Tag Archives: 1861-65

A CANNIBALISTIC ORGY OF MAYHEM—CULTURAL GENOCIDE & DEGRADATION

Mitch Landrieu’s program of cultural genocide in New Orleans has led to an orgy of cannibalistic mayhem across the United States. The injuries inflicted against the Southern People in particular, all real Americans in general, and against the ideals of the Constitution of 1787 and the legitimate disputes, grievances, and political failures that led to the War Between the States in 1861-65 together amount to an intentionally malicious attack on the very foundations of Western Civilization itself. It is time we fight back and pin the blame for all the destructions nationwide on the Mayor of New Orleans and his unnamed sponsors. 

4 Comments
Comments
Eric Pierce
Eric Pierce Did he abolish gumbo???
LikeShow more reactions

Manage

Katherine Connella Weissmann
Katherine Connella Weissmann Eric Pierce…that would have been preferable!
LikeShow more reactions

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln

Charles Edward Lincoln I wouldn’t call it “preferable”—because starving the body and mind of a people from the distinctive food and tastes that define their culture actually resembles starving their soul and mind by depriving them of their history and heroes… a lot more—

a lot more than you might imagine. Unique statues, street names, architectural monuments both reflect our memories and help shape our mind and values just as distinctive food shapes our daily lives. Gumbo reminds me of my grandmother and her sisters from Natchitoches and our cousins from Avoyelles….. just as the statues of the Confederate Generals remind me of the dozen or so male ancestors of mine on both sides who fought for the CSA, several under the command of Marse Robert himself at Gettysburg….. I would not wish to lose any of those memories, because they make me who I am…. and if they are not there for my grandchildren…. they will not know me or my life as I was.
LikeShow more reactions
Katherine Connella Weissmann
Katherine Connella Weissmann True, Charles Edward Lincoln…what I should have said is that I personally am no fan of gumbo so — to me — it would have been preferable. 🙂
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 3 hrs

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln I will never hold it against you… I promise (lol!)… Your gastronomic predilections and tastebuds are your own….. We can still fight to overthrow ANTIFA together (besides, it means more gumbo for me…)
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

Eric Pierce More gumbo! Less Kevlar sombreros with anti-drone armaments.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

1

· 1 hr

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln Eric Pierce I need some anti-drone armaments… where can I get them?
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

1

· 13 mins

Manage

Janine Dunn
Janine Dunn He has been blamed, he does not care
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln But has he been held responsible for starting the avalanche? Have the roots of the conspiracy been exposed? I am rethinking the strategy of counterattack…. and MITCH started it… so MITCH should be held liable for Baltimore, Charlottesville, Durham, Manatee, Orlando…..
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

2

· 3 hrs

Manage

Janine Dunn
Janine Dunn No. We all know it’s true. Like the plague spreading rapidly and he was ground zero. In actuality he hasn’t really broken the law (morally another issue but he has no morals) and he may have been the person to whisper in every other mayors ears but they could have stood up to him and did not. There are also people that are pulling Mitch’s strings. He’s not smart or wealthy enough to have pulled this off solo
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

2

· 3 hrs

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln Janine Dunn, I would like to debate with you about whether Mitch has really broken the law or not on several levels. First, the original “Nuisance” Ordinance was entirely against the law. Now whether it was a crime or not is a separate story and a moot point, because we more-or-less know nobody around will prosecute him, but the Nuisance Ordinance was enacted, applied, and enforced in direct violation of Louisiana Civil Law and all court theses or precedents concerning the same.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 5 mins

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln In fact, Janine Dunn, I would say that the mere enactment of Ordinance in violation of Louisiana Nuisance law was so great as to constitute a violation of the Louisiana and Federal Constitutional prohibitions on Bills of Attainer/Bills of Pains & Penalties, and that the application and enforcement of the law violated both due process and, more interestingly, equal protection of the laws analyzed on racial and even possibly religious grounds (identifying and persecuting the monuments as part of an hypothetical “Cult of the Lost Cause”).
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 3 mins

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln So basically, I think that, using the very “take ’em down” side’s widely published logic that public-sponsored iconographic and textual monuments are “icons” are created for and involve making symbolic statements about the upholding certain elite political structures and communicating the semiotics of power and the applications of the law, I think that the removal of those monuments is an affront to the honor and integrity of the people who love and support them—and that this hateful affront involves a suppression of our civil rights…
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · Just now

Manage

What does renaming Mount McKinley in Alaska have in Common with renaming Lee Circle & Jefferson Davis Parkway in New Orleans?? It is all part of the purge of everything Traditionally White in the USA.

The ownership of history defines a people and their nation. I am a Southern heir of the Confederacy and the Old South. I will never allow any modern politician to take my grandparents’ love for me or their love for their grandparents’ cause. I spent my elementary school years with a Confederate Flag hanging in my room, and related pictures all over my grandparents’ home and several aunts’ & uncles’ homes. To purge this heritage would mean to purge myself, and, I’m sorry folks, but I just don’t want to be purged.

 I took my son Charlie to Beauvoir (and Confederate Memorial Hall) many times when he was living here with me, when he was little.  I hope that there are enough people who feel as I do to make sure that my great-great grandchildren will still remember and honor the Lees, the Jacksons (Andrew & Stonewall), Davis, Beauregard, Forrest, the Polks (James K. & Leonidas), and all the other Confederate heroes of the war of 1861-65.

There is a Federal Law of Cultural Resource Management built into the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (“NEPA”). In my opinion, the removal of the Four Major Monuments and any other alterations would have a major negative impact on the cultural environment and resources of New Orleans.

It would disturb the management and preservation of all other features of the city to remove these centrally placed and important “monumental” focal points of attention. For all these reasons, removal of the monuments would violate Federal Law and must be opposed in Court if the City Council votes in favor. Oh, and we should campaign vigorously to recall the mayor and all members of the City Council and demand a special election. I, for one, think this is worth fighting for on every front, until the monuments can be secured “for ourselves and our posterity.”

I have to admit, I have NO such similar feelings about President William McKinley. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2015/08/31/if-not-for-a-mountain-what-is-president-mckinleys-legacy/?wprss=rss_business  As the Washington Post article indicates, his only real legacy is the Spanish-American War of 1898, engendered and possibly engineered by the first major “False Flag” event in US History—the sinking of the Battleship Maine in Havana Harbor. 

In that rather inglorious imperialist episode, we conquered Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippine Islands and Guam from Spain.  Of these, we only have Puerto Rico and Guam to show for our efforts now.   The Annexation of Hawaii in the same year, 1898, had almost nothing to do with the Spanish-American War, but what the heck, so long as we were out there collecting Tropical Islands generally and Pacific Islands in particular, right? 

The Annexation of Hawaii was among the most utterly illegal acts ever committed in the name of the United States of America.  Hawaii had been recognized as a sovereign and independent nation, first as the self-governing indigenous Kingdom of Hawaii founded by King Kamehameha, for over 100 years, and then as an Anglo-Saxon Republic after the overthrow of the native Kingship, by all the major powers of the world, including the United States. 

In short, the Annexation of Hawaii was as absolutely and totally illegal as Cousin Abe’s war to suppress his own and his wife’s Southern cousins into submission, abject submission, although the Yankee Imperialist Conquest of Hawaii was bloodless and therefore “benign,” right?  Still, Hawaii has solid grounds for secession and nullification of its relations with the United States.  And I hope that Hawaii will lead the way in the dissolution of the Union.  That way the first shot of the next War of Secession doesn’t have to be fired here in the South this time.

(Oh, and that will resolve all questions regarding Barack Hussein Obama’s citizenship, although I, for one, am fairly convinced he was born in Kenya.  But since Hawaii was illegally annexed, it’s not part of the United States either, so “two birds with one stone.”)(yes, I am grinning as I write this last parenthetical).

But Why is Barack Obama involved in the renaming of Mount McKinley?  Is it because he is bitter about the annexation of his “native” Hawaii?  Well, if so, and as noted, I am too.

But I believe, really and truly, that Obama’s purpose in renaming Mount McKinley is part of a broader purpose and policy which stands as the cornerstone of his administration:  ALL OF WHITE AMERICA MUST BE SUPPRESSED AND DIE.   And McKinley, even if he was a nasty Republican Imperialist just like Abraham Lincoln before him and Theodore Roosevelt after him, was white.   And THAT, my friends, is what I would consider to be the real connexion between the renaming of Mount McKinley and the renaming of Lee Circle and Jefferson Davis Parkway…… One less “Monument” to a Dead White Male on the American map.

Obama claims that his purpose in renaming Mount Denali was to honor the Alaskan Athabaskans (Tinneh or Na Diné), who number approximately 6,400 in Alaska today, according to Wikipedia.   The total population of Alaska in 2013 was 737,259, and Hispanics outnumber Native Americans almost 3 to 1 as a percentage of the population.  http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02000.html

I have no idea how many of these enrolled tribal members actually speak an Athabaskan language, but I am sure it is less than the 6,400 total, and so it is much less than the generation of millions of Elementary School Students who had to learn their American geography and history together. 

Wipe McKinley off the map?  I would be dishonest and hypocritical to say it were “no great loss”, even though I cannot and do not particularly admire the man or his “legacy.”  Because if traditional historical names can be changed for the benefit of tiny minorities…. well, then the 25,000 of us who have signed petitions to save Lee Circle and the Lee and Jefferson Davis Monuments in this city are indeed in a hopeless position.

“The Holocaust became the new Western religion”—

I had come to this exact same conclusion by 1998-1999, during the David Irving Libel Suit against Deborah Lipstadt.  In particular, I concluded and formed the very strong and precise opinion “the Holocaust” had become the basis of the religion of the New World Order of the United Nations, just as the Trojan War was the religion of Ancient Greece, the Punic, Gallic, and Civil Wars the Religion of Pre-Christian Rome, the Crusades the Religion of Mediaeval Europe, Charles the Martyr became the chief subject of Episcopal Sermons during the years 1660-1789, and lastly, just as the “Civil” War of 1861-65 became the “Constitutional” Religion of the United States after 1865-1877.  I never at that time would have dared to articulate or publish this conclusion, especially since in 1998-1999 I was under direct assault for my own involvement in “revisionist civil rights” activism in Texas, asserting that the Civil Rights Laws of the United States applied equally to White people as to people of color, which campaign ultimately led to my disbarment.  I am now happy and grateful to see and share that Gilad Atzmon, a Jewish artist and Historian from Israel, living in Great Britain, has now finally published this precise statement!  It is quite gratifying to see that even a Jew who questions the Global state religion of the Holocaust is accused of Anti-Semitism!
 What will happen if Gilad visits Austria?  Will he be arrested and charged with the same crimes as David Irving?  Will he be put on trial and imprisoned?  Or will he be declared mentally unsound and threatened with psychiatric confinement and threatened with “attainder” of his civil rights for life, just as Jane Burgermeister is facing in Austria this month?  In certain sectors they call me stupid or insane?  Is there any reason why YOU are not eligible for similar treatment?  If you support animal rights?  If you oppose Obama-care?  If you either oppose OR support one hypothesis or another about climate change and global warming?  Only a country which guarantees freedom of thought and expression and debate is truly free…..God Bless Gilad Atzmon, Jane Burgermeister, David Irving, Janet Claire Phelan, Nancy Jo Grant, and everyone like them who dare to speak out against “established truth” in history or science!

Truth, History and Integrity by Gilad Atzmon

Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 2:02PM
Gilad Atzmon

Back in 2007 the notorious American Jewish right-wing organization, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) announced that it recognised the events in which an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were massacred as “genocide.” The ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, insisted that he made the decision after discussing the matter with ‘historians’. For some reason he failed to mention who the historians were, nor did he refer to their credibility or field of scholarship. However, Foxman also consulted with one holocaust survivor who supported the decision.  It was Elie Wiesel, not known for being a leading world expert on the Armenian ordeal.

The idea of a Zionist organization being genuinely concerned, or even slightly moved, by other people’s suffering could truly be a monumental transforming moment in Jewish history. However, this week we learned that the ADL is once again engaged in the dilemma of Armenian suffering. It is not convinced anymore that the Armenians suffered that much. It is now lobbying the American congress not to recognize the killings of Armenians as ‘genocide. This week saw the ADL “speaking out against Congressional acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, and is, instead, advocating Turkey’s call for a historical commission to study the events.”

How is it that an event that took place a century ago is causing such a furor? One day it is generally classified as ‘genocide’, the next, it is demoted to an ordinary instance of one man killing another. Was it an ‘historical document’ that, out of nowhere, popped out on Abe Foxman’s desk? Are there some new factual revelations that led to such a dramatic historical shift? l don’t think so.

The ADL’s behaviour is a glimpse into the notion of Jewish history and the Jewish understanding of the past.  For the nationalist and political Jew, history is a pragmatic tale, it is an elastic account. It is foreign to any scientific or academic method.  Jewish history transcends itself beyond factuality,  truthfulness or  correspondence rules with any given vision of reality. It also repels integrity or ethics. It by far prefers total submission, instead of creative and critical thinking. Jewish history is a phantasmic tale that is there to make the Jews happy and the Goyim behave themselves. It is there to serve the interests of one tribe and that tribe only. In practice, from a Jewish perspective,  the decision whether there was an Armenian genocide or not is subject to Jewish interests: is it good for the Jews or is it good for Israel.

Interestingly enough, history is not a particularly ‘Jewish thing’. It is an established fact that not a single Jewish historical text has been written between the 1st century (Josephus Flavius) and early 19th century (Isaak Markus Jost). For almost 2 thousand years Jews were not interested in their own or anyone else’s past, at least not enough to chronicle it. As a matter of convenience, an adequate scrutiny of the past was never a primary concern within the Rabbinical tradition. One of the reasons is probably that there was no need for such a methodical effort. For the Jew who lived during ancient times and the Middle Ages, there was enough in the Bible to answer the most relevant questions to do with day-to-day life, Jewish meaning and fate. As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand puts it, “a secular chronological time was foreign to the ‘Diaspora time’ that was shaped by the anticipation for the coming of the Messiah.”

However, in the mid 19th century, in the light of secularisation, urbanisation, emancipation and due to the decreasing authority of the Rabbinical leaders, an emerging need of an alternative cause rose amongst the awakening European Jews. All of a sudden, the emancipated Jew had to decide who he was and where he came from. He also started to speculate what his role might be within the rapidly opening Western society.

This is where Jewish history in its modern form was invented. This is also where Judaism was transformed from a world religion into a ‘land registry’ with some clearly devastating racially orientated and expansionist implications. As we know, Shlomo Sand’s account of the ‘Jewish Nation’ as a fictional invention is yet to be challenged academically. However, the dismissal of factuality or commitment to truthfulness is actually symptomatic of any form of contemporary Jewish collective ideology and identity politics. The ADL’s treatment of the Armenian topic is just one example. The Zionist’s dismissal of a Palestinian past and heritage is just another example. But in fact any Jewish collective vision of the past is inherently Judeo-centric and  oblivious to any academic or scientific procedure.

When I was Young

When I was young and naïve I regarded history as a serious academic matter. As I understood it, history had something to do with truth seeking, documents, chronology and facts. I was convinced that history aimed to convey a sensible account of the past based on methodical research. I also believed that it was premised on the assumption that understanding the past may throw some light over our present and even help us to shape a prospect of a better future.  I grew up in the Jewish state and it took me quite a while to understand that the Jewish historical narrative is very different. In the Jewish intellectual ghetto, one decides what the future ought to be, then one constructs ‘a past’ accordingly. Interestingly enough, this exact method is also prevalent amongst Marxists. They shape the past so it fits nicely into their vision of the future. As the old Russian joke says, “when the facts do not conform with the Marxist ideology, the Communist social scientists amend the facts (rather than revise the theory)”.

When I was young, I didn’t think that history was a matter of political decisions or agreements between a rabid Zionist lobby and its favorite holocaust survivor. I regarded historians as scholars who engaged in adequate research following some strict procedures. When I was young I even considered becoming an historian.

When I was young and naive I was also somehow convinced that what they told us about our ‘collective’ Jewish past really happened. I believed it all, the Kingdom of David, Massada, and then the Holocaust: the soap, the lampshade*, the death march, the six million.

As it happened, it took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians. It took me years to grasp that my great-grandmother wasn’t made into a ‘soap’ or a ‘lampshade’*. She probably perished out of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even by mass shooting. This was indeed bad and tragic enough, however not that different from the fate of many millions of Ukrainians who learned what communism meant for real. “Some of the worst mass murderers in history were Jews” writes Zionist Sever Plocker on the Israeli Ynet disclosing the Holodomor and Jewish involvement in this colossal crime, probably the greatest crime of the 20th century. The fate of my great-grandmother was not any different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in an orchestrated indiscriminate bombing, because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese. 1 million Vietnamese died just because they were Vietnamese and 1.3 million Iraqis died because they were Iraqis. In short the tragic circumstances of my great grandmother wasn’t that special after all.

It Doesn’t make sense

It took me years to accept that the Holocaust narrative, in its current form, doesn’t make any historical sense. Here is just one little anecdote to elaborate on:

If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein – free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war? I have been concerned with this simple question for more than a while. I eventually launched into an historical research of the topic and happened to learn from Israeli holocaust historian professor Israel Gutman that Jewish prisoners actually joined the march voluntarily. Here is a testimony taken from Gutman’s book

One of my friends and relatives in the camp came to me on the night of the evacuation and offered a common hiding place somewhere on the way from the camp to the factory. …The intention was to leave the camp with one of the convoys and to escape near the gate, using the darkness we thought to go a little far from the camp. The temptation was very strong. And yet, after I considered it all  I then decided to join (the march) with all the other inmates and to share their fate “ (Israel Gutman [editor], People and Ashes: Book Auschwitz – Birkenau, Merhavia 1957).

I am left puzzled here, if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?

I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place

65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people  stand up against their next door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents’ plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity.

As devastating as it may be, at a certain moment in time, a horrible chapter was given an exceptionally meta-historical status. Its ‘factuality’ was sealed by draconian laws and its reasoning was secured by social and political settings. The Holocaust  became the new Western religion.  Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value. However, far more concerning is the fact that it robs humanity of its heritage, it is there to stop us from looking into our past with dignity. Holocaust religion robs humanity of its humanism. For the sake of peace and future generations, the holocaust must be stripped of its exceptional status immediately. It must be subjected to thorough historical scrutiny. Truth and truth seeking is an elementary human experience. It must prevail.

*During WWII and after it was widely believed that soaps and lampshades were being mass produced from the bodies of Jewish victims. In recent years the Israeli Holocaust museum admitted that there was no truth in any of those accusations.

Article originally appeared on Gilad Atzmon (http://www.gilad.co.uk/).

See website for complete article licensing information.