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.

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 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 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.

The Great Unanswered Question

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Here and there I get remarks directed at some of the historical articles I write concerning the War of Northern Aggression. Most of the comments seem to deal with the slavery issue. Some individuals with great imagination almost seem to think that the South fought that war so we could still keep slaves to this very day.

To these political worthies I have often directed this question–If the North was so gung ho as to fight against the South to free the slaves, then why did not the North first free all the slaves in states that, for one reason or another, remained part of the Union? This would included Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and the newly created state of West Virginia. That’s right–West Virginia. The newly created state of West Virginia entered the Union as a slave state, not as a free state. The response I have gotten to this question has been one of ear-shattering silence! No one wants to touch this question and so they just pretend it doesn’t exist or that they didn’t hear anyone ask it. It’s probably the most ignored question of the past several decades.

To these harbingers of Yankee righteousness I would direct the book by Gene Kizer Jr. which I reviewed a few years back Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States published by Charleston Athenaeum Press Check the internet and see if you can find it if you want the truth instead of Yankee fables. If you don’t really want the truth (and I suspect many don’t) then continue to ignore it, but if you do that, then please shut up about all this slavery foolishness!

Mr. Kizer noted on page xxiii of the introduction to his book that “Most people in the North (95-98% according to historians Lee Benson and Gavin Wright) were not abolitionists. They did not care about freeing the slaves who would then come North and be job competition. No Republican could be elected in the North on the platform of directly ending slavery but they could agitate on slavery in the West with good results. It was a hot political issue driven as much by rallying votes–vote Republican:…Lincoln himself stated in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates that the West was to be reserved for white people from all over the earth…Neither slaves nor free blacks were welcome in Lincoln’s West.”

Kizer observed a comment by Lincoln scholar Richard N. Current where Current stated: “Lincoln and his fellow Republicans, in insisting that Congress must prohibit slavery in the West, were dealing with political phantoms.” Kizer tells us that “In 1860, there were only two slaves in Kansas and 15 in Nebraska, and that was after being open to slavery for ten years. As stated above, Current did not believe slavery would have lasted another generation, even in the deep South.”

And Kizer reiterates “Slavery was not the cause of the War Between the States. Once you understand the true cause–the imminent economic annihilation of the North which was coming fast–all other actions taken by Lincoln and everybody else make infinitely more sense. Abraham Lincoln needed to start his was as quickly as he could. He needed his blockade of the South in place as fast as possible to keep Europeans and especially the English from forming trade and military alliances with the South…” Kizer also noted that: “Ramsdell states also that the North’s gaping self-inflicted wound, the Morrill Tariff, kicked in and greatly added to the panic and call for war in the North as the Northern shipping industry was largely rerouted, in one fell swoop, away from the high-tariff North and into the low-tariff South where protective tariffs were unconstitutional.”

Now I realize that Mr. Kizer’s research will never convince the professional South haters of their gross errors on the slavery issue, but at least they can never say no one told them.

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 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.