You may never look at America the same after reading

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: Xcathdra
Fort Sumter was South Carolina land. Lincoln refused to relinquish it even though Federal forts in Florida had already been handed over to state authorities. He knew Southern firebrands would shell the fort eventually and give him the excuse for war but it still belonged to the state.

S. Carolina ceded most of their military installations, including Ft. Sumter, to the Federal government. In 1836 S. Carolina officially ceded any claims to the forts in question to the Federal government. So when they decided to attack Ft. Sumter, it was viewed as an insurrection, starting the civil war. Under the Constitution, the moment S. Carolina ceded the military forts, they lost any claim to reclaim them them. They were no longer state property per the Property Clause of the constitution. It required the consent of the S. Carolina government, and it was given when the forts were ceded.

So what would had went on IF the south let them stay there? they could had charged high amounts of money to allow northern US to resupply it.

a reply to: yuppa

At the time and given the situation S. Carolina could not have charged the feds anything for the fort since its US government property. I think, if S. Caroline never fired on the fort, then the civil war would have been put off and another incident would have been the trigger of the civil war.

If I misunderstood your question please let me know.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

At the time and given the situation S. Carolina could not have charged the feds anything for the fort since its US government property. I think, if S. Caroline never fired on the fort, then the civil war would have been put off and another incident would have been the trigger of the civil war.

If I misunderstood your question please let me know.

Oh I meant as in TARIFFS for using the roads and waters of the confederacy to resupply them. Eventually the cost would had outweighed the annoyance they were causing to the confederacy.

a reply to: yuppa

In that instance, where there was no civil war, then yes, I agree. However I would suspect that had the North and South became 2 separate nations at peace then there would not be any need for the North to maintain a presence in the Confederate States, a separate sovereign country. I could see the bases being turned over to the Southern states with some type of agreement allowing trade in addition to limited military access for refuel/resupply/repairs/etc.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yuppa

In that instance, where there was no civil war, then yes, I agree. However I would suspect that had the North and South became 2 separate nations at peace then there would not be any need for the North to maintain a presence in the Confederate States, a separate sovereign country. I could see the bases being turned over to the Southern states with some type of agreement allowing trade in addition to limited military access for refuel/resupply/repairs/etc.

well the bankers couldnt have that so they told lincoln how to instigate a war though. too bad the south fell for the trap.

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Apparently there a few different statues of Abe Lincoln posing with bundles of sticks. I guess perhaps there is a significant meaning behind it as it isn't a feature only organic to the Lincoln Memorial in DC.


Earliest statue of Lincoln


Emancipation? statue

The thing is, the word "Fascism" (opposed to Fasces) wasn't "coined" until world war 2, after the rise of Mussolini.

That's not to say the "idea" didn't exist before that. Ideas exist, through-out the ages. We can call it cherries today, and apples tomorrow. The fact that the "word" fascism did not exist in the 1776, the idea of what fascism meant did. Whether they called it "fascism" or some other fancy word. This is the corruption of linguistics and etymology over time.

originally posted by: MeatHookReality
Fasces used in symbolic ways by our founding fathers are showing that they are Lictirs
for God only . In God this Country was founded for good or bad .
Secret societies burrow many symbols as Confraternity or as a new meaning all together.
The fasces seen in political architecture in America is a show of defiance to Rome & the existence of a new Atlantis founded by monotheistic triune God believing men .
Lincoln like all Presidents had his bad behaviors & good ones .
You are reading way to much into the fasces .

If that were the case, why is America a secular nation and not a Christian? Granted, we can all argue on the merits of our American society and Christianity, but why is it not the official religion if what you say is the case?

What does Atlantis have to do with Christianity? Well, a lot, but I doubt you're privy to that esoteric information. If not, please elaborate.

You're speaking on semiotics as if it's been a main study of yours. Could you translate the Masonic symbol of the geometric square and compass?

I'll give you a few hints:
Square - Confines
Compass - Creation
Geometry - Language

I guess in a sense, I could agree with you that this nation was created with "God" in mind, but I don't think you grasp the complexity and depth of what you're saying.

Is math everlasting?
Is math unchanging?
Does nature use math to communicate?
Is math timeless?
Is math inevitable?
Is math bound?
Is math finite?
Absolute perfection outside (and inside) any confines we know.

Counting 1,2,3,4 is rudimentary, geometry is where things get interesting as you divulge into higher dimensions.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
There is a damn good reason why the US and its government, constitution etc are referred to as the great experiment.

haha these words remind me of Reagans "points of light" speech, or Bidens "liberal world order" speech.

Old world order - Monarchs of Europe
New world order - Rise of the enlightenment age and fascist republics (because of the rise of individualism)
Liberal world order - will look something like France; Reign of Terror.

That this idea the "great experiment" includes people like you and I..

Furthermore, where and when did this term "the great experiment" get coined? Is that what George Washington called it when he told King George to screw off? Or was it a marketing phrase used to propagate a false sense of nationalism and patriotism?

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Apparently there a few different statues of Abe Lincoln posing with bundles of sticks. I guess perhaps there is a significant meaning behind it as it isn't a feature only organic to the Lincoln Memorial in DC.


Earliest statue of Lincoln


Emancipation? statue

The thing is, the word "Fascism" (opposed to Fasces) wasn't "coined" until world war 2, after the rise of Mussolini.

That's not to say the "idea" didn't exist before that. Ideas exist, through-out the ages. We can call it cherries today, and apples tomorrow. The fact that the "word" fascism did not exist in the 1776, the idea of what fascism meant did. Whether they called it "fascism" or some other fancy word. This is the corruption of linguistics and etymology over time.

originally posted by: MeatHookReality
Fasces used in symbolic ways by our founding fathers are showing that they are Lictirs
for God only . In God this Country was founded for good or bad .
Secret societies burrow many symbols as Confraternity or as a new meaning all together.
The fasces seen in political architecture in America is a show of defiance to Rome & the existence of a new Atlantis founded by monotheistic triune God believing men .
Lincoln like all Presidents had his bad behaviors & good ones .
You are reading way to much into the fasces .

If that were the case, why is America a secular nation and not a Christian? Granted, we can all argue on the merits of our American society and Christianity, but why is it not the official religion if what you say is the case?

What does Atlantis have to do with Christianity? Well, a lot, but I doubt you're privy to that esoteric information. If not, please elaborate.

You're speaking on semiotics as if it's been a main study of yours. Could you translate the Masonic symbol of the geometric square and compass?

I'll give you a few hints:
Square - Confines
Compass - Creation
Geometry - Language

I guess in a sense, I could agree with you that this nation was created with "God" in mind, but I don't think you grasp the complexity and depth of what you're saying.

Is math everlasting?
Is math unchanging?
Does nature use math to communicate?
Is math timeless?
Is math inevitable?
Is math bound?
Is math finite?
Absolute perfection outside (and inside) any confines we know.

Counting 1,2,3,4 is rudimentary, geometry is where things get interesting as you divulge into higher dimensions.

I never used the term fascism. I was more interested in why the artists and clients choice was the in my own words "likter sticks"? depicted with presidents and on the walls etc etc. I like art and statues and your post made me think about American stuff that had these little sprinkles of cool stuff. I didn't use the F word though, when I use the F word it is the one that starts with F and ends in K =D

Its very easy to understand. The original colonies became independent. At first there was a more equal distribution among them as far as early development. Americans were generally poor in comparison to their European counterparts, but as that changed over time the wealth distributions got greater and by the time it was the mid 1800s they pretty much had it locked in a monopoly, a small group of businessmen owning almost everything. They would then secure their power with conspiracy and become the same people their grandfathers fought against for independence. So, that period of time (1770s-1850s) was the real time of freedom for the independence fighters before a new power grab returned them to their previous state.

The big problem is Christiand and Atheists are ready to grab each other's throats and I'm always caught in the middle: I hate being the middle engine.

It feels like a far deeper conspiracy then we see on the surface. This site USED to be about such a things where one could freely talk about conspiracies both government and otherwise. I'm so angry I can barely type!


I would love for this forum to take back it's roots.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Interesting read.. A few things stand out, at least to me.

1st - The US Constitution was never meant to apply to the states nor citizens of the states. It was designed for any employee of the Federal government. The intent was to have a strong central government that was extremely restricted in what it could do. States were suppose to run their affairs wall to wall, without federal government interference.

In 1833 this was pointed out and reiterated / reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court in Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833). The city took an action that screwed over Barron and his business. Barron sued, claiming his federal constitutional rights were violated. The Supreme Court ruled against Barron, stating that the US Constitution does not and did not apply to the citizens of the respective states. It only applied to the Federal Government and is employee's.

Primary Holding
The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government rather than state or local governments, since there is no textual evidence to support a different view.

And it says that where? That its only for Government employees? Just because a few Judges make a ruling to save someone some money does not make it so. The Supreme court has constantly came up with Asinine interpretations to the Constitution to suit their wishes way more times than most can count. Especially about the 2nd Amendment where it clearly states SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

originally posted by: jaydog360
And it says that where? That its only for Government employees? Just because a few Judges make a ruling to save someone some money does not make it so. The Supreme court has constantly came up with Asinine interpretations to the Constitution to suit their wishes way more times than most can count. Especially about the 2nd Amendment where it clearly states SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I am assuming the part quoted above is from you as it was mixed in with my original comments.

Where does it say it?

Primary Holding:
The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government rather than state or local governments, since there is no textual evidence to support a different view.

The Constitution was designed for a strong but very limited Federal Government. The founding fathers intended for the states to do the governing wall to wall. Hence the reasons why the Constitution, and the 10th amendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The federal government was responsible for specific areas: foreign relations, a military for a common defense, taxation, currency, treaties, etc.

The Federal Government and the State governments are separate sovereigns, which is unique since most countries, like Australia, which also use a federal government and state government system, see the state government as subordinate to the Federal government.

All US citizens hold dual citizenship. When inside the US we are citizens of the states we live in but when we travel outside the US, we are considered citizens of the US, and not the individual states. All US states have and maintain their own state military (national guard). Their Commander in Chief is the Governor of there respective states. We have the Posse Comitatus Act (courtesy of the US civil war ending) which prohibits the Federal Military (active duty) from engaging in any civilian law enforcement function. We have the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Federal constitution, which is defined by Congress and spells out what documents from one state must be recognized by all other states (drivers license, insurance, marriages, court rulings etc).

The ruling in question reaffirmed the concept of who the Federal constitution applied to and specifically who it did not apply to. As for the 2nd amendment why do you think we have had so many issues with it? The states were responsible for drafting their own gun laws until the adoption of the 14th amendment in 1868. The 14th amendment was challenged and it made its way to the Supreme Court.

The 14th amendment was adopted and designed to be applied only to the southern states after the civil war in order for the states in question to be readmitted to the Union. The issue scotus ran into was the application of the amendment to only southern states. All states of the US are equal and treating states differently was extremely problematic. To get around the issue Scotus applied the 14th amendment, and by extension the entire Federal constitution, to all states.

Up until the 14th amendment the 2nd amendment did NOT apply to citizens of the respective states. Highlighting the shall not be infringed is nice but has nothing to do with the facts in question. Shall not be infringed occurred in 1868 when the constitution was officially applied to the states. Even then it still took all the way to 2008 and 2010 for Scotus to rule the right to bear arms applied to the individual and not just the state militaries.

Before you lip off you may want to learn the history of our country and the Constitution, its adoption, its application and actually understand it before running your mouth.

The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.

The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation, and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally and necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.

Also Federalist paper #17 discusses the application of the Federal Constitution and its application to only the Federal government. Scotus threw a huge wrench in the gears of what Hamilton had in mind when the 14th amendment was applied to the states. It was never the intention of the founding fathers to have a powerful federal government that could dictate to the states.

The Constitution was very specific when spelling out what the Federal government was responsible for and what it could do. The Constitution does NOT grant any rights to the individual. What it does do is list the rights we always had and places restrictions of the government from interfering with those God given rights.

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
So today I will present you all with how the American Republic fell in 1861 with the rise of a totalitarian government.

I just had the most wild epiphany the last week, that completely changes my stance on this OP...

I don't know if anyones still following but gollllll-eeeeee

The "Republic" IS the fascism! Talk about plain sight, the majority of former and current republics all use the fasces symbol.

Hah, wish I could edit the OP and include some corrections at the end









Talk about taking time to write these rants out... I'll give it months of work, be fully concreted into my position I want to convey, just to have my mind blown completely off my shoulders once again..

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
I just had the most wild epiphany the last week, that completely changes my stance on this OP...

I don't know if anyones still following but gollllll-eeeeee

The "Republic" IS the fascism! Talk about plain sight, the majority of former and current republics all use the fasces symbol.

The symbol changed meaning.

BTW, can you tell us a little bit more about how you'd like to see the CSA run? What freedoms do you want to see which the USA doesn't have? Would we see self-determination for a larger portion of the population or just your majority?

originally posted by: Solvedit
The symbol changed meaning.

BTW, can you tell us a little bit more about how you'd like to see the CSA run? What freedoms do you want to see which the USA doesn't have? Would we see self-determination for a larger portion of the population or just your majority?

Contrary, words and symbols are everlasting and never change, only our conception of the symbol does. For example, the rainbow does not represent pride in sexuality, it represents a promise to be kept. Why is this the case? Because history cannot be erased.

The fasces we were always told means the merger between corporation and state, but I think I did a pretty decent job highlighting that conundrum in my follow-up post. And to that point, it seems "fascism" is aligned more with the word "republic" than it is with even "authoritarian". So, is fascism even a bad word? Socially, maybe. But that falls back again to words have SPECIFIC meaning, as do symbols, meanings that never change and always stay true. You can call a bear a cat with the progression of time, but it still doesn't change the meaning of what the word or symbol represents.

You may never look at America the same Pt.2

Personally, as far as the CSA goes, I am not really inclined to speak on my position about these things, particularly, I am more indifferent to the past, as....it is the past after all. My opinion means nothing and changes nothing. I also hope you don't assume that because I use the word "fascist" or "fascism", would I mean to imply that the "something" is evil or bad. Like I said, I think I did a pretty decent job in my follow up thread which was posted a year after this one, so it gave me time to consider everything at hand. Etymology and semiotics are the closest human conceptions that align with nature because it is something that will always remain true, no matter how much time passes.

Let me provide an example. I once had a debate with a fellow about the Nazi party and their ideology. I insisted they were a left-wing ideology whilst my opponent contended they were right-wing. Simply put, if you take the word "socialism" and "nationalism" today, and compare it to what those words meant to different groups of people 50+ years ago, you'd see some contrast, but in reality its all comparative, just through a different lens.

Whats the difference between a leader pushing an ethno-socialist agenda for aryans, and a leader pushing general socialism today? One is specifically for a certain group, the other is for everyone, but both systems are infact socialist, whatever lens you decide to look at them through. After all, Hitler did create "The Peoples Car", Volks Wagon, to bring affordable cars to poorer and middle class Germans, among other social projects in the name of aryan NATIONALISM. He also argued authoritarianism, so socialists can't be authoritarian? Can socialists not be nationalist? Point in case, 1939 Germany.

I know I went off on a tangent with this response, but I do appreciate your addition to the conversation and welcome any more responses.

originally posted by: Solvedit
What freedoms do you want to see which the USA doesn't have?

I wanted to respond to this one seperately.

Freedom is not granted, not by government, proclamation or piece of paper.

the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

And to reiterate what the commanding general and future president Ulysses S. Grant said in regards to the CSA:

When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable.

I personally feel he should have said "felt" instead of "are" because everything is subjective.