No problem – understood. However, as a suggestion, one might want to consider the censure for those non-contributor baiters and flamers, who clearly only pop their mugs into such, admittedly erristic, yet perfectly pertinent threads, in order to coax response – arguably, done to in-turn elicit the reprimand of the hapless OP’s and / or their threads’ closure [insert “SHUT IT DOWN!” meme]
I cannot put my finger on the exact epoch when the U.S. lost its soi-disant “greatness” *(the abject assumption that is the acceptance of the U.S.'s putative “greatness”, notwithstanding). If I were to hazard a guess, I would say it was around the time when its greenback got whipped by the civil war era banksters… If not then, then definitely when it was later dragged into WW1, by those same warfare banksters – with its cuckoldry completed circa 1967 – during LBJ’s Irgun BJ, to the titillation of that maritime snuff porn classic: U.S.S. Liberty: Kosher Penetration (ESRB: X̶X̶X̶ 666).
Either way, it is clear as crystal that the U.S. is in real-time collapse: Its Gordon Gekko economy is as “fake news” as anything their kakitocratic clown-in-circus croons; its armipotence is all but nullified by the Digital Age; its status as an oriflame of democracy is all but snuffed; its mendacity-cloaked history being divested by the free flow of previously vetted and propagansied information… Essentially every string to the U.S. doppleganger Robin Hood bow is being snapped, one by one – leaving the nation naked and exposed like the robe-less emperor anyone with a modicum of [objective] historical perspective, always knew it was.
The scary part is that this desinence of tenure comes at the exact time when oft fabled Eastern autocrats are at their most potent – ready to pounce upon whatever the withdrawal of the U.S. leaves in its capacious wake. It’s a fire sale, where Nero fiddles with himself behind the rally pulpit… And every long-fought-for freedom must go!
Oriflame is not a word. I’d guess you might mean oriflamme - “any ensign, banner, or standard, especially one that serves as a rallying point or symbol.” - but a banner cannot be snuffed, even a metaphorical one.
Robin Hood legendarily stole from the rich to give to the poor. That can’t be applied to your U.S. and its controlling bankers, or the portmanteauish banksters as you call them. Bows, I might add, have a single string and so can only snap once.
Propagansied is not a word. Propagandized, perhaps? But that’s a verb and you’re trying for a adjectival form. Information can be subject to propaganda, making it less reliable. But that’s contradictory with the information being vetted, which normally implies proper checking. A mendacity-soaked history can either be vetted or propagandized but not both. Vetting such a history would divest it of the lies; propagandizing it would take the lies farther. Please pick one.
Denisence is a word, but not one used properly. It does mean a termination but only in the formal sense of a inflectional ending in grammar. Trying to extend it to a general meaning of ending is faux pedantry. The tenure that it is ending is equally mysterious. The only phrase in the previous paragraph that might be the referent is that blasted oriflame of democracy, and surely you don’t want to call anybody’s attention back to that misuse.
Wait a minute. That was, honestly, the favorite claim made by the southern historians when they wanted to claim that the civil was not to preserve slavery. This view prevailed at least until the mid 20th century. But since then, historians have examined what the south said at the time and exploded that view. Perhaps that is what the rabbi meant (I found the OP so diffuse that I am not sure what he really meant).
Indeed, it is also the view that should be held by those who (i) understand that history is always a matter of interpretation, often poisoned by the alloy of conflicted interest, as well as association and / or confirmation biases, (ii) that the victors are never, ever asked if they had lied… and even if they were, they’d just lie again, and (iii) that someone, somewhere, whose opinion carries far more potency than almost anyone living today – and to whom the U.S. largely owe any halcyon post-WWII past it may have had – once said that war is always a racket ―
Argument for the U.S. Civil War being fought to free slaves:
• Emancipation Proclamation
• “Hurr… derr… U b a rayciss cracka, yo!” .parrot/muppet
• …[crickets chirping]
Argument for the U.S. Civil War being fought for myriad factors other than the ancillary meme component of “slavery”:
• The associated proclamation was not tabled or forced upon states before the war and, therefore, could (at best) only be tangential to the conflict’s other motivating factors
• The lynching of Afro slaves by the North (e.g., New York Conscription Riots) hardly beseemed the actions of those fighting against [black] servitude
• “Freeman” were a matter of course for the earth-scorching North, as it marauded south – freeing extant slaves to fight for their cause
• Man power was always a problem for Lincoln – something the heretofore indentured served as an opportune, inexpensive nepenthe for
• Northerners themselves were slave owners
• Of the four states that objected to the post war Emancipation Proclamation, three(3) were Northern
• The North was an industrial economic basket case, whose dinky industry was a punchline to the long-establish British and French empires–which it could not make inroads into
• In contrast, the South supplied some 80% of the cotton – the literal ‘gold’ commodity of the time period – and was thriving as such
• The first ‘engagement’ took place at Fort Sumter – a naval port for tax-collecting ships – and was effectively an instance or '‘friendly fire’ (…false flags were a thing before the Spanish-American War? :dubious:)
• The very actions of the North – as broached, its ‘scorched earth’ warfare; its treatment of indigenous peoples; it general conduct in wartime – did not bespeak a faction whose intentions came from some largess for the down-trodden; any more than the U.S.-Zionist Alliance’s (USZA) post-WWII actions in the Middle East have demostrated since
• Lincoln’s own travails, in paying his soldiers and defying the banks (see: origin of the “greenback”), further implicate the ‘higher power$’ who are always behind the curtain where conflict metastasises
• Lincoln often riled against interracial marriage, the equality of the races, voting rights for blacks et al.
• Most of those who fought the so-called “Civil War”, were also conscripts – Italian and Irish
• The likes of the ‘Jim Crow’ apartheid laws were not repealed for nearly century thereafter
• Lynchings; the razing of predominately black townships etc. ensued for generations thereafter, despite the so-called ‘freedom’ won for slaves
• Afro-Americans themselves owned slaves
• Jewish people – heavily associated with finance and commerce, not farming – owned a disproportionate number of salves (~40% per capita, versus only a fraction of a percent for non-Jewish people / “whites”), as well as commanded many ships that ferried slaves during the Trans-Atlantic Slave era; yet, are curiously and conspicuously omitted in any pertaining media put out by the–again–predominately Jewish-associated Hollywood media machine (…the_victors_write_history.azquote)
• Primordial racial, tribal schisms divide, rive and threaten to raze the U.S., to this day
• Even the primordial, high-fantasy fairy tale fiction works that underpin every facet of U.S. society – even in the face of the laughably glib and fanciful “separation of church and state” notion – fly directly in the face of the simplistic slurring-over of the deeper interpretations of this complex epoch in U.S. history: You may purchase male of female slaves from amoung the foreigners who live amoung you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners; including those who have been in your land. You may treat them as your property – passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this; BUT THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL, YOUR RELATIVES, MUST NEVER BE TREATED THIS WAY. (Leviticus 25:44~46)
(*Pick one(1) option only)
NB: I am not a U.S. resident, nor am I an American (modern vernacular: Amerimutt / 'Mutt) and, so, have zero to nil vested or other interest in rewriting mainstream inculcated histories. However, I do have an innate predilection for the truth – something that the ‘Common Core’ styled, cursory historical pedagogy which predominates modern politically correct, ultra-left leaning classrooms, are an anathema to. That, and not unlike a third party witnessing the infidelity taking place in a relationship – while the parties involved themselves remain blind – it is well arguable that external diagnoses are required for such contested subject matter, relating to a nation of people who cannot see eye-to-eye on issues of even irrefutable scientific fact; let alone, eristic histories that they do not dare view but through the prism of mindless emotion, squinting.
In the absence of omniscience, the only ‘truth’ that can be gotten at is that which is revealed through the confluence of preponderant evidence; insofar as what such evidence is available.
(*A bonus star for guessing whose quote that is… ☚)
