Archive for the ‘History’ category

The Democrat Institution of Slavery

April 18, 2014

Some very interesting research sources in the comment sections about the Democrat institution of slavery in the social, philosophical, political, and moral areas.

This is contrasted with slavery in the Biblical, Roman, Greek, and British sense.

If the planters controlled the lower South, they were likely to control the border States; and if they held these two sections together in national legislation, they were more than likely to guide the policy of the United States as a whole, for a compact minority with great wealth behind it and with leisure to devote to public affairs is almost certain to govern any country. That is, a population of two and a half millions in the lower South, with only a tenth of them directly connected with slavery, would guide a nation of twenty millions, ninetenths of whom were either outspoken or silent opponents of slavery and all it connoted.

Under these circumstances the leaders of the lower South undertook about 1840 to widen the area of slavery, that is, expand the cotton kingdom. John C. Calhoun, who controlled a large following in both political parties in the eastern end of the lower South, was an ardent advocate of expansion. The young Senator from Mississippi, Robert Walker, a leader of the Jackson wing of the planters on the Mississippi and a most adroit politician, was even more ardently in favor of annexations. After some years of maneuvering the two men effected a working alliance of the cotton men of the South and the farmers of the West: and in the Democratic convention of 1844 they committed thj Democratic party of the country to their ambitious policy. They defeated Henry Clay at the time when he had set his heart on the presidency and elected James K. Polk, who completed the annexation of Texas, declared war on Mexico, and took possession of New Mexico, California, and Oregon, in spite of the opposition of John Quincy Adams, Daniel Webster, Martin Van Buren, and Clay himself.

The success of the movement gave the planters such confidence in themselves and such prestige before the country that they felt themselves invincible. Southern and Western volunteers offered themselves with such enthusiasm and fought over the Mexican hills and mountains with such brilliancy that Southern members of Congress declared that the whole North American continent should be seized and held. Western Democrats like Senator Douglas of Illinois shared this vision of a con tinental republic. If Jefferson Davis, just entering political life from the Southwest, was set upon making an American lake of the Gulf of Mexico, Lewis Cass, speaking for the Northwest, was equally covetous of Canada.

…..Balked in their plans, the spokesmen of Mississippi, duly prompted by Calhoun, gathered in a mass meeting at Jackson, their state capital, early in December, 1849. They called upon the people of Mississippi and of the other planter States to arouse themselves and defend their property and their institutions. Later the Legislature of Mississippi elected delegates to a Southern convention to be held at Nashville, Tennessee, in June, 1850. All the other Southern States responded with more or less enthusiasm. If Congress refused to allow slavery to be carried into California or New Mexico, then — according to the threat often heard — the cotton States would secede.

This particular section was interesting, posted by Gringo.

Slavery was a Southern phenomenon because it was the de facto way the South’s aristocracy of Demoncrat Fers could have to keep their power and social authority.

During Jim Crow, that wasn’t really economic. Black labor could help Atlanta rebuild, but that wasn’t allowed because it would break the power balance. Northern money wasn’t accepted either for rebuilding. Most of the South’s post war deconstruction myth they talk about came about due to Democrat commands to go it alone, with neither black liberty, labor, political representation nor Republican Northern money or military security accepted as legit.

Knock down slavery, the Democrats put up Jim Crow. Knock down Jim Crow, the Democrats put up separate but equal. Knock down separate but equal, and the Democrats kill Luther Jr and Malcom X, to shut them up, and take over the black community and make the blacks vote Democrat.

Southerns sometimes mention that no more than 5% or even 2% of Southerners owned slaves. That included rich Indians and blacks who owned slaves too, perhaps. The cost… was either too high or there were other barriers.

I don’t disagree on the figures. It just shows that 2% of a people can control 99% of the people in a democracy. Rule for and by demons, demoncracy.

It’s like the conspiracy theorists over at Tea Party and INfowars thinking this country’s policy is run by 20,000 Marxists. It’s not like that would ever happen, right.

There were all kinds of white Southern aristocrats that wanted to change or reform the system. The system didn’t want to change. General Lee didn’t like slavery, the South told his As to shut up and sit down, his opinion wasn’t needed. Forest didn’t like the KKK, even though he founded a chapter to restore economic security in the South, because the South told his As to shut the hell up and sit down, they were going to lynch them some niggers.

98% of the Southern population never saw any of that, so they thought it was some alien problem and that everyone was doing their best to work out a solution (except the Republicans). Everyone thinks the Democrats are just another political party, that bipartisanship and compromises will “work out a solution”.

If only healthcare became affordable. If only technology would solve environmental and energy problems. If only. If technology solved those problems, the Democrats would make some more sh up the next day.

Starting on Page 53.

Click on the image embed for the page and then begin reading.

This is damning research. My own conclusions were pieced together from disparate clues and data points, but this research work ties in a lot of things I was unaware of.

The amount of social reinforcement and mind control used in the Old South to produce the social harmony that led to an entire society going to war based upon the command of 2% of their population, echoes something else I’ve read about.

Some more sources and comments on how current Democrat propaganda is the same as old Democrat propaganda.

The Real Black History Month

February 14, 2014

Want to stop a bullet with paper?

February 3, 2014

The Chinese applied the yin over the yang principle here in the making of practical paper armor.

Christian reaction to Roman social morality

January 27, 2014

If one wonders why certain practices were condemned, I agree with some scholars in that the most likely explanation is a Christian reaction to Roman morality on the subject of sex.

The Latin verb for “to penetrate anally, bugger” is pedicare. The object was usually but not always male. Pedicare was a blunt and non-euphemistic word, and can be used in a threatening manner, as notoriously by Catullus in Carmen 16, or in general to mean “fuck you.”[532] The etymology of pedicare is unclear, but some have thought it derived from Greek paidika, having to do with pederasty.[533] The basic word for “anus” was culus. Common metaphors are ficus, “fig,” and anus, “ring,” which was considered a decorous term and was standard in medical texts.[534]

Men were said to “take it like a woman” (muliebria pati, “to undergo womanly things”) when they were anally penetrated, but when a man performed anal sex on a woman, she was thought of as playing the boy’s role.[535] Martial, for instance, is emphatic that anal sex is better with boys than with women; when his wife objects that she provides him with anal sex in an effort to preserve his fidelity, he taunts her with the inferiority of her anus compared to a boy’s.[536]

The figura veneris in which the woman crouches to lift her buttocks, called “the lioness”, may be intended for anal penetration, since boys in Greek art can be portrayed in the same position; with a female partner, it may be difficult to distinguish in art from a tergo (rear entry).[537] Culibonia (“good anal”) was a humorous term for a prostitute with this speciality.[538] Avoiding pregnancy may have been one motive for female prostitutes to offer anal intercourse,[539] since literary sources indicate that boys were preferred.

Os impurum, “filthy mouth” or “impure mouth”, was a term of abuse especially for those who provided oral sex.[540] “Oral turpitude”[541] was a favorite form of invective for Catullus,[542] Horace, and Martial.[541] An accusation of having an os impurum is an “extreme obscenity,”[543] so vile that Cicero reserved it for men of lower standing than himself,[544] only implying that their debasement tainted their more powerful patrons who were his real targets.[545]

Wall painting from Pompeii depicting cunnilingus

It was a convention of obscenely comic verse that oral sex caused bad breath that was nearly toxic.[546] “Whores of the alleyways” are contaminated from giving oral sex; Catullus refers to “the foul saliva of a pissed-over whore.”[547] The urinary function of the penis makes oral sex particularly repulsive to Catullus, who elsewhere reviles a Celtiberian for brushing his teeth in urine.[548] Martial jokes that a fine perfume turned to garum, fish sauce, when it was sniffed by a man whose breath was putrid from oral sex.[549] In another of Martial’s epigrams, a fellator breathes on a hot cake to cool it down and turns it to excrement.[550] The bad breath and rotten teeth that are attributed to performing oral sex represent moral decay and a general corruption of the mouth’s positive functions as the organ of a citizen’s persuasive speech.[551]

Because of the stigma attached to providing physical pleasure, a man who performed oral sex on a woman was subject to mockery. Cunnilingus typically appears in Roman art only as part of a reciprocal act, with the woman fellating her male partner in some variation of the “69″ position.[552] A wall painting from Pompeii, however, represents a virtually unique role reversal in the giving of oral sex. The woman who receives cunnilingus is tall and shapely, well-groomed, and brazenly nude except for jewelry. The male figure is relatively small, crouching subserviently, and fully clothed; he has an anxious or furtive look.[553] The situation is so extreme that it was probably meant to be humorous as well as titillating; other paintings in this group show a series of sex acts, at least some of which could be seen as transgressive or parodic.[554]

There is some evidence that women could hire male prostitutes to provide cunnilingus. Graffiti at Pompeii advertise the prices male prostitutes charged for cunnilingus, in the same price range as females performing fellatio; however, the graffiti could be intended as insults to the men named, and not as actual advertisements.[555] One graffito is perhaps intended as political invective: “Vote Isidore for aedile; he’s the best at licking cunt!”[556]

Woman fellating a man on an oil lamp

The Latin verb fellare is usually used for a woman performing oral sex on a man.[557] Accusing a man of fellating another man was possibly the worst insult in all Roman invective.[558] It was an act that might be requested from women who were infames,[559] and not something a husband in a respectable household would have expected from his wife.[560] Fellatio was seen as a “somewhat laughable” preference for older men who have trouble maintaining an erection,[561] but graffiti show that the skills of a good fellatrix were enthusiastically utilized.[562] Fellatio was a fairly uncommon subject in Roman art.[560]

Irrumatio is a forced form of fellatio, almost always against another man. Forcing someone to be a receptacle for oral sex was proof of virility, something to boast about, as indicated by the Priapeia and the poems of Catullus and Martial. It was also threatened as a punishment,[563] particularly for adulterers.[564] Martial urges a wronged husband who has already cut off the adulterous man’s ears and nose to complete the humiliation by befouling his mouth with oral rape.[565]

2012 Era Predictions

January 26, 2014

Yea, that stuff was probably funny paranoid to many in 2012, before the elections. But when I started thinking of similar things in 2007, many people were even less likely to believe. When I read articles like that, I realized my self appointed hibernation period was about to end.

The Final Solution: Supported by women

December 21, 2013

The same thing will happen in the US, as people stick their head in the sand pretending the tsunami will go away with time and elections.

“500,000 women had front-row seats to the Final Solution, where they watched and benefitted from the rapidly declining “racially inferior” masses. And yet their presence, and their atrocities, have been largely ignored for the last 70 years. Twenty years ago, Lower was researching in Zhytomyr, a city in western Ukraine, leafing through the normal stuff of archives, the fading ink and illegible handwriting on tattered paper, some of which had bootprints and charred edges. It was there, among the German records that had been inaccessible under the Iron Curtain, that Lower began to notice an abundance of women’s names among the empire-builders. . . . There is link between the shockingly cavalier testimony given by these women and our collective ignorance of their actions in the Nazi East: genocide is usually considered the business of men, and thus, when it came time to call Nazis to account for their crimes, prosecutors were less interested in these women than in their male colleagues and husbands. . . . Jewish survivors have consistently described German women in the Nazi East as violent tormenters, not innocent bystanders.”

Do not believe in the lies from authority concerning “better systems”. Female genital mutilation in Africa and Islam is primarily enforced by women. There are numerous females in North Korea’s totalitarian regime, not as backups to the power but as the authority and power itself.

There’s a reason why the term “Femi-nazis” exist in popular speech, even though we wish to think there is no historical back up or evidence for it.

The world is not what modern history says it is. Truth is not what the authorities say it is in high school or college. TV, talking heads, and news reporters aren’t telling the truth. Because they aren’t allowed to know the truth.

Always research things and acquire sources of data on your own. Do not make decisions about the fabric of reality based upon the word of anyone else. Independence of thought does not come from obeying your cultural, religious, government, or economic hierarchy. Of course it doesn’t come from rebelling against it either, that’s just another type of tool used by external provocateurs.

Indians burn widows, Islam FGMs

November 18, 2013

I missed this the first time, but the Indian culture developed the whole widow burning thing as a reaction to Islamic conquests. Once Islamic hordes killed all the males, the women would be kept in perpetual sexual slavery. Thus the practice of a widow killing themselves when their husband is dead.

There’s not a lot of theories about why people would do that otherwise. Even the Bhaalists in Cartilege only sacrificed first borns of the nobility to control population. Widowed women were normally a valuable commodity or had social protections/property. They didn’t just kill themselves because they felt like it. Nor was Romeo and Juliet’s fate something the world had an economic reason to emulate.

Islamic hordes can cause a lot of “adjustments” in local culture. The fact that people aren’t even aware that there is a connection between Indian practices and Islamic practices, shows the power of Islam and of their allies, the Left. Knowledge is power. An ignorant slave is not a full step above a tool. Even if the Left does not destroy America’s immune system via AIDS, somebody else will finish the job against a weakened America. Whether the 2nd Civil War occurs or whether it is interrupted by a conquering invasion, there’s no avoiding fate.

A Chinese History Lesson: Shaolin Legends

March 14, 2012

Part 1

Part 2

And so it begins…

It was the Dawn of the Third Age of Mankind… oh wait, we’re talking about Chinese history. However, the Shaolin history shares one thing with Babylon 5: they’re both long as heck.

Not for semi-literates living on the internet and not for people who get bored reading anything longer than 2 paragraphs. Oh you’d be surprised how many of those there are on the net.

Here’s a modern example of Shaolin conditioning.

Islam is Peace

January 16, 2012

The peace of the conquered

Great map here of how Islam uses peace.

The South call it the War of Northern Aggression

April 14, 2011

Starting from Nathan Bedford Forrest, we get to this issue on the US Civil War.

I was raised north of the Mason-Dixon, in Illinois, the “Land of Lincoln”. I spent my childhood and young adulthood under the understanding that you “nasty, racist, evil southerners” fought the in the “Civil War” for slavery. You know, the standard victor’s propaganda and all… I studied the War, was a Yankee (and occasional Confederate) re-enactor, and the funny thing was, in spite of my in-depth knowledge of trivial matters such as AP Hill’s favorite shirt (red fireman style), dates and casualties, as well as the sequence of most of the major battles, and the gear, weapons and equipment, used, I never delved into the war from the South’s perspective, until recent years.

Although I live almost as far north as an American can live, I consider my self a Southerner “in spirit”. Whether thay flies with any of you south of the Mason-Dixon, well, that might be another story.

Here’s the question I have, and I would like to hear personal stories, family stories, I would like to get recommendations of websites and offline books to read, to help me better understand.

What is it like? Really?


While I’ve been in the South for more than a decade, it’s interesting to see what those with generations of family have to say. They are mostly classified by me as being in the Jacksonian camp. Not particularly interested in long term strategic consequences, but with virtues to go with their deficiency. Of course, I count myself in the Jacksonian camp as well, but I don’t have the subjective bias that comes with having generations of family going back to the Civil War on the side of the South. This allows me to see things from more than one perspective. Not the Leftist history of the US Civil War but not the South’s biased view either. I have to do the work of research myself, combining sources from everywhere. But hey, that’s why they call it a work ethic. Because hard work by itself is its own virtue, regardless of the outcome.

In other news, this is a good view of Leftist ideology and what their cult members think. Not only what, but how as well.

My best friend in the world (not “some of my friends”, but my best friend) is a conservative Republican who loves Anne Coulter. Meanwhile, I’m looking for a good price on a “2L4O” (Too Liberal for Obama) shirt. Why is he my best friend? Because time and time again he has demonstrated that he is one of the best, most honorable men I know. Human decency can transcend political differences.

It’s a good contrast view with Southern perspective. Some Southern perspective. It shows how closed off people can be, regardless of their personal circumstances or political ideology. Are humans as amazingly slow and parochial as presented here? Why yes. But they can still be useful for the purposes of society and the nation. Useful doesn’t mean they are right in their views.

My comment reply to various things in the comment section:

Either Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson Davis were right about secession or King George and President Lincoln were. It can’t be true that both Jefferson and Lincoln were right about Secession.

Both were right. Thomas Jefferson didn’t ever say you could secede without fighting a damn war, now did he. In fact, Jefferson did in fact, you know, fight a war on secession. He didn’t just think, for he was no fool, that removing himself from the political protections of a system (British monarchy) would also confer upon them the protections, minus the costs, of the system.

Lincoln said the South couldn’t seize Ft. Sumter and union property or take captives of those that are in union forts which happened to be in Southern states to protect the various harbors and routes of the US from external enemies. The Southern states disagreed, so they went and started sieging various union forts, notably Sumter. Georgia declared secession causes on January 1861, Sumter started to fall in April of that same year. This, remember, was without the concurrence of the entire Confederacy. No vote was taken. The Southerners acted as individuals, believing the North would simply allow them to do as they pleased. The Southern states believed they could remove themselves from the authority of the US Constitution, while also having some kind of “natural right” protections from said Constitution, after having fired cannons at union soldiers, who refused to return fire for hours given what they knew of the political situation.

Pure foolishness on the part of Southern leaders. They primarily did so because they believed Northerners were too gutless to fight, like good Southern gentlemen. That’s a cultural conceit that paid what it was worth in the events afterwards. War, ladies and gentlemen, is no tea party where you can bow out when you are full of it. At least not the non-peacekeeping total war.

If I ever get seriously back into re-enacting the war, I will never put on that blue uniform again.

You’re making the mistake of what is often seen in fast converts. They were 100% convinced the Other was alien and to be hated, then they converted to the Other and now they are 100% convinced that the new Other is faulty, bad, and to be hated. Both are distorted views and both are ideologically flawed.

It’s not a balanced view taken with comprehension of all the factors of the war. It’s just choosing one side to portray well, while ignoring the rest.

Slavery was on the way out. All of the horror and death of the War shortened it only by a bit.

Let’s put that to the test. Give Obama 4 more years by voting for him. Since he’s going to be out anyways, why go to all the trouble of campaigning for and voting for conservatives. Go ahead. Vote for Obama in 2012. In fact, just vote for Reid and the other Congress Demoncrats. He’s going to die off, sooner or later. Take that 100 dollar out of your ATM machine, and give it to Democrats. If you really believe that it doesn’t matter how long they are in power.

What’s the difference. They’re not going to be in power forever right. So why not. Just like slavery, it was going to go away, right. So why fight against it. Why pay the cost. Why trouble yourself over nothing.

Oh, I know why not. Because deciding to allow others to suffer, who you neither know nor care about, is much easier than making the decision to allow a bad state of affairs to persist for your own existence. Isn’t it. Human mortality and vices are more prevalent then most would like to believe.

Since we’re on this topic of historical laziness and taking golf vacations the Obama Way, the KGB and the Soviets were going to go away anyways. So what’s up with Reagan trying to get the world nuked and using extreme rhetoric like “evil empire”. Why don’t you chill and let things die out in a generation or two. Well, why didn’t conservatives chill out about John Walker Lynn, Jane Fonda, Vietnam, and the Soviet Union? Vietnam was going to be lost anyways, why even worry about the Communist invasion. Just let history takes its course. The Soviet Union was going kaput soon anyways, so why worry about traitors giving out Navy encryption codes for their communiques world wide.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the virtues of honor, duty, courage, or hard work. But then again, treason never required such.

Why wouldn’t the Republicans live up to their wartime promises of providing land or other economic opportunities to African-Americans, e.g. forty acres and a mule?

President Johnson vetoed all the Radical Republican bills that was intended to secure the actual protection of civil liberties for freed blacks in the South. This delayed things for long enough that the KKK and other Democrat affiliates began to alter the political balance in the South, restoring Democrat politicians to their rightful place. Bedford Forrest was forced to disband the KKK he personally created, which resulted in the KKK splintering like terrorist cells, which ultimately ended up in the various hanging incidents for blacks. Without black votes in the South for Republicans, Republican politicians fell. And Democrat Jim Crow replaced them. The rest was history. The Democrat party stoked up and maintained Southern resentment for more than a century, before Reagan finally broke them free of it. The Dems kept the Southerners in a hutch much like the Dems do with blacks today.

Johnson was a Democrat. Lincoln selected him as a sort of compromise with Southern Democrats believing Lincoln was out to get them. Johnson was not just a Democrat, he was a Southern Democrat.

Wouldn’t that be better than butchering hundreds of thousands of your fellow countrymen?

The South at the time would have seen it as another aspect of Northern Aggression to be taking property that wasn’t theirs. In fact, the whole slavery issue with Georgia and other states was that the North weren’t returning their property: i.e. their slaves running off to the North even though the federal government had laws that said they must, but the Northern states often ignored the letter of the law. Besides, the South could not give up their plantations and the nobility installed upon them. The plantation masters had too much political influence, too much arrogance, to ever take a hand out from the North for their slaves and switch their ENTIRE ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

That’s like you going to the local teacher’s unions and telling them to “quit” and “stop their Democrat BS”. You think that would work. Their entire lives are based upon union salaries, and you think they would change just because somebody told them to or had cash on hand for em? The South was even more intricately woven around the plantation economy.

Switching an entire economy to something else is always traumatic and people will resist it. It’s not as easy and breezy as people wish to believe.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.