored on YouTube. Romley Stewart figured a ton of stuff out in Australia and really solved the ALL CAPS NAME trickery, the "gloss" or "glossa" and that the ALL CAPS are defined as "Dog Latin" in the Chicago Manual of Styles, basically rendering any ALL CAPS NAMES nothing but a "work of art", and not part of the English language.
The simple trick is, you, the living man/woman, have been tricked into BELIEVING you are the trustee, instead of the beneficiary, of this foreign situs trust in your ALL CAPS NAME. As such, you "ACT" on behalf of maintaining this corporation by agreeing that "JOHN QUINCY ADAMS" is "you". It's this simple really. A guy named David E Robinson also wrote a book entitled "Meet Your Strawman" if you want even more details on this subject.
I can simplify and explain it all now in under 5 minutes, but there's not a person I've found yet that can even begin to fathom what I'm saying. Had I heard my own explanation 2 years ago, I would have been just as lost and confused. I believe I can sum it all up by saying that, until you become fully educated on exactly how badly you've been MISEDUCATED, you're going to remain in the dark. Something just starts to happen as you begin to unwind the tangled web. It all comes down to us believing a vast array of lies and having to deal with the cognitive dissonance that arises as you slowly unwind it.
Anyway, Anna is the top resource. The search function on her website will help you with the treaties, documents, statues, etc. that wind and weave everything together in the muddled mess we currently exist within.
Good luck and thanks for asking! Usually my posts on this subject fall on deaf ears as everybody waits for Q/Trump to come to their rescue. I'm happy to see somebody else is digging as well! I do believe each of us individually needs to educate ourselves, learn how we've been misled and then disentangle ourselves from the deception, one by one. Nobody is going to do it for us as that would not equate to us re-establishing our own sovereignty.
Thanks to some excellent acting by Daniel Day Lewis (his best performance of his career, well deserving that Oscar), brilliant scene directing by Speilberg and masterful scoring by John Williams. This was part of one of the greatest opening scenes in one of the greatest films in American History, to honor one of the greatest events in American History, led by one of the greatest men in American History.
Bill the Butcher was a great performance too, definitely worthy of that Oscar. Oil Man was also excellent, imo definitely better than the winner that year (Adrien Brody in The Pianist). I think the reason why his performance in Lincoln really hits home with me, is because he stayed true to the character, a historical character, and did him justice... the voice, the higher pitched Kentucky twang, the lumbering walk... all characteristics and mannerisms that were reported about Lincoln at the time, but seemingly every actor cast as Lincoln in movies/TV prior, bungled (especially the low pitched voices).
At least we can agree that DDL is an incredible, GREAT actor. Although, I'm still baffled why he agreed to do that last movie Phantom Thread... man that was a weird one!
What are the chances that on 11/19/2021 (1+1+1+9+2+2+1=17) we'd be celebrating the anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, which Q would quote in one of the last drops before going silent again?
From what I've read it seems like Lincoln wasn't their absolute favorite but he sure was a hell of a lot better than Grant. The southerners knew it. “We will ask mercy from the Great Heart.”
Slavery could've been done away with via legislation. It was about destroying the south's wealth and putting the country at ground zero to allow for more nationwide control over all the states.
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
To think they burned down Atlanta because of ✨ slavery. ✨ give me a break.
...my FIL is a history and science professor/ author in Nawlins, the most educated man I’ve ever known, probably read every document there is to read on the subject. He says slavery was on its way of dying a natural death, as many other people support
Well, he and they are wrong. US census data indicates that the slave population continued to increase parabolicly every decade from 1790 to 1860. In 1800, there were abour 900k slaves in the US. Despite Congress's ban on the importation of slaves (signed into law by Jefferson), the slave population actually continued to rise. Slave owners realized it was actually cheaper to breed more slaves than import them. Within 30 years, the slave population more than doubled to 2 million. By 1850 it was 3.2 million and by 1860 nearly 4 million. In those last 10 years before the rebellion, that 700k jump was the largest single percentage increase in US history.
No, slavery was certainly not on it's way out. Quite the opposite actually. It was growing so much that pro-slavery groups pushed for expansion into the Western territories (the main political question from 1840-1860) and even south. The annexation of Texas and the Mexican War were spurred on to expand slavery west. The Democrat platform called for the annexation of Cuba to continue south.
It is true however, that in the mid Atlantic slave states like VA and NC, there was a movement to enact gradual emancipation. This is why when the first 7 deep South states conspired in their rebellion, they didn't immediately get all of the slave states. They had to provoke violence in order to coerce the other states to join in their rebellion. The real conspiracy was the fireeaters in Miss, Alabama, Georgia, and most importantly South Carolina (research the Rhetts and Bluffton Boys). Who started the war? These slaver assholes. They seized federal property. They deposed duly elected state legislatures and governors. They denied states of a republican form of government. They violated the rights of American citizens. They engaged in open rebellion and insurrection all because they LOST an election. Had they rallied behind Douglas, Lincoln likely wouldn't have won. Instead, the fireeating slave faction demanded slavery be expanded west (and south, and north), they broke from the Democratic convention (the real start of the civil war), split the Democrat ticket, lost the election (perhaps intentionally) and then made war upon the USA.
It was on its way out politically and because of machinery. Those are the facts. We didn’t go to war to free slaves, because that’s what legislation is for, not battlefields. It was the totalitarian Lincoln usurping powers and overreaching with his big fed govt. Just like today The states created the Union, and the creature is not greater than the creator. We could go back and forth all day long but I really don’t have the time. I’ve got a 2 hogs to butcher. Pax
Again, no. While slavery was seemingly on the way out early on in the first 20 years of the country's existence, by 1810 that changed. The facts are that the number of slaves INCREASED and was INCREASING at higher rates very year since 1810. Why? Slave owners could no longer import slaves (but they illegally did anyway) but the breeding effort actually increased the number of slaves and was far more cost effective. Ironically the machinery you mention actually had the OPPOSITE effect on slavery. Instead of killing it, it revitalised it, making it far more profitable. The cotton gin increased production and profits from cash crops from slave labor grew exponentially year after year, making King Cotton. The real problem was that without crop rotation and the focus only on cash crops, the slaveowning plantation systems ran low on fertile soil. Thus, the need to expand westward. These sectional, factional, slave-centric politics made the issue of slavery the #1 political issue from 1820 to 1860. It was the underlying issue from which all others were impacted, culturally, socially, religiously and yes, economically. Every sectional conflict in the antebellum period spawned from the debate over the maintenance and expansion of slavery. When you're done butchering your hogs, I suggest reading more books, particularly primary sources from 1810 to 1860 to remedy your misunderstanding of history.
I’m referring to the USE of slavery and the attitude towards it, not the sexual reproduction numbers of slaves. Machinery has eliminated much of the work done by manual labor and if you deny that, I can’t help you. Judge Napolitano discusses slavery’s trend toward a natural death in one of his books. And he loathes Honest Abe.
Yes, I know this. I’m not speaking only of the 1860s. History doesn’t stop there, and had Lincoln not gone around killing everyone for secession from the Union, slavery would have DIED OUT EVENTUALLY because of machinery yet to be invented, as well as the abolitionists’ influence. He didn’t give a damn about slaves and if you’re as well-read as you claim, you KNOW what he’s said on record about the “inferior” blacks. He was a tyrant and used the black plight as a political tool, just like the Left does today. Hell, his work as a lawyer involved returning a runaway slave to his master!
Just remember, EVERY western country ended slavery by the end of the 19th century. Industrialization permanently ended it one way or another. The civil war was completely pointless and should have never happened. It was a war for profit to industrialize the South. Wasn't much different from the Russian revolution and the industrialization of Russia going from an agricultural state to an industrial one. This change was an opportunity for the nobility to consolidate power and further control the masses.
You do realize that the slaveowning ruling class within the plantation system, was designed to replicate the English aristocratic system that the US was founded with hopes to break free of said system? Unfortunately yes, industrialized society became a new form of slavery. But that wasn't based on flawed eugenics backed bunk science of racial supremacy like the American chattel system. Eliminating the latter left one less system of slavery to destroy.
There are many very bad things that happened because of Lincoln's war. It was the end of Jackson's golden age. It was the end of America. Lincoln's actions may have ended up with slavery in the southern sense becoming illegal, but it ended up with slavery in the Banker sense becoming reality for every single American.
We lost America directly because of Lincoln's war.
I have no idea what side Lincoln was really playing for. I have no idea of his intentions. I don't know if he was coerced, or duped, or purposefully tricked America into that Banker war. No matter what Lincoln meant to do, that we lost America the day he declared war on the south is completely evident once you look at the economic data, and the legal data.
Here's an interesting take on why war was declared on the south. The best corroboration for my statements is in the economic and legal data though. The pattern becomes clear once you look.
Agree with the overall story, but believe that Lincoln would've kept the union strong and free, extending that golden age if he had lived. That said, the cabal killed Lincoln precisely because that was his plan. After the victory, he said it was right to begin playing Dixie again, symbolizing a much kinder reunification than what actually happened. Other actions of his demonstrated the sane thinking. He slowed down their plans, which were to carve up America into smaller and smaller chunks in a typical divide-and-conquer strategy. He kept the union together. Despite the problems, that's part of what allowed our dreams of and hopes for Q to take place. It's difficult to argue what-if scenarios, but if the South had successfully seceded, is there any doubt that the bankers and cabal would've destroyed the USA entirely, leaving us with 5-30 nations across the continent, ripe for more royal and tyrannical conquests?
There is evidence that supports that statement. That is why I stated explicitly I don't know what Lincoln's intentions really were. The evidence suggests the war was not caused by what we believe it was. And why would that be a surprise? EVERY single other war that America has been involved in was caused by a false fucking flag or was instigated by forces pulling strings, having nothing to do with the official narrative. People don't want to believe that is true about the Civil War because they need Lincoln to be a good guy. They need at least that one hero.
Maybe he was. I have no idea. I have seen evidence that suggests that. The Greenback was a big blow to bankers and likely was the reason he was killed, but at the same time there is a fair bit of evidence, even in his speeches, that he was not quite as good of a guy as people believe. He was perhaps just another duplicitous politician. If that is true, then the Greenback and his assassination doesn't make a lot of sense, but whatever the Truth is, I assert it is not as straight forward as the official narrative, or even a first glance at the evidence.
I don't think this was ever their plan. I think this went against their plan. A unified American Government (in the all powerful sense) which is exactly what the Civil War established was always their plan, from the beginning of America.
The more I look, the more things are just not as straight forward as they seem. You really need to dig to even have any idea of the level of fuckery these people are capable of.
They did destroy the USA entirely. Keeping America together allowed them to create the illusion of losing, when in fact it was their greatest victory. Without the strength of a unified America (singular all powerful government) creating their Machine (The Fed, The Matrix, Megacorp, etc.) would have been impossible.
Hmm. I think 30 countries would have been easier to conquer, and civil war was their first crack. So I suspect that Lincoln made them take their Plan B, which is what developed over successive years, including the fed-based slavery system. But I could be mistaken, and could do with more research on the topic, especially before defending it more. But the cabal's smears of Lincoln make me think he was a good guy. On the wars, would you say the War of 1812 and the Barbary Coast Wars were based on deception as well?
In a kinetic war this might be true. The real enemy is not a "fighter", they are a manipulator. Taking over 30 sovereign states would have been a fucking nightmare. And it wouldn't have been their machine. The fed was not "Plan B". The fed was the plan from the 18th century. They needed a strong America, a "one American government" to create the Fed to take over the world. America was their tool. The play goes back so much further than people realize. At least that is where my investigation has led. Evidence will be forthcoming soon enough.
The War of 1812 was the weirdest shit ever. In addition to no one agreeing on what happened in that war, or why it even started, it seems to me that mostly what they did was come in and destroy some documents (and the White House/Capitol) and then left. Why did they come in and destroy documents and leave? What were those documents?
I wish I could answer that question. It could be absolutely massive. Barbary coast I haven't looked at. I will only say every single war I have looked at so far, which has been most, was filled with fuckery that is not taught in our history.
1812 was bigger than Dolly Madison and the capitol buildings; it was the empire's attempt to ignore and undo the revolution. They also attacked New Orleans and tried to make it a beachhead for further incursions, and threatened from Canada. Imo it was the real deal, and legit on its face. Same with Barbary Coast. Both involved ignoring US sovereignty and impressing its merchants and ships into involuntary servitude of one type of another. The research is fascinating, but it takes time and (especially if you're into obscured history) records are ever harder to find.
It may have been that to an extent, but there may have been a primary Banker goal and a secondary Crown goal. I think the burning of documents was the primary Cabal goal. I think undoing the revolution was a Crown goal. (Note I don't have great evidence to support this statement. ATM it is a hunch that fits the evidence.)
Imagine this: Jafar goes to the Sultan and gets him to attack his Persian neighbors because they are upstarts. Jafar sends along a squad of his own choosing to steel the Lamp of Aladdin from the enemy palace. Jafar doesn't actually care about what happens in the war. He may even think it is very unlikely to be won. Maybe, because he controls the actual money supply, he makes sure that once the lamp has been captured, the war ends due to "Oops, we ran out of money."
I am not saying that is what happened, but the more you dig into this shit, the more crazy the story that unfolds. My research is primarily a following of the money. I strongly suggest that path to take in research. It produces the best stories.
Yep, it was easier for the cabal to exert influence over United States than it would have been to control separate states.
Sorry, but Democrat created Lost Cause propaganda has no place in civilized society. Lincoln didn't "declare war on the south." Rebels made war upon the United States of America, in defense of the immoral institution of slavery. Lincoln fulfilled his constitutional duty to put down the insurrection and rebellion, to preserve the nation, to defend those Americans whose rights were being denied (not just slaves, but white Americans loyal to the Constitution). Yes, bankers benefited. Yes, they likely helped spur on the inevitable. But the question you should be asking, is who pushed the slaveholding elites to dupe the masses of poor whites in the deep south who didn't own slaves, to rebel, fight and die for an evil cause? The next question you should be asking is, WHY did said people agree to support said evil cause? Expand your thinking. Don't buy into the Democrat revisionist bullshit.
Every time I have looked deeper into the past, the more fuckery I have found. I presented a single point of view in that video. I never stated it as truth, but when you look there is a lot of corroborating evidence.
Your statements are the "official version" of events. Every single time I have looked at the official version of events I have found evidence of fraud upon deeper inspection.
Everyone really wants that one thing to hold on to from our learning that is "truth". Stop believing you know the truth of anything and just look at the evidence.
Calling evidence "Democrat created Lost Cause propaganda" to discredit it is in no way a refutation of the evidence itself, it is an attack on the presenter, which in this case has no basis in fact, or if it does, you have not presented any evidence to support that claim.
I did not state that that video suggested the whole story. On the contrary I stated you needed to dig much deeper, especially in the laws (e.g. Organic Act of 1871, Coin Act of 1873, etc., etc.), and the economics (e.g. U.S. debt burden, inflation data, housing cost data, GDP, etc., etc.).
You suggesting that my intent was to present that video as a meaningful end to an argument is a fallacy of argument. That was explicitly stated as not my intent.
I presented evidence against the official narrative (which you espouse). There is more than just that one point of view to corroborate the evidence I presented. The Civil War didn't just "benefit the Bankers". It was literally the end of America by ALL counts. We were no longer a collection of sovereign states after the War, in effect, and to an extent by law (because we exist under Common Law and thus precedence was established by the war). The war caused us to turn into a single government over vassal states directly afterwards. This was the complete destruction of the intent of the Constitution.
It wasn't just the most massive economic burden, through loans to Rothschilds and English Banks far beyond anything previous because of the war (from which we never recovered), it was the literal destruction of the intent of the DoI and Constitution. Not just soon after, but during and forever after the Civil War.
Stop needing heroes, or truths. Look at evidence. The need for heroes and truths causes you to find them in places they don't actually exist.
Sorry, but the narrative in that one video you posted, is Lost Cause propaganda bullshit that has been debunked time and time and time again. Check my post history and you should find several instances where I've discussed the Rebellion of 1860 in depth, addressing the Democrat lies alluded to by multiple Q posts, with substantial evidence.
While I don't intend to claim an appeal to authority, my masters is in American History, with specialization in the Revolutionary period and the Civil War. I taught multiple classes at the college level covering Sectionalism, the Civil War and Reconstruction. I'd happily walk you through that content.
Whatever bad happened as a result of the failed rebellion, could have been avoided had the rebels not rebelled. The results were the consequences of the cause initiated by those who rebelled against the United States because they bought into bullshit fear mongering over a man who had yet to even take office, and a political party that had yet to take control of Congress. You're blaming the wrong people for the negative things that unfortunately did happen.
Truth is truth fren. For far too long, the official narrative taught in our schools, at least in the South, BY DEMOCRATS, was that it was the Lost Cause myth. Well meaning, good conservative people particularly in the former rebel states, have been duped into accepting such nonsense. It's a tough red pill for many to swallow.
“Debunked” is a fraud. It is the idea that an argument is closed because it has been rebutted. Usually, within the absolutely amazing fraud that we call “debunked”, all that is required is a single rebuttal. That is not how we find the Truth. Investigations into the truth never close any doors. New evidence is always allowed to be presented, rebuttals rebutted, etc.. There is no such thing as debunked in the effort to find the Truth.
Part 2 of my report is on The Matrix. The reason we are stuck in the Matrix, the way it was created in the first place was by taking over all of the information sources. The first thing they took over was the book publishers (they were the first book publishers). That’s not actually true. The first thing they took over was Religion, but that’s going back too far. We will start with the publishers. Then they took over all media.
See Sir Evelyn de Rothschild who gave a talk at Peking University (which was created by Rockefeller) at which he said (@7:20):
This is not intended to be a full argument. I have 500 pages of argument in my report. I am giving you a taste of what’s coming when I present it to the world.
Then they took over schools. In 1903 Rockefeller started the General Education Board for example. Again, just one piece of a thousand pieces of evidence.
In 1954 the Reece Committee looked at Foundations influence in schools. Foundations drive all research. You can’t even get funding for any project if you don’t follow what they want you to research. You can’t publish in any journal, you can’t get any degree if you don’t toe the line of the official narrative. That doesn’t mean you can’t think outside the box, but you can’t think too far outside of it or you are effectively deleted (called a crackpot, or a quack, etc.).
In 1982 Norman Dodd talked about his experience during this congressional Committee to find evidence. The video of his interview is at the bottom of that link. The video starts at 14ish minutes in. His exposition of History begins within ten minutes of that I think.
He tells about how his assistant got access to the Carnegie (same as Rockefeller) minutes of Foundation meetings. He talks about how they took over all of what was allowed to be taught and what was the allowed printing of material in American History. He suggests all official history that is allowed to be taught is fraudulent with the intention of bringing America into a one world government of Communism. These minutes are from 100 years ago. They have been working on this project for a very long time (much longer than that, but this is evidence of at least that time frame).
Him saying these things, and me presenting them doesn’t make his statement true, but it does make his evidence compelling (I HIGHLY recommend you listen to it). That evidence is “primary” in the sense that Norman Dodd is saying it, and given everything that he was a part of (the Reece Committee e.g.) he is a credible witness. Again, not necessarily true, but his interview seems to me that he believes it. Just one more piece of the puzzle. There are hundreds more.
I suggest this is completely incorrect. Nothing could have been avoided. Look at it again with that in mind. Or rather, try to prove that statement incorrect.
I am blaming the Bankers. I stated that explicitly. I assure you, they are not the “wrong people.”
Truth is Truth, i.e. Truth is What Is. “truth” (lower case) is what people think they see, or have read, or were told, etc. that they interpret as Truth. If you own all the sources that show, tell, write, etc. what kind of fraud could you perpetrate? Could you create an entire world of fraud? Could you create, using pieces of the Truth, but hiding all the really important bits, an entire fraud of History? Could you create The Matrix?
This suggests to me you are still stuck in The Matrix. “The Democrat Lies” is the lie. There is no such thing as a “Democrat” in the way you mean it. Nor is there a “Republican.” They are two sides of the same controlled slave caste. Both are lies. All are lies. The whole world is The Matrix. Until you see who the real enemy is, you are bound to (bounded by) the fraud. In fact, I suggest in your investigations you keep in mind the question “who is the real enemy” in every situation. The more you dig, the more surprising the apparent answers become.
If you wish to present evidence to back up your claims instead of ad hominem attacks (“Democrat lies”/”Debunked”/etc.) or appeals to authority I am all ears. I will not be looking through your post history, but if you wish to link specific ones that you feel present an argument I will look. Please do your best to present primary evidence. As in, recognize that what you are presenting is someone’s words. It is not Truth. It is especially not Truth if it was from some book. If I have to go digging through a book to find their references to then go looking through that reference to find another reference etc. I will not consider your evidence credible. I need to see what people say. Court cases are a great source. Laws in the books are great. Black’s Law Dictionary is a great source. Congressional investigation Committees are great. Websites in someone’s own words (like the Rockefeller websites telling me themselves about their fuckery). Government websites are great (like SEC reports that tell of Rockefuckery), etc. FOIA request documents, also fantastic.
I would love to read your report!
It is so hard to write. I'm trying to red-pill the entire planet. Hopefully I can at least get a substantial portion of a mostly brain dead reddit (Superstonk/GME etc. to start). Even people here are going to be shocked by what I report. It's all primary evidence. The evidence is fucking nuts. We really live in The Matrix, even if it isn't exactly as portrayed by the movie. The parallels are unreal. Whoever wrote that movie knew exactly what was going on.
The hardest part is the amount of evidence. I can't stop writing. I can't fucking finish it. I try to finish one part and I find too much damned evidence!
Once I finish I will have to pare it down by so much. It's gonna be rough.
I will be creating a website. Maybe i will put a longer version there, or break it up into small sections (probably both).
It's the hardest thing I've ever done, writing this report. Just because there is so much.
Yes. Nothing is ever isolated. It's all a tangled web the branches put and each branch has its own network of branches that is perpetual.
Even the spygate scandal was such a web that Dan Bongino wrote two phenomenal books and has a daily hour long podcast dedicated to the subject for well over a year (I had actually stopped listening to his podcast because I was so sick of the subject matter and following every connection xD
That's just spygate xD
And primary sources is the way to go. It is why we are so informed and the normies who follow the "news" talking points are so damn wrong.
Studies, interviews, emails, documents, boots on the ground, THAT is how you approach truth (although sometimes unabashed pure truth is unobtainable but we can get damn close)
This is your central claim. You laid blame on Abraham Lincoln. The way you falsely portray the rebellion as a "war" that Lincoln started, is simply untrue. He dutifully responded to the insurrection and rebellion being levied against the USA. Again, I don't disagree with you that there was fuckery afoot, instigated and exploited by some evil people. But your understanding of what transpired, just isn't correct.
You can start here:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otTsbqK4U7o&t=529s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6DiA_7AjcU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3E2FdedPwU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EOhXF5lNgQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbEjmEyHf8U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc0GvbzhoWs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Elc1-j6Jrg
For when you have more time for easy reading, you can start with the following...
https://tinyurl.com/4h5msr45
https://tinyurl.com/xtdtpvtt
https://tinyurl.com/yymtxn3s
https://tinyurl.com/9spk73m8
https://tinyurl.com/59ftuzww
https://tinyurl.com/sndbxaah
Completely incorrect. Nothing I have stated relies on that statement.
Please do a better job of presenting evidence. I am not going to go through all that shit. I am writing something that I hope will help a lot of people escape The Matrix. How many hours do you think I should waste on your non-primary evidence before I get to a primary source that may or may not support your claims?
If you want to present evidence, give me a synopsis of your link (one sentence is fine). Note the source of your evidence. If someone gives evidence in a video, give me a synopsis and an approximate time to look at that supports your claims. Please let that source have at least primary references within it.
I don't want to listen to someone else's shit. I seriously doubt you listened to my video past the first couple minutes (if at all). I admit that was not the best way to present any evidence, but it was a quick reply and it was not an important piece of evidence (even though for some reason you think it was my "central claim").
Evidence please, not someone else's words, unless you want me to take THEIR words as meaningful. I.e. if any of those links go to Abraham Lincoln himself, or maybe some other meaningful primary source then please point out which ones.
Coincidentally I actually watched the video you posted, back on September 21st. Would you like to see my YouTube watch history to confirm? Livingston just regurgitated the same crap spewed by other Lost Cause apologists. Your first red flag, if you did your research about him, should have been his membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans. During my years living in South Carolina, I became well acquainted with many other native South Carolinians like Livingston. He means well, but his delusional love of "HeRitAgE" and refusal to accept that he was duped growing up and being educated in South Carolina, by promoters of Lost Cause fake history, is clearly evident. Not surprising that he's the founder of the Abbeville Institute, associating himself with Thomas DiLorenzo, an even bigger con artist masquerading as a "historian"... more bluntly put, he's an idiot profiteering off gullible people. Fren, please better research your sources.
I gave you a synopsis of the Rebellion of 1860 already, one you just didn't like. You asked for references. I gave them to you. If you actually watch the videos and read the books, you'll see that they are all backed by primary sources. You can choose to watch, listen and read them, or be lazy and remain in your state of delusion. Good luck fren.
Tension over slavery kept raising, until a breaking point, slave owning democrats were clearly scared that Lincoln would free the slaves due to his personal hatred towards the evil institution of slavery but he stated time and time again that the preservation of the union was more important to him, and seemed to be agnostic on whether or not blacks became citizens. Then South Carolina tried succeeding, sparking several other states to follow, Lincoln had no choice but to go to war to preserve the union.
You are a historian? Or are you just interested in US history?
I've not published anything but bachelor's and master's in American History and Government, and taught several classes on the subject at a highly rated private Christian university... Hopefully that will suffice as I'd prefer to not divulge too much more of my identity.
I am creating a website on US history (very unfinished and not fully working) but would like your thoughts on it, I am sure I am missing important factors or events. Could I PM you the site and have you take a look?
Absolutely fren 🙂
This is so important and I post about it whenever it comes up. Lincoln was an attorney and at that time in the Republic attorneys were prohibited from being president. When they elected Lincoln president they made him president of the corporation and not the republic. This is what made the southern states walk out of Congress and that is really what ended the republic. Lincoln forced some southern people into Congress to make it appear as he was keeping the union together and I suppose he did keep the union together but the republic was dead the day the south walked out and Congress was adjourned without setting a day to reconvene. Everything after that has been done under the corporation and not the republic.
This answers so many questions about why the USA is the way it is now and how we got here. I wish more people knew about these things and actually cared because if they did we could probably fix it.
Interesting can you find me some sort of evedence that attorneys cannot be presedent? I would love to see that.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-9/clause-8/
Attorneys are given the title of Esquire from the BAR, British Accreditation Registry. Thus a foreign title of nobility.
“Bar” means “whole body of lawyers ... the legal profession.” It also means the place where the business of court is done. “Bar” in this sense had become synonymous with “court” by 1330. In 1559, “bar” literally meant the railing that separated people on the bench from those conducting law on the other side. After 1600, “bar” was popularly assumed to mean the bar in a courtroom, which was the wooden railing marking off the area around the judge's seat and where a barrister stood to plead his prisoner’s case.
What is the BAR exam and why must one pass it to be admitted to the BAR?
It is to test a candidate's ability to think like a lawyer and prove that they have the “minimum competency” to practice law in that state. It's a competency test. Similar to the NCLEX for nurses.
Lincoln personally opposed slavery but didn't really care about the Civil rights of the black man. When he was elected, states panicked and south Carolina was the first to try secession. He really cared about keeping the union together either by banning slavery, or not and this is what led to the war, to prevent a breakup of the union.
In the beginning with the he didn't free all slaves, just the ones of confederate states. Showing that slavery although he would prefer it gone, was less important then keeping states happy to be in the union.
He didn’t free a single slave in the confederate states bc had NO jurisdiction in the sovereign county. The emancipation proc was useless, simply a political tool, just like the slaves themselves. Why didn’t he free union slaves?
He didn't free union slaves because his goal wasn't to free slaves, but to keep the union together no matter what. Only freeing confederate states made them weaker, and kept the union side of slave owning states happy. Abe personly wanted to abolish slavery but not at the cost of the union.
Again, he never freed a single slave in the CSA. iIt was a political stunt by a monster that TRASHED the Constitution. Slavery was on its way to die a natural death and he had to go around killing people and incarcerating even Yankees just for disagreeing with him. Fuck Lincoln.
Slavery was not on its way out by any means. The slave trade was abolished but states were free to choose as the Missouri compromise was removed. You have a narrow view of hostory
Were you schooled by yankee victors?
I was "schooled" by reading thousands of library of congress documents.
Greatest speech in American history: Lincoln - Gettysburg Address
Greatest speech in human history: Jesus - Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 to 7)
Touche. Agreed. Although I wouldn't really classify Christ's sermon as a speech per se... how about we call the GA the greatest political speech in human history? 😁
Agreed. +1 😀
Lincoln was a British BAR endorsed attorney, an "esquire", which is a "Title of Nobility". In other words, his ultimate loyalty was to the Crown.
The ORIGINAL 13th amendment, nearly perfectly vanished by TPTB, was lost in the fire of 1812 in the DISTRICT (cabal ownership) of Columbia. The ORIGINAL 13th amendment stated that nobody holding a "Title of Nobility" could hold any office in the federal (contract) government. It was slowly suppressed and then forgotten by the time Lincoln started running for the House and Senate.
The "Civil War" was a privateer mercenary war, ostensibly between the Crown and the Vatican. It had nothing to do with slavery as only 1% of people in the southern states owned slaves. It was about power, money and control - as always.
When the war started, Congress went into "interregnum" status and has never reconvened as per the original Constitution. After the war ended, the south was held under martial law for over a decade as surrogate "Congressmen" and "Senators", loyal to the Crown, were placed in their positions.
Under martial law, the devastating 14th amendment was passed, creating the political status known as "U.S. Citizen", which was "passed off" to the ignorant masses as a status the newly freed slaves could hold. A DIMINISHED status, where all natural rights are surrendered in order to receive "Privileges & Benefits" from the de facto federal government. Obviously, this political status was extended to 99% of the population in the ensuing 60 years.
Shortly thereafter, the private corporations known as "the United States of America (Inc) {Crown} and "UNITED STATES (Inc) {Vatican - municipal} were established as part of the 1871 Organic Act and other "Acts" that followed in the next few years (it's a winding maze that's very difficult to follow).
The "Department of Justice" was founded in 1870 during this period, not to protect the people, but to protect the usurpers.
And in 1878, the "American Bar Association (ABA)" was established to further protect the usurpers and to upend our previously LAWFUL nation, and subvert it into the British maritime/admiralty LEGAL system, effectively turning everything and, more importantly, everyone into a FICTIONAL ENTITY, known as a "PERSON" or "PERSONS". The word "legal" derives from "Allegiance" and is best cousins with "Liege Lord", who were the owners of the peasants and serfs in England. Same system, same root etymology.
The word "person" is a LEGALESE TERM, which can mean either a "Natural Person" (which is what all of us non-attorneys believe a "person" is), or an "ARTIFICIAL PERSON" which is a fictional "corporate" entity. In our case, it is the private TRUST that is created in your name upon birth (The Strawman for those of you who have done a bit of research). All civil and "crimes against the state" cases (e.g. parking, speeding tickets, tax issues, COVID defaince, etc.) are dealing with the ARTIFICIAL PERSON styled on ALL LEGAL DOCUMENTS as your "ALL CAPS NAME".
The quick explanation difference is: LEGAL refers to an INCORPORATED (Corpse/Dead/Fictional) entity and LAWFUL refers to an UN-INCORPORATED entity, e.g. a living, breathing man or woman. Your strawman "trust" becomes a corporation when they INCORPORATE your given Christian name, e.g. "John Quincy", with your family name, e.g. "Adams". In days gone by, people once called themselves "John Quincy of the Adams family".
My working theory is; After the cabal failed with the First Bank of America, which Thomas Jefferson shuttered, and the Second Bank of America, which Andrew Jackson shuttered, they shifted tactics to undermine our nation and chose the LEGAL route, which worked a charm. After it was in place, it opened the doors for the IRS and Fed (the "Third Bank of America) in 1913. While many of us realize both of these entities are completely unconstitutional, and therefore UNLAWFUL, they are both perfectly LEGAL in relation to the private corporations currently ACTING as our federal government.
There's a reason there are 80,000+ (out of 500,000) attorneys living in the DISTRICT of Columbia. Quite simply, this is how they do it. By blurring the lines of legal/lawful that we were deliberately never educated on.
The more you know...
This comment needs to be a post!
Do you have evidence that supports this? I can't find this anywhere, and I have looked. I could not find evidence in the Organic Act of 1871 that supports this. All that seems to do is create a municipal corp for D.C., which is owned(?) by the United States Government. I'm not sure if the United States government that owns D.C. is the same government that was incorporated by the Constitution (it incorporated the sovereign entity (governing body) we call the U.S. of A) or if it is some other United States government created after (for which I can't find documentation). The CEO for that corp is The President, the Congress is the ruling body, etc. It seems to be an independent city state, since it is technically (legally) foreign to all states.
So it is technically a foreign corporation, but that's not as damning as it sounds because each State is a foreign corporation to every other state. D.C. is a foreign (municipal) corporation to all of them. So it is, just like the Vatican and London, an independent City State.
But linking that to the Crown, or the Vatican by any measure I just have not been able to do. I can't find any connection of ownership or allegiance in any law, or financial record, or treaty, etc. That doesn't mean it isn't there, even where I have looked. It can get confusing, and seeing the essential pieces takes intense concentration on otherwise dry documents, but I have looked quite a bit and i can't find this connection (in a real document).
If you have that evidence, or have any idea where to find it, that would be absolutely huge for my report.
D.C. could be owned through municipal bonds. I have tried to find bond ownership for D.C. bonds but I can't find any documentation. I can only find that they exist.
I did find documentation that shows that the Queen has control over the Social Security Fund. Not a huge corroboration, but a decent red-pill.
Actually, if you have any primary sources (or solid secondary sources with primary references) for some of the other statements you have made, that would be absolutely awesome. Specifically, the creation of the Capitalized LEGAL person AKA Trust in your name. I just can't find the documents that support that as a legal structure. (Nor how it ties to the SSA or Birth certificates, etc.).
I have been trying to verify most of this, and have gotten not very far until I get to The Fed and the IRS (and other Banks). There I have a ton of solid evidence of rather unbelievable fuckery (beyond that which is commonly stated in even the most damning reports). That's gonna be a big fat red-pill once I get that part of the report out.
Also, reading that last paragraph, consider that the groundwork laid enabling the FED and IRS f*&kery was all performed following the implementation of all the corporations and legal society taking over in the 1870s, slowly boiling the frog for another 25-30 years before ushering them in. The cabal plays the loooonnggg game always. They never try to implement their plan all at once, much like cooking the frog.
Technically speaking, the Fed and the IRS are 100% LEGAL entities, as per THEIR rules. However, both are 100% UNLAWFUL according to our founding documents.
And here's a mind-bender for ya, an oldie but a goodie, that should be helpful for your efforts in connecting all the dots, fully sourced with footnotes as well:
http://www.annavonreitz.com/annavonreitz.pdf
Good luck with that!
I forgot to add the simple comment that none of our "State Governments" were originally, nor should they ever have been "Corporations". Corporations are dead/fictional "corpses/entities" that draw you into the British Admiralty/Maritime legal jurisdiction where they hold sway and ultimate authority.
Neither the original federal government nor state governments were corporations. They all became these after the coup we call "The Civil War". For example, prior to the Civil War, you lived in "California" or the "Texas State". After the civil war coup, these names were all changed to "State of States", e.g. "State of California" or "State of Texas". The former being the sovereign governments, the latter being the corporations. They aren't the same thing, even though the "names" are quite similar.
It's worth noting that your birth certificate is the INCORPORATION of your given Christian name, e.g. "John Quincy" with your family name "Adams". Thus, the INCORPORATING of the two, creates your strawman CORPORATION.
Corpses/Fictions/Corporations are the domain of the LEGAL (British maritime) realm.
Men/Women/Business are the domain of the LAWFUL, (Common Law) realm.
In short, it is in fact most "damning" that all our government entities, businesses and even "ourselves" have all been UNLAWFULLY CONVERTED into "corporations" so that we can be controlled by the creators of "corporations", which is effectively the Crown Corporation - the first and original at the top of the pyramid.
He who creates controls....
I hope that helps.
Indeed. It's a messy, highly obfuscated mess to understand and then unwind. Suffice it to say, making the full connections in publicly accessible documentation is nearly impossible, but not entirely.
The best source out there is Anna Von Reitz, hands down. She has written some 3400 articles on her website that delve into all of this, here -> http://www.annavonreitz.com/
She'll point you in the correct direction, just search for terms that you're looking for. For example the 1871 Organic Act was quickly usurped by several other "Acts" that followed shortly thereafter. The Scottish "United States of America" was established and incorporated in this timeframe. She's written several articles on the 1871 Act, but this is a good place to start, Articles #2933, 2934 & 2935, entitled "Misinformation About the Act of 1871 is an Ongoing Problem -- Part 1/2/3". You'll get a sense as to how they try to hide their tracks at every turn.
Anna has also written 3 books. The introductory book (written at an 8th grade level) is a good start -> "You Know Something is Wrong When.....: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause". After that, you should read "Disclosure 101 - What You Need to Know", and most recently, "Blood Money" (which you can also read for free directly on her website through the appropriately named articles).
Anna is the closest to having figured this whole thing out, along with her team of former attorneys that she calls "The Living Law Firm". You could probably spend months, even years reading all she has written about.
There's a ton of education materials as well on her "American States Assemblies" website. -> https://tasa.americanstatenationals.org/
Here's a very recent article of hers about the Crown -> http://annavonreitz.com/britishcrowngovernment.pdf
More on the Crown here as a warmup: https://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=112432
I'm not going to link any Vatican articles, there are hundreds on her site for you to research.
I could list off probably 25 more people for you, but Anna is the best of the best. A close second would be Kenneth Scott who runs "Gemstone University" and "The Panterra Society". He's a little less willing to openly discuss things like Anna, holding his cards a little closer to the vest. But his information is rock solid. I recommend his YouTube channel and his recent series "Overview of the World System of Bondage" in 21 parts, here: https://www.youtube.com/user/GemstoneUniversity/videos
I also really like the work of Thomas Clark Nelson which you can find here on this archive.org site. There are several links here and he does a spectacular job of describing what the (British) TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT really is, how they pulled it off in statutes, and how simple the con really is once you understand all the keywords used to deceive. It helps to to understand the Roman Maxim "Inclusio, Exclusio" trick which really helps shed light on things. Here's his stuff: https://archive.org/details/PurgingAmericaOfTheMatrix
Once you've untangled it all, you'll see how simple the trick really is - semantic stratagems and deceit at every turn. That's the trick of tricks - the deceptive use of words, meanings and definitions. One definition for them and another for us. Case in point: "Person" (Artificial Person).
The birth certificate scam is perfectly straightforward. I'm not sure you're going to find any "official legislation" or documents that directly tie to it, but it's beyond obvious. Why else would all our LEGAL paperwork since the 1930s, when they changed "Birth RECORDS (recordings)" to "Birth CERTIFICATES", where certificates are negotiable financial instruments --- be styled with ALL CAPS LETTERS. It isn't because "that's just the way we do things now". The ALL CAPS NAME is a foreign situs trust registered in Puerto Rico. Anna can give you all the information you could ever want about that. Search for "The dead baby scam" on either of her websites above.
Anna talks about it quite regularly. A little taste: http://annavonreitz.com/deadbabyscam.pdf
It's worth noting that Jordan Maxwell was really the first to uncover this whole maritime/admiralty law of the sea business. You can find a ton of videos out there where he was talking about this back in the 1980s, and maybe even earlier.
You could also check out the "Justinian Deception" channel, now heavily censored on YouTube. Romley Stewart figured a ton of stuff out in Australia and really solved the ALL CAPS NAME trickery, the "gloss" or "glossa" and that the ALL CAPS are defined as "Dog Latin" in the Chicago Manual of Styles, basically rendering any ALL CAPS NAMES nothing but a "work of art", and not part of the English language.
The simple trick is, you, the living man/woman, have been tricked into BELIEVING you are the trustee, instead of the beneficiary, of this foreign situs trust in your ALL CAPS NAME. As such, you "ACT" on behalf of maintaining this corporation by agreeing that "JOHN QUINCY ADAMS" is "you". It's this simple really. A guy named David E Robinson also wrote a book entitled "Meet Your Strawman" if you want even more details on this subject.
I can simplify and explain it all now in under 5 minutes, but there's not a person I've found yet that can even begin to fathom what I'm saying. Had I heard my own explanation 2 years ago, I would have been just as lost and confused. I believe I can sum it all up by saying that, until you become fully educated on exactly how badly you've been MISEDUCATED, you're going to remain in the dark. Something just starts to happen as you begin to unwind the tangled web. It all comes down to us believing a vast array of lies and having to deal with the cognitive dissonance that arises as you slowly unwind it.
Anyway, Anna is the top resource. The search function on her website will help you with the treaties, documents, statues, etc. that wind and weave everything together in the muddled mess we currently exist within.
Good luck and thanks for asking! Usually my posts on this subject fall on deaf ears as everybody waits for Q/Trump to come to their rescue. I'm happy to see somebody else is digging as well! I do believe each of us individually needs to educate ourselves, learn how we've been misled and then disentangle ourselves from the deception, one by one. Nobody is going to do it for us as that would not equate to us re-establishing our own sovereignty.
And on this day, the north turned the tide of the Civil War completely. As are we! Charge Anons! WWG1WGA.
Gooseskin from that.
Thanks to some excellent acting by Daniel Day Lewis (his best performance of his career, well deserving that Oscar), brilliant scene directing by Speilberg and masterful scoring by John Williams. This was part of one of the greatest opening scenes in one of the greatest films in American History, to honor one of the greatest events in American History, led by one of the greatest men in American History.
Bill the Butcher was a great performance too, definitely worthy of that Oscar. Oil Man was also excellent, imo definitely better than the winner that year (Adrien Brody in The Pianist). I think the reason why his performance in Lincoln really hits home with me, is because he stayed true to the character, a historical character, and did him justice... the voice, the higher pitched Kentucky twang, the lumbering walk... all characteristics and mannerisms that were reported about Lincoln at the time, but seemingly every actor cast as Lincoln in movies/TV prior, bungled (especially the low pitched voices).
At least we can agree that DDL is an incredible, GREAT actor. Although, I'm still baffled why he agreed to do that last movie Phantom Thread... man that was a weird one!
Reading the comments, I’ll just say this: Obama wanted to be likened to Lincoln. Trump with Jefferson.
Every American president post-Lincoln measures themselves against 2 former presidents: Washington and Lincoln.
https://youtu.be/gCeydSqYxSM
Jefferson... bleh.
Relevant
https://qposts.online/post/4949
What are the chances that on 11/19/2021 (1+1+1+9+2+2+1=17) we'd be celebrating the anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, which Q would quote in one of the last drops before going silent again?
Cc: u/Norman_F_Dixon u/v8power
Learned it in the 5th grade.
Not a huge Lincoln fan these days... but it was a great speech...
I am looking forward to a new civil war ... this time let's do bankers vs human beings...
....
GO!!!
From what I've read it seems like Lincoln wasn't their absolute favorite but he sure was a hell of a lot better than Grant. The southerners knew it. “We will ask mercy from the Great Heart.” Slavery could've been done away with via legislation. It was about destroying the south's wealth and putting the country at ground zero to allow for more nationwide control over all the states.
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
To think they burned down Atlanta because of ✨ slavery. ✨ give me a break.
Glad someone knows. Fuck Lincoln.
No, not fuck Lincoln. The southerners were fucked when he died. What came after him was far worse than what they had
Lincoln set the stage for Obama. Marfan cabal faggot fucker.
...my FIL is a history and science professor/ author in Nawlins, the most educated man I’ve ever known, probably read every document there is to read on the subject. He says slavery was on its way of dying a natural death, as many other people support
Well, he and they are wrong. US census data indicates that the slave population continued to increase parabolicly every decade from 1790 to 1860. In 1800, there were abour 900k slaves in the US. Despite Congress's ban on the importation of slaves (signed into law by Jefferson), the slave population actually continued to rise. Slave owners realized it was actually cheaper to breed more slaves than import them. Within 30 years, the slave population more than doubled to 2 million. By 1850 it was 3.2 million and by 1860 nearly 4 million. In those last 10 years before the rebellion, that 700k jump was the largest single percentage increase in US history.
No, slavery was certainly not on it's way out. Quite the opposite actually. It was growing so much that pro-slavery groups pushed for expansion into the Western territories (the main political question from 1840-1860) and even south. The annexation of Texas and the Mexican War were spurred on to expand slavery west. The Democrat platform called for the annexation of Cuba to continue south.
It is true however, that in the mid Atlantic slave states like VA and NC, there was a movement to enact gradual emancipation. This is why when the first 7 deep South states conspired in their rebellion, they didn't immediately get all of the slave states. They had to provoke violence in order to coerce the other states to join in their rebellion. The real conspiracy was the fireeaters in Miss, Alabama, Georgia, and most importantly South Carolina (research the Rhetts and Bluffton Boys). Who started the war? These slaver assholes. They seized federal property. They deposed duly elected state legislatures and governors. They denied states of a republican form of government. They violated the rights of American citizens. They engaged in open rebellion and insurrection all because they LOST an election. Had they rallied behind Douglas, Lincoln likely wouldn't have won. Instead, the fireeating slave faction demanded slavery be expanded west (and south, and north), they broke from the Democratic convention (the real start of the civil war), split the Democrat ticket, lost the election (perhaps intentionally) and then made war upon the USA.
These are the facts.
It was on its way out politically and because of machinery. Those are the facts. We didn’t go to war to free slaves, because that’s what legislation is for, not battlefields. It was the totalitarian Lincoln usurping powers and overreaching with his big fed govt. Just like today The states created the Union, and the creature is not greater than the creator. We could go back and forth all day long but I really don’t have the time. I’ve got a 2 hogs to butcher. Pax
Again, no. While slavery was seemingly on the way out early on in the first 20 years of the country's existence, by 1810 that changed. The facts are that the number of slaves INCREASED and was INCREASING at higher rates very year since 1810. Why? Slave owners could no longer import slaves (but they illegally did anyway) but the breeding effort actually increased the number of slaves and was far more cost effective. Ironically the machinery you mention actually had the OPPOSITE effect on slavery. Instead of killing it, it revitalised it, making it far more profitable. The cotton gin increased production and profits from cash crops from slave labor grew exponentially year after year, making King Cotton. The real problem was that without crop rotation and the focus only on cash crops, the slaveowning plantation systems ran low on fertile soil. Thus, the need to expand westward. These sectional, factional, slave-centric politics made the issue of slavery the #1 political issue from 1820 to 1860. It was the underlying issue from which all others were impacted, culturally, socially, religiously and yes, economically. Every sectional conflict in the antebellum period spawned from the debate over the maintenance and expansion of slavery. When you're done butchering your hogs, I suggest reading more books, particularly primary sources from 1810 to 1860 to remedy your misunderstanding of history.
I’m referring to the USE of slavery and the attitude towards it, not the sexual reproduction numbers of slaves. Machinery has eliminated much of the work done by manual labor and if you deny that, I can’t help you. Judge Napolitano discusses slavery’s trend toward a natural death in one of his books. And he loathes Honest Abe.
Yes, I know this. I’m not speaking only of the 1860s. History doesn’t stop there, and had Lincoln not gone around killing everyone for secession from the Union, slavery would have DIED OUT EVENTUALLY because of machinery yet to be invented, as well as the abolitionists’ influence. He didn’t give a damn about slaves and if you’re as well-read as you claim, you KNOW what he’s said on record about the “inferior” blacks. He was a tyrant and used the black plight as a political tool, just like the Left does today. Hell, his work as a lawyer involved returning a runaway slave to his master!
Just remember, EVERY western country ended slavery by the end of the 19th century. Industrialization permanently ended it one way or another. The civil war was completely pointless and should have never happened. It was a war for profit to industrialize the South. Wasn't much different from the Russian revolution and the industrialization of Russia going from an agricultural state to an industrial one. This change was an opportunity for the nobility to consolidate power and further control the masses.
You do realize that the slaveowning ruling class within the plantation system, was designed to replicate the English aristocratic system that the US was founded with hopes to break free of said system? Unfortunately yes, industrialized society became a new form of slavery. But that wasn't based on flawed eugenics backed bunk science of racial supremacy like the American chattel system. Eliminating the latter left one less system of slavery to destroy.
Fuck him twice.
Lincoln was a fag and cabal.