Category: History

The Embellishment Surrounding Auschwitz

In order for Auschwitz to rise above the rest of the carnage of WW II so as to be used as the means by which to keep the goyim full of guilt  and shame, it most certainly did need the embellishment of serial lying. Without that serial lying, coming in the way of embellishment and exaggeration Auschwitz is just one more tragic incarnation of evil found so frequently in WW II like Katyn forest, the liquidation of the Christian Kulaks, Operation Keelhaul, or American run death camps where 1 million German “disarmed enemy forces” perished in conditions every bit as horrid as Auschwitz.

There is nothing about Auschwitz that makes it anymore hororfic than many of the other events of WW II except for the lying exaggerations surrounding Auschwitz that embellished it so that it might stand heads and tails above all the other Banalities of evil that so characterized WW II. Honestly, if one wants hororfic apart from the need of embellishment or exaggeration one need only to consider the Quebec, Teheran, or Yalta conferences where post-war enslavement was agreed upon, and where countless millions were left to suffer for nearly 50 years under the bloody thumb of Soviet Communism.

And all that embellishment, with all the diminishing of all the other vile evil that necessarily followed the embellishing of one over the others, had a political advantage of allowing the Bagel to shame the rest of the world into giving way to his later malfeasance at every turn.

McAtee Contra Aaron Renn on “Nationalism”

People just can’t quit talking about Christian Nationalism and Kinism. Recently I read an interview piece with Andrew Sandlin and Joe Boot. Upon completing it I had to make sure I wasn’t reading a Norm MacDonald comedy routine. I may bring that to IronInk for analysis. On the other hand I can’t keep up with all the vacuous mindlessness out there on the subject of “Christian Nationalism,” and “Kinism” that needs to be critiqued.

However, in this post I am taking the time to critique another piece by Aaron Renn that can be found here;

Nationalism Isn’t American

Nobody will be surprised to learn that I find almost all that I read from the cognoscenti to be worthy only of mouse bait status. Renn is no different. See if you agree with me.

“As Georgetown professor Joshua Mitchell has shown, wokeness shot rapidly through American culture because it exploited Protestant religious themes that are embedded deep in our public consciousness, whereas Marxism never got traction because concepts like “class” don’t resonate in America. “

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds

1.) Leave it to a Georgetown Intellectual to conclude that somehow wokeness gained traction because it could exploit Protestant religious themes. I guarantee you if we looked at these Protestant themes the Georgetown professor is suggesting could be used by wokeness to worm its way into our public consciousness we would find that these putative Protestant themes are in point of fact Liberal themes that were like parasites that had attached to Protestantism. There is nothing in genuine Protestantism that makes a way for wokeness.

2.) The odd thing about this quote is Renn doesn’t seem to realize that wokeness is a form of Marxism. Hence, Marxism has resonated here but I would submit that the reason Marxism resonates is because we are no longer and have not been for quite some time a Christian people.

3.) I think the success of the Democratic party for the last 90 years or so is proof positive that the idea of “class” does indeed resonate in America.

“Whatever our challenges are today, they are certainly less serious than those of the Civil War or Great Depression.”

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds,

I think this a terrible reading of US history and our current place in that history. Now, to be sure, the War Against the Constitution, as well as the Great Depression were two very “serious” and difficult times of challenge in our country’s history but to suggest that where we are is less serious than those historical events belies a seriously tin ear as to the precipice we currently are upon. We have over 30 million illegal aliens in our country and our border is non existent. We have a debt that will never be paid off. We have two hot wars that we are arcing towards getting sucked into. The gap between the haves and have nots is greater than any time in several generations. We have an elite who are in point of fact an occupying force that clearly are not interested in representing the interests of the American people. We are setting on a racial powder keg that could explode at any moment. The Institutions of the US such as Universities, Families, and Churches are shredded in terms of supporting and maintaining a stable social order. Now, Renn would say to me, as he says in his “Nationalism” piece that this is all “apocalyptical thinking,” but naturally enough I find him playing with matches in a dark room filled with dynamite singing, “Don’t Worry, be Happy.”

The rest of Renn’s piece underscores my conviction that Renn is not very historically savvy. For example, elsewhere he can say;

“Repeatedly throughout American history, in times of crisis, our leaders have managed to take extraordinary action when necessary and to refresh our institutions to address new challenges. Lincoln did so during the Civil War. Teddy Roosevelt did so with his trust busting, as did FDR with the New Deal.”

Now, I’m not completely sure, but in my reading it looks to me that Renn is complimenting Lincoln, TR, and FDR, on how they handled great challenges. If that is what Renn is saying I’d say this is a misreading of history and doesn’t take into account the unmitigated disaster these Presidents were and how each and all of them were committed to continue to fundamentally transform the US Constitution. Lincoln was a tyrant. TR was a known progressive. FDR worked the Fascist side of the street.
If Renn thinks that current American leadership could work the magic that Lincoln, TR, and FDR, worked when they faced challenges all I can do is explain why that is stupid analysis and then pray God that current leaders don’t face our challenges the way that demonic trio faced challenges.

“What we need today, perhaps, is a modern-day FDR—a thoroughly American character who built solutions that would appeal to the people of this country.”

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds,

How can anybody take seriously anybody who would write a sentence like the one above?

Just for the record… FDR created the problems to which he offered “solutions” that only made the original problems twice as bad. Secondly, the only reason FDR “appealed” to the people of this country is because he first paid them and then set them against one another is a frenzied fit as to who was going to get first and primary access to the money he stole from the American people through his taxation policy as coupled with inflating the money supply.

“But terms like “nationalism” or “Christian nationalism” join the Left in abandoning these historic symbols in favor of ones that don’t resonate. So I believe it is a mistake to embrace this and other such language. The authentic American cultural and political tradition provides us all the resources we need to meet the challenges of today.”

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds,

Christian Nationalism doesn’t resonate? Renn says that despite the US Constitution being concerned with “securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Does Renn know what “ourselves and our posterity means?” Is not such a phrase “Nationalism” in embryonic form?
Or what about the Naturalization Act of 1790 where the law limited naturalization to “free White person(s) … of good character”, thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, enslaved people, free black people, and later Asians. Is there not a foundational notion of Nationalism in such language?

As late as 1921 we could read Vice President John Calvin Coolidge writing something that sure sounds like Nationalism;

“There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.”

Vice President John Calvin Coolidge
Good Housekeeping — 1921

In light of this a many many more examples that could be easily provided does Renn really want to stake out the position that “terms like “nationalism” or “Christian nationalism” join the Left in abandoning our historic symbols in favor of ones that don’t resonate.”

This is the first time I’ve take the time to analyze something written by Renn. I know he is supposed to be “all that and a bag of chips,” but this piece ranks right up there with what you’d hear in your average Owen Strachan sermon.

Renn is just terribly off in his article on Nationalism. I am coming to the conclusion that one can determine the bonafides of someone’s intellectual capacity based upon how they handle the question of Christian Nationalism. It seems to me that Renn fails just like Wilson, White, Strachan, Ainol, Boot, Sandlin, etc.

The Placing of Robert E. Lee in Hell… a Cultural Analysis

“The task of history, therefore, once the world beyond the truth has disappeared, is to establish the truth of this world.”

Karl Marx

“The march of Providence is so slow, and our desires so impatient; the work of progress is so immense and our means of aiding it so feeble; the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief, that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope.”

General Robert E. Lee

 

In the last week a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee, on his horse Traveler, was melted in effigy in a fiery furnace heated, we were told to 2250 degree Fahrenheit. This was something that could have been done quite apart from fanfare and hoopla, as the enemies of Lee and what he symbolizes had already achieved victory a couple years prior with the removal of the Lee statue from the public square in Charlottesville, Virginia. However, old feuds run deep and the descendants of the victors of the War of Northern Aggression were compelled by their hatred to add insult to injury and so one of the communiques of the Marxist left (The Washington Post) felt it necessary to rub large amounts of salt in a very old wound by placing a photo of Lee burning in a hell like furnace. This was the Jacobin Left gleefully rubbing the noses of Heritage Americans in Jacobin triumph and our defeat.

My immediate thought upon seeing the photo and reading the article was, once my rage passed, “and this is what they wish they could do with all of us who find this action to be a testimony to vile Marxist revolutionary behavior. What does one expect from Marxist pigs but Marxist grunts?”

In this smelting of Lee we see once again the Marxist disciples of Marx reaching to accomplish what Marx spoke of in our lead in quote. The Left is working on the task and has been working on that task, since its inception in Genesis 3, of scrubbing away the world beyond the truth so as to establish their truth of this world. As such the melting of Lee is not merely an attack on Heritage Americans, it is also an attack on the Biblical metaphysics that gives meaning to reality in favor of a humanist epistemology wherein history and Marxist historians are given the task of “establishing ‘truth’ in this world.”

They have been at this task, hammer and tong, in regards to Gen. Lee at every turn. Consider that in 2021 the Cathedral of the Rockies finished replacing a stained-glass windowpane that the church felt was racist and non-inclusive. The offending stained glass window featured Robert E. Lee standing shoulder to shoulder with Washington and Lincoln. Lee was changed out here for the first Black female Bishop in Methodism with Boise ties. Lee was probably pleased to be finally removed from having to be in the same windowpane as Lincoln.

Also in 2021, Robert E. Lee IV, a descendent of the General, made some news ripples when he denounced his forefather by offering to whatever microphone he could find that, “We have made my ancestor an idol of white supremacy, racism and hate.” One wonders who the “we” is that RGL IV is referring to?  This same descendant of Lee was quoted in 2016 in the Washington Post, “of the shame he felt over his great-great-great-great uncle’s legacy.”

A great irony in all this is that Lee himself was relieved that slavery had ended. The man, if we are to take his own words seriously, was pleased that slavery had ended;

“I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.”

However, to the Marxist gods this is irrelevant. History will be what they and their “historians” say it is, and may the truth that is beyond this world be damned.

In all this we need to keep in mind here that Robert E. Lee is not the only one who is being tossed upon the bonfires of vanity either by way of removal, destruction, or defacing. The symbols of Western Civilization and American History are everywhere being cast aside. Everyone from  Maj. Gen. Philip Schuyler — he of American War of Independence fame, U.S. Grant, to Christopher Columbus, to George Washington to Juan Ponce de Leon, to abolitionists Matthias Baldwin, and John Greenleaf Whittier. At this point it is past obvious that this is not merely an attack on the Old South but it is an attack in revolt against every semblance of civilization and order that has any whiff of Christianity in favor of the anarchy of old chaos and dark night.

Anybody who is familiar in the least with the nature of Revolution understand that once the revolutionary mindset gets rolling that eventually the Revolution eats its own. The Revolutionaries started with the statues raised to the honored confederate dead but the frenzy extends now even to 19th century abolitionists who may have been animated in their opposition to slavery due to their Christian principles.

Also lets not miss here that all the pilloried statues have one other thing in common and that reality is that all the symbols of the West being pulled down are of white people. For those with eyes to see all this statuary removal is clearly a concrete expression of the desire to rid the West of the white man, and the irony here is that a great percentage of those pulling down the statuary are white people who don’t realize that soon enough the Revolution is going also thrown them on the bonfires regardless of how many white statues they helped pull down.

Those who are aware of the way worldview warfare works understand that this current phenomenon of pillorying the statues of our heroes is in no way something new. If one looks at the era of the Reformation one finds the Reformers tearing down Roman Catholic statuary left and right. If one looks at the era of the rise of the Revolution in France or the Bolshevik Revolution one finds statues and symbols being pulled down. Even in the war against Iraq one of the streaming images instantly broadcast was of an American tank pulling down a statue of Saddam Hussein. One way a person can know that their is worldview change in the air is by seeing what we are seeing now and that is the assault on the symbols of the people who are being replaced.

This brings us to the observation of George Orwell;

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

The attack of Gen. Lee as well as the pulling down of the symbols of the Christian West is, proximately, in the service of destroying the Christian White man and behind that is the ultimate purpose and that is the stripping from Jesus Christ the title of “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” The Marxist mob hates Christ and because they hate Christ they hate the Christian White man who has been, in God’s providence, the carrier of Christian civilization and so the fragrance of Christ. That fragrance is deeply hated by the Left and so they cast us all in Hell by snapping a photo of Lee’s face as red hot and molten. There is very little more that these Marxists demons could do to inform us that they intend to wipe out anybody who opposes the Revolution.

In one respect this disrespect to Lee, Christianity, and Jesus Christ is a good thing. It is a good thing because it draws a bright line between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. This kind of thing establishes the anti-thesis between those who are of their Father the devil and those who are on the Lord’s side.

We are approaching a crescendo on this matter. Pat Buchanan summarized this nicely a few years ago;

“In half a lifetime, many Americans have seen their God dethroned, their heroes defiled, their culture polluted, their values assaulted, their country invaded, and themselves demonized as extremists and bigots for holding on to beliefs Americans have held for generations.”

When the crescendo finally arrives you can be sure that, just as during previous historical crescendos on this count there will be blood in the street, just as there was blood in the streets in Paris in 1789, in the streets of Harper’s Ferry in 1860, in the streets of Moscow in 1918, in the streets of Budapest in 1919, in the streets of Peking in 1949 and in the streets of  Havana in 1956 Whenever these Revolutionary Christ haters are able to expand their Revolutionary mindset the blood begins to flow by the gallon.

For those with their ears close to the ground, none of this is surprising in the least. With the success of the Civil Rights movement, animated and financed as it was by the Communist International and by Marxist philosophy the hand-writing was on the wall. Then in the 1980’s when the Marxist Martin Luther King was officially placed in our pantheon of heroes it was only a matter of time till American heroes who stood for the principals exactly opposite to those of King would be pushed out of our pantheon of heroes. King is taken out of the closet and is replaced in the closet by Lee, Jackson, Washington, Jefferson, etc.

So, the Jacobin war of Northern Aggression continues apace. It never really ended and it will not end until Christianity and the white man is wiped out and incinerated in just the same way that one of the greatest Americans of our history was incinerated.

In the end this casting of Gen. Robert E. Lee into Hell was a testimony to the greatness of the man. The man was so great… such a Christian hero, that he now is, to the left, the embodiment of the Christian White man. All of the Christian virtues that the Jacobin left so deeply and viscerally hates are distilled in the great Robert E. Lee. Even after his death 153 years ago he remains the bete-noire of the Jacobin left here in these united States of America.

It is my prayer that those responsible for this desecration of Robert E. Lee… for this further cynical attack on Biblical Christianity, for this attempt to further attempt to snuff out the Lordship of Jesus Christ will result in an eternity of their seeing that red and molten image of Lee ever before them.

Sic semper tyrannis.

 

 

Darrel Dow Demonstrates that Rev. Toby Sumpter is Either Stupid or Evil

My good friend Darrel Dow (co-author of the anthology “Who is My Neighbor”) posted this on a social media site. I though it so good that I am reproducing it here.

The reason the headline says that Rev. Toby Sumpter is either stupid or evil is because if he is saying this stuff and knows it is not true he is evil. On the other hand if he is saying this stuff and doesn’t know better then he is merely stupid (ignorant, dumb, idiotic, torpid, jejune, moronic, etc.) Now, I can’t know which one of the two it is. I guess I hope that Old Toby is just stupid. I’d hate to think he is evil.

I’m posting this because, frankly it makes me angry that Old Toby is leading people astray like this. People who don’t know any better listening to Old Toby on this podcast just walk away thinking, “Yeah, Rev. Sumpter is clearly correct,” when in point of fact he is either stupid or evil.

Anyway, below reproduces Darrell giving Rev. Sumpter a facial.

Begin Darrel Dow;

On a recent Cross Politics podcast, Toby Sumpter made the observation that our Founders thought of themselves as “descendants of Adam” and not “White people.” Is that true? Did our Founders believe that race and ethnicity were unimportant, that we are all merely “image bearers” and “sinners”?

I’ll provide a sampler to help evaluate the claim. Note that I could have pulled MANY more quotes. I begin with Revolution Era figures and also provide a number of citations from later figures. Again, this could go on almost indefinitely.

Let us begin with legislation offered in the state of Virginia by Thomas Jefferson which was designed to define citizenship in the commonwealth.

“Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, BEING A FREE WHTE PERSON, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization,”

In a letter, Jefferson explains his concern with having too many German immigrants and the need to disperse them (Benjamin Franklin held this same view.)

“Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience.”

Letter to George Fowler
Sept. 12, 1817

Alexander Hamilton who disagreed with Jefferson on many important questions in the life of the early republic, agreed with him on the debilitating consequences of immigration.

“The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived, or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

 

Benjamin Franklin likewise on this subject,

“[T]he Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably [sic] very small… . I could wish their Numbers were increased…. But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.”

“Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.”

Giving more of the context from Franklin

“Which leads me to add one remark: That the number of purely white people in the world is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion ; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind.”

– Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.

Here is the language of the Naturalization Act of 1790, which the FIRST CONGRESS passed.

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States .”

James Madison endorsed colonization and indeed later ran the colonization society.

“To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the U.S. freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by or allotted to a White population.”

Abraham Lincoln (who also supported colonization).

“I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

 

Stephen Douglas is quoted as saying;

“For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any form. I believe that this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining the citizenship to white men—men of European birth and European descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes and Indians, and other inferior races.”

End Dow

Now, Old Toby may not like that these words were once said but in manifestly demonstrates that his numbskull insistence that our Founders thought of themselves as “descendants of Adam” and not “White people,” is just well beyond the boundaries of ridiculous.

And remember, what has been provided here is just a sampling of the avalanche of quotes that could be reproduced in order to embarrass Old Toby, were he capable of being embarrassed.

If you doubt this, find a copy (if you can) of Achord & Dow’s book, “Who is My Neighbor.”

Now, here’s the real question. Will Old Toby recant and repent on his Cross-Politic podcast?

A Book Review — “The Life & Character of Abraham Lincoln; Monster or Messiah?

Last night I finished George L. Christian’s nifty little booklet entitled, “The Life & Character of Abraham Lincoln; Monster or Messiah”? Most of this I’ve come across before but there were one or two morsels that I had not come across before. One of those morsels was the incredible extent that men, who were previously Lincoln’s enemies, went to in order to grant apotheosis and deification to Lincoln upon death. Though the book does not go into this, connecting the dots allows one to realize that one reason they did that is that by doing so it covered their tracks as perpetrators of Lincoln’s murder. Another reason Lincoln’s deification was pursued by his previous enemies was that they understood that they needed a hero in order to cement both their Republican rule and their recreation of the nation into something that had not existed previously. By deifying Lincoln the narrative of the new USA became untouchable. So ridiculous had the Yankee mob been stirred up by the propaganda of the godlike Lincoln that Lincoln’s oldest friend Ward Lamon could write;

“For days and nights after his assassination ‘it was considered treason to be seen in public with a smile on the face. Men who spoke evil of the fallen chief, ventured a doubt concerning the ineffable purity and saintliness of his life, were pursued by mobs, were beaten to death with paving stones, or strung up by the neck to lamp posts.'”

The author takes pains to suggest that sane people no more grieve Lincoln’s murder than they grieve the state sanctioned murder of Mary Surratt (look her up).

Perhaps the best work in the book is where the author puts to rest the old chestnut that had Lincoln survived he would have certainly treated the South with a far greater kindness than the Black Republicans who were left in power upon his death. Author, Christian, powerfully demonstrates that such a notion that Lincoln would have been a friend to the South after its defeat is pure hagiography.

Anyway … the book is only 50 pages and so it is a quick read. If you’ve read others longer works on Lincoln this supplements that reading well. The longer biography of Lincoln one should read is Edgar Lee Masters, “Lincoln, the Man.”

After reading this book you will realize what a hypocrisy it is to have a Temple built to Lincoln in Washington DC.

Really good at exposing the charade that Lincoln was some kind of American hero. This myth continues to modern times as a reading of Alan Guelzo’s “Abraham Lincoln; Redeemer President.”

We complain about the current gaslighting that goes on in Washington DC, but the gaslighting that continues to this day on the matter of one Abraham Lincoln continues to be some of the greatest gaslighting in world history.

A few recommend reads on Lincoln. Remember, I am challenging the hagiographic Lincoln.

1.) Edgar Lee Masters — Lincoln the Man
2.) Walter Kennedy — Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War

3.) Al Benson — Lincoln’s Marxists
4.) Thomas DiLorenzo — Lincoln Unmasked
5.)Webb B. Garrison — Lincoln’s Little War: How His Carefully Crafted Plans Went Astray