web analytics

Category: Abraham Lincoln

Categories
Abraham Lincoln American civil war Hitler's Religion (book) Mein Kampf (book) Richard Weikart

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 6

Editor’s note: This is the first regular article after the June 8th accident: some excerpts from Richard Weikart’s chapter ‘Did Hitler derive his anti- Semitism from Christianity?’
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Hitler blamed the Jews for just about everything that he opposed: communism, capitalism, internationalism, liberalism, materialism, egalitarianism, pacifism, and, of course, Christianity. That sneaky rabbi Paul had formulated his version of Christianity, Hitler believed, on the “Jewish-Bolshevik” principles of human equality. When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, he complained that the Christian churches were not sufficiently anti-Semitic. He asked, “In the Jewish question, for example, do not both denominations [Catholic and Protestant] today take a standpoint which corresponds neither to the requirements of the nation nor to the real needs of religion?” A few paragraphs later, he remarked that Protestantism was better than Catholicism in defending the national interests of Germany, but it was still deficient, because it “combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established.” For Hitler, Christianity was essentially Jewish and thus weakened the German effort to combat the Jewish threat. He certainly did not see his anti-Semitism as congruent with the teachings and policies of the Christian churches…

Anti-Jewish animus was sometimes tempered by the Christian ethic of loving one’s neighbor and even one’s enemies. Also, Christians often opposed the biological racism that flourished in intellectual circles in the late nineteenth century. Historian Leon Poliakov remarks, “Judeo-Christian tradition was both anti-racist and anti-nationalist.” If one reads the biological racist literature of early twentieth-century Germany, one frequently finds that racist ideologues criticized the Christian churches for their racial egalitarianism.

Christian anti-Semites differed from racial anti-Semites because Christians usually did not object to the Jews as a biological entity; rather, they opposed their religion. If Jews would give up their Jewish religion and be baptized into the Christian faith, they would be accepted as full-fledged members of German society, as they often were. But the secular, racial form of anti-Semitism that flowered around 1900—and which Hitler embraced— regarded conversion and assimilation as the absolute worst things that could happen, because then Jews would intermarry with Germans. Hitler believed this would pollute the German bloodline with inferior hereditary traits. Thus, the key difference between Christian anti-Semitism and racial anti- Semitism was that the former wanted to assimilate the Jews into German society while the latter believed it was necessary to eliminate them physically from Germany. Racial anti-Semites usually did not see the churches as allies in their campaign against the Jews.

NS propaganda: “Baptism did not make him a
non-Jew” from Ernst Hiemer, Der Giftpilz (1938).

One of the leading figures in developing the racist anti-Semitism that became prominent in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was Wilhelm Marr, who coined the term anti-Semitism. Marr warned in a popular book in 1879 that the Jews were conquering the Germans in a racial war. This battle of the Germans against the Jews “was from the beginning no religious [war], it was a struggle for existence, that was waged against the foreign domination of Jewry.” Marr, a harsh critic of Christianity, depicted his theory about the racial struggle against Jews as a secular, scientific standpoint. Because he believed the Jews were a race, not a religion, he advocated segregation and discrimination, not assimilation, as the cure for the “Jewish question”… Marr’s antireligious, racist version of anti-Semitism gained many adherents at the end of the nineteenth century, especially as biological racism exploded in popularity among secular-minded intellectuals…

In the period 1919 to 1923, one of the main topics in Hitler’s speeches was the Jewish threat. In August 1920, Hitler delivered a programmatic speech in Munich on “Why Are We Anti-Semites?” Hitler depicted the Aryans or Nordic people as a race that developed in the northern parts of Europe. Because of the harsh climate, the Aryan race developed a diligent character, viewing labor as a duty to the community. Also, the tough conditions of life weeded out the weak and sickly among them, giving them greater physical stamina and contributing to the development of an inner life. The Jews, on the other hand, never developed an appreciation for labor.

In sum, Hitler said, “We see that here two great differences lie in the race: Aryanness means a moral conception of labor and through it what we hear so often today: socialism, sense of community, common welfare before self-interest—Jewry means an egoistic conception of labor and thereby mammonism and materialism, the exact opposite of socialism!”

Hitler emphasized these moral and immoral traits of Aryans and Jews were biological and hereditary. In answering the question, “Why Are We Anti- Semites?,” Hitler made clear that he opposed the Jews’ supposedly hereditary immoral qualities, especially their laziness and greed. His anti- Semitism was not based on religious considerations. To be sure, he did mention a couple of passages from the Hebrew Bible, but these were used to illustrate Jewish greed and immorality, not because he opposed their religious beliefs or practices. Not only do we find zero Christian anti- Semitic themes in this speech, but Hitler specifically distanced himself from Christianity by accusing the Jews of spreading Christianity, a theme he would take up often later, but usually in private, not in public forums…

The secularized version of anti-Christian anti-Semitism that became prominent in late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Germany was grafted onto the earlier Christian version of anti-Semitism. Centuries-old caricatures of the Jews were reinterpreted as Jewish biological traits. Further, the Christian churches in Germany and Austria continued to peddle a good deal of anti-Jewish animosity in the early twentieth century, thus giving succor to the Nazi anti-Semitic juggernaut. Both Christian anti-Semitism and anti-Christian anti-Semitism—thus, both religion and secularization—were necessary conditions for the advent of the Nazi Holocaust. The anti-Semitic message that Hitler preached, however, was far more anti-Christian than Christian.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: In this chapter I begin to glimpse the tragedy of the leading NS ideologues and their compromise with the Christian masses of Germans.

The fact is that, publicly, they could not speak out. And they themselves believed in an Aryan and fictitious Jesus because there was no research like Richard Carrier’s (see the video linked in the sticky post).

That’s why they focused so much on the JQ—the CQ was taboo in Nazi Germany, as it still is now in American white nationalism.

For example, it is common on the racial right to distort the driving force that moved the Yankees to war with southern racists, something that Robert Morgan has taken issue with a galaxy of conservative commenters on The Unz Review for some time now.

The following is his last exchange this month but, as I don’t yet know how to modify the theme code of this new incarnation of WDH (the software automatically italicises all indented quotes and turn the indented quotes brown), I won’t indent Morgan’s next quotes or those he argues with:
 

Robert Morgan: Jared Taylor is such a brazen liar I decided to make an annotated version of his remarks about Lincoln.

“Lincoln didn’t like slavery, but he didn’t like blacks, either.”

Yet Lincoln was more responsible than any other man for freeing them and turning them loose on white people. I ask you, is this the action of a man who hated blacks?

“Once they were free, he wanted them gone.”

Correction: he once or twice said he wanted them gone, but his actions prove he didn’t.

“In 1862, when you’d think he was busy fighting a war, he was worrying about how to get rid of black people.”

But not worrying very much, apparently. In his last public address before being assassinated, he called for them to be made citizens and given the vote. It should be easy to see from this facile turnabout that at heart, Lincoln was no racist, but a dyed-in-the-wool racial egalitarian.

“He appointed James Mitchell as United States Commissioner of Emigration [of negroes] to find a place, far away, where all blacks would go. Mitchell invited a delegation of blacks to the White House so Lincoln could ask them to clear out.”

And here we come to the nub of the matter. Any “plan” that relied on all the negroes volunteering to leave was not a plan at all, only a pipe dream.

“This was the first time blacks had set foot in the White House on official business and not as servants, slaves, or workmen.”

In other words, on terms of equality with whites. Another first from Jared Taylor’s hero, “Honest” Abe. I suppose it’s fitting, in a way, that a liar such as Taylor should admire Lincoln, one of the greatest and most successful liars to ever hold the American presidency. And that’s saying something!

“He told the blacks that it was only because their people were in this country that Yankees and Confederates were slaughtering each other.”

Let’s note that this is the exact opposite of what Taylor and other Civil War revisionists argue. They are quite fond of making the astonishingly stupid claim that the Civil War had NOTHING at all to do with slavery. Why, it was only an attempt to save the Union, doncha know! LOL.

“He told them he had picked out a nice place for them in Central America, and asked them to convince all other blacks to pack up and go there.”

Asked them! To convince all the other blacks to pack up and go there! LOL. Yes, very realistic! If Lincoln actually believed that had a snowball’s chance in hell of happening then he must have been even stupider than the average “white nationalist” who buys into the lie that Lincoln didn’t like negroes.

“But, somehow, it’s today’s Democrats—not Lincoln in 1862—who are ‘the real racists’.”

Jared Taylor’s comical attempt to portray the Great Emancipator as “the real racist” is an epic fail.

Sollipsist: “No matter how big you make the word NOTHING, it still fails to accurately represent the factual and historical arguments that correctly identify slavery as a catalyst rather than a first cause.”

Robert Morgan: Lincoln says it’s the ONLY cause. Again, as Taylor puts it: “He told the blacks that it was only because their people were in this country that Yankees and Confederates were slaughtering each other. ”

How’s that for “factual and historical”? So who’s lying here? JT? Lincoln? Both?

Sollipsist: “It would be progress just to get most people to the point at which they’d realize (or maybe even grudgingly admit) that economics, manufacturing concerns, and centralized political control had ANYTHING to do with sending 600,000+ people to their death.”

Robert Morgan: In The Battle Hymn of the Republic, the Union soldiers sang the line Let us die to make men free! N.b., they didn’t claim to be willing to die for manufacturing concerns, for economics, for tariffs, for centralized political control, or even to save the Union. Their cause was freeing the slaves. Without this moral cause, it’s hard to see how they would have justified the war, either to themselves or anyone else.

Categories
Abraham Lincoln American civil war

Superbia at Unz’s

How the racial right has blinded itself in the US to what is happening doesn’t stop surprising me. Here we see the latest responses from Robert Morgan in a discussion thread about a recent article by Gregory Hood at The Unz Review:

Gregory Hood: Media power determines what is politically possible. Politicians dare not move outside the boundaries of “respectable” debate.

Robert Morgan: Seems dubious. Notice that it was “politically possible” for the USA to engage in a ruinous Civil War to free the negro and make him the white man’s legal equal long before the media attained its current omnipresence, or academia its current influence. Therefore, it seems to me that there is at least as strong an argument that public sentiment determines what’s possible to put in the media as the reverse. The current racial situation should be seen as only the logical working out of the mistaken premise that significant racial differences don’t exist; and this was the premise upon which the liberation and enfranchisement of the negro was based. For many reasons, the white man would rather double down on that than admit he was wrong.

In other words, the sin of pride is killing white Americans and even racialised whites are unable to question the religion of their ancestors: a religion involved at the root of today’s scale of values. To another commenter Morgan replied thus:

Christian fanatics such as Tom DiLorenzo (he’s an economist by the way, not an historian) have a vested interest in obscuring the cause of the American Civil War, since it was precisely Christian fanaticism that provided the moral driving force for starting it. In reality, the Civil War was yet another war of one Christian sect against another.

The levels of dishonesty reach the point of delirium because these racialist Christians want to have it both ways: the religion of their parents and their little white nationalist ideology. The exchange continues:

Cleburne: The war was fought neither to retain slaves, nor to “free” them.

Robert Morgan: Arrant nonsense, of course, and in contradiction to what the participants in the war said about their motives themselves. Also, anyone who is stupid enough to believe this must think that it was a complete accident that at the close of the war the slaves were freed and then made into citizens equal to whites. Yes, just as this Cleburne moron says, that was completely unrelated! LOL.

This is a deep part of the problem I mentioned in my initial comment on this thread, above in #9. After they fought a war to liberate the slaves, the Christian white people of that time calmly and methodically decided to make them citizens and give them the vote.

Even today, such people can’t face the fact that their religious lunacy has led them into error. Imagine, in order to do so, they’d have to consider their Christian notions of human equality foolish, and themselves fools for believing it! They’d have to realize that Lincoln was not “one of America’s greatest presidents” after all, but rather the villainous author of all their current racial misfortunes!

This is just too big a leap for whites to take. They’d rather double down on their delusions than face the fact they’ve been in error for a century and a half, wasting trillions of dollars and countless white lives in trying to make negroes into worthwhile members of their society. This is the key unaddressed problem of so-called white nationalism: How to make white people admit they made a mistake.

My italics! What Christian racialists lack is a little humility. I abandoned Christianity, leftist ideologies, a New Age cult and white nationalism out of humility to face bare facts. What all these people suffer from is pride, the original sin to speak in their language. (Only the collapse of the dollar has the potential for at least some of them to start thinking more clearly.)

Categories
Abraham Lincoln Hermann (Arminius) Leonidas Michael O'Meara Racial right

White nationalism

I’m not done with what I said on Friday.

What is known in the United States as white nationalism is not white nationalism. If it were, the Americans who promote it would say that Leonidas, Hermann and Hitler are the heroes who would replace the faces carved at Mount Rushmore. This American provincialism is the great failure not only of ordinary white nationalists but of one of their best minds, the retired Michael O’Meara, who in one of his articles that I have been mentioning wrote:

If you want, then, to engage in discussions about race and racial differences, you bring in the geneticists and Darwinists. But if you want to build a nationalist movement to ensure the continuity of white America, you appeal to Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson, to the Battle of the Alamo and Kearney’s Workingmen, to the Stars and Bars and the sustaining voices of those quintessential representatives of America’s white culture, the Carter family.

Stars and Bars? Really? As Robert Morgan explained to us, the carved personalities at Mount Rushmore, including the Jefferson that O’Meara wanted to put on us as an inspiring figure, represent ideals that would eventually lead to white decline. Let’s compare what O’Meara wrote with what Mauricio recently told us responding to an objection about carving out the images of Leonidas and Hermann (‘We are unsure as to how they looked’):

We don’t need photos of them. The Christians didn’t need photos for Jesus, neither do we for our demigods’ iconography.

Leonidas looks like a veteran of a hundred battles. He is the wise old man of sixty years, husband, father, king. Long grizzled hair tied in braids. Cleft chin, scars across his cheeks and brow. His deep, sullen blue eyes observe the horizon fiercely, as the subhuman hordes approach. He grips his spear with his right hand and his Corinthian helmet under his left. Long red cape, shining bronze armour. Behind him, a wall of shields with the Lambda symbol. He is hopelessly outnumbered, and yet he knows no fear.

Hermann is a virile young man full of wit and brash confidence. Golden-blonde, bright blue eyes, very tall. He is the clever two-faced warrior. In one face, he is a gallant Roman commander, with steel armour, silvery helmet and blue cape, on horseback leading his cohort across the Rhine. He is the Eagle. In the other face, he is a muscular, bare-chested German warrior, with blue war-paint markings, leading a ferocious charge against the Roman shield-wall, roaring from top of his lungs: ‘TYR!’ He is the Wolf.

There is no image we cannot carve.

In short, what people on the internet call white nationalism, O’Meara included, is actually American nationalism. That should be obvious: as a legitimate white nationalism would imply a story that inspires all white Nordic types, not just those from a single country.

Tomorrow will mark three years of the event in Charlottesville. Just compare how the American government reacted to that big event with its reaction to BLM. The reversal of classical values to Christian values that Nietzsche so feared (‘last shall be first’, etc.) is now complete. The government of the United States is really Sauron. That non-revolutionary, law-abiding civilian white nationalists fail to propose the destruction of at least all of Lincoln’s symbols is so delusional that there is no point trying to argue with them.

America’s near future will disabuse them.

Categories
Abraham Lincoln George Washington

Let’s nuke Mt. Rushmore!

by Robert Morgan

The Old America Is Dead? I don’t think so. Symbolic of the Old America, and chiseled into Mt. Rushmore, are four American “heroes”, whose exploits demonstrate the white man’s biggest problem, himself. First we have George Washington, who magnanimously freed his slaves, but only after his death, after which he had no further use for them. But how many white Americans have been robbed, murdered, or raped by the descendants of those slaves? Quite a few, no doubt. Thanks George!

Then comes Lincoln, who authorized the murders of hundreds of thousands of whites on his way to freeing the slaves and then turning them loose on his countrymen. His admirers say that, like MLK, he had a dream. But Abe’s dream was that all of the negroes would volunteer to leave these shores. How racist! Amazingly, and no doubt a big surprise to Abe, few wanted to do so. Thanks a lot, “honest” Abe!

Then we have Thomas Jefferson, a randy old fellow who was probably nailing his quadroon slave Sally Hemings, and likely had a child by her. His was the colonial prototype for the long American tradition of race mixing (aka white racial suicide). Thanks Tom! You set a fine example.

Last is Teddy Roosevelt, the original Progressive. He was an advocate for women’s suffrage, yet another step in the direction of the hallowed American cause of “equality”, and it’s painfully obvious how that turned out. Also, he favored a powerful federal government, just as do progressives today. To fund such a government, he favored the income tax, a noose into which the American public eagerly thrust its neck.

The current unrest is only more of the same white racial self-destruction. So the Old America isn’t dead. Its spirit is just flying new flags, reorganized under the banners of BLM and antifa. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Categories
Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln refutes monocausalism

Editor’s note:This is a corollary to ‘Is Kevin MacDonald a charlatan?’It seems a falsehood, but a single 340-word comment from Robert Morgan in the comments section of a discussion forum has more value than the scholarly essays published that same day in all alt-right sites!

How is that possible? For the same reason that in Copernicus’ time a single text by him was worth more than all the texts of Ptolemaic astronomy still in vogue at the beginning of the 16th century.

As seen in the texts of the Nazi leadership, including some SS pamphlets and the Führer’s intimate talks, the Germans were aware of the Judeo-Christian problem. Both Judaism and the Christian churches were equally mentioned as the foe.

American white nationalism has represented a regression toward geocentrism, so to speak. Unlike Europeans, a substantial number of Americans cling to their parents’ Christianity, thus the Copernican revolution in the American psyche that could have been born with a seminal book, Who We Areby Pierce, never happened. (In recent threads of discussion I’ve complained that Pierce’s storyof the white race—and remember the power of stories—is no longer available in the market.)

Make no mistake: within their life spans, adult American racists won’t be cured of their schizophrenia (anti-Semites who obey the ethno-suicidal commandment of a Jew). It is imperative that sites like The West’s Darkest Hourstart to convince racist teenagers that the white nationalist movement represents a gigantic cognitive regression compared to National Socialism.

Morgan, who apparently is American, has tried to communicate with his countrymen but the self-righteousness of the latter prevents them from seeing a simple truth. The main argument of Morgan in his unsuccessful attempts to communicate with them is that Lincoln and the American Civil War refute the notion that the Jewish quarter is solely responsible for white decline, as if whites were not free agents. (Remember: the civil war happened when Jews had not taken over the American media yet.)

The following is just a portion of Morgan’s relatively recent discussions in a forum:
 

______ 卐 ______

“The civil war, and it’s aftermath, never intended these inferiors to live amongst us as equals, they are this nation’s biggest liability…”

Sure. It was a complete accident. (/sarc)

“Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man; this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position; discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.” —Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln-Douglas debates, 1858).

“As Abraham Lincoln said in his speeches, it was never his intent to let these feral animals loose in society.”

Nope. In his last speech before being assassinated he proposed making them citizens and giving them the vote.

“The amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all, if it contained fifty, thirty, or even twenty thousand, instead of only about twelve thousand, as it does. It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. … The colored man too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it, than by running backward over them? —Abraham Lincoln, last public address, Washington, D.C., April 11, 1865.

“Lincoln … betrayed his own people. If you read his earlier speech with Douglas, he sure didn’t sound like the Lincoln you are quoting.”

That’s right. He betrayed the white race. I agree that he said some contradictory things, such as the quote you give in rebuttal, but the conclusion you should draw from this is simply that he was a liar. He was such an accomplished liar, in fact, that he still has fans like you defending him even after the horrendous consequences of his betrayal have become apparent.

“However, in his heart of hearts, he knew the negro would never fit in. There was a movement to resettle them in Africa, but to the detriment of our civilization, it never happened.”

Don’t pretend to know what was in his heart of hearts. Judge him on his behavior. He was more responsible than any other man for the racial disaster that has overtaken America. The “movement” to resettle negroes elsewhere never got off the ground because it was a joke from the outset.

“Looking in hindsight which is 20/20, do you think he would propose doing anythingwith these people other than removing them from our shores? I don’t!” 

Apparently you are unaware that it was only voluntary self-deportation that was ever under discussion. Nobody, including Lincoln, ever spoke in terms of forcibly rounding up all the negroes and deporting them whether they wanted to go or not.

Organizations such as the American Colonization Society were set up to assist those who volunteered to depart, but never even broached the idea of forcibly removing them.

“Very intelligent and served as soldiers are qualifiers. How many negroes were very intelligent, and how many served as soldiers, Dr. Morgan? If he were for universal suffrage, why didn’t he say so?”

There were hundreds of thousands of negroes who served in the Union Army, and they weren’t any more intelligent than the ones infesting America today. He didn’t say he was for universal suffrage because he was a liar, and knew the idea wouldn’t have been acceptable to his audience. Remember that at the time, even white women didn’t have the vote.

“America was once an unapologetically white nation…”

I have to disagree with this. There was never a time, even in colonial days, when America was without at least a substantial undercurrent of white self-contempt. Abolitionists of the day, adhering to an egalitarianism inspired by their Christianity, regarded race-based slavery as an abomination. In fact, free blacks were legally equal to whites in several of the original colonies, and were extended the franchise in some. This undercurrent of white self-contempt ultimately resulted in the Civil War, at the end of which blacks were made the legal equals of whites nationwide; and this at a time when the country was virtually 100% white and Christian. This act of racial self-abnegation is still without parallel, even in modern times.

* * *

Having studied this issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that preserving their own race is very low on the list of white Americans’ priorities, if it registers at all. Mostly, the opposite is true. The common opinion among them is that any concern for preserving the white race is “racist”, akin to Nazism, and deeply Evil. Of course, without a conscious effort to preserve their race, it’s obviously not going to survive.

Consequently, American whites accept their own looming racial extinction with apparent equanimity. They have approved it directly through their own actions, and indirectly through laws passed by their representatives, for over a hundred and fifty years. They’ve had plenty of time to reverse course, and haven’t done so. Again and again, white dissidents have stepped forward to warn them, and they have been ignored or destroyed. All their efforts have done is underscore the fact that saving a race of people that doesn’t want to be saved is an exercise in futility[editor’s emphasis]. I must conclude that if there is hope, it won’t be found in politics.

“I’ve got news for you snowflakes. A majority of white Americans before 1970 were bigoted.” 

Sure they were! That’s why, immediately after slaughtering hundreds of thousands of each other in the Civil War, they gave negroes citizenship, legal equality, and the vote.

It’s interesting to me though that the idea that most whites were bigoted prior to (fill in the year) seems to be a persistent delusion of right wingers on the left half of the IQ bell curve.

I’ve seen it asserted many times. But if “traditionalists” haven’t controlled America’s race policies since the Civil War, what the hell is the “tradition” you think you are defending? The only tradition America has with regard to race is a constant implementation of ever more race-blind egalitarianism. That is what the majority of whites approved for the last 150 years, and continue to approve.

Categories
Abraham Lincoln

Robert Morgan’s comment

In order for white people to revolt as a race, they’d have to reject a century and a half of their own history. They’d have to abandon Christianity, and ruthlessly purge its cultural residue, since even atheists nowadays embrace its fantasy of a “brotherhood of man”.

People such as Lincoln, who is now a hero to most whites, would have to be seen as a villain. Likewise with MLK and FDR. They’d have to admit to themselves that they’ve been fools all along, and their ancestors crazy; that all the blood and sacrifice to stamp out white supremacy in the Civil War and in WWII was for nothing, or even less than nothing. The cognitive dissonance alone would probably kill them or drive them insane.

Frankly, I don’t see it happening.

Categories
Abraham Lincoln American civil war Deranged altruism

Lincoln

by Jack Frost

lncoln-1858

“But [abolitionism] certainly was not a factor in the decision to wage the war, and was not the primary motivation for most Northern soldiers.”

It would be interesting to see some evidence for that assertion. Lincoln was raised in an anti-slavery Baptist church, and was morally opposed to slavery all his life. As early as 1855, in a letter to Jonathan Speed, he revealed himself as a dyed-in-the-wool racial egalitarian:

As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

We’ve already talked about the difficulties inherent in determining motivations. If even self-reporting, as in the song lyrics I referred you to, isn’t reliable, then how can you claim to know what the motivations were for “most Northern soldiers”? If it wasn’t a popular cause, then how do you explain the immense success of Uncle Tom’s Cabin? In any event, it’s inarguable that the setting of the negro on equal footing with whites was a catastrophe for the white race in N. America, and that was indisputably the result of the war. Are you trying to claim that the result was unintentional? What kind of idiots do you think whites of that era were? “Whoops! We freed the slaves, and even made citizens and voters out of them. Gosh darn it anyway, we sure didn’t mean to!” That would be a hard case to make.

“There is just no evidence to support the notion that the war was fought over slavery and we have numerous explicit statements from Lincoln that the war had nothing to do with slavery. If you don’t find that compelling, I’m not sure what else would make any difference.”

I suggest you pay more attention to what Lincoln actually did than what he said. Lincoln is more responsible than any other single man for the racial disaster whites face today. [emphasis added] It’s not for nothing that Obama was sworn in on Lincoln’s Bible; not for nothing that he’s a personal hero of his.

Now that I’ve answered your question, I’d have to ask you this one: Do you seriously think the American people would have endured another draft and 600,000 dead in a cause that lacked clear moral justification? It’s ridiculous to think so. Also, since you seem to want to believe everything Lincoln ever said, what about his reputed statement upon meeting Uncle Tom’s Cabin author Harriette Beecher Stowe in 1862, “So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war!” Even the fact he met with her at all is a significant indication of the powerful abolitionist influence.

“So it seems clear enough that even absent slavery, these economic issues would have still existed, would have still come to a head and still left Lincoln facing the same problems and the same choices.”

You think that the soldiers and the people would have endured all the destruction and 600,000 killed for the sake of some lost coins. I don’t. That’s the substance of our difference.

Why don’t you just answer the question instead of dancing around it? Do you seriously believe that freeing the slaves was accidental, or was it intentional? What about giving the negro citizenship and extending them the vote? Were those accidents too? I hope you don’t believe that, because that has got to be one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard. However, lacking Jews to blame I suppose you have no alternative but to depict it as an accident. There is a tendency in our circles to try to exonerate white people of any wrongdoing or culpability [emphasis added], and I think you’re falling into it again here. You ought to face that fact that a vast number of white people, possibly even the majority, are unsalvageable race traitors.

“I suppose one could argue that freeing the slaves was the first step in integrating them into White society, but it would be a pretty feeble argument. There was no integration of Blacks into White society or culture following the war.”

You’re ignoring a little thing called Reconstruction. Hundreds of negroes were elected to public office all over the South. Worse, making them citizens and the legal equals of whites once and for all abolished any hope of a nation based on race. Lincoln was the true founder of the modern American state, a “proposition nation”, anti-racist and hence inevitably anti-white by creed and public policy.

Another problem with the conventional thinking on the right, which you exemplify here, is not seeing the big picture. The legal equality of blacks, placing them on parity with whites, was resisted and slowed down by custom and tradition, but not stopped by it. Racial segregation was a hypocritical compromise that was doomed to fail from the outset. It was only a question of time.