Related posts

32 thoughts on “The Truth About The Civil War

  1. Chia Cha

    Pol Pot was little different, he was not trying to earn money, nor expand some branch of economy on expense of others. Pol Pot conducted non-profit, reeducational and noble genocide of those whose brains thought they where somehow naturally better then others (members of class above)… Which is always very delusional and dangerous for chance of all kids to surrvive. He lived in huts his whole life. American civil was genocide based on economy, and german genocide of Jews was also non-profit genocide, but german was unhmane and barbaric because it was based on non-scientific data… Class problem is only right approach to problems of economy and wars.

    1. Embrey

      The fanatic is always concealing a secret doubt.

    2. C.I.A. Operator

      The American civil war was not an “auto genocide.” What happened is that no one in the South voted for Lincoln, and because the ballot was split he entered office with only support from northerners and only actually won 38% of the vote. Because of his statements to end the expansion of slavery his election itself prompted South Carolina and then a few other states to leave the union. But after Lincoln took office instead of any negotiation he inflamed matters by calling for a volunteer invasion force of 70,000 men to be formed to invade the south and force the states the left back in. That act of violence caused the rest of the southern states, like Virginia, to leave also. Lincoln refused at all points to negotiate, and wanted only war to bring all the states back. First he occupied Maryland to keep it from leaving and jailed anyone there who sought to do so. He suspended the Constitution and jailed and tortured anyone in the north who disagreed with his war policy. He was of course a racist and stated that negros and whites could never get along. He tried to get free negro leaders to agree to have all negros if freed removed back to Africa but they wouldn’t agree. Only after the war was won did he reverse himself and insist that freed blacks in the south would vote, but none in the north, and only black men in the south would vote. This was to guarantee Republican dominance in southern elections. But his motive for the war was this……. People then were motivated by reputation and personal honor. Lincoln was obsessed with his place in history and his legacy. If he did not bring the south back he would go down in history as the one who by the very nature of his personality had provoked the union to dissolve. The south left because he was elected. It was his election which caused the fateful rift. He was the issue. He was the problem. For that reason he would stop at nothing, and cause others to pay any cost to reverse what had happened. it was not about democracy or even the union much less slavery. It was only about his personal image and his role in history.

    3. C.I.A. Operator


      The America I miss is one where three kids born into poverty from Tulsa, Abbott, Texas, and rural Georgia can be happy enough to compose and create music which touches the hearts of a mass audience which is uplifted and inspired. Making America great again isn’t so much about national strength as it is about the social and cultural impoverishment which has insulted the nation from moral decay. And it is the moral decay which preceeds the financial and economic downward spiral which citizens are enraged about. The reasons why elites have wanted to disgourge our wealth begins with their moral corruption, which is shared at all levels of modern society as well in different ways. When Americans find their love for each other in real terms rather than Leftist platitudes and ideals then the talented among us might again emerge to inspire us like no other people has, and on a level of vulgar and popular culture and art.

  2. vickey

    Interesting. Your description of his personality is in opposition to the integrity and traits shown in his script, which has been used in teaching graphology as one of the finest examples of intelligence. He had an unusual clearness of ideas and expression, sharpened by intuition which gave him an instinctive understanding of who he had to deal with. There is no indication of a tyrannical or “war monger” personality. To determine the degree of depression, one first looks for a downward slant, which barely shows in his script, indicating there is not enough to label him a “manic depressive.” I believe him to have been a fine, moral and sensitive man, unlike the characters filling government today. Because one’s actual age, sex, and values are not determined in a script, his quote stating he favored having the superior position assigned the white race, was showing a belief – a concept he formed from his life experiences and level of awareness at that time.

    Regarding Abe’s beliefs about the black race belonging in Africa, this corresponds to the knowledge given from those who “seeded” this planet with human life forms. They deposited the five races into regions on this planet and did not intend for them to mix. They tell us that each race is “equal, but different” and it is those differences that cause conflict. Abe’s script shows 100% intelligence and with the added attribute of intuition, he had the power of observation, reason and deduction forming his conclusions.

  3. BillUK

    I always wondered if he had not been assassinated, how long he would have survived with Marfans. Also I was surprised to find out how close Abe was to the Russians, while they kept England and France at bay with their fleet. No doubt we punished Russia for it later!

    1. Chia Cha

      You punished Russia by putting Hitler to attack Russia. Mussolini newpaper was also financied by British. Sadly Russian deserved to get punished, because Stalin was not international enough and very capitalistic… Even he was right 100% on two points: 1. He knew that they are all the time preparing conspiracy to overthrow him. 2. He knew very well what kinds crooks all others around him are, so they are going to be even worse then him if they remove him.

  4. Bobbi White

    yes, I heard that Lincoln wanted to send the Blacks back to Africa.
    , but I didn’t know his motivation was to spur the Industrial Revolution

  5. Marie Durand

    Dr. Pieczenik,
    Are there any books about Abraham Lincoln that you would recommend?

    1. charles davis

      Read Thomas DiLorenzo’s books on Lincoln….very revealing.

  6. sam site

    Your interpretation is consistent with the narrative that the northern globalist bankers representing London and Rome created a tariff that triggered a British tariff on southern cotton prompting secession.

    The original tariff was created to produce this conflict and takeover the south. Despite Lincoln’s plan to return the slaves to Africa, the globalists intended to use them to balkanize the mostly non-loyal to Rome protestants in the south.

    They used the emancipation of the blacks to create a new definition of federal citizen that superceded states rights in the 14th amendment. Follow historian Eric Jon Phelps (see Vatican assassins) for an expose of the Jesuit globalist agents in setting this up and their role in Lincoln’s assassination.

    If you go to St Augustine and visit the convent of the sisters of St Josephs you will read they came from Portugal in 1867 to teach blacks english (and prepare them for the balkanization of the south).

    Just 2 years after the civil war there was already a balkanization plan in place. The globalists also created the KKK, Mormonism and Islam when you dig into it according to Phelps.

    History is a real mind blower when you investigate after all these years of globalist propaganda. Phelps is a treasure and has investigated the 6000 books warning of the Jesuit conspiracy to usurp America suppressed by 1880 including Samuel Morse’s Foreign Conspiracy.

    1. Chia Cha

      Nice story, but not true, it is about money… They only care about money… CIA could end Christianity on Mid West in 5 years, with propaganda, if capitalist would see they would get 1$ more then what they spent. It is only about their class positions, slaves must be in highest possible number, and they must be cheap as possible. Hope you now understand.

  7. Tom Dobson

    Wow! I have long been disillusioned with the standard version of history, and interpreted the Civil War as northern industrialists subjugating the South in preparation for projecting power imperialistically, which happened soon after in the Spanish American War. Dr. Pieczenik’s explanation is even more prescient and penetrating. Just brilliant.

  8. Hsaive

    Thank you for exposing the naked truth.

  9. Richard Studd

    Always interesting with new perspectives and inconvenient truths… Now that modern history finds itself under the loop, it would be immensely advantageous for mankind In general, at this point in time to view all documentation pertaining to the last hundred and fifty years of our common global history.

    What have the western governments hidden, manipulated, instigated and lied about? . I.e. The 2 great wars, the holocaust, JFK, human medicine as well as of course the disclosure question and free or zero point energy.

  10. Margaret Price

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts, they are most intriguing.
    Forgive me, but actually I’m not convinced that there is a strong similarity between Lincoln and Pot Pot. The latter envisioned a communist utopia and essentially destroyed his country and killed millions of his countrymen in his efforts to achieve it. The U.S. civil war was horrific, but not single-handedly created by Lincoln. While many of the facts you describe here are accurate, I’m not certain that his health or mental state was as relevant as you seem to suggest, or that his intent was as mercenary. Although I realize some of the information I found may be “misrepresentations”, it seemed to suggest simply that Lincoln found himself in an extraordinary period of history with limited options available. The South wanted to expand slavery to other areas and the Constitution was (& is) not compatible with that idea. In the end a compromise was not possible. It was a collision of cultures that we pray will never be repeated.
    Finally, Dr. Pieczenik, please allow me to take this opportunity to thank you for all that you do.

    1. Jim Caffrey

      Ms. Price is correct, I believe. There was an evolution of issues to the military conflict – and industrialization and slavery were closely linked. Territories were being transformed into States in rapid succession and each new State became its own “legal battleground” for either the acceptance or banning of slavery. The slavery division of the original States was exacerbated by the turmoil associated with each new State. As Ms. Price says, “In the end, a compromise was not possible.” The conflict was about economic viability, for both sides. I grew up in this country, not France, and was taught (in Grade school!) that the Civil War was fought for economic reasons – and that slavery was a related issue. Many individuals and interests brought pressures to bear on the evolving conflict, often for self-centered purposes. Lincoln navigated his way through this mess, following – at times – his own moral compass. It is not unheard of for political (or corporate) leaders to suffer from physical or emotional maladies. Rational sanity have NEVER been a qualification of political leadership. And Lincoln was a cheerful guy, compared to his wife.

      1. Tripp Fields

        Unfortunately, Both of your interpretations would require that the south was fighting a costly and devestating war that destroyed much of their property, bankrupted them, and killed off one quarter of their male population all for a agricultural commodity that over 90 percent of the south at the time never owned and could never afford and- if anything- hurt their business because slave labor was cheaper than free white labor. Not only this, but if the southern slaveholders simply wanted to keep their slaves so badly that they were willing to fight a full-scale costly war against the federal government to keep them then they would have certainly avoided war altogether and immigrated to Brazil were there was no foreseeable end to slavery and they would have been free to own all the slaves that they wanted.

        The mainstream view that the south did it all for slavery is not only false but is as absurd as saying that the American patriots fought against the powerful British Empire simply to avoid paying taxes to the king or claiming that America fought the Vietnam war because those who fought wanted to secure the right of the wealthier ten percent of their compatriots to be able return home and purchase and own a luxury car. It’s not even good historical revisionism but rediculious post- Reconstruction leftist propaganda.

  11. David Yuhas

    Testing…Email Address? I can’t get through. Regards, DY

  12. David Yuhas

    Still Can’t get through…Email.Address…if you’d be so kind…Regards, DY

  13. Chia Cha

    Lower taxes for rich are the most horrible thing, it will expand class of small bussiness owners trying go get rich by empoying people. Trying to get their frist yacht over backs people. We need new coprorations but they do not want new competition. Google, Facebook, they do not want new competition. They want you to be small and unorganized.

  14. David Yuhas

    Still trying…Issue #452 of my Newsletter, read by 800 here & in Europe…in the last 3 Issues mentions Steve Pieczenik…& I thought he would like to see it…but this Box does not handle it.

    My Guess is that Alex J. has Steve’s Email Address…& i shall see if he would be so kind & forward this week’s Issue. Regards, DY

  15. :james.

    Search. Born Alive and Birth certificate who owns title from Kurtis Kallenbach for the rest of the historical record.

  16. C.I.A. Operator

    A Woman wears a certain look when she’s on the move and a man can always tell what’s on her mind. I hate to have to say it but that looks all over you. Woman woman have you got cheating on your mind?

  17. Mara

    You mean, Hillary may have been right, after all in comparing herself to Abraham Lincoln?

  18. Charmaine Guss

    Who ever controls this fake history controls the people. You can fool some of the people sometime.

  19. What highlights and frames your essential point is the differential approach between the U.S.A. and the U.K. in abolishing slavery. The North advocated a regulatory prohibition whereas the U.K. used the exercise of eminent domain. In the U.K., the slaves were owned by aristocratic families and thus were compensated to the tune of 16 to 17 billion Pounds in today’s money. If the South was equivalently compensated, they could of financed manufacturing, infrastructure development and social programs, in particular education. See

  20. Charmaine Guss

    If you were to die tonight, where would you go?
    All have sinned & come short of the glory of God.
    Do you think you ever sinned.
    The wages of sin is death.
    You can know for sure where you will go.
    God loved you so much He left heaven came down and died on the cross for you. God commends His love toward us, that while we are yet sinners Christ died for us. If you admit you’re a sinner, that Jesus died for your sins and put your faith in Him and not yourself He will make sure you spend eternity in heaven. For whosoever calls on the name of the LORD, shall be saved. This is TRUTH! No guts, no glory.

  21. John Smith

    In those days there was no income tax. The entire cost of running the Federal Government was paid by import duties and 90% of this money was collected at Custom Houses in Southern Ports. The North controlled enough votes in Congress to keep import duties on manufactured goods unnaturally high, thereby allowing Northern manufacturers to make tremendous profits selling their goods to the agricultural South. This caused friction for years. The 1828 “Tariff of Abomination’s” duty rate of nearly 50% on imported finished goods, resulted is South Carolina threatening nullification. Henry Clay negotiated a lower rate in 1832, but it was still too high in the South’s opinion and South Carolina passed a Nullification Act. This nearly led to war, but negotiated a compromise that would lower the rate in 1833 and South Carolina agreed.

    The Republican Platform in 1860 did call for freeing the slaves, but its other major plank was a huge tariff increase. The Republicans won and immediately passed a Tariff Act that raised the duty rate even higher than the rate of the Tariff of Abominations. That’s why the Southern States left the Union. They knew Lincoln would sign it when he took office in March.

    Before the shooting started meetings were held to try to negotiate a settlement. Lincoln asked what it would take to save the Union and the South’s reply was, “Abolish the Tariff.” Lincoln’s comment was, “If I do that, who will pay for the Government?”

    The war was about money, not slavery.

  22. Betsy Parmerter

    Thank you for this posting Dr. Pieczenik. However, this is a little scratch on the surface. I also believe the civil rights movement and the sixties riots in the United States during the sixties and onward, were instigated by a series of false flags. We have a huge task to write truth essays, rewrite history, and revamp our educational systems. Maybe we need to focus our education and news on the destructive political forces that have been at work for many hundreds of years, to divide, instigate unrest, and conquer. And begin teaching this to our youth at an early age in our schools, or at least make such a curriculum available to our schools.

  23. Donny Johnny Trump

    Would any of you like a position in my administration?

  24. Alan Atkins

    Each man involved in the war had his own personal reason as motivation for participation. Honor, freeing the slaves, career advancement etc etc. I agree with Dr Pieczenik, that the underlying reason for the war was NOT to free anyone. If that was the case, the North could have done what Great Britain did and pay the rich land owners for the slaves if abolition was the goal. The Civil War was about what all wars are ultimately about. Money, land, resources and power are all linked together and are always the underlying reason for war. The North did not want to lose the resources of the South, it is as simple as that.

Comments are closed.