A startling and provocative article by Thomas diLorenzo, who says:
In his book Battle Cry for Freedom: The Civil War Era (p. 619), Lincoln cultist James McPherson wrote that some 50,000 Southern civilians perished during the War to Prevent Southern Independence. Others have made estimates that are much higher. The only way this could be possible is that if thousands were murdered in cold blood by the U.S. Army. This is a shocking claim, and it will be shocking to most because such statistics say little about the actual horror of mass murder at the hands of the state. Moreover, the state always has its court historians and paid propagandists who put such statistics "in proper perspective," so that they will not alarm us. (Tomas Sowell comes to mind as a contemporary commentator who has repeatedly belittled the number of Americans killed in Iraq in the past four years by comparing it to the number of deaths in World War II,)
The state funding and control of higher education that have produced the totalitarian regime of political correctness has all but guaranteed that there will be few (if any) publications that illuminate, rather than obfuscate, some of the more devious deeds of the American state throughout its history. But historian Walter Brian Cisco, who is not an academic and is not on any state payroll, has recently written a book – War Crimes Against Southern Civilians – that blows the lid off the conspiracy of silence about the violent, mass-murdering origins of the American Leviathan state (or "The New Birth of Freedom," as both left-wing and right-wing statists put it).
Share
2 comments:
There was a time when I was proud to be an American, but lately have found I am ashamed by some of the things our Country does and has done. I agree that we were/are fed a party line in our school history books.
I think that the feud between the two families of Romeo and Juliet were ridiculous. I think the adults should have been more mature and let Romeo and Juliet become married and start a better community between the Montages and the Capulet. I think in the beginning Romeo was foolish and fell in love with every pretty girl he saw but, in the end I think he really fell in love with Juliet. I know from reading the play that the feud between the two families didn’t bother Juliet because she said “ Tis but thy name that is my enemy”, meaning his name is not her enemy and she loves him for who he is and not for what family he’s from or what name he holds. You could tell Juliet was truly in love with Romeo when he had just killed her cousin, Tybalt and the nurse came in to tell her. When the nurse told her that Romeo had killed Tybalt, she was more saddened that Romeo had been banished from the prince than that her husband had just killed her cousin. You could also tell that Romeo loved her just as much because when he found out that Juliet had died, he killed himself by drinking the poison. In the end, I thought that Shakespeare’s play on Romeo and Juliet was very dramatic and fun to watch/read.
Post a Comment