Dunno why you were downvoted but yeah, the brass looks 5.56 (and probably blanks) and I swear it’s firing a lot slower than normal too. That said, miniguns are not accurate and are meant to fill an area with lead due to fire rate. While not as effective, sweeping a true minigun can be more effective than one might think.
Whatever it is they’ve some serious downscaling as nobody alive can shoot it standing up. To illustrate, in the movie predator, a big bulky dude was playing an American Commando. Guy was ripped but when it came to his minigun, even though it was modified to fire blanks (much less recoil), he could not shoot it standing still without being braced off-screen. A short burst still kicked his ass.
So for this lovely lady to shoot one, some very fun and creative tomfoolery had to be done.
Fun fact: the original modern electronic gatling gun was for fighter jets and created the rotary auto-cannon type of auto-cannon. As there was a similar need for helicopter door gunners, a scaled down version in 7.62 was made that earned the official name of “minigun”.
Sabbatean Frankists are the most recent, “officially” known name of the cult. Of course that’s what I called them retard. They aren’t completely different from Zevi, they’re a continuation.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Jacob_Frank
“...was an 18th-century Polish-Jewish religious leader who claimed to be the reincarnation of the self-proclaimed messiah Sabbatai Zevi...”
“The development of Frankism was one of the consequences of the messianic movement of Sabbatai Zevi, the religious mysticism that followed violent persecution and socioeconomic upheavals among the Jews of Poland and Ruthenia.”
https://infogalactic.com/info/Swinging_(sexual_practice)#18th_century
“It has been claimed that two related 18th-century messianic Jewish sects—the Frankists, followers of Jacob Frank, and the Dönmeh, followers of Shabbetai Zvi—held an annual springtime Lamb Festival, which consisted of a celebratory dinner that included a ritualized exchange of spouses.[17][18]”
They both practice “purification through transgression”, which means “The desecration of what is considered to be holy, such as the Talmud or the Bible, and by performing orgiastic rituals, the human downfall must become so severe that God has no longer an alternative than saving the world.“
This includes keeping secrets and deception, Zevi’s “conversion to Islam” was a farce. His goal was to get his own cults agents into Islam (which is terrible anyway without the cult) just as Frank got his into Catholicism.
https://antonymueller.medium.com/cult-of-the-evil-91daed1de7dd
None of these groups are religious Jews, many are no longer even ethnically jewish. They hate real jews and are always out to destroy them unless convienet to hide behind them when people notice their schemes. That you think they are jewish is just further ignorance on your part.
As for Charles Montagu he was the leader of the Venetian party...
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=180588
The Venetian Party was part of the cabal.
And the cabal is a satanic cult continuation of the Frankist cult, which is a continuation of prior cults. See the opening ceremony for CERN, it’s satanic as shit.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O4FK_xFyCfw&feature=emb_imp_woyt
That is all just one evidence trail to find this out. The deepstate is controlled by a satanic cult. That someone (tries and fails) to jump down my throat just about every time I mention it, without ever offering an alternative explanation for the Satanic elements, save the few times I get “No, it’s da Joos!”, tells me I’m on the right track and am making the globalist shills anxious.
You complete and utterly ignorant dunce, Sabbatean Frankists are just the most recent term for them.
Before Frank there was Zevi, who lived from 1626 - 1676. https://infogalactic.com/info/Sabbatai_Zevi
And his movement was just another form of the Cult of the All-Seeing Eye.
Poking? The South left and nobody did jack to them. Then they acted as self-righteous bullies over Sumter and threw the first punch. Evidence shows the poking was all in their leadership heads because they were looking for a fight.
LOL, I have no power to delete comments other than my fucktard. I haven’t even reported any of them. The only thing I’ve done is used facts and logic to shoot through the holes you leave in your own arguments. Seriously, your own evidence contradicted your own conclusions at least twice!
Maybe learn to cite and READ your own sources before posting and maybe you won’t feel like such a dumbass.
1.) You did not follow my logic, I laid out how it will always be a rebellion whether it’s lawful or not. Even if it wasn’t inherently a rebellion, they started the fracking war by shooting first. This something you keep trying to skirt around.
2.) Fort Sumter was ceded by the state in 1836 to the federal government, more than two decades before the war. https://civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.htm
“The Committee on Federal relations... Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory...”
They gave it away, they had no right to it. This part I did not know so now their bid for Sumter is officially doubly retarded.
3.) One, unnamed, unsourced historian is not some kind of final authority on anything. Citing sources one-hundred named ones isn’t either. That’s a logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
4.) There is no law saying you can secede either. And I laid out the issues with it being legalized as well. Once again, being the aggressor makes the issue moot.
5.) Lincoln being the aggressor regarding Sumter is ridiculous at this point. The south showed up with an aggressive show of force, demanding the return of territory they gave away over twenty years ago. Lincoln doesn’t act aggressive, he doesn’t reinforce the fort with men or munitions, and instead just sends food so they don’t starve.
And by your own unprovided source Lincoln even told the governor that he was just sending food, AKA GIVING PROPER NOTICE AS PROMISED!!! Lincoln kept his word by your own source’s admission! How could you have read that statement then turn around and declare Lincoln a liar?
And the Union’s reward for that was for retard Davis to shoot first, after behaving as the blatant aggressor, over a fort of dubious strategic value, his nation had no legal claim to, igniting passions in the north and throwing northern public support full tilt towards war when before they wanted no part of it. All against a nation that vastly outstripped his in population and industrial might.
Davis could not have fucked up worse than that.
Few is relative, globally that was true at the time. In terms of America, many people in the North and South. The latter usually due to the fact that slaves held jobs free people could take and the south had tons of poor.
The morals and ethics was never the topic; it was whether the south was 100% innocent. You’ve enlarged this topic to cover many things but innocence can be distilled down to three.
1.) The south was only about state rights in this matter. False. They kidnapped free Americans from northern states, violating those state’s rights. They banned their own states from outlawing slavery. They also threw hissy fits over a tariff that would have destroyed northern industry without it, AKA they demanded the north surrender their right to prosper for the south’s sake.
2.) State’s a have right to secede. Is the wrong question to even ask or state, and was rendered a moot point by 3.) but first I’ll explain myself.
If the answer is simply yes, then the tyrannical government can just wait till the second a state secedes and then invade. Rendering this right pointless.
If the answer is yes forever, that would mean a former state would still be protected by the constitution, which would be a nightmare of legality and unfeasible. A foreign nation would citizenship rights, while also reciprocally being denied autonomy. Nothing says a seceding state would always be the “good guy”, this version would likely freeze congress, giving the hostile nation a free initial period to wage war.
If the answer is “no”, then a state has no recourse if the entire fed goes against them.
Thus the real answer is *that any situation that would compel a state to secede is a situation where the central government cannot be trusted to let them go in peace, regardless of law. Therefore the act of secession should also be assumed to be an act of rebellion.“
Thus the founders were right in my mind to leave the topic of secession out of the Constitution.
3.) As mentioned, the right to peacefully secede, irregardless if one has it or not, is rendered null and void when you are the aggressor. The south demanded the surrendering of territory that rightful belonged to the north. When this right was asserted, they then gathered an army in an obvious prep for invasion. The south had the gall to be outraged when the north attempted to reinforce and resupply the fort in preparation for the obvious imminent attack, and then were the first ones to open fire!
All of that is info worth looking into... but none of that promotes your position that the south was free of guilt in he war. It doesn’t support the idea that slavery was disappearing in the south, or that the south was cajoled into firing first. It only shows that the deep state was in both sides, but they didn’t have near the same control then they do now. Both sides were in too much control of themselves to say it was pure manipulation.
If the elite wanted to mechanize the south, it would have happened. It speaks to the lack of total power and/or the incompetence of the deep state that they wanted a long war but didn’t ensure the south could sustain one.
Pro-Tip #1: Your first link, The World Order, is a 282 page book with no table of contents. It behooves you to actually at least cite a page number. Expecting someone to read a whole book in case it actually supports your position somewhere is asinine.
Pro-Tip #2: I did you a curtesy and used word search, but using terms such as “south”, “civil”, “north”, etc. Nothing in book is even about the Civil War. It pays to make sure your citation actually backs your position.
You then do the same thing with link 2, throwing an 80 page book at me with no citations or page numbers. Making me read a long document just to see if backs up or refutes any of our particular arguments is rude, I‘m only skimming this second one a bit this one time as a curtesy. If you link another document without citations or anything else to explain what it exactly says that backs you I’m not looking at them.
Issue one; in the forward the author says “One writer says that the North won, not because it "out- fought the South, but because it out-thought the South," that it was a victory of mind more than force. I can not agree with this. If we must keep the alliteration of the phrase, I would say that the North won, not because it could outfight the South, but because it did outwrite the South.”
It could out-write the south because it had an actual industrial base, which the south blatantly did not invest in.
Per my link, “The North, by contrast, was well on its way toward a commercial and manufacturing economy, which would have a direct impact on its war making ability... The North produced 3,200 firearms to every 100 produced in the South... The Confederate leaders were confident that the importance of cotton on the world market, particularly in England and France, would provide the South with the diplomatic and military assistance they needed for victory.”
Gee, relying others to supply doesn’t spell out well in practice, especially when the others side has the means to easily blockade you. The South had less population and relied more on pure manpower for its economy. Since much of warfare comes down to logistics it’s far more arguable the south lost because it had a vastly inferior industrial base.
That book also has no mention of Fort Sumter, and therefore we are left with the evidence showing the South firing the first shot at Fort Sumter after the North did the rational thing of reinforcing and resupplying it, all because a hostile force was gathering in a blatant preparation for an attack.
If the southern leadership was going to allow slavery to die they wouldn’t have banned banning it under the Confederacy. We have ample evidence they were never going to just let slavery go, we have no idea what the north would have done if the south hadn’t attacked, as that is what got the north in full swing.
That Sumter was justified relies on your claim that union troops kidnapped confederate politicians. Which you never supplied a source for and I could find nothing.
I understand at least a good chunk of the South’s perspective, but much of that was shaped by propaganda from their so called elite. The two fit-inducing issues were the increasing industrialization of the world was making slavery economically unviable and the tariffs placed on foreign goods so northern industry was no destroyed. The South viewer both acts as the North bullying them when grievance 1.) was simply reality, industrialization was simply happening on a global scale. To demand it to go away is ludicrous. And grievance 2.) was demanding the North destroy their own industry for their sake. An untenable demand.
You also cannot have done due diligence when your own claims cannot be sourced or are outright refuted from easily found sources. Your last paragraph reinforces my point; since slavery was so expensive the south should have been mechanizing and/or at least hiring free people. Neither you nor any source I looked at claimed they did, therefore slavery was not on the decline because the elites wanted it so badly. Even mechanization such as the cotton gin was only used because they could still use slaves.
The south was importing cheap imports from Europe, they complained when the fed put tariffs on them so the northern industry would not be wiped out because foreign goods were cheaper. So yes, they did get most of their goods from the North.
The mechanization of the north made farming cheaper and more productive. Quoting from here: https://www.nps.gov/articles/industry-and-economy-during-the-civil-war.htm
“ Only about 40 percent of the Northern population was still engaged in agriculture by 1860, as compared to 84 percent of the South.
Even in the agricultural sector, Northern farmers were out-producing their southern counterparts in several important areas, as Southern agriculture remained labor intensive while northern agriculture became increasingly mechanized. By 1860, the free states had nearly twice the value of farm machinery per acre and per farm worker as did the slave states, leading to increased productivity. As a result, in 1860, the Northern states produced half of the nation's corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats.”
The north was producing more than half of the nation’s total agricultural staples while involving less than half of the percentage of their population compared to the South. Saying they didn’t invest in farmland is flat out false.
What is also false is the idea that the South was getting rid of slavery within ten years and was doing substantial experimentation with new farming methods. Because both would require a switch towards mechanization as well as hiring free people for farm work in large numbers, which every source I found documents the exact opposite of.
Researching including using more horses?!? Seriously?!? Either using more horses actually makes work faster without substantial increase in cost or it doesn’t. That would be figured within a few days, absolute max.
The cotton gin did the opposite; it increased the demand for slavery because the south refused to mechanized harvesting - more slaves were needed to keep up with the machines. This also revitalized the southern economy, which prevented the elites from losing power. Its existence contradicts your slavery dying claim.
Just about everything you’ve been claiming is now looking like confederate revisionist propaganda. Your claims either don’t logically line up, can’t be verified or are outright contradicted by existing searchable documentation.
The constitution already does that. “General welfare” had a certain meaning as does regulate. Stuff is already so much in gross violation as is written now that all you’d be doing is making violations doubly illegal without increasing safeguards. The reality is no system can withstand people not actively trying to maintain it.
You either forgot, or didn’t read my post, as I said not one word about Lincoln. I called out the myth that the South was a bunch of perfect angels who “dindu nuffin’ to start no war!”
After skimming your post, the only thing you did to address my counter arguments was the claim that union soldiers kidnapped confederate officials prompting Sumter. Except I could not find that claim anywhere. Given the relative shittiness of search engines now I can see it not showing up, but without a source I can only conclude that that gathered to attack the fort, the union tried to reinforce and fortify it in turn, which the confederacy used as an excuse to attack.
As for the parallel of the current deep state, the confederate elite match that way more. Importing cheap goods (outsourcing to China), slave labor (illegal aliens), wars under false pretenses (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). Since slavery was going away it was an even bigger incentive for the elite to break away as then they could regulate industrial technology so it couldn’t eliminate them.
Sabbatean Frankism.