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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.