Revolt of the Plebs March 5, 2013

In our continuing effort to bring American history in accord with the facts, Keith Johnson welcomes back author and historian Michael Thomas Goodrich, whose book, entitled Darkest Dawn, exposes the real Abraham Lincoln, not the sanitized version offered by Steven Spielberg. We also finish up our previous discussion on WWII joined by Max French of The Victory Hour.

Download Here


  1. #1 by 1bigcree Shadowhawk on 03/05/2013 - 9:34

    Dynamite show Kieth. You’re a true Scholar and warrior for the facts. Mr Goodrich thankyou for all you do. Max great call in info! Bang on the money. Many people don’t know about the Jewish infiltration of Lincoln’s Administration. Judah P Benjamin played a role there as well as in Lincoln’s assassination.

  2. #2 by jschlomo on 03/06/2013 - 9:34

    Opening statements are Prophetic; Ron Paul hits the Republic Nail on the Head! – however, the apple (Rand) rolled far from the TREE of that same Republic….

  3. #3 by Fan of TUT on 03/06/2013 - 9:34

    KEITH, PLEASE…NO! DON’T DEVOTE ONE MORE SECOND OF DISCUSSION TO THIS SANDY HOOK NONSENSE. They have already made the entire 911 movement look like a bunch of nuts. Are you really going to perpetuate this problem? As you have found out personally when dealing with them, YOU CAN’T REASON WITH THEM. For them Sandy Hook is their drug of choice and there is no talking them out of it.

    For the sake of the rest of us in the sane world, please reconsider your decision to do a program on this topic.

  4. #4 by Deadbeat on 03/06/2013 - 9:34

    One of the areas missed in the discussion of Lincoln that seems to be leading to a kind of reverence is his use of the Greenback. The claim is that Lincoln stood up to the bankers who wanted to charge 30% interest on loans needed by Lincoln to fight the Civil War. It is also claimed that these bankers (the Rothchilds in particular) encouraged the Civil War in order to weaken the U.S. so that these bankers could obtain their hooks into the U.S. with a new Central Bank.

    How much of these claims are true or not would have been interesting to hear Mr. Goodrich and Keith Johnson discuss this aspect that is being promoted by many who hate the bankers.

  5. #5 by Bob on 03/06/2013 - 9:34

    I haven’t had the chance to listen to this episode yet, but I would like to point out for those who are not aware of it that Lincoln was probably the WORST president in US history. That he is so celebrated today is merely a reflection of the “winners” writing the history.

    Lincoln pushed this nation into a needless and bloody civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. No war before or since has so ravaged this nation as did the war between the states. The stock propaganda line today is that the war was another “good war” and that it was caused by and fought to end slavery. This is patently false and any objective student of history (who does more research than reading the tomes written by the victors) can readily see.

    The war between the states was not caused by Southern states leaving the union. This was their legitimate right to do and the decisions were made democratically by each state. The war was about ECONOMICS….WEALTH AND POWER, just like most other wars. Lincoln enaged in a war to crush the Southern states and force them to remain in the union, not out of any sense of patriotism or duty, but because the Southern states were the cash cow of the Federal Government and allowing them to leave would have not only deprived the Federal government of its chief source of revenue, but would have ended efforts to make the South a captive market for Northern goods.

    It was the South which generated the vast majority of the nations exports, not the North. The South had a booming trade with Europe (primarily Britain and France) in which they exchanged Southern agricultural goods (principly cotton) for European manufactured goods. The Federal government, dominated by the Northern industrialists wanted to impose higher tariffs on imported European goods coming into Southern ports so as to compel the Southerners to buy Northern manufactured goods instead of importing these items from Europe. The Europeans needed to sell these goods to southerners in order to balance their trade. Without the ability to essentially trade manufactured goods for cotton, the Europeans could not long maintain the import of Southern cotton. This is an economic reality (we need only look at todays US trade deficit to see what a trade imbalance leads to).

    The Northern industrialists could not compete openly against European goods because the European goods were generally of a higher quality and mroe desired in the South. The Southerners also understood the nature of their trade relationship with the Europeans. By imposing higher and higher tariffs on Southern imports, the North was jeopardizing the entire basis of the Southern economy. This is the true reason why they left the Union, not because Lincoln was going to free the slaves. Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves and said so on many occaissions. In fact, he took no action at all regarding freeing slaves until the middle of the war and as a tactical measure at that.

    Lincoln would have been regarded today as a rabid racist who believed that whites were superior to blacks and his wish was to see all blacks shipped back to Africa, not set free to live as equals with whites in the USA.

    I can think of no other president who did more damage to America or who was responsible for the deaths of more Americans than Abraham Lincoln….may he rot in hell.


  6. #6 by 1bigcree Shadowhawk on 03/06/2013 - 9:34

    Let me restate my comment regarding the Confederate Operative Judah P Benjamin.

  7. #7 by Ingrid B on 03/06/2013 - 9:34

    All I can say is, bring on the whirlwind.. Thankyou all three for the history lesson.. It`s pretty amazing that people are coming together, from far flung parts of the planet, in hope, and solidarity..

    Would also like to say thankyou to Hugo, for his services to humanity, in the face of fierce opposition..

  8. #8 by 1bigcree Shadowhawk on 03/06/2013 - 9:34

    Agreed on all points Bob. Lincoln was an ugly bastard; in every way. His subsequent war on the Pnaci people in the States was just one more reason to consider him a low rate, rabid racist war mongering freak.

  9. #9 by Matthew on 03/06/2013 - 9:34

    you remind me by the way you vilify Lincoln the same way the Jews vilify Hitler almost the same things. Hitler and Lincoln did a lot of the same things during there times of war. But i guess you have your preferences.I dont think Lincoln was by any means a shining example of perfection but I think you have a warped sense of perspective in this matter.

  10. #10 by ron abbass on 03/06/2013 - 9:34

    @ #5 Bob —I don’t profess to know much about Lincoln and all the reasons for the civil war between the South and North. However, I’m inclined to agree with you that the war was _as you noted _about “Economics”, “Wealth and “Power”.

    You didn’t mention the source of your info and you neglected to mention that the Jews dominated and controlled both the highly profitable cotton industry and the black slave trade.

    And, it is likely, (my assumption) that it was the European Jews who were the major buyers of Southern cotton. If that was the case, then this certainly would have been an important “wealth and power” factor _ a Jewish factor _if I might add, in the war between the South and North.

    Here’s a YT link to a 10 min vid by John Alan Martinson, Jr. who produced and narrated “911 Missing Links”. He discusses the well-researched book published by the Nation of Islam titled “The Secret Relations Between Blacks and Jews”. John begins his commentary at the 1 min mark. Peace to you and yours Bob!

    Another great show, Keith and a big thank you to Mr. Goodrich for his knowledgeable insights and analysis.

  11. #11 by Bob on 03/07/2013 - 9:34

    Mathew, the actions of Adolph Hitler and Abraham Lincoln have no comparison. HItler was engaged in a program of rebuilding and reconstituting a nation that had been torn assunder by foreign powers. In so doing he faced an existential threat from organized Jewry, both from their control of international finance in the West and their control of Bolshevism in the East. Even if Hitler had abandon his desire to bring back into Germany the ethnic germans living under Polish rule, he would have still been forced into the same war he eventually found himself in. The USSR was planning a military campaign to destroy Germany and expand communist rule into Western Europe. This is a well documented fact. Organized Jewry had already declared war on Germany in the 1930’s and had vowed to destroy Germany. HItler faced a true existential threat and this threat was borne out by the fact that Germany was completely destroyed and dismembered after the war.

    Lincoln on the other hand faced no such existential crisis. He could have quite easily simply recognized the right of states to cecede and recognized the confederacy. There was no threat that the confederates would have invaded the North and the existence of independent confederacy posed no geopolitical threat to the survival of the North.

    Lincoln chose to engage in a devastating fratricidal war which killed several hundred thousand Americans and laid waste to nearly half the nation. Why? The pat answer you hear from the establishment is that he was forced to engage in this slaughter to “preserve the Union” as if that in and of itself was a worthy goal. Anyone who can set aside all of the propaganda about freeing slaves and such long enough to think this through would quickly realize that the entire point in Mr. Lincoln’s war was to subjugate the states to the federal government.

    Prior to 1861 the states still conidered themselves sovereign states and most political power rested in the state capitols, not in Washington DC. Mr. Lincoln’s war was to forever change the relationship between the states and the federal government. It was for all practical purposes the end of real “federalism” and the beginning of the concentration of power in Washington that today has left us with state governments which are completely under the thumb of the federal government. States today have no real independent power. Even when it comes to directly ruling over their citizens, states now take a backseat to federal diktats in any area in which the federal government decides to take an interest. In today’s America, state governments are in reality mere adminstrative districts under the government in DC and have no real sovereignty at all.

    This is clearly NOT what the people who wrote the constitution or the people who ratified it thought they were signing on for. Had the founders proposed a government such as we have today, or had the founders expressly stated that states would give up their right to cecede by ratifying, the US constitution would have never been ratified and the USA would have never come into existence. The original 13 colonies would have remained independent nations. NOBODY in 1781 was interested in anything more than a loose confederation. NOBODY was interested in the establishment of a strong central government.

    Today it is taken for granted that Mr. Lincoln had the moral and legal authority to compel states to remain in the union. But it is clear that when the people entered into this compact that they never intended to grant any future president any such authority. Mr. Lincoln CHOSE to engage in war to impose his will (and those of his benefactors) upon the people of the South. Adolf Hitler on the other hand engaged in war to reclaim German populations which rightfully belonged in the German nation and which very much wanted to return to it. That to me is a very fundamental difference. One man was attempting to reconstitute his nation which had been dismembered by foriegn powers, the other was trying to prevent the dissolution of his which was brought about through democratic processes. Now tell me, which is the tyrant and which is the great statesman?

    The Jewish role in the US civil war? Their role was the same as it was in most wars. They sought to profit from it. In fact, many think that Lincoln was actually assassinated because he refused to finance his war against the South by borrowing from Jewish banking interests in Europe and instead printed his own money to finance the war. In that regard I give Lincoln his due, he did stand up to the banksters, but that in no way lessens his guilt for the death and destruction he inflicted upon America….

    Think about it for a moment. What would have been so horrific about an indpendent confederacy? Some argue that the war was necessary to end slavery, but this is just nonsense. Chatel slavery was coming to an end around the world in the last half of the 19th century, not because of any great moral awakening, but because people came to realize that it was far more econmical to exploit cheap labor than it was to maintain slaves. It is almost certain that slavery would have came to an end in the South within another 20 or 30 years at most.

    There was no need for a bloody civil war to end slavery and ending slavery was not a principle war aim of the Northern government AT ANY POINT DURING THE WAR. Don’t take my word for it, just read Mr. Lincoln’s own contemporaneous writings of the time. He was very clear on this point. His purpose in waging war was not to end slavery, but to compel the Southern states to remain within a political construct in which power was concentrated in the North and in which their interests were to be subservient to those of the Northern industrialists. Slavery was not THE CAUSE of the war, it was more a manifestation of the differences between the two societies and a useful propaganda tool to encourage Northern farm boys and immigrant workers to fight and die for the Union Army. LIke most propaganda, it was a means to an end, not an end in itself.

  12. #12 by 1bigcree Shadowhawk on 03/07/2013 - 9:34

    Bob , I concur! Here is more proof of the goings on after Lincoln’s War (Civil War 1861 – 1865)
    Read about ‘The Legislative Act of 1871’

  13. #13 by Matthew on 03/07/2013 - 9:34

    Thanks for proving my point

  14. #14 by Bob on 03/08/2013 - 9:34

    Your welcome Mathew 🙂

    Warped as it may be, it is my opinion and its the only one I brought to the dance with me. I’m curious though….Could you name a US president that was responsible for more American deaths than Lincoln? My understanding of history is that he is the clear leader int his category and that alone should be sufficient to bring into question the apparent high regard accorded him by the establishment historians. Peace.


  15. #15 by Blake on 03/10/2013 - 9:34

    Great history lesson thank you

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: