Abraham Lincoln–Hero Of The Left–And Unfortunately The Right

by Al Benson Jr.

Those who have done research on Abraham Lincoln and his socialist proclivities realize he has been embraced by socialists, communists, and other left-wing types. This is common knowledge among many people. What is not always common knowledge, though, is that Lincoln, with all his socialist connections, is somehow still an icon of the right. That fact displays the large probability that those on the right have been taught bad history and had their historical understanding tampered with, which weakens their position.

Lincoln’s love affair with the left has been noted in an article on 2/20/23 on http://www.jacobin.com which notes that Abraham Lincoln is a hero of the left. The article states: “From Karl Marx to Eugene Debs to 1930s American Communists, leftists have regarded Lincoln as a pro-labor hero who played a crucial role in vanquishing chattel slavery. We should celebrate him today as part of the great radical democratic tradition.” If what this writer says is true, then Lincoln would have loved China Joe Biden and what he is doing to the country now.

The writer does not claim Lincoln was a socialist, but nonetheless, he grasped the “general concept” of socialism: the primacy of labor over capital and of liberty over property. The article continued: “Proclaiming ‘communism is 20th century Americanism’ leaders increasingly paired Lincoln with black abolitionists including Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, and Sojurner Truth…” If only those people had been aware of Lincoln’s racist turn of mind they might have taken a different tack. Their “hero” would probably have balked at being placed in the company of black abolitionists.

In actuality, Abraham Lincoln never freed a single slave. His “Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in the Confederate States and it left slaves in slave states still in the Union in bondage. There were five slave states in the Union, including West Virginia, that the proclamation did not apply to. The slaves in those states were technically not freed until the passage of the 13th Amendment, which came months after Lincoln departed this mortal coil. So Lincoln was not really opposed to slavery–unless it was Confederate slavery. He was okay with Union slavery. All the hype about him being the “Great Emancipator” is something we could label as “specious humbug.”

Most on the left, and many on the right, don’t like to hear the truth about Lincoln. In an article on http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org for 3/14/22 Dr. Boyd Cathey observed: “Since then (1981) criticism of Lincoln is not acceptable, not tolerated by mainstream conservatives. Instead the conservative establishment now heralds such neo-Reconstructionist historians as Allen Guelzo or even Marxist Eric Foner (a favorite of Karl Rove). Any dissent from the virtual cannonization of Lincoln with contemporary American society comes from mostly Southern traditionalists and their allies…”

Dr. Cathey is right. When I wrote for the old National Educator newspaper back in the 1980s and 90s I did a series of articles on Lincoln and his socialist connections. The people that complained the loudest were patriotic conservatives who were ticked off at my telling the truth about their patron political saint. They didn’t want to be exposed to the blemishes of their “conservative” hero! They refused to be confronted with the facts! Many staunch conservatives today still think today he actually freed the slaves!

In an article by Claude S. Fischer on 4/5/2011 on http://www.madeinamericathebook.wordpress.com it was noted that “During just one term (plus 45 days) Lincoln managed to do the following, ‘socialist-communist acts: taxed the wealth creators…exploded deficit spending…led a federal takeover of currency and banks…forced people to work for the federal government…indulged in government giveaways to special interests…expropriated private property for redistribution…”

Joe Biden would have loved him except for his party label. But, you have to remember that in the mid 1800s the Republicans were socialists and the Democrats were conservatives. Today, both parties are socialist–Council on Foreign Relations socialists!

I

Advertisement

The Faith (or Lack Thereof) of Abraham Lincoln

by Al Benson Jr.

I’ve written about this subject before, but not recently, and people nowadays seem to have a tendency to forget much of what they once learned. Our attention span as a people seems to be about seven minutes–the time between commercials on most television stations. What went on beyond the last commercial we often don’t remember too well. And for something we learned yesterday, forget it. It’s long gone!

What made me think of this was something I saw on the internet while looking for something else. I came across a site that said of Abraham Lincoln that he was the first “republican, Christian president.” Knowing what I know about Lincoln that almost made me choke!

Lincoln was supposedly raised in a strict Baptist family. There has even been some question in some circles about his ancestry. Some have claimed he was born in North Carolina where his mother was a servant of the Enloe family. I saw a short booklet about that once. Don’t know if that’s still among my research material or not.

Be that as it may, Lincoln never joined any church. As a young man he was noted as a skeptic and even noted for ridiculing Christian preachers and revivalists. Many who knew him for years like William Herndon and Ward Lamon rejected the idea that he was a believing Christian. Even his wife also said, at one point, that “Mr. Lincoln was not a technical Christian.”

James Adams 1783-1843, called Lincoln a deist. Lincoln was reported to have authored a manuscript that challenged orthodox Christianity and was taken from the ideas of unbeliever Thomas Paine. Some writers have pooh-poohed this but I have read enough about it to think it may well be true. Supposedly a friend after reading it, took it and threw it into the stove, telling Lincoln it would ruin his political ambitions–and in his day it would have. Today, in our apostate age, he might have gotten by with it, but not back then.

According to http://www.thegospelcoalition.org they say of Lincoln: “Well, the truth of the matter is that he was not. He was exposed to Christian influences all his life. He worked with Christian people…but Lincoln never joined a church, never was actively involved in any kind of Christian organization, in fact, had only most minimal religious profile in his own day.” When someone asked his law partner, William Herndon, about Lincoln’s religious faith, Herndon replied to the man “The less said about that the better.”

Donnie Kennedy and I had a chapter in our book Lincolns Marxists about how a freethinker viewed Lincoln. The freethinker was Col. Robert Ingersoll. This freethinker led the charge in defending Lincoln against the charge of being a Christian and instead argued that he was a freethinker. Freethinkers include atheists and agnostics. Christians they are not. I even read one place, and I did an article on this, where Lincoln was reported to be a Rosicrucian. But, then too, some evangelicals have claimed him. All the research I have done over the years has led me to the conclusion that Lincoln was far removed from the orthodox Christian faith.

Have Our Churches Been Neutralized?

by Al Benson Jr.

The answer to the question that is the title of this article is a resounding YES! There were things that pastors during our founding era dealt with that most pastors in our day won’t touch with a ten foot pole. For many reasons most pastors (and I say “most” because there are exceptions–not enough but some) have certain areas they are taught to avoid.

I noticed this occurring after the end of the War of Northern aggression and the “official” end of the Marxist “Reconstruction” in the South. At first I attributed it to the rise of dispensationalist theology in the South, which up to that time had not really been prevalent much south of Mason-Dixon but became so within five years after the “official” end of Reconstruction. And I think that theology did play a part, which I will deal with at a later date, Lord willing. But it was not the total problem.

The apostasy of the churches in the North into Unitarianism and Transcendentalism, and in some cases, Spiritualism, also was a major contributor to the problem for Southern Christians. Where Dispensationalism weakened the strength of the church, Unitarianism tried to kill it and replace it with the same apostasy it had promoted in the North and gotten away with.

In the book To the Victor Go the Myths and Monuments Arthur R. Thompson has outlined how much of this began. He wrote: “Perhaps the greatest influence on an existing church was that of Emerson and his coterie on the Unitarians. Emerson studied at the feet of German-educated theologians and became the leader of the ‘German School’ of American Unitarianism. He became a Unitarian minister but left over the administration of communion and public prayer–he was against both. By 1848 he had left the ministry entirely. He became America’s death-of-God theologian.’

Mr. Thompson continued: “By 1885, all of Unitarianism was of the persuasion of Emerson and Theodor Parker, and was heavily influenced by the entire spectrum of the Left and anti-God movements. The purpose for infiltrating the churches was not to destroy Christianity alone. The intent was to use the organizational remnants for the purpose of ‘Illuminizing’ the population that had a conscience; further, there were many socialist leaders, such as Horace Greeley, who felt that Americans would not support socialism unless it was tied to religion…This is why the founders of our country did not want state-approved churches: this has become known as the separation of church and state. It was never intended to be for the limitation of Christianity or its practice either in public or private. There are too many pronouncements of our Founders for the need of Christianity to be the conscience of the nation for the separation of church and state to really mean the suppression of Christianity from public life. Let us not forget that the term ‘separation of church and state’ was coined by Jefferson, and this idea has been drummed into the heads of Americans over and over again by the enemies of religion until even the religious believe it. In the beginning of our country many states had laws on the books that forbade the practice of opposing Christianity , These laws disappeared soon after our founding.” Which fact means that the Illuminists and their good buddies were at work early in our founding era. Lots earlier than most Christians even think about.

Mr. Thompson also observed: “Nonetheless, if the Illuminists could take over church after church and change them into arms of the conspiracy as well as the state, they would achieve their goal in any case. Or, if they could only convince those they did not take over to refrain from getting involved in ‘politics’ their opposition would be minimal and perhaps ineffective. Today, the attitude that conservative ministers should not preach politics prevails. This is largely due to the idea of separation of church and state having been ingrained into the thinking of conservative ministers. On the other hand, liberal ministers have no problem preaching the socialist agenda.. They pay scant attention to the idea of staying out of politics.”

Now I will agree that ministers should not stand up there and tell their congregations how to vote. However they should stand up there and make their congregations aware of the real political issues of the day and how those issues affect their families and their churches. One of the devil’s lies is that “you can’t legislate morality.” That’s total satanic hogwash. Every piece of legislation introduced reflects someone’s morality, either for good or ill.

And what do Christians read? Mr. Thompson has duly noted that: “The Illuminists and their descendants always had as a main tactic of capturing not only the public schools, colleges and publishing houses, but the seminaries and Christian publishing houses as well. Relative to the latter, they need not destroy faith as much as they need to neutralize Christians from effective opposition either by advocating not getting involved in politics , for whatever reason, or by advocating false solutions based on the lack of historical perspective by the Christian community who have been educated in the public schools…Again, they need not destroy faith , they only need to neutralize the religious from opposing the Conspiracy through ignorance or lack of resolve.”

Judging from what I have seen in many churches over the decades, I’d say they have done a masterful job of neutralizing Christians. I’ve heard all the excuses over the years from Christians who have been neutralized and had their faith tampered with. Ive heard some Christians say “All you have to do to defeat communism is to “preach the simple Gospel.” Wrong! We’ve had oodles of Christians doing that for decades and communism is still here and stronger than ever, thanks to our public schools where the Gospel is anathema. Preaching to your kids and then leaving them in public schools almost guarantees they will at some point, succumb to the wiles of socialism. So, if you want the “simple Gospel” to take root then get your kids out of the public schools!

Space won’t permit delving into many of these issues, but suffice it to say that our churches have been tampered with and most members and pastors don’t begin to have the remotest clue. So start doing a little homework and if you pray for guidance the Lord will reveal things you need to begin to be aware of.

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 Socialist Republican Party Ain’t Your Friend, Folks

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Many of us have been beguiled over the years into believing the outright lie that the “conservative” Republicans were out there protecting us from the liberal Democrats so we should all vote for them so they can keep on “protecting” us from those raving liberals. To say that such regurgitated hogwash is bovine fertilizer would be to give it credit it does not deserve. That’s how bad it is!

With some exceptions the Republicans are every bit as bad as the Democrats. But they dare not admit that lest it cost them votes in the next election. So they keep parroting the lie of Republican “conservatism.” A friend just sent me some of his comments on recent events and he made a good observation. He said: :”When the Republicans get in office they seldom totally clean out the Democrat appointees and their hires. Big mistake. Many of the really rotten ones were Bush era…The Bush people sabotaged Trump and are really partners with the Democrats.” He is right on target here, except the keeping by Republicans of Democratic holdovers is not a big mistake–it is intentional, because the Republicans and Democrats all work for the same people.

And anyone who tells you the Republicans will fight against socialism for you is whistling Yankee Doodle. Researcher Arthur R. Thompson, in his informative book In the Shadows of the Deep State gives us a little history I’m willing to bet will never show up in your high school history book. I have found some of the same stuff when I did research for Donnie Kennedy’s and my book Lincoln’s Marxists.

Mr. Thompson tells us: “The vast majority of Americans are not aware, for instance, that Karl Marx wrote for the New York Tribune for eleven years prior to and including the first year of the American Civil War. The Tribune at the time was the largest Sunday circulation newspaper in the United States. Marx was not the only European communist that wrote for the Tribune, and many on its editorial staff, as well as its publisher, Horace Greeley, were part of the communist network in America at that time. Horace Greeley was very active in forming an organization that established nearly 50 communist communes across America at the time. Greeley, along with two other prominent political figures, including one in the Senate, joined the First International shortly after it was formed. It was the communist/socialist organization that helped to build the circulation of the Tribune. The Tribune’s staff in turn played a major role in the establishment of the Republican Party in 1854 in the person of Alvan Bovay (after a planning meeting with Greeley about building a new party). Bovay worked for the Tribune for a time. The party was formed primarily out of the commune leadership that existed in Ripon, Wisconsin. This commune, known as Ceresco, was part of the Greeley organization…It was the socialist apparatus that propelled the rapid growth of the Republican Party to the extent that the Whigs faded away and finally politicians such as Lincoln joined the GOP in opposition to the Democrats months and years after it was founded…The Swamp is much older than people realize and one has to look back to see its origins and how it gained control, particularly over history.”

That, folks, gives you a brief introduction to the foundations of the “conservative” Republican Party, which really works hand in glove with the liberal (socialist) Democratic Party. Do you begin to grasp now why nothing ever changes in Washington? And why the Republicans, many of them closet socialists, stabbed Trump in the back? Are you beginning to connect the dots yet?

I hear people now howling about why we really need our two-party system to be strengthened. More hogwash, drivel, whatever you want to call it. We have not had a two party system in this country for over a century now and the supposedly conservative Republican Party was actually founded by socialists, not conservatives.

Anyone looking for “conservative” help from the Republicans may well get stabbed with the same knife they used on Trump! When Donnie Kennedy and I first got our book published the title of the first edition was Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists. Are you beginning to get a slight glimmer as to why we called it that?

The Lying Ministry Of Propaganda aka “The News Media”

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Much of the “news” media are blatant liars. But, then, what else is new. The news media, so called, has been lying to us since the days of utopian socialist Horace Greeley..

I checked out what the news media had to say about the results of yesterday’s electoral college vote as I wanted to find out how the different states voted. Needless to say, the so-called news media credited Harris/Biden with all the states that still have election cases before the courts. Sorry folks, but those states cannot legitimately be credited to anyone as of yet. But to the mainstream media that makes no difference whatever. They think they should all be given to Biden–so they just credit him with having “won” them whether such is true or not. Never let the truth get in the way of how you desire to report the “news.” After all, the truth is so inconvenient to the leftist agenda let’s just pretend it isn’t there and maybe the public won’t even notice.

Case in point–the news media has declared Nevada voted for Biden. All the news outlets quoted that, but I watched the video of Nevada’s electors casting their votes for Trump. Wonder how they will handle that one down the road. I expect they will just ignore it and hope us rednecks are too stupid to notice.

I watched yet another video of Republican electors showing up in Michigan, I think it was, to cast their votes and the state police were there to deny them entry. They couldn’t get in to cast their votes. It would seem that the Democratic electors had gotten there first and so they got to do their thing. Wonder how many other places this happened that we don’t know about yet.

Folks, I submit that this is not just massive election fraud–this is revolution! The leftist revolution has now moved from the streets into the state capitols–and no one dares to call it revolution!

I don’t know what Mr. Trump plans on doing about all this but it better be good and it better be soon!

The Abolitionists Were Really Globalists

 

By Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

 

We’ve all read about the Abolitionists and about their supposed noble endeavors to “free” the slaves. Most of what we read about these people would lead us to believe that’s the only thing they were all about—that freeing the slaves was their total agenda and once that was done, like old soldiers, they just sort of “faded away” never to be  heard from again. Suffice it to say that narrative is slightly less than accurate—for obvious reasons. We are not supposed to be aware of what else  the Abolitionists were involved in, lest we be alerted to what their game really was. The Abolitionists were really the globalists of the 19^th century—and some of them were among the foremost terrorists of the 19^th century.

Although, in their day, they were much more “up front” about their objectives, our present day “historians” have seen fit to drastically tone this down. These people are treated as heroes and compared to today’s Pro-Life Movement, which is a  terrible disservice to the Pro-Life Movement. Most of your pro-life folks are Christian oriented, and that’s the main reason they do what they do. The same can’t be said for the Abolitionists. Many of them were apostates and many were deep into the Spiritualist Movement.

William Lloyd Garrison, one of the  leading lights among the Abolitionists was quite plain about the agenda of the movement when he said: “The motto of our banner has been, from the commencement of our moral warfare, ‘our country is the world—our countrymen are all mankind.’ We trust that will be our only epitaph.” That definitely sounds like a totally globalist worldview. He went on to  say that, next to the overthrow of slavery, the cause of “peace” would command his attention, and  he ended up biy saying that: “As our cause is universal emancipation—to redeem women as well as men from a servile to an equal  condition,–we shall go for the rights of women to their utmost extent.” If you didn’t know better you’d think Garrison and Karl Marx had the same script writer. And then, on second thought…

We are never told that the Abolitionists had a strong leaning toward socialism. Many of them were Unitarians, and the Unitarians had the same leaning.

Enter the International Workingmen’s Association 1864-1872, in the United States. This group had ties to a group in London with the same name that was commonly known as the “First International.” Wikipedia has noted that: “The International made its way to American soil in 1866 when Italian socialist  Cesare Orsini, brother of an attempted assassin of Napoleon III,  arrived in the United States and attempted to organize an American section. Orsini managed to win the support of a number of a handful of ‘émigré’ socialists in New York City, in addition to gaining a sympathetic hearing from several prominent political figures,  including newspaper editor Horace Greeley, abolitionist orator Wendell Phillips, and radical Republican Senator Charles Sumner.” No matter what other positions any of the three above-mentioned men here held, they were all radical Abolitionists.

Supposedly the International started out  as a non-revolutionary union organization, but that charade didn’t hold too long, especially with members like Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Such men saw this organization as “a tool for the winning of state power from the bourgeoisie.”

Interesting to remember that the London branch of this group is the one that sent Abraham Lincoln a congratulatory letter after he had won a second term as president.

Another article http://pentracks.com/2016/03/illuminati-connections-to-unitarian-universalist-church-29-mar-16 gives a little more information about where some of the Abolitionists were really coming from. It says, in part, Illuminized Freemasonry intended to change the world by revolution. The book Occult Theocracy gives a good detailed background how so many of these revolutionary groups connected to the Occult Theocratic leadership (aka the Illuminati). She describes in detail the Illuminati member and revolutionist Giuseppe Mazzini. The Illuminati not only created revolutions throughout Europe, but wanted to split the U.S.A. Mazzini helped create the American Civil War by working with a secret group of 6 American UU ministers, who had created a secret group  that they called the Bird Club. The Bird Club was created to create a revolutionary type of war in the U.S.A. Gerrit Smith of the Bird Club appears to have been an Illum. Mmbr. Charles Sumner, a member of the Bird Club and a student of Freemasonry & revolution, made personal visits to occultic revolutionists in Europe, including Mazzini…” Gerrit Smith was also an Abolitionist and we see Mr. Sumner making yet another appearance. You can see that Abolitionists are scattered throughout     these revolutionary socialist groups.

And let us not forget the group called The Secret Six, that funded terrorist John Brown’s bloodbath at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. All of those men were radical Abolitionists, and one of them was the above mentioned Gerrit Smith. Another was Thomas Wentworth Higginson, a Unitarian minister who was “always ready to invest money in treason.” Incidentally, Rev. Higginson lived on into the 20^th century and helped found the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. Of igginsonH  Higginson Rev. R. J. Rushdoony noted  in The Nature of the American System that “On Higginson, as on other Unitarians of his era, the influences of French Revolutionary     thought  and English Fabianism  were extensive.”     This socialist mindset and its strong globalist tendencies is where your radical Abolitionists were really coming from and, as you can see, there was lots more involved than just “freeing the slaves.” All that was was a means to an end, but the real agenda stretched far beyond it.

 

Karl Marx—Deadbeat Daddy

 

By Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

 

On May 5^th of this year many celebrated the 200^th 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 5^th 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!