SMELLING THE COFFEE OF ENDEMIC RACIAL AND ETHNIC HATRED THROUGHOUT EUROPE 2

 Read Gerhard Weinberg, A World At Arms, to get a sniff of this. 

One of my personal favorites, after a very long cavalcade of these subject matter aspersions everywhere, is at p. 483, where he notes the italians' views of their Axis allies to the North.

It is truly must reading.

LINCOLN DID NOT FREE HIS SLAVES GOT FROM HIS KENTUCKY WIFE HE SOLD THEM

This was a man of principles!

Jefferson didn't usually even do that.

He kept most all of them to the end, except when he needed ready money; only freeing a few of his concubine's family in his will.

SMELLING THE COFFEE OF ENDEMIC RACIAL AND ETHNIC HATRED THROUGHOUT EUROPE 1

This seems a great time to clear the Whig Historian Interpretation air about trying to isolate Germany as the only race hatred European "race".

Here is a sniff, smell test, of the truth:

The Germans had a lot of close allies and heartfelt sympathizers. Long list.

Their targets were not solely, or even primarily, Jews and gypsies.

Their main enemies of race hatred were often each other.

They agreed about few things in this regard.

But one of the very few things they did agree on:

Hatred of the Slavs as a civilization, and a "race".

WWI had started out very much, beneath the surface, as Western Europe against the Eastern Slavs, with the shooting in Sarajevo.

This is leaving aside Muslims and negroes, who were universally considered, religiously and racially,  hereditary enemy infidels, and colored subhuman savages. 

SOUTHERN WHITES WHITE STOKELYS AND JEWS

 

Sunday, June 2, 2019

RE FIGHTING THE COURSE OF HISTORY

HITLER PAINTED THE JEWS RATHER LIKE LINCOLN PAINTED SOUTHERN WHITE SLAVE OWNERS

Those slave owners intended, said Lincoln, to take over everything, nationalize and westernize it into the territories, turn the whole country, from sea to sea, into a negro slave hollow, in just the kind of way, and with the same kind of rhetoric, that Hitler later used to characterize the Jewish takeover, not just of Germany before WWI, ("the North", within Europe), but also of the whole world (both International Communist (Soviet), and international capitalist, Jewry together).  

For Lincoln and his racist white abolitionist backers, white southerners were subhuman, not unlike how they also viewed the negro slaves they drove. 

Here was DK in 2015 sounding the Whig Interpretation trumpet then, re the bad Southern conscience, its sole original sin white responsibility (northern whites, and all whites, back then, were not yet guilty!) he noted elsewhere, and the subhumanness of Southern whites caused by their slave owning sin compared to nonracist non-slave owning white Northern ones, which would all, later, become The NYT 1619 Project, WOKENESS, and BLM."Thursday, June 25, 2015

Why the Confederate Flag flew so long

 "Most of the white southerners whom I have known well left their region as young men and women, at least in part because of its political values.   Several of them have talked very frankly about the psychology of their native region, and to them I owe some of the ideas behind this painful post. But meanwhile, other white southerners whom I never met have loomed large on my horizon for as long as I can remember: the barons of the House and Senate in the 1950s and 1960s, such as Senator Richard Russell of Georgia and House Rules Committee Chairman Howard Smith; the defiant governors, George Wallace and Ross Barnett, who rallied their white constituents behind segregation; and perhaps the most interesting of all, those like Senators Lister Hill and John Sparkman of Alabama, who were liberals on virtually every issue but race. Their fellow Alabamian Hugo Black had already been on the Supreme Court for twenty years when I became aware of him, and he had joined the civil rights coalition.  So did Ralph Yarborough of Texas and Estes Kefauver and Al Gore, Sr., of Tennessee.  I studied race relations in college with Thomas Pettigrew, a liberal white Virginian, and I have never lost interest in them.  And thus, although the evidence I want to present today is primarily circumstantial, I think I do understand why the Confederate flag is displayed even today on the grounds of the South Carolina capitol, and why it remains a potent symbol in white southern politics.  I do not think it is primarily a symbol of hate; rather, I see it as a sign of fear, which in turn is fueled by a very bad conscience over what white southerners have done to black ones for five centuries.

"Because slavery explicitly denied the full humanity of the slaves, it also forced the masters to suppress many of their own human feelings.  Holding other men and women in bondage and forcing them to work, often with violence, is a brutal, degrading, and frightening affair.  That is why, as  I learned from Pettigrew, planters customarily delegated the dirty work to an overseer—a white without property, not infrequently from the North, like Simon Legree in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, whom Harriet Beecher Stowe specifically identified as a Yankee from Vermont.  When feelings between the overseer and the slaves became too intense, he was fired and replaced.  But the real burden of slavery on the master lay in the fear it inspired, the belief, amounting to a certainty, that the slaves would gleefully take their revenge upon white men and women if ever given half a chance.  And what is more natural, after all, than a belief that one’s slaves would treat one’s self just as one had treated them—or worse—if given half a chance?  While some antebellum white southerners undoubtedly felt slavery had been a mistake to impose in the first place, nearly all agreed that to give it up would be madness.  But the more extreme, who became more and more influential in the decades before the civil war, argued that it was a positive good that not only had to be maintained, but expanded.  That was why they defied the will of the nation in 1860 and seceded rather than live peacefully under Abraham Lincoln, who was elected without any plans to free the slaves.

"Four years later, when the Confederacy’s resistance finally collapsed and emancipation took place all over the South, the nightmare appeared to have come true.  In the next ten years, the radical Republicans insisted upon black suffrage, and black governments ruled a number of southern states.  They were not, as southerners claimed for a century, simply corrupt and inefficient: some of them were the first southern state governments to provide what even then were regarded as basic services.  But the white power structure re-asserted itself through a campaign of terror led by the Ku Klux Klan, and eventually wore out the North. After federal troops left, the white elite not only terrorized and disenfranchised the black population, but created a new myth of “redemption,” arguing that they had saved their people from the horror of a race dictatorship.  And until the 1950s, intimidation, including lynchings, kept the black citizenry subjugated.  Then, fueled in part by the votes of blacks who had moved north, the federal government began once again to take an interest in the fate of black citizens.

"Once again, this meant, to white southerners, the terrifying prospect of black rage let loose.   In the 1950s reporters who went south to report on civil rights issues heard the same line from whites again and again: that they didn’t have any trouble with “our Negroes,” it was just the outside agitators from the North who were causing the trouble.   That is why it was in 1962 that the Confederate flag first began flying over the capitol in Columbia, South Carolina, and why it was then that it was revived in other states.  Once again the Yankees were threatening to unleash black rage upon white southerners, and symbols of resistance had to be revived.    And suddenly, in the 1960s, when the civil rights movement reached its climax, most white southerners once again forgot every other issue, quit the Democratic Party en masse, and became the backbone of the Republican coalition.  By the 1970s, a new rhetorical trick had emerged to conceal what was happening.  Since it had become impossible openly to defend racism or the “southern way of life” (segregation), some new buzzword was needed around which southern whites could rally.  Fundamentalist Christianity provided it, and “Christian values” became the glue that held southern whites together.  It had become unfashionable to vote in favor of racism, but who could vote against Christianity?  (This morning, Charles Blow of the New York Times noted that a couple of Fox News commentators actually tried to spin Dylan Roof’s crime as an attack on Christianity—even though Roof is a member of a Lutheran Church.)  Dylann Rooff was inspired by the website of a neo-Confederate group that keeps lists on black-on-white crimes.    When he told the parishioners that he had to kill them because “you are raping our women and taking over our country,” he expressed the white southern fears that have dominated southern politics for much of the last two centuries.  

"What is so painfully, dreadfully sad about all this, is how unnecessary it all has been.  Slave rebellions in the antebellum South were extremely rare, and attacks upon whites after emancipation seem to have been even rarer.  Having been thoroughly intimidated by slavery, new black citizens would have been more than happy to exercise the benefits of citizenship peacefully—but this they were not allowed to do.  Black violence has always been more directed against other blacks than against whites.  Still, the election of Barack Obama still symbolized, for many southerners, their worst nightmare, and white southerners have become more solidly Republican than ever in the Deep South.  And so respectful are Republican politicians of white southern fears that not a single Republican presidential candidate dared suggest that the Confederate flat come down on the state capitol grounds.  

"Since I first drafted this post, however, an extraordinary wind of change has blown around the South.  Governor Nikki Haley os South Carolina is to be commended for taking the lead.  It is interesting that when the South Carolina legislature decided to fly the flag at a Confederate memorial on the grounds, it specified that only a 2/3 vote of both houses could overturn their decision.  That, too, looks like an attempt to defend the views of white folks against a growing minority tide.  But the South Carolina legislature has quickly come around, and a vote to remove the flag seems certain.  Similar moves to take Confederate flags off of license plates and remove statues of prominent Confederates from state capitols are gaining ground, and white Mississippians are talking about removing the Confederate battle flag from their state flag.

"Wednesday morning’s New York Times describes what is happening at length, and includes a remarkable quote from a South Carolina state legislator with a famous name. “Our ancestors were literally fighting to keep human beings as slaves, and to continue the unimaginable acts that occur when someone is held against their will,” said State Senator Paul Thurmond, a Republican, explaining that he would vote to remove the flag.  “I am not proud of this heritage,” said Mr. Thurmond, the son of Strom Thurmond, the former governor and United States senator who was a segregationist candidate for president in 1948.  To be quite frank, I had given up on ever hearing any white southern politician say words like those.  Senator Thurmond has used his family’s prestige to try finally to move his state and his region forward.  He is a great American." DK

"...I read some Irish American history and was appalled. They settled in the worst Boston slums and were of the poorest lot. Obviously it took generations of training to get these dirt farmers to become respectable middle class with whom a puritan's descendant might consider allowing courtship with his daughter..." Energyflow

Similar comments are applicable to non slave owning white trash southerners, many of whom were also Irish, and considered with some justice to be subhuman like the negroes!

JERUSALEM OLD CITY

 

DK ON SPORTS ILLUSTRATED THE NYT JEWISH STOOGE NEGRO WEDGIE OF WHITE PEOPLE

Let's just put it this way: 

White Southerners and white Northerners are as prejudiced and antagonistic to each other as they both have always been toward their negroes. 

DK's repeated remarks, including, even now, his SI post, denigrating Southern whites as the only white racists, while once again seeking to exonerate his fellow racist Northern whites of the white racist 1619 project  taint of original sin, fully bears this judgment out.

Professor:

Very interesting post. It seems evenhanded by all concerned.

But it has issues...... Here are a couple:

"... [Editorial note]:  As we go to press, 178 citizens from parts of the country, including the South, have joined Mr. McKay in protest against the letters of Messrs. Odom, Webb, Dunn and Mrs. Kelso. Twenty-one readers followed the latter in objecting to SI's April 11 cover of Willie Mays and the Durochers. A Californian, protesting the original letters of condemnation, took a mock-serious stand on yet another cover: ..." Sports Illustrated

More letters then followed in later weeks...How many? From where?

It is quite obvious that SI thoroughly cherry picked its alleged 178 letters. They do not even deign to say "from all parts of the country," so they have also cherry picked the parts of the country they wanted to highlight and the angle from each part, but especially the Southern white racist theme they intended from the beginning to fraudulently foist on an ignorant readership, and the fraudulent anti racist theme of Northern whites as a group.

Here is Tocqueville, cited by Professor Kaiser himself, to set the record straight, going back to the founding, as he says:

' "...race prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in states where slavery was never known."(Alexis de Tocqueville)  Even in the northern states where black citizens theoretically enjoyed equal rights, he reported, they were too afraid to assert them.  Those states that had abolished slavery had done so not to help the black man, but to help the white, both by leaving free labor without the competition of slaves and by eliminating the corrupting influence of owning slaves upon the whites.' DK, 2016 

All the best

Here was my footnote to Tocqueville's quotation:

I will just add a footnote here, to this prior post passage reprinted above.
Those Northern states that had abolished slavery had done so not only not to help the black man, and to help the white, and not only by leaving free white labor without slave competition, and not only by eliminating the corrupting influence of owning slaves upon whites, but, much more importantly, they did not want negroes around, free or slave, in the North or anywhere else in America.
That is really what Tocqueville had meant in 1830, in the passage DK quoted.
The Northern cause in the Civil War was supposed, according to the electorate, to result in the transportation, not the immediate, or the gradual, assimilation of negroes, slave or free.
They got screwed in every way. The only good, temporary, thing, for them, was that the Radical Republican Party kept the freed negroes in puppet control of only the South, not the North.

Kamala would not put up with that shit. 

Re the Hindu angle in DK post, 

Gandhi had been great at playing the Hindu truth card to British liberal faux power.

Tuesday, December 7, 2021

1619 KAMALA HARRIS LISA LERER BLM CAT FIGHT

 

Tuesday, November 3, 2020

LISA LERER'S IN DEEP SHIT KAMALA MAY END UP PRESIDENT LATER

 "KAMALA IS DONE TALKING ABOUT RACE!" 

LISA LERER, NYT

VP Harris' first unofficial act: Call to the NYT publisher:

"Get that heifer outta there."

THE MENU

 RANDY MAKING REMOULADE

https://vimeo.com/32928907

DK RE CROC

 Professor

Croc, as usual, is right.

But let's note in passing that fewer seldom any longer pretend to admire anyone else anyway, and frankly never really did. Some still pretend, as they always have, because their hand is out. 

With China having already economically virtually taken over Australia, they could use the money and security assurances more than most, fake though they may be!

All the best

THE MENU

 THE GAY COOK BOOK

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/gay-cookbook

DELMONICO GIZZARD WELLINGTON AND SHEPHERD'S GIZZARD PIE REPRISE

 

Thursday, January 24, 2019

THE MENU DELMONICO GIZZARD WELLINGTON FOR TWO WINTER SEASON

There's a place down the street that does Beef Wellington.
In this weather, why have it anywhere else than here?

Maybe they would do one of my recipes, just for you:

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

SOMEONE SAW DELMONICO GIZZARD WELLINGTON HERE ARE BOTH RECIPE IMPROVS TOGETHER

Monday, January 30, 2017

THE MENU CHICKEN GIZZARD IMPROV

How about chicken gizzard pate?

Saute them just al dente, with onions, peppers of your choice, mushrooms, garlic, some dry white wine, Provencal herbs, capers, not much if any oil.

Scrape the meat from the gristle at the back, discard the gristle, and puree them very briefly.

Line a deep, narrow casserole tray with raw smoked bacon, only at intervals; too much bacon will overwhelm the dish.

Mix the gizzard melange with some crushed croutons (toasted bread crumbs), you decide how much, raw onion.

Roll the mixture into the bacon partially lined casserole, flip the bacon ends over the top, and bake at 350 for 25 minutes.

Use as you would any other liver pate.

You might, if you chose, make a gravy, with flour, after sauteeing. In this case, only add the wine after the flour roux is browned. This would then be a nice pate, and gravy, to enrobe a filet for Beef Wellington. Call it Gizzard Wellington.

If you want to convert this to a main dish, add green peas, the gravy, layer mashed potatoes mixed with beaten egg on top over the bacon, and bake for 40 minutes. Call it Shepherd's Gizzard Pie.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

THE MENU DELMONICO GIZZARD WELLINGTON FOR TWO IMPROV

You could even do this, if you got a wild hair...

Use only the wide end of a boneless ribeye steak, called the Delmonico, 1.5 inches thick, bacon wrapped around the interior, and first grilled barely to rare, as Vontel would have, in preparation for the Wellington. 

Use the gizzard pate, and gizzard gravy. 

When this is ready to bake it should be about 2.5 inches high and about 6 inches across.

Bake only until the pastry is light brown.

Accompany this with only say a Caesar salad, green vegetable, etc. The Wellington pastry itself is already enough starch.

It's also too big a portion for one person...

Primates of Park Avenue: you can ask the chef in your local fine restaurant to prepare this for you. They may look at you rather strangely, but no matter. It would help if they already routinely serve Beef Wellington.

This post dedicated to Randy Fertel. He may think I am crazy.

YOU DON'T WANT THESE FUCKS IN YOUR COUNTRY

 

Migrant crossings: Afghans are largest national group fleeing to UK

THEY SHOULD BE DEPORTED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE TO SUB SAHARA AFRICA. 

DOES NOT MATTER WHICH "COUNTRY".

I WANT ALL RANSOM PAYMENTS CRIMINALIZED

 

Nigeria's kidnapping crisis: Should ransom payments be banned?

NO UKRAINE GRAIN FOR EITHER MIDDLE EAST OR AFRICA THEY NEED FOOD INDEPENDENCE OR DEATH I DON'T CARE WHICH

RE DK CURRENT POST

 Professor

Interesting. Thanks for sharing it.

Re the Finns, most Americans seem to believe, with McConnell, that they defeated the Soviets. As you note, that was not the case in 1939.

More tellingly, perhaps, when Hitler soon betrayed Stalin, and the players came about, Finland then declared war on the USSR, against Allied wishes. 

Scandinavia, not just Finland, had tended to side with Hitler in any event, especially Sweden. Sweden sided with him for the rest of the war. 

When they pushed back not only to the border beyond which Stalin had transgressed, and sought opportunistically, to take Soviet territory, at the time that Stalin was fighting Hitler for his life somewhat on the Allied side, the Finns refused to cease their aggression and Britain declared war against Finland, resulting in their loss of that war as well.

So, the Finns really lost 2 wars against Stalin in 2 years.

All the best

IMF CFR SISTER: GIVE FOOD AND FUEL TO BILLIONS OF POVERINOS

 

Governments should subsidise food and energy, says IMF boss

I SAY END CARROT AND STICK DIPLOMACY SUBSIDIES OF THE VENGEFUL, HATEFUL, UNGRATEFUL,  ENEMY COMPETITOR STARVING UNWHITE WORLD.

SUBSIDIZING STARVING POVERINOS OF COLOR IS LIKE OWNING SLAVES WHO CANNOT WORK, WHOM YOU DON'T NEED OR WANT, AND ABOUT WHOM YOU COULD REALLY FRANKLY GIVE A FUCK.

LINCOLN JEFFERSON AND RANDALL

Randall thought Lincoln was closest to Jefferson among the founders, owed the most to jefferson's ideas for his own. Randall, Constitutional Problems, Foreward To The Revised Edition, xx.

I cannot imagine a more dissimilar thinker or politician from Lincoln than Jefferson, in the most important ways, including secession, sovereignty, states rights, origins of political authority in the colonies, the states, and then in the Republic, .

Saturday, May 21, 2022

LINCOLN'S WHIG INTERPRETATION OF FOUNDERS: LINCOLN'S BIZARRE VIEWS, CONTINUED RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT

Monday, May 16, 2022

LINCOLN'S BIZARRE VIEW OF SOVEREIGNTY AND SECESSION

SECESSION ISSUE SEE J G RANDALL CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS INTRODUCTION, AND THIS POST, ALSO BAILYN IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS

Sunday, March 12, 2017

JEFFERSON AND SECESSION BLOG QUOTATIONS

Wednesday, May 18, 2022

THE LINCOLN SECRET SOCIETY WAS CONGRUENT WITH RHODES' SECRET SOCIETY, MILNER GROUP, LIONEL CURTIS, ETC

LINCOLN'S LOST SPEECH 1856: THE SECRET SOCIETY IN BROAD DAYLIGHT

Saturday, September 26, 2020

LINCOLN REPUBLICAN PARTY SECRET SOCIETY IN BROAD DAYLIGHT ARENDT KOYRE BOBBITT FONER

Tuesday, May 17, 2022

THIS IS THE POST THAT DISCUSSES LINCOLN'S PRICE AFTER HAVING BEEN CROSSED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RACE BY HIS CO CONSPIRATORS

LINCOLN'S WHIG INTERPRETATION OF FOUNDERS: LINCOLN'S BIZARRE VIEWS, CONTINUED RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT

 Lincoln argued that the Union is much older than the Constitution. His First Inaugural Address. Randall, Intro, fn 20.

He also argued that the Union was older than the States. Letter to A. H. Stephens, in Tracy, Uncollected Letter of Lincoln, p. 124-128. Randall, Intro., fn. 20.

Monday, May 16, 2022

LINCOLN'S BIZARRE VIEW OF SOVEREIGNTY AND SECESSION

SECESSION ISSUE SEE J G RANDALL CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS INTRODUCTION, AND THIS POST, ALSO BAILYN IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS

 

Sunday, March 12, 2017

JEFFERSON AND SECESSION BLOG QUOTATIONS

"I’ve come to the conclusion that Jefferson’s clearly unconstitutional Lousiana purchase was one of his great miscalculations. It legitimized state-sponsored Western expansion and gave the federal government primacy in the administration of vast tracts of land. Naturally, this is one of his legacies that most everyone thinks is just super.

 

 

"Nevertheless, Jefferson states that should the inhabitants of the new territory wish to secede form the Union at some poimnt in the future, he was perfectly fine with that(see letter to John C. Breckinridge, Aug. 12, 1803):

 

“…Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question?…The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi [sic] States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”

 

"And again in a letter to To Dr. Joseph Priestley, Jan. 29, 1804

 

“Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.” "  Ryan McMaken, July 17, 2007

Thomas Di Lorenzo:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is its natural manure.”

–Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Nov 13, 1787

Thomas Jefferson, the author of America’s July 4, 1776 Declaration of Secession from the British empire, was a lifelong advocate of both the voluntary union of the free, independent, and sovereign states, and of the right of secession.  “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form,” he said in his first inaugural address in 1801, “let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”
In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph priestly, who had ask Jefferson his opinion of the New England secession movement that was gaining momentum, he wrote:  “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, believe not very important to the happiness of either part.  Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern . . . and did I now foresee a separation at some future day,, yet should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family . . .”  Jefferson offered the same opinion to John C. Breckenridge on August 12 1803 when New Englanders were threatening secession after the Louisiana purchase.  If there were a “separation,” he wrote, “God bless them both & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”Documents Relating To ...Best Price: $29.90Buy New $29.96


Everyone understood that the union of the states was voluntary and that, as Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York stated in their constitutional ratification documents, each state had a right to withdraw from the union at some future date if that union became harmful to its interests.  So when New Englanders began plotting secession barely twenty years after the end of the American Revolution, their leader, Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering (who was also George Washington’s secretary of war and secretary of state) stated that “the principles of our Revolution point to the remedy – a separation.  That this can be accomplished without spilling one drop of blood, I have little doubt” (In Henry Adams, editor, Documents Relating to New-England Federalism, 1800-1815, p. 338).  The New England plot to secede from the union culminated in the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814, where they ultimately decided to remain in the union and to try to dominate it politically instead.  (They of course succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, beginning in April of 1865 up to the present day).
John Quincy Adams, the quintessential New England Yankee, echoed these Jeffersonian sentiments in an 1839 speech in which he said that if different states or groups of states came into irrepressible conflict, then that “will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts toJubilee of the Constit...John Quincy Adams Best Price: $10.50 be reunited by the law of political gravitation . . .” (John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution, 1939, pp. 66-69).

There is a long history of American newspapers endorsing the Jeffersonian secessionist tradition.  The following are just a few examples.

The Bangor, Maine Daily Union once editorialized that the union of Maine with the other states “rests and depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each.  When that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone, and no power exterior to the withdrawing [state] can ever restore it.”  Moreover, a state can never be a true equal member of the American union if forced into it by military aggression, the Maine editorialists wrote.
“A war . . . is a thousand times worse evil than the loss of a State, or a dozen States” the Indianapolis Daily Journal once wrote.  “The very freedom claimed by every individual citizen, precludes the idea of compulsory association, as individuals, as communities, or as States,” wrote the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat.  “The very germ of liberty is the right of forming our own governments, enacting our own laws, and choosing or own political associates . . . .  The right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state.”
The Real Lincoln: A Ne...Thomas DiLorenzoBest Price: $3.08Buy New $7.62Using violence to force any state to remain in the union, once said the New York Journal of Commerce, would “change our government from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism” where one part of the people are “slaves.”  The Washington (D.C.) Constitution concurred, calling a coerced union held together at gunpoint (like the Soviet Union, for instance) “the extreme of wickedness and the acme of folly.”
“The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” the New York Daily Tribune once wrote, “is sound and just,” so that if any state wanted to secede peacefully from the union, it has “a clear moral right to do so.”
A union maintained by military force, Soviet style, would be “mad and Quixotic” as well as “tyrannical and unjust” and “worse than a mockery,” editorialized the Trenton (N.J.) True American.  Echoing Jefferson’s letter to John C. Breckenridge, the Cincinnati Daily Commercial once editorialized that “there is room for several flourishing nations on this continent; and the sun will shine brightly and the rivers run as clear” if one or more states were to peacefully secede.Hamilton's Curse: How ...Thomas DiLorenzoBest Price: $8.19Buy New $41.98

All of these Northern state editorials were published in the first three months of 1861 and are published in Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession (Gloucester, Mass.: 1964).  They illustrate how the truths penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence – that the states were considered to be free, independent, and sovereign in the same sense that England and France were; that the union was voluntary; that using invasion, bloodshed, and mass murder to force a state into the union would be an abomination and a universal moral outrage; and that a free society is required to revere freedom of association – were still alive and well until April of 1865 when the Lincoln regime invented and adopted the novel new theory that: 1) the states were never sovereign; 2) the union was not voluntary; and 3) the federal government had the “right” to prove that propositions 1 and 2 are right by means murdering hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens by waging total war on the entire civilian population of the Southern states, bombing and burning its cities and towns into a smoldering ruin, and calling it all “the glory of the coming of the Lord.”
Happy Fourth of July!

OBVIOUSLY MONKEYPOX CAN JUMP LIKE A MONKEY FROM AFRICA NEGROES TO WHITES!

LIBERAL EUROPE IS FILLED NOW WITH ILLEGAL CENTRAL AND WEST AFRICANS LOADED WITH MONKEYPOX GREAT JOB!

 

Monkeypox: 80 cases confirmed in 12 countries

Ship those bitches back to frickin Africa, or to India, the Middle East, East Asia, and Siberia!

South American mulattoes are probably loaded with it.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SO CALLED PEACE DIVIDEND FROM ALLEGEDLY WINNING THE COLD WAR?

THE LINCOLN SECRET SOCIETY WAS CONGRUENT WITH RHODES' SECRET SOCIETY, MILNER GROUP, LIONEL CURTIS, ETC

 Lincoln sounds like the later Lionel Curtis.

These are not my heroes.

Trust me.

LINCOLN'S LOST SPEECH 1856: THE SECRET SOCIETY IN BROAD DAYLIGHT

 https://archive.org/stream/abrahamlincoln00linc/abrahamlincoln00linc_djvu.txt

https://archive.org/details/abrahamlincoln00linc

https://archive.org/details/abrahamlincoln00linc

THE SECRET SOCIETY IN BROAD DAYLIGHT

 

Saturday, September 26, 2020

LINCOLN REPUBLICAN PARTY SECRET SOCIETY IN BROAD DAYLIGHT ARENDT KOYRE BOBBITT FONER

This is a note following on the recent posts below.

I have cited Bobbitt in the past, who had noted that Lincoln's Union was what Bobbitt termed the first nation state of terror. The Shield of Achilles

Bobbitt, reviewing Civil War material, and in view of his remarks on the jurisprudential legitimacy of Dred Scott, Constitutional Fate, Constitutional Interpretation, appears  also to have thought this was hardly as innocent or as benevolent a regime as it has since been painted by Whig interpretations, including Foner's.

Here is another important piece of the puzzle, brought out publicly in broad daylight, already by Douglas in the First Debate Opening Speech, the issue of how the secret agreement between Lincoln, the Whig and Democrat abolitionists, and Trumbull, had turned out, at first. It had turned out not as agreed. 

The account, as told by Douglas, is on p 52 of Holzer and probably retold in later debates.

Why is this discussion important? Because it shows facts proving the existence of a secret abolitionist society of politicians of both parties, of a conspiracy among them, of a perceived or actual conspirators' double cross of Lincoln by Trumbull and others, and about the retribution Lincoln then later exacted for that double cross. 

Trumbull, as Douglas describes, after the double cross, had then become Lincoln's thorough paced tool, traducing Douglas, to get Douglas' spot for Lincoln "in order to quiet Lincoln".  

They had to pass a resolution that Lincoln was the first choice of the Republican party.

That was also why the Republican Convention were compelled to instruct for Lincoln and for nobody else, when they nominated him, according to Douglas. 

See Zarefski, Lincoln Douglas and Slavery, p. 42. Zarefski seems to have had no clue why this was the case, called it confusing, and doesn't think to question what may have lain behind this fact situation. 

(For the preponderance of northern white racism requiring a secret society abolitionism candidate, see Zarefski p. 19. Northerners did not want negroes free or slave, and voted for Lincoln thinking he would remove them, gradual extinction accompanied by removal was Lincoln's story. Frankly, it involved keeping them bottled up only in the South until removed. There was never, from the northern electorate perspective, any possibility of allowing free negroes in the north or in the territories.  Removal is the word the electorate was thinking, not emancipate, or enfranchise. Lincoln's expressed view of Dred Scott was thus his most dangerous and exposed admission for his secret society plan, the one most likely to not get him elected.  This was also why Douglas pounded Lincoln's Dred Scott view so very hard, in the very first speech, after exposing the secret society. Only an immediate abolitionist would object to 

Dred Scott on the ground that it had denied the rights and privileges of citizenship to negroes, slave or free.)

As Douglas said, they had nobody else in the Republican Party, except Lincoln, for the reason that Lincoln demanded that they should now carry out "the arrangement". 

Why therefore, did they, a political party convention, summarily bypass even from consideration, as Douglas even listed some of them, Archy Williams, Orville Browning, John Wentworth, Norman Judd, all fellow Republicans?

One word: Fear!

Maybe there was another word: Greed!

Why were they afraid? 

For the same reason Douglas said Trumbull  was then traducing against Douglas, to get Douglas' spot for Lincoln, because Trumbull and the fellow abolitionists had either failed or double crossed Lincoln already, and Trumbull was doing it "in order to quiet Lincoln".

What do you think "in order to quiet Lincoln" might have meant to Trumbull, and to Lincoln's fellow Republican party abolitionists?

I am telling you now, it meant one very big thing: 

That if Trumbull and the Republican party secret society did not make amends, and seal the deal with Lincoln at its head now, he would not hesitate to now rat them all out, as being a secret society of radical abolitionists, not gradualists, not even actual colonizers, and he would let the chips fall where they might in the aftermath of his disclosures. See Arendt, Origins, The Totalitarian Movement.

Compare Trumbull's comments on Lincoln, his secretiveness, unwillingness to share any more information with anyone than he thought necessary at the time, cited in a webpage in a post below,

 

http://www.mrlincolnandfriends.org/members-of-congress/lyman-trumbull/

with Arendt, Origins, pb, p. 376, fn. 90, '.....Hitler to his General Staff 1939, "...a primer for a secret society."

Even great historians like J G Randall, whom I have cited many times here, and on whom Nevins admitted he had later relied heavily, failed to see that Lincoln was an abolitionist from the beginning and involved in a secret agreement with other abolitionists of both parties to form the Republican Party. Randall had thought Lincoln a moderate, a gradualist, had taken him at his word, so to speak.

Why was the new Republican Party secret society so interesting? Because it involved and combined abolitionist renegades from both the Whigs and Democrats! 

It was the wholesale party betrayal of both the majorities of elected politicians of each party, and of the great majority of the constituents of each major party, by the immediate abolitionist rogues joining the Republican secret society party. 

As Douglas put it, Holzer p. 52, "...having formed this new party for the joint benefit of deserters from Whiggery and deserters from Democracy---..."

Why did these scalawags and carpetbagger traitors to their parties and people do it?

It ended up being by far the biggest political and financial bonanza for these politicians and their party this nation ever saw or ever will. 

They won the Civil War, reaped the proceeds in all directions, didn't pay the bills, and kept themselves, their successors, assigns, puppets, and their cronies in power from 1860 all the way until 1932, (ignoring Wilson as a Democrat), 72 long sad years. Lincoln's Immigration Act, the most ambitious in American history was not for the South. it was not really designed to replace negroes, who weren't now going anywhere. The Immigration Act was for importing foreign whites for the North and the West. 

For the South, it was Lincoln's Morgenthau Plan, keep control for a time, keep freed negroes voting Republican, and let white southerners do something about negroes if they could. It was not the job of the federal government, after the Reconstruction Northern occupation. Not its job to repatriate them, not its job to assure them any source of livelihood. Not its job. Only to make sure that southern whites did not reinstitute negro slavery, or try to export negroes either north or west. That was when the fat really finally hit the fire.

The Republicans' colonization plan for negroes turned out to have actually meant this: the South was to now become an isolated colony of Africa, cut off from the rest of America. And that is largely what it remained for a long time. 

Even when a left Democrat finally took over, (ignoring Wilson as a Democrat), in 1932, after 72 years, he did almost nothing to change that whatsoever.

THIS IS THE POST THAT DISCUSSES LINCOLN'S PRICE AFTER HAVING BEEN CROSSED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RACE BY HIS CO CONSPIRATORS

 

WHY WERE THEY DETERMINED TO KEEP LINCOLN QUIET, 

AND WILLING, MOREOVER, TO PAY HIS PRICE?

I WILL LET YOU FIGURE THOSE THINGS OUT.

Saturday, September 26, 2020

LINCOLN REPUBLICAN PARTY SECRET SOCIETY IN BROAD DAYLIGHT ARENDT KOYRE BOBBITT FONER

This is a note following on the recent posts below.

I have cited Bobbitt in the past, who had noted that Lincoln's Union was what Bobbitt termed the first nation state of terror. The Shield of Achilles

Bobbitt, reviewing Civil War material, and in view of his remarks on the jurisprudential legitimacy of Dred Scott, Constitutional Fate, Constitutional Interpretation, appears  also to have thought this was hardly as innocent or as benevolent a regime as it has since been painted by Whig interpretations, including Foner's.

Here is another important piece of the puzzle, brought out publicly in broad daylight, already by Douglas in the First Debate Opening Speech, the issue of how the secret agreement between Lincoln, the Whig and Democrat abolitionists, and Trumbull, had turned out, at first. It had turned out not as agreed. 

The account, as told by Douglas, is on p 52 of Holzer and probably retold in later debates.

Why is this discussion important? Because it shows facts proving the existence of a secret abolitionist society of politicians of both parties, of a conspiracy among them, of a perceived or actual conspirators' double cross of Lincoln by Trumbull and others, and about the retribution Lincoln then later exacted for that double cross. 

Trumbull, as Douglas describes, after the double cross, had then become Lincoln's thorough paced tool, traducing Douglas, to get Douglas' spot for Lincoln "in order to quiet Lincoln".  

They had to pass a resolution that Lincoln was the first choice of the Republican party.

That was also why the Republican Convention were compelled to instruct for Lincoln and for nobody else, when they nominated him, according to Douglas. 

See Zarefski, Lincoln Douglas and Slavery, p. 42. Zarefski seems to have had no clue why this was the case, called it confusing, and doesn't think to question what may have lain behind this fact situation. 

(For the preponderance of northern white racism requiring a secret society abolitionism candidate, see Zarefski p. 19. Northerners did not want negroes free or slave, and voted for Lincoln thinking he would remove them, gradual extinction accompanied by removal was Lincoln's story. Frankly, it involved keeping them bottled up only in the South until removed. There was never, from the northern electorate perspective, any possibility of allowing free negroes in the north or in the territories.  Removal is the word the electorate was thinking, not emancipate, or enfranchise. Lincoln's expressed view of Dred Scott was thus his most dangerous and exposed admission for his secret society plan, the one most likely to not get him elected.  This was also why Douglas pounded Lincoln's Dred Scott view so very hard, in the very first speech, after exposing the secret society. Only an immediate abolitionist would object to 

Dred Scott on the ground that it had denied the rights and privileges of citizenship to negroes, slave or free.)

As Douglas said, they had nobody else in the Republican Party, except Lincoln, for the reason that Lincoln demanded that they should now carry out "the arrangement". 

Why therefore, did they, a political party convention, summarily bypass even from consideration, as Douglas even listed some of them, Archy Williams, Orville Browning, John Wentworth, Norman Judd, all fellow Republicans?

One word: Fear!

Maybe there was another word: Greed!

Why were they afraid? 

For the same reason Douglas said Trumbull  was then traducing against Douglas, to get Douglas' spot for Lincoln, because Trumbull and the fellow abolitionists had either failed or double crossed Lincoln already, and Trumbull was doing it "in order to quiet Lincoln".

What do you think "in order to quiet Lincoln" might have meant to Trumbull, and to Lincoln's fellow Republican party abolitionists?

I am telling you now, it meant one very big thing: 

That if Trumbull and the Republican party secret society did not make amends, and seal the deal with Lincoln at its head now, he would not hesitate to now rat them all out, as being a secret society of radical abolitionists, not gradualists, not even actual colonizers, and he would let the chips fall where they might in the aftermath of his disclosures. See Arendt, Origins, The Totalitarian Movement.

Compare Trumbull's comments on Lincoln, his secretiveness, unwillingness to share any more information with anyone than he thought necessary at the time, cited in a webpage in a post below,

 

http://www.mrlincolnandfriends.org/members-of-congress/lyman-trumbull/

with Arendt, Origins, pb, p. 376, fn. 90, '.....Hitler to his General Staff 1939, "...a primer for a secret society."

Even great historians like J G Randall, whom I have cited many times here, and on whom Nevins admitted he had later relied heavily, failed to see that Lincoln was an abolitionist from the beginning and involved in a secret agreement with other abolitionists of both parties to form the Republican Party. Randall had thought Lincoln a moderate, a gradualist, had taken him at his word, so to speak.

Why was the new Republican Party secret society so interesting? Because it involved and combined abolitionist renegades from both the Whigs and Democrats! 

It was the wholesale party betrayal of both the majorities of elected politicians of each party, and of the great majority of the constituents of each major party, by the immediate abolitionist rogues joining the Republican secret society party. 

As Douglas put it, Holzer p. 52, "...having formed this new party for the joint benefit of deserters from Whiggery and deserters from Democracy---..."

Why did these scalawags and carpetbagger traitors to their parties and people do it?

It ended up being by far the biggest political and financial bonanza for these politicians and their party this nation ever saw or ever will. 

They won the Civil War, reaped the proceeds in all directions, didn't pay the bills, and kept themselves, their successors, assigns, puppets, and their cronies in power from 1860 all the way until 1932, (ignoring Wilson as a Democrat), 72 long sad years. Lincoln's Immigration Act, the most ambitious in American history was not for the South. it was not really designed to replace negroes, who weren't now going anywhere. The Immigration Act was for importing foreign whites for the North and the West. 

For the South, it was Lincoln's Morgenthau Plan, keep control for a time, keep freed negroes voting Republican, and let white southerners do something about negroes if they could. It was not the job of the federal government, after the Reconstruction Northern occupation. Not its job to repatriate them, not its job to assure them any source of livelihood. Not its job. Only to make sure that southern whites did not reinstitute negro slavery, or try to export negroes either north or west. That was when the fat really finally hit the fire.

The Republicans' colonization plan for negroes turned out to have actually meant this: the South was to now become an isolated colony of Africa, cut off from the rest of America. And that is largely what it remained for a long time. 

Even when a left Democrat finally took over, (ignoring Wilson as a Democrat), in 1932, after 72 years, he did almost nothing to change that whatsoever.