The True History of the American Civil War (War of Rebellion)

[Deleted member 1432]

We have a thread by KD, where he hypothesises that Tartaria extended into America

Also there's this one where he hypothesised that America was an extension of India:

SH Archive Replies - Fou-Sang & 1870s board game: Voyage from New York to San Francisco upon the Union Pacific Railroad

he hypothesises that the Americas was already populated

I think that's universally excepted without the need for hypothesise.

It is interesting that we have mentions of "griffes" and "negro" slaves before the "civil war".

Why is that particularly interesting? The Civil War was supposedly fought over the slavery of these people.

I ask again, what relevance does any of this information have to do with the true history of the Civil War please?

 

[Worsaae]

Also there's this one where he hypothesised that America was an extension of India:

SH Archive Replies - Fou-Sang & 1870s board game: Voyage from New York to San Francisco upon the Union Pacific Railroad



I think that's universally excepted without the need for hypothesise.



Why is that particularly interesting? The Civil War was supposedly fought over the slavery of these people.

I ask again, what relevance does any of this information have to do with the true history of the Civil War please?

Thanks for the link. I will give it a read next week.

Yes, America was clearly populated, but it is not the mainstream view that America had a huge civilisation and that the "civil war" was a part of a long series of wars connected to the 1812 war, that people were put into insane asylums for questioning the new history, that we had mass trains of orphans, that .... so many open questions. It immediately stood out to me that the slave (another word connected to Tartaria, which has maybe changed meaning to distort history) was labeled a "griffe" which might again connect to Tartaria.
We have a few threads about the true history of "negro" "slavery" where they debunk many of the commonly held beliefs by going through official records, old letters, books etc. What we know about history is clearly distorted and much of how they distort is through the use of changed definitions of words and through lie by omission.

Why it is interesting? If the civil war was supposedly fought over the "slavery" (a questionable word) of these people (negros, griffes -- both words REMOVED from common language through political means), then it is interesting to find out the meaning of those words, especially alternative meanings, because this could give us an insight into the true history of the civil war. Maybe they were "slaves" because the negros and the griffes were a part of the old Civilization in America/Tartary? Maybe slavery is called slavery because of the identity of those enslaved? I saw a connection and thought I would share.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

"The Slavic words for "slave" (Russian rab, Serbo-Croatian rob, Old Church Slavonic rabu) are from Old Slavic *orbu, from the PIE root *orbh- (also source of orphan (n.)), the ground sense of which seems to be "thing that changes allegiance" (in the case of the slave, from himself to his master). The Slavic word is also the source of robot." (Article)

The Civil War in America from The Illustrated London News

I haven't had time to look at this yet, but The Illustrated London News is/was the mouthpiece of the Kabal. This should be born in mind when reading.

It immediately stood out to me that the slave (another word connected to Tartaria, which has maybe changed meaning to distort history) was labeled a "griffe" which might again connect to Tartaria.

Your first response to the word "Griff" - which was the actual word used to describe the slaves - was that it represented a griffin and was therefore related to the flag of Tartaria?

Connect it with the flag of Tartars that have a griff on it.

Where did the 'e' come from?

Griffe meaning:
- mixed (a person of three-quarter black and one-quarter white ancestry)
- or mixed (a person of mixed black and American Indian blood)
- hook nosed (like a eagle)
- hooked claw (like a lion)
- and a mythical legendary creature that is a mix between a lion and an eagle.

The link you provided for GRIFFE does not mention the hooked nose/claw (which is GRIFF), or the mythical creature (again GRIFF) and yet you are connecting them all together.

This is confusing... and creative.

 

[Gladius]

I had this saved a from a while back, seems relevant.

1863: Isaac & Rosa, Slave Children from New Orleans

Photographed in New York. Are they slaves at the time of the phooshoot, or are they former slave 'refugees' from the south? Interesting nonetheless.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

1863: Isaac & Rosa, Slave Children from New Orleans

Photographed in New York. Are they slaves at the time of the phooshoot, or are they former slave 'refugees' from the south? Interesting nonetheless.

That's a really interesting point and one that's related to something that occurred to me.

The Orphan Trains - Given that the etymology of the word 'orphan' states that it derives from "thing that changes allegiance," is it possible that the 'orphans' on the trains were emancipated slaves from the South whose parents had changed allegiance and remained to fight and free more of their own kind, having sent their children to safety? In fact, it doesn't even need the etymology to be a possibility, as you say - were they refugees?

 

[Gladius]

That's a really interesting point and one that's related to something that occurred to me.

The Orphan Trains - Given that the etymology of the word 'orphan' states that it derives from "thing that changes allegiance," is it possible that the 'orphans' on the trains were emancipated slaves from the South whose parents had changed allegiance and remained to fight and free more of their own kind, having sent their children to safety? In fact, it doesn't even need the etymology to be a possibility, as you say - were they refugees?

It's hard to tell, but I tend to think the children there are properly dressed for the time, they do not look poor. Were they free just recently before the photograph took place?

 

[Jd755]

1863: Isaac & Rosa, Slave Children from New Orleans
Harpers Weekly
Source

According to an article published in Harper’s Weekly on January 30, 1864, the biography of Isaac and Rosa is summarized as:

Isaac White is a black boy of eight years, but nonetheless intelligent than his whiter companions. He has been in school about seven months, and I venture to say that not one boy in fifty would have made as much improvement in that space of time.

Rosina Downs is not quite seven years old. She is a fair child, with a blonde complexion and silky hair. Her father is in the rebel army. She has one sister as white as herself and three brothers who are darker. Her mother, a bright mulatto, lives in New Orleans in a poor hut and has hard work to support her family.

The sale of their portrait would fund newly established schools for former slaves in southern Louisiana, a region already occupied by the Union army.

Propaganda?

 

[Deleted member 1432]

Propaganda?

Obviously, but does that make it all false?

 

[Worsaae]

1863: Isaac & Rosa, Slave Children from New Orleans
Harpers Weekly
Source

Propaganda?

Could you elaborate slightly? I don't have much time this week to dive deep on this subject. Currently researching the scientific method as taught today and the theory behind scientific models in current academic settings, in relevance for the deconstruction of the heliocentric model. Hopefully something fruitful will come of that.

My question goes, and it may be very basic: Are these kids slaves to rebels or union masters? Are these kids going to union or rebel schools? Would anyone know what "improvement" means in this context? That he is repeating rebel/union facts contrary to what his parents taught him? Continuing on the line of reasoning that Will Scarlet proposed; Are these kids "orphans" in the sense that they have changed alliegance from their parents to the "established schools/system"?

 

[Jd755]

Obviously, but does that make it all false?

Don't know what you mean Felix. EDIT Oops Will. How embarrassing!

Could you elaborate slightly?

Don't know what you mean either Worsaae.

I went looking for the photograph as it looked staged and found the linked article which I felt was worth sharing. That's it.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

Don't know what you mean Felix. EDIT Oops Will. How embarrassing!

Oh dear. I thought you were better than that JD, although my brother did warn me. Just because it was propaganda does it mean that the slave children were not slave children and there was no slavery in the South and that it was all really about Tartaria and the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel?

 

[Jd755]

Just because it was propaganda does it mean that the slave children were not slave children and there was no slavery in the South and that it was all really about Tartaria and the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel?

No.

 

[SonofaBor]

That “war” began with the New England Puritans, whose philosophical descendants became the universally despised “Yankees.” These are people mostly from New England and the upper Mid-West originally who believed that they were superior to all others and therefore had a “right” to govern over them, by force if necessary. They have a mindset of what Judge Napolitano calls “libido dominandi,” or the lust to dominate. Today, Hillary Clinton would be what Clyde Wilson has called “a museum-quality specimen” of a Yankee. Yankees are a component of both political parties, but today’s Democratic party is the home of the most extreme ones, who seem to be part Yankee and part Stalinist totalitarian with their university speech codes, their “cancel culture,” their utopian plans to centrally plan all aspects of everyone’s life with their “Green New Deal,” to confiscate private wealth, communist style, with “wealth taxes,” and so on.

Although I think you are generally correct about a certain sense of superiority, I think this superiority belonged mostly to the the elites. The stolid minions invariably get caught the official narratives pumped out by the "Sea people."

Moby Dick (Melville, 1851), describes them Yankee sea people thus:

And thus have these naked Nantucketers, these sea hermits, issuing from their ant-hill in the sea, overrun and conquered the watery world like so many Alexanders; parcelling out among them the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans, as the three pirate powers did Poland. Let America add Mexico to Texas, and pile Cuba upon Canada; let the English overswarm all India, and hang out their blazing banner from the sun; two thirds of this terraqueous globe are the Nantucketer’s. For the sea is his; he owns it, as Emperors own empires; other seamen having but a right of way through it. Merchant ships are but extension bridges; armed ones but floating forts; even pirates and privateers, though following the sea as highwaymen the road. they but plunder other ships, other fragments of the land like themselves, without seeking to draw their living from the bottomless deep itself. The Nantucketer, he alone resides and riots on the sea; he alone, in Bible language, goes down to it in ships; to and fro ploughing it as his own special plantation. There is his home; there lies his business which a Noah’s flood would not interrupt, though it overwhelmed all the millions in China. He lives on the sea, as prairie cocks in the prairie; he hides among the waves, he climbs them as chamois hunters climb the Alps. For years he knows not the land; so that when he comes to it at last, it smells like another world, more strangely than the moon would to an Earthsman.

The ordinary northerner or American got sold a bill of goods-- that appealed to the earnest will to do the right thing, help the poor, etc. We see this play out today; for aside from the maniac true believers in State orthodoxy, most people who take the jab do so to protect others.

Ordinary people are easily manipulated into "causes." No doubt, the folly and catastrophe of the Civil War was made possible by this weakness, which must be contained as much as directed.

For example, consider Martin Luther-- as the perhaps most successful manufactured opposition (and sea person) in history:

It all began to get out of hand when the peasant and minor nobility took it as a signal to revolt,
backfiring somewhat on Frederick and Charles. Luther was ordered to come out against the rebels,
telling them to obey the temporal authorities. Render under Caesar, in other words. So much for
Luther the revolutionary. He even bragged:

I, Martin Luther, have during the rebellion slain all the peasants, for it was I who ordered
them to be struck dead.

Charming. If you ever wondered who Luther really was, now you know.

They admit Luther's fake reformation took place under the auspices and protection of the secular
powers. Which is as much to say it was always just a project of the government. So the governors
used Luther's fake Reformation as yet another excuse to crack down on the peasants and to steal from
the minor nobles. The usual flow-up economy.

Here's another big clue everyone misses: after his wedding, Luther and his wife moved into a former
monastery given to them by John, the new Elector of Saxony, brother of Frederick. Ask yourself this:
how was this a “former” monastery? Must have been stolen from the Catholic Church, eh, like all the
monasteries soon to be stolen in England. And yet all the fake historians just waltz right by that
admission, never reading it how it begs to be read. Who do top aristocrats give monasteries to? Poor
Gentile priests of no lineage? No. They give them to their cousins, right? Proving once again Luther
was a close cousin of the Dukes and Electors of Saxony. And proving he was already fabulously
wealthy: only the already wealthy get to move into stolen monasteries. These monasteries were huge
and very lush, which is why the aristocrats wanted to steal them. Yes, there would be a lot of fairly
useless cells, but the gardens were extensive and the decorations were usually costly. Lots and lots of
portable property, collected over centuries.

Despite and because of their sincere intentions and due to their lack of insider knowledge, people are easily manipulated. The Civil War was a woke war. But the ordinary soldiers were, like soldiers in every war of the 20th century, mostly victims and fodder.

 

[yoxdo]

I've seen Arsareth on maps in Tartaria. I have it here.

View attachment 10855​

It is close to the ship, left of it.

We have a thread by KD, where he hypothesises that Tartaria extended into America and I don't remember if it is in that thread, where he hypothesises that the Americas was already populated and that this is why it took centuries to occupy north America through conquest.
It is interesting that we have mentions of "griffes" and "negro" slaves before the "civil war".
As for sources for the previous post, I used a mainstream source here:
Definition of GRIFFE

Griffe also seems to be connected to farming tools (in french) with "hooked claws"

Interesting so he wasnt embellishing just that everything seems embellished when you change the names of places from names we've never heard before. Nothing about America seems true one would probably be closer to the truth if he just assumed the opposite of what he is told. Arsareth lol who would have thought.

 

[asatiger1966]

Being a Virginian and a son of the Civil War and Revolution, I can only say that all wars are manipulated by the winners.
Robert E. Lee took communion after the war in a church in Richmond with a black man to everyone's shock and awe. That says it all for me.

Robert E. Lee, was a real in the flesh "Gentleman".

You haven't understood the role of Jews. Every 'nation' in fact is the supposed nation PLUS Jews. Essential to understand that!

Will you break that statement down into language more understandable to one not familiar with the nuances of the Jews involvement in the Civil War.

You haven't understood the role of Jews. Every 'nation' in fact is the supposed nation PLUS Jews. Essential to understand that!

Will you break that statement down into language more understandable to one not familiar with the nuances of the Jews involvement in the Civil War.

War is war, by definition crime. Of course, every kind of crime will always happen in a war. Slavery is worse than war.

Slavery is worse than war.

More than one person would take slavery over constant combat. Personal in your face, terrorizing, sickening, dehumanizing combat, out and out roller coaster ride between sheer terror and an adrenaline rush leaving one exhausted and possibly broken. Loss of your very sole is at stake, " if you stay in this hell for long, going home will have no meaning".

You haven't understood the role of Jews. Every 'nation' in fact is the supposed nation PLUS Jews. Essential to understand that!

Will you break that statement down into language more understandable to one not familiar with the nuances of the Jews involvement in the Civil War.

War is war, by definition crime. Of course, every kind of crime will always happen in a war. Slavery is worse than war.

Slavery is worse than war.

More than one person would take slavery over constant combat. Personal in your face, terrorizing, sickening, dehumanizing combat, out and out roller coaster ride between sheer terror and an adrenaline rush leaving one exhausted and possibly broken. Loss of your very sole is at stake, " if you stay in this hell for long, going home will have no meaning".

I think attaching out rage to most historical events, is a liberal trait, very nearly everything historical is outragiuous by modern standards, even stuff from 20 years ago.

I think a lot of history, ( if it happened at all anything like portrayed) was just an inevitability, based on events that preceded it and or the prevailing morality . or complete fluke that could have gone either way on the toss of a coin

There was only one likely out come from the confederation leaving the union and only one likely out come from the war, given the inequality between the sides. If the confederacy didnt realise that, they didnt consider it carefully enough

I like the comment but disagree. If the outcome was apparent then why act upon it? I think there were numerous avenues for a different out come. I am from the South and possible biased.

 

[Gold]

For example, the Lincoln Assassination seems to have been a psy-op.

Please do elaborate.

 

[Jd755]

This attachment may clarify somewhat?

Beautiful.
Getting folk to abandon the latter is the rub.

 

[asatiger1966]

Beautiful.
Getting folk to abandon the latter is th

Please do elaborate.

Attached may explain a few questions, good fortune to you.

www.annavonreitz.com

 

[Jd755]

Attached may explain a few questions, good fortune to you.

When I said beautiful I was referring to the pdf you posted.

 

[Silencedogood]

Having extensively studied the "civil war" I can appreciate this thread. When I taught high school I always referred to it as the "war of the states," because that term made more sense as a war is far from civil. Additionally, it was clear even from 'accepted' sources that slavery was not cause enough to fight this war. The big vs. small government argument for the cause does make sense and if you factor in that the south may have had longer memory in regards to true history then they were set for destruction.

I think that the one link we have to this "Tartary" that we seek, may be that they were destined to suffer. Having ancient knowledge, or even recollection of the true past, would detract from the new narrative thus making them enemies. Many tales also note how they are barbaric and uncouth which serves to demonize them and justify their destruction, the Yanks provided similar justification towards the south. Additionally, a free society would seem in line with the global infrastructure of Tartaria and, being of the great size that it was, would rely heavily on a federation type system. Federalism would allow regions to think for themselves and rule themselves with great autonomy. An easily controlled populace does not fit into this type of rule.

For the record I believe that Tartary was here in North America or at least it's remnants were. I believe that the land, and possibly the people, had to be sterilized prior to allowing the new oblivious population to proceed west. Even the existing east coast fortifications and cities, many of them star forts, had to be explained to either a gullible or a complicit population.

So, we have to collect our assumptions. Either the south was descended from Tartaria or not. They had memories that they shouldn't have or they did not. They had a Jeffersonian government uncontrolled by the controllers or they did not. The accepted current narrative of slavery/states rights is true or it was not. The war happened or it was staged. One or more of these does not negate the possibility that others may be true.