Product Description

Almost everything you know about American history is wrong, because most textbooks and popular history books are written by left-wing academic historians who treat their biases as fact. But fear not, Professor Thomas Woods has written the perfect antidote. This delightful book--funny and inviting, but factually sound--shatters the myths about American history and separates fact from fiction. Recommended in Catholic Heritage High School Author: Thomas Woods Format:270 pages, Paperback Publisher:Regnery Publishing, Inc. (December 2004) ISBN:978-0895260475

---

Product Details

Publisher	Regnery Press
ISBN	0895260476
Features	ISBN13: 9780895260475 Condition: New Notes: BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed
Format	Paperback
Author	Thomas E. Woods Jr.
Brand	Spring Arbor/Ingram
EAN	9780895260475
Label	Regnery Press
MPN	9780895260475
Dewey Decimal Number	973
Studio	Regnery Press
Number Of Pages	270
Title	The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History
Publication Date	2004-01-01
Manufacturer	Regnery Press

---

Customer Reviews

Excellent Libertarian Perspective

Review by Umberto, 2010-09-03

This book was an entertaining read, front to back. I'm an atheist, so a small portion of the book which contained a heavy religious slant grew a little tedious for me, but I can see how readers with a strong religious foundation could find value in that content. Like the author, I'm also a Libertarian so I was in agreement with most of the political content. The book is a journey from the puritans and other first American settlers to modern day. It has great continuity, moving in a mostly chronological order. It certainly could not cover every phase of American history. Instead it provides little known facts about different periods, people, and episodes. An area which I wish would have been included was the creation of the Federal Reserve. In a world where the media, academia, and publishing are dominated by liberal views, it was great for me to read a book from a Libertarian perspective. Filled with lots of little known facts of American history, it kept my interest all the way through. The book has an extensive bibliography to support the author's historical content. For Libertarians this book may be "preaching to the choir" but is still informativce and entertaining. For the ultra-right, it may enlighten and influence toward a return to original constitutional values. For the ultra-left, I encourage you to give this book a try. It may broaden your view of "heroes" like Linclon, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR, and see them for the flawed humans that they were.

---

Entertaining and informative

Review by D. Elwell, 2010-08-23

I'm in the process of reading this book and overall I am enjoying it. Woods writes in an engaging and accessible tone - not as a stereotypical "history book." This book will be readible and understandible by anyone with a high school American History class under their belt.

I appreciate Woods use of primary source material - often this is glossed over in high school and even undergraduate history classes these days.

Woods is upfront in his agenda and bias, so you have apply the same critical analysis to his line of reasoning as he does to the the classical liberal point of view. Some of his conclusions may be a bit spurious due oversimplificatoin of some things, so please do your own research!

I enjoy how he delights in pointing out Irony - for example, how Lincoln's "...government of the people, by the people, and for the people..." flys in the face of the whole point of the civil war to forcibly keep the union intact, thereby denying the seccessionis states the rights of self government and self determination.

Woods' conlusions are definely controversial, but nevertheless the book is well worth a read if you are open to an alternative to the traditional views on a lot of issues.

---

Great but a little wordy

Review by Philip Ekema, 2010-07-17

I really enjoyed reading this book, but I found the author's writing style to be slightly awkward and wordy. I have to admit that I picked up the book with a very conservative mindset, so I agreed with much of the book. I was not surprised much by any of the subjects, and found a lot of things that I already knew. This may not seem like a big deal, but I consider myself to be a little ignorant when it comes to history, and I expected to learn more than I did. I also think that American history has the potential to be very funny (sarcastic,) but the author did not seem to exploit this.

I think that I have experienced a situation where this book really did not edify me. I can imagine that it would do a lot of good to force congress to read it.

---

Good Effort Marred by Valuing Partisanship Over History

Review by HTBK, 2010-07-11

The concept behind this book is great. There are a slew of historical facts that are so vastly over-simplified when you are a kid in history class that they end up effectively being lies. Many history books and teachers also present complicated constitutional issues as if they are simple, with of course the history teacher's view presented as the one "true" view. The problem with this book is that Woods does these exact same things, but he seems to think it's somehow better because he's coming from the conservative angle instead of the liberal. He has some great facts in here, but they are polluted by the fact that he lets himself be a conservative idealogue first and a historian second, just like the liberal idealogues that he rightfully skewers.

The best example I can think of is comparing his chapter on Reagan and the greed of the 80s to his chapter on Clinton. Die-hard Clintonistas like to ignore anything bad about the guy, and Woods' Clinton chapter is an amusing attack that brings up some of the lesser-known bad things about Clinton. But while Republicans tend to be just as ridiculous about Reagan, his chapter on Reagan and the 80s is just a straight-up love-fest. The intellectually honest and "politically incorrect" thing to do is bring up the bad things that people on both sides of the fence ignore about their own icons, not slam one and raise the other as a Saint.

Another great example of his oversimplification of the facts and presentation of his view as "historical fact" is his comment on Michael Milken. Woods goes on a rant about the greed of the 80s, states repeatedly that Milken was "not guilty of any crime," and argues that Milken was convicted on six petty charges - what Woods refers to as "technicalities." In fact, Milken pled guilty to six securities felonies and the judge in Milken's case stated, "You were willing to commit only crimes that were unlikely to be detected... When a man of your power in the financial world... repeatedly conspires to violate, and violates, securities and tax business in order to achieve more power and wealth for himself... a significant prison term is required." Apparently this history professor believes he understands securities laws and the criminal code better than the judge who was actually presiding over the case. Milken's story is a politically charged one, and the prosecutors in that case did a number of very questionable things, but Milken's story is a complicated web and to present the opinion that "Milken was not guilty of any crime" as if it's a historical fact is ludicrous.

Similarly, Woods goes after the religious freedom argument and carries his strict constructionist viewpoint as if it's the only way to go. His section on the Constitution is basically: Here's a quote from one or two of the founding fathers, so that's all the Constitution means, and all the attorneys, law professors, and judges in the world who disagree with me are wrong. This area of the law is far more complicated than that, and legal scholars have disagreed for decades over both a) how locked down we need to be to the original words of the founders and b) what exactly the two religion clauses mean. Woods clearly doesn't get that, which is understandable as he's not an attorney or a judge, and he is completely unqualified to be presenting his oversimplified view of the Constitution as if it is the only true position.

Finally, his whole discussion of the South is so defensive that when I was reading it, I immediately knew that he was from the South. It's not a good sign when you're trying to present the "true" politically incorrect viewpoint to have your biases so obvious in your writing that people can instantly guess your background. Not only was I right (he lives in Alabama), he was present at the founding of the League of the South and has contributed to its newsletter. The League of the South is a Southern nationalist organization that promotes the "independence of the Southern people" from the "American empire" and sees opposition to its promotion of the Confederate flag as "cultural genocide." After seeing Woods spend an entire chapter devoted essentially to downplaying the effect of slavery and trying to defend the Confederacy, somehow I'm not surprised.

I wish this book had been written by someone with a critical eye towards both sides of the aisle - true political incorrectness, as opposed to being politically incorrect towards liberals and politically worshipful towards conservatives. As it is, it's a book with a few fantastic little-known facts hidden in a mess of political propaganda and excuses for the Confederacy, slavery, and Native American exploitation.

---

3 way war - Protestants vs Catholics vs ZOG

Review by Rerevisionist, 2010-06-30

I.m.h.o. the way to view this book is part of a Catholic fightback, where the author is being careful not to tangle with the Jewish 'ZOG' which of course is much of established 'PCness'.

To see the idea - in Europe, the Jewish/Marxian types - the descendants of the USSR mass murderers - promote immigration, much of it Muslim, presumably to damage the host countries. It's a three way war of white Europeans vs invaders vs Jews. So far, there's been an alliance, not necessarily even recognised, of invaders and Jews. Whether this will continue, I have no idea, though I hope not.

Now. In the USA, illegals etc are usually Mexican, not Muslims. So possibly there's a three way war of White American Protestants vs Catholic invaders vs Jews. (There are blacks too). Again, so far there's been an alliance of Mexicans and Jews. I don't know whether it will continue - again, I hope not.

Woods's book I think must be predicated on that. He reconsiders WW2 as far as he dares - probably because the USSR more or less extinguished the Russian Orthodox church. He thinks the pilgrim fathers were all the same - as far as he's concerned, they're all Protestants. The official Catholic view on 'capitalism' is to frown on it, but support private property [I think - no doubt there are numerous encyclicals]. The Spanish Civil War was essentially Russian Jews vs Catholics, just as countries like Poland were the same - 'communists' vs Catholics. I think if you read between the lines, this is what Woods is hinting at, though there are of course other issues. Catholics like to think democracy developed through them. They are only just starting to fight back against the WW2 consensus. I think this explains the rather odd nature of Woods's book and I'd expect there to be further detail which confirms this.

(Why not comment with your thoughts?)

---