White Washing and Censorship of History

reply to post by WaterBottle


I would disagree. I know both parties have their faults but one party cherish's the Constitution while the other rips it to shreds. Besides, if the truth makes Democrats look bad, who's fault is that? I have voted Democrat before. I lean toward truth and support the candidate that i think will support the Constitution the best. That is whats best for America.

reply to post by jimmiec


Both parties look bad soooo.......

I don't understand your argument.

Both parties are bad, and the economy is in shambles. A person works a hard day's work deserves to reap the benefits of it, but people shouldn't starve. I just got done working a hard day's work, but I digress. I forget my point.
You know who don't work hard? The people like Athina Onassis and such, who inherit their money from people who've exploited and abused the system to hoard vast portions of the world's resources that no single person should own. They don't teach people about those types, the old money who really rules the world and never does a day of real work in their life. Now that's white washed economics and the history of money.

reply to post by WaterBottle


There are 545 individuals that run our government basically. We elect them for 4 year terms. What they say and what they do are sometimes a different story. If we can maintain our Constitution it will work out in the end. Once we decide the Constitution is not how we should be governed we lose our freedom. Protecting the Constitution is the most important thing for America. States Rights and small government are the best way to maintain our freedoms.

reply to post by jimmiec


The constitution at this point is just a piece of paper. It's for show. Pomp and circumstance, like how the president swears in on a bible. You think he's really a Christian? You think any of those types believe in any god other than Mammon or greed?

The last president with any sort of moral compass we had was Jimmy Carter. He might have been a bit soft, but he was a good person atleast.
Reagan was a warmongering prophet of deceit, and a devil. He met with astrologers, and consulted occultists.
The Bush presidencies were puppets of the C.I.A. and oil interests and that of the old money interests.
The Clinton years were marked by a increase in government control, with incidents like Waco, and Ruby Ridge, and crackdowns on gun laws.
And this Obama presidency hasn't run it's course yet, but I'm not satisfied with the things he's done.

Way I see it, these days, presidents are mostly figureheads. A jester for the crowd. That's the uncensored version of politics. The biggest fool, getting all the other fools to follow him.

reply to post by Grifter42


A star for you, but you make some exaggerations and high simplification here and there. The major part of what is missing is the part about Europe (UK vs France), how France helped during the Civil War (Basically providing a clue to the US reader more reasons why the UK and French (that extends even to Spain) have an historic bad blood. A good point would be to center the divide about religion, but that would merit a new thread...

Colonization in any case is always for exploitation of resources, it has to be unless you are invading an adjacent territory. Nations did it differently and with different goals. England's empire building (Holland's and Belgium, etc) come into the same type of problem of the US attempt to empire building, they where late comers to a game that was being played long before and so they schemed and had to use subterfuge to go about it.

I agree with the general idea, especially in regard to those that were exploited, but we shouldn't make them martyrs, the same thing happened in Europe, Africa and Africa well before it got to the Americas (and even there the same behavior was already present). Humans are what humans are...

reply to post by jimmiec

There are 545 individuals that run our government basically.

Its fewer than that. Consider that people form clicks (tribes or groups around consensual thinking) and establish leaders, we are hardwired to form hierarchic chains. There is a study that found that a person can only have more than a passing knowledge of about 100 to 150 persons, remove from that family groups and famous people (cultural leaders) and a persons social horizon is very small, those are the people that contribute in a way or other to our way of thinking.

reply to post by Panic2k11


That's the story of history, isn't it. A bunch of tribes who care only for their own well being, and the well being of of those who look like them. Tribal mentality is still so ingrained in people.

I'm curious about the role the French and British played in the Civil War. I'd always been under the assumption that involvement had been minimal,what with the blockades, but I've been wrong before.

reply to post by WaterBottle


One think is to criticize extraordinary and unnecessary evil another is to pull an historic person or entity outside of his|its historic context and judge him at the light of what is culturally acceptable today, that has no intrinsic meaning...

Washington was not perfect but in comparison to his piers did act and think in what we should all accept as remarkable positive and constructive way for his time. Of course that he also suffered from human corruptions, he was no saint (far from it), people should chose historic heroes and who they put in high regards with more knowledge that they normally do (I agree with that as I see you implying) and refuse to accept imposed idols and symbols without first learning about them.

Its like the noble prize, something we took for granted that had any meaning but today has lost all credibility. Kids will need to do some leg work now before taking what we did not long ago for granted.

reply to post by Grifter42


They did a bit more during the Civil War, consider the regional interests Mexico|Canada and the Islands (Cuba etc) think of it like the way the US has interests in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan today (look into economic dependencies and then political). One interesting thing is the arms deals and how both sides of the civil war funded their actions (who benefited, and who was interested in what from the outside).

reply to post by Panic2k11


The Nobel prize, actually. Invented by chemist, Alfred Nobel. The inventor of dynamite. Prior to the invention of dynamite, they were using nitroglycerin, which was very unstable. But Nobel found a way to make it much easier to tote around. By incorporating the nitroglycerin into a medium like sawdust, it was rendered more stable. More easily handled. No less explosive, just more targetable.

Well, after it's invention, word got around. It was good stuff, say the bombers and the anarchists. Nobel's raking in the cash, all from destruction of the mountains and the earth, making room for industrialization, and all the while, blood's caking on Nobel's hands.

Then his brother dies. His brother dies, and a newspaper believes it to be him, so they run an obituary, reading,
"The Merchant of Death is now dead".
Nobel has a crisis of publicity, and perhaps of conscience, and an attempt to vindicate his public image, sets up his estate so that when he dies, his money will be used to award "excellence in science, literature, and politics".

The Nobel Prize was always for show, though. Like when they awarded the Nobel Prize for peace to Henry Kissinger. Or when Hitler was nominated for the Peace prize in 1939. It's all hogwash and for show.

In recent history, they're now saying that they did not purposefully set the fire during the Christopher Dorner siege.
They're trying to wash their hands clean of this mess, and they'll rewrite as much history as they need to.

In unrecent history, anyone familiar with the masters of rewriting history, and unpersoning someone, the old Soviet Union? I was reading about a fellow that used to be Stalin's right hand man. Fellow by the name of Beria. Well, Stalin has a stroke, and it looks like Beria is going to succeed him, if he dies. Well, other party members start to plot. A fellow who's name you might recognize organizes the set up. Nikita Khrushchev and other members of the party ambush Beria at a meeting, and charge him with a number of falsehoods.

They charge him with treason, saying that, among other things, he attempted to negotiate with the Germans in 1941. The thing they don't mention is that he was working under the authorization of Stalin and a fellow named Molotov. Now, Molotov was at the trial, so he knew very well the falsehood that was taking place.

They charge him with terrorism for the purge of the Red Army, again, an action that was ordered by Stalin, and they twist it around.

So, they declare Beria guilty in a biased trial, and that's the end of Stalin's right hand man. You don't hear about him much. They stripped his medals and honors, and killed him, and people who were loyal to him.

Oh, those soviets. Karl Marx would roll over in his grave. These militant and paranoid actions are what led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. I wonder what history would have been like if Leon Trotsky were at the helm instead of Stalin.