Communist and Socialist Influence In the “News Media” Since the 1840s


by Al Benson Jr.
Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

How many think the “news” media has only been a problem for the past few decades, from sometime around the 1950s until now? If this is what you believe then you have already swallowed half of their lie. In fact, the “news” media–so called–has been a propaganda organ of the Deep State from sometime in the 1840s. And always with a leftist slant!


If you are doing the homework you can begin to notice this in the late 1840s with some of the coverage given to the 1848 socialist and communist revolts in Europe by Horace Greeley’s paper the New York Tribune. Articles by Charles A. Dana for Greeley’s paper purported to cover what was going on at that time in Europe. What they didn’t tell you was that Dana was actually participating in those socialist revolts and then sending back “news” that made them look good. This is a tactic that has been used by the Left ever since then and it must work because lots of naive people seem to buy into such gobbledygook

.
This was particularly noticeable in the left-of-center coverage given to abolitionist/terrorist John Brown. The book John Brown’s War Against Slavery by Robert E. McGlone observed that: “To call the role of abolitionist correspondents in Kansas is to compile a list of John Brown’s admirers and disciples: James Redpath, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, William Addison Williams, Richard J. Hinton, Richard Realf, John Henry Kagi, and others. Just twenty in 1855 when he came to Kansas, Scottish-born James Redpath was a correspondent for three Republican papers, including Greeley’s New York Tribune.”


And he continued: “Englishman Richard J. Hinton, another reporter for Eastern newspapers, arrived in Kansas in June 1856. He soon joined Brown’s ‘army’ and later claimed he would have been at Harpers Ferry had he been properly informed on the date of the attack. Richard Realf reported for Eastern papers and rode with (James) Lane before volunteering to serve under Brown. John H. Kagi, Brown’s second in command at Harpers Ferry reported on Kansas for the Washington National Era..Kagi was the associate editor of the Topeka Tribune…”


Then there was leftist Unitarian Thomas Wentworth Higginson, the man who was “always ready to invest money in treason.” McGlone tells us that “His ‘letters from Kansas’ ran in several Eastern and Midwestern newspapers over the signature ‘Worcester’.” Do you begin to get the idea that John Brown was top-heavy with “news” correspondents? Obviously the political and theological Left had big plans for Brown and his agenda or he would not have rated this much “news” coverage.


But McGlone hasn’t told you everything. Whether that was on purpose or not I can’t say, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. To fill in some of the missing bits of info, we need to go to Arthur Thompson’s book To The Victors Go The Myths And Monuments. Mr. Thompson can always be depended on to give some what most of the rest leave out. He notes, of Brown that: “Brown also had veteran 48ers Charles Kaiser, August Bondi, and Charles W. Lenhardt who rode with him in Kansas, and the Chartist (English socialist) Richard J. Hinton. Many short histories of Brown leave out any reference to the majority of the aforementioned men. Brown was admired by Emerson, Thoreau, Theodore Parker, Gerrit Smith, Dr. Samuel Howe, and Frederick Douglas Frederick Douglas was close enough to Brown that Brown confided in him the location of what would become the raid on Harpers Ferry. After the raid, Douglas also fled temporarily to Canada for fear that he would be prosecuted for abetting. The official story is that he was worried about guilt by association. Actually, evidence captured at the time in the possession of John Brown implicated Gerrit Smith, Joshua Giddings, and Douglas…The membership in a wide variety of conspiratorial organizations just among the men who rode with Brown indicates a broad-based influence within the Left.


So you can see that the Left had plans to use Brown and his agenda for their own purposes. Brown was the cannon fodder for part of their leftist revolution in this country. So please, you folks on the left, please don’t continue to bleat about how communism was no problem in this country until Roosevelt. You are trying to defraud us of 100 years of your active agenda in this country in the hope that we will not pick up on it. Sad to say, for you, it isn’t working anymore.

When a Communist Was the Assistant Secretary of War

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Many may look at the title of this article and complain that “this has never happened in this country.” Sorry to disappoint you, but it has–and it wasn’t in the 20th century when we had a carefully orchestrated “Cold War.” It was in the 19th century, back when they try to tell us that communism didn’t exist here. They lied to us. It did exist here, but we are not supposed to realize that fact. It doesn’t bode well for the fake historians.

The man this article is about was not a Communist Party member. But he was a communist in this worldview and he ardently supported what they were doing.

By now, those of you that have followed history know who I am writing about–Charles Anderson Dana–the assistant secretary of war under Edwin M. Stanton in the Lincoln administration. Dana was a promoter of the communist worldview going back to the days before the socialist revolts in Europe in 1848.

An interesting article on https://djdnotice.blogspot.com for October 1, 2014 said of Dana that: “Brigadier General Joseph Weydemeyer of the Union Army was a close friend of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels in the London Communist League (Assistant Secretary of War Charles A. Dana, close friend of Marx, published with Joseph Weydemeyer a number of Communist journals and also ‘The Communist Manifesto,’ commissioned by Karl Marx. As a member of the Communist/Socialist Fourier Society in America, Dana was well acquainted with Marx and Marx’s colleague in Communism, Fredrick Engels. Dana, also, was a friend of all Marxists in the Republican Party, offering assistance to them almost upon their arrival on the American continent.) So there were Marxists in the early Republican Party. Reading most of our current “historians” who would’ve guessed?

Dana was also an author of some note (all the better to propagandize you, my dear). He is reported to have written a book Stanton’s Reporter: Charles A. Dana in the Civil War. He also wrote Proudhon and His Bank of the People,: Being a Defence of the Great French Anarchist,… There’s more to the title but I am not going to print the rest out here. It’s long enough for a short paragraph.

Another book mentioned in the research I located was written by Carl J. Guarneri and is called Lincoln’s Informer: Charles A. Dana and the Inside Story of the Union War. I don’t know where this author is coming from but his book shows there is still interest in Dana. The book Horace Greeley And Other Pioneers of American Socialism by Charles Sotheran notes, on page 291 that “Horace Greeley selected the best managing editor the Tribune ever had, from among the Brook Farm Socialists. This was Charles Anderson Dana, the present editor of the New York Sun. For those who may not know, Brook Farm was a socialist experiment in communistic living that eventually went belly-up as most socialist experiments do. It has been described as a “Unitarian, Humanitarian, and Socialistic experiment.”

Arthur Thompson in his informative book To The Victors Go The Myths And Monuments has noted on page 198 of that book that: “Charles Dana was a vice president of the National Convention of Associations. He was a member of the Proudhonian Club, nicknames the 48ers of America, composed mainly of Americans who had participated in the revolution of 1848-49 in Europe. In 1848 he spent eight months in Europe covering the revolutions for the New York Tribune, and he shared Marx’s views. Dana wrote that the purpose of the uprisings was ‘not simply to change the form of government, but to change for form of society.’ He did more than report. Dana is but one example of reporters who participated in revolutionary activities and then posed as impartial observers…This has long been a tactic of the Left, and continues to this day.” In other words, Charles Dana was part of the 19th century’s “Fake News” media. And let us never forget that it was him who hired Karl Marx to write for Greeley’s newspaper.

So here we have Charles A. Dana, writer, socialist revolutionary, and eventually Assistant Secretary of War under Edwin Stanton. And if you think Stanton was not aware of all this then you gravely underestimate Mr. Stanton. He knew! As sharp and shrewd as Stanton was he would have known all of this and still he pegged Dana as his chief informant. That should tell you something about Stanton as well as Dana. Dana was the perfect example of communist infiltration of the US government in the 19th century. We had plenty of that in the 20th century. I begin to wonder how much the 20th century infiltrators learned from Charles A. Dana.

Communism in America? Go Back to 1850

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I recently came across an article on https://www.historynet.com that was not new, but was interesting. It was originally published back in 2012, in June of that year, in Civil War Times. I used to read this magazine, but it had been my experience that it did not deal overly much with issues like this, as that was not politically correct at the time (and still isn’t).

Sarah Richardson wrote the article and it dealt with an interview it seems she had with Robin Blackburn, the author of the book An Unfinished Revolution: Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln. Blackburn is a British historian and former editor of the New Left Review so no one can accuse him of being a paranoid right winger. He brought out some interesting points about Lincoln and Marx. Richardson noted of Lincoln that “Up until the age of 21 he was working without payment for his father. On some occasions his father would hire out his son’s services and even then didn’t hand over the wages.” Blackburn seemed to think this may have affected Lincoln’s views on slavery. It’s possible but it’s hard to say for sure. Although we know from some of Lincoln’s later comments on slavery it was not a major issue in his invasion of the South. He claimed to be preserving the Union (though it was going to be a preservation by force). But he said at one point that if he could preserve the Union by freeing some slaves and not others, he would do it and if he could preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves he would do that. And his “Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 freed only slaves in Confederate territory. It freed no slaves in Union-held territory.

But the American connection to Marx goes further than Lincoln. Richardson’s article stated: “Marx himself was only 30 when he was caught up in the 1848 revolution, and he edited one of Germany’s main revolutionary newspapers. At that time, he was visited by Charles Dana, an American journalist and managing editor of the New York Daily Tribune. Dana later hired him as the Tribune’s European correspondent, A lot of his research for the Tribune ended up in his famous book Das Capital, published in 1867.”

Donnie Kennedy and I, in our book Lincoln’s Marxists, the first edition of which is still available under the title Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists dealt with Mr. Dana and his communist proclivities at some length. Mr. Dana was a prime mover and shaker in the movement to promote communism in this country in the 1850s. Arthur Thompson, author of the very informative book To The Victors Go The Myths And Monuments also deals with Charles Dana on page 198,givng more info on Dana’s leftist background.

The Tribune published, over the years, something like 450 of Marx’s articles, with at least 300 published under his name, though some researchers claim his helper, Engels, wrote quite a few of these because Marx was just too lazy to write when he often needed to, so Engels stood in the breath often while Marx was daydreaming about ways to save the world (for communism).

After the revolts of 1848 ended, thousands of the leftist revolutionaries involved fled to this country. Many of those kept in contact with Marx and continued their leftist activities by writing for German-language papers in this country, which, over time, eventually influenced many Germans here toward a Marxist point of view.

Richardson noted that “There were about 200,000 German-Americans who fought for the Union, and about 40,000 were in units that had the Germain language as the medium of command.” So these people were over here, supposedly to help the North “free the slaves, and they couldn’t even speak the language. Bet your “history” books never mention any of this! And besides, the idea of leftists fighting to “free” anyone from anything is just ludicrous All you have to do in our day is look at the countries that were enslaved under communism and you begin to understand the communist concept of “freedom.” You are “free” to do what the communists tell you to do or they shoot you or put you in a “re-education” camp” until you see things their way. And if you don’t, then they shoot you!

Richardson then notes that Dana, who had been responsible for getting Marx to write for Horace Greeley’s paper became the assistant secretary of war in 1862. He remained in close contact with good buddies of Marx like Joseph Weydemeyer who later became a general in the Union Army. And also mentioned “Another member of the Communist League in Germany in the 1840 was August Willich, who became a Union general.”

And she made another interesting point from her interview with Blackburn She said “Worth noting, too, that Marx and Lincoln were both influenced by German philosophy–in Lincoln’s case, as transmitted by such writers as Theodore Parker.” Parker was a noted Unitarian. And all the stuff I have read about him never mentioned anything about any German connections–but it now seems there were some.

We have got to begin to realize that communism in America was alive and well in the early 1850s here and that we have been lied to by those faux-historians that tell us you never had a problem with communism in America until the Roosevelt years. Let’s wake up and begin to do the homework ,lest we be victimized even further in our own day.

The Real Republican Party Is The Party Of Abraham Lincoln The Socialist

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

How quickly we forget our real history, if in fact we were taught any real history. I watched the despicable charade this week as establishment Republicans lined up waiting for their chance to stab Donald Trump in the back. They all got their chance and they wielded the knife with gleeful abandon. Voters should remember that and if by some chance a new political party should emerge from this horrendous betrayal then those that supported Trump should abandon the Republican Party yesterday if not sooner!

Rand Paul said that if the Senate agrees to impeach Trump after he has left office then fully one third of those in the Republican Party would bolt the party and go elsewhere. They should do that even if the Senate does not impeach. The Republican Party is not worth their support. It is run by scalawags like Mitch McConnell, whose wife either owns or has connections to a company in Communist China. So it would seem that, at real levels, McConnell has no problems with communists. To label those Republicans that stabbed Trump in the back as scumbags would, I think, be a step up for them.

We look at the Democratic Party in our day and recognize the taint of radical socialism has taken over that party. However, there was a time when the Democrats were the conservatives and the Republicans were the radical socialists. Today both parties are radically socialist at the leadership levels. The Republicans try to cover it up but they are lying to us.

If you look at the foundations of the Republican Party, going back into the 1850s, you find that those foundations lean heavily toward the far left. The Republicans’ first presidential candidate was John C. Fremont, the “pathfinder” and Fremont was a socialist. Donnie Kennedy and I dealt with him and his socialism in our book Lincoln’s Marxists. The second edition of our book is out of print, but the first edition, back in 2007, is still available.

The Republican Party’s second presidential candidate was Abraham Lincoln and Mr. Lincoln was also a socialist. Way back in 2006 I did an article for the internet called Mr. Lincoln The Socialist. You can still find it on the Dixie Outfitters website but not too many other places thanks to media and big tech censorship policies. Politically incorrect material is now being either removed or, at best, being shadow banned. Quite a bit of my material has suffered this fate.

I noted in the Lincoln socialist article that Mr. Lincoln had warm words for Robert Owen’s socialist experiment in New Harmony, Indiana. Lincoln was a great admirer of Henry Clay and his “American System.” I noted an article by Thomas DiLorenzo, written back in the late 1990s called Henry Clay–National Socialist. Tom DiLorenzo was right on target about Henry Clay’s socialism. So if Clay was a socialist and Lincoln was a follower and admirer of Clay, what does that tell you about Lincoln? The fact that Lincoln went out of his way to recruit socialist and communist generals for his Union Army shows he had no problem with socialists and communists. And please don’t try to tell me Lincoln didn’t know where these guys were coming from. Lincoln was not stupid–he knew!

And today’s Republicans know too. They have no trouble sitting at the same political table with socialists and communists as long as they can get their slice of the political pie. That’s what the Republican Party is really all about. They are the “loyal opposition” to the Democratic Party. In fact their agenda is to take us over the same political cliff as the Democrats. They just want to do it a little slower. That’s the only difference between the two parties. The Republicans are just “slow Democrats.” We would do well to remember that. I do hope Mr. Trump has learned that lesson. Maybe it will stand him in good stead down the road if he remains politically active.

Karl Marx—Deadbeat Daddy

 

By Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

 

On May 5th of this year many celebrated the 200th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx. You’d think from some of the articles  I read, mostly on the internet, that  Marx was a daring, bold economic visionary who had come up with a new economic system that proved to be a boon to mankind. Of course that’s the line today’s current crop of Marxist professors have been programmed to parrot. Unfortunately they parrot it to a whole batch of college students who, thanks to inadequate economic education at the high school level, really don’t have a clue and if the professor is good enough he can,  as they say, “baffle them with his BS.”

Supposedly, Marx’s economic vision was put forth for the benefit of the  poor working  people. That that idea was a total charade has been proven by the millions of poor working people that have  perished under various Marxist regimes around the  world. Anyone who believes that hogwash truly has to have spiritual and economic blinders on.

Steve Byas, writing on https://www.thenewamerican.com for May 5th wrote: “While Marx is certainly a central figure in the history of communism, he was by no means the lone originator of communism. And his background demonstrates  that communism did not  spring from the toiling masses of the working class. The reality is that Marx, like almost all socialist revolutionaries, was a product of academia and self-proclaimed intellectual secret societies.” It has been reported that Marx didn’t write The Communist Manifesto on his  own, but rather he wrote it for a group called The League of the Just  (Illuminati) and his name does not even appear on the cover of the first edition.

Donnie Kennedy and I, in our book, Lincoln’s Marxists, noted that Charles A. Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune hired Marx to write columns for the paper, which was owned and published by utopian socialist Horace Greeley. From 1851 to 1862 Marx contributed about 500 articles to Greeley’s paper—his associate Friedrich Engles probably wrote about a quarter of them. He was more well versed in English than Marx was, and besides, Marx was a bit on the lazy side. It seems, though, that he had no trouble taking pay for the articles Engels wrote.

Leopold Schwarzschild, in his book The Red Prussian published in 1947 by Charles Scribner’s Sons noted of Marx that: “In all this there was nothing to indicate that from now on collections, subscriptions and charity were to be this brilliant young man’s sole means  of support. Nobody could have imagined it, and yet so it was. With the collections and subscriptions of 1844 he embarked on a life which was never again, in all the long decades, to have any other basis.” In other words, for all his supposed economic prowess, Marx and his family mostly lived on charity—and a lot of that came from his friend Engels.

Recently I ran across an article from 2010 on https://hubpages.com entitled Karl Marx Lived in Filth and Neglected His Children. The article observed that: “When an educated man chooses to live in poverty , and raise his children in poverty, that is abuse. When Marx and his wife and children were living in London, a visitor wrote a description of  their lifestyle in their 3-room flat. Not only did the Marx children have to endure the hunger of  poverty, they were raised in filth, or what his friend described as ‘a pig-sty’….Both Marx and his wife came from comfortable homes, hers more prominent. Her father was a Prussian baron. And she, Jenny, was an educated woman when she married Marx. Together they had seven children. Four of those children died young. Only three survived to achieve adulthood. Every biography of Marx reports that his four children who died  young died because of the poverty they had to endure…Marx occasionally wrote articles for newspapers and he wrote his long papers and books full of his philosophies about the ‘struggle’ of workers, but he never worked a day in his life”

He also fathered an illegitimate son, but you don’t hear much about that little indiscretion. The hub pages article observed, in closing, that “By any standard, Marx’ life was a failure, as a husband,  as a father, as a provider.” But, hey, Marx didn’t have time for any of that bourgeois stuff.  He and his fellow socialist revolutionaries/terrorists had  an agenda to push onto the world. They just didn’t have any time available for being good fathers and good providers and good husbands. That was for the plebes, not them. They were above all that!

So all those useful idiots that want to enthuse over Karl Marx should take a step back and realize that, when push came to shove, Marx was little more than just another Deadbeat Dad!