Does The Smithsonian Institute Lean Left?

by Al Benson Jr.

The question that is the title of this article has to have been asked by others besides myself. I recall back when I was an amateur archaeologist and read articles about archaeological specimens that didn’t seem to fit the usual pattern being sent to the Smithsonian for study. The articles seemed to note that anything out of the ordinary sent to the Smithsonian for analysis often became “lost” and could not be studied. This pertained to material found in North America. I can’t speak to material found in other parts of the world. The opinion I got was that if something discovered did not fit a certain accepted worldview then it would never get any kind of hearing from the Smithsonian. It would just be ignored or denounced as “fake.”

Reading about the Smithsonian in Arthur Thompson’s book To the Victor Go the Myths and Monuments I can understand why. Mr. Thompson has informed us that: “Robert Dale Owen, like his father, Robert Owen, was an open advocate of communism. He likewise was a spiritualist–and was vociferous about both. He was elected to the Indiana State Legislature and helped write the state constitution as a known communist. In1852, he became the chairman of the Indiana Legislative Assembly’s Committee on Education. Later he was elected to the House of Representatives, where he sponsored the bill that led to the Smithsonian Institute. All the voters in Indiana knew what he stood for. In regard to setting up the Smithsonian, Owen said, ‘To effect permanent good we must reach the minds and hearts of the masses…’ His idea of permanent good was different than most as a communist and spiritualist. As part of this effort, he and his associates urged the establishment of a teacher training school and distribution of cheap tracts and books on a variety of subjects.”

Notice how leftist mentalities are into “teacher training.” We might well ask who would be running such institutions. You can bet the farm it wouldn’t be patriotic conservatives. Mr Thompson tells us that the facilities of the Smithsonian were not supposed to be used, officially, for political or religious matters. Yeah, right! And he tells us that: “As is the case with government, certain people are more equal than others, and soon the lecture hall was hosting abolitionists. Among the speakers were Greeley, Henry Ward Beecher, and Wendell Phillips. Owen was put in charge of appointing the Smithsonian trustees as prescribed by law and the building of the institute’s first edifice. Today, it is difficult to ferret out his involvement in modern references to the Smithsonian. The goal of those behind this organization was to establish a center of official government science. In this manner, as an example, they could slowly work to ostracize those who believed in anything the communists did not want people to believe in, such as Creation, and to promote the beliefs of Darwin, all using government money and sanction and doing so exceedingly well…Today, no one who openly believes in the idea of intelligent design in the formation of man and animals, let alone a Creator, is allowed to work for the Smithsonian in a position of responsibility…The communist support for the hypothesis of Darwin served as the platform to enable them to completely overthrow society…” And this attitude has affected even so-called conservatives. I remember getting a newsletter from one of these years ago in which he made the statement that “anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution is stupid–period.” Well, I guess there are still some of us “stupid” people around–thank God–the same Almighty Creator those people don’t believe exists–and to whom they will have to give account for their actions someday.

It would seem the Smithsonian has always leaned left. Mr. Thompson noted that: “The Smithsonian Committee appointed Adolf Cluss’ architect firm to build the original U.S. National Museum Building. Kluss was a member of the Communist League with Marx and Engels, and was a personal friend of Marx…Regardless of who may serve as regent, the Smithsonian started as the first step toward the involvement of government into the sciences and the interference of government into what would become “official” government-sanctioned science and progress. The idea has become so ingrained within the American psyche that no one questions government oversight of science by way of the Smithsonian.” Mr. Thompson notes that Robert Dale Owen was the originator of the 14th Amendment, though he says others were given credit for it. He tells us that: “The amendment was given over to Rep. Thaddeus Stevens to push through and it was adopted without addressing black suffrage, which was granted by the 15th Amendment. We will discuss this amendment as being illegally adopted further on.”

So this gives you some basic idea of the origins of the Smithsonian and why it has taken some of the positions it has. Science often doesn’t have a lot to do with it. Ideology does. Same situation with this Chinese virus we all have to deal with today. The “scientists” keep moving the goal posts all over the place and their movements all tend to lean in one direction–controlling what the population does and thinks–so consistent with the communist mentality.

Robert Owen And the Communization of American Education

by Al Benson Jr.

Few people in the public education field have probably heard of Robert Owen the Scottish socialist. Yet he had more to do with the direction education went in during the early 1800s than most people would imagine. When I have written previously about Unitarians and socialists being the prime movers in the public school movement, Owen was one of the socialists I had in mind. Now we find that he had ties to Illuminism as well. Not good news, but something of which we need to be aware.

I have past and present public school teachers on my mailing list that receive these articles. I think most of them realize that this material is not meant to attack them personally. It is meant to make them aware of the background of the public school movement so they might learn how to react when something comes down the pike that they realize is objectionable.

Arthur R. Thompson, in his book, To the Victor Go the Myths and Monuments has done us a great service in revealing much of this material so people will realize the origins of the public school movement as well as the origin of so many other problems the country wrestles with in our day. He has told us quite a bit about Scottish socialist Robert Owen who founded the socialist commune in New Harmony, Indiana in 1829.

Mr Thompson has told us: “Out of New Harmony and allied communes, Robert Owen and the Illuminist Johaan Pestalozzi’s, Prof. Joseph Neef, promoted Pestalozzi’s system of education which became prominent across America by 1900. Robert Owen had become familiar with Pestalozzi sometime before the foundation of New Harmony and had visited with him in Switzerland. Two of Owen’s sons would marry the daughters of Joseph Neef. The primary purpose of the first group at New Harmony was to become missionaries to form other communist communities. The Commune was dominated by the idea of enlightened atheism. Infant schools were established at New Harmony by Robert Owen and conducted throughout the lifetime of communist experiments, and were the first of their kind in America.” Do you begin to see now the origin of these attempts by the public schools in our day to bring in kids as young as three years old? Socialist Robert Owen was the prime promoter of that scheme.

Mr. Thompson has stated: “It is necessary when changing society to infiltrate all aspects of society…While New Harmony professed to be the center of sciences and education, the New Harmony Gazette, the official organ of the commune, stated on October 1, 1825, “that individuality detracts largely from the sum of human happiness.’ It also professed that ‘This society regards education as public property.’ In other words, education is the property of the state: The state decides everything in regard to education. This fit nicely with their attitude about individuality. However, without individuality, in the long run science and education cannot advance. The socialists then and now promoted diversity,…so long as it progressed along lines that promoted international socialism. Diversity became a cover for subversion. If the diversity moved in the direction of being against the socialist agenda then it was and is attacked….Socialists who operate within a free society will have the ability to invent. But a socialist society will in the end stifle invention since all are trained to be alike. This is the problem with the modern educational system known as Common Core, where one size fits all. While the problem with Common Core is noticeable to the modern parent, the truth of the matter is that such a philosophy has long been the goal of the hierarchy of education in this country…If the internationalists in our midst are not successful in permanently establishing Common Core in the schools, they will simply change its name and come at the local schools again, claiming to fix the problem with a new deteriorating system. Each step will be a regression in the ability of outstanding students to learn any more than the lowest common denominator in the class.”

And Mr. Thompson also noted that:, “Robert Owen established an organization in Europe and elsewhere called the Association of All Classes of All Nations, and they professed in their ‘Social Hymns’ that ‘Community is Heaven.’ The goal was to replace God with government. In 1839, the organization changed its name to the Universal Community Society of Rational Religionists. Owenite communities existed in several states, New Hampshire being one of them. Mr. Thompson observed that: “In the New Hampshire commune the children belonged to the community from their second year and were all brought up together. This school was based on the idea that ‘There should be free, equal and universal schools to which at an early age children should be surrendered and in which they should be clothed, fed, sheltered and educated at the public expense.'”

Are you starting to see where the promoters of the public school movement have been and are trying to take us? All these ideas are pure socialism, and yet many of them still exist in some form today. All the more reason to separate your kids from the public school movement.

Is Much Of Our “History” A Myth? And does anyone really care?

by Al Benson Jr.

I remember when my wife and I started to homeschool our kids. We went to several homeschool conferences that had curriculum on display from many publishers that were turning out homeschool material. The first thing I would do was to check out what the various publishers had for American history. I was always disappointed. Most of the “history” books on display were little better than what the public schools dished out to their captive audiences.

It was as if some Christian publishers had taken secular histories and sprinkled a few Bible verses throughout them and then regurgitated them for homeschool audiences. History seemed to me the subject they gave the least attention to. Almost any history would suffice if you just tossed a few Bible verses into the mix. This made for poor quality history books and I wonder how many homeschool families ever picked up on that problem.

I finally came up with American history material for our kids, but it was not from any of the regular homeschool material we viewed. I found a five-volume set of books by Clarence Carson for our son, and a book promoted by the John Birch Society, Quest of a Hemisphere for our daughter. While these books weren’t perfect they were light years ahead of anything else I had been able to find. Admittedly, this was 30-plus years ago, so maybe the situation has improved since then.

But it all raised questions for me. Who controlled American education that good American history books were so hard to find? In going through Arthur R. Thompson’s book To the Victor go the Myths and Monuments I am finding out who has really controlled education in America, at least since the 1830s. I also realize, in retrospect, that as much as I loved history in school, I never was exposed to a really accurate American history book until I was an adult.

Mr. Thompson observed in his book, on page 45, that: “No better example from the early years of gaining control of American history can be give than that of historian George Bancroft. George Bancroft, known as the father of American history, became a disciple of German Hegelians, spending years in their study in Germany. Hegel had great influence on such men as Karl Marx…The Hegelian influence along with other German Illuminist influence, was the beginning of control over history and education in America. Some trace the control of government education back to John Dewey. Better students trace it to Horace Mann. In reality it was these plus others–including Edward Everett, George Bancroft and their friends under the influence of Hegelian Germans–coupled with the so-called Transcendentalists. They shaped the study of history in our schools. Johaan Heinrich Pestalozzi, a Swiss Illuminist, also had influence in American education very early on through Bancroft and the Transcendentalists. The control of education has always been vital to those who mean to rule. Illuminati instruction in their Degrees stated the Perfect will therefore spare no means to gain possession of the Schools which lie within his district and also of their teachers.”

Mr. Thompson continued: “Early in our history, men associated with the American Illuminati such as DeWitt Clinton, became leaders in the public school movement. In New York City a Public School Society was formed to provide an education for children of parents who did not participate in any religious society which provided schools for their children. Clinton served as the first president of the society from 1805 to 1828. While there were men associated with the organization who had the best of intentions, the board of trustees did have its contingent of Illuminist–and/or Jacobin-connected men, such as Peter Cooper and Samuel Osgood…George Bancroft started the Round Hill school in 1823, primarily for students seeking admission to Harvard…While studying in Germany, Bancroft took the time to seek out notable men who were Illuminists, promoters of education to raise up people for the state. Carbonari and Occultists such as Goethe, Humboldt, Hegel…and others. It was obvious that Bancroft had an agenda much different than other American educators.”

Thompson also noted: “Round Hill was a boarding school which embraced the enlightenment but retained some of the aspects of Puritan beliefs. Harvard put up much of the money necessary to start the school. It was based on the teachings of Rousseau, Philip Emmanuel von Fellenberg and the Illuminist Johaan Heinrich Pestalozzi.” One of the teachers at Round Hill was a man named Charles Beck. He’d had to flee Germany because his radical ideas there got him in trouble.

Bancroft wrote History of the United States which was criticized when it came out because it was so far out of line with traditional history at that time. And now, knowing some of Bancroft’s radical leftist background you can begin to see why. Bancroft went on to join the Union League Club of New York and to be the head of the American Historical Society. The Union League Club to which he belonged believed naturally favored nationalization over state sovereignty. Are you surprised?

Do you begin to understand now why, even today, our American history books, for the most part, remain so skewed to the left? There are exceptions, but this leftward tilt in American history books is not a new or rare event. It has been that way since the early 1800s. I don’t expect public school history books to change for the better. However the homeschool and Christian school movement needs Godly and Americanist history texts, especially now that it is expanding. If we continue to use the history books of our adversaries we will continue to make the same errors they made and wonder why things are not getting better.

Who Really Founded Public Education?

by Al Benson Jr.

The Unitarians prided themselves on their socialism decades ago. They still do. Rev. R. J. Rushdoony, author of The Messianic Character of American Education took note of the many socialist projects supported by Unitarians, and state-controlled education had to be at the top of the list.

Back in 1847 Karl Marx was hired by a group called the League of the Just (Illuminati) to write a little book called The Communist Manifesto that was to be used in the Socialist revolts in Europe in 1848. Marx’s diatribe was one of the most boring things I’ve ever read. Marx would never have qualified for the “Humorist of the year award.” Yet, as leaden as the Manifesto is, it is important to be aware of the Illuminati’s plans for first European, and eventually, world conquest.

Marx listed ten points that revolutionary cadres should use in taking over a country, any country, in which to display the glories of “scientific socialism.” The tenth point on the Illuminati’s wish list was “Free education for all children in public schools…” As horrendous as this point was, it seems the Unitarians had beaten them to it by at least a decade and a half. So the question then arises–in this instance did the Illuminati learn from the Unitarians–or had some among the Unitarians learned earlier from the Illuminati?

Duly observed by Rushdoony was the fact that: “The concept of ‘democratic’ or statist education has waged war, not only against the Christian faith, but against the family as well.” By 1860 California had already made it a misdemeanor for parents, or anyone else, to criticize a teacher in the presence of a student. So much for your First Amendment “rights.”

So our problems with the public school system are hardly new–in fact they are much older and of greater duration than most have even dreamed about. Most people labor under the delusion that public schools were “just great when I attended them” and they fail to realize, or have been mis-educated not to realize how bad they were even back during the supposed “good old days.”

Rushdoony has hit the nail squarely on the head and succinctly stated what most Christian parents do not want to hear–that the public schools their children attend have been guided by an anti-Christian worldview since their inception–whether by Illuminist or Unitarian thinking, or both. Grasping this bit of information means that you have to do something regarding how your children are educated. You can’t just “trust” the public school “experts” to lead your children the right way. Remember, some of these “experts” have given us “trans-closets” for our children to change in while at school so they will feel more sexually at home by dressing like the opposite sex. Their whole worldview militates against what Christians believe and if you think they will put their worldview aside and try to teach your kids objectively then you have a lot to learn about life in the real world.

The purpose of the public school is tto neutralize the Christian faith and to do away with it if and where possible. Your children are the guinea pigs they have and are still using to do this. Whether the Illuminists learned this from the Unitarians or vice versa is an interesting question and maybe one that should be explored. But for Christian purposes the fact remains that this system of education is anti-Christ and as such, Christian children do not belong in it.

One good thing with all this planned pandemic stuff is that lots of families have seen what is being taught in public schools and they don’t like it. If you don’t like it, then get your kids out of it. There are plenty of other options available for those willing to look.

Let’s Have A Spontaneous Revolution Day After Tomorrow

by Al Benson Jr.

Author and historian Arthur R. Thompson has given us a kind of overview of how these so-called “spontaneous” revolutions in Europe really worked in the mid-1800s. You can rest assured that “spontaneous” they were not!

He noted the increasing flow of German radicals into this country from 1830-1850 particularly after 1848, when the socialist revolts in Europe failed. Mr. Thompson observed that: “The “Communist Manifesto” was written to be used during these revolutions to enlist more people into the communist movement. It was commissioned by the League of the Just in 1847, edited and then published just before the outbreak of the revolutions in February, 1848. The Manifesto’s publication was part of the planning by the League of the Just, another direct descendant of the Illuminati, which fomented the revolutionary period and further demonstrates the falsehood that the revolutions were a spontaneous uprising of the downtrodden.

The Revolution of 1848 was a well-planned event, and they wrote this small book to serve as a guide for all the activists during the upcoming revolution…Modern historians make it seem that the revolutions were simply the uprising of people spontaneously with no real organization behind them. People do not revolt spontaneously across an entire continent involving several countries and governments. People who do not speak to one another because of the differences in language, culture, society, government and the ability to travel, at least at the level we are told the grassroots decided to revolt at the same time.” Mr. Thompson said: “The goals were Illuminist against God and for the establishment of the New World Order.” That’s the exact same New World Order that Bush 1 touted when he was president, which shows you where he was coming from!

By this time, you should realize that communism did not originate with Karl Marx. He was just a transmission belt to pass it along. His name did not even appear on the first edition of “his” Manifesto. Mr. Thompson also noted that: “The idea that communism started with Marx and Engels is to hide the truth that secret societies, the Enlightenment, and particularly the Illuminati and its offshoots were the sires of nearly all our problems in regard to the deterioration of our Republic…The German revolutionaries who after their defeat fled their country to the United States started many newspapers and ingratiated themselves into the political process even before they became citizens. Carl Schurz was looked upon by Americans as the prominent leader of the so-called German vote within the Republican Party…Schurz came to America a couple years after fleeing Baden, Germany, where he was second in command under German communist Friedrich Anneke of a brigade that tried to seize a government arsenal to gain weapons for German revolutionaries in 1848. Anneke was a close associate of Marx and Engels. Anneke’s brother Emil served as the first Republican auditor general for the state of Michigan. After coming to the United States, Schurz, Anneke, and other communists were appointed to high military positions in the Union Army. At least 40 radical German leaders attained the rank of general by appointment or promotion by war’s end.”

You mean to tell me that no one knew who and what these people were? Seems like the Union Army was just waiting for them. But, of course, you realize all this was just “spontaneous” just like the 1848 revolts in Europe were “spontaneous.” Mr. Thompson also noted that: “Both foreign-born and American-born radical general officers were present in the Union army. William Tecumseh Sherman, like so many Union generals, had no problem with communists directly under his command. Infact, according to the book ‘Lincoln’s Marxists’ Sherman was listed in a communist publication as a member of an ‘approved’ list of socialists/communists. Considering his actions both during the war and later, this would fit.”

The Union Army was simply awash with leftist radicals, both foreign and domestic and the federal government had their share also. But there were people on the Southern side that had their problems too. There were too many radicals that wanted us to fight a war we should not have fought–a war that destroyed the South and enthroned socialism as the new norm in the North–and eventually in the South also.

Antifa, BLM, And WAR

by Al Benson Jr.

Today, we have militant leftist pressure groups terrorizing many of our cities. The conservatives don’t like them. The Democrat socialists love and defend their activities and the prostitute press continues to give them a pass as they loot and burn cities. Antifa claims to be “anti-fascist” but, in reality, their actions are pure fascism. Another such group is BLM, with its “trained Marxist” leadership. But all this is not new. The Illuminists (Illuminati) have been trying to tear down our system of government and have been at work on that for well over 200 years. They used similar tactics in the years before the War of Northern Aggression. Back then they made use of a group called “The Wide Awake Republicans, WAR.

Historian and author Arthur R. Thompson has observed: “The problem was that the people in both sections (North and South) were standing on quicksand and instead of their leadership helping to pull them out, they did the opposite.” Someone was preparing both Northerners and Southerners for a war they did not need to fight.

Mr. Thompson noted: “There was a movement within the Republican Party to form militias to participate in the coming war. They were known as the Wide Awake Republicans. While they were not overt in their military training, they were organized more as shock troops for the party–their acronym said it all; WAR…The WAR also had a secret society attached to it, which Allan Pinkerton put in motion, that actually ran the organization. It used the Eye of Horus–which was also the symbol of Pinkerton’s detective agency, the All Seeing Eye…The eye was used on the certificates issued by WAR clubs to certify memberships and on their banners used in parades. In addition, both on Wide Awake and Republican banners and posters, the French revolutionary flag far too often on one side with rhe U.S. flag on the other and the Eye of Horus in between…the guiding light behind the scenes was Pinkerton who used the Eye as his logo for his detective agency. The difference in the Wide Awakes and previous campaign organizations was the use of a military motif for the group. This had never been done before in the history of American campaigning; militant, yes, but not military by wearing uniforms or in their intent. One needs to remember the acronym of the Wide Awake Republicans; WAR.” And their use of the French revolutionary flag might have shown those with discernment as to where they were really coming from. Like Antifa and BLM, they were revolutionaries!

Mr. Thompson told us that the “New York Herald” estimated nationally there were 400,000 WAR members in 1860. If that is accurate, we should be asking why we never heard of this group. My “history” books never mentioned them. Did any of yours? Mr. Thompson observed that “The Wide Awakes had become the street soldiers of revolution. With the outbreak of hostilities, it is safe to say that without the WAR members in the St. Louis area, Missouri would have linked up with the Confederacy…As we said, the WAR movement was so large that is is remarkable that the average history student of today has never heard of them…thus they are rarely, if ever, mentioned in school texts.”

If you have read this far, do you begin to understand that our history books have been tampered with–sanitized–so our young folks today do not know much of what really happened. To mention some of this would raise questions among serious students and WAR’s intent as “the street soldiers of revolution”. So better for the Establishment Illuminists if all this is just ignored so students will hardly be aware of it all.

But, the acronym, WAR, was a subtle message to astute Southerners that with WAR, “when we get into positions of power, this is what the Soutrh can expect!” Actually, the War of Northern Aggression started way before Fort Sumter. They just haven’t bothered to tell us all this.The Illuminists running our education system along with everything else in government desire to see our kids fat and ignorant and apathetic. That way they don’t learn to resist tyranny..

From Communist Communes To The Republican Party In One Leap

by Al Benson Jr.

We are awash today with fake history. How many in our day think Abraham Lincoln founded the Republican Party? How many more think the Republican Party was always conservative while the Democrats were always liberal? Sorry, but those that cleave to these ideas are wrong on both counts. It’s not that people are dumb–it’s just that they have been lied to for so long that the truth has been forgotten–on purpose.

How many more think our news media has only been liberal for the last fifty years or so? Actually, if the truth be known, much of our “news” media have leaned far left since the 1840s and 50s, especially in the North.

As to those that formed the Republican Party, many of them were graduates of communist communes. Historian Arthur R. Thompson, in his important work “To the Victors go the Myths and Monuments” has informed us that “The very beginnings of the Republican Party before it started to attract conservatives are much different than Americans even imagine. In the late 1840s and early 1850s, an organization called alternately the American Union of Associations or National Convention of Associations founded nearly 50 communist communes in the United States. The initial leaders of the associations were Horace Greeley, George Ripley, Parke Godwin, Edward Giles and Edward Tweedy. Later, many of Greeley’s employees were involved, incliuding Charles Dana. In fact, almost every member of the Tribune’s editorial staff during the first decade of its existence came from Brook Farm commune, and they were out and out socialists at best.”

Mr. Thompson continued: “One of these communes was established in Wisconsin about 50 miles northwest of Milwaukee. They called it Ceresco after Ceres, the ancient Roman goddess of agriculture…The guiding light of the Wisconsin commune was Warren Chase. Chase was advocate of Fourier socialism, spiritualism, land reform, and free love…As happened with all communes, Ceresco failed as a communist enterprise, but the inhabitants remained and were very politically involved. Three members of the commune went on to be elected to the Wisconsin State Legislature. A group of people established a small town adjacent to the communal area and after the commune was dissolved they named the town Ripon; it is known as the town where the Republican Party was formed in 1854…The leadership of the commune was very instrumental in the founding of the Republican Party, particularly Alvan Earle Bovay, a late arrival. Bovay served on the staff of the newspaper “Young America” before before he served on the staff of the “Tribune.”…The socialist historian Charles Sotheran claims that Young America was a joint effort of George H. Evans and Greeley; the evidence supports this claim.”

At this point Mr, Thompson suggests that those interested or concerned go to the Internet and look up the term “Radical Republican.” And he tells us that “What you will find is that this was the wing of the Republican Party that controlled the Congress during the Civil War. In reality, it was the Republican Party leadership.” Again, Walter Kennedy and I dealt with many of these people in our book “Lincoln’s Marxists.”

So the leadership of this communist commune in Wisconsin was “instrumental” in the founding of the Republican Party. Real conservatives should think about that a bit. It sure ain’t what your history books told you–if they told you anything at all. In fact, one of Lincoln’s own secretaries, John Hay, called the leaders of the Republican Congress “the Jacobin Club.”

Mr. Thompson wonders why no one ever questions why and how the Republican Party was so successful in forming and spreading across the Northern portion of the country as quickly as it did. Most assume it was just spontaneous. But was it? Or was something else involved? Such as a plan rto divide the country. A lot for us to think about here.

“Nothing New Under The Sun”

by Al Benson Jr.

Today we have problems with illegal immigrants possibly being given the right to vote without first becoming citizens. Comrade Biden is just drooling in anticipation of that happening. It’s one of his fondest dreams. It will allow the Democratic socialists to grab power and keep it. And Establishment Republicans will sit and yawn if that happens because at heart, they are socialists just like the Democrats.

But, is this a new problem? Actually it isn’t. It’s just a repeat performance of the same game used to put Lincoln in office in 1860. We never heard about it in Lincoln’s day because the Establishment “historians” long ago decided we didn’t need to know about it.

However, Arthur R. Thompson, in his authoritative book “To the Victors go the Myths and Monuments” has blown the whistle on them. Regarding Lincoln’s election, Mr. Thompson wrote: “There was a consensus at the time that German immigrants under the leadership of the 48ers put Lincoln over the top in six key Midwest states. This fact has been expunged from the history books…To further ensure the vote would turn out as the radicals wanted, in the states of Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, non-citizens were allowed to vote. This was done on the basis of a mix of one or more of the following: a declaration of intent to become a citizen, residency of from 4 to 30 months, and/or payment of property tax. German immigrant population in these areas ranged from 5 to 15%. It is estimated that between 450,000 and 600,000 German immigrants in this area voted based on the foregoing formulae. In 1860, fully 50% of the German language newspapers were run by 48ers promoting the Republican Party. This gave an inordinate amount of influence to the socialist leadership compared to their actual number. Capture of the information services has always been one of their goals–it remains so today.”

Mr. Thompson also noted: “Without the German vote in 1860, Douglas would have been elected president. Without the illegal German vote, Douglas would have been president.” Let that little fact begin to sink in–without the illegal German vote Douglas would have been president. You don’t believe in conspiracies, except, perhaps, Hillary Clinton’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” that the managed news media touted? You don’t believe because you have not been taught real history–and that’s on purpose–which is part of the conspiracy too–the one you don’t believe in.

Arthur Thompson also revealed that: “One of the radical Germans who served as an elector for Lincoln in 1860 was Friedrich Kapp, an attorney from 1850 to 1870. He had been active in the Republican Party early on. He returned to Germany and was elected to the German Diet in 1871. He said that America “will occupy a decidedly better place as soon as it gets rid of Christianity.” He is a prime example of what supported Lincoln–militant anti-Christian socialists! Walter Kennedy and I dealt with “those people” in our book “Lincoln’s Marxists” used copies of which can still be purchased at Amazon I believe.

For information about Mr. Thompson’s book contact: American Opinion Foundation Publishers, 750 N. Hickory Farm Lane, Appleton, Wisconsin 54194. I undersrand it comes in both hard cover and paperback. It is most definitely worth the read. It will take you awhile, but you will learn things about our history that have been purposely hidden from you by our Establishment “historians” if you can even call them that. And that is part of this conspiracy you don’t believe in.

It’s Those #$%&() Tariffs!

by Al Benson Jr.

I have had Yankee sympathizers howl at me over the years when I brought up the forbidden subject of tariffs as a major reason for the War of Northern Aggression. One of them verbally shouted at me “Tariffs are a dead letter. Period!.” He then went on to rant about how slavery was THE cause of the war–to which I say–bovine fertilizer!

Many of these people are nothing but propagandists who have a vested interest in promoting the slavery narrative. That narrative sells books to the uninitiated and it pays for good speakers fees. And it pays because it skirts the real issues safely.

Gene Kizer, in his previously mentioned book has noted: “There were two components of the North’s economic success. The first was simply the luck of having an agricultural region as successful as the South to do for. The South was vast, warm, fertile and productive. Southerners were as ambitious as Northerners , and wanted to make money too. They did so with agriculture. It had been this way since Jamestown when colonists found they could make fortunes with tobacco, then later when the cotton gin made short staple cotton profitable. Per capita income in the South in the years before the war was roughly the same as in the North. So supplying the successful South with goods and services, and shipping for the South, gave Northerners jobs.”

Kizer continued: “The second was the utterly unfair taxation of the South, for the direct benefit of the North: 3/4ths of the federal treasury was supplied by the South, yet 3/4ths of federal tax revenue was spent in the North. It was mostly Southerners who had to pay the high tariffs that protected Northern businesses and industry. It was a direct transfer out of the South and into the pockets of Northerners…Think about the American Revolution and the taxation without representation issue. Those taxes were miniscule compared to 1860 when millions of dollars per year were flowing straight out of the South and into the pockets of Northerners. Those Northerners had not earned a penny of it. It was through government manipulation that they had managed to get monopoly status for most Northern industries and shipping, which killed competition and allowed Northerners to charge high rates .There was a protective tariff, and bounties and subsidies to Northern businesses that were like tax credits and payments from the federal treasury, even though most of the money in the federal treasury–3/4ths of it–had come from the South.”

Southerners finally woke up and realized they were being shorn like so many sheep, with no way to protect themselves. From that point on, the South would be outvoted by the North and, as Kizer noted: “…any manner of confiscatory economic manipulation could and would continue. The North had four times the white voting population and the Republican Party had rallied them. The North, for the North. ” George Washington had warned Americans against sectional political parties and the Republican Party was the party of the North–already pledged against the South!

All this stuff had started right after the War for Independence when Northerners started begging for federal protection to get their industries going so they could then compete with Great Britain.Patriotic Southerners had gone along with it, little realizing its implications for them down the road. Kizer observed that: “It was nothing but Northern greed for other people’s money,and it–not slavery–was the seed that grew into war.”

Fake History Debunked

by Al Benson Jr.

About five or six years ago I did a book review of Gene Kizer’s book “Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States.” It was a good book and deserved much more attention than it got. Naturally, it was anathema to today’s leftist :historians who continue to prattle on about how the glorious North went to war to free the slaves and emancipate them from the clutches of those greasy slave magnates in the South.

We know Lincoln was death against the Southern states seceding, but why? It sure wasn’t over the slavery issue. Mr. Kizer brings up several issues not routinely dealt with. For instance, he notes that: “The reason Lincoln needed to preserve the Union was because, without it, the North faced economic annihilation, the magnitude of which easily made war preferable….By the time Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861 there was gloom, despair and panic in the North with thousands of business failures, hundreds of thousands of people out of work, serious trouble with the stock market, threatened runs on banks, and Northern ship captains heading South because of the South’s low tariff. There was no talk whatsoever of ending slavery.” Kizer continued: “The North quickly discovered that manufacturing and shipping for the South were the sources of most of its employment, wealth and power. Cotton alone was 60% of U.S, exports in 1860. Without the South, the North was headed for bankruptcy.”

And then Kizer deals with the Crittenden Compromise, which he says “…would almost certainly have prevented the war.” He notes that it was based on the old Missouri Compromise that had worked out so well for thirty years. He said: “Slavery had been prohibited north of the line and allowed south of it.” The Crittenden Compromise was popular in booth North and South–and yet Lincoln was opposed to it. Instead, Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment which left black people in bondage forever. Your history books didn’t tell you about the Corwin Amendment? I’m not surprised. Mind didn’t either. Such information would not have fit in well with the personna of the Great Emancipator the “historians” were crafting for Lincoln. While probably not perfect, the Crittenden Compromise would have prevented war, which Kizer notes and it would also have “…given the country time to work on ending slavery.”

Kizer also observes that “Historian Richard N. Current believed slavery would not last another generation, and that seems a reasonable assessment.” Current wrote that “Lincoln and his fellow Republicans, in insisting that Congress must prohibit slavery in the West, we’re dealing with political phantoms.” Current said Congress “…approved the organization of territorial governments for Colorado, Nevada, and Dakota without a prohibition of slavery” because it was not thought to be necessary. Kizer noted that, in 1860, …”there were only two slaves in Kansas and 15 in Nebraska, and that was after being open to slavery for 10 years .Current did not believe slavery would have lasted another generation, even in the deep South.”

Kizer tells us that author Charles W. Ramsdell concluded that “…slavery had about reached its zenith by 1860 and must shortly have begun to decline, for the economic forces which had carried it into the region west of the Mississippi had about reached their maximum effectiveness.It could not go forward in any direction and was losing ground along its northern border.” So, all the bunk about trying to extend slavery into the far west was just that–bunk!

Suffice it to say, many of our “history” books need major alterations. A novel thought here–wouldn’t it br wonderful if they started telling us the truth for a change? Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen though.