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.

We May Lose Because We Don’t Care About Our History

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Over the past week or so I have posted a couple articles about terrorist John Brown and some of his leftist connections (yes, he had some leftist connections).

Some of the comments I got back from various places my articles were posted were, how shall I say it, downright abusive. Everything from “who cares about all this crap?” to comments that used profanity that I won’t go into.

Some of this made me reflect a little and I came up with the possibility that, at least in our day, we may well lose the struggle for our freedom because many on our side of the political and theological fence not only do not comprehend or grasp the importance of our history, they just don’t care. They are not interested.

What they don’t seem to realize is that if we don’t have a firm grasp on what has happened throughout our history they will never be able to fully understand what is going on now and if they don’t understand it they will be ignorant of how to deal with it. Yet many, if not most, seem to be at that point. They don’t seem to understand that what has gone before affects what is happening right now and if you try to explain that to them they get mad at you.

Over the past few years I have seen writers of fiction that grasp the importance of history more than the average American. Of course the way history is taught in most public schools does not help this situation. I’ve had people tell me “history is boring.” If you understand it, it really isn’t boring. But it is taught in such a way as to turn people off because if they truly understood our history then they might have problems with where we find ourselves today. The powers that be would just as soon avoid that problem. So history is taught in such a way as to make people lose interest in it and fail to see how important it really is.

People in their “history” classes in school are taught that the War of Northern Aggression was fought only over slavery and nothing else. If you dare to bring up the issue of tariffs as a major cause of that war then you are probably going to be called a racist because the establishment version of that history has no place for the tariff issue–and so you never hear about it. You have to do your own research to find that out and if you try to explain that to people, they mostly don’t care.

Even here in the South, our kids in public schools, and some private ones as well, are taught that their ancestors fought to keep their slaves–even though only about six percent of Southern folks owned any slaves. We are supposed to believe that the other 94% fought so the 6% could keep their slaves. Is this stupid or what? Yet most of us are too lazy to find out the real truth. It’s lots easier to just get mad at those trying to inform you than it is to check out what they are telling you.

The rationale today is to “shoot the messenger and ignore what he tells you.” Eventually there will be no more messengers–and you will lose your liberty because you were too lazy to listen when you had the chance. And when that happens I suppose it will all be Trump’s fault!

John Brown & Hugh Forbes–Conspiracy & Treason

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

In my most recent article I dealt with terrorist John Brown and his dealings with a man named Hugh Forbes, who, as I now have found out, was a Forty-eighter revolutionary–and probably much more.

Forbes gets some mention in some of the books about John Brown. J. C. Furnas, in his book The Road To Harpers Ferry took note of Hugh Forbes. He commented: “To drill them (Brown’s “army) Old Brown had enlisted another odd fish,’Colonel’ Hugh Forbes, a British soldier of fortune who had quit the silk trade in Italy to turn guerilla with Garabaldi.” There were Forbes’ Forty-eiglhter bonafides right there.

Otto Scott in his book on John Brown, The Secret Six: The Fool As Martyr told us a bit more about “colonel” Forbes. He revealed that: “One man to whom such words sounded familiar and reallistic was Colonel Hugh Forbes, a former officer under Garabaldi in the Revolution of 1848. English-born, fluent in both French and Italian, Forbes was editor of a small Italian language newspaper in New York.He was also a fencing master and a translator at the New York Tribune–a paper that harbored many revolutionaries including Karl Marx–among its European correspondents. Interestingly enough Colonel Forbes had been brought to (Thomas Wentworth) Higginson’s attention by Senator Sumner, who had a wide acquaintance among European revolutionaries.” Forbes had written a two-volume book on military warfare published in Italy and he recommended his books as a manual for volunteer soldiers. He talked to John Brown about this and Brown agreed to pay him a hundred dollars a month to “summarize the lessons of Italy in English for Brown’s own projected volunteer ‘army’ …”

Writer Steve Byas did an excellent article in the New American Magazine back in February of 2017, Volume 33 No. 3 entitled John Brown’s Lethal Legacy. Mr. Byas noted how those that made up the Secret Six group that supported and financed John Brown were in favor of a violent revolution. He observed: “If Brown was going to lead a bloody revolution he would need a person with more military experience to help train his ‘army.’ The steady contributions of the Secret Six enabled Brown to hire Colonel Hugh Forbes for the job. Forbes had been an officer under Italian radical Giuseppi Garibaldi, a soldier in the Revolution of 1848. Born in England and fluent in Italian and French, and worked as a translator fror the New York Tribune. Among the European correspondents for the Tribune was Karl Marx, the author of the Communist Manifesto. The newspaper regularly provided space for the opinions of European revolutionaries. Forbes had been introduced to the Secret Six by Senator Sumner–a man who later became an actual communist and who was on a friendly basis with many of the revolutionaries in Europe. It is well establislhed from the history of communist revolutions elsewhere that Marxist revolutionaries seize upon issues such as slavery for their own purposes. If there is a ‘class struggle’ they exploit it, and if there isn’t such a conflict, they work to create one.”

Forbes had some problems with Brown’s plan for Harpers Ferry, but other abolitionists did also, Frederick Douglas among them. Forbes didn’t think Brown had enough men for such an effort. Steve Byas told us: “The disgruntled Forbes threatened the Secret Six with exposure of their role in Brown’s treasonous plans and this evidently caused a delay of the plan’s execution for several months from 1858 to 1859…Higginson was supportive of Brown, saying, ‘I am always willing to invest in treason.’ Sanborn’s sentiments were similar: ‘Treason will not be treason much longer, but patriotism’.”

So this is what you are dealing with–treasonous behavior trying to pretend it is somehow virtuous and patriotic. Sort of reminds you of what is going on now with the Harris/Biden regime.

This all fits in quite well with what Aurthur R. Thompson has told us in this revealing work To The Victor Go The Myths & Monuments. Of Forbes Mr. Thompson told us that: “Considering that all involved knew that Forbes was working for Mazzini, it is obvious that important Americans welcomed the involvement of a key Carbonari in their operations. It was not simply a plot by Brown; it involved many prominent people who had no problem involving the Carbonari–if they too were not already part of the Carbonari conspiracy, or lhigher up the ladder themselves. Here we see that conspiratorial forces worked both sides of the conflict; within the Brown initiative and the KGC. Supposedly, the two were in opposition, but in reality theiy were guided by one force linking back to the Carbonari network. Mr. Thompson also noted that Brown, in Kansas, “had veteran Forty-eighters Charles Kaiser, August Bondi, and Charles W. Lenhardt who rode with him in Kansas, and the Chartist Richard J. Hinton.”

So between Forbes and those Forty-eighters that helped him in Kansas, Brown was well supplied with leftist revolutionary assistance. Sort of makes you wonder what John Brown was really all about doesn’t it? Maybe down the road apiece we need to look at the backgrounds of some of those that supported Brown a llittle bit more.

John Brown–Conspirator

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Over the years I have run into many who seem to venerate John Brown of Harpers Ferry “fame” as though he were some sort of savior for mankiind. Actually the opposite is probably closer to the truth. I have, recently, in an article on John Brown, referred to historian Otto Scott’s thoughtful work on Brown The Secret Six–The Fool As Martyr. It goes into Brown and those radicals that supported and financed his activities.

Another book I have often referred to and recommended is one by Arthur R. Thompson To The Victors Go The Myths And Monuments. Mr. Thompson has also done yeoman duty in exposing conspiracy in this country and those who are part of that conspiracy to take this country down, indeed to take all of Western Christian civilization down–for that is their ultimate goal.

John Brown was involved in that conspiracy, which still exists in our day. On page 291 of his book, Mr. Thompson tells us about John Brown’s involvement. He says: “The entire life of John Brown was involvement in conspiracy, including the conspiracy that had worked for years to destroy the social order of the country and replace it with Illuminist ideas. he named as one of the trustees of his will William Russell, the founder of the Order.” The Order he is talking about here is the Order of Skull & Bones, which some of you all must have heard of. Historian and Professor Antony Sutton wrote a book about the Order of Skull & Bones back in the 1980s called America’s Secret Establishment. It was a controversial book and Sutton had a hard time getting it published. I think he eventually self-published it.

Mr. Thompson observed that: “Since the growth of the Internet, the widespread reputation of Skull and Bones,the Order, has proliferated, with more and more people paying attention to such things, and some modern histories of Brown have dropped any references to Brown’s connections with William Russell. Apparently to refer to Russell in connection with Brown would raise some eyebrows…Brown was the first political terrorist of his kind. Before, terrorism was a part of government, either against their own people as a means of ruling them, or aainst another citizenry whom they wished to influence into some form of reaction, or tribe against tribe….In the case of Brown, he was backed by those who wanted a change in government for their own purposes. He was their instrument to wage terrorist activity to react the people into accepting war and the changes wrought by that war. And his arms were supplied by these men. Brown had conspirators in government at the state and federal level who helped him, even though his enterprise was not sanctiioned by the government. Indeed,if the federal government had done the job it was supposed to do, the army would have arrested Brown and the others in the Kansas Territory who were causing the mayhem on both sides.”

Thompson contined: “Brown hired Hugh Forbes, an Englishman who had fought under Garibaldi,to train his soldiers in 1857.In most volumes about Brown, little is mentioned about Forbes except tlhe foregoing. When looking into his background, it becomes very interesting that he linked up with Brown and subsequent events. The story of Forbes is that he was an emissary and operative of Mazzini in the United States. He was asked to come to America in that capacity and work with the emigres who had removed to the New World. Literally thousands of members of the European Carbonari front groups had moved to America after 1848. They needed to be pulled together into a cohesive organization to work for the goals of the Carbonari. Forbes was one of the main men tasked to do the job by Mazzini, if not the leader of the effort,to at least pull together the lower political levels of Carbonari influence. Forbes was pressed on Brown by his backers in the East.” So it was all not just a plot by Brown. He was part of something much bigger–one cog in the wheel of conspiracy to take this country down. And as for these European Carbonari that came over here after 1848–how many of them were the Forty-eighters Donnie Kenedy and I wrote about in Lincoln’s Marxists? I wouldn’t mind having a dollar for every one that was.

So John Brown was an integral part of the conspiracy that was working to destabilize the United States, using terrorism as part of their agenda. And if Brown was part of all that, what about the people that financed and promoted him? Were they all part of that also? Or as the man says “Will the sun rise in the East tomorrow?”

More on John Brown in the near future.

Tariffs And Slavery

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

The professional South-haters among us, and their number, thanks to horrendous “education” is legion, insist that the War for Southern Independence aka the War of Northern Aggression, was only fought so the South could keep her slaves and for no other reason. Indeed, those folks do not even want to consider looking at any other reason for that war. Other reasons would interfere with their anti-South agenda and so no other reason than slavery for that war need ever apply because it will never be considered.

I have run into these anti-South zealots over the years. Some have even accused me of defending the South so we would be able to reinstitute slavery here should we ever desire to. What balderdash! No one in his right mind wants to reinstitute slavery–here or anywhere else–except maybe some of the political types in Washington via the programs they plan to institute by some of their legislation they hope we are all too dumb to figure out.

Awhile back Dr. Clyde Wilson did an article on https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org called Why The War Was Not About Slavery. Dr. Wilson is a historian and an expert in his field so he knows whereof he writes. His article states, in part, “Let’s consider the war and slavery. .Again and again I encounter people who say that the South Carolina secession ordinance mentions the defense of slavery and that one fact proves beyond argument that the war was caused by slavery. The first states to secede did mention a threat to slavery as a motive for secession. They also mentioned decades of economic exploitation and the seizure of the common government for the first time ever by a sectional party declaredly hostile to the Southern states. Were they to be a permanently exploited minority, they asked? this was significant to people who know their fathers and grandfathers had founded the Union for the protection and benefit of ALL the states.”

Dr. Wilson continued: “It is no surprise that they mentioned potential interference with slavery as a threat to their everyday life and their social structure. Only a few months before, John Brown and his followers had attempted just that. They murdered a number of people including a free black man who was a respected member of the Harpers Ferry community and a grand-nephew of George Washington because Brown wanted Washington’s sword as a talisman. In Brown’s baggage was a constitution making him dictator of a new black nation and a supply of pikes to be used to stab to death the slave-owner and his wife and children.” Bet your high school “history” books forgot to fill you in on some of that didn’t they?

It was noted by Dr. Wilson that slavery was not under any real threat if they just stayed in the Union. Lincoln had already told them that. He had told them that he had no intention of bothering slavery where it already existed so the idea of the Southern states seceding so they could just keep their slaves is beyond ludicrous.

Another interesting article appeared on https://www.mightytaxes.com dealt with the Corwin Amendment, which was the original version of the 13th Amendment. This article noted that “The Corwin Amendment not only protected the institution of slavery, but included language to make itself unamendable so that no future amendment to the Constitution could undo it. Essentially this first version of the 13th Amendment secured slavery as a permanent institution in America.” And who, might you ask, was this man the amendment was named after? None other than Thomas Corwin, a congressman from Ohio! That’s right, Ohio–not the heart of Dixie! That could be one reason you never see this dealt with in the “history” books. Had Mr. Corwin been from Alabama rather than Ohio you can bet this would have made it into the “history” books. But the information that a Northerner had introduced an amendment to perpetuate slavery was something the court historians long ago decided you didn’t need to be aware of. So they made sure you weren’t.

This same article quoted Charles Dickens when he said “The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.” I’d say that was a pretty accurate statement.

The article also observed “As you can see, in early 1861 the institution of slavery was secure in America, and Abolitionists were still largely a far-left group of ‘crazy liberals,’ so why go to war? Well, taxes of course. Just before Lincoln took office departing President Buchanan signed a tariff even worse than the Tariff of Abomination of 1832. The new tax in 1861 was called the Morrill Tariff, and it was the highest tariff in American history, taxing imports at over 45%, with iron products taxed at 50%! Victorious Republicans cheered the heavy taxes that benefitted the Northern industrialists who backed Lincoln. In Lincoln’s inaugural address he made no mention of ending slavery, but did promise to collect high taxes in imports in the South under all circumstances and without exception…The fuse had been lit on the American Civil War. While the North was willing to live with slavery in the South, there would be no such concession on taxes. The forts in Southern ports would be used to enforce tariffs and collect taxes even if the South seceded.”

Lincoln wanted his pound of financial flesh from the South no matter what. Now, again, I realize facts like this get in the way of the South-haters’ “It was all about slavery” agenda and to perpetuate that agenda they cannot afford to be confused with the facts so they ignore them. To paraphrase the comments from a former Obama flunky–“never let a bad agenda to to waste!” And they haven’t, nor do they ever intend to.

Terrorism in America Isn’t New–Nor will it cease anytime soon

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Recently a friend at church asked me a question that showed he had been thinking. He said “Was there anything like the BLM around before the Civil War?” It was a good question, one most people would not have thought of in our day of gross historical ignorance.

After a bit of thought what popped into my mind was terrorist John Brown’s atrocities in Kansas and his attack on the arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. The parallels to today are quite striking. Brown was a 19th century terrorist trying to do away with slavery. I have seen comments that he was some sort of communist. I would not doubt that. He had two Forty-eighters in his merry little band of terrorists when he was in Kansas. I don’t think they came east with him.

While in Kansas he made a point of attacking Southern families, even if they owned no slaves. John Brown and his “Northern Army” made war on Southerners even before Abe Lincoln did–just because they were Southerners. Terrorists always make war on innocent people. It scares most people into non-resistance to the terrorists efforts and goals.

I found an informative article by Steve Byas in the Feb. 7th, 2017 issue of the New American Magazine entitled John Brown’s Lethal Legacy. Mr. Byas went into quite a bit of detail about Brown’s terrorist activity and also about the wealthy northeasterners that financed and supported it. You should be able to find this on the internet. I did.

In referring to Brown’s terrorist killings in Kansas, Mr. Byas noted: “These brutal murders took place during the struggle between violent pro–and anti-slavery forces for control of the Kansas territory–known to history as ‘Bleeding Kansas.’ While the body of John Brown, as the song says, is ‘moldering in the grave,’ his example still inspires modern radicals, who justify violence upon the innocent if the cause is ‘just.’ Following the election of Donald Trump, Brown was specifically cited by some extremists to justify a violent response…and behind similar violent protesters today–are the radical men with the money,…” Indeed, the group that is called The Secret Six that supported and financed John Brown were the George Soros’ and Rockefellers and Fords of their day–“willing to invest money in treason” as Unitarian Thomas Wentworth Higginson said in that day.

If you want to check out what some of the present day radicals on the left are doing then do an internet search on The John Brown Gun Clubs.

Another interesting site you might want to check out is https://www.redneckrevolt.org/principles This site claims it is “putting the red back in redneck.” Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what they are talking about. Where Black Lives Matter is directed at blacks, this site is directed at whites, but they stand for the same things that BLM does–tearing down capitalism and “white supremacy” and their (not your) right to revolution.

And one more for your reading pleasure https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/blms-war-on-the-deplorables The sources listed here should give you some idea of what is going on in our day–and what has gone on since the War of Northern Aggression–and before. It’s nothing new, folks. To figure it out all you need is a sense of history and being willing to connect the dots. It’s like the Bible says in Ecclesiastes, “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun.”

Leftist radicals in the 1850s had the same goals as they do in our day–the destruction of our country and its culture and its real history. Didn’t know it had been going on that long, did you? That’s because most of us were never taught real history–but it’s not too late for us to learn.

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 19th century—and some of them were among the foremost terrorists of the 19th 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 20th 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.

 

To Change Society And Culture

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

If you change a society or culture, you will eventually change its form of government. It may not happen overnight, but it will happen. One major way that will happen is through mass immigration, especially by groups that refuse to assimilate and who continually demand that the society they refuse to assimilate into start to accept the cultural norms of those who refuse to assimilate. You see that with the push for Sharia Law in areas of this country and especially in Europe. The Marxists and those they front for realize they can’t change your form of government unless they can manage to change your society. Another way they can do it is with war, especially a war right on your own soil, but more about that later.

The Marxists (and those they front for) have several main objectives in any country they seek to subvert. One of the most overriding is the destruction of religion–especially Christianity.  The Marxists cannot share the throne with God, for they can never claim the total allegiance of a people that continue to put God first. This defines the Marxists, cultural and otherwise, as anti-Christs. More Christian people should be aware of this. Sadly, today, not enough are.

In the late 1800s the Marxist mindset penetrated Christian publishing. The Marxists were devious, in that they did not always question the truths of Scripture, but what they did instead was to subtly stress that Christians not “get involved” in “worldly” issues such as politics. How many of you all have heard that old saw that says “the only two things you should never discuss in public are religion and politics.”  If enough Christians adhere to this highly dubious admonition they will never question anything any government says or does because it would be “worldly” to do so. So, if a government does  something that is ungodly,  the Christians are just supposed to keep their lips buttoned and say nothing? I’m sorry, but that’s hogwash! What about Acts 5:29?

Another main tenet of the Marxist agenda is the abolition of private property. You shouldn’t really own anything–land, houses, cars, businesses, etc. Such “wealth” should be “redistributed” and belong only to “the people.”  You never get a firm answer as to who “the people” really are, but I have a sneaking suspicion that, when push comes to shove, it’s really those people that are trying to make the rest of us live by their Marxist”rules.”

Another one high on the Marxist agenda is the death of individualism and also the death of the family as defined in Scripture. The Marxists don’t want individualists. They think for themselves and that’s not something the Marxists want to encourage. Independent thought is verboten. There are parts of this country where that concept has taken hold. New England, with its history of Unitarian apostasy comes to mind. Independent thinking, and the family, have to go if you plan to change the society. So the Marxists repudiate traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Rather they promote all  manner of deviant substitutes as described in Scripture.  The deification of sensuality is promoted because it waters down the traditional culture.

And, one of the most important, they have to gain control over the  educational system. Marx mentions this in The Communist Manifesto.  That means they have to control what is taught (the curriculum) and the way it is taught. The Marxists long ago realized  what  the vast majority of Christians have not even begun to think about, let alone grasp–that whoever controls the educational system of a country will eventually control where the next generation goes. Ask the people in Kanawha County, West Virginia about this one.  You are ever only one generation away from losing your liberty. All the above and much more need to be done to advance the program of One World Government, or the New World Order or whatever catchy title the Deep Staters care to attach  to it.

And you all need to realize that all this did not originate in the febrile brain of Karl Marx. All that Marx did in the Manifesto was to take the program handed to  him by the League of the  Just (Illuminati) and write it  down in codified form. The first edition of this  monstrosity never even had Marx’s name on it.  After that they let him put his name on it because, then, most people would think it was his brainchild and he was  its original source and therefore, the Illuminati would be one step removed from public consciousness.

More on this as the Lord allows.

Those Plundering Abolitionist Preachers (do unto others before they do unto you)

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Should you have chanced to read any history at all dealing with our “Civil War” really the War of Northern Aggression, you must surely have read something about “bleeding Kansas.” I can remember reading about that in my pre-teen “history” books.

Most of what you have probably read goes into some detail (fake history?) about how the greasy, slave-owning, bushwhacking denizens of Missouri spent all their spare time (when they weren’t beating their slaves to death) raiding across the border into that pristine abolitionist wilderness called Kansas, which as we have all been taught, was the home of all loyal, virtuous, pure-as-the-driven-snow abolitionist types whose only aim in life was a holy crusade to free all slaves everywhere from bondage.

If you are like the rest of us, you were probably spoon-fed the historical hogwash that this was the only type of behavior you could ever expect from the dregs of humanity that inhabited Missouri, while those wonderful folks living across the line in Kansas would never dream of engaging in such horrible deeds.

To say that the “historians” got this backwards would probably be an undeserved act of naive charity. Most of them, then as now, got it backwards on purpose because the actual truth was revolting enough that they just knew you didn’t need to be aware of it–lest you should begin to question the veracity of Mr. Lincoln’s “holy cause.”

For all the lofty pretensions of the cause of abolitionism, Kansas was populated by some who felt it was their “holy calling” in life to raid across the border into Missouri for whatever they could get out of it for themselves. It was what some might call “abolitionism for fun and profit.” The fun was burning the homes of Missouri farmers, the profit was hauling off all the loot they could carry away from those homes before they torched them.

In his book Bloody Dawn, author Thomas Goodrich noted the character of such sterling individuals as Kansan Charles Jennison. He noted: “Actually the outbreak of civil war simply lent an aura of legitimacy  to a program Jennison had been pursuing all along.  Jennison has been characterized as cruel, heartless, cowardly, and a moral vagabond.” A charitable description!

Goodrich continued: “Whatever the opinion, Jennison and his regiment became in fact the scourge and salt of western Missouri during the first summer and winter of the war. One by one the towns along the border fell victim to their forays. Stores were looted, safes emptied, elegant homes gutted. Nor was the countryside spared. Night after night the skies over the border were aglow as barns, cabins, and crops were set ablaze. Those hapless farmers lucky enough to escape the torch watched powerlessly while the fruits of their labor were hauled off in their own wagons. Herds of cattle, horses, and sheep were likewise driven west.” And it was all for the “glorious” cause of “preserving the Union.”

Even for all of that, Jennison might have created less furor had he been a bit more selective in whom he burned out, but he was not. He was an equal opportunity plunderer. He ventured out after anyone who had loot he could steal (for the preservation of the Union). Goodrich noted that, because of Jennison’s behavior, many in Missouri who might have remained Unionists, or at least fence-straddlers, became violent enemies of Lincoln’s war effort once Jennison had ministered unto them of the healing balm of abolitionist mercy.

And then, to give holy unction to Jennison’s activties, along came the abolitiionist preachers. Chief among them was one James Montgomery. This worthy has been described as a Bible-toting evangelist, but in his book Quantrill of Missouri author Paul R. Petersen has painted a somewhat different picture of Montgomery’s evangelistic methods. In discussing the depredations of some of the Kansans, Petersen noted: “The people who attacked him were not Missourians;  they were Jayhawkers. These people stole from friend and foe alike, and the group that attacked Quantrill’s camp (this was even before the war commenced)  supposedly belonged to James Montgomery’s band of thieves. Montgomery was a preacher from Linn County, Kansas Territory, and a captain in James Lane’s militia. In the late  1850s he was arguably the most feared of the border marauders,  and even before the war, he led forays for plunder into Missouri.”

Petersen also noted in his book another “interesting” Kansas character, one John Ingalls, who wrote to his father back in Massachusetts telling him of conditions in Kansas. He said: “One remarkable feature of the social conditions here is a total disregard of the Sabbath…” You might wonder, with all those fiery abolitionist preachers running around there why such a situation existed. It would seem that these Kansas “preachers” were so occupied with plundering across the border in Missouri that they just had no time for services on the Lord’s Day–which says a little about the depth of their Christian commitment.

Another really virtuous Kansas character was John E. Stewart. He has been described as an “abolitionist extremist.” He enjoyed association with that saintly old murderer and terrorist, John Brown. Petersen has informed us that: “Even before the war Stewart had gotten a reputation of being associated with John Brown and James Montgomery in their deprecatory raids across the border…Before coming to Kansas he had been a Methodist minister in New Hampshire… His frequent forays across the border resulted in the Missouri  legislature placing a price on his head, and he was suspected in Kansas of ‘entertaining loose notions with regard to property in horses as well as negroes.’ As in the case of all Jayhawkers, his professed zeal for abolition caused a large proportion of the settlers to overlook these activities.”

In other words, as long as you were an abolitionist  it was perfectly alright to steal, kill, and burn. After all, didn’t the noble end of “freeing the slaves” justify the means? These people were the proto-Marxists of their day. Some sources have even reported that once some abolitionists “freed” some slaves in Missouri they brought them back to Kansas, took them south and resold them in New Orleans. But, hey, what the heck.  They were in need of some hard cash so they could buy more of John Brown’s “Beecher Bibles” to kill more Missourians  so they could “free” more Missouri slaves, so that made it all somehow legitimate in the twisted abolitionist mindset.

With men of this moral stripe, often led by preachers of the same moral stripe plundering their state, is it any wonder that so many in Missouri  decided to throw their lot in with the Confederacy?

However, don’t bother hunting for this type of history in your “history” books. Since the winners get to write the “history” books it is much more convenient for their agenda if you are taught to focus on “bleeding Kansas” rather than on plundered Missouri.