The Elder Sibling Is Watching You

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Around thirty years ago, a man who followed the political scene in this country told me that the Central Intelligence Agency owned or controlled the National Enquirer newspaper. Somehow, the thought didn’t surprise me. Now I can’t say if he was accurate  or not. At that time I had no way of checking that out. However, other things he told me did pan out  as he said. So let’s just leave it at that.

Recently, I watched a video of a speech by Jerome Corsi. Many of you probably know who Mr. Corsi is. He used to work for World Net Daily and he has written several books over the years. At present, he is a correspondent for http://www.infowars.com and he has a new book out called Killing the Deep State–the Fight to Save President Trump. Check it  out. Mr. Corsi is a good journalist and researcher.

Anyway, in this video I watched, Mr. Corsi mentioned Facebook, Twitter, Google, and one other entity (I’m not sure if it was Amazon or not) and he said that these had all been, in their origins, creatures of the CIA.  I think his speech was on You Tube, so if it hasn’t been removed by now you can probably find it with a little “huntin’ and peckin.” I usually agree with most of what  Mr. Corsi says because he is such a good researcher, with lots of good  sources.

I wouldn’t have thought all that much about his speech except, that on the same day I heard it, I chanced  to read an  article by Luis P. Almeida that had originally been on http://www.LewRockwell.com and had been picked up by https://flyoverpress.wordpress.com  I don’t know much about  Mr. Almeida, but parts of his article caught my attention after having listened to Mr. Corsi’s speech.

Mr. Almeida wrote: “…but I was aware of the privacy issue since Sun Microsystem’s Scott McNealy warned us about it way back in 1999. I have been aware for years that Facebook was  funded by the CIA’s venture capital arm called In-Q-Tel and that the NSA had tapped into our telecommunications network and was sucking up all voice and date traffic for analysis. In the 80s Brzezinski stated in his book, that soon the government would have a database containing everything there is to know about each and every one of us. I did not need a congressional hearing to make me aware that the day he spoke of had long arrived.” And incidentally,  the Brzezinski he is referring to, a longtime member of the Trilateral Commission, who passed away recently, was the father of Mika Brzezinski who is a “news” anchor for CNN.

So what Mr Almeida is telling  us is that Facebook is basically in the business of gathering any and  all info they can on all of us. When confronted with this their usual reply is that this is strictly for “commercial” purposes–advertising, etc. That’s a pile of cow chips, to use a polite term. These people are gathering intelligence on all Americans of all ages that use social media. They want to make sure they have the goods on any and all Americans who might, someday, become “persons of interest” to the feds. Whether this is warranted or not makes not an iota of  difference. They do it because they can!

And if you should be naive enough to ask about your First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment rights I would have to reply–“Surely you jest!”

Did Lincoln’s Theological Views Reflect His Political Actions?

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

The title of this article is a legitimate question–not only for Lincoln, but for the rest of us as well. Do our political actions reflect our theology? If you look today at some of these Democrats and RINO’s that hate Trump and will do or say anything to hurt his agenda, true or not, (and most of the time it isn’t) you have to ask if what they are doing reflects their theology–and if it does–then what does it say about the god they serve?

Similar questions were not always asked about Abraham Lincoln because back then most people didn’t equate a man’s theological perspective with what he did politically. Then, as today, they should have. There is more connection there than most people realize.

I’ve dealt with Mr. Lincoln’s religious views in the past, but not for awhile, so it might not hurt to go back and refresh our memories about them. Ward H. Lamon wrote a book, published in 1872–The Life of Abraham Lincoln: from his birth to his inauguation as president. Lamon probably knew Lincoln as well as anyone. And Mr. Lamon quoted, in his book, another man who knew Lincoln as well as anyone, his law partner for years, William H. Herndon. Herndon said of Lincoln: “As to Mr. Lincoln’s religious views, he was, in short, an infidel-atheist. He did not believe that Jesus was God, nor the Son of God–was a fatalist, denied the freedom of the will. Mr. Lincoln told me a thousand times, that he did not believe the Bible was the revelation of God, as the Christian world contends.”

With a world view like that, how do you think he would deal with his political adversaries? Does the word “treacherously” come to mind?

Lew Rockwell wrote an article back in May of 2000 called The Genesis of the Civil War in which he made some interesting observations. Mr. Rockwell took pains to note that the War of Northern Aggression in the 1860s was not really a “civil war” as a civil war is one where two opposing groups are fighting for control of the same country–and that was never the South’s objective. The North wanted total control if it all–the South just wanted to separate and go its own way. Mr. Rockwell deals with that by saying: “But why would the South want to secede? If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing  their production through high prices and public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South’s trading relations with other parts of the world.  In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North’s early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the ‘tariff of abominations.’  Thirty years later, with the South paying for 87% of federal tarff revenue while having their livelihoods being threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to slave status, with the federal government as its master.”  Do you think no one in the North realized this? The average man may not have, but the Northern politicians and political thinkers did. What do you suppose their theological world view was? Three guesses!

And obviously Mr. Lincoln understood this. He was no dummy and, as a lobbyist for Northern railroads he would have known how this system worked. When someone asked him at one point why he did not just let the South go, his reply was “What then will become of my tariff?” So Lincoln realized the South was getting shafted–and that was okay with him, but if they seceded then he wouldn’t be getting their tariff money anymore and the North couldn’t continue to stiff them anymore and so Lincoln had to prevent that. In other words, legalized theft of Southern resources had to continue so Northern industrial interests could benefit. Whose theological persuasion do you suppose that benefited?

Lincoln made it clear his main intent was to get that Southern tariff money–no matter what. He said “My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern states under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861…I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists…” There was no proof Lincoln ever declared war to abolish slavery, it was always to “preserve the Union.” One might well ask,  For who?

Of course if Lincoln did not believe in the Bible and the truth about Jesus Christ, that means that he served another god who had an opposing theology to that found in the Scriptures. Do you think Lincoln realized all this. Commentary from his era would lead us to believe that, to some extent, he did.

Unfortunately for the North, the concept of legalized theft via the tariff, was reflected in their culture, whether they realized it or not, and some did. The rise of Unitarianism in the North and after that, the spread of socialism there, reflected a Northern theology that was justifiably repugnant to orthodox Christians in the South. Over the years, I have mentioned the theological implications of the War of Northern Aggression. Most don’t want to hear it. I have gotten reactions ranging from a stopping of the ears to outright laughter–and some of this from Christians.

But, the theological implications of that War will have to be dealt with, one way or another because, in the final analysis, the theological implications of that War will prove to be more important than the supposed slavery issue. And Lincoln’s theological world view is part and parcel of it all.

Lew Rockwell on Confederate Statues

by Al Benson Jr.

I read an interesting little blip on http://www.lewrockwell.com this morning, May 19th. It seems that the cultural Marxist Regime in New Orleans is to take down the statue of General Lee on this day. Mr. Rocklwell’s headline said New Orleans would “dismantle” the Lee statue. To me that’s a nice way of saying they are going to break it up, but then I’ve been known on rare occasions, to have a suspicious mind, so I could be wrong.

I will quote Lew Rockwell here so you all can see what he said: “But the disgusted may have a remedy: commission Confederate statues, or buy the discarded, and display them on private property.  In the South, far away from decaying federal encampments like New Orleans.  Create an educational park about secession, Lincoln’s invasion, and all related issues, featuring a first-class museum, library, courses, films, resident scholars, and more. Tell the truth. It would draw international attention.”

Such would be a positive response to all the negative fertilizer we hear about the monuments and our flags. I have read about and noticed across the South, that local SCV groups and others have been buying little chunks of private property, some of them not any bigger than my carport at home, and they have been raising big, big Confederate flags on them–flagpoles 100 feet high with flags 30-50 feet long. This is much to the chagrin of local cultural Marxist excuses for politicians who can’t do anything about them because the are on private property. That is the same principle that Lew Rockwell is talking about here.

I realize such endeavors would take a good bit of money, but it might be something area Confederate groups could begin to work toward as worthwhile projects. And if private property could be purchased in some areas from sympathetic property owners then efforts along these lines could be started on a modest scale and could grow as funds became more available.

My wife and I have friends over near Laurel, Mississippi that have what they call a “little home lending library”  from which they loan books out to local folks who are interested in various subjects. Why couldn’t something like that be done in regard to Southern and Confederate history and heritage? What you would need is a not-too-big piece of private property where you could put up a small building. Our friends’ home lending library is not huge by any means, it’s probably a little bigger than our kitchen at home, and we don’t have a big kitchen. Yet they have managed to get books, many from his personal library, about theology, history, politics, and other subjects of general interest. If we could just learn to start thinking along these lines we might be able to come up with lots of possibilities that could be done locally by a few dedicated people, and they would not have to be as big as the Smithsonian Institute–and most assuredly not as politically correct.

A final question–who owns the “dismantled” statue of General Lee?  Does the city of New Orleans own these statues and what will they do with them once they are all down? There might be various answers to that question depending where in the South you happen to be.

I have been told that the beautiful Confederate monument next to the courthouse in Caddo Parish in Shreveport is on private property and that the statue belongs to the United Daughters of the Confederacy.  I don’t know authoritatively, so maybe someone can fill me in. That may well be true, otherwise the cultural Marxists in Shreveport would already have been there with the wrecking crew, with masks on, at midnight, with police snipers posted on the courthouse, ready to take it down. They’ll probably still try to do that if they can get by with it–legal, illegal, or otherwise.

Somehow, we have got to start thinking along the lines of finding good places for those statues and monuments we may be able to rescue so that we can make sure they are put back up someplace that we have control over rather than some city with weaseling politicians.

Please pray about this, and talk to others who may have similar concerns and there may be things those who want to preserve their culture can do in some areas to blunt the attacks of the cultural Marxists. After all, if the city council of East Overshoe votes to take down the local Confederate monument, only to see it back up in someone’s pasture five miles outside of town in a couple or three months where it can still be seen, what have they gained in the long run except a good chance of being booted out of office in the next election?