From: Bazz Childress –
Date: Tue, Apr 20, 2010
Subject: HK on CNN

Very instructive

HK has been a quest in my home many times and I can’t number the hours we’ve spent traveling together to various events.  (He is an honorary member of many, many Sons of Confederate Veteran organizations).

He is someone I consider to be my brother.  What is instructive in the above?  Oh my! where to begin?!

I have promised repeatedly a tome on how this race game is played…..still in process  — for right now simply this.

Great thieveries have been hidden by masking the theft with moral purposes.  We are watching an ancient theme playing out in front of our American our faces (ours just wears a new face as it does in every age)– we must see it, it’s been going on a long time to our detriment– the seeing of it though requires giving up something, an allegiance and devotion to a lie that we’ve believed was the truth….   and all conversion experiences are very unsettling.

I excerpt a portion of a letter to my oldest daughter when she left home for college:

"……This train of thought will get anyone branded a racist, including your father in this day.  Indeed, affected by the world in which you’re surrounded, you’ve feared your father being branded thus.  There is no choice, my dear.  As a poor sinner trying to let God save me, I would like nothing better than blacks, women (especially my daughter), homosexuals etc etc etc (the list will never be complete), indeed all my fellow humans to be blessed by the God who created us all  – just as RE Lee was glad to see the end of slavery.  I am unwilling however, just as Lee was – to use the “new” (really very old) methods.  It seems to me that God inspired feeling for our fellow travelers out of which could come a true uniting is superior to yielding that result to the coercive power of the state, which only inspires or strengthens already existing enmity and jealousy from those it tries to forcefully unite – just look at the Sunnis fighting the Shiites in Baghdad. 

Indeed, I would love one day to sing “We Shall Overcome” in the same service as “Dixie.”  Or as Mississippian Shelby Foote, author of the epic,  The Civil War, A Narrative is said to have remarked, ‘..If Southern whites and blacks were ever to come together – there is nothing we couldn’t do.’   But that’s why we’re kept apart isn’t it?….."

Indeed, and that comment about being "kept apart" isn’t original with me.  I have said many times that black folk get it faster (unless their paychecks come from the powers

[Mr. Lemon the interviewer in the CNN link above] that want to keep the misdirection in place) than anybody.  The kept apart comment came from a black man about my age during a chat with him, his wife and two daughters at the Booker T. Washington National Historical Site many years ago after we had had a long chat about "matters".   At the end of our conversation, he slapped his leg and said, "Oh my God that makes so much sense  — I’ve always felt deep in my bones "THEY" are keeping us apart"..

Same reaction from a young woman (very similar to the one in the clip) whom I met at a conference in Dallas back in January – a Texas National Guard officer, Iraq veteran who started off our meeting by asking me (she was an Obama voter) what I thought of of  how  horrible our current situation  was getting to  be.(she thought I was a fellow Army officer – it’s my high and tight haircut – or the look in my eye, maybe both :-)…. after a nearly hour long conversation – same thing  —  "Oh my God!  Thank you for giving me the key to what has confused me so much about this mess."

And note the echo between what HK starts to say in the CNN interview about the intelligence of slaves and the black woman in that below clip who describes herself as an intelligent professional black woman –  challenges that "victim" ideology that goes back to Rousseau and Jacobin France (conflated in this country with "racial" stuff that didn’t even appear until after 1865).    In your face Keith Olberman

Why does Lemon get so upset in the CNN clip above and cut HK off  — because he knows if the official explanation ever is pierced the end of the "system", built on its putrid back goes with it.

It ‘s really very simple  — wars are created and run by governments and governments come from humanity’s propensity to take what doesn’t belong to us.  (Slavery is a byproduct of war – humans can be stolen as well – today stealing humans is accomplished through international banking organizations  — they also financed the slave trade)  But just like magicians who never reveal "the trick" they don’t want us to know what they’re really up to.

Thou Shalt not Steal (or bear false witness)—- sound familiar????

Recall this quote I’ve shared before:

So why did the north invade?  Why was there a war?  There was a war because the north invaded.  Let me say that again.  There was a war because the north invaded.  Let me say that yet again.  There was a war because the north invaded – not because the South seceded.  There was no war in the Soviet Union.  Wouldn’t it have been nice if we’d had the Communist Party under Gorbachev and shouldn’t they thank God they did not have the Republican Party under Lincoln.  Well let me give you an answer as to why the north invaded.  There was a time early after the war in which the north was very honest about this.  In 1877, Charles Bancroft distinguished northern historian gave the correct explanation in his book, The Footprints of Time:  A Complete Analysis of our American System of Government.  It’s what Thomas Dilorenzo has called mercantilism – that’s our American System of government.  He’s telling you what our American System of government is and why there was a war.  “While so gigantic a war was an immense evil, to allow the right of peaceable secession would have been the ruin of the enterprise and thrift of the industrious laborer and the keen eyed business man of the north.  It would have been the greatest calamity of the age.  War was less to be feared.”

But an invasion by the north merely to maintain a territorial monopoly on coercion governed by northern commercial interests was and is morally reprehensible.  Americans should be deeply ashamed of it.  But of course they are not.  If that war were fought today with today’s population that war would have yielded over 5 million battle deaths – not to mention wounded and missing.  But to acknowledge the stark immorality of the north’s invasion would be to throw into question the legitimacy of the vast centralized regime built upon it.    — {Today’s America in other words). – Dr. Donald Livingston, excerpt of a speech to the SD Lee Institute, Arlington, Virginia April 2007

And there you have it….that vast centralized regime was built by what Jefferson and many others called "the agitation" over slavery.  It’s been used as the veil behind which has been hidden massive thievery.   And to preserve itself it will fight with the weapon that’s always served it so well  —-  the CNN interview is a perfect demonstration of the contention inside the dynamic.

What makes seeing it so distressing is that seeing it requires giving up what amounts to a faith  – the civil religion if you will  — that we’ve been taught to hold as the truth.

For me, I long ago turned back to a different faith.


PS —  A closing repeated quoted:

Tom Watson, the leading light of Southern Populism in the 1890s had the vision of "presenting a platform immensely beneficial to both races and injurious to neither,"   Watson said back then speaking to blacks and whites of that era, "You are made to hate each other because upon that hatred is rested the keystone of the arch of financial despotism which enslaves you both. You are deceived and blinded that you may not see how this race antagonism perpetuates a monetary system which beggars you both."  Indeed.  And are we not watching that unfold at this very hour?  So as your pocket is picked by a federal government dominated by Wall Street financial interests with the new bailout of the day- keep all this in mind.

Why the Civil War?
Posted by Butler Shaffer on April 19, 2010

With secession being more openly discussed as a political option, it is instructive to read/listen to the responses of the statists. The superficial answer has been the non sequitur that “the civil war resolved this question.” This is no more intellectually viable an argument than to suggest that Ronald Reagan’s presidential victories resolved the question of the policies of future occupants of the White House. It also ignores two important points: (1) secession is a remedy necessarily implied in the “social contract” theory of the state. (That governments have never been created by contract, but always by conquest, need not concern us at this point. The statists like to insist upon the social contract explanation, so they must take all aspects of contract theory.) (2) This nation traces its beginnings back to the Revolutionary War, which was premised on the legitimacy of secession from British rule. Intelligent minds need read only the first portion of the Declaration of Independence to confirm this.

It was almost amusing to read a recent article/editorial in the Minneapolis StarTribune bemoaning a resolution unanimously passed by Republicans in Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District. The resolution read: “Be it resolved the Republican Party of Minnesota supports nullification of unconstitutional federal laws and secession as options to enforce state sovereignty.”

The newspaper writer declared that “Jefferson Davis . . . couldn’t have written it any better,” then alluded to the “nearly 300 Minnesotans [who] lost their lives in the Civil War, fighting to keep the United States whole.” Her comment would seem to fly in the face of establishment-driven American history, that has long insisted that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves.

I cannot speak to the motives of Northern soldiers who fought in this war. My grandfather (who I never knew) and his three brothers fought for the North (my grandfather was the only one of the four who survived it). I strongly suspect that the motives of most soldiers was – as reflected in some of Mark Twain’s personal recollections — based more on seeking an “adventure” than fighting for any political or humanitarian principle. Still, it is interesting to note how interchangeable are the explanations of the Civil War — and of Abraham Lincoln, for that matter — when it comes to upholding the priority of centralized federal power.