VAULT DWELLERS SERVED

Friday, October 22, 2010

Orwellian Revisionism : The Killing Of History

The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. Nothing. Secession was over taxation.

The fact that thousands of freemen black soldiers fought on the Confederate side is possibly one of the best documented facets of the Civil War - my direct ancestors on my father's side mentioned it in their accounts in their letters.

Increasingly, "history" has nothing to do with what actually happened and all to do with what the State says should have happened according to their modern political ideology.

I no longer pity Kwanzanians because I reserve the right to pity human beings, which they do not qualify to be called. Nothing this dumb can be called "man," when it is clearly an animal on two legs. The modern Kwanzanian is a domesticated beast just as placid as cattle or chickens. They can no more "reason" than can a prize bull or a Bantam rooster. They are what is left when you have stripped the "man" away. Consumer units. That whole nation is on cruise control for brains. Their distinguishing characteristic is their utter and complete vacuity.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yep, no Confederate soldiers were free blacks; six million joos were killed in gas chambers; all the Founding Fathers were banging black slave girls; 911 wasn't an inside job; JFK was killed by a lone gunman; Iraq was invaded to find WMD; and Obamy has brought us hope and change.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Anonymous said...

The Civil war is complex and it's causes are complex. There were many in the North who because of religious beliefs or moral Superiority wanted to end slavery and actively pushed for this. There were industrialists in the North who wanted cheap cotton and thought holding down the uppity Southern businessmen would bring them cheap cotton and thus profits. There were businessmen in the South who resented the businessmen in the North and preferred to do business with England. There were plantation owners committed to slavery and would prefer to go to war then change. But most importantly there were hundreds of thousands of poor but proud Southern white families who because of their pride could be stirred up by Southern businessmen and plantation owners. Without those proud poor white families there would have been no war. When the North used dirty tricks to coopt the Southern businessmen the businessmen turned it into a South vs the big bad North (which was indeed the reality of the situation). So the Southerne businessmen, plantation owners and military leaders used the Southern pride to take them to war. And the Northern businessmen who were hungry for cheap cotton used the "better then thou" attitude of most Northerners to take them to war. So while those pulling the strings may have been fighting over money and power and only incidently slavery, make no mistake slavery was the driving force used by both sides to put men in uniform and on the battlefield.

Anonymous said...

They don't even refer to themselves as 'people' any more. They think of themselves as 'consumers'. The ultimate victory: your enemy dehumanises himself.

Anonymous said...

oh yea, this lot were worth 500,000 dead.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/blog-post/2010/10/cholera_outbreak_in_haiti_phot.html

Anonymous said...

It seems more and more like you are right
NHI = no humans involved!

Texas Arcane said...

Anon 2:29

You're a vector, not a person. You sound like a tape recording playing a lecture back that was passively injected into your brain.

WRONG.

Slavery was NEVER MENTIONED UNTIL MIDWAY THROUGH THE CIVIL WAR when the North was losing and desperately needed help from France. It was the fact they were getting their asses kicked that apparently stirred up their moral indignation and they told France it was all about abolition.

If France, a foreign agent, had not jumped in to supply the North with armaments, they'd have been righteously deposed from power which is what should have happened. The purpose of secession was to pull down the Northern government and replace it with one that was less corrupt and devoted to the people who lived in the United States, not banking interests, international finance and "democracy." The Civil War was a battle by the South to restore the Republic.

The bad guys won, you're an apologist and in my opinion they would never have gotten away with it without enablers like yourself.

You have no idea what they did to the South once they had them beaten. They burned it to the ground, looted every single thing they had, gangraped their women repeatedly at will, threw the girls like party treats to installed negro rulers and ground the face of the race into the dust.

150 years later, people like you are still apologizing for them.

You are still suckling at the teat of poison that will result in your genocide. Believe it. Looked at in this way, maybe it's for the best.

Anonymous said...

You're right Tex. History is reinterpreted, depending on the politics that are dominant.

From what I understand, several states in the North, still had slavery when war was declared.

There was also a movement to remove all blacks from the USA, after the war, because they believed allowing them to stay and live as equals among whites, would lead to disaster.

The Northerners went as far as buying a country called Liberia and shipped many of them there, but the momentum died because Northern industrialists wanted cheap labor.

Even Lincoln, who anti-whites like to quote in part when it suits their agenda, said some very racialist things, which anyone can find on the internet.

As for the taxation idea, there might be something in that, as the South was rich, sophisticated and industrious before the war, but remained dirt poor and "backward", ever after.

So it makes me wonder if the South was seen as a rival to the North and was provoked into a war, it could not win, in order to eliminate it.

Anonymous said...

Tex: It is clear you intended to insult me but you made yourself look like a foolish bigot. Your version of the civil war was mildly humorous but wildly psychotic. Thanks for the laugh.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 3:18

Why not explain and counter it then and we can all learn? Unless of course you are only here to troll and throw poo...

Anonymous said...

To anon 3:18

While you're having your laugh, take a few moments to peruse the Confederacy's Constitution.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csapro.asp

The document specifically mentions slavery only three times.

Art. 1, sec. 7, clauses 1 & 2 forbid [yes,that's right... forbid]the importation of slaves.

Art. 4, sec. 2, clause 3 provides for the return of run-aways.

Unfortunately for most people now-a-days, it may be too difficult a task to do the research and reach reasonable cunclusions about what it is you are meant to have learned.

Tex may be a little off the mark on this one, but he is far far closer than you. As proof, I will leave you with this little goodie to ponder ...

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_v022861.asp

Bad Dad

www.000webhost.com