The True War

At his trial in Nuremberg, Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring is recorded as saying, “Der Sieger wird immer der Richter und der Besiegte stets der Angeklagte sein,”   In common speech, this is often misquoted as, "History is written by the victor."  The actual words are, "The victor is always the judge and the loser is the accused."  Truer words he probably never spoke.

To this I would add that the judge always positions himself as the moral superior.  After all, might makes right, sine qua non?

America is convulsing because its history is a bedtime story told to itself to hide the painful truth.  On all sides of the current mess there, folks are asking, or rather stating that Civil War 2.0 is underway.  In a profound sense, it is just a continuation of the original, much like World War 2 was inevitable because the wrongs of World War 1 where never settled.

After orgies of violence we humans call wars, the winners - and losers - are in a rush to turn away from the horrors that were committed on all sides, and in that rush a convenient narrative is concocted to ease the vivid nightmares.  The winners absolve themselves of the crimes by heaping guilt on the shoulders of the losers, regardless of right or wrong, or the truth.

As any good lawyer will tell you, there are three sides to every story - your side, my side and the truth.

When it comes to the American Civil War of 1860-63, the soothing narrative the winners concocted was that the evil South wanted slavery, and the bright shiny North wanted to abolish it.  Since the North won, their side of the story has dominated the narrative, but that makes it neither right nor the truth.  The real story is much more complex with plenty of guilt to go 'round.  As we proper Southerners know it, it was the War of Northern Aggression.

As the great Greek tragedian Aeschyius reminds us, "The first casualty of war is the Truth."

The issue of slavery began simmering in the Union before the ink was dry on the Constitution.  Abolitionists wanted to end slavery primarily because it was a vestige of British colonialism, but also because it was antithetical to the ideals of the new nation.

Many abolitionists advocated sending slaves back to Africa, which eventually happened when a US colonial group created the western African nation of Liberia and offered passage to any slaves wanting to emigrate there.  Abraham Lincoln recognized Liberian independence in 1862, and liked the idea of repatriating slaves, as he was not a fan of racial integration.

In 1824, the Democratic Republican Party split into two factions - the Democrats and Republicans - over support for John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.  Among the issues at the core of the split was slavery and abolition.  The Democrats were willing to compromise on slavery, as demonstrated by The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which brought the free state of Maine and the slave state of Missouri into the Union.

While the compromise placated both sides for  atime by maintaining the balance between free and slave states, it was undone by the Kanas-Nebraska Act of 1858.

Aside from all the idealistic rhetoric, the underlying tensions were primarily economic.  The northern states were dominated by industrial and financial interests, while the southern states were agricultural.  The balance that the politicians sought to maintain was between the suppliers of raw materials and food in the south, and the factories and banks in the north.  This tension was exacerbated by the apportionment of representation using population.  This one fact is the seed from which the Civil War and two centuries of social unrest have sprung.

The north benefitted from cheap raw materials that made its finished products highly competitive in global markets.  This made the industrialists and financiers grossly wealthy.  But they also faced increasing pressure to raise wages and offer benefits to labor, an issue that didn't affect the slave states.  Furthermore, it was in the best interests of the northern parties to maintain the supply of cheap raw materials.

The south, on the other hand, found that they could fetch much better prices for their goods in Europe, and could buy manufactured goods cheaper than from the north.  More and more of the south's output was shipping overseas.  The southern plantation owners were also hiking the prices for northern buyers, while buying fewer and fewer finished goods from the north, and their wealth was beginning to rival that of the industrial-financial interests.  Thanks to slavery, the plantation owners didn't have an expanding middle class to deal with.

The United States enacted Protective Tariffs almost as fast as the nation came into being.  While they were initially intended to be temporary to help fill up the Treasury, they were never lifted and became a tool of northern interests to maintain control over the south.  By making southern goods more expensive overseas, they forced the flow of raw materials to their factories.  Import tariffs were levied to force the south to buy finished goods from the north.

This made the industrial-financial interests happy, and the expanding middle class enjoyed rising wages, who thus threw their support behind the tariffs, as well.  In the election of 1860, the Morill Tariff was a major plank in the Republican party's platform, and James Buchanan ended up signing the Morill Tariff into law before Abraham Lincoln took office on 4 March 1861.

In November of 1860, frustrated by tariffs, economic shenanigans and the northern dominance of Congress, the southern senators walked out and secession soon followed on 12 April 1861.  The northern bankers and financiers, fearing a middle class uprising and shrinking profits, persuaded Lincoln to set up a blockade.

The blockade was a blatant act of war against sovereign states who were exercising their Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment rights.  The blockade covered 3,500 miles of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, cutting off the newly formed Confederacy from their trading partners in Europe.  The same act today is still considered an act of war against a sovereign nation, though the US still uses it as a routine sanction against nations it doesn't like (i.e. the banking and financial interests disapprove of).

There was and is no law preventing secession from the Union and every foundational document of the united States recognizes this fundamental right.  Thomas Jefferson himself wrote in the Declaration of Independence that a people had the right to sever ties with another when the government of the latter was abusive to their interests and liberty.

We must pause here to note that the abolutionist argument at the time was not about ending slavery, but whether new territories conquered by the federal government in its war on the native population would expand slavery into those regions or not.  We must also note that not a single slave ship ever flew the Confederate flag.  They were either British of Union flagged ships.

Having undermined the Confederate economy and brutally invaded a sovereign state (a common practice of the US), the Union forces decimated the South, which produced raw materials and not the finished goods of the north.  So the north cut off the South's livelihood, while protecting their interests by purchasing raw materials from colonial powers abroad.

Note well that the Confederate states were exercising their rights, as recognized and memorialized in the US Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Also note that the Union invaded the Confederacy, and not the other way around.

The north clearly profited from slavery on all sides and had no intention to end its practice.  On the other side, the cost of purchasing and maintaining slavery was becoming a burden on the southern producers and would have ended one way or another before the end of the century.



On 1 January 1863, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  Contrary to the legend propagated by the victors, this document did not "free" any slaves.  It promised escaped slaves that made it past the Mason-Dixon line that they would not be returned to the Confederacy.    It did not grant equal rights or suffrage or even freedom - just that they would not be returned to their owners.  In other words, it was yet another act of deception by the Union, which it was quite adept at even then.

In fact, slavery in the north did not end for several years after the Civil War and emancipation proclamation.  There was a slave market right where Wall Street is today into the 1870s.

The Dred Scott decision, which affirmed the right of property to a human being, was not overturned until the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, a full three years after the end of the Civil War, and even then the practice of slavery in the north tapered off slowly.

That the Fourteenth Amendment destroyed God-given rights in favor of "privileges and immunities" is the topic of many a long and dry essay.  Suffice it to say that the bankers and financiers did not free any slaves, but rather made slaves of every citizen of the "United States," itself a corporate entity created by the Act of 1871. (note "united States" versus United States)

It may seem like legal hair-splitting, but there is a profound difference between a "right" and  "privilege".    In Enlightenment philosophy, a right is the sacred property of an individual by virtue of birth.  A privilege is granted by an authority and requires a license or permission to exercise.  Go back and read the Fourteenth Amendment again.  As Thomas Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, rights are "unalienable" or incapable of having a lien placed on them.  In other words, no authority may claim possession of those rights.

The American Civil War was not about slavery as we commonly think of it.  It was in point of fact about expanding slavery to everyone, not ending it for some.  It was a key expansion of the banking and financial interests in the US, and by means of two world wars, expanding that error to the entire world.

Until we recognize the truth of the Civil War, and acknowledge that we are all slaves to the banking class, we will never be truly free.  In many ways, this one Great Lie has caused so much death and destruction in our modern world.  Because we labor under a profound deception, we can never cure the ills that afflict us at this very moment.

Think about how many times you have heard or said, "The Constitution grants us the right to..."  It does no such thing, nor does the government grant rights.  We are born with them as a gift of Nature and Nature's Creator.

The American Civil War never ended, it only became a global conflict with vile banksters pulling the strings.  We need only look a bit closer at where groups like Black Lives Matter or Antifa get their funding to see the subversive hand of banking and finance.

It is not just American blacks who are owed reparations, it is every human being on this planet born since the banksters took over.


New York Slave Market
Dred Scott decision
Franklin Pierce

The Giant Stirs

So, I've said my piece on Donald Trump - the candidate - now I want to say something about the Trump Phenomenon.

What the world is witnessing in the US is nothing short of a revolution.  No, the shooting hasn't started - yet - but I suspect that the trip wires are set and temperaments are leaning solidly in that direction.

As I stated in The Trump Card, there is no logical reason to select Trump as president.  He has no political background, obviously little diplomatic ability and is really not even an individual, but a brand.  Yet, he is drawing unbelievable crowds, record turn-out at the polls and a following that crosses all demographic boundaries.  Beyond that, he has so rattled the ensconced powers that they will do anything to stop this man from taking the oath of office.  They are so rattled that they have spoken openly about assassination, meaning there would be little room for "conspiracy theories" if that were to happen.

Both my grandfather and father told me for years that a revolution was coming to America.  It was inevitable.  Since the dawn of the 20th century, the power structure in the US has so grossly abused its position that at some point, the masses would finally be fed up and clear the table.  Had Ron Paul been just a bit more charismatic, we would have seen this scenario played out four years ago.

If you want to understand what is happening in America, there is a fun activity you can do at home that perfectly models this year's election.  Take some sticks and put them in the freezer.  Then take a pan of water and heat it to almost boiling.  When you get there, start stirring in sugar until it just won't dissolve any more.  You now have what chemists call a super-saturated solution.  Now take your chilled sticks and put them into the solution for a few minutes.  Right in front of your eyes, big, beautiful crystals of sugar will start growing on the sticks, and viola!, you have rock candy.

For a century now, the American cultural climate has been slowly heating up to just near the boiling point.  The political elites have been stirring in racial and class tensions, profligate spending, wars and "police actions," assassinations, and all sorts of mayhem, to the point where one suspects they have either completely lost their minds or are just suicidal - or maybe they have a back-up plan?

Along comes Trump.  Let's think of him as a chilled stick.  It's not really who he is, but what he represents that matters.  Before our amazed eyes, all the crap that has been stirred into our pot of hot water suddenly congeals around him: fear of losing jobs, fear of uncontrolled immigration, fear of economic Armageddon, fear of attack by (insert enemy du jour).

Trump is a catalyst for a chemical reaction that was slowly happening all over the country for the past 100 years.  He was just the right person who stepped onto the scene and said the right things and instantly, the chemical reaction accelerated without any signs of abating.

If we switch to a medical metaphor, Trump is a symptom, but not the cause.  Treating the Trump Phenomenon will not stop the disease, and may, in fact, cause it to quicken.  The "establishment" are like ignorant doctors (or are they?); unable to understand why the disease is happening, they desperately attempt to alleviate the symptom, only to make matters far worse.  For the moment, let's assume that this has not all been intentional - that's a different article.

It appears, for all intents and purposes, that Trump will now face off with the Democratic choice in the fall elections.  At this point, the "establishment" have no real choice (in their minds) but to actually kill Trump to try and save their hides.  The problem is that making this choice, as they did with the Kennedy brothers, will likely bring the country to full boil, where the Kennedys turned up the heat.  For them, there is no smooth path out of these woods.

It is absolutely fascinating to watch this.  It is an historic event not at all unlike the environment surrounding the US Civil War.  A large and powerful block has been disenfranchised by the "establishment," and both sides now walk a very fine line to avoid all-out war.  All that is needed is a modern-day Fort Sumter, or to use another US revolution, another Lexington and Concord.

To my mind, Trump does not seek violence, but will not back down because of it.  He strikes me as one who fights fire with fire.  On the other side, the "establishment" are so terrified that violence is increasingly the only viable option they perceive.  The Big Question is, what price are the "establishment" willing to pay to keep their privileged positions?

The "establishment" has already shown its willingness to do whatever it takes to attain their goals and maintain their positions: violate the sovereignty of nations, fabricate evidence, commit acts of terror, round up citizens in concentration camps (American Indians, Japanese), commit treason, stir up internal strife to foment "regime change," and a whole list of crimes and misdemeanors.  Are they willing to shit in their own sandbox?

If history be our guide, the answer is "yes."  We must assume that if Trump continues to pose a threat to them, whatever that threat may be, the "establishment" will risk open war within America in order to protect their precious and privileged positions.  If the Bush family buying 100,000 acres in 2006, in Paraguay is any indication, the "establishment" has been preparing for this eventuality for some time.

The American Founding Fathers intended for the electoral process to be a form of peaceful revolution every four years.  It was a means to vent popular concerns, though the system was set up to buffer mob rule.  The "establishment" learned from Josef Stalin that 'he who counts the votes runs the country,' and it has worked for 100 years - but the jig is up.

The American people have often been compared to the proverbial "Sleeping Giant," slow to rouse but unstoppable once mobilized.  One senses that the Trump candidacy has awoken that giant, and the absurd fear and loathing demonstrated by the "establishment" makes it quite apparent that they are aware of the situation.

Whether or not you like Trump, or desire or fear his presidency, the larger issue is what he represents.  The long-simmering super-saturated brew that is American culture has reached the point where it can no longer absorb what it is given.  The process of crystallization has begun and there is likely nothing that can stop it, except to let it run its course.  We can speculate till the cows come home what America will look like at the end of a Trump presidency, but it seems rather certain what will happen if this process is aborted.

Yes, there are a great number of parallels with Germany at the moment the Brown Shirts began to rise, but I hardly find Trump to be another Hitler - different culture, different times, different person.  If anything, there is a stronger resemblance between the "establishment" and the Nazis, than with anything Trump represents.  I believe that what we are seeing now is actually what would have happened if Hitler had won the war and 70 years later, the German people were ready to change course.  Now there's an interesting thought.

Yankee Carpetbaggers Strike Again

(Thanks to reader Robert who told us that someone had pulled the flag image that headed this article).
As usual, poorcated Americans are once again reacting emotionally to something with little or no historical background or truth,


The recent rush to ban the Confederate flag and remove it from public spaces (and even cop underwear) is founded on profound ignorance fed by media numbnuts who know even less than us normal folks.  Because a confused and drug-addled (pharma, not illegal) young man entered a South Carolina church and killed some people - also based on a profound ignorance of history - the US is in an orgasm of symbol destruction.

For the many readers here who are not Americans, a little background.

From 1860-1865, the United States became embroiled in a civil war, commonly called (by educated people) the War of Northern Aggression.  The northern and southern tiers of States broke apart and drew a line, called Mason-Dixon, because there were some fundamental differences in cultures and politics.

At that time, the north was increasingly becoming industrialized, while the south was largely agrarian.  The US Congress was dominated by representatives from the north, because numbers were based on population, and the north had quite a few more voting folks than the south.  This led to piles of legislation in the Congressional pipeline that favored the north at the expense of the south.

The south was being heavily taxed without ample representation, and the federal government was increasingly dictating to the southern States in violation of the Tenth Amendment protecting States' Rights.

The north was also getting filthy rich on finished manufactured products using raw materials produced in the south, but naturally were crushing prices for the raw materials to increase profits.  I know, hard to imagine, but Yankee financiers were getting fat while heavily manipulating the prices of things like cotton and other agricultural products.

Tempers flared.  Things got out of hand.  The south dared to develop other markets and cut off supplies to the north.  The north got bend out of shape and blockaded southern ports.  Shots were fired.  A war started.

Now you may notice that, among the reasons for the war, slavery was not one of them.  In fact, slavery was still common on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, but the importation of slaves had already stopped and the institution itself was slowly fading out.  Texas had banned the slave trade (though it still allowed slave owners to bring their property from outside).  The south was a bit slower, because of the manpower needed to run the large plantations, but the north was benefiting from the products of slavery as much or more than the south.

The Confederate flag, therefore, was not a symbol of racism and slavery, it was a symbol of States' Rights, anti-federalism and opposition to the undue power of international bankers and financial interests.

In other words, the Confederate flag represents the right to self-rule, free and open markets, and decentralized government.  It also represents the economic truism that production should always be more powerful than finance.

When you look at the history behind the symbol, in fact, it becomes apparent who wants to ban the Confederate flag and why.  The modern slave owners - bankers and fascist governments - don't want anyone thinking about why hundreds of thousands of Americans die defending their way of life from Yankee carpetbaggers.

In addition, it's important to remember that  not one single slave was ever brought to North America under the Confederate flag.  Nearly every single slave was imported under the British and US flags.  In fact, some of the largest slave markets, even at the time of the War of Northern Aggression, were north of the Mason-Dixon line.

One other bit of information educated people should keep in mind: it was the US Democratic Party that introduced the pro-slavery Dredd Scott legislation.  If you are one of those poor, mind-controlled victims who still vote, and you choose the Democratic candidates, then you are supporting the party that vehemently defended slavery.

If you argue that the Democrats no longer believe that way, then you would obviously vote for the Nazi party, as well.  And if the Democrats no longer support slavery, then why did it create the Federal Reserve, the income tax, Social Security, and Obamacare.  Yup, even today, you are supporting slavery - only now it's for everyone and not just a certain class of folks.

So, if you are a real, educated person, then you would not only celebrate the Confederate flag, but would move immediately to ban the British and US flags, and declare the Democratic Party an enemy of the state and freedom.

By the way, in 1860, the people of Texas voted 4-1 to secede from the US and once again become a free and separate nation.  It never joined the Confederacy, but remained neutral with sympathies to the South.  At the end of the war, Texas was taken by force by federal troops and has never been a legal "state" since then.  All educated people know that.