…..Fabulous vocalist John Niems on “They’ll Take You Out”
(to order his music: www.johnniems.com) this is a gorgeous voice and a courageous man!
I wrote Niems:
Great song… It is a kind of cognitive dissonance that your voice is so beautiful but the content and images are terrifying…..Â It might be useful, though, to sugarcoat these bitter pills with a great song….Â This is a big issue.
Putting your “Politicians” video on my blog also and my FB page. JdN
….On the real cause of the not-so-civil war
By Ray Goodwin of Texas
[Mr. Goodwin taught American History from 1996 into 2002 at the Victoria College (adjunct faculty), Victoria, Texas (120 miles southwest of Houston) and has Â a BA and MA in history.]
Editor, The Advocate [newspaper]:
Â Â Â Â Â The Victoria Advocate, yesterday (Monday, Nov.28) ran a front-page â€œdebateâ€ over whether or not Texas should allow images of the Confederate battle flag on its license plates. A poll was taken, and many people called in, 69% in favor of allowing it, 31% against. The two columns, pro and con, both reflected ignorance about our history. Even the PRO side was apologetic about the war being about slavery. Ignorance abounds.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The war of 1861-65 was NOT about slavery at all, but about economic imposition upon the Southern states by the money/business dominated government in Washington, DC. The REAL reason for that war was the fact that northern manufacturers, making their clothing, farm implements, furniture, tools, etc., produced them for sale at a certain price â€“ a HIGH price, at that. Southern states had some, but not a lot, of industry, and were in need of those very products. It just so happened that the European nations of France, Spain, England, and the Dutch, were producing and selling those same basic needs for a much LOWER price than the Northern produced goods. As the South had a lower standard of living (income, production, wages) than the North, they eagerly imported those foreign goods at each Southern port for much cheaper pricesÂ – simply because they could AFFORD to buy them at those prices. Northern businessmen and bankers put immediate pressure on the politicians in DC to make their â€œcash cowâ€ (the Southern states) HAVE to buy from the North. To do that, they passed tariffs (the last straw being the Morrill Tariffs) to RAISE the price of those imported European goods, so that they would cost MORE than the Yankee goods.
The Feds passed the tariffs, of course â€“ but the Southern states would ignore enforcing them at Southern ports (chiefly, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and Galveston). So the Yankee dominated Congress â€“ just as today, totally beholden to the Money Power â€“ passed NEW laws, providing for FEDERAL officials (among them, military personnel) to set up federal stations in each Southern port to enforce and collect the tariffs â€“ tariffs that would RAISE the price of those European goods ABOVE the prices of like goods produced in the Northern states. When even THAT did not produce the desired results, DC passed laws dictating that all foreign ships must FIRST enter the ports of Boston and Philadelphia before proceeding to deliver ANY goods to the South, so that the tariffs could be applied.
Faced with this economic strangulation, the South collectively decided that their own economic survival depended upon exercising their perfectly legal right to leave the Union, and set up their OWN nation, if you will. Secession was not something undertaken lightly. There were serious debates in each state about the pros and cons of leaving the Union and setting up their own association of states â€“ a confederacy.
The plusses for such a step far outweighed the negatives, and the Southern states assured the Northern ones that in the event of any national emergency in the form of a THREAT from the outside, the Confederate states would immediately join forces with their Northern sisters in defense of the homeland. If you think that this was the FIRST instance of secession by states, I suggest you study the War of 1812, when more than one NORTHERN state threatened secession and actually SAT OUT that war rather than send forces to help their sister states fight the British. Rather strange that NOT ONE VOICE was raised at that time about secession being â€œillegal!â€ In actuality, it was not questioned at all as to its legality.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â This moderate and fair stance threw the bankers and capitalists into a tizzy. European nations, very anti-slavery, in their editorials and public pronouncements, took a pro-South stance, stating that the Southern states had the more legitimate cause in the â€œfamily quarrel.â€ Those foreign nations would NEVER have done that if the war had been about the issue of slavery. Those â€œoutsidersâ€ had a much clearer view of the REAL issues, unlike Americans, caught up in the eye of the storm.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Southern states exercised their rights and dismissed the tariff-collectors from their ports. The Yankee garrison at the port of Charleston on the island and behind the walls of Fort Sumter were among the last Federal presence . Lincoln saw that the last chance of appeasing or serving the 1860s version of the â€œmilitary-industrial complexâ€ lay in making that fort the cause for WAR. Thus rather than ordering the abandonment of that federal presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the southern state of South Carolina, he sent reinforcements by sea to the isolated garrison â€“ knowing that such an action would in all likelihood provoke a military response. Southern officials learned of the impending reinforcement â€“ no doubt given the information by those trying to provoke war â€“ and thus began the bombardment of Fort Sumter.
Confederate Memorial Day 1910
The Yankee forces surrendered before the reinforcements (also bringing much-needed food and ammunition) could arrive. Interestingly, not ONE Yankee soldier was killed in that bombardment; thus it is likely that a peaceful resolution could have been reached even AFTER the surrender of Fort Sumter. But those influencing Lincoln could not allow a peaceful resolution. They had to have their tariffs enforced, their beholden cash cow back in line and buying Yankee goods. Thus Lincolnâ€™s plan to provoke combat, and to be able to blame it on South Carolina, worked like a charm. â€œThey fired the first shotâ€ was the echoing cry, which carried with it the obvious implication that â€œthe South is GUILTY, they brought this on themselves.â€
The historical record shows that even Lincoln declared that the war was not about slavery (check out his SPEECHES at that time!) â€“ at least in the first 2 years of that war – two years that were won overwhelmingly by Southern fighting men.
With sagging morale and rapidly deteriorating support from northern states grown sick of their sons coming home in body bags, a moral issue was needed. Editorials in those few Yankee papers that were still free of government control were using expressions like â€œlet our Southern sisters go their own way; the death and destruction must stop!â€
Those promoting that war upon the South then decided to use the issue of SLAVERY as the CAUSE for which they were fighting. The ploy, though nothing more than a political ruse, worked. Even European newspapers began backing the North, as they too were caught up in Lincolnâ€™s seemingly â€œmagnificentâ€ Gettysburg Address.Â A fact very pertinent to my point that the war was not about slavery â€“ what percent of Southern people owned at least ONE slave? My grad work research gave me that answer â€“ 4.8%. Thatâ€™s correct. That means that 95% of Southern people had NOTHING vested in the institution, all the more reason not to go off and fight a war for it!
Would poor, generally illiterate Southern men and boys go off to the horrid conditions of war to fight for slavery? Highly unlikely. BUT â€“ if those same males were told that the Federal Government is invading Southern states by military force, would they fight to defend their states and homes? A resounding YES.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â How does all this apply to the current disagreement about those Texas license plates honoring the Confederacy? It applies because of the FALSE history that has been taught due to a political/social/racial agenda since the end of that war, and the following 12 years of the horror in the period of military rule over the Southern states known as â€œReconstruction.â€
The winning side always writes the history, and unfortunately, that â€œhistoryâ€ is about as close to the TRUTH as a Cinderella fairy-tale. The stupid argument that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of â€œracismâ€ is strictly a post-modern twist on falsified history.
Slavery existed for 4 years under that banner as a legal institution; it existed for nearly 100 years under the Yankee stars and stripes. And even the term â€œcivil warâ€ as applied to that fratricidal conflict is a total misnomer. A civil war takes place when there are two (or more) factions trying to take over the central government. This was NEVER the case in the war between North and South. The South had no interest in taking over DC; those states wanted to co-exist in peace.
When the fighting started, Southern states were fighting a DEFENSIVE war against Yankee troops INVADING their homelands!! When one considers that most Southern boys fighting for their states were dirt-poor and had nothing to gain by upholding slavery â€“ an institution that even helped perpetuate poverty among Southern whites, it does not make sense that they would leave their homes, march from Texas or Florida or anywhere to suffer the most unimaginable horrors to fight to the death to preserve the institution of slavery. But does it make sense that they would rally for 4 years to fight an INVADER threatening their homes and way of life? Absolutely! Rarely if ever is it mentioned that blacks and Indians in substantial numbers fought on the Southern side. The false image of North equals good guys, South equals EVIL, must be preserved, to justify the carnage and evil visited upon Southern people, particularly civilians, by occupying Yankee forces.
The â€œhurt feelingsâ€ and racist attitudes of those against honoring the Confederate battle flag and the actions of disgusting wimp politicians like Rick Perry and so many like him are the result of being taught decades of FALSE history. This issue â€“ pretty small, actually, in the overall grand scheme of things â€“ does illustrate the very negative effects of teaching FALSE history to a gullible, trusting, and accepting populace. Once the â€œflyâ€ has been introduced into the ointment, especially in todayâ€™s phony â€œpolitically-correctâ€ and historically blind populace, the poisoning of the minds and pushing of GUILT is extremely difficult to straighten. Our only solace is in the belief that the pendulum does not swing the same way all the time, and that the truth will eventually out.
I thank Ray for this excellent article. I would add some other perspectives.
1) Other estimates are that 1 southern family in 5 in cotton and tobacco-growing areas owned slaves. Once cannot fairly use the figures for the total white population, which included Â many young children, Â seniors and women. What counts is “male head of household.” The South would not have been full of Blacks if slavery were so rare. The Confederacy’s population was about 1/3rd black.
2) Â Robert E. Lee and others felt slavery was better than freeing very angry blacks and “letting them loose” on white society (and white women). In his private letters to his wife, found in a chest at Burke & Herbert Bank in Alexandria, Virginia (where a Robert E. Lee IV sits on the board of directors; I was a customer around 1978-89 there), Â Lee opined that slavery was the least bad solution to the racial dilemma.
Thomas Jefferson put it this way, regarding the anger of black slaves toward whites: Â “We have a wolf by the ears. We cannot let go and we cannot hang on.” He was, however, totally opposed to the “solution” of racial integration. He, like Lincoln wished to free the blacks and send them elsewhere, to Africa, the Caribbean, or Central America.
Abraham Lincoln met with black leaders at the White House in December 1862, who had come with a list of demand. His reaction was Â not “liberal” at all by modern standards.
On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln did something unprecedented in presidential history up to that point: he met with a small delegation of black leaders (all free black clergymen). But the meeting did not auger a decision to give African Americans a voice in government. In essence, Lincoln sought to lobby these men in essence to agree to a divorce. In other words, the President wanted to get black Americans behind his plan to colonize them abroad. The meetingâ€™s minutes recorded:
Having all been seated, the President, after a few preliminary observations, informed them that a sum of money had been appropriated by Congress, and placed at his disposition for the purpose of aiding the colonization in some country of the people, or a portion of them, of African descent, thereby making it his duty, as it had for a long time been his inclination, to favor that cause; and
Why, he asked, should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.
So, in other words, Lincoln subscribed to the notion common among whites in the North as well as the South that it would be impossible for whites and blacks to live together peacefully in a United States without slavery. Lincolnâ€™s support for colonization was long-standing, the seed planted by his political role model, Henry Clay, who also supported the idea.
The reason Lincoln took the unprecedented step of inviting black leaders to the White House was to convince them to support his murky colonization plan. While Congress had appropriated money for colonization, there was as of August 1862 no definite location decided on for where to colonize the black population after emancipation. At the meeting, Lincoln mentioned Liberia, in West Africa, founded by the American Colonization Society in the 1820s, or some place in Central America or the Caribbean. It was clear that not only did the President want to support of these black leaders for colonization, but he wanted them to sweat the details of where and how colonization would be accomplished. He left them with a charge to come up with an appropriate colonization plan and report back to him when they finished.
While the black leaders that met with Lincoln agreed to consider the idea, no plan ever was forthcoming, as it was clear colonization had little appeal among most members of their race, free or slave. While Africa might be the land of their ancestors, African Americans were as attached to the land of their birth as any white person. A small percentage of black Americans found the idea of colonization appealing or were at least willing to give it a try […]
Lincoln was no liberal toward Indians either.
3) For morally corrupt white owners of large slave-labor plantations, having slaves also meant a kind of polygamy (“many women” in Ancient Greek). Â This is how “black” Africans got lighter-skinned, in case you are skeptical! 😉
The movie “Twelves Years a Slave,” based on the book of the same title, goes into a true and horrifying case of a New York State freeborn black man, Solomon Northrup, kidnapped up north (drugged, then beaten) and finally sold into slavery down south. Â My blog goes extensively into this movie and into the book, written by Solomon Northrup himself, regarding his case, which is rather a fair account, not challenged by southerners. It was a clear and illegal abduction of a free man. Both book and movie show cruel white masters and very caring ones, with one being heroic and risking his life, shotgun in hand, to protect good slaves from cruel whites.
Analyzing correctly the new movie “Twelve Years a Slave” is very relevant to my forthcoming struggle.Â Why? Because a NEW White-Black alliance against THE JEWS is in the making — to head off the fed-planned total race war, then martial law!
It shall save both our communities, devastated by drugs, THE DEATH OF THE FAMILY, and Mexican and Chinese cheap labor.
And we need a new national leader now so we do not get into World War Three with the Russians!
And would we even win it?
Russian Sukhoi-24 jet fighter; Russia has 10,000 hydrogen bombs.
JOHN DE NUGENT FOR PRESIDENT IN 2016, 31 MONTHS FROM NOW:
A first little art pic of me and a Black supporter, who is pro-White and pro-Black at the same time. How can any responsible Black leader support the downfall of the Whites who, EVEN just from a practical point of view alone, aside from their right to live, are a historically productive, law-abiding “goose laying golden eggs” for everyone? And also, as he said to some Black Muslims:
“You want me to believe in the ‘blue-eyed devil’? Brothers, I know too many Black devils!” 😉
John D. NugentI just blocked a turkey who erupted “Why’d you watch that shit [the movie “Twelve Years A Slave”]?” I dunno, maybe for the reasons outlined in my thread? 😉If you cannot and will not read, and wish only to flame, pls stay away from me. You are not an Aryan, which means NOBLE; you are a “n—-r”-hating whigger who is committed to blaming all White problems on other races. How is it “White” to not read my areguments, and instead flip out and spout hate at any new idea or solution? Are we as a race doing just fine with the current logjam?
Further, as I have proved, Whites are less than 50% of the current US population. WE MUST FORM ALLIANCES.ÂAnd Blacks are the most antisemitic demographic in the US.
“29% of African-Americans hold antisemitic views.”
New York, NY, November 3, 2011 ? A nationwide survey of the American people rele…
Jeff Switalski During the Golden Age of sail, many thousands if not 100’s of thousands of young men, young white European men, were ‘Shanghai’ed’ into service/slavery to serve aboard ships for many years. “Press Gangs” worked the taverns and brothels around seafaring towns, clubbed sober and drunken men, and brought them aboard ships against their will. These men served tours lasting many years, often being flogged, put on 1/4 rations or broken down with scurvey. Many were killed in a battle or lost limbs during their servitude. So many never saw their home again and their loved ones never knew what had happened to them. These are based on true incidents, so you see, John, as in a card game, I see your ONE Black slave and raise you 500,000+ Indo-Europeans.
John D. NugentTo Jeff Switalski: Very good point about men being “impressed” into the Royal Navy, and an absolute fact. Those sailors were truly slaves, and could be whipped or hanged for disobedience in an Navy they had never voluntarily joined.And from what I read, there was too much homosexuality also on those all-male warships, and a bigger man might dominate a smaller one. So it was in many ways comparable to black slavery in terms of sexual coercion, but actually even worse. At least black-white sex, if not consensual, was heterosexual….. but on British warships there was forced homosexual sex.I think African-Americans and White liberals both need to know that the subjugation of humans has been going on for thousands of years and in every race and culture.There was also the issue of white indentured servants, as in Michael Hoffman’s book “They Were White and They Were Slaves.”Â http://www.resist.com/Instauration/OtherPubs-20120723/WhiteSlaves.pdf
Given the high death rate, many servants did not live to the end of their terms.In the 18th and early 19th century, numerous Europeans traveled to the colonies as redemptioners, a form of indenture.
Indentured servants were a separate category from bound apprentices. The latter were American-born children, usually orphans or from an impoverished family who could not care for them. They were under the control of courts and were bound out to work as an apprentice until a certain age. Two famous bound apprentices were Benjamin Franklin who illegally fled his apprenticeship to his brother, and Andrew Johnson, who later became President of the United States.
John D. NugentAnd what was the gulag in the Soviet Union but slavery of millions of innocent people, run by Bolshevik JEWS?And what is a drug dealer of today if not a slave owner? The whole purpose of addictive drugs is to create a slave who must come up with huge sums of money regularly by work or theft to feed his habit. A woman who has to prostitute herself — rent her body for sex — to buy her heroin, crack or whatever, is a SLAVE. And her pimp is her slave owner who keeps all, or almost all her money, and beats her so she “works better.”How often in Natrona, Pennsylvania have I seen white girls on drugs with their black pimp? If that is not slavery, what is?
….On “Twelve Years A Slave”
(The music is by the awesome German genius Hans Zimmer.)
tIt was based on the true story of a free Black man in upstate New York in 1841, Solomon Northrup, who was lured south by two White scumbags to perform as a musician (he was an excellent violinist, and needed the money to support his wife and three kids)….……then abducted, beaten to a pulp in a Washington DC slave pen (DC, like Maryland, was a “slave state,” so to speak), and was made into a slave.Jim RawlsBut is was White men who saved him !!!
Yes, indeed, a Mr. Parker, who moved heaven and earth to rescue him, and a white sheriff in Louisiana who stormed in, confronted the sadistic slave owner Epps, and got Northrup out of the cotton fields of his enslavement. The whole story has been verified, and reveals the horrific practice of kidnapping northern Blacks and making them slaves down South, as well as the very dark and evil practice of slavery and especially the wickedness of certain slave owners. Other Whites the movie shows to have been compassionate, such as a Mr. Ford, who accepted slavery as a reality but sought to make it milder, and for example, not break up Black families at the auction block.
I would recommend this movie to all ENLIGHTENED White nationalists, though of course it is sensationalized by the Jews in Hollywood. One of the producers is the infamous Israeli Jew and arms dealer Arnon Milchan, who produced the movie “JFK,” which blames everyone but the Jews for the murder of John Kennedy.
The movie disturbed me, however, greatly in other ways.Â As a stand-alone, it would be perfect to incite Black hatred today against Whites.Â 80% of the Whites in the movie are either evil or indifferent. Or outright psychopaths.
John D. NugentWell, its effect can be that, if it stands alone. And everyone should also know that 350,000 northern white people fought and died in mud and blood from 1861-65, also far from home, to end this horrific “institution,” a degrading obscenity which the JEWS introduced into this land that was designed for man’s freedom.
John D. NugentYes, CvH, Black chiefs did raid neighboring villages and captured their fellow Blacks and brought them in neck stocks down to the beach.And I feel an urgent need to add that Southerners objected also to slavery (such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and many others) and the colonial legislatures of both Virginia and Georgia voted to ban the slave trade, but the Royal Governors, on orders from the Jew-controlled King of England, revoked the laws, because they made the king and the Jews filthy rich off this stupendous tragedy.For example, Solomon Northrup (the abducted free Black from New York State), “cost” one thousand dollars, which was like $50,000 today. It cost only a few hundred dollars in today’s money to get him into the south, where he was drugged in a restaurant and woke up in chains, and then suffered his first terrible beating.
John D. NugentWhat is ominous about this movie is that it could be used to stoke a race war. While its details are basically all true, if Hollywoodized, it leaves out the disgust many Whites, north and south, felt toward slavery. In fact, much of the South itself refused to join the Confederacy, including the entire Appalachian mountain range, which was 1/4 of the South (outside of Texas).
John D. NugentAll of Kentucky; what became West Virginia; eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina and South Carolina; northern Alabama, etc.
The movie also leaves out that Whites in the factories up north lived almost worse off than the Blacks. They did not have three guaranteed meals a day, or medical care. White children worked ten hours a day in factories that were extremely dangerous (see my Mary Phagan story, which was partly about White children in factories in the Deep South and in Atlanta, and this happened AFTER the Civil War)
Psychopaths in Power Does psychopathy enable world leaders to become mass murder…Whatever differences and grievances Black and White people have today with each other over the past or the present, our real enemy is 1) the Jews and 2) the psychopaths found in our own race who work with the Jews!
……Website visitors worldwide
6/27 @ 8:58 : Harrison, Arkansas, US
…..From my email to Ray Goodwin
Ray, I have heard many doomsday predictions online since 2005 (martial law, war with Iran, now war with Russia) and none of them have panned out.
But it must be said that the Internet and its constant warnings may have prevented these prophecies of doom from fulfillment.
When you and I were boys (/and I am now 60 years young), the entire “media” consisted of the local paper and ABC, CBS and NBC.
Now the Net is buzzing daily with detailed conspiracy scenarios, and half the country is disgusted with the feds and believes nothing it says. The Alan Sabrosky interview on 9/11, and the many blogs and videos by former CIA and high military officials, show that big chunks of the government are strongly disaffected.
However, I am very worried this time, and I refer to Jade Helm 15. It is possible that the action by the Texas governor to alert the Texas National Guard to the threat it poses may have been of historic importance.
I would agree with Alex Jones, semi-controlled opposition or not (yes, Jewish wife and all that stuff, but there are plenty of antizionist Jews out there, such as Gilad Atzmon, Nathanael Kapner, Benjamin Freedman, Jack Bernstein, Mordechai Vanunu, etc., cetc., etc.,),
…that any time US infantry troops are sauntering down any American street, it is a dire threat in multiple ways.
Why? 1) they are getting us used to the terrifying spectre of troops in our own neighborhoods, and
2) any “drill” could go live and real, and the “it’s just a drill” mentality they are habituating in us could be a lethal trap if the drill very suddenly goes real, just as 9/11, 7/7 in London and other “drills” went real. All the personnel is set up to either “drill” or “do.”
People think, “American troops would never fire on the American people. Most of them hate Obama.” I agree, Ray. I know for a FACT that most regular Marines and Army soldiers do despise Obama. I have been talking to active-duty and recent vets for ten years now. I used to frequent bars in the Pentagon area just for that reason 2005-08, in vino veritas, and many military (NCOs and officers) know about 9/11, and now also about Obama and the birth certificate.
After three drinks they will also tell you what they think about diversity and gay marriage. 😉 Â http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33290341
US Supreme Court rules gay marriage is legal nationwide
Up here in Ontonagon, Upper Michigan on Lake Superior, 99% white, we have a town full of vets. Many are seriously bitter and are armed and angry.
But this is the other scenario, which overcomes troop disaffection from their (where’s that barf bag?) “Commander in Chief.”
It worries me that you are so worried. After all, I think you know the political situation better than I do. But around here, San Francisco, there are no signs of racial unrest. None at all. Starting a race war at this time may not be so easy. There was no violence when Zimmerman was found innocent, though I think they intended this. I don’t think there will be violence this time either.
During the so-called Maidan protests in Ukraine in 2013-14, Israeli snipers on rooftops gunned down peaceful protesters to enrage the people against the legally elected, pro-Russian, Yanukovich government.