Lincoln’s Leftist Associates—Part 4

By Al Benson Jr.

The Communist website http://www.worker-communist.org carries quite a bit of commentary on the War of Northern Aggression. This site claims that the War brought the communists in America and those in Europe “back into regular contact.” Actually, that contact had never been severed. Actually it was reinforced due to the “news” items that appeared in Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune and the New York Daily Herald that were written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Even “Civil War historians” according to the Communist website, have been forced to admit how important Marx’s articles were. If they’ve been forced to admit that, then they must have limited their admissions to each other because they sure haven’t bothered writing enough about it to inform the American public. This has been one of those little secrets among the “historians” that has been studiously ignored, or if dealt with, they briefly mention it in one or two sentences—not enough to give folks any real information.
The Communists claimed that by the end of the War of Northern Aggression, all of the pieces were in place for “an explosive growth of the movement in the U.S. The mass exposure of workers in the U.S.—both ‘native’ and immigrant—to communist political figures and ideas during the war made it possible for the movement to move beyond its previous organizational forms as propaganda societies and ‘experiments’ and work directly toward becoming a mass force in American politics.” I don’t know if they were quite as influential as they like to let on, but they were definitely in place in this country and making their presence felt.

For instance, their website contains a photo of Wendell Phillips, and the caption under his photo says: “…renowned abolitionist who joined the International Working Men’s Association and became a self-described communist following the end of the Civil War.” What book have you ever read that told you this about Wendell Phillips?

The Worker article had a little more interesting info. It stated that: “In 1866, an emissary for the IWMA,…came to the U.S. and met with prominent leftwing Republicans Charles Sumner, Wendell Phillips and Horace Greeley. Orsini interviewed each of them and, when finished, all three joined the International. At the time, Sumner was also the senior U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, thus it can be argued that he was the first elected communist official in U.S. history (albeit one who was not elected as a communist per se). Phillips pledged to donate money he received from his lectures and speeches to the International, and Greeley became a regular publicist for both Marx and the International.” More “memory hole” material! And the article refers to “leftwing Republicans. The Republican Party was already to the left in the 1860s. I guess these guys must have been to the left of left.

These people are mentioned in yet another article on http://www.columbia.edu entitled Marx, Woodhull and Sorge. The article notes: “The people who launched a section of the Communist International in the USA were veteran radicals, who had fought against slavery and for women’s rights for many years. They saw the emerging anti-capitalist struggles in Europe, most especially the Paris Commune of 1871, as consistent with their own. They saw revolutionary socialism as the best way to guarantee of the broader democratic movement…The names of some of the early recruits should give you an indication of the political character of the new movement. Included were abolitionists Horace Greeley, Wendell Phillips and Charles Sumner. Feminist Victoria Woodhull joined in and put her magazine Woodhull and Claflin’s Weekly at its disposal. The weekly not only included communications from Karl Marx, but spiritualist musings from Woodhull. The native radical movement of the 1870s was a mixed bag. Socialism, anti-racism, feminism, pacifism and spiritualism co-existed comfortably…Victoria Woodhull was unquestionably the biggest irritant, since she defended all these deviations while at the same time she spoke out forcefully for free love, the biggest deviation imaginable in the Victorian age.”

Even the book Radical Spirits by Ann Braude mentions Woodhull in this connection. Braude comments on her “…participation in the formation of Section 12 of the socialist International Workingman’s Association (commonly known as the First International), both of which offered great potential for Woodhulls self-promotion.”

Way back in 1999, about ten years this side of the Neanderthal period, I did an article for my old website http://www.csa-dixie.com/copperheadchronicle which, believe it or not, is still up there, though nothing has been added to it for years now, called Beast Butler and the Free Love Feminist. It goes into the unusual political relationship between the Beast and Ms. Woodhull in which the Beast, then in Congress, arranged for Ms. Woodhull to speak before the congressional committee he was part of. This was somewhat unusual for the day, but then, we are dealing with leftists here all around and so anything they can get by with goes.

Even Wikipedia cannot dodge Woodhull’s involvement with the far left. On http://en.wikipedia.org we are informed that “Woodhull joined the International Workingmen’s Association, also known as the First International. She supported it goals by articles in her newspaper. In the United States, many Yankee radicals, former abolitionists and other progressive activists became involved in the organization which had been founded in England.” However, all was not well in Marxist la-la land in this country. Because in 1871 the Germans managed to expel most English-speaking members in the First International’s U.S affiliates, which contributed to a speedy decline of the group here. Imagine, a communist group founded in London expelling English-speaking members in this country. And even though Woodhull and promoted Marx and his excuses for writing, he approved the expulsions which gave her the boot along with others. There’s just no gratefulness among communists and socialists!

Even though Lincoln had gone to his eternal reward, whatever that might be, in 1865, just about all the people mentioned here in connection with the International Workingman’s Association had had come connection with him somewhere over on the far left of the political spectrum in the Republican Party with the possible exception of Ms. Woodhull, and she had connections with Beast Butler.

I couldn’t possibly go into it all here, but there was an amazing interlocking relationship between many of these people, Republicans, communists, socialists, abolitionists and others that all, to one degree or another, supported each other’s socialist agendas.

Even Hollyweird has, to a limited extent, had to acknowledge Lincoln’s leftism and that of his associates. In a short article on http://www.breitbart.com the actor Tommy Lee Jones notes “Lincoln’s GOP was left-wing.” Jones is supposed to be somewhat of a history expert so he just might know what lots of others don’t seem to grasp. Lincoln’s Republican Party was left-wing. So was Lincoln. Our problems with socialism and communism in this country go back much further than most folks really want to think about. To sum up, might I suggest folks reading Walter Kennedy’s and my book “Lincoln’s Marxists”? If you don’t want to spend the money to buy it then see if your local library can get a copy so you can read it for free, but read it either way.

Lincoln’s Leftist Associates–Part 3

by Al Benson Jr.

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln won the Republican Party nomination for president, with lots of help from Horace Greeley, and also lots of help from socialist Carl Schurz, who worked at rallying the German-American Forty-eighters and ordinary German voters as well.  Your ordinary German voter had no idea what was being pulled on him via Schurz and the rest of the Forty-eighter immigrants in this country. They were all being recruited to combat the “slaveholding capitalists” in the South while ignoring Northern railroad and banking capitalists.  As I stated earlier, it was really the Southern capitalists they were after. The Northern variety got an automatic pass–and most folks never noticed, just like they’ve been conditioned via the media today to not notice the almost total lack of any substantive information about the individual sitting in the White (Red) House.

In the very early days of the Republican Party a man most folks have probably never heard of surfaced. This was Alvin Earl Bovay. He had lived in New York State and become a lawyer there in 1846. He was really into both the Abolitionist and Free Soil Movements.  He became secretary of something called the National Reform Association. This group was mainly concerned with people concentrating too much wealth. According to http://www.abovetopsecret.com “They felt there should not be a right to the unlimited accumulation of wealth in this country. The association soon turned toward what is described as ‘a spectrum (of) the most revolutionary anarchist and socialist currents in American life.’ This hostility toward concentrated wealth made them hostile to the South especially seeing as how it was governed largely by wealthy gentry using slavery in replace of paid labor,…Some historians have charged the NRA’s most important members to being under the influence of Socialism, Trade Unionism, and of course Abolitionism.”

By the late 1840s Bovay had moved his family from New York out to the new town of Ripon, Wisconsin. Prior to the forming of the town, the area had been used by a utopian socialist commune, which still seemed to have quite a bit of influence in the area.  Bovay was instrumental in the formation of the new Republican Party, having been in contact with Horace Greeley who was, after all, a utopian socialist. Bovay had suggested that the name of the new party be the “Republican Party.”  Greeley liked that name, as he had also thought of it himself.

Another biggy on the agendas of both the NRA and the new Republican Party was the Homestead Act, which allowed all adult citizens to claim 160 acres of land then in the public domain. Greeley felt it was one of “the most vital reforms ever attempted”  and thought it would bring in a new era of prosperity.  Even though they agreed on the idea of homesteading, Greeley and Lincoln differed over the timing of it. At this time, Greeley and Frederick Douglas  joined forces in demanding of Lincoln that he make the War of Northern Aggression not only a crusade of “preserve the Union” but also an “Abolition war.” Lincoln wasn’t quite ready to do this, being as he had a lot of slaveholding voters in four states that had remained in the Union thorough one way or another.

By this time, Charles Dana was no longer working for Horace Greeley, but was working instead for Lincoln. He was officially assigned to the War Department, which organization he would eventually serve as assistant secretary of.  So already in the 1860s you had an admitted socialist and confidant of Karl Marx serving as Assistant Secretary of War in the United States. That fact is hardly a reassuring one. But it points to the fact that socialism and communism were alive and well in this country much earlier than we have been told about. That just may be why they omit it from our history books. Nothing to see here, folks, just move along!

Part of Dana’s assignment was to be an advisor and an aide to Lincoln pertaining to what has been described as “judicious, humane, and wise uses of executive authority.” So we have a socialist advising Lincoln on the “humane” use of executive authority.  Wonder is such advice had anything to do with why so many Northern folks who disagreed with Lincoln on so many issues wound up in prison with no trials, no lawyers, often their own families not even knowing where they were. I guess some might consider this “judicious” use of executive authority. At least Lincoln didn’t have them executed! But, then, there were so many of them that such might have proved a tad embarrassing.

Appearing on http://historyengine.richmond.edu  was an article entitled The People’s Lincoln. It stated: “In Lincoln’s time, public opinion vigilantly labeled a danger posed by their anti-Constitution imperialist.  Lincoln was widely hated, caricatured, and actively opposed. His concern for the government outweighed his concern for the people, their freedom and prosperity. The Lincoln depicted with loyal troops and grateful slaves is far from the man exposed in John A. Marshall’s series from 1869 American Bastille: A History of the Illegal Arrests and Imprisonment of American Citizens in the Northern and Border States on Account of Their Political Opinions During the Late Civil War. This was eventually published in 1883 as a book, American Bastille.” I recall seeing a copy of this once at a Civil War book sale. It wasn’t in very good shape and I didn’t have the money to buy it–but I thought about it. The History Engine article observed: “Once an arrest was made, not only was the right to a trial denied, but also seeking council was itself considered active rebellion.” It sounds so much like something a socialist would have come up with. The article noted one man who was arrested and, as of 1883, he had yet to be informed why. He had been released long before that, but with never any information as to why he was picked up in the first place. Welcome to the American Gulag–19th century style!

Lincoln spent a good part of his presidency reading dispatches from and seeking the counsel of the man who hired Karl Marx to write for Greeley’s newspaper. John Nichols, who was mentioned earlier, noted in his article that he (Lincoln) “…awarded military commissions to the numerous comrades of the author of The Communist Manifesto who had come to the United States as political refugees  following the failed European revolutions of 1848–is a shard of history rarely seen in the hagiographic accounts that produced a sanitized version of the sixteenth president’s story.”

The Communists, themselves, tell us some interesting things if we can discern between the truth and the propaganda. An article on http://www.worker-communist.org  informs us that the communists were active in the abolitionist movement. No surprise there if you’ve read anything about the abolitionists. Several years ago the chief theoritician  for the Communist Party, Herbert Aptheker, wrote a book called Aboltionism–a Revolutionary Movement. Aptheker had glowing praise for the Abolitionist Movement, which shows that their agenda and that of the Communists coincided. William Lloyd Garrison, one of the leaders among the most radical of the abolitionists once said the same thing. He made a statement that, after the slavery issue had been resolved, the abolitionists would set their sights on “world peace” and the “women’s rights movement”–both of which are on the Marxist agenda. The article also mentions that communists “were active in the left wing of the Republican Party.” Remember, folks, this was in the late 1850s-1860s. Who, in your “history” books, ever read about the “left wing” of the Republican Party in the 1860s, or even today? But they also tell us that the left wing of the GOP was in favor of a “centralized democratic republic.” That would have coincided with Lincoln’s version of what he wanted for a government.

Some of you may have heard of the International Working Men’s Association.  This was the organization that officially sent the letter that Karl Marx wrote to Lincoln congratulating him on his re-election to a second term.  This organization had some very interesting people that ended up as members.  This was a group founded in 1864, which sought to unite a plethora of left-wing, socialist, communist and anarchist groups and trade unions that were based on the working class and class struggle. This is what Wikipedia said about them, and this time they were pretty much on target. More about them in the next installment.

To be continued.

Lincoln’s Leftist Associates–Part Two

by Al Benson Jr.

In 2009 Adam Max Tuchinsky, associate professor at the University of Southern Maine, wrote an informative book called Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune: Civil War Era Socialism and the Crisis of Free Labor. Tuchinsky noted that Greeley’s paper had, among its contributors, Charles Dana, Albert Brisbane, George Ripley, and the ever-present Karl Marx–all socialists.  It seems that the leftist intelligentsia in this country all had a working relationship with “Friend Greeley.” I never read any of this in my public school “history” books. Did anyone else?

Dana eventually went to Europe, where he could witness the convulsions caused by the 1848 socialist revolts firsthand. He felt those revolts were a “historical turning point.” Unfortunately, he was correct, more correct than even he could know. While in Europe, Dana spent time scrounging around for “alternative strains of socialist thought” and ended up in Cologne. At this juncture, a friend of poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Ferdinand Freiligrath, worked for a leftist periodical whose editor had lately co-authored a pamphlet called Das Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei. One of its co-authors, the editor, was a deadbeat hack of a writer whose name did not even appear on the first edition–because the ideas in it were not totally his. He was hired by a group called The League of the Just to author the pamphlet and its content was more theirs than his.

And so socialist Charles Dana met socialist Karl Marx. Socialist Carl Schurz had once met Marx and in our book Lincoln’s Marxists, Walter Kennedy and I commented on that. We noted that, according to Carl Schurz, Karl Marx had an ego as big as the plant Pluto and was constantly berating and insulting those that dared to disagree with his exalted pronouncements. So typical for those on the left! They love it when you totally agree with them, but dare to disagree with them on anything and you become chopped liver in their estimation. Somehow, in spite of all the leftist vitriol, Marx and Dana seemed to hit it off. So much so that Dana got Marx probably the only real job he ever had in his life as a columnist for Horace Greeley’s left-leaning paper.

By the time Lincoln and Greeley both left Congress in 1849, Lincoln had developed a close circle of friends which eventually included a batch of the socialist Forty-eighters, and they were working at turning the states of Missouri, Wisconsin, and Illinois into seething points of agitation. So what we had, in effect, was almost constant socialist agitation in the upper Midwest in the very late 1840s and 1850s. Again, did you ever see any of this in your “history” books in public school? I never did. This is all “memory hole” material we are never supposed to be aware of. Oh, I recall reading about the Kansas-Missouri problems, but that was mostly blamed on Southerners. No mention of Lincoln’s socialist friends stirring the pot at all. In fact, I often wonder how much of this kind of history appears even in home school history studies. I saw very little when we were home schooling our kids, and I’ve seen several history books from Christian schools and none of this was mentioned in any of them. Why not? Wouldn’t our young folks have a much better grasp of our real history if this aspect of it were noted in their history books? Maybe that’s why it’s not there.

John Nichols, in his article in the International Socialist Review has noted, quite accurately, that: “While studies of Lincoln place appropriate focus on his domestic engagements, there has been far too little attention paid to his global interests, especially during the period ‘in the wilderness’ between the end of his congressional term and his return to the political stage. Yet there can be no doubt that the future president was conscious of and highly engaged with developments in foreign lands–thanks no doubt to his close reading of the Tribune…Lincoln invoked the struggles of the European revolutionaries and denounced ‘oppression in any of its forms…’” The invader and destroyer of the South denounces oppression–how touching!

As he got ready for the presidential race in 1860 (he was hardly a reluctant candidate) Lincoln took the time and trouble to align himself with those whose position is “…that labor is the superior–greatly the superior–of capital.” That’s part of the old Marxist line and it comes off sounding somewhat hypocritical from the man who was a lobbyist for the Illinois Central Railroad. You don’t get much more “capitalist” than the railroad people. And Thomas DiLorenzo, in his excellent and informative book The Real Lincoln noted that “…Lincoln was a devoted protectionist over his entire political career. He and other Whigs took this position because it created a stream of economic benefits for a wealthy and powerful constituency group…Having the government dispense special privileges to the wealthy and influential was always the core of the Whig political program to which Lincoln devoted his political career.”  Sounds like the sainted Mr. Lincoln was only opposed to capitalism and capital if they were Southern. He didn’t seem to have all that much problem with Northern capitalism–in fact he profited from it. Interesting that the socialist and communists that fled the failed 1848 socialist revolts in Europe, when they came to this country, ended up joining or allying themselves with the Republican Party–the party of corporate fascism and big government. And they did this because they knew that the party of big government would help them get what they wanted–power and control. The supposed leftist concern for the “poor and oppressed” is nothing more than a self-serving sham.

To be continued.

Lincoln’s Leftist Associates—Part One

By Al Benson Jr.
The more you look at Abraham Lincoln the more his socialist proclivities jump out at you from whatever printed page you happen to be browsing. Once you have begun to grasp the fact of his socialist worldview then you can see things in reading about him that you just never noticed before.

I’ve seen articles that referred to radical Tom Paine, the supporter and promoter of the terrorist French Revolution, as “Lincoln’s hero.” If you have done any reading about Tom Paine and his views, that one statement should tell you something about Lincoln.

Awhile back, John Nichols, who writes for the Nation, did an article for the International Socialist Review which was entitled Reading Karl Marx with Abraham Lincoln–Utopian socialists, German communists, and other republicans. Very interesting title, and so very on target. The socialists don’t deny their involvement with Lincoln, they parade it right down Main Street, partly because they feel that decades of public “education” have rendered most Americans too dumb to realize what they are saying, and partly because they are just downright proud that Lincoln was among their number, whether he ever joined any socialist party or not (he didn’t, that we know of at this point). However, the mindset was there, which shows that socialism and communism in this country were a serious problem already by the middle of the 1800s.

Nichols noted Lincoln’s close association with Horace Greeley, who was a Utopian socialist. They served together in Congress, each for one term and Lincoln referred to Greeley as “Friend Greeley.” Greeley’s newspaper the New York Tribune, was probably the country’s most influential newspaper in the middle years of the 19th century. Greeley’s left-leaning thinking reflected that of Lincoln, when, in an address to Congress he stated that: “our idea is that labor needs not to combat but to command Capital.” A little of the “class struggle” technique there? Nichols also noted that Lincoln’s “involvement” wasn’t just with Horace Greeley, but also with “his sub-editors and writers, so much so that the first Republican president appointed one of Greeley’s most radical lieutenants—the Fourier-and Proudhon-inspired socialist and longtime editor of Marx’s European correspondence, Charles Dana—as his assistant secretary of war.” Dana was right under Edwin Stanton, another dictatorial soul. And it was Dana who hired Karl Marx to write for Greeley’s paper. So you’ve got all these socialists—Greeley, Lincoln, Dana, and Marx pushing and promoting one another in order to further their agenda. Greeley also made Albert Brisbane, another socialist, who had spent time in France during the 1820s, a columnist. Nichols said of Brisbane that, after his time in France, he returned to the United States “to spread the socialist gospel.” Marx and Brisbane were so radical that Greeley’s paper actually received criticism for spreading leftist views. That didn’t seem to bother Greeley. Nichols noted that “In the mid-1840s, explains historian Roy Marvin Robbins, ‘Greeley preached a new order of society with Brisbane’s socialist ideas as its basis.” Almost sounds as if he promoted a 19th century version of the New World Order. Could it be that when George Bush promoted the New World Order back in the early 1990s that he was really only referring to the second installment of it and that we had already been introduced to the first installment way back in the late 1840s?

Something the “history” books almost never even mention of refer to is the fact that Lincoln was a keen follower of everything that was going on in Europe in the 1840s. He was well aware of what was going on there in 1848—and he was all for it. The European situation was not a new thing for Lincoln. Even before 1848, some German radicals has started showing up in Illinois, Wisconsin, parts of Ohio and New York. One such was Gustav Koerner, a student revolutionary from the University of Munich.

Socialist revolutionary Koerner formed an alliance with Lincoln, which resulted in Koerner being one of seven person delegates-at-large who were named by Lincoln to serve at the Republican State Convention in May of 1860. This was the event that got Lincoln into the presidential race that year. Nichols stated in his article that: “Through Ko(e)rner, Lincoln met and befriended many of the German radicals who, after the failure of the 1848 revolution, fled to Illinois and neighboring Wisconsin. Along with Korner on Lincoln’s list of personal delegates-at-large to the 1860 convention was Friedrich Karl Franz Hecker,…” If you happen to have a copy of Walter Kennedy’s and my book Lincoln’s Marxists you can look up Comrade Hecker in it. Check him out on pages 172-174 if you have the book. Hecker was one of Lincoln’s socialist generals. He got a commission from Lincoln.

Another of Lincoln’s staunchest supporters was Karl Marx’s close associate, Joseph Weydemeyer. Weydemeyer continued to be in close touch with Karl Marx while allying himself with the new Republican Party and Lincoln’s presidential campaign. Part of the result of this was that Weydemeyer’s help to Lincoln’s efforts got him appointed to the staff of General John C. Fremont, yet another American left-leaning radical, as a technical aide.

Lincoln did much more than to simply request that the Forty-eighters enlist to help him. He became involved with their causes. One writer stated that “Lincoln was paying attention to those revolutionaries. While in Springfield, Illinois he sought to gain support for various leftist revolutionary movements in Europe. He was particularly interested at that time in the revolt of Lajos Kossuth in Hungary.

The point to this is that Lincoln was not just an armchair supporter of socialist and communist revolts in Europe. He knew many of those involved. He knew what they were all about, and not from a distance but from personal contact in many cases and he supported their efforts to create a new social(ist) order in Europe, one that would centralize everything in the hands of the leftists, all in the name of the “people.” When it didn’t work over there he gave them another shot at it here. Guess what? It worked here and as you can tell from what inhabits Washington, D.C. today, it’s still working.

To be continued.

“Right-Wing” Fascism is Baloney!

by Al Benson Jr.

Over the years that I have kept track of things political I have, more times than I care to mention, been exposed to the spurious term “right-wing fascist.” Pardon my bluntness, but that is 100% pure, top-grade hogwash.

Several years ago I remember hearing a man give a speech on the political spectrum and how it worked and on the political situation in general. He knew his subject. He gave something like a 3 1/2 hour speech on the subject of politics and he had all the information in his head. He needed no notes and didn’t use any. Twice I heard him give the same speech and he did it the same way, no notes.

One thing he dealt with was the political spectrum, from left to right, and what he said made sense in light of the drivel we have been spoon-fed for years regarding this. I pulled the following definition off the Internet, the same Internet that Comrade Obama plans on signing over to some “international body” in the near future (guess who that will be”). I won’t embarrass the Internet site by giving its name, but what it had to say started out this way. “Far-right politics commonly includes authoritarianism, anti-communism, and nativism. Often the term ‘far-right’ is applied to fascists and neo-Nazis, and major elements of fascism have been deemed clearly far-right, such as its belief that supposedly superior people have the right to dominate society while purging allegedly inferior elements…Claims that superior people should proportionately have greater rights than inferior people are sometimes associated wit the far right.” This is the sort of drivel we are supposed to ingest and believe about those on the right–all potential fascists, just waiting to stand in line behind Hitler, with outstretched palms, giving the Nazi salute–the exact same one they used to have our kids in public school use while pledging allegiance to the Yankee flag.

So let’s stop for just a nano-second and view the political spectrum with a degree of common sense.  If the left side of the political spectrum represents total, authoritarian government, which it does, then the right side of the spectrum will represent the exact opposite of the left–no government whatever–anarchy. I know it will take awhile for this to sink in, but ask the Lord to help you with it. It’s not what we’ve been taught. We are not supposed to reason this way. The establishment does not approve. Therefore, what better reason to start?

The article above that I quoted from, which claims to define fascism, could, in fact, be used to define communism. Communism is certainly “authoritarian” and, in its own way, it’s “nativist” with its vision for the “new Soviet Man” and communists most certainly have their own elite, who are expected to rule with an iron hand over the ignorant masses. All you have to do to ascertain that is to read some of the books written by Soviet secret policemen who have defected to the West. They all talk about the “elite” group in the Soviet Union. The Politburo and the KGB were all part of the elite, and even with all the name changes they still are.

It’s true that fascism is authoritarian, or totalitarian if you prefer. However, in a sensible political spectrum, that puts fascism right over there on the left with communism. In fact, you might even say that fascism is a more efficient brand of leftism than communism is. With communism the state claims, in the name of some nebulous organism called “the people” to own everything.  Supposedly, the “people” own it, (yeah, right) but the state runs it, and not always very efficiently.

With fascism the state allows you to keep your name on your deed. Supposedly it is still yours–but the state can tell you what you can and can’t do with it, and when you can or can’t, and if you refuse to do it their way they will come and take “your” property and pass it along to someone who will use it their way.  In the meantime, you, not the state, are responsible for its upkeep and maintainence. You maintain it, they control it. Such a deal!

Therefore, if fascism and communism both represent total government, then they are both on the left side of the political spectrum–otherwise you have a political spectrum with two left sides and no right side–not that some folks wouldn’t love it that way.

On the other hand, the really far right represents anarchy–no government at all, and that’s no good either, lest you end up with the situation described in the Bible where “every man does what is right in his own eyes.” Since Adam’s fall, mankind has been sinful, therefore, some government is needed, but it should be extremely limited and confined to a very few specific areas, such as the protection of life and property, and as much of it as possible should be administered at the local level. When I ran for the town council in the town I live in a few years ago, one of the things I ran on was “less government at all levels and more individual responsibility.”

I don’t expect things to get to that point anytime soon. We’ve gotten too used to government at some level telling us what to do, and though we don’t especially like it, it’s a lot easier just to go along than it is to rock the boat. We used to have boat-rockers in this country. No more. Now we have chair-rockers. And as well, you have the elite (Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission) that controls both major political parties in this country. These groups, with their elite, have a fascist vision for this country, which they have hired a Marxist president to administer. “Why the president was fairly elected” you say?  Sure he was. When he got only 140% of the vote in some places, and several counties in Northern industrial states where he got 100% of the vote, how could he miss? I don’t know why Romney even bothered to run when there were entire areas where he never got a single vote. And the Republican Party never complained about that. Isn’t that strange? Or does it, in fact, show that one elite group does control both parties and they only say what they are told, or allowed, to say?

As long as the general public has been conditioned to believe that authoritarian fascism is over there on the right, then the leftists and their elitist masters can label all kinds of good folks, Confederate heritage folks, Tea Party folks, Ron Paul supporters, Second Amendment supporters, home schoolers, and others as “right-wing” fascists, and people who have been mis-educated or under-educated will never know that all these groups really stand for less intrusive government and not more. The term “right-wing fascist” is a handy leftist brush to tar lots of good folks with.

We need to begin to educate ourselves in this area so we will have enough wisdom to be able to discern between left-wingers (liberals, socialists, and communists) and fake right-wingers who are really left-wingers (fascists) and all the rest of the folks who just want to be left alone to live their lives in peace. However, if we do not learn to stand up and resist (in the Lord’s strength) those on the left who seek to remove our God-given liberties, then we will have no peace either–only bondage.

Why the Left Hates Confederate Symbols and Flags

by Al Benson Jr.

On several occasions I can remember my pastor at church saying that if you are not making someone mad then you aren’t doing anything. He has a valid point. If you are at peace with “the world” and no one has any gripe with anything you do or say, then you are a friend of the world and, biblically speaking, that is an unenviable position to be in.

Christians make people mad because they have the temerity to tell people the truth and all people do not relish truth. Some would rather live with lies and giving them the truth ticks them off. So I reckon this article will tick some folks off.

Years ago, when I was in the John Birch Society there were folks that said we had three enemies—liberalism, socialism, and communism. Or to put it more succinctly liberalism=socialism=communism. One is merely a progression to the next. The John Birch Society was anathema to the religious and political left. They detested it with unexcelled passion. They still do. Why? It’s because the JBS tells people the truth about them and they don’t want the American public as a whole to know that truth—yet they can’t dispute it, so what do they do? They smear the JBS with a lot of unfounded accusations which they hope will take people’s minds off the real truth and refocus them on the spurious accusations. This is an old Communist tactic—condemn others and elevate yourself. It often works, but not quite as much as it used to. Thanks to the Internet, lots of people have had the chance to see “other options” when it comes to news and commentary and they have picked up a certain amount of discernment regarding what I laughingly refer to as the “news” media.

About twenty years after my initial involvement with the JBS I started to become involved with the Southern Heritage and Confederate Movements. You may think the two are mutually exclusive, and I didn’t make any real connection until I found that those who hated the Southern Movement were, guess who? Liberals, socialists, and communists. So why did the religious and political left hate the Southern Movement? Same reason they hated the JBS. The Southern Movement told the truth about the real reasons for the War of Northern Aggression and about Abraham Lincoln, who was and is a major icon of the left. To find out why, read Lincoln’s Marxists  which is available on Amazon.com The truth about Lincoln and the War rattled the left’s cage. The public has, for generations now, been “educated” to believe the War was all about slavery and nothing else. This has been the establishment line for decades now (and I include the establishment as part of the liberal/socialist coterie). To state that such a line is balderdash is only repeating myself.

The liberal/socialist/communist triad absolutely loathes the South, its real history and heritage. All you have to do to prove this is to check out the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center. This will give you a thumbnail sketch of where the left is really coming from in regard to the South and its history. The SPLC is big on hate groups—a “hate group” being anyone that disagrees with their leftist slant on anything. Their take on Southern history is strictly barf-bag material but you’d be surprised at how many “journalists” quote them as a “reliable” source on Southern bigotry or prejudice or whatever other sins the South happens to share with the rest of the country.

All these liberal/left groups use every opportunity to trash the South and its people and they absolutely detest Southern history and Confederate symbols. But if you look at where they are coming from, the reason becomes obvious. The South has been more Christian in its worldview than most of the rest of the country since well before the War of Northern Aggression and the left hates Christianity. They always have, and the reason is that they are in rebellion against God and His law, which they seek to replace with their own “god” (the state) and their “law” (Marx’s “ten commandments” as found in the Communist Manifesto ).

The leftists reserve some of the bitterest of their vehemence for Confederate symbols and flags. These, we are dutifully informed, are all symbols of “racism” (a Trotskyite term), prejudice, bigotry, and you name it. Southern whites, we are told, are responsible for every ill in the world from sunspots to the blind staggers. It’s all “whitey’s fault” (all the better to get reparations out of you, my dear) and Southern whites are supposed to feel guilty for, literally, all the sins of mankind, which others committed only because white folks forced them into it. And to absolve ourselves from these heinous sins we have only to cross their palms with silver—again and again and again.

So what are these horrible Confederate symbols that need to be taken down and relegated to the attic or trash heap? Well, there is the well-known Confederate battle flag, which is a Christian symbol, the Cross of St. Andrew. We have to get rid of that because the KKK has used it. If that’s the case, then lets get rid of the United States flag also, because it is a known fact, for those that have done the homework, that the KKK used the United States flag extensively in parades and assemblies. So it would seem apparent that if one is “racist” because it is used by the KKK, then shouldn’t the other be also? There are several other Confederate flags that must be “racist” simply because they are Confederate. There is Polks Battle flag for the First Corps of the Army of Tennessee. It has a St. George’s Cross on it—another Christian symbol. Then there is the battle flag for Confederate troops from Missouri, which is a blue flag, with a red border, with a white Christian Cross on it. Then the 3rd Kentucky (Confederate) Infantry flag has a Christian Cross with 13 stars in it, and Major General Dabney Maury’s Headquarters Flag is yet another one with a Christian Cross on it. There are others I could mention, not as well known, but yet still containing Christian symbols. All these flags, supposedly “racist” reflect,  to some extent, the worldview of the Confederate States.

I submit that this is really what the leftists want to get rid of—any Southern flag or symbol that reflects the South’s Christian heritage. That’s what they really hate—any kind of Christian symbolism, especially Southern Christian symbolism. Anyone who has read anything about the liberal/socialist/communist cadre realizes that they regard Christianity as one of their main foes, to be either neutralized or gotten rid of any way possible. The left really has no problem with racial prejudice or bigotry. They practice it just as much as anyone else does, only they don’t want to be perceived as being guilty of it so they point the accusing finger at others who may not even be as guilty of it as they are. After all, it was Karl Marx who, condescendingly referred to Jewish people as “Jewish Niggers.” That was Marx’s term, not mine and I have seen him quoted more than once using that term. No, the leftist’s real problem isn’t with racial prejudice—it’s with Jesus Christ and the Christian faith, because they realize that even a sleeping Christian church has the potential of becoming their biggest adversary should something awaken it in the future. And Southern Christians could end up being the biggest adversary of all because even with their faith having been tampered with and watered down, they are still the people in the part of the country where the Christian worldview remains the strongest.

You have to give the liberal/socialist/communist group credit. They at least recognize their Main Enemy. The question is—will the Church wake up and recognize one of hers?

Communism—Idolatry called “scientific socialism”

by Al Benson Jr.

Those who view communism as “scientific socialism” or as merely an economic or political system and who promote such views do themselves and those who listen to and believe them a grave disservice.  There are many fuzzy-headed people around who have yet to grasp this. I remember, years back now, I had stopped in to see the man that printed my little newsletter (not The Copperhead Chronicle I now publish) and he had another customer at the same time. The man wondered about my newsletter and when he saw that it was anti-Communist, he made the statement “Communists don’t enslave people. They liberate them!” I couldn’t believe he was serious, but he was. He really believed that. He prattled on about how wonderful communism was and, as I got ready to leave, my parting shot to him was “May my children never have to live under the freedom you advocate.” Now, thanks to some really creative vote-counting and lots of people that only voted for our current president because of his skin color and had no concept of where he was coming from, we may be headed there. I honestly didn’t think I would, but I may yet live to see it—if the Lord, in His sovereign will brings such to pass.

So what can you say for communism, or Marxism, or Marxism-Leninism or whatever you want to call it. By any other name it is idolatry and slavery, and those may be among its better points.

Man without God is so willing to be deluded that he calls good evil and evil good and calls light darkness and darkness light. Mikhail Heller, in his book Cogs In The Wheel—the formation of Soviet Man noted on page xx that: “Half a century ago the German writer Lion Feuchtwanger visited the Soviet Union at the height of the Terror. He felt himself to be fortunate in having escaped from ‘the oppressive atmosphere of false democracy and hypocritical humanism into the lively, health-giving atmosphere of the Soviet Union. It is a real tower of Babel which is being built, not to bring people closer to heaven, but to bring the heavens down to the people. And they have succeeded.’ And Heller asked “Have they really succeeded?” A look at the history will tell you how really messed up our German author was. But he had lots of company—and still does.

And so Lenin set about creating the “New Soviet Man.” God created Adam and now Lenin and his followers were going to go Him one better. Only Lenin wasn’t going to do it quite the way God did. According to Bukharin, writing in 1917: “Proletarian coercion in all its forms, beginning with the firing squad is…the way of fashioning the communist man out of the human material of the capitalist era.”

Heller quoted Maxim Gorky who had been a friend of Lenin’s in the very early 1900s and who was a writer. Gorky accused Lenin of “conducting a brutal and scientific experiment on the living body of Russia,”…He stressed the cruelty of the “scientific” experiment; to this witness of the Revolution, it was only too clear that the goal was the very refashioning of living human matter. Decades later, the experiment still continues.” Gorky also wrote: “Lenin and his associates consider it possible to commit all kinds of crimes…the abolition of free speech and senseless arrests…” Gorky called Lenin “a cold-blooded trickster who spares neither the honor nor the life of the proletariat.” If these communists sought “the very refashioning of living human matter” then they clearly had a god-complex. They were going to improve on what God did with their “scientific” methods. Instead they created a nightmare and even though communism is supposed to be dead (it really isn’t) the nightmare lingers on and on and is in the process of being revisited on this country because America refuses to wake up and grapple with the theological implications of what communism really is and does. The goal of the communists is to transform human nature by force, fear, and terror. And if a few million have to be “liquidated” in the process, well, the cost is worth it. The end does justify the means in communist eyes, no matter how much blood is spilled. If you are going to remake humanity you’ve got to figure it may get a bit messy sometimes. Such is the “liberation” provided by Marxism-Leninism.

In 1977 the Soviet Constitution stated: “The ruling and directing force in Soviet society and the core of its political system and of all state and social organizations is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The CPSU exists for the people and serves the people. Armed with Marxist-Leninist teaching, the Communist Party lays down the general direction in which society is to advance as well as the line to be followed in domestic and foreign policy, directs the great creative activity of the Soviet people, and gives a planned and scientifically founded character to its struggle for the victory of Communism.” And Heller sums it all up succinctly by saying: “Thus the CPSU declares itself to be the Supreme Authority that knows the Truth, the Goal, and the Way to the Goal…On that basis it assumes total power…Any attempt to limit the Party’s total power is regarded as an attack on Truth and History.” If you stop and notice, doesn’t the Truth, the Goal, and the Way to the Goal sound like a sick, humanistic parody of John 14:6? I’m sure Heller recognized that fact when he worded it the way he did.

Even though we are  told the Communist Party in the Soviet Union is now defunct and Vladimir Putin has become a “reformed democrat” don’t you think this worldview still prevails over there? And what about Communist Parties in other countries? Have they all sworn off this worldview just because the Berlin Wall came tumbling down and a few statues of Lenin were removed? Don’t bet the farm on it.  Americans succumbing to this foolish view are not much different than the useful idiot I noted at the beginning of this article who told me communism “liberates” people. And to think, people whose minds work this way actually vote in this country.

The theological implications of the communist worldview are truly out there if we will but take the trouble to look for them. Communism isn’t “scientific socialism” it is gross idolatry and Christians need to understand that. Am I saying we should fear it? No! But in God’s strength and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit we should oppose it as we do all other forms of idolatry.