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.

 

Karl Marx—Deadbeat Daddy

 

By Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media Manipulators–Lying Since the 1850s

By Al Benson Jr.

Those who manipulate the news, the spin masters, and those who shape news events to fit their own political agendas have been alive and well in this country at least since the 1850s, and probably before. These are the people who take news events and reshape them so that they say what they want them to say. For them truth is a by-word, to be pushed aside whenever it happens to get in the way of their pet agendas. They are journalistic Marxists—using the “news” they have created to justify the ends they promote.

One of the most famous (or infamous) of these was James Redpath. Early in his career he wrote anti-slavery articles under the pseudonym of “Berwick” and later worked as a reporter for Utopian Socialist Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune. According to Wikipedia: “An early assignment at the Tribune involved compiling ‘Facts of Slavery,’ a regular series of articles gathered from Southern newspaper exchanges. Beginning in March 1854, he traveled in the South to examine slavery for himself, interviewing slaves and collecting material published in 1859 as The Roving Editor: or, Talks with Slaves in the Southern States. The book’s production costs were covered by prominent antislavery philanthropist Gerrit Smith.” That was the Gerrit Smith of “Secret Six” fame, who got himself admitted to a sanitarium after the John Brown affair at Harpers Ferry, Virginia.

According to dlib.nyu.edu “Redpath inaugurated a ‘Facts of Slavery’ column for the New York Tribune, curating slave trade information from the Southern press, and later went South to interview slaves so they could have a forum for relating their experiences in their own words. He later took jobs at Southern newspapers and surreptitiously sent reports back north in the guise of letters to relatives in Minnesota. They, in turn, under prior arrangement, forwarded the reports to editors.” He was later a war correspondent with Sherman’s army. If he was in Georgia with them I’ll bet he had a ball whitewashing what “Sherman’s bummers” did there.

By 1855 Redpath had showed up on the Kansas-Missouri border and was writing for a Free Soil newspaper, the Missouri Democrat, on the problems in “Bleeding Kansas.” For yet another three years he continued to stick his “news media” nose into the situation in Kansas. He had involvement in politics and he continued to write “dispatches” in which he tried to gain support in New England for Free State settlers in Kansas. In 1856 he interviewed terrorist  John Brown, supposedly just days after he and his gang had murdered five pro-slavery men at Pottawatomie Creek by hacking them to death with broadswords while their families were forced to stand by and watch the gruesome scene. Folks, I submit, this was 19th century terrorism in living color! After that event Redpath became John Brown’s “most fervent publicist.”

Otto Scott, in his informative book The Secret Six: The Fool As Martyr said of Redpath “One of the magicians of confusion, expert at misdirecting attention, was the journalist James Redpath, who appeared in John Brown’s camp on the afternoon of May 29, 1856. How he found the camp remains a mystery. What he and John Brown discussed remains essentially unknown, except for a fable that Redpath wrote three years later, in a mendacious book about the scene. Here he described Brown as both a Cromwellian figure, all Biblical quotes and stern rules for clean living and high thinking and as chief of noble outlaws sequestered in the forest.” And so we see the “news media” of the 1850s hard at work, turning the terrorist into a saint for the dubious benefit of his Eastern readers.

You do have to wonder, along with Otto Scott, how Redpath located the terrorist camp, and Redpath never really tells. That would be giving out too much news that the public is not supposed to be aware of. However, Otto Scott made an interesting connection here, another one the “historians” don’t really want you to know about. He noted: “At the time Redpath met Brown in his camp, however, there could well have been more than journalistic curiosity involved. Redpath was a friend of the unscrupulous Jim Lane—the Free Soil leader who had escaped the treason dragnet cast out by the territorial government–…Brown, who Redpath and everyone else in the territory by now knew to be responsible for the Pottawatomie murders, was a man who seemed worth contacting, and Lane—according to Charles Robinson later—was in favor of using terror as a means of gaining power and property.” Anyone who has ever read any of the history of the Kansas-Missouri border problems and the “Civil War” in that area is familiar with Jim Lane. If you are not, then do a Google search on him. Lots of stuff out there on old “mad dog” Jim Lane!

However, Lane’s connection to “journalist” Redpath is never mentioned, but in looking at it as Scott has done you can begin to see the connection between terrorist Jim Lane and terrorist John Brown, and the conduit is news media pundit James Redpath.

And Scott has also noted something else the “historians” don’t comment much on. He said: “But it was clear that the murders in the Pottawatomie area had coincided with a series of organizing moves to drive Southern settlers out of Kansas, to destroy Southern settlements…The appearance of such deliberate and coordinated violence, however, could not have been possible, nor could it have proceeded, without a covering legend by Northern newspapermen, who shrouded its significance from the nation.”

So you can see that the “news media” today has a really checkered inheritance to live up to. They are still doing what the media back in the 1850s did—prevarication, waffling, obfuscation (I’m trying to find a nice way to say they were liars). Nothing has changed. But if you begin to get some faint glimmer of what they did back then you might begin to grasp what they are still doing today.

Secession–Not Just Southern and Not Just Secular

by Al Benson Jr.

Often when the issue of secession has been “historically” dealt with it has been done in such a manner as to give the impression that it was purely a Southern political phenomenon. Clearly our present establishment “historians” love to have it so. As usual, there is a little more to the story than what they are pleased to tell us.

Lots of people other than Southerners, in years gone by, admitted the right of secession in this country. Well-known anti-slavery American jurist Joseph Story admitted the right of a state to withdraw from the Union. Judge Story stated: “The obvious deductions which may be, and indeed have been drawn, from considering the Constitution as a Compact between the States, are, that it operates as a mere treaty, or convention between them, and has an obligatory force upon each State no longer that it suits its pleasures, or its consent continues;…and that each State retains the power to withdraw from the Confederacy, and to dissolve the connection, when such shall be its choice;…” So it would seem that Judge Story thus admitted the right of a state to secede.

Thomas Jefferson believed in the right of state secession, and, according to Alexander H. Stephens, the Kentucky Resolutions fully established this.

Even ultra-nationalist Alexander Hamilton was forced, by his own admission, to admit that the right of state secession existed. In regard to Hamilton, Alexander Stephens, who was named after him, wrote: “Even Mr. Hamilton must have believed that this right was incident to the systems; for in his urgent appeals to Mr. Jefferson, as early as 1790, for his influence with members of Congress, in aid of the bill for the assumption of the States debts, he presented the strong reason, that if the measure should not pass, there was great danger of a secession of the members from the creditor States, which would end in ‘a separation of the States.’…he was Secretary of the Treasury. Would he have urged such an argument if he had not believed that those States had a right to withdraw?” That’s an interesting question that those nationalists today of the Hamilton stripe might consider addressing themselves to–then again, maybe not.

And William Rawle, U.S. District Attorney under George Washington, said: “The Union is an association of the people of Republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics…It depends on the State itself, to retain or abolish the principle of representation; because it depends on itself, whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right, would be inconsistent with the principles on which all our political systems are founded;…”

Even DeToqueville addressed the secession question. He had stated: “The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so,…”

Even utopian socialist Horace Greeley, no real friend of the South, said that: “The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nonetheless;…We hope never to live in a Republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets.” It could be that Mr. Greely didn’t really understand the motives of Abraham Lincoln, who had, himself, recognized the right of secession in early 1848–conveniently, just before the onslaught of the socialist revolts in Europe! Again, for more about that read Lincoln’s Marxists.

To be continued.

Agitation Propaganda Then and Now

by Al Benson Jr.

This is a subject I have written about in the past but it is still relevant today and so I don’t think it hurts to remind folks. All radical and anti-Christian revolutionary movements opposed to God and His lawful authority have used agitation propaganda, or what has been called “agit-prop” and they still use it today. Such material has been used to inflame the passions and emotions of ordinary people so they will, without benefit of serious thought or reflection, become cannon fodder for the revolutionaries in their quest to overthrow legitimate God-given authority. This fits right in with the “critical theory” technique employed by the Marxists and their handlers today, though it is hardly something new.

It went on before the French Revolution got into full swing and was, no doubt, responsible for much of what followed in that horrid debacle. The late historian, Otto Scott, in his book Robespierre–the Voice of Virtue (Mason & Lipscomb, New York), noted that the French revolutionaries of that day made more than adequate use of the printed word. On page 47 of his book he commented on the use of pamphlet shops in Paris and how much material they turned out.  He quoted an English observer of all this who said, of the printed pamphlets: “Thirteen came out today, sixteen yesterday, ninety-two last week…nineteen twentieths are in favor of liberty…violent against clergy and nobility…Nothing in reply appears…”  Note his last comment–“Nothing in reply appears.” In regard to reaching the general public, or at least those who could read, the Leftist revolutionaries (for that’s really what they were) had the entire field to themselves. There was no rebuttal to their vitriol whatever.

In this country, in the decades of abolitionist ascendancy before the War of Northern Aggression, the media was used in the exact same way, to promote the careers of such men as abolitionist/terrorist John Brown. Although Brown, a failure in every business he was ever involved in, was nothing more than an impoverished-most-of-the-time murderer, he was, via the Northern “news” media, given the appearance of a saint, of at least the stature of Oliver Cromwell. It was a glowing tribute to the prowess of the Northern “news” media that a man like John Brown was able to be passed off as anything other than the murderer he really was. Yet it happened.  It was one of the higher points of what passed for abolitionist “journalism.”

Otto Scott, in his excellent and informative book The Secret Six–The Fool As Martyr noted that: “John Brown appeared…with a reputation created by James Redpath of the N.Y. Tribune, attested by Richard Hinton of the Boston Traveler and the Chicago Tribune, enameled by Phillips of the New York Times in his recent book on Kansas, by the Times’ Sam Tappen, and by Richard Henry Kagi of the New York Post.”  So the Northern media conducted what was plainly a campaign of agitation propaganda against the South, and history shows that, at the time, the Southern states had nothing with which to counter such a Northern propaganda blitz. Furthermore, many Southerners did not even think this specious propaganda was worth replying to, so they just ignored it. They shouldn’t have. Again, this attitude gave the Leftists the complete playing field, with almost no opposition whatever.

In passing, I will remind folks that the New York Tribune was owned by utopian socialist Horace Greeley, the same Horace Greeley that employed Charles Dana and Karl Marx. Does that tell you anything? You can read about some of this in Lincoln’s Marxists the book co-authored by Donnie Kennedy and myself. Don’t look for too many of the professional “historians” to tell you all that much about it.

Not only that, there were many more newspapers in the North than in the South. In a book entitled The North and the South–Being a Statistical View of the Condition of the Free and Slave States (originally published in 1857 by John P. Jewett and Company, Boston, and Henry P. B. Jewett, Cleveland) many observations were made as to the power of the press in both Northern and Southern states. It is stated on page 112 of the book that: “In 1828 the number of papers at the North was to that at the South as 3 to 1; and in 1840 as 2 1/2 to one…in 1850 the number of papers at the South was 704; at the North 1799; while the circulation at the South was 782,453, and at the North 4,296,768; or over five at the North to one at the South…” So the abolitionists and their radical socialist comrades had a whopping numerical advantage. For some reason, as stated previously, those that took a constitutional, states’ rights position seemed almost reluctant to reply to the Yankee/Marxists. Their position deserved a fair hearing, which it never got outside of the South.

In our day, Herbert Philbrick, in his book I Let Three Lives traced the use of agitation propaganda by the Communists in this country when he infiltrated the Communist Party USA for the FBI. That would never happen nowadays! Philbrick wrote: “Secret underground presses are a vital adjunct to the Communist Party in every non-Communist nation, including the United States. Propaganda and deception are the keystones on which the movement to subvert a people and their government must be built. Communications and agitation by means of the printed word, through pamphlets, magazines, leaflets, and newspapers are essential to the structure.” 

Philbrick pointed out a situation that has not changed since before the French Revolution, and one that continues right up to our day–and now you can add the Internet into the mix. Radical left-wingers, whether in the streets, on Wall Street, in our public education system, or in the halls of Congress,make much use of the media for their own purposes, and haplessly, the media seem all too willing to go along with it, as it works toward the One World goal of tearing down this country and its culture, which is a main part of their agenda along with the destruction of Christianity.

Lots of uninformed folks will say “This is America, that can’t happen here.” To which I would reply–what are you willing to do to make sure it doesn’t happen here?