Christopher Columbus and So-Called Indigenous Peoples’ Day

Christopher Columbus is one of the great figures of history. He was the explorer who, under the inspiration of Almighty God, opened the Americas to permanent settlement by a humble, Christian, Freedom-loving people. He was an upright man whose memory has been grossly insulted and whose good name has unjustly been made synonymous with genocide, hate, and oppression. As usual, the court historians have fabricated their narrative and the Elite are busy promoting the brutal American Indian culture and history over white, Christian America’s honorable history. This article is a plea for people to celebrate Columbus Day and reject the movement to replace this holiday with “Indigenous Peoples’ Day.”

Columbus11

Standing at six feet tall, the redheaded Christopher Columbus was a first-rate sailor and explorer with a genius for map-making. Columbus was a devout Christian. The sincerity of his convictions led one historian to describe him as “a Christian of almost maniacal devoutness” (in Mark E. Petersen, The Great Prologue, 27). Columbus fervently believed that God was leading him to make great discoveries and do a great work. This conviction is borne out by his writings and the witness of those who knew him.

Columbus wrote:

The Lord was well disposed to my desire, and He bestowed upon me courage and understanding; knowledge of seafaring He gave me in abundance, of astrology as much as was needed, and of geometry and astronomy likewise. Further, He gave me joy and cunning in drawing maps and thereon cities, mountains, rivers, islands, and harbors, each one in its place. I have seen and truly I have studied all books – cosmographies, histories, chronicles, and philosophies, and other arts, for which our Lord unlocked my mind, sent me upon the sea, and gave me fire for the deed. Those who heard of my enterprise called it foolish, mocked me, and laughed. But who can doubt but that the Holy Ghost inspired me?” (in Mark E. Petersen, The Great Prologue, 26).

Apart from his sincere belief that he was being led by God to open the Christian settlement of a new world, Columbus also believed that his discovery of a new world would facilitate the reconquest of Jerusalem from the Muslims. In her paper “Columbus’s Ultimate Goal: Jerusalem,” Carol Delaney wrote the following:

Many people are unaware that Columbus made not just one voyage but four . . . Even fewer know that his ultimate goal, the purpose behind the enterprise, was Jerusalem! The 26 December 1492 entry in his journal of the first voyage . . . written in the Caribbean, leaves little doubt. He says he wanted to find enough gold and the almost equally valuable spices “in such quantity that the sovereigns . . . will undertake and prepare to go conquer the Holy Sepulchre; for thus I urged Your Highnesses to spend all the profits of this my enterprise on the conquest of Jerusalem.””

The famed Washington Irving wrote the following of Columbus’ faith and motives:

He avowed in the fullest manner his persuasion, that, from his earliest infancy, he had been chosen by Heaven for the accomplishment of those two great designs, the discovery of the New World, and the rescue of the holy sepulchre [in Jerusalem]. For this purpose, in his tender years, he had been guided by a divine impulse to embrace the profession of the sea, a mode of life, he observes, which produces an inclination to inquire into the mysteries of nature; and he had been gifted with a curious spirit, to read all kinds of chronicles, geographical treatises, and works of philosophy. In meditating upon these, his understanding had been opened by the Deity, “as with a palpable hand,” so as to discover the navigation to the Indies, and he had been inflamed with ardor to undertake the enterprise. “Animated by a heavenly fire,” he adds, “I came to your highnesses: all who heard of my enterprise mocked at it; all the sciences I had acquired profited me nothing; seven years did I pass in y our royal court, disputing the case with persons of great authority and learned in all the arts, and in the end they decided that all was vain. In your highnesses alone remained faith and constancy. Who will doubt that this light was from the holy Scriptures, illuminating you as well as myself with rays of marvelous brightness?”

These ideas, so repeatedly, and solemnly, and artlessly expressed, by a man of the fervent piety of Columbus, show how truly his discovery arose from the working of his own mind, and not from information furnished by others. He considered it a divine intimation, a light from Heaven, and the fulfillment of what had been fortold by the Saviour and the prophets. Still he regarded it as but a minor event, preparatory to the great enterprise, the recovery of the holy sepulchre. He pronounced it a miracle effected by Heaven, to animate himself and others to that holy undertaking” (Washington Irving, The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, Vol. 2, Chapter 4).

Columbus5

Columbus’ Christian faith is not up for debate. However, many Columbus-haters have condemned the man for over five hundred years. The atrocity propaganda aimed at Columbus in his day, as today, was politically motivated and are not grounded in fact. Many, if not most, of the allegations which serve as the basis for modern claims came from Francisco de Bobadilla. Bobadilla was appointed to investigate allegations that Columbus was perpetrating atrocities in the New World. The initial rumors and allegations that prompted the investigation came from a group of Spaniards which rebelled against Columbus. Ironically, they opposed Columbus partially because he would not permit them to abuse the native population.

The leader of this group was Francisco Roldan. Roldan had been appointed as a local mayor by Columbus. Columbus’ son explained that Roldan soon “began to dream of making himself master of the island.” As a result, he “sought to stir up the others and make himself head of a faction.” This faction rebelled and was suppressed. Hardly a reliable source of information!

Yet, based on this information Bobadilla was authorized to investigate Columbus. However, Bobadilla didn’t bother to investigate anything – he made up his mind based on the accusations of traitors. A wonderful article gives us the scoop on Bobadilla. It explains:

That Bobadilla’s bias against Columbus was firmly established is evident from his actions: He arrested Columbus without even corresponding with him to allow him to respond to the accusations.

Upon arrival, Bobadilla forced his way into the fortress, freed the prisoners Columbus had arrested for armed rebellion against the Crown, and professed to believe the outlandish and conflicting testimonies of colonist and criminal alike. He then pardoned the rebels who were tired of the discipline of their Italian taskmaster. These and other farces were recounted with glee by his political opponents in Spain. The Admiral himself was summarily chained and sent back to Castile.

In Spain it immediately became obvious that Bobadilla had grossly abused his authority. Columbus was released and a royal order was issued for his property to be restored. Bobadilla was recalled and died en route home in a massive hurricane. Whether by coincidence or Providence we will never know, but it remains fact that one of the only vessels to survive the hurricane was the smallest and least seaworthy: the ship carrying Columbus’s own effects” (Phillip Mericle, “Why Columbus’ Honor Was Maligned,” January 17, 2018).

In his article Debunking Lies About Columbus: The Story Of Francisco de Bobadilla,” Tommy De Seno also discussed the fact that most of the atrocities alleged to have been committed by Columbus and his men are fabrications written by political rivals of Columbus. Seno said:

Columbus4

In 1500 the King and Queen sent him here to investigate claims that Columbus wasn’t being fair to the European settlers (which means Columbus was protecting the Indians). So de Bobedilla came here, and in just a few short days investigated (with no telephones or motorized vehicles to help him), then arrested Columbus and his brothers for Indian mistreatment and sent them back to Spain, sans a trial. Oh yeah, he appointed himself Governor. Coup de Coeur for power lead to Coup d’ etat, as usual.

The King and Queen called shenanigans and sent for be Bobadilla two years later, but he drowned on the trip home. Columbus was reinstated as Admiral. So what we know of Columbian malfeasance comes from a defrocked liar, de Bobadilla.”

Taking a leaf out of Bobadilla’s fabricated book, people today state that Columbus enslaved, abused, and murdered the local Indians. Far from murdering them, he didn’t even enslave them. During his first voyage, Columbus left behind a settlement of thirty-nine men. When he returned, he found that the local Indians had slaughtered all thirty-nine and left their bodies moldering on the earth. In retaliation to this Indian-on-European genocide, Columbus waged a small war against the Indians. In the war, he captured hundreds of tribesmen – which were later released. This is slavery?

Also, during his first voyage, Columbus brought six Indians back to Spain with him who were voluntarily baptized. These returned with Columbus to the New World on his second voyage. Is this the conduct of a brutal oppressor and slaver?

Christopher Columbus was a good man. He was simply not guilty of the atrocities attributed to him. He was on God’s errand to open the New World to Christian settlement. Atrocities occurred during the colonization of the Americas, of course, but that’s not in question. The issue is whether or not Columbus was involved.

Columbus’ mission was so important in the history of the world that ancient prophets actually saw him and foretold of his discovery of the New World. The ancient prophet Nephi, whose people inhabited ancient America, saw Columbus in vision some six hundred years before Christ. He testified of Columbus’ discovery of America, her subsequent settlement by Liberty-loving Christians, and even America’s successful War for Independence:

And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.

And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters.

And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.

And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.

And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.

And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.

And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations” (1 Nephi 13:12-19).

For millennia the Lord has had His eye upon Columbus. It was God who set the stage for Columbus’ history-altering voyage. As Columbus testified, “who can doubt but that the Holy Ghost inspired me?” Surely he was an inspired figure – a faithful man who helped change the world for the better.

Columbus13

To conclude this portion of the article, I quote from Ezra Taft Benson. I sincerely believe his warning is accurate and I commend it to you. After speaking of great men like Benjamin Franklin, John Wesley, George Washington, and Christopher Columbus, he warned:

When one casts doubt about the character of these noble sons of God, I believe he or she will have to answer to the God of heaven for it” (Ezra Taft Benson, “God’s Hand in Our Nation’s History,” BYU Address, March 28, 1977).

To replace the memory of this good man and denigrate our noble ancestors and their unsurpassed achievements, the Marxist Elite have promoted so-called “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” to celebrate the American Indians. There are numerous objections to this ludicrous, impostor holiday.

The first objection is the title. What is an “indigenous” person? Who is a “native”? Google defines indigenous as something or someone “originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.” The Strong family line to which I proudly belong, and which helped establish this nation alongside other better known figures, has been in America for almost four hundred years. If we follow the dictionary definition, then I’m every bit as native and indigenous as the Indians!

At what point does someone, or even an entire people, become “indigenous” to a location? And just because one group is termed “indigenous,” does that preclude another group from becoming indigenous over time? The Indians migrated here, too, after all. The oral histories of our Eastern tribes, for instance, demonstrate that these tribes anciently traveled westward on ships to get to America. And like our forefathers they also displaced the previous inhabitants (one might call them “indigenous peoples”) of the land. Of course, when brown, black, yellow, and red peoples do it, it’s called history; but when whites do it, it’s considered “racism,” “genocide,” and “imperialism.”

The second objection regards the message. What is “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” really promoting? Is it merely promoting the existence of so-called “indigenous” peoples? That ostensibly seems to be the case. Wikipedia states: “Indigenous Peoples’ Day is a holiday that celebrates and honors Native American peoples and commemorates their histories and cultures.” Conveniently, the day chosen to celebrate this “holiday” is the same day we have celebrated Columbus Day since 1869. If the true purpose is to celebrate “Native American peoples,” then why did they provocatively choose Columbus Day as the time to celebrate it? They could have chosen any other day – so why did they choose Columbus Day?

It seems painfully obvious to me that the real purpose of “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” is to displace Columbus Day, downplay and eventually destroy the memory of Christopher Columbus, confuse history in people’s minds, promote inferior, harmful, or anti-Christian worldviews, and weaken traditional American culture. By inventing a holiday like “Indigenous Peoples’ Day,” people are consciously siding with an anti-American narrative – a Marxist version of history that portrays whites as racist, genocidal imperialists who forced the poor Indians off their land, engaged in mass theft, and orchestrated an Indian holocaust.

This narrative is demonstrably false. It flies in the face of history and facts. It is ultimately very harmful and dangerous because it demoralizes Americans by causing them to mistrust, question, and look down upon their forefathers and, by extension, the institutions and ideas they promoted and held sacred. The traitors who have infiltrated and hijacked our society don’t care about “indigenous peoples” – they’re only concerned with tearing down traditional white American/European culture, including our heroes and icons such as George Washington, Lewis Wetzel, Daniel Boone, Andrew Jackson, and Christopher Columbus. I, for one, will not allow the memory of our honorable, patriotic, courageous, upright, heroic forefathers to be sidelined by a holiday promoting Indian culture.

This brings us to the third objection. What are these “histories and cultures” we’re supposed to be promoting on “Indigenous Peoples’ Day”? The myth of the “noble savage” is prevalent in our society today. The fake image of the Indian crying over the white man’s destruction of the environment is seared into our consciousness. Indeed, Indian spirituality is looked upon with something akin to reverence as if it contains ancient wisdom lacking in modern American society.

In truth, American Indian tribes were proudly pagan and exceptionally brutal. They routinely engaged in human sacrifice. They were more warlike than most other peoples in recorded history. The men in many of the tribes lived for nothing other than to make war on neighboring tribes during the next raiding season. No one has slaughtered more Indians than other Indians. The Americas were in a near constant state of warfare before European settlers arrived.

In many tribes, Indian men gained prestige and position through murder or conquest. The chief was often the greatest warrior. And to the victor goes the spoils – including the women. The most prominent Indian braves usually had multiple wives which were frequently treated as chattel, though women in some tribes were more “liberated” in the modern feminist sense. Women could also be purchased or won through gambling or games.

Other questionable behaviors ran rampant. For instance, drug use was common in many tribes (peyote, magic mushrooms, etc.) Indolence was a part of life for the Indian men. Immorality was prevalent and shrugged at. Drunkenness became a way of life. And the Indians, contrary to myth, actually hunted animals to extinction and often tore up the environment they claimed to love so much. Nearly everything Hollywood and leftist academia claim about the Indians is a demonstrable lie. Yet they want us to ignore the good Christian, Christopher Columbus, and instead celebrate Indian debauchery and values that are antithetical to everything that made America great.

Let’s zero in on one particular aspect of Indian culture that is carefully covered up by the powers-that-be. The Establishment “historians” and their agitators don’t want us to remember that it was the Indians who brutalized the white settlers and not the other way around. Of course there were individual acts of white-on-Indian brutality, but there was never a general policy. The context and backstory is also absolutely crucial to understand.

When our Pilgrim forefathers arrived in the New World, it was the Indians who initiated the wars that raged on and off for the better part of three centuries. One of the first big slaughters occurred in March 1622 when the Powhatan Indians murdered 347 settlers and mutilated their corpses. But murder was not enough – torture was also integral to the Indians’ lifestyle.

The Indians had a god named Okee (the name differed according to tribe) to whom they had been sacrificing human beings and animals for centuries. When the white settlers arrived, they became the most prized sacrifices for Okee. Okee was a pain-eater. He fed off of the suffering, pain, and cries of the victims. Consequently, the Indians brutally tortured their lamentable victims for days until death brought relief. Our forefathers were flayed, had their lips and eyelids removed, and other horrific tortures. Children were not spared torture and indiscriminate murder. Even the dead were mutilated for the Indians’ enjoyment. When people comprehend that this is how European settlers were greeted by the Indians, our aggressively defensive posture becomes perfectly understandable.

Sacrificing white settlers to Okee was not the only way the Indians showed their true colors. The Indians loved to rape white women. The accounts are legion. Often white women would be kidnapped or captured during battle and then raped by not one, but any man in a tribe. The abuse would go on and on for days, weeks, or longer, until they finally killed or released the woman. This treatment of our women was not localized – it was a general rule just as Indian brutality and savagery was general throughout the Americas.

Indians1

In his book Scalp Dance, Thomas Goodrich documented that Indian brutality and rapine was as commonplace on the plains as it was in the coastal regions and that our People faced it up through the Nineteenth Century. Goodrich quoted a Sioux chief as stating that his people’s slogan was “death to all palefaces” (Thomas Goodrich, Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, 1865-1879, 168). One Indian atrocity committed in Nebraska was described as follows:

[She] was led from her tent and every remnant of clothing torn from her body. A child that she was holding to her breast was wrenched from her arms and she was knocked to the ground. In this nude condition the demons gathered round her and while some held her down by standing on her wrists and their claws clutched in her hair, others outraged her person. Not less than thirty repeated the horrible deed! While this was going on another crew was trying to stop the heart-broken wailings of the child by tossing strings of beads about its face, and others were dancing about in the brush and grass, with revolvers cocked, yelping like madmen” (in Thomas Goodrich, Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, 1865-1879, 119-120).

These types of scenes played out all across America as white settlers were abused, harassed, robbed, raped, tortured, and murdered by Indians. So prevalent were these atrocities that our Declaration of Independence actually mentions them. One of the colonists’ grievances was that King George III had “excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

During the French and Indian War the French had used the Indians against the American colonists. Then during the War for Independence the British did the same. During that war, the Indian-British coalition raided American towns, brutalizing and slaughtered anyone they could find. W. Cleon Skousen’s superb book The Making of America contains this account of one infamous massacre:

Early in 1778, the British War Office began to carve out for itself a huge black mark in history as it allowed Sir John Butler to mobilize the Indians and lead them forth on terrifying raids against the American frontier. We read:

““On July 4 – to mock American independence – Colonel Sir John Butler struck at the Wyoming Valley in [western] Pennsylvania. Hundreds perished. Men were burnt at the stake or thrown on beds of coals and held down with pitchforks while their horrified families were forced to witness their torment. Others were placed in a circle while a half-breed squaw called Queen Esther danced chanting around them to chop off their heads. Soon the entire frontier was in flames.”

Since Congress did nothing to quench the Indian massacres, they began to spread through the Ohio Valley and Northwest territory” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, 94).

In response to the Indian savagery, we took the fight to the Indians. We sent 5,000 troops into the Iroquois settlements and demolished dozens of their villages to eliminate their ability to mercilessly attack our civilians. Historians of course portray this as a senseless massacre against the poor defenseless Indians, but from what you just read you now understand the context.

Most alleged “massacres” against the Indians were usually one of two things: Legitimate battles where both sides took casualties, or retaliation for Indian atrocities against our People. A great example is the infamous Battle of Wounded Knee. More than any other event, this is pointed to by Indian apologists and anti-American agitators as the quintessential “massacre.” The only problem with this narrative is that it wasn’t a massacre of defenseless people.

The Battle of Wounded Knee was just that – a battle. It occurred at the height of the Ghost Dance craze when Indians were rising up to raid and fight against the white settlers moving west. After a small skirmish between Indians and American soldiers where Sitting Bull was killed during an arrest attempt, hundreds of Lakota Indians were rounded up by the U.S. Army as a precaution. Fearing another attack, the Army ordered the Lakota disarmed. The Indians gave up a few of their weapons, but contrary to popular myth, they hid most of them (and it was certainly not “gun control” as some claim!) They then began the Ghost Dance ritual in camp, with one Indian declaring that the soldiers’ bullets couldn’t harm them. At that moment, one of the Indian’s guns accidentally fired. This started a two-way battle in which some 150 Lakota (half of whom were men) and 25 soldiers were killed, with another 39 Americans injured. It was hardly a one-sided massacre of unarmed Indians.

In short, the entire history of white-Indian relations has been twisted and rewritten along anti-American lines. Instead of celebrating heroes like our noble ancestors and Christopher Columbus, we are supposed to celebrate the history and culture of savage Indian tribes who brutalized, raped, and murdered our people for the better part of three hundred years. Only negative results can come from promoting “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” over Columbus Day. We need to remember our history. We need to remember the good that came from Columbus’ discovery of the New World and the Christian settlement of this land that resulted.

Columbus14

I urge you to reject the Marxist political correctness that has saturated our society. Reject the promotion of cultures and histories that are not equal to our own unsurpassed greatness as a society. Remember our history. And let’s remember Christopher Columbus and honor his good name. Happy Columbus Day.

Zack Strong,

October 14, 2019

Indispensable Men: George Washington

“[A]n impartial World will say with you that he is the Greatest Man on Earth.” – William Hooper to Robert Morris, February 1, 1777.

Numerous patriots came together to bring about and accomplish America’s War for Independence, write her Constitution, and establish our cherished Republic. Among these patriots, several stalwart figures stand out as vital to the cause. These are the indispensable men America needed and without whom our bid for Independence would have failed. This “Indispensable Men” series pays tribute to these larger-than-life heroes and the role they played in giving Liberty a proper home.

Hundreds of books, biographies, and documentaries have been produced telling the technical details and stories of George Washington’s upbringing, career, family, and home life, and the interworkings of his presidential administration and command as general. I don’t feel the need to reproduce those facts here. I simply refer you to the best book I know of on Washington’s life and achievements; namely, The Real George Washington written by Jay A. Parry, Andrew M. Allison, and W. Cleon Skousen and published by the National Center for Constitutional Studies. My aim in this series is, rather, to highlight the key ideas, crucial character traits, and most notable public achievements of the “indispensable” figures in the story of American Freedom.

George Washington33

No man more deserves the first spot on the “indispensable men” list than George Washington, the great general of the Revolution and the Father of our Country. The unchallenged historical consensus is that no man was more respected and admired in our founding era than George Washington. Washington’s impressive record demonstrates the great trust his countrymen had in him and speaks to the tremendous influence he had in his day.

A brief index of George Washington’s public achievements and prominent positions looks like this:

1) Washington began his public service as a soldier. During the French and Indian War, Washington gained valuable command experience and reputation and was promoted to the rank of colonel in the Virginia militia.

2) In 1774, he was elected as a Virginia delegate to the First and Second Continental Congresses. During the Second Continental Congress, the Continental Army was created and George Washington was chosen as its commander-in-chief.

3) During the War for Independence, General Washington served as the supreme leader of the Continental Army, saved the Army from defeat numerous times through his skill and decisive will power, and brought the conflagration to a successful conclusion.

4) Four years after humbly resigning his charge as commander-in-chief and retiring to his plantation in 1783, Washington helped orchestrate the Constitutional Convention to save the faltering nation. Washington was unanimously elected as the president of the Convention.

5) In 1789, Washington became the first president of our Republic and to this day is the only man to ever be unanimously elected by the Electoral College. He in fact accomplished this feat twice, speaking to the level of admiration and trust given to him by his contemporaries. The later federal capital district was also named in his honor.

Being a successful military general, a unanimously-elected head of state, the president of the Convention which produced the longest-standing national charter in history, and having a national capitol named in your honor, are things that not many other people can put on a resume. On paper, then, there is zero doubt that George Washington deserves a seat at the “indispensable men” table. But there was much more to his rave popularity than merely holding prominent positions during monumental events.

George Washington63

Washington’s positions as general and president, as noteworthy as they are, did not make others respect him. Rather, Washington was appointed and elected to those positions because of the supreme respect and admiration others already had for him. And this admiration was engendered by his strong character and unique spirit. Historian Gordon Wood has written:

“Washington’s genius, Washington’s greatness, lay in his character. He was, as Chateaubriand said, a “hero of an unprecedented kind.” There had never been a great man quite like Washington . . . Washington became a great man and was acclaimed as a classical hero because of the way he conducted himself during times of temptation. It was his moral character that set him off from other men.

“Washington epitomized everything the revolutionary generation prized in its leaders. He had character and was truly a man of virtue. This virtue was not given to him by nature. He had to work for it, to cultivate it, and everyone sensed that. Washington was a self-made hero, and this impressed an eighteenth-century enlightened world that put great stock in men’s controlling both their passions and their destinies. Washington seemed to possess a self-cultivated nobility” (Gordon S. Wood, Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different, 34-35).

Yet, it is not what modern historians have said about Washington that is so remarkable. Rather, the fact that the American People and his contemporaries in governmental affairs, and even his enemies across the sea, lavished him with praise. We now rehearse some of the acclaim this man received by those who knew him and were in a position to judge the sincerity and depth of his character.

Thomas Jefferson was intimately acquainted with Washington both before he was appointed general and throughout his time in military and government service. Jefferson wrote to future president James Monroe of Washington’s mass appeal in these words:

“Congress have risen. You will have seen by their proceedings the truth of what I always observed to you, that one man outweighs them all in influence over the people who have supported his judgment against their own and that of their representatives. Republicanism must lie on it’s oars, resign the vessel to it’s pilot, and themselves to the course he thinks best for them” (Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, June 12, 1796).

George Washington46

Another time, Jefferson gave an in-depth evaluation of Washington’s character and many of his traits, including his sense of justice, his reasoning abilities, and his will power. I do not quote everything Jefferson said, but enough to demonstrate why Washington was so revered by his associates:

“I think I knew General Washington intimately and thoroughly; and were I called on to delineate his character it should be in terms like these.

“His mind was great and powerful, without being of the very first order; his penetration strong, tho’ not so acute as that of a Newton, Bacon or Locke; and as far as he saw, no judgment was ever sounder. it was slow in operation, being little aided by invention or imagination, but sure in conclusion. hence the common remark of his officers, of the advantage he derived from councils of war, where hearing all suggestions, he selected whatever was best. and certainly no General ever planned his battles more judiciously . . . he was incapable of fear, meeting personal dangers with the calmest unconcern. perhaps the strongest feature in his character was prudence, never acting until every circumstance, every consideration was maturely weighed; refraining if he saw a doubt, but, when once decided, going through with his purpose whatever obstacles opposed. his integrity was most pure, his justice the most inflexible I have ever known, no motives of interest or consanguinity, of friendship or hatred, being able to bias his decision. he was indeed, in every sense of the words, a wise, a good, & a great man . . . his person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would wish, his deportment easy, erect, and noble; the best horseman of his age, and the most graceful figure that could be seen on horseback . . . on the whole, his character was, in it’s mass perfect, in nothing bad, in few points indifferent; and it may truly be said that never did nature and fortune combine more perfectly to make a man great, and to place him in the same constellation with whatever worthies have merited from man an everlasting remembrance. for his was the singular destiny & merit of leading the armies of his country succesfully thro’ an arduous war for the establishment of it’s independance, of conducting it’s councils thro’ the birth of a government, new in it’s forms and principles, until it had settled down into a quiet and orderly train, and of scrupulously obeying the laws, thro’ the whole of his career, civil and military, of which the history of the world furnishes no other example . . . I am satisfied the great body of republicans thinks of him as I do . . . and I am convinced he is more deeply seated in the love and gratitude of the republicans, than in the Pharisaical homage of the Federal monarchists. for he was no monarchist from preference of his judgment. the soundness of that gave him correct views of the rights of man, and his severe justice devoted him to them. he has often declared to me that he considered our new constitution as an experiment on the practicability of republican government, and with what dose of liberty man could be trusted for his own good: that he was determined the experiment should have a fair trial, and would lose the last drop of his blood in support of it. . . .

“These are my opinions of General Washington, which I would vouch at the judgment seat of god, having been formed on an acquaintance of 30. years . . . I felt on his death, with my countrymen, that ‘verily a great man hath fallen this day in Israel’” (Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, January 2, 1814).

High praise, indeed! And higher still coming from a man the caliber of Thomas Jefferson! As Jefferson noted, he was hardly the only person to share these elevated feelings. Most Americans at the time looked upon Washington as an exalted figure – a national savior of sorts.

Benjamin Franklin, a man whose own unique talents and achievements had few equals, had high esteem for Washington. When it came time to elect a new president under the Constitution, Franklin had only one man in mind: “General Washington is the man that all our eyes are fixed on for President, and what little influence I may have, is devoted to him” (Benjamin Franklin to M. Le Veillard, June 8, 1788).

John and Abigail Adams both had high praise for the man. John Adams noted: “He is brave, wise, generous and humane” (John Adams to William Tudor, June 20, 1775). And after meeting Washington in person, Abigail privately told John: “I was struck with General Washington, You had prepared me to entertain a favorable opinion of him, but I thought the one half was not told me. Dignity with ease, and complacency, the Gentleman and Soldier look agreeably blended in him. Modesty marks every line and feature of his face” (Abigail Adams to John Adams, July 16, 1775).

In his autobiography, John Adams likewise praised Washington as the principal man of the age. He wrote: “I thought him a perfectly honest Man, with an amiable and excellent heart, and the most important Character at that time among Us, for he was the center of our Union” (John Adams, Autobiography, 1777).

The Marquis de Lafayette, the famous Frenchman who assisted in our War for Independence, once observed:

“This great man has no enemies but those of his own country, and yet every noble and sensitive soul must love the excellent qualities of his heart . . . His honesty, his candor, his sensitivity, his virtue in the full sense of the word are above all praise” (Marquis de Lafayette to Baron von Steuben, March 12, 1778).

Another French observer wrote:

“General Washington conducts himself with his usual wisdom. It conciliates to him more and more the respect and affection of the people. After a war of eight years, during which he has scarcely ever left his army, and has never taken any repose, he has received the news of the peace with the greatest joy. It made him shed tears, and he said it was the happiest hour of his life . . . He will always be the first citizen of the United States . . . all the world is agreed touching his republican virtues, and agreed that there is no character more eminent among those who have taken part in this grand revolution” (Chevalier de La Luzerne to the Comte de Vergennes, March 29, 1783).

George Washington73

Benjamin Rush, another prominent figure of the day, spoke extravagantly of Washington’s character: “His zeal, his disinterestedness, his activity, his politeness, and his manly behavior . . . have captivated the hearts of the public and his friends. He seems to be one of those illustrious heroes whom providence raises up once in three or four hundred years to save a nation from ruin . . . he has so much martial dignity in his deportment that you would distinguish him to be a general and a soldier from among ten thousand people. There is not a king in Europe that would not look like a valet de chamber by his side” (Benjamin Rush to Thomas Ruston, October 29, 1775).

At the height of the Revolution, Moses Hazen remarked to General Nathanael Greene that Washington “is the very Idol of His Country, and who I love, regard, and Esteem, as one of the best men since the Creation of Adam” (Moses Hazen to Nathanael Greene, July 24, 1780). General Greene had similar praise for his superior officer. Not long after Hazen made his statements, General Greene explained:

“It is my opinion that General Washington’s influence will do more than all the Assemblies upon the Continent. I always thought him exceeding popular, but in many places he is little less than adored; and universally admired. His influence in this Country might possibly effect something great” (Nathanael Greene, January 10, 1781).

In 1791, a newspaper, the Connecticut Courant, gushed with praise for the nation’s first chief executive:

“Many a private man might make a great President; but will there ever be a President who will make so great a man as WASHINGTON?” (Connecticut Courant, June 20, 1791, in John P. Kaminski, ed., The Founders on the Founders: Word Portraits from the American Revolutionary Era, 505).

Shortly after Washington’s death, Timothy Dwight made this observation:

“Wherever he appeared, an instinctive awe and veneration attended him on the part of all men. Every man, however great in his own opinion, or in reality, shrunk in his presence, and became conscious of an inferiority, which he never felt before. Whilst he encouraged every man, particularly every stranger, and peculiarly ever diffident man, and raised him to self possession, no sober person, however secure he might think himself of his esteem, ever presumed to draw too near him” (Timothy Dwight, “Discourse on the Character of Washington,” February 22, 1800).

John Marshall, the fourth chief justice of the Supreme Court, shared the sentiment so often expressed that Washington was the “greatest man in the world.” Days after General Washington’s resignation, Marshall stated:

“At length then the military career of the greatest Man on earth is closed. May happiness attend him wherever he goes. May he long enjoy those blessings he has secured to his Country. When I speak or think of that superior Man my full heart overflows with gratitude. Ma he ever experience from his Countrymen those attentions which such sentiments of themselves produce” (John Marshall to James Monroe, January 3, 1784).

These few lines from John Price demonstrate the awe people had for the General of their blessed Revolution: “Immortal Washington . . . has outshined and Eclipsed all Asiatic, African, and European Generals, and Commanders from the Creation of the World, to this Day” (John Price to John Jay, October 29, 1783).

Samuel Shaw, a distinguished military officer under Washington, expressed his keen feelings about his General in these words:

“Our army love our General very much, but yet they have one thing against him, which is the little care he takes of himself in action. His personal bravery, and the desire he has of animating his troops by example, make him fearless of any danger. This, while it makes him appear great, occasions us much uneasiness. But Heaven, who has hitherto been his shield, I hope will still continue to guard so valuable a life” (Samuel Shaw to Francis Show, January 7, 1777).

William Hooper once wrote of Washington’s invaluable role in maintaining and securing the Revolution:

“When it shall be consistent with policy to give the history of that man from his first introduction into our service, how often America has been rescued from ruin by the mere strength of his genius, conduct & courage encountering every obstacle that want of money, men, arms, Ammunition could throw in his way, an impartial World will say with you that he is the Greatest Man on Earth. Misfortunes are the Element in which he shines. They are the Groundwork on which his picture appears to the greatest advantage. He rises superior to them all, they serve as foils to his fortitude, and as stimulants to bring into view those great qualities which in the serenity of life his great modesty keeps concealed. I could fill the side in his praise, but anything I can say cannot equal his Merits” (William Hooper to Robert Morris, February 1, 1777).

Washington’s fame was celebrated throughout Europe as well as America – even in the midst of the War for Independence. While on assignment in France, Benjamin Franklin wrote to Washington: “I frequently hear the old Generals of this martial Country, (who study the Maps of America, and mark upon them all your Operations) speak with sincere Approbation & great Applause of your Conduct, and join in giving you the Character of one of the greatest Captains of the Age” (Benjamin Franklin to George Washington, March 5, 1780).

George Washington75

King George III, the tyrant who abuses prompted the Americans into fighting for their Liberty and declaring Independence from Britain, developed an interesting opinion of Washington after the war. Rufus King recorded a conversation he had with Benjamin West who had spoken with King George III about affairs in America. King’s account reads:

“[I]n regard to General Washington, he [King George] told him [West] since his [Washington’s] resignation that in his opinion “that act closing and finishing what had gone before and viewed in connection with it, placed him in a light the most distinguished of any man living, and that he thought him the greatest character of the age”” (Rufus King, May 3, 1797, in King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Vol. 3, 545).

It is likewise my estimation that George Washington was one of the “greatest Captains of the Age,” that he was an “illustrious hero” whom the God of Heaven raised up to save his country, and that he was the foremost of the indispensable men who established American Liberty. My own religious creed and the impressions of the Holy Spirit on my soul cause me to declare that George Washington was indeed raised up by the hand of the Lord to preside over the founding of this Republic. I am proud to live in a nation founded and shaped by George Washington.

George Washington’s guiding light, the thing that propelled him to the greatness ascribed to him by his peers, was his inner conviction about God. Though it is common today to call Washington and other Founding Fathers “Deists,” or, worse, “atheists,” the fact is that Washington was a deeply committed Christian. Washington issued the following General Orders  to his fighting men on May 2, 1788.

“The Commander in Chief directs that divine Service be performed every sunday at 11 oClock in those Brigades to which there are Chaplains—those which have none to attend the places of worship nearest to them—It is expected that Officers of all Ranks will by their attendence set an Example to their men.

“While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion—To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian—The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labours with complete Success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude & Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good.”

Washington not only commanded his soldiers to worship God, but he frequently mentioned his personal belief in God and encouraged his countrymen to be faithful and virtuous. Washington was particularly convinced that God had intervened on America’s behalf during the War for Independence, as were most Americans at the time. One time he affirmed:

“The man must be bad indeed who can look upon the events of the American Revolution without feeling the warmest gratitude towards the great Author of the Universe whose divine interposition was so frequently manifested in our behalf—And it is my earnest prayer that we may so conduct ourselves as to merit a continuance of those blessings with which we have hitherto been favoured” (George Washington to Samuel Langdon, September 28, 1789).

Another time, Washington observed:

“The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations” (George Washington to Thomas Nelson, August 20, 1778).

In his First Inaugural Address as president, Washington was moved to comment that Americans were “bound to acknowledge” God’s hand in their Revolution:

“[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”

George Washington by Tim Davis

To Washington, God was the real Founder of America and of her inspired Constitution. During his immortal Farewell Address, President Washington made it clear that his convictions had not changed. He spoke a truth that is as applicable today as it was in 1796:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

“It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”

In harmony with his public sentiments, President Washington wrote a letter to Protestant clergy wherein he asserted: “Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society” (George Washington to the Protestant Clergy of Philadelphia, March 3, 1797).

For his own part, Washington never failed to acknowledge the hand of the Lord. He noted:

“No Man has a more perfect Reliance on the all-wise, and powerful dispensations of the Supreme Being than I have nor thinks his aid more necessary” (George Washington to William Gordon, May 13, 1776).

By all accounts, General Washington was supernaturally protected in both the French and Indian War and the American Revolution. Washington, and others, ascribed his protection to God. After a particularly harrowing battle during the French and Indian War, Washington observed:

“But by the all-powerful dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, although death was leveling my companions on every side of me” (George Washington to John A. Washington, July 18, 1755).

The Indians involved in the same battle noted that Washington seemed to be under the protection of God and could not be killed. One Indian chief recounted the following to General Washington:

“I called to my young men and said, mark yon tall and daring warrior? He is of the red-coat tribe – he hath an Indian’s wisdom, and his warriors fight as we do – himself alone exposed.

“Quick, let your aim be certain, and he dies. Our rifles were leveled, rifles which, but for you, knew not how to miss – ‘twas all in vain, a power mightier than we, shielded you.

“Seeing you were under the special guardianship of the Great Spirit, we immediately ceased to fire at you . . . there is something bids me speak in the voice of prophecy: Listen! The Great Spirit protects that man, and guides his destinies – he will become the chief of nations, and a people yet unborn will hail him as the founder of a mighty empire. I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle” (Bob Gingrich, Founding Fathers vs. History Revisionists, 29-30).

Washington did not utter idle words. As the quotations thus far demonstrate conclusively, Washington was a man who said what he meant and did what he said he would do. He wasn’t afraid to put himself in harm’s way for his beliefs or risk his life for his country. Thus, when Washington said he believed in God, he meant it and did all he could to show his devotion.

As frequently as his demanding public service allowed, George Washington attended Christian worship services. In fact, Washington donated money for the construction of Christ Church near his home. He also attended Pohick Church in which, according to numerous sources, Washington served as a vestryman for some twenty years. Washington also kept a prayer journal and had a personal copy of the Bible which he routinely read and which was donated to Christ Church after his death. It is beyond dispute that George Washington was a Christian who actively practiced his faith.

George Washington79

In addition to upholding Christian values, Washington lived by a strict personal code of conduct. He wrote up this code into 110 “Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.” Numbers 108 and 110 are the most relevant and give us a peek into Washington’s outlook on life: “When you speak of God or his attributes, let it be seriously & with reverence.” And, finally: “Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.”

From all credible accounts and eyewitness statements, we can conclude that Washington was a good, honest, upright man. He was a Christian with a high sense of honor and integrity. He was sometimes brutally honest. He was calculated and exercise wise judgement. He was a man of boldness and bravery. He was a supreme patriot who gave his life to the cause of Liberty.

One final aspect of Washington’s influence will be discussed. More than almost any other Founding Father, George Washington pushed for a new federal constitution to replace the failing Articles of Confederation. Viewing the proceedings of the nation he loved and had fought so mightily for from his retirement at Mount Vernon made Washington uncomfortable. He saw that the Union must collapse unless reformed.

A few quotes show Washington’s apprehensions:

“That it is necessary to revise, and amend the articles of Confederation, I entertain no doubt . . . Yet, something must be done, or the fabrick must fall. It certainly is tottering!” (George Washington to John Jay, May 18, 1786).

“No man in the United States is or can be more deeply impressed with the necessity of a reform in our present confederation than myself. No man, perhaps, has felt the bad effects of it more sensibly; for to the defects thereof, and want of powers in Congress, may justly be ascribed the prolongation of the war and consequently the expenses occasioned by it. More than half the perplexities I have experienced in the course of my command, and almost the whole of the difficulties and distress of the army, have their origin here” (George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, March 31, 1783).

“Let us look to our National character, and to things beyond the present period. No morn ever dawned more favourably than ours did; and no day was ever more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm. Virginia has now an opportunity to set the latter, and has enough of the former, I hope, to take the lead in promoting this great and arduous work. Without some alteration in our political creed, the superstructure we have been seven years raising at the expence of so much blood and treasure, must fall. We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion!” (George Washington to James Madison, November 5, 1786).

Suffice it to say that Washington foresaw the collapse of the fledgling American government unless the constitution was immediately overhauled. Washington urged and encouraged his fellow patriots to step forward and rescue the Republic. Eventually, a convention was called and Washington was adopted as its presiding head. After months of careful deliberation, the convention produced the U.S. Constitution, a document I consider to be literally inspired by Almighty God.

George Washington approved the document and, upon signing his name to it, remarked:

“Should the states reject this excellent constitution, the probability is that an opportunity will never again offer to cancel another in peace – the next will be drawn in blood” (Allison, Parry, Skousen, The Real George Washington, 490-491).

Shortly thereafter, during the constitutional ratification process, Washington remarked:

“No one can rejoice more than I do at every step taken by the People of this great Country to preserve the Union—establish good order & government—and to render the Nation happy at home & respected abroad. No Country upon Earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wonderously strange then, & much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means, and to stray from the road to which the finger of Providence has so manifestly pointed. I cannot believe it will ever come to pass! The great Author of all good has not conducted us so far on the Road to happiness and glory to withdraw from us, in the hour of need, his beneficent support” (George Washington to Benjamin Lincoln, June 29, 1788).

When the Constitution was ratified, Washington became its greatest champion. Of this charter, he publicly declared: “[T]he Constitution is the guide which I never can abandon” (George Washington to Boston Selectmen, July 28, 1795). Another time he wrote: “The Constitution of the United States, and the laws made under it, must mark the line of my official conduct” (George Washington to Edmund Randolph, 1790).

George Washington34

After a successful term in office, President Washington was overjoyed at the success America had seen directly because of the new Constitution. It was the American People’s mission, he believed, to show the world that constitutional republicanism is the soundest system of government ever devised:

“To complete the [A]merican character, it remains for the citizens of the United States, to shew to the world, that the reproach heretofore cast on Republican Governments for their want of stability, is without foundation, when that Government is the deliberate choice of an enlightened people: and I am fully persuaded, that every well-wisher to the happiness & prosperity of this Country, will evince by his conduct, that we live under a government of laws; and that while we preserve inviolate our national faith, we are desirous to live in amity with all mankind” (George Washington to the citizens of Alexandria, July 4, 1793).

The way in which America could show the world the wisdom of the Constitution was, simply enough, to follow it! Indeed, Washington strongly believed that all citizens owed strict obedience to the Constitution. He was most emphatic on this point. In his Farewell Address, which ought to be required reading for all Americans, he declared:

“This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government” (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796).

Much of our constitutional form of government, and, indeed, the U.S. Constitution itself, came about due to George Washington’s instrumentality. He used his influence to persuade his countrymen to draft a constitution which would enshrine the rule of law, protect natural rights, and limit government while empowering it to fully protect the citizens of the country. He also used his influence to urge adoption of the new Constitution. And, then, he worked hard for eight years as president to enforce and maintain that sacred document.

Yes, it was George Washington, the Father of our Country, who really popularized constitutional government in the United States. His indomitable influence and skillful leadership brought the government into being and carried it through its first eight years. He set in stone the practice of a president only serving two terms and then graciously retiring – a tradition faithfully followed until the Marxist demagogue FDR served four consecutive terms, prompting a formal change in the law. Washington was also responsible for adding the words “so help me God” to the end of his presidential oath. All eyes were on Washington in the nation’s critical moments and he guided her through the rocky waters by following the Constitution, applying his own native judgment, and following God’s laws in his personal conduct.

George Washington was, and remains, a true hero. Few heroes in fact have been as worthy of the appellation as Washington. It is, therefore, a true sign of cultural rot that many Americans are beginning to spurn and despise this incredible man. It is rare in history that a man accomplished so much good for his nation, yet, in time, became so hated. A recent and ongoing incident demonstrates this growing hostility.

In San Francisco – perhaps the epicenter of all that is wrong with America – a school recently wanted to destroy an old George Washington mural painted one of its walls. According to the school, the mural “traumatizes students” and “glorifies slavery” and “genocide.” To allegedly protect their students from the image of George Washington, the school decided to paint over the mural, but then decided to simply cover it. Heaven forbid we allow school students to learn about the Father of their Country, the Commander-in-Chief of the Revolution, and the first president of the United States!

Because of the communist cancer that has almost totally taken over public schooling, academia, Hollywood, the press, and government, our Founding Fathers are being vilified as violent “rebels,” self-serving aristocrats, bigots, racists, and religiously-motivated oppressors. Agencies within our government have even gone so far as to classify the Sons of Liberty and our Founding Fathers as “domestic terrorists,” implying that anyone who believes like they did are also “terrorists.” And now the FBI is calling “conspiracy theorists” an extremist threat.

Yes, fighting for Freedom and truth is extreme and revolutionary, especially when the government is antagonistic to Liberty. Historian Charles Beard is said to have observed: “You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence” (Charles A. Beard, in M. Kenneth Creamer, The Reformation of Union State Sovereignty, 265).

George Washington45

This sentiment is, unfortunately, accurate. And there was no more “dangerous citizen” in American history than George Washington. He was the “rebel” leader – the point of the patriotic spear. He was formidable to tyrants and traitors, but a true friend to Liberty. He was a patriot in every sense of the term. He was then as he ought to be now “first in the hearts of his countrymen” (Richard Henry Lee, Funeral Oration on the Death of George Washington, December 28, 1799).

Washington’s shining example will always inspire sincere American patriots. His words will always buoy his countrymen. His spirit will always ride alongside those wishing to rid their country of tyranny and to defend Freedom. God help us remember and emulate George Washington, the most indispensable of indispensable men!

Zack Strong,

August 21, 2019.

Erasing Hitler

Yesterday, I went to YouTube to watch Adolf Hitler’s famous February 10, 1933 Sportpalast speech as I have done many times in the past. I discovered, however, that YouTube has recently deleted this speech. Only incomplete or shabbily spliced together versions now exist on the platform and no remaining version contains Joseph Goebbels’ live introduction. YouTube has effectively erased Hitler’s most famous speech – an historical gem that ought to be preserved for historicity’s sake. This brief article is a plea for my fellow Americans to not allow the eradication of history for political purposes.

Over the past several years, I have compiled a YouTube playlist of videos, documentaries, and interviews on Hitler totaling 503 videos. As of this writing, only 53 of those videos remain. The rest of been deleted by YouTube. And of the 53 remaining, a sizeable percentage is now blocked in the United States and therefore inaccessible. For all intents and purposes, YouTube has erased any alternative interpretations of the facts relative to Hitler, the Third Reich, and the Second World War. This is a grave injustice, an affront to truth, and a backhand to intellectual honesty.

Hitler30

Let me be clear: I couldn’t care less what you think about Adolf Hitler. Honestly, I can’t express how little I care what the unthinking majority believes about any given issue. Most of what they think they know is the result of propaganda, indoctrination, and social conditioning. Most so-called “history” is a lie twisted or told in such a way as to exclude alternative interpretations, erase the perspective of the losers, and to support the Marxist worldview. The fallacious mainstream “history” of World War II is absolutely no exception. Indeed, few other historical episodes have suffered so severely from historical fabrication.

Nearly everything society is told about Hitler and WWII by the court historians and their controlled media accomplices is false and adheres strictly to the carefully-concocted communist narrative. That is to say, this “history” is a fraudulent fiction; a terribly written, horribly supported, unprovable fiction! It is fiction designed to twist your mind, blind your eyes, and numb your soul. It is meant to turn you against truth and to rile you up against anyone who opposes the Establishment – the very same powers-that-be which control the media, Hollywood, public schooling, and higher education and, thus, control the narrative.

My primary concern is not what you believe about World War II, but that folks have a right to share their contrary views. You may not agree with me or another person, but where in the First Amendment does it say that only speech with which the government or the majority agrees is acceptable and protected? We run a huge risk by allowing tax-payer-funded platforms like Facebook to ban and silence people for saying things that are not lewd or threatening, but which are merely contrary in viewpoint.

Hitler168

The danger to free speech becomes obvious when we consider how historically inaccurate the enforcers are. To wit, we have been wrongly taught that the “Nazis” (the word “Nazi” is historically inaccurate and used exclusively as a derogatory slur, so please stop using it) are the epitome of evil. More specifically, Hitler, we are told, is the Devil incarnate – the evilest individual ever to walk the earth. We are told millions were murdered by his regime, that he started the most devastating war in history, that he wanted to conquer the world, that he tyrannized his people, that he was an occultist, and so forth. In reality, none of this is accurate or historically substantiated, unless you consider lying testimony, kangaroo court rulings, debunked statistics, and contradictory “historical memory,” as “proof.”

Society is suffering a massive attack of historical amnesia. Then again, perhaps this description is inaccurate. In order to have forgotten something, you had to have known it previously. But society was never told the truth about the Second World War. We have been lied to from the inception. Those few souls who have attempted to awaken the public have been castigated, called “conspiracy theorists” and “Nazis,” and silenced. YouTube’s recent deletion of Hitler’s famous 1933 Sportpalast address is but one more evidence of this attempt to censor and silence the truth.

Amazon, Facebook, and other major platforms are equally guilty of censorship and historical fabrication. Recent years have seen Amazon engaging in digital book burning worthy of Dark Ages paranoia. Hundreds of supposedly “controversial” titles have been banned – many at the direct request of Israeli lobbying groups and organizations like Yad Vashem. It is somewhat shocking to think that a large handful of books currently on my bookshelf have been banned by the world’s largest book seller and their authors targeted for persecution by the “authorities” in numerous countries.

Hitler170

A microscopic list of World War II-related books that have been banned by Amazon includes:

The Bad War: The Truth Never Taught about World War II by MS King

The Six Million: Fact or Fiction? by Peter Winter

The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry by Arthur R. Butz

Made in Russia: The Holocaust by Carlos Porter

Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust: Myth and Reality by Nick Kollerstrom

Jewish Emigration from the Third Reich by Ingrid Weckert

The Secret Behind Communism: The Ethnic Origins of the Russian Revolution and the Greatest Holocaust in the History of Mankind by David Duke

The entire “Holocaust Handbook” series – a well-researched and scholarly series presenting alternative interpretations of the absurd “Holocaust” narrative incessantly peddled by the lying Establishment – has also been banned. Luckily, you can purchase the series via The Barnes Review’s website. Other banned books have not been so lucky to have benefactors and have gone down the memory hole. And still others have been allowed to drop out of circulation or have had their prices ratcheted up to hundreds of dollars for a single volume.

Facebook has similarly tried to conceal real history and cover the truth. As I have documented in several articles here on The American Citadel, I have been the victim of censorship (in fact, I am currently on my fourth 30-day ban of this year). I have had one page and one group on the Second World War permanently deleted by Facebook. The first was titled World War II – Truth and Lies and the second World War Truth. I have created yet another group by the name World War Truth 2.0 which recently got me banned for 30 days. The Establishment’s social media platforms, news outlets, and educational institutions cannot tolerate dissent when it threatens their ill-gotten monopoly on reality and so they lash out, censor, ban, threaten, and silence.

Hitler174

I think we can agree that sanitized history is no history at all. What we are getting from officialdom is a watered-down and conclusively false narrative that promotes international Marxism while castigating everyone who opposes the communist conspiracy as a “Nazi.” Since we have been indoctrinated to believe that so-called “Nazis” are the worst of the worst – the vilest dregs of mankind – this Establishment smear tactic is effective. Communism’s enemies are almost universally branded as “Nazis,” “nationalists,” and “right-wing extremists.” These days it is a badge of honor to be lumped in with “right-wing extremists,” “white supremacists,” “Nazis,” and “nationalists.” It means you’re putting up an effective resistance to the conspiracy.

Yes, Hitler and his ideology have been so systematically smeared that today if you want to create a controversy and bring emotions to a boiling point within mere seconds, all you have to do is mention Hitler’s name. You don’t even need to speak favorably about the man – just mention his name and you open the gates of hell. As I detailed previously, Facebook once banned me for quoting a Winston Churchill statement about Hitler. Churchill, you will recall, was an avowed enemy of Adolf Hitler. Yet, the Establishment can allow no honest discussion, dialogue, and inquiry about Hitler, the Second World War, or the “Holocaust.” In order to preserve their fabricated narrative, they must force us to swallow their fairy tale that Hitler came to power illegitimately, that Hitler started WWII, that Hitler was a madman, that Hitler wanted to conquer the world, that Hitler was genocidal, ad infinitum.

Hitler113

The Marxist Establishment’s anti-Hitler, anti-Germany narrative amounts to little more than a total psychosis that denies reality. Perhaps the communists are so emphatically opposed to Hitler because Hitler was so emphatically opposed to communism. Many of my fellow conspiracy researchers have fallen for communist propaganda in that they believe the lies lumping Hitler’s National Socialism in with Marxian Socialism. But nothing could be further from the truth than to say that Hitler was a socialist in the Marxist sense.

It was Hitler’s Germany, coupled with Japan and Italy, that launched the Anti-Comintern Pact to “adopt defensive measures” against “the Communistic International” and its craven “commission of violence against . . . existing States” and which, they rightly stated, “threatens the general peace of the world.” It was Hitler who, upon receiving accurate intelligence that the Soviet Union was planning to invade and subjugate all of Western Europe in 1941, launched a pre-emptive strike at the heart of Bolshevik power – an offensive that nearly wiped the communists off the map and which only failed because FDR maneuvered America into war and sent billions of dollars of equipment and aid to his Soviet comrades. Yes, Hitler was as anti-communist as anyone I have knowledge of. In the words of Joseph Goebbels, it is Hitler who “has taught us not only to recognise Bolshevism as the world’s greatest enemy but also to meet it face to face and crush it” (Goebbels, “Communism with the Mask Off,” speech, September 13, 1935).

It is a tragedy that in 2019 we have  to look over our shoulders for simply sharing a private interpretation of history or citing unpopular facts. It is a black mark on society that hundreds of books are being banned. It is a crying shame that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and the other mainstream platforms, actively censor and ban people who share a different political view than they do.

I’m all for banning legitimately subversive ideologies, groups, political parties, and literature that call for the destruction of human Freedom and our inspired constitutional system of government. Yet, where does it lead to ban a political speech by one of the most important world leaders in history? How can it be beneficial to ban hundreds of books documenting the lies of history? What person with a conscience can warrant silencing people such as myself who do nothing illegal or wrong but who merely speak out in opposition to the growing corruption, tyranny, and immorality of our age?

Hitler192

We must be very careful, ladies and gentlemen. If we think it is ok to ban videos about Hitler and the “Nazis,” and then we step back and recognize the fact that the powers-that-be call conservatives and Constitutionalists and patriots “Nazis,” we should know that this path leads to persecution. I face this persecution on a routine basis and I can attest that it is very real and that it reaches to everyday folks.

We are on the precipice of total disaster. We are not winning; we are losing. We are on the verge of being silenced and losing everything we cherish. And the reason we are losing is because of people who sit back in complacency and refuse to question the Establishment version of history and current events, and who do not rush to the aid of their fellow countrymen when they face the withering assaults of the enemy.  Hundreds of videos, hundreds of books, and hundreds of social media accounts have been banned or deleted. Will you speak out against this censorship? If not, then seriously ask yourself whose side you are really on.

Zack Strong,

July 28, 2019.