The Bolshevik Revolution–Mostly Made In America

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Most folks who look at the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia think it was totally carried out by Russians revolting against the cruelty of the Czar. If that is what you believe then you are wrong on both counts. What’s more, you were probably lied to on both counts.

Arthur Thompson, in his informative book In the Shadows of the Deep State  has given us a bit of history that I can almost guarantee you will never read in your “history” books–so called.

He notes: “As with many historical ‘facts’ most of what Americans know about the communist revolution in Russia is mythology. The reality is that a mere handful of Russian communists were successful against the entire country of Russia and its population as a result of the help of prominent people in America, Britain, and Germany, not the people of Russia. The aim of the international Conspiracy, particularly the communist wing since at least the 1850s, was that the United States, Russia, and possibly China would rule the world. This was outlined by several communist and Carbonari leaders in America at the time and was revealed in various books, such as that authored by two German communist immigrants, Charles Goepp and Theodore Poesche, entitled The New Rome: or The United States of the World  (1853).” This should show you that the concept of a one world government is not just something dreamed up in the middle of the 20th century. These people have been plotting this stuff since before your grandfathers were alive, so it ain’t something new.

Thompson continues: “The Illuminati and its offshoots worked in both Russia and the United States movements that worked at the top and bottom of the political spectrum. In both countries, the bottom rung of the movement toward a one-world government was handled through the communist/socialist movement. In the United States at the top, more and more people were working for the same thing within an increasingly influential elite and literati.”

Noted by Thompson was the fact that Russia had been an ally of the North during the War of Northern Aggression. The Czar sent two naval fleets to America, one to lay off the coast of New York and another to do the same thing off San Francisco. This was to protect these cities from attack by Confederate naval forces. Thompson makes an interesting statement here. He says “At the time, the Confederacy had better naval vessels than the North, since they had just been built by the English and French shipping yards. The problem was that the Federal fleet was busy being used to blockade the South and could not be relied on to defend the New York and San Francisco harbors. It is rare that this Russian involvement is told in school history texts about the Civil War.” I can remember, when I was in high school in the 1950s that the history book I had made a brief mention of this, but only a brief mention. I imagine, in this day and age, even that brief mention is long gone.

We do know, though, that the Russians were there to protect these two harbors, because once the danger was past, they left. Thompson observed that: “The fact is, the U.S. government paid for the use of these fleets after the war…The point is that of all the European powers, Russia at the time was one of the friendliest toward the United States. Both France and England were debating whether or not to support the South to weaken the power of the United States by helping to split our nation up into smaller countries, not only at that time but into the future…What is lost to the American people is the fact that England was the historic enemy of the United States until our involvement in the First World War…Russia never played a role against the United States until after the takeover by the Bolsheviks in 1917.”

Thompson explains the drift of all this when he says “Over time this shifted as a result of the changes in Russia and then the thrust of communism emanating from Moscow, which added a new direction to the already powerful influence of socialism in our country. This made communism and socialism seem to be a foreign problem injected into America instead of recognizing that it had been here since the beginning of our country. The communist and socialist influences started with the Jacobins and evolved through a variety of Illuminist descendants, such as Young America (YA), and through as host of organizations promoting changes in our system of government….all leading toward an international government.”

Do my readers note any of this same thing going on today? How about the blatant Democratic attempt to remove the Electoral College? How about Democratic threat to “pack” the Supreme Count until they can get it to vote positively on their brand of socialism? And don’t for a New York minute think that the Democrats (and many Republicans) in Washington and our states are not socialists. They are. That should be obvious to anyone who even remotely follows today’s political scene. These people are only following through with what the Jacobins 200 years ago wanted done. These people are in the process of trying to destroy our God-given liberties and replace them (and God) with their brand of totalitarianism–same as they did in the French Revolution.

To be continued.

More Questions About The 14th Amendment

by Al Benson Jr.

In my most recent article I asked a few questions.

I will ask another question or two here and repeat one of the ones I asked in the last article because I think it needs to be asked again–and again and again until someone gives us a satisfactory answer.

The first part of the 14th Amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” There is more to it all, but this is the main part needed for our purposes here.

So I wonder, is this to be taken literally? Does this mean that the child of some Communist diplomat (or spy) born here while his or her father was stationed here during the Cold War, and since recalled to the glorious Soviet empire, is automatically a citizen of this country due to the accident of birth in this country? If that is the case, then there may be quite a handful of US citizens living in Russia, China, and other Leftist countries in our day, due to their having been born here while Dad was in this country trying to subvert our domestic institutions.

Does this mean that the child of illegal immigrants born here is automatically a citizen, even if they are not subject to US jurisdiction, which it seems they are not, otherwise they wouldn’t be illegal immigrants.

I think some of these issues in our day need to be dealt with. What about all these people from all over the world that come to New York to work at the socialist United Nations? They have diplomatic immunity, which means, to a large extent, they are not subject to US jurisdiction. Are their kids born here also US citizens, even though they will, at some point, return to the country of their parents’ origin? If the answer to all these questions is “Yes, all the people you noted here are automatically US citizens” then I submit that you have 14th Amendment that has run amuck and quite possibly needs to be amended to exclude these folks. Or was such a situation the intention of the framers of this amendment to begin with? After all, one of those that contributed to the 14th Amendment was Robert Dale Owen the socialist. It could be that maybe we need to re-examine the 14th Amendment! I can see the need for that.

But first, maybe we need to go back and take a stronger look at what the Kennedy Brothers said about that amendment in The South Was Right on page 172.  Again, we need to note what the Kennedy Brothers said. In 1866 the North removed the Southern States from the Union. The North declared them to be non-states. However, in order to get back into the Union all the Southern States had to do was to ratify the 14th Amendment! Sounds so simple, right?

Question: if these states ratified the 14th Amendment while they were still officially out of the Union. are their ratifications even legal???

I realize I’ve asked this question before. I am asking it again. Were their ratifications even legal? How does your state legally ratify an amendment when your state is technically not a part of the Union?

I think, after I get this article posted I am going to send copies of it to my elected Senators and Representatives here in Louisiana to see what they say about it. I might recommend that some of you all in other states do the same thing and see what you get back for replies. Maybe at some point we could all compare notes to see what our Congress people have said to all of us. That might be an interesting exercise (in futility?)

I hope I may have the perseverance to continue to ask our elected officials this question until I get an answer that satisfies.

I Have A Question (or two or three)

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Every once in awhile I (and lots of others) ask questions of those liberals and Marxists that disagree with us as they seek to portray the South and its inhabitants as evil racists and partakers of something they refer to as “white privilege.”

Many, if not most, of the “you are all evil white racists” crowd persist in promoting the canard that the South only fought the “Civil War” so Southern folks could hang onto their slaves. And along with that utter foolishness they continue to parrot the discredited line that “the North fought the war to free the slaves.” So I have a question for these folks. I’ve asked it before, but since no answer has been forthcoming, I will ask it again.

If the North was so gung ho to free the slaves that they were willing to fight against the South to do so, why didn’t they start their emancipation process by first freeing those slaves that were in bondage in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri? For one reason or another, all four of those states ended up remaining in the Union and, as such, wouldn’t it have been logical for the North to free all the slaves in those state first? No liberal, socialist, or communist (but I repeat myself here) has ever answered that question for me. In fact, they rather ignore it. The slaves in those slave states that stayed, for whatever reason, under Union control were not freed until the 13th Amendment was ratified, after the War was over.

In Missouri, socialist lover John Fremont enacted some sort of emancipation proclamation early in  the War and Mr. Lincoln promptly annulled that action. One would almost think that Lincoln did not agree that the war was being fought to free the slaves, but that he had some other agenda in mind–such as preserving the Union by the force of arms. Again, this question has never been answered for me, so I am left with the conclusion that our Leftist friends do not have an answer to it and so they pretend it was never asked.

In another instance, I wrote an article a few years back noting that one of the main issues in the War was the question of tariffs and how much those tariffs harmed the Southern economy. To this article, I got a snide reply from some kind of Yankee activist, who blithely informed me that “Slavery was the real issue in this war. Tariffs are a dead letter.” Do I need to state that I disagreed with him? To him, and others of his ilk, my question is this: Why, if tariffs were such a “dead letter” did Lincoln, in an interview with Colonel John B. Baldwin of Virginia, as reported in R. L. Dabney’s book Discussions state that if he let the South go “Then what would become of my tariffs?” Dabney noted here, “Hence, when Virginia offered him a safe way to preserve the Union, he preferred to destroy the Union and preserve his tariffs. The war was conceived in duplicity and brought forth in iniquity.”

Some have contended that Lincoln was, somehow, involved with the Illuminists, and, while I can’t say that for sure, actions like this on his part surely do make one wonder. We know he was involved with the socialists and Marxists. Donnie Kennedy and I showed that much in Lincoln’s Marxists so is it any great leap to think his involvement may have gone even further?

My third question (remember I noted the possibility of three questions in my title to this article) is another one I have never heard addressed. is–how can a political entity that is no longer a state in the Union ratify the 14th Amendment in  order to get back into a Union they are no longer a part of? You see, that’s what happened with the 14th Amendment. The Kennedy Brothers, in their book, The South Was Right noted this on page 172 of the second edition of that book. They stated, in part, “The North, 1n 1866, removed the Southern states from the Union. This was the same Union that in 1861 refused to let the South secede from the Union. This same North now declared the Southern states to be non-states. To get back into the Union (that originally the South did not want to be part of anyway, and from which it had previously been denied the right to secede), it was required to perform the function of a state in that Union, while still officially no longer a part of the Union by ratifying an amendment that previously as states in that Union it had legally rejected!”

Sorry, but I guess here I have yet another question.  If the Southern states ratified the 14th Amendment while they were still not officially part of the Union, are their ratifications even legal? That’s a question I think should be asked and I have never seen anyone ask it. How come? I supposed there is kind of a twisted Yankee/Marxist “logic” to this situation. After all, if the federal government can force non-states to ratify amendments in order to again become legitimate states, then why, in our own day can’t we allow illegal immigrants and other non-citizens to vote in our elections? After all, some of them might become citizens  some day. And if you can just bring in enough of them, especially those who are here for  the freebies, to tip the vote totals so that citizens can be outvoted by non-citizens in many areas, then you have effectively begun to change the attitudes and the direction  this country is going in. Those of you who are in favor of letting every overseas Tom, Dick, and Harry vote in our elections maybe ought to think about that.

And as far as my original questions go, no one has ever satisfactorily answered them so I am still waiting. The Leftists among us  prefer not to deal with these issues, but I think, so long as they insist on bringing them up, we should force them to.

An “Inside Job”?

by Al Benson Jr.

We are approaching the 18th anniversary of the infamous 911 event.

I can remember being at work when it happened, in Northern Illinois, and most folks there had radios on listening in shock to what was going on. I can recall saying to one of my supervisors, “This event is going to contribute to a massive loss of liberty for the American people.” He agreed.  And with the Patriot Act, (which I have been told was already prepared and ready to go when this happened) we have experienced a massive loss of liberty.

Now we have old folks being groped in airports and grandma can no longer take her toothpaste on the plane with her because it might be a terrorist weapon, and by now most of you know the drill, especially if you have to fly. We’ve only flown once since this insanity started. We flew out of Jackson, Mississippi. I have a pin in my hip because it was broken years ago and when I went through their scan thing that pin set it off, so naturally they wanted to give me the whole treatment.

I don’t know if it was my grouchy look or what, but the guy that dealt with me was pretty careful and probably did the least he could get by with doing and explained to me what he would do as we went along. Even at that, it is still an invasion of your privacy but because the feds are doing it it’s supposed to be okay. After all, with the misnamed Patriot Act, who has any privacy anymore? And if you still think you do, then I have a big bridge in the Arizona desert I’d love to sell  you at bargain rates!

I have a friend in another part of the South who just today sent me a website I would love to have folks go and check out. It is   It is a site that is operated by a group of architects and engineers that have done lots of research into what really happened to the buildings in New York on 911. Needless to say, what they have found does not square with what we have been told. This group also has a Facebook page. I checked that out, and also their website and they have some videos on there also.

I used the search engine Duck Duck Go to do this. You might try that search engine, as they claim they do not track what you look at, whereas we all know Google does.

These folks do not seem to be wacky conspiracy theorists–no green men from Mars or weekend rocket ships to Venus to get your teeth worked on, and nothing about Area 51.

They seem to look at the buildings that were destroyed from the position of architects and engineers and ask if it could really happen the way the feds tell us it did. And can you really blame folks for questioning the feds? They have lied to so many for so long about so much, from the Lincoln assassination to the Kennedy assassinations to the “weapons of mutual destruction”  in Iraq and so much more I can’t begin to recount it all.

But go in and check out the website of these engineers and architects and see what they have to say. It will be worth your time and effort.

The “New World Order” Ain’t New Folks

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I can recall back when George Bush the First was President, he gave a speech that was pure propaganda. He waxed eloquent about how we now had a chance to push forward what he labeled as a “New World Order.” This was supposed to end up being, according to Comrade Bush, one great step forward for mankind, probably the greatest step forward in the history of humanity.

As Bush pontificated about how wonderful this new golden age would be, he forgot to tell us (on purpose) that what he was  pushing was really nothing more than the failed communism of the 18th and 19th centuries. It hadn’t worked back then, but he informed us that, somehow, with a little update, it would work wonderfully in our day.

I suppose some folks nowadays would get angry at me if I mentioned that what Bush was trying to sell us was one big pile of Texas cow chips he fervently hoped we would step right  into the middle of.

Arthur Thompson, author of To The Victors Go The Myths And Monuments, wrote a book, published  just last year (2018) called In The Shadows of the Deep State. He notes that it is “A century of  Council on Foreign Relations scheming for World Government.” A pretty apt description for the CFR, because that is exactly what this organization has been doing since 1921–scheming for the United States to become part, just one cog, in the plan for One World Government.

Mr. Thompson, who is quite a historian, takes this all the way back to the Illuminati and the French Revolution. He states, on page 26 that: “One of the key organizations run by perhaps the most important member of the Illuminati in Revolutionary France, Nicholas Bonneville, was the Cercle Social, or Social Circle. It served as an activist think tank regarding how to subvert any society and promote Illuminism.”

If you think the name Bonneville  sounds vaguely familiar, it is because Bonneville had a son that was an officer in the US Army back in the early 1800s. While in the army this man traveled all over the West on various assignments for we are not quite sure who. The Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah are named after him.

Thompson also observed that “Illuminism has two main tenets that have influenced both their existence  and that of those who can trace their origin to them: Te elimination of God and the building of a one-world government—to be run by them. There are many issues that come to bear to achieve these goals, but they all distill down to these two. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels referred to the Social Circle in their book The Holy Family, published in February 1845, three years prior to The Communist Manifesto: The revolutionary movement which began in 1789 in the Cercle Social … gave rise to the communist idea … re-introduced in France after the Revolution of 1830… This … is the idea of the new world order.”

And Thompson continued: “That is the Communist idea of a New World Order. This was not a new concept in 1845, but demonstrated that communism came out of the Cercle Social of Revolutionary France and tells us a great deal about the beginnings of a communist movement and the idea of a New World Order.”

So what good old Bush One tried to give us was an idea right out of the French Revolution. Note that there is some background here to show that the idea of communism did not originate with Karl Marx. It was in vogue before the League of the Just hired him, as a hack writer, to  put their agenda into what we now call The Communist Manifesto. It wasn’t original with him. In fact the first edition of it never even had his name on it. That came later, when it became convenient for the Illuminists to peg Marx for us as the originator, knowing that few folks would ever dig back past Marx to find out where he got it.

Mr. Thompson also notes the connections between Horace Greeley, Abraham Lincoln and Karl Marx on pages 22-23.

Thompson also tells us that: “Out of the Cercle Social came a number of movements that coalesced into what became known as National Socialism (Nazism) and communism… The differences between Nazism and communism were very subtle, with the primary differences being which method is best to use to subvert any particular country and who should lead these movements–one group wanting to rule vs. another leadership team… In essence, the same force spawned both movements and there is considerable evidence that this force was controlling both at the same time behind the scenes.”

Thompson stated that both Marx and Engels  said the New World Order was a communist idea. And “It is also a socialist idea as well, since all socialists look to Karl Marx as their patriarch and claim to spring from the mind of Marx.” (Even though none of this was original with Marx).

In the next article, Lord willing, we will get into the Council on Foreign Relations, its origins and what it has been doing since 1921 to subvert this country.

The Illuminist Agenda In Our Day–The CFR

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

In my last two articles, commenting on material written by T. C. Allen, I noted that Mr. Allen perceived the Illuminist agenda was active in several groups that we are forced to be confronted with in our day. He mentioned the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers and The Council on Foreign Relations. Better known as just the CFR.

The CFR has been much commented on in patriotic circles, but the average American has heard little or nothing about this group, does not even know it exists, and this fact is not accidental. The CFR is what former FBI agent and writer, Dan Smoot, called The Invisible Government in a book about them he wrote back in 1962, It is  probably out of print now, but you might check the internet to see. In the forward to his book, Mr. Smoot wrote: “I am convinced that the Council on Foreign Relations, together with a great number of other associated, tax-exempt organizations, constitutes the invisible government which sets the major policies of the federal government; exercises controlling influence on governmental officials who implement the  policies; and, through massive and skillful propaganda, influences Congress and the public  to support the policies. I am convinced that the objective of this invisible government is to convert America into a socialist state and then make it a unit in a one-world socialist system.”

Here we are, 57 years later, and I cannot disagree with Smoot’s assessment. He called it back then. Almost no one listened. As we travel down the road to world socialism, even with Trump in office, almost no one is listening even now. If you want to do a little exercise, check out how many in Trump’s administration belong to the CFR. The CFR has had plants in every presidential administration in my lifetime. And probably before that, since they have been around since 1921.

In 1970, W. Cleon Skousen, an excellent researcher, wrote a book called The Naked Capitalist in which he noted the reach of the CFR into most presidential administrations.  On page 3, he wrote: “Politics in Washington were equally puzzling. Why were so many top government officials always members of the Democratic Socialist cadre called Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) or were members of the exclusive Council on Foreign Relations? Whether the President was Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon, it seemed to make no difference. There was often a change of personalities, but membership in these two organizations seemed a prerequisite for many top government jobs.” Ever wonder why your managed news media never touches on any of this?

Skousen continued, on page 51: “Although the Council on Foreign Relations is not the secret inner circle, its front activities are kept as mysterious as they are powerful. Practically no publicity is tolerated. If the student  researches the recent periodicals for articles on the CFR, he is likely to find nothing.” Of course, some things have changed with the advent of the internet so you can find material about the CFR today, at least to some extent, both pro and con.

One place there was an article was back in 1958, in Harpers, in July of that year. Joseph Kraft wrote an article for them, School for Statemen. Kraft was a CFR member. He wrote, in part, “It (CFR) has been the seat of…basic governmental decisions, has set the context for many more, and has repeatedly served as a recruiting ground for ranking officials.”

And Skousen notes: “There were 74 CFR members in the American delegation to the U.N. Conference in San Francisco in 1945. They included Alger Hiss (Communist spy),  Harry Dexter White (Soviet Agent), Owen Lattimore (described by a Congressional committee as a ‘conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet international conspiracy’, John T. McCloy…Harold Stassen, Nelson Rockefeller, John Foster Dulles, Phillip Jessup and Dean Acheson. These and 38 additional CFR members occupied nearly every decision-making spot in the American delegation to the San Francisco conference to set up the United Nations.” So you can basically say that the CFR gave the US the very questionable gift of the United Nations, which continues to be a millstone around our necks–with its socialist hand in our wallets to pay for all its one-world government foolishness.

Skousen tells us that: “The CFR has participated to some degree in each of the last ten administrations and dominated those of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower,  (Eisenhower was the establishment candidate against Taft), Kennedy, Johnson and the present administration as well.” And lists the CFR appointments made by Nixon–Henry Kissinger, Henry Cabot Lodge, Charles Yost, Arthur Burns, …George Ball,…Ellsworth Bunker,…General Andrew Goodpaster,…Joseph J. Sisco, Jacob Beam…” Other charter members of the CFR were the Dulles Brothers, John Foster, and Allen. Skousen has much, much more in his book. I have about one third of it underlined in my copy or future reference.

Other books about the CFR and its one-world government friends are out there. You can read, on the internet now, Gary Allen’s None Dare Call It Conspiracy and Gary Allen’s other blockbuster The Rockefeller File is also on the net. You can find and read these and it doesn’t cost you a thin dime and it will give you a good idea of what has gone on in this country since the early 1900s and is one of the results of the North having defeated the South in the War of Northern Aggression. Had the results of that War been different then our history would have been different and the ability to form groups like the CFR would not have been as easy as it was, so Southern patriots need to be aware of some of this stuff.

More on the CFR later.

The Illuminists Continue To Destroy The South

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

As stated in the first installment of  this article, the Illuminists performed their evil deeds not  only in the French Revolution, but also in the 1848 Socialist revolts in Europe (and by extension in our own War of Northern Aggression through the efforts of the “Forty-Eighters” and others, even before them).

In  T.  C. Allen told us of their efforts in the South even before the War. He said: “Years before the War for Southern Independence, Illuminists had sent agents to the South  to take control of  key positions and to agitate for secession. These agents included John A. Quitman, John Slidell, and Albert Pike. Thus, Illuminists were behind the abolitionists and others in the North provoking the Southern States to secede and the provocateurs in the South advocating secession. Quitman, a New Yorker, moved to Mississippi and married into a prominent Southern family…Slidell, an agent of the Rothchilds, led the secessionist party in Louisiana. He was from New York and a Masonic protégé of Edward Livingston, Grand Master of New York. Livingston, who was President Jackson’s Secretary of State, was a coconspirator with Aaron Burr…Slidell’s second in command in Louisiana was Judah  P. Benjamin, a Jew.  Benjamin and Slidell were partners in the same law firm. Like Slidell, Benjamin was also an agent of the Rothschilds…Albert Pike moved from New York to Missouri in 1831 and then to Arkansas in 1833…” Does the same question occur to you as did to me as I read this? Seems we had lots of New York folks all of a sudden  pushing for secession in the South!

And then there was Judah Benjamin. Did anyone ever see a picture of Benjamin when he wasn’t smiling? I don’t think I ever have. Seems like every picture I’ve ever seen of him, he has almost a smirk on his face–like he knows something you don’t! Maybe it’s me, but I never trust a man who constantly smiles–and with his Rothschild connections, Benjamin obviously knew something most of his contemporaries in the South didn’t.

Allen noted also: “After the North had pushed the South  beyond any reasonable forbearance, the Southern States sought independence. The Northern States were determined to reduce them to provinces to be exploited for the benefit of the North–primarily the banking and industrial interest in the North. Finally, war broke out. To provoke a war, Lincoln sent a fleet to reinforce Fort Sumter. Lincoln was an agent of the Illuminists if not an Illuminist himself.  The Illuminists wanted war, and Lincoln gave it to them.” Now I can’t say definitely that Lincoln was an Illuminist or not. I know he had a socialist world view, which was in keeping with Illuminism. Donnie Kennedy and I in Lincoln’s Marxists noted his socialist world view, which was also in keeping with the views of Lincoln’s Forty-Eighter  buddies.

According to Allen, and I  don’t disagree with him, the Illuminists maneuvered North and South into a war that neither Northerners or Southerners really wanted. Allen said that “The Reconstruction Amendments, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, especially the last two, overturned much  of the original Constitution and reduced the States to administrative provinces subservient to the United States government. Perhaps more importantly in furthering the Illuminists’ goal was the precedence set by the imperial presidency of Lincoln during the war and by the Radical Republicans in Congress and the Johnson and Grant administrations during Reconstruction.” And even with Lincoln’s presidency, you had those like Stanton in the background who  ended up being much of the real power.

Allen has made an interesting observation here, and I think I tend to agree with him. He said: “Contrary to what many conspiratorial historians believe, the War for Southern Independence was not fought to split the United States into two or more countries….The objective, however, was not division, but the consolidation of power. True, the Illuminists wanted war, but they did not want war to divide the United States into multiple countries. They wanted war to destroy the United States Constitution and the sovereignty of the States. They wanted war to consolidate political power in the federal government (one government is easier to control than many, which is why the Illuminist want to consolidate all political power into a one world government) and to make the United States a great military power that they would control. All these goals they accomplished.”

All this does not mean that what the South fought for was wrong by any stretch of the imagination. Allen observed: “Southerners had fought to preserve the God-given inalienable rights and liberties of mankind embodied in the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. They fought for the dispersal and decentralization of power as opposed to the illuminstic goal of the concentration of power  and centralization of power. The South had the highest concentration of anti-illuminists of any place in the world. The great Christian revival and conversions that occurred among the Confederate soldiers during the war accented this anti-Illuminism. The Illuminists had to destroy the South. Destroy her they did.”

Allen here says that: “How much involvement that the Radical Republicans had with Lincoln’s assassination may never be fully known. They certainly were not disappointed with his death.” Actually, there may be a bit more known now than when Allen wrote his article in 2009. Researchers Dave McGowan and Steven Hager, both of whom I have quoted in my Lincoln assassination articles wrote much of their material in 2014-15. And the man who writes did a lot of his writing about Lincoln’s assassination in 2012-2013.

Allen noted, in conclusion that: “Reconstruction formally ended in 1877, but efforts to reconstruct the South into the image of Illuminism continue to this day.” Mr. Allen, how right you are! And if more Southern folks don’t begin to awake from their Illuminist-induced slumber and start removing their kids from what passes for public schools then the Illuminists may well seize the day–and where will we be then? Worse, where will your kids and their kids be? You better give that some  serious thought.