“Hating Whitey” in Arizona–More Marxist lies for college students

by Al Benson Jr.

It seems that the racialist attacks against white people, at all levels, by the politically correct “progressives” (Socialists) are intensifying almost to the point of mania, or maybe it’s to the point of phobia.

One thing the multicultural racialists are really working overtime at is trying to get young people who are white to feel guilty about their “whiteness.” There is obviously no fear of God in these people, or recognition of Him and His will either. Common sense ought to tell people that it is God who determines a person’s race and his place in the world. Trying to make him or her feel guilty about what God has created is not only a slap in the face at them, but at God as well.

In that context, I read an article on January 24th from http://www.bizpacreview.com by Tom Tillison. Mr. Tillison noted that: “In a sign that America’s institutions of higher learning may be lost forever to the radical left, college students in Arizona can now take a class on ‘hating whitey.’ In line with the extreme academic discipline called critical race theory, which is prevalent on campuses across America, Arizona State University is now offering a course on ‘the problem of whiteness…’ Critical race theory is a belief that relies heavily on the myth of institutional racism, the opinion that racism is inherent in America, brought on by white privilege and white supremacy.” And guess what? The course is being taught by a white man. The racialist guilt mongers must really have done a job on him. Kind of reminds me of those Southern folks that have been taught to feel guilty about being Southerners or because their ancestors dared to stand up to Yankee/Marxist tyranny, and so the only way they can atone for their ancestors’ “sins” is to grovel at the feet of “Honest Abe” and denounce anyone who would sully his memory with the truth. Same scam, perpetrated by the same Cultural Marxists.

I did an article for this blog spot back in December of 2014 called Critical Theory and Confederate Heritage in which I explained that Critical Theory was a Marxist program aimed at tearing down any aspect of Western society the Marxists had targeted for destruction. They do it though literature, through the media, and through the “educational” process as they are doing now in Arizona and other places.

Mr. Tillison observed in his article: “Leave it to a white academic elitist, beset with ‘white guilt’ no doubt, to corrupt the minds of young Americans with a theory driven by identity politics that has little basis in reality.” The question might be asked—what are the political motives of the ones teaching this class? It turns out that there seems to be one man teaching this class, although, for awhile, it seems that no one could find out who he was. According to Ed Montini, a columnist for http://www.azcentral.com on January 26th “It almost sounds as if the assistant professor who is teaching (and perhaps dreamed up) an Arizona State University class called ‘U.S Race Theory and the problems of whiteness’ is in hiding…Most of us in Arizona had no idea about this class. A total of 18 students signed up for it…” Someone at Fox News got wind of this and did a story on it, but I have not seen anyone else in the “news” media do all that much with it. But I can understand why they tried to keep it quiet. The course is based on “Critical Race Theory” which is but one branch of the Marxist Critical Theory agenda.

Lauren Clark, a campus correspondent who works at exposing liberal abuses and bias at colleges and universities for Campus Reform in Arizona noted the name of the Assistant English Professor who is teaching the class. He is Lee Bebout. Clark reported: “The course, first reported by the Pundit Press, is taught by Lee Bebout, an assistant professor of English at ASU. According to his faculty page, critical race theory is one of his research interests.” A junior economics major, James Malone, was quoted in Campus Reform and he said: “I think it shows the significant double standard of higher education institutions. They would never allow a class talking about the problem of ‘blackness.’ And if they did, there would be an uproar about it. But you can certainly harass people for their apparent whiteness.” Mr. Malone has hit the nail on the head. That’s exactly the way this game is played. And in many cases what it amounts to is nothing more than black racialism.

So what it amounts to is that this assistant English professor at Arizona State is an advocate of a Marxist theory, created by Marxist academics at the Frankfurt School, which I have also written about in the past. It is a theory that makes the public, as well as impressionable students, susceptible to Marxist dogma by attacking the family, your religious faith, your culture, and now your race. It is nothing more than Cultural Marxism applied to the race question and this professor is an advocate of it. What does that tell you about his education and the people that taught him? I’ve asked this question before—is this what people pay big bucks to these big schools for? So their kids can sign up to learn about Marxist Critical Theory? If I knew anyone in Arizona thinking about sending their kids to this school, I would exhort them long and loud to forget it. The Left has taken control of most of what passes for higher education in this country and it happened long, long ago. It is not a recent development When the communists that ran the Frankfurt School in Germany left that country where did they go to—Columbia University, and that was in the 1930s!

Somehow, we have, in America, got to get over the delusion that we can send our kids to schools dominated by Marxists and expect those schools to send us little Patrick Henry’s home. Folks, it ain’t gonna happen. All you will get back from such schools is good little “fellow travelers” who will, whether they even realize it or not, hew the Marxist line in just about everything they touch. We have got to ask the Lord for His guidance in where we educate our kids and hope and pray that He will overlook generations of willful ignorance and still be willing to help us.

Advertisement

“Community Organizing” and Stealth Socialism

By Al Benson Jr.

Up until 1970 I had never even heard the term “community organizer.” In 1970 I heard the term applied to a man who had been hired to lecture college students. The man was a puredee Communist Party member. So for years I could honestly say “The only man I ever heard about who was a community organizer was a Communist.” Turns out that wasn’t really all that far off.

Stanley Kurtz, in his book Radical-In-Chief—Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism has some informative comments on community organizers. He notes, quite accurately, that: “Community organizing is a largely socialist profession. Particularly at the highest levels, America’s community organizers have adopted a deliberately stealthy posture—hiding their socialism behind a ‘populist’ front. These organizers strive to push America toward socialism in unobtrusive, incremental steps, calling themselves ‘pragmatic problem-solvers’ all the while. Barack Obama’s colleagues and mentors were some of the smartest and most influential stealth- socialist community organizers in the country. Their strategies of political re-alignment and social transformation guide the Obama administration to this day.”

In referring to the president, Kurtz observed: “Obama is a community organizer who sincerely believes what other community organizers believe. The problem is that community organizers are not forthcoming about the true nature of their beliefs. All too often, they consciously mask a hard-edged socialism in feel-good euphemistic code.” In other words, folks, they lie to us about what their real intent is. They cover up bad intentions with “feel-good” terminology. Sadly, due to the immense lack of discernment so apparent in our day, they get by with it because we are dumbed-down enough so that we don’t know what we don’t know. These people have as their agenda the destruction of our country as we know it and the removal of our liberties and we are so occupied with trivia that we haven’t got time to be bothered learning how to do anything about it.

David Horowitz, a former leftist radical who now runs the website http://www.frontpagemag.com interviewed Stanley Kurtz back in January of 2011 regarding his book. He said: “And what Stanley has shown is just what I said, that Barack Obama was raised as a leftist and starting right out of college was part of the Marxist Socialist, what I call Neocommunist left.”

Mr. Kurtz, in this interview, had some very interesting comments about the evolution of socialism in this country over the past eighty years or so. In commenting about the research he did for his book he stated: “I kept running into evidence of real Socialism, people who thought of themselves as Socialists, Marxists, hardcore. And a variety of Socialism and Socialists that I hadn’t known about that I think you could still call it hardcore, but it was a revised form of Socialism that took over the movement after the 1960s and that most Americans know nothing about.”

It was noted by Kurtz that there are lots of conservatives out there, even today, who really are not comfortable with the idea that Obama is a Socialist. They liken that to what they think they heard from the John Birch Society or from Joe McCarthy, and they’ve been taught that, as good “conservatives” they’re not to pay any attention to any of that. They’ve been taught that ultra-liberals are really nice folks, just a little misguided and that, maybe, if you are nice to them they will not bother anyone. That’s all a pile of cow chips, but they’ve bought it and so anyone that exposes the machinations of the leftists to them can expect a stern lecture back on why they are not “loving” enough toward the people that are trying to tear the country down. I’ve been a member of the John Birch Society in past years and most of the folks I knew there (and still know) were and are among the most decent and honorable people I know. They have a concern for the leftist direction they see the country headed in and they try to do what they can to stem that tide. Everyone should have their concern, but most don’t. As far a Joe McCarthy, he was, and still is, one of the most maligned people in the country. That’s the price you pay anymore for trying to tell people the truth. Contrary to what you’ve heard, McCarthy did not “destroy” the lives of thousands. There were only a certain few he went after and he already had overwhelming evidence of Communist affiliation about them, which is why he went after them—and some of them were in high positions in government.

Anyway, back to Mr. Kurtz and the Socialists. Kurtz noted that: “Even knowledgeable ex-leftists don’t have full awareness of the Socialism I discuss in this book because it comes from a group of community organizers who represented one particular faction within contemporary American Socialism and they were secretive.”

Kurtz notes several Socialist conferences that Obama attended and he says: “…when I finally reconstructed what had gone on at these Socialist conferences that Barack Obama attended, I was truly amazed because what I saw was a kind of map of Barack Obama’s entire subsequent political career. It was at these Socialist conferences in New York in the mid-80s that Barack Obama encountered the groups, the strategies, and the mentors who would guide him throughout his entire political career. Now, what do I mean? Well, for one thing, these Socialist conferences touted community organizing as the key to the future for American Socialism.”

Mr. Kurtz shed even more light on the way these stealth-socialists operate. He stated: “So he (Obama) ran into organizations like ACORN and Project Vote, at these Socialist conferences. They were considered the future of Socialism. And there was another theme at these conferences and that was that rainbow coalitions led by minority political leaders, particularly African Americans, were the key to the future of Socialism in the United States. And the model of all this was Mayor Harold Washington of Chicago…In fact, Jeremiah Wright was deeply involved in Harold Washington’s various electoral campaigns…Well, there were an awful lot of Socialist community organizers in Chicago. And these Socialist community organizers were really the key to Harold Washington’s success.” So Washington was willing to work with the Socialists and they saw his administration as one that would promote their goals and agendas.

So these people labored to create an anti-business, ‘quasi-Populist’ movement that leaned left and was the result of the agitation of these community organizers. At some point, some of these community organizers rise to the top of the heap and become politicians themselves, and from their new positions of prominence they lead this “coalition” of community groups with an agenda of anti-business and economic populism, which is really controlled by the Socialists behind the scenes. They don’t call themselves Socialists anymore. Now they are “Populists” or “Communitarians” (stealth-Socialists) and they talk about “democratizing power.” But when you look at what really goes on, you find that it’s nothing but Socialism with a new name tag and you have Socialists running all these “Populist” groups. This is what “community organizers” really do.

The minute Obama told people he had been a “community organizer” that should have set warning bells off. And the “news” media knew all this, and the Republican establishment knew all this. All that remained was to make sure the American people didn’t find out about any of it. Mr. Kurtz’s book is still available on Amazon.com and I would urge folks to order a copy while it can still be had.

Chicago’s School of Socialism—Midwest Academy

By Al Benson Jr.

Somehow, given the type of city it is, it only seems fitting that Chicago should have a school dedicated to the promotion of “progressive” agitation and propaganda supposedly to enable the poor and downtrodden to help them straighten their lives out—at the expense of everyone else and to the benefit of the political far left. Hence we have Midwest Academy—the Alinskyite paradise of the mid-continent.

Most who will read this have probably never heard of this school and that’s not by accident. An “educational” institution with an agenda like this one has is not to be advertised to the masses, lest they begin to ask questions.

Stanley Kurtz’s book Radical-In-Chief—Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism has an entire section dedicated to exposing this organization to the public, starting on page 131. Mr. Kurtz presents information and documentation that the public ought to be aware of so that we might begin to grasp the enormity of the socialist problem in our midst—from the White House on down. Mr. Kurtz, on page 131 of his book notes: “On Labor Day 1969, a group that included past SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) national secretary Paul Booth, his activist wife, Heather Booth, onetime SDS field secretary Steve Max and radical community organizer Harry Boyte published a pamphlet titled Socialism and the Coming Decade. Clustered several years later around an institute called the Midwest Academy, this group would go on to create a new way of blending socialism, community organizing, and electoral politics. In many ways, the Midwest Academy is the hidden key to Barack Obama’s political career. Obama’s organizing mentors had ties to it; Obama’s early funding was indirectly controlled by it; evidence strongly suggests that Obama himself received training there; both Barack and Michelle Obama ran a project called ‘Public Allies’ that was effectively an extension of the Midwest Academy; Obama’s first run for public office was sponsored by Academy veteran Alice Palmer;…Perhaps more important, Barack Obama’s approach to politics is clearly inspired by that of the Midwest Academy. Therefore, it is of no small interest that the Midwest Academy is a socialist ‘front group,’…The story of the Midwest Academy’s transformation from a stealthy nest of radical sixties socialists into a force at the center of the Democratic Party offers unparalleled insight into Barack Obama’s hidden political world.” How much of this did our investigative “news” media ever bring out? Our prestigious “presstitutes” of the fifth column are taught to bury this kind of information. This is “off limits” for the average American.

Mr. Kurtz is to be commended for the research he did for his book and for his attempt to alert the public as to the president’s deep socialist background. Others have also been trying to do the same thing, but thanks to an almost total media blackout, very little of this information makes it to the public at large. The “news” media and those that pay their tab want to make sure none of this sort of thing arises to disturb the public’s concentration on the nightly “reality” shows trotted out there to bemuse them and keep their minds off anything of real importance.

For all of that, some information does manage to seep through. On November 29, 2011, an article appeared on http://www.frontpagemag.com written by Matthew Vadum and entitled Union Gangsters: Heather Booth. Mr. Vadum writes, near the beginning of his article: “A disciple of Saul Alinsky, the socialist-feminist Booth co-founded the Chicago-based Midwest Academy, a training institute for community organizers…The Midwest Academy is funded in part by radical left-wing philanthropies such as George Soros’s Open Society Instutute, Tides Foundation, and the Woods Fund of Chicago. (Barack Obama and Bill Ayres served together on the Woods Fund board.)” Booth has embraced what is now called “stealth socialism” in that it advances the socialist agenda without appearing to do so. Earlier in her career, Booth was a bit more candid about her objectives. She said: “Truly reaching socialism or feminism will likely take a revolution that is in fact violent, a rupture with the old ways in which the current ruling class and elites are wiped out.” Today she is a bit less candid but the objectives are the same—depending on how you define “ruling elites.” She has no problem taking funding from George Soros and he has got to be one of the rulingest elites there is.

So we must conclude that outfits like Midwest Academy and those that run it are not really against our ruling elite as the ruling elite, in many cases, funds them. What they are really after is ordinary folks who have made good through hard work and dedication because these are some of the folks that will resist their socialist agenda. People like Soros will support it and promote it. The “super-rich” and the socialists have a lot in common. Us rubes in flyover country, however, are not supposed to be able to figure that out.

And another article on http://www.wnd.com written by Aaron Klein on 3/18/10 commented on the Woods Fund which has funded the Midwest Academy. Klein observed: “The Woods Fund, a nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided startup funding and later capital to the Midwest Academy…Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayres, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization.” Do you get the impression that many of these 60s socialists never really got rid of their socialist spots? All they did was cut their hair and put on business suits and proceeded to insert themselves into the “establishment” they professed to hate so much. And the “establishment” seems to have had no problem accepting them. Does this begin to tell you something about the “establishment?” All this may be a bit new to some of you, but think about it for awhile before rejecting it out of hand.

Probably lots of folks will not want to be bothered. As long as Big Brother lets them watch Monday night football and go fishing on Saturday morning they won’t complain too much, but I’ll tell you something folks, the end of those days may be coming. For that handful of you that wants to find out what’s going on you need to read Gary Allen’s None Dare Call it Conspiracy and The Rockefeller File. And while you’re at it, try to locate W. Cleon Skousen’s book The Naked Capitalist. You will find from reading these that the agendas of the ruling elite from above and the socialists from below are very similar, with the rest of us caught in the middle and being squeezed from both sides. And then, if you go back in our history 150 years and read Donnie Kennedy’s and my book Lincoln’s Marxists you will find that the socialists were the establishment. Actually, very little has changed since then, except that the destruction of the folks in the middle, the middle class, is becoming more apparent with each passing year, and the middle class, many of them Christians, sleep on unaware and unconcerned.

I have had occasion to wonder—where is the Christian alternative so something like the Midwest Academy? Unfortunately, I am afraid it doesn’t exist.

“Socialist Feminism”

by Al Benson Jr.

At present, I am working my way through an excellent book written by Stanley Kurtz back in 2010 and entitled Radical-In-Chief. It is a history of the deep socialist background of the present occupier of the White House and it is available on Amazon.com

I will have more to say about Mr. Kurtz’s book in future articles because he brings out an amazing amount of documentation about the “stealth socialist” movement in this country, in which our president has been and is a major player.

On page 140 of his book, Kurtz deals with something called “Socialist Feminism” and he goes on to show that socialism has been a major part of the Feminist Movement in the 1970s. He notes: “Yet Heather Booth’s chief efforts in 1971 were devoted to organizing for socialist feminism. Booth and her early collaborator at the Midwest Academy, Day Creamer, were involved in both the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union (CWLU) and the Action Committee for Decent Childcare. The juxtaposition of the explicitly socialist CWLU and the less ideological daycare project–open to all women, not just committed socialists– exemplifies the strategy Booth and her collaborators had laid out in 1969’s Socialism and the Coming Decade, in which small, consciously socialist groups quietly build and guide less openly ideological mass movements. Booth’s developing ideological and strategic perspective is presented in her 1971 pamphlet, written with Day Creamer and a small group of others, Socialist Feminism: A Strategy for the Women’s Movement. This pamphlet was reprinted by the Midwest Academy ‘for historical purposes,’ and was sometimes used in the Academy’s training sessions.” So you can see here, in recent times, the socialist involvement in the Feminist Movement. Sadly, this is not a new development.

In our book Lincoln’s Marxists Walter Kennedy and I deal with the Feminist Movement in this country, and in Europe, in Addendum 3, on page 307, in a section called Feminists and Forty Eighters, which was originally published in my quarterly newsletter The Copperhead Chronicle back in the fourth quarter of 2006. We observed: “Modern historians with what appears to be a selective historical bias seldom examine or mention the close connections between individuals with strong communist connections and other left of center personalities. For example the outright influence of communists in the Roosevelt administration was seldom brought to light until well after his death. Likewise, the connection between socialists and outright communists and the founding of the Republican Party, or the connection between the radical feminists and the Forty Eighters in Europe is seldom if ever reported. Radical Feminism was not something new in France and Germany during the turbulent years of the 1848 socialist revolts in Europe. When the socialist (it should be noted that the terms socialist and communist were equivalent at that time) revolutions erupted in Europe in 1848, the majority of the feminists supported and otherwise aided those revolutions. Many of these women were supporters of St. Simon and Charles Fourier, both of whom were well known for their socialist philosophies.” The article then goes on to name names. Some of them you may have heard of, such as Margaretta Meyer Schurz, the wife of the well known Forty Eighter Carl Schurz who became the Secretary of the Interior during the Hayes administration. Mrs. Schurz established the first kindergarten in this country at Watertown, Wisconsin in 1856. Interestingly enough, the government in Prussia, only two years after the socialist revolts in that country had ended, outlawed kindergartens. The Prussian government was on record as viewing these schools as places of radical indoctrination for children. Given what goes on in public schools nowadays, can one really say they were wrong? Or were they remarkably prescient?

In her book Freethinkers–A History of American Secularism Susan Jacoby notes another well known feminist, “Red Emma” Goldman. She says: “At the same time there was a politically radical agnostic minority supported by European Marxist, socialist and anarchist thought and quite willing to challenge American institutions. ‘Red Emma’ Goldman was the most fiery, persuasive, and visible representative of that minority, an outspoken atheist and feminist as well as an anarchist’…Another early “Women’s Libber” over on the left! Goldman had a strong influence on Margaret Sanger, although it’s not known if Sanger ever openly acknowledged her leftist indoctrination from “Red Emma.” Sanger is reported to have been the one that invented the term “birth control.”

Back in 2003, Henry Makow, Ph.D. wrote an article that appeared on http://www.savethemales.ca called Betty Friedan: Mommy was a Commie. In part, Dr. Makow stated: “Betty Friedan, the ‘founder of modern feminism’ pretended to be a typical 1950s American mother who had a ‘revelation’ that women like her were exploited and should seek independence and self-fulfillment in career. What Friedan (nee: Betty Naomi Goldstein) didn’t say is that she had been a Communist propagandist since her student days at Smith College (1938-1942) and that the destruction of the family has always been central to the Communist plan for world government…Friedan dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a Communist news service. From 1946-1952 she worked for the newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) ‘the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States.’ In 1947, Congress targeted the UE as a Communist front and its membership began a steady decline.” This is hardly the background for most ordinary 1950s mothers. Friedan obviously did not want lots of folks to be aware of her radical leftist past. If they had been, her book The Feminist Mystique might not have sold over five million copies. One has to wonder, seeing that the Communists are opposed to filthy rich “capitalists” making all manner of filthy lucre, who got the royalties from five million copies of Friedan’s book? Did she donate it all to the Communist Party USA? Actually, the Communists don’t really have a big problem with profit–as long as it’s their people making it and not the rest of us.

It’s important that we realize that the Feminist Movement, the Women’s Liberation Movement, or whatever brand of feminism you happen to run across swimming in your soup, is all steeped in socialism, communism, or some other brand of aberrant leftism. They are not, nor have they ever been, really concerned about helping women–they are concerned about helping their women into positions of power and influence here and around the world, so they can help to shape the socialist agenda in various countries, and tell the rest of us how we should live. They are interested, and have a vested interest in tearing down every Biblical truth regarding women and replacing it with their socialist dogma and rules. That’s something Christians need to become aware of because, today, not nearly enough are.

Some Conservatives Starting To Recognize the Great Republican Con Game

by Al Benson Jr.

Awhile back I wrote an article entitled The Republican Party–There Are NO Conservative Roots There. It got a bit or circulation because some conservatives and patriots are beginning to realize that the current Republican Party is selling them out–lock, stock, and barrel. So, realizing that, they are becoming a little more open to checking out where the Republican Party might really have come from.

The Republican Party, the “Party of Lincoln” has always, with the exception of a few blips in the middle of the 20th century, been a party of big government. Their main strength has been in their deviousness in this area, their being able to fool so many people into believing that they were a party of “small government.” At many local levels this is probably true, but at real leadership levels it has never been true. It is true that the Democrats were once a party of small government, but those days are long gone also.

What we have today are two parties, much like two different wings on the same socialist turkey, but both are always pushing the turkey to fly to the left. One wing wants to turn left immediately, if not sooner, while the other wing is headed in the same direction, but wants to make the trip a little slower. The difference in the desired speed of the two wings discombobulates the turkey, but it also fools the voting public into believing that one wing actually wants to fly right, when nothing could be further from the truth.

From its inception, the Republican Party was a party of the left. You could tell that, if you understood history, by the first two presidential candidates they fielded–John C. Fremont and Abraham Lincoln. Suffice it to say that neither of them would have qualified as a bastion of the right. Both of them were enamored of socialists and outright communists, and some of the Republican candidates that followed after them had also strongly imbibed the foul wine of revolutionary socialism. You can tell that by reading some of what they said. They were big on centralized government, with all the real power in Washington.

Today’s Republican Party is no different. Oh, they will prattle about wanting less government when what they really want is less government controlled by their opposition so more of it can be controlled by them. Today’s Republican leadership is NOT against illegal aliens flooding the country, they are NOT against Obamacare (though they’d rather have it called Romneycare) and they are NOT against raising taxes on the middle class–they just want you to think they are.

I read lots of stuff on the Internet. Doing historical research tends to make one have to do that to keep up with what goes around, and what ought to go around but doesn’t–thanks to our intrepid “news” (blocking) media. There are some conservative and patriotic websites that finally seem to be waking up enough to recognize that this last big Republican victory in 2014 was hardly a victory for those of us opposed to big and unlimited government, but was, rather, a cleverly devised sham intended to keep the status quo in place while giving the illusion of “having thrown the bums out.”

Before the election, John Boehner roundly condemned (for public consumption) Obama’s illegal alien initiative that would leave most of the illegals still in the country. You got the impression from Boehner’s comments that the House was really going to go at it tooth and claw with Obama over the illegal issue. Within days of the election we found Boehner and the House more than willing to cave in and fund Obama’s illegal alien agenda through next September, all the while telling us how much they were opposed to it. It could be they really think this guy, Gruber, was right and that the American voters are just too stupid to know the difference. Or it could be that they really don’t give a hoot what we think. They, like Obama, have an agenda to fulfill for their bosses behind the scenes and they will do that no matter what we think. That’s the real reason they are there, you know. Doing the will of those that voted them into office doesn’t even begin to enter into the equation–not even worth the discussion.

So, let’s be brutally honest. The American people are about to get stiffed by both parties because both parties, at the national level and many state levels, are nothing more than socialist fronts for the internationalist crowd. All the rhetoric and hogwash thrown around to convince us differently is nothing more than bovine excrement. No one is Washington represents us, no matter what they say, and you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. All you have to do is look at how they vote! That, and a little homework, will show you where their real loyalties lie.

The real conservatives and patriotic folks in this country won nothing in the last election except the privilege of being lied to by Republican socialists instead of Democratic socialists. Big improvement, ain’t it?

Has America Turned Into Amerika?–Conclusion

by Al Benson Jr.

The first article of these two concluded with some brief commentary about the Cloward/Piven strategy being used on our Southern border. For those who may not know just what that is, I refer you to an article I wrote for this blog spot on that, but which also may be found on http://www.deovindice.org for July 10, 2014.

Basically, the Cloward/Piven strategy is a Marxist program for various leftist groups to use to overwhelm the US system at various points around the country. It has been used to advance several leftist agendas. According to the book The Shadow Party by David Horowitz and Richard Poe: “Poor people can advance, Cloward later explained to the New York Times, only when ‘the rest of society is afraid of them.’ Rather than placating the poor with government handouts, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system. The collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would shake the foundations of society. Poor people would rise in revolt. Only then would ‘the rest of society’ accept their demands…The strategy would be to overload the welfare system with a flood of new applicants and cause it to go bankrupt…The demands would break the budget and jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock. The result would be ‘a profound financial and political crisis’ that would unleash ‘powerful forces…for major economic reform at the national level’.” Needless to say, a major part of this would be redistribution of the wealth, (Marxism).

If this socialist concept worked in regard to welfare, or voter registration, or other socialist projects, then the same principle could be applied to the situation on our Southern border–and it has been. Someone or some group has to make sure the word gets out that will draw enough people to the border that the influx will, basically shut down the system that deals with illegal immigrants. The situation has pretty much shut the Border Patrol down, in that it can no longer perform its intended function. Instead its main function now is to make sure all these illegals swarming across the border are made comfortable. If enough of them are continually made “comfortable” enough so that they end up staying, which is what our current regime desires, then that situation will work toward changing the culture of the Southwest, and eventually of the rest of the country. And that has been a major part of the One World Government agenda emanating from Washington for the past several administrations–be they Democrat or Republican. It’s a standard Cloward/Piven tactic. It works toward changing us into Amerika. And it’s not the only thing that does.

As I started the first article about all this off with my recollections of our trip to Dodge City, Kansas, in a similar vein, I have a friend who recently made a trip to New York City to visit with some of his family in that area. He used to live there. He noted, in a recent email to me: “Today the 5 boroughs of New York City could be easily identified as to who is living there simply by riding through them and looking at the foreign signage that appears above their store fronts…The former European community is nearly all gone, having been replaced with a variety of third world peoples (Koreans, Chinese, Russians, Central Americans, Middle Easterners and Indians” and he wasn’t referring to American Indians, who, after looking at what we’ve done to Manhattan, probably wouldn’t take it back if you paid them.

He noted that when Europeans originally came to New York there were no entitlement programs “…from which a Political Base/Party could advance using Socialize Mechanics as a means to a political/ideological end.” In other words, the Europeans, when they came, for the most part, although there were some exceptions, (the Forty-Eighters come to mind), didn’t come with ideological agendas in tow. They came for a better life for their families than what they could ever have in Europe, and they were willing to work for it. Now many of the Third World people come for the freebies our beneficent government hands out. The Europeans came to make their own way. There were no freebies. And so our culture is being changed from people who came to work and earn their way to people that come to take. That doesn’t mean that all the people from these countries are deadbeats, but enough are so that it’s a drag on the system. Now in California they are going to have drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens. How long will it be before we officially give them the vote–although with the big fuss some radical groups are making over people having to show ID before they vote, maybe we already are, unofficially. Pretty soon the only people who will have to show an ID to get to vote will be whites in the South. Everyone else will get an automatic pass because, after all, we wouldn’t want to “offend” them now, would we–whereas “offending” whites is already a major part of the game.

He also observed: “The English language newspapers were being replaced with foreign dailies and the multitude of various languages being spoken at the same time was as infuriating as it was loud and obnoxious.” Or, as one Iraqui said to the other in the cartoon awhile back “You’re in the United States now–speak Spanish!”

If any other race or culture besides white people were being beset by this planned campaign of cultural genocide in this country there would be massive riots, demonstrations, protests, sit-ins and whatever else was needed to call attention to the injustice. The “news” media would be up in arms and the political demagogues would be having a field day. But because it’s happening to white folks, it’s all beneath anyone’s notice–even most of the white folks! And we have all these warm-fuzzy liberal types pirouetting across our national stage and keening about “white privilege.” Folks, that’s all part of this campaign, and it’s one of the biggest buckets of hog slop that’s being peddled out there! Unfortunately, many naive whites, some of them Christians, have bought into this bucket of propaganda–up to their eyeballs!

There is a verse in Scripture which says “Insofar as is possible within you, live peaceably with all men.” That’s a sound admonition and many more people should practice it. But what do you do when the situation gets to where that might not be possible–when your adversaries have no interest at all in peace, except on their terms (convert or die) or “peaceful co-existence” or whatever their current terminology might be?

Ecclesiastes Chapter 3:7-8 says “(There is) A time to rend and a time to sew; a time to keep silent, and a time to speak; A time to love and a time to hate; a time of war and a time of peace.” The time to speak is long past–and we have kept silent when we should have spoken. And, while no sane person wants war, there also comes a time to defend your culture and the foundations for it, which are Christian foundations. And so the time of War may well be at hand, and it doesn’t have to be a war fought with guns. It may well be fought with the pen. If that be the case, then let us pray that the Christians have plenty of ink in their inkwells.

Has America Turned Into Amerika?

by Al Benson Jr.

The question asked in the title of this article is one that I have pondered in recent years. As a youngster, growing up in the late 1940s and into the 1950s, I grew up in what we all supposed was the typical American culture. Some of it was good and wholesome. Some if it wasn’t, but either way, it was still our culture and at no point did we or do we want to see that part of it that is still good destroyed.

A little over thirteen years ago my wife and I visited some good Christian friends in West Texas. On our way home (we still lived in Illinois at the time) we drove up through the Oklahoma Panhandle, an area that has some pleasant memories for me, and on up into Western Kansas because we wanted to take a look at Dodge City, the temporary place of residence for so many legendary frontier lawmen (if such they can be called).

It was an interesting side trip (and I won’t even begin to get into our experience in abolitionist East Kansas) and while in Dodge City, we stopped in a small fast food restaurant for lunch after our sightseeing. Mind you, this was Dodge City, Kansas, not El Paso, Laredo, or Nogales. As we sat and ate lunch I listened to those around me talking. The one language I heard almost none of was English. Ninety percent of what I heard was Spanish, or the Mexican variation of it. We had run into similar situations in the Chicago suburbs, where you could go into one of the park district parks in some towns and you could hear just about every language except English being spoken. As we sat in the restaurant in Dodge City, the question entered my mind–is this even America anymore?

I used to write article for the old Sierra Times web site before it faded out seven or eight years ago. I was sorry to see it go because it was a site that tried to hit a lot of areas that needed discussion, and they had some good writers. At any rate, I did an article for Sierra Times noting our experience in Dodge City and questioning just where American culture had disappeared to because there seemed to be so little of it left among all the third world cultures that were busy taking over here. I got all kinds of email over that article, some from folks who had shared our experience and could identify with what I said. To be charitable, some of what I got could legitimately be labeled “hate mail.” I never forgot the one that wished me “a long, miserable life.” But I had touched a nerve. I had addressed the looming disintegration of real American culture and I wasn’t supposed to do that. It wasn’t politically (culturally Marxist) correct. My comments offended some of the radicals from Somalia or Ecuador or some other places that were turning up in my country and promoting their cultures at the expense of mine. I was just supposed to ignore that and say nothing. Just “be nice.” I wasn’t.

Since that experience in Dodge, I have taken note of the cultural trends in places we have traveled to. Understand, I don’t have a big problem with folks from other countries coming here legally and bringing their cultures with them–as long as they don’t try to bury mine. When we got to where they want to replace mine with theirs and I’m supposed to accept that–then we have a problem.

Since they come here from other places, there has to be a certain amount of assimilation–on their part–to what we have here. For them to refuse any assimilation and expect Americans to bow to their cultural norms, is patently ludicrous. Hopefully, most thinking Americans will not do it–and they shouldn’t. Fuzzy-headed liberals who are afraid of offending anyone except white Christians may do it and there will be the usual pressure from the media and certain “civil rights” groups to cave into these people and let them deep-six your culture, but most folks, hopefully, will not buy into that hogwash.

If some of these recently-arrived Muslim groups want Sharia Law, that’s great–let them go live in a country that already practices that. We don’t need it here, no matter how many gurus from Washington tell us it would be beneficial for us. Our laws, at least at one point, were based on the truth of Holy Scripture, and that’s as it should be.

I noticed just today, an article on the Western Journalism web site about a group of public school kids in the Denver area that had been taken on a “field trip” to visit a synagogue, a Greek Orthodox Church, and a mosque. the girls were all required to wear “Islam-compliant clothing” into the mosque. There are lots of problems with this. Why is a public school taking these kids to visit these places anyway? Religion is supposed to be anathema in public schools–or is it only Christianity that is? Why aren’t Christians complaining about this? And if Christians today really understood the cultural implications of their actions, would they even have their kids in public schools?

On our recent trip to Minnesota I noticed, in the suburbs around Minneapolis, a goodly number of Muslim people. They are on their way to becoming a sizable minority there. I have to wonder, if and when they get to comprise 20 percent of the population in that area, will there be demonstrations in favor of Sharia Law for them in the areas they live in, thereby setting up a situation whereby you have two groups living side by side in this country but being governed by different sets of laws? That’s a prescription for disaster if ever I saw it. And don’t think it can’t happen here. There are some ultra-liberal (socialist) judges in this country that would dearly love to preside over the judicial destruction of whatever Christian culture we might still have left. It’s what they live for.

There are Marxists in Washington and many of our state capitals that have agendas that call for the gradual dismemberment of America and replacing it with some form of Third World socialism. That effort has been going on for decades while Americans, particularly Christians, have slept–confident that the Lord would “rapture” them out of this mess here before it got really sticky so they wouldn’t have to stand up and DO anything about it. What if that doesn’t happen for them? What about the possibility that the Lord’s solution to all this is to make them go through what they so badly wanted to get away from–to make them learn to have to deal with it and to begin to put up some Christian resistance to evil? Heaven forbid that they even have to think about that!

And what about those thousands of illegal immigrants that have, in the past year, been swamping out Southern border–employing the basic Cloward-Piven strategy of overwhelming the system to the point where it shuts down literally? The Border Patrol has been turned away from its duty of apprehending illegals and pressed into service as an illegal diaper-changing service. What effect does all this have on our culture?

To be continued.

The “Official Version” or the Conspiracy Version

by Al Benson Jr.

I suppose a good many people really wonder why conspiracy theories about various situations and events exist. They can’t see the rationale for it and they have not been trained to think that way. Yet there is a rationale if you stop and think about it. And that is that the “official version” of many events just sounds a little too pat, a little too well rehearsed–and often the people responsible for the “official version” are involved in the event to a point they’d rather not see brought out. So their involvement is thereby done away with in the “official version.”

We are all aware of the Kennedy assassination in Dallas on November 23, 1963 and the resulting Warren Commission Report purporting to explain to the rubes out here in flyover country just how it came about. If anything was ever a colossal flop it was the Warren Commission Report. Almost no one believed. It was just too–what shall we say–sanitized? I have often thought I’d like to have a five dollar bill (if they were still worth anything) for every assassination attempt I’ve ever read about that was performed by one lone, psychotic gunman, who kept a diary that had the last seven pages missing. You’d think the government pencil-pushers that write these reports could come up with a new scenario on occasion because no one believes this one anymore. It goes all the way back to the Lincoln assassination.

Over the years I have read three different books dealing with the JFK assassination, and upon a little reflection now, I’m not sure any of them were even close to the mark. But they are out there, along with a whole bunch of other theories, muddying up the waters. I remain convinced that the folks who really did have JFK done in are not unhappy to have a whole batch of theories out there because it makes it harder for anyone to find the wheat scattered among all the chaff floating around. And mixied in among this plethora of theories, somewhere, is the truth.

Oliver Stone, (not one of my favorite directors) made the movie JFK back in the 1990s and I think, from seeing the movie, plus reading Jim Garrison’s book, that Stone had got some of it right. The one problem I had with his movie was that there was so much gross language in it that you felt you needed to take a shower after you got home from watching it. But, for all that, I think he was beginning to put some of the pieces together.

There have been several versions of the JFK assassination that claim that the CIA was involved. I read an article on the Internet awhile back, the http://www.lewrockwell.com site, I think it was, that said that Kennedy was planning on trying to either dismantle or seriously curtail the CIA and its activities. That’d be reason enough right there to off him. Mind you, I’m no big fan of JFK’s either. I didn’t vote for him and at the time of his demise, I lived in his home state of Massachusetts. So I knew just enough about the Kennedys to know I’d never vote for any of them–including the one that never learned how to drive across a bridge straight.

Actually, there have been several articles on http://www.lewrockwell.com about the JFK assassination, all written by folks much more qualified than me, so I will quote just briefly. There was one published on September 29, 2014, by Josh Mitteldorf. He had been to a symposium about the assassination in Bethesda, Maryland and had come away somewhat disappointed. He wrote: Fifty years on, there is agreement only on the outline of a narrative: JFK was shot by several gunmen hiding on the ground in Dealey Plaza. Oswald had been preselected as scapegoat. CIA and LBJ were prime movers in the plot, but they could not have gotten away with what they did if JFK had not stood up to powerful military and financial interests and provoked their ire. Most readers if this site have long realized that the Warren Commission Report was a whitewash, and that JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy of government insiders. There was more, but this gives you the gist of it.

Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation wrote an article on the same subject on November 23, 2013 and offered some interesting insights. He wrote: So, what’s different about the Kennedy assassination? Why have so many people over the years, including brilliant researchers and analysts, concluded that the national-security state orchestrated and carried out Kennedy’s assassination? And then he lists a few reasons.

Some of them are: The countless anomalies in the Kennedy case, anomalies that make absolutely no sense at all except in the context of a national-security state assassination. The large body of circumstantial evidence pointing to a national-security state operation in the Kennedy assassination. The manifest evidence of fraud in the autopsy, which was controlled by the national-security state. The fact that the national-security state had the motive to kill Kennedy on grounds of national secutity. Mr. Hornberger had much more in his article and I would encourage you to go to the http://www.lewrockwell.com website and check it out, along with several of the other articles there on the Kennedy assassination. Needless to say, none of these articles reflects the contents of the “official version” which is exactly why they are worth reading.

Patriotic Americans, and especially Christians, should be in the forefront of looking for the truth in all areas. Sadly, most are terrified of even the idea of conspiracies, and if the subject is broached they will respond with “But don’t you know the Lord’s in control of it all?” That’s code language for “I don’t want to get involved.” In the first place, what do conspiracies have to do with the Lord’s being in control? The presence of conspiracies do not denote the Lord’s lack of control, nor should Christians be afraid of them. In fact, where possible, Christians should stand up and oppose them–of course they might have to do a little homework first–and that’s probably enough to stop most of them right there. Way too much personal responsibility in a little research! Better to just ignore the whole thing and pretend it doesn’t exist, then, maybe it’ll go away–maybe.

Has anyone stopped to consider that Jesus’ crucifixion was the result of a conspiracy? Did that thwart the Lord’s purposes? Hardly, and the Lord used it. So we are not talking about a lack of Divine control when we discuss conspiracies. We are talking about Christian opposition where necessary and possible, and Christian exposure where possible (Ephesians 5:11). Christians need to learn to be discerning and aware, not afraid.

Was the War of Northern Aggression a Marxist Revolution?

by Al Benson Jr.

The title of this article is asked as a rhetorical question, as Donnie Kennedy and I have already dealt in depth with this subject in our book Lincoln’s Marxists. But it does not hurt to ask it again, as many folks have not only not read our book, but they have never been confronted with some of the information that is now out there dealing with this subject. The leftist radicals in the early Republican Party were not bashful in giving away their socialist tendencies when they commented on the South and their plans for it and its people after the War.

James M. McPherson, who is by no means my favorite “historian” has dealt with some of this in an Internet article–Some Thoughts on the Civil War as the Second Revolution. McPherson seems to enjoy dealing with the subject of the War as if it were, indeed, a revolution, only he quotes the people that portray the Southerners as the revolutionaries. Needless to say, it was really the other way around. But then, a standard Marxist tactic is “condemn others and elevate yourself.”

McPherson noted the comments of future president James Garfield while he was in Congress, and he noted that: “During the first three of his seventeen years in Congress, Garfield was one of the most radical of the radical Republicans. He continued to view the Civil War and Reconstruction as a revolution that must wipe out all traces of the ancient regime in the South. In his maiden speech in the House of Representatives on January 28, 1864, he called for the confiscation of the land of Confederate planters and the redistribution of this land among the freed slaves and white Unionists in the South.” It hardly needs to be stated that such a concept is in total agreement with what Karl Marx advocated in the Communist Manifesto. This position was in total agreement with the first and fourth planks of the Communist Manifesto. Marx–sorry, I meant Garfield–then sought to excuse such Marxist confiscation on the premise that this had been done during our War for Independence with land that had belonged to the Tories. Of course a lot of the Tories had left the country, many going to Canada, and so much of their land was vacant anyway. And Garfield went on: “The leaders of this rebellion must be executed or banished from the republic…” So, was Garfield advocating mass executions of Southern leaders? Or at least their banishment so the federal government could then control the land that had been theirs? This was the same attitude as that displayed by General Sherman regarding Southerners–and it was still consistent with Marx.

Land confiscation was a cardinal tenet of Marxism and it was also a favorite among the Northern elite. In his book Citizen Sherman, Michael Fellman observed: “Land confiscation as one means of displacing the Confederate leadership had been discussed widely during the war. As early as August 24, 1862, John Sherman had written his brother, ‘If we can’t depend on the loyalty of the white men of the South, I would give the land to the blacks or colonize a new set (of northern whites).’ The general too had, since 1862, threatened Southerners with dispossession, their land to be redistributed to Northern white colonists…When the inhabitants persist too long in hostility it may be both politic and right that we should banish them and appropriate their lands to a more loyal and useful population…If they want eternal war, well and good; we will dispossess them and put our friends in their place…Many people with less pertinacity have been wiped out of national existence.” Almost makes you wonder if such is a veiled threat.

And Sherman made it quite plain that he would not hesitate to practice what we today call psychological warfare on the Southern people. According to Fellman, “His army would not inflict military defeat on a Confederate army, but intentionally humiliating destruction on a peaceful, cultivated Southern landscape and her people.” Lots easier to fight mostly unarmed Southern civilians than it is Confederate soldiers that can shoot back. But this is the way Marxists fight a war. Almost makes you wonder if Lenin took lessons from Sherman.

Radical abolitionist (and Unitarian) Wendell Phillips was among the most outspoken. In his mind he insisted that the War “is primarily a social revolution. The war can only be ended by annihilating that Oligarchy which formed and rules the South and makes the war-by annihilating a state of society. The whole social system of the Gulf States must be taken to pieces.” And dear old Thaddeus Stevens, that “gentle giant” of the radical abolitionists said they had to “treat this war as a radical revolution” and “reconstruction” then needed to “revolutionize Southern institutions, habits and manners…The foundations of their institutions…must be broken up and relaid, or all our blood and treasure have been spent in vain.” So, as you can see by the statements made, the real revolutionaries in this war were not the Southern people or their leaders, but were, instead, those among the Northern elite who had imbibed the doctrines of socialism that became so clearly apparent when they spoke. What they have been describing here is nothing less than what the Communists in Russia and China did when they took over those countries–cultural genocide. Change the culture and make it totally unrecognizable to those who had lived under the old Christian culture. For “those people” the war and “reconstruction” were nothing more than exercises in Cultural Marxism–the 19th century variety.

Back in 2012, Andre M. Fleche wrote a book called The Revolution of 1861: The American Civil War in the Age of Nationalist Conflict. I haven’t yet read it so I can’t comment all that much on it, but Fleche does deal with the Forty-eighters that Donnie Kennedy and I deal with in Lincoln’s Marxists. A review by Jarret Ruminski (University of Calgary) noted that: “Fleche supports his argument for the importance of 1848 by highlighting the significant roles European revolutionaries played in shaping American nationalist debates in the years leading up to the Civil War, and showing their continued influence after its outbreak.” So Mr. Fleche also recognizes how influential the Forty-eighters in this country were before the War and how their revolutionary influence affected what went on.

More and more, the general public, and especially Southerners, need to be much more aware of just how (from a socialist perspective) the North was influenced by the Forty-eighters and how that influence affected not only the War and “reconstruction” but how it has affected everything that has gone on since then.

This demonstrates that “reconstruction” never truly ended in the South, or anywhere else in the country, but is, in fact, in operation today. Obama’s plan to “fundamentally transform the United States” is all part and parcel of it. The old (Christian) culture has to be gotten rid of and a new one instituted. If you can say anything about Obama, you can truthfully say that he is a “change agent” for the New World Order, and he has taken many of his lessons in that area from Abraham Lincoln and from “Lincoln’s Marxists.”