Artificial Regimes Follow Monsters Destroyed

 

In the same way victorious Northern armies were followed by political adventurers and reformers backed by Union bayonets in the American South, the multitude of Washington-directed foreign interventions to date have been justified with the intention of spreading what is said to be American democracy, though the founders never intended this nor does the word “democracy” appear in the United States Constitution. In 1821, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams stated that “[America] does not go in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom of freedom and independence to all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” A wise policy that was discarded after 1865. The French intervention in Vietnam mentioned below was financed with American tax dollars.
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.com  The Great American Political Divide

Artificial Regimes Follow Monsters Destroyed

“The policies we see today in Washington, DC reflect [a strategy of] the Federal Government [molding and reconstructing] societies at will with no regard for the population’s history, culture or values. Our ongoing meddling in Bosnia, where our advertised intention of forging a multiethnic society out of feuding Croatians, Serbs, and Moslems has only fenced people into a gladiators arena despite their clear preference to go about peaceably building their own communities in their own way.

Only continues military occupation by the United States working through the United Nations keeps this artificial political creation together, taking up the role formerly played by the Ottoman Turks, the Austrians, and [Marshal] Tito.

The United States have a long history of using force to erect and try to hold together artificial regimes. The most costly instance of such interference – so far – was he United States support for South Vietnam. As with every intervention since the War for Southern Independence, the advertised justification was to spread the American idea of freedom throughout the world.

Americans saw no need to ask the Vietnamese if they agreed to having their nation reconstructed in the American image, but the American government believed that their ideas applied to everybody. The Vietnamese, tightly organized and highly motivated to defend their way of life, managed to defeat a superior French force backed by American B-26 bombers.

Once the French decided they had had enough, American forces took up the fight. The assumption that the Vietnamese, like everyone else in the world, secretly wanted to adopt an American identity, led by Washington, DC into a self-manufactured disaster.

Assuming that all differences in world cultures are accidental mistakes and that force is necessary to impose a beneficial order upon uncomprehending and ungrateful recipients, advocates for armed intervention lull themselves to sleep at night with the assurance they have murdered no one but uneducable obstructionists.

By 1967, the US Air Force had dropped more than 1.5 million tons of bombs on the Vietnamese, more than the total dropped on the whole of Europe in World War II. The stimulus did not work, leaving the experts in the Pentagon groping for an answer.

“We anticipated that they would respond like reasonable people,” said one Defense Department official. Instead of responding reasonably, the Vietnamese responded like people, and won.”

(Confederates in the Boardroom: How Principles of Confederation are Rejuvenating Business and Challenging Bureaucracy; Michael C. Tuggle, Traveller Press, 2004, excerpts, pp. 52-55)

“It was not war, it was murder."

 

After the costly Confederate assault on Malvern Hill on June 30, 1862, Stonewall Jackson ordered burial details to carry their dead from the “killing ground.” Author S.C. Gwynne writes that “Unlike most Civil War battles, in which artillery caused less than 5 percent of casualties, at Malvern Hill more than half of the Confederate dead and wounded had been victims of Federal solid shot, shell, spherical case, and canister. After such carnage in a war between Americans — one side fighting for independence from the other — it is a wonder that Lincoln did not raise his hand to halt the bloodbath and allow the South to govern itself in peace.
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.com   The Great American Political Divide

Southern Courage and Carnage at Malvern Hill

“The place was more like a killing field, a defensive position that Fitz John Porter, architect of the fearsome [Northern] works at Mechanicsville and Gaines’s Mill, considered to be the strongest of the campaign so far.

The Union advantage started with its artillery: 268 cannons, many of them rifled, plus 26 giant siege guns that McClellan had been preparing to use against Richmond. The guns were everywhere: stacked on the brow of the hill, bristling on the army’s flanks, and even ranged in front of the infantry, where their flesh-tearing canister loads would enjoy a clear field of fire. Around them, stacked to the top of the rise, were the blue masses of infantry, fifty-four thousand of them.

The borders of the amphitheater were unassailable: ravines, swamps, streams and thick woods meant that the Union troops could not be flanked. Which meant the Confederate attack would be funneled into a narrow front with no cover. The rebel infantry would have to attack the Union position by coming up the rise, straight into the teeth of the strongest artillery emplacement of the war.

It looked like suicide, and Jackson and his brother-in-law [Gen.] D.H. Hill, who formed the Confederate left at the base of the slope, and along with [Gen. Benjamin] Huger’s and [Gen. John B.] Magruder’s troops would do the fighting this day, understood this at once.

For the Union gunners, the battle was more like a large-scale turkey shoot. Whenever a Confederate battery would unlimber, the massed Union guns would open on it, blowing it to pieces. When Jackson [ordered division commander Gen. W.H.C. Whiting] to bring up his guns . . . it took a moment for the Union batteries to register this. And then they blew the guns, wagons, men, horses, limbers, and caissons to bits.

Jackson, meanwhile, continued giving orders, in one case while a battery was being destroyed before his eyes. “He sat erect on his horse in this hurricane of canister and grape,” recalled one soldier, “his face was aflame with passion, his eyes flashing,”

Other Confederate gun crews were just as helpless before the massed counterbattery fire from the hill. After the war, McClellan’s chief of artillery . . . told Jackson’s artillerist Tom Munford, chillingly, how easy it was to destroy the rebel guns. He said he had “fifty pieces massed at Malvern Hill which he could concentrate on any battery that came out in the open and that they melted like wax before his rain of projectiles.”

Magruder’s first attacks did nothing but sacrifice several thousand men to Federal artillery and musketry [though they] became an inadvertent signal . . . for a general advance. The result was pure slaughter, some of the worst of the war. To their credit, the Southern infantry did not give up. They pressed attack after attack and were badly shot up, a huge percentage of hem by artillery. “It was not war, it was murder,” said D.H. Hill later.”

(Rebel Yell, the Violence, Passion and Redemption of Stonewall Jackson, S.C. Gwynne, Scribner & Sons, 2014, excerpts, pp. 379-382)

Delaware the Southern State

 

In July 1861, Senator James A. Bayard of Delaware spoke in the United States Senate and compared “the language of Lincoln and the Republicans to statements by the British Crown and Parliament during the American Revolution.” He saw it as irrational that after a devastating war between the sections, there would remain no bond to cement the people to one another, and that war would ruin both North and South.
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.com   The Great American Political Divide

Delaware the Southern State

“In 1861, an optimistic Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs stated “all fifteen States of the South will have severed the bonds which have bound them to the late Federal Union and will have joined the Confederate States.” This statement is remarkable for two reasons.

First, Toombs expected, as did many Southerners, that every slave State would bond itself to the new southern Confederacy. Second, Delaware was included in Toombs’ fifteen States of the South. Most Southerners do not view Delaware in this light, but based on historical evidence, Delaware was actually more Southern than middle, and positively more Southern than Northern. Delaware, then, is the perfect case study for what Abraham Lincoln called “the fire in the rear.”

She had a large pro-Southern population, a congressional delegation that favored at minimum peaceful separation if not secession, a State government that was split between pro-war Republicans and pro-South Democrats, and Delaware was occupied by the Union army several times during the war. It would be no stretch to say that if not for military occupation and the inability of Delaware to secede, Delaware may have endeavored to cast its lot with the South.

Both United States Senators from Delaware in 1860 – James A. Bayard the younger and Willard Saulsbury, Sr., were Democrats . . . Delawareans had long supported Southern rights in the United States Congress, but by 1860, the State’s geographic position exposed its property and material well-being to the abuses of the federal government, thus forcing its citizens to adopt a more cautious approach to the sectional conflict.

[In the 1860 presidential election, those] candidates who were diametrically opposed to Lincoln received over seventy-six percent of the total popular vote . . . [and] Democrats retained a five to four majority in the State Senate . . .

In March [1861], the [Delaware] Gazette unleashed its harshest condemnation of the federal government with a stinging editorial supporting State’s rights. The paper thought the impending crisis would settle the issue of location of sovereignty in the republic. “If a government has a right to subjugate a State then freedom must mourn until other countries and other peoples establish what we had hoped had been done by Washington and Jefferson and their compeers.”

On 19 July 1861, Bayard rose in the Senate to deliver a two-hour speech entitled “Executive Usurpation” in response to a joint resolution of Congress . . . to “approve and confirm certain act of the President of the United States for suppressing insurrection and rebellion,” most notably the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the raising of troops, and the blockade of Southern ports.

[Bayard stated] “I am attached to the Union as any man who claims a set in this body . . .” But the course of the administration and the Republican Party, Bayard asserted, “was the reduction of the States to “provinces, and the military power to become the dominant power in the representative Republic . . . for the purpose of conquest and subjugation.”

(The Avenger Without Mercy: Delaware Under the Federal Heel; Brion McClanahan; Northern Opposition to Mr. Lincoln’s War, D. Jonathan White, editor, Abbeville Institute Press, 2014, excerpts, pp. 116; 120; 127; 136-137)

Consolidating the Northern Triumph

 

Nathan Bedford Forrest & The Jubilee of Pole Bearers

In North Carolina’s 1867 State convention at Raleigh, Northerners were actively creating Republican Party organizations in every county, and all featured the revival of secret political societies like the Heroes of America and the infamous Union League. White Republicans were quick to realize that mobilizing the black vote was the key to dominating and controlling Southern politics. As Joseph G. de R. Hamilton wrote in “Reconstruction in North Carolina (1914, pg. 242), “In a spectacular way the colored delegates were given a prominent place in the convention. Most of the white speakers expressed delight at the advancement of the Negroes to the right of suffrage.”
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.com   The Great American Political Divide

Consolidating the Northern Triumph

“With the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment and the elimination of slavery, every African-American was counted as one person and not three-fifths of a person for purposes of congressional representation.

If the white and black voters of the South united, the Southern and Northern Democrats could possibly control both houses of Congress. The Republican Party went into panic mode – what was to be done?

The answer was simple: export racial hatred from the North to the South with a little twist. Instead of white people being taught to hate black people, as was so common in New England, Republicans would teach Southern black voters to fear and hate Southern white voters.

It should be pointed out that most Northern States at that time still prohibited African-Americans from voting. By mobilizing a large bloc of angry black voters and prohibiting large numbers of white Southern voters from exercising the right to vote, the Republican Party insured its rule in Washington.

The Republican Party’s fear of a racially untied South was made even more frightening when former Confederate leaders spoke out in favor of black/white unity. Just a few months after the close of the War, from New Orleans, General [PGT] Beauregard stated:

“The Negro is Southern born; with a little education and some property qualifications he can be made to take sufficient interest in the affairs and prosperity of the South to insure an intelligent vote.”

No one can question the Confederate General who is slandered the most as an evil racist is Nathan Bedford Forrest. In a speech to a group of black voters, Forrest reflected the goodwill that had existed before Republican Reconstruction, He states:

“We were born on the same soil, breathe the same air, live in the same land, and why should we not be brothers and sisters . . . I want you to do as I do – go to the polls and select the best men to vote for . . . although we differ in color, we should not differ in sentiment . . . do your duty as citizens, and if any are oppressed, I will be your friend.”

The use of race-hatred became a very successful Republican tool to divide the South into warring parties. These warring parties, both black and white, failed to realize that in the process of enriching Republican industrialists, bankers and politicians, they were at the same time impoverishing themselves.”

(Punished with Poverty: The Suffering South, Prosperity to Poverty & the Continuing Struggle; James & Walter Kennedy, Shotwell Publishing, 2016, excerpts, pp. 65-66)

"Great Buy on Winter coat" WearGuard® System 365 Three-Season Jacket $19.99

Via Cousin John

  

@ Aramark

Growing Up

Via Billy

Russian official: Obama undermined US democracy, not Moscow

Via Billy

  Trump 'a pragmatic politician'

A Russian official on Friday argued that U.S. democracy was undermined by President Obama's administration and the media, not by Moscow's alleged hacking campaign.

Russian Senator Alexey Pushkov offered his criticism following the public release of a U.S. intelligence report that accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of orchestrating an effort to "undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process."

"The U.S. democratic process was undermined not by Russia, but by the Obama administration and mass media, which supported [Hillary] Clinton over [President-elect Donald] Trump," Pushkov tweeted.

"The danger to democracy is within U.S. itself," he added, arguing that Obama is responsible for Republicans' growing trust of Putin.

More @ The Hill

Experts Call Declassified Russia Report ‘Disappointing,’ ‘Underwhelming’

Via Billy

 

"no evidence............major let down....................highly underwhelming.”

Few expected the declassified report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Russian hacking to contain many bombshells. But even by those lowered standards, the 25-page report is being called “disappointing,” “underwhelming” and “very thin” by national security experts and reporters.

The ODNI report concludes, as expected, that Russian president Vladimir Putin directed spy agencies to engage in a campaign of cyber attacks against U.S. political groups, think tanks, and businesses. It also states that Putin sought to undermine Hillary Clinton and to meddle in the U.S. democratic process.

The Kremlin’s goals shifting during its hacking campaign, the report states. At various points, Russia’s intelligence agencies hoped to help Donald Trump’s electoral chances by directing the release of emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign.

But as Election Day neared and most of the world believed that Clinton would beat the Republican, Putin and his comrades were resigned merely to undermine a President Clinton as much as they could.

More @ The Daily Caller

Intel Chiefs Conclude Putin’s Hacking Goal Was Not To Elect Trump

Via Billy

Russia’s original hacking intent had nothing to do with President-elect Donald Trump, according to intelligence officials who detailed their assessment in a report released Friday.

The intel chiefs are highly confident the core motivations behind the extensive Russian
campaign were to undermine the integrity of the election, denigrate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and undermine her potential presidency. Although the report states Russia developed a “preference” for Trump late in the campaign, it’s clear they believe the underlying goal was always to hurt Clinton.

 Given the timeline of the hacks and the bad blood between Putin and Clinton, the intel assessment of his motivations isn’t surprising.

More @ The Daily Caller

Shocker: ‘Proof’ of Russia’s Trump Support Was Compiled During Obama’s Election:

Via Billy

ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks press conf, Monday 9am ET streamed live responding to CIA report on WikiLeaks

Background: https://t.co/cV1dpsfM3L
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) January 7, 2017

According to an article overnight from Sputniknews.com regarding the highly-anticipated declassified US intelligence report information included in the report was published in 2012.  The intelligence report was supposed to prove that Russia supported Donald Trump in the recent US election for President,

The annex in the [declassified] report contained so-called evidence from Russia Today (RT) that was compiled in December 2012, right after the reelection of Barack Obama.

More @ The Gateway Pundit

War With Who?

Via comment by JWMJR on Give Me Land, Lotsa Land

 

The Democrats have quite insanely been trying to stir up a war with Russia for quite some time now. Thankfully they have been unsuccessful so far. If we are concerned about a war, realistically we had best look south rather than east.

Former Mexican President Vincente Fox bitching about who is going to pay for "The Wall" was a pretty clear signal. Not that he is concerned about who pays but rather that he and the rest of Mexico's political establishment is undoubtedly coming under huge pressures from the country's criminal cartels.

The long standing corruption in Mexico is of no surprise to anyone and is one of the factors driving illegal immigration. I have not the slightest doubt that Fox and others have been been very lucretively looking the other way when it comes to both human and drug smuggling and growing fat in the process.

More @ Joe Martin's Ghost

Czech Government Fears Muslim "Super-Holocaust", Urges Citizens To Shoot Them Yourselves

Via comment by an hourofwolves on MAN UP, BOYS !

 

The alarmist message is particularly striking because unlike most anti-immigrant politicians in western Europe, Zeman, 71, is a social democrat (and former communist) rather than a rightwinger, and the Czech Republic has been largely spared the waves of refugees that have swept into neighbouring Austria and Hungary en route to Germany.

*********************

 

On the heels of Czech President Milos Zeman's warnings of a possible "super-Holocaust" carried out by Muslim terrorists, urging citizens to arm themselves, WaPo reports the country's interior ministry is pushing a constitutional change that would let citizens use guns against terrorists if police are delayed or unable to make their way to the scene of an attack.

Czech president Milos Zeman had previously proposed that economic migrants should be deported from Europe to “uninhabited Greek islands” or to “empty places” in North Africa. The spectacularly incredible president also proposed that the Greek debt should be progressively reduced in return for shouldering the cost of hosting hundreds of thousands economic migrants.

“We are in Greece, and Greece has plenty of uninhabited islands, and big foreign debt. So if you have ‘hotspots’ in Greek islands, this would be a sort of payment of foreign debt,” Zeman told Financial Times in an interview on the islands of Rhodes where he participated in the Rhodes Forum.

More @ Zero Hedge

Prosecutors want California man to remove blog posts on FBI informants in refuge occupation case

Via Gary

As a second trial looms in the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, federal prosecutors are perturbed that a California man associated with a network of militia groups obtained FBI reports on its confidential sources and has written about them in an online blog.

Prosecutors on Friday asked a judge to order Gary Hunt to immediately remove all material about the confidential sources from his website and prevent him from continuing to share the sensitive information.

More @ Oregon Live