Wet-nosed College Students and Critical Theory

By Al Benson Jr.

My comments in this article are not intended to be a blanket condemnation of all college students, but rather those college students that, thinking they are absolutely brilliant, really don’t know much of anything. I have run across several like this over the years, kids who think they have all the answers for everybody and that the world would be so much better off if it just absorbed the ageless wisdom they have to impart.

I recall talking to one student who told me seriously that he thought folks in this country should just listen to what students had to say about politics, the economy, and the world because the students are the ones that have the time to do all the research in these areas. This kid was one of many I knew that blindly swallowed the blather spewed by his leftist professors with no critical questioning or comment. And he was going to teach the rest of us how to live. I almost said to him “Junior, you’re not even dry behind the ears yet and you’re going to impart political wisdom to us older folks? Wait until you’ve lived  a few more decades and lets see how much political wisdom you have then.” But this seems to be the attitude of many (not all) young folks at this age level. They seem to “know it all” already, so one wonders why they even need college.

What led me to this line of thinking now was an article I just read on the San Antonio Express-News webpage about the student government at the University of Texas in Austin wanting to remove a statue of Jefferson Davis from the campus supposedly because Davis was a “racist.” The head of the NAACP for Texas, Gary Bledsoe, said “I think its offensive that you exalt Jefferson Davis but you don’t exalt Abraham Lincoln.” Another case of a leftist that just doesn’t know his history. Lincoln’s history of “racism” is apparently unknown to this man, or does he just hope it’s unknown to the rest of us? So he’d replace the “racist” Davis with the “racist” Lincoln and think he’d done something noble! What a farce!

However, the agenda of removing the Jefferson Davis statue at the University of Texas goes a little deeper than that. It seems that it just might be part of the Marxist Critical Theory program.

The students at the University of Texas recently elected, as the head of their student government, two sterling individuals named Xavier Rotnofsky and Rohit Mandalapu. I don’t know if the selection of these two worthies was a tribute to student diversity or what, but they ran what some have called a “humerous” campaign and I can see that, by some adolescent standards it might be considered so. This pair, as part of their platform, promised to “increase transparency in student government by mandating everyone in student government wear only cellophane so that they can be perfectly see-through.” Also they promised to “…reduce the hours that the PCL and FAC are open because less study time means more party time, baby!” They had a couple other farcial ideas to put forward, but sandwiched in amongst all this foolishness was “…we plan on taking down the Jefferson Davis statue…” One serious piece of cultural genocide hidden among all the foolishness!

Rotnofsky told a local radio station that “Jefferson Davis stood for some things that are pretty abominable today; Slavery, racism. They’re just not in line with the university’s core values.” And so, yet another attempt to remake history into what we think it ought to be rather than what it was. Unfortunately, these kids are not yet old enough to have any sense of history—and history is usually not what you would like it to be. You need to take it as it is rather than trying to make it into what you wish it was. But, then, in all honesty, slavery isn’t the real issue here. Cultural genocide is.

So we take a brief look at Rotnofsky’s running mate, Rohit Mandalapu. According to www.academia.edu  Mandalapu’s  research interests are “…Globalization, Transnationalism , Business, and Critical Theory.” So Mandalapu is into Marxist Critical Theory. Suppose that minor coincidence has anything to do with the removal of the Jefferson Davis statue, which has already been vandalized, from the university campus?

Awhile back, December 16, 2014 to be exact, I quoted from an article on http://www.discoverthenetworks.org  that dealt with Critical Theory. The article said, in part, “Critical Theory was essentially destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, the family…morality, tradition…patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism,…Critical theorists recognized that traditional beliefs and existing social structure would have to be destroyed and then replaced with a ‘new thinking’ that would become as much a part of the elementary consciousness as the old one had been.” Stop and read that again and begin to grasp what is being said. They plan to replace everything with their “new thinking” so that nothing will remain of Christianity, Western culture, honor, patriotism,–nothing. This seems to be where Mandalapu, at least, is coming from. I watched a video of these two students on one of the sites I looked up while checking into this. Mandalapu seems, to me, to be much more the vocal of the two.

So it seems, unless the rest of the students at the University of Texas suddenly wake up, which hardly seems likely, that the Jefferson Davis statue on campus will become yet one more victim of the Marxist Critical Theory technique as it is being applied all across this country. Just remember—in order for Marxist Critical Theory to succeed, all that came previously, Christianity, Western civilization, Southern history and heritage—must all be destroyed so the “new thinking” can be implemented.  This is where we are at today in the South and across the country as well. And the shocking leftist condition of many, many of our college campuses is something that really needs to be researched and exposed. Exposure might be a good place to start—if anyone is even interested anymore.

“Rekilling Lincoln”

by Al Benson Jr.

Walter Donald (Donnie) Kennedy, co-author with me of Lincoln’s Marxists a major expose of Lincoln and his leftist legions, has authored another book that explodes many of the Lincoln Cult’s fabulous “historical myths” and straightens out the historical record for those that wish to know the truth.

The title of Donnie’s new book is Rekilling Lincoln and it is published by Pelican Publishing in Gretna, Louisiana. There have been several good books in the last decade or so dealing with what Mr. Lincoln really was instead of what we have been told he was. I have read some of them and they are good and necessary to poke holes in the Lincoln myth. I have said, in the past, that what Lincoln’s apologists really sought to do was to enthrone Lincoln as the fourth person of the Trinity and change it to a quartet. Their object has not changed, hence books like Donnie’s new one are increasingly necessary to combat the continued apotheosis of the sainted Mr. Lincoln.

What Donnie does in this new book is to explode some of the myths surrounding Mr. Lincoln in major areas. One of these has to do with the Emancipation Proclamation, a much misquoted document which has often had major parts deleted when being presented to high school students as “evidence” that Lincoln “freed the slaves.” This is the type of twisted history we have come to expect from establishment “historians” whose agendas are more important than the truth. But folks wanting to learn the truth, be they young or old, deserve better, and Donnie, in this book, gives them better.

He has several pointed comments about this famous proclamation and he points out serious defects. He notes: The first defect is seen in the date of the first official publication of the proclamation, which was issued in September of 1862. The original document allowed time for Southern slaveholders to save their slave property by returning to the Union. By rejecting the right of secession and allowing the power of the United States to be resumed in their states, Southern slaveholders were assured that the Emancipation Proclamation was to be null and void in their state. Lincoln’s proclamation clearly stated that unless those states that were in rebellion against the United States returned to the Union by January 1, 1863, freedom would be granted to all slaves within those states.

So basically what Lincoln was saying to slave owners was “If you will only come back into the Union you can keep your slaves.” So much for the vaunted Lincolnian “compassion” for black folks! Lincoln had previously stated that his main object was to preserve the Union and if he could do it by freeing some slaves he’d do it; if he could do it by leaving the slaves in bondage he’d do it, but that was his main thrust either way. And I guess, at this point, I have a question. If the Union has to be preserved only by force, with troops and bayonets, is it worth preserving? People like Patrick Henry didn’t think so, but Lincoln did. To paraphrase what Ronald Reagan said once to a political opponent, in regard to Lincoln, “You’re no Patrick Henry.”

And Donnie continues: The second defect in the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln states that the declaration is not a measure to promote freedom by destroying slavery but rather a ‘fit and necessary war measure.’ It should be remembered that, at the time this proclamation was issued, the United States had suffered numerous serious defeats at the hands of the Confederate army. From the first major battle of the war, Manassas, in 1861, to Fredericksburg in 1862, the South had stunned the United States and the world with its ability to defend its independence. Lincoln’s war effort was in shambles, and the one great fear that ran through Washington–other than a Confederate army marching down Pennsylvania Avenue–was the recognition of the Confederacy by European nations…Having lost the advantage on the battlefield, Lincoln was forced to engage in political subterfuge to prevent one or more European nations from recognizing the Confederate States of America as a sovereign nation…The Proclamation gave the appearance that by supporting the Confederate States of America, a nation would be ‘defending slavery.’

Lincoln’s own words, in his First Inaugural Address gave the lie to what he was about to do. In that address he said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Even the Republican Party platform for 1860 said the same thing. It stated: “That the maintainance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions (this is a pseudonym for slavery) according to its own judgment exclusively is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed forces of the soil of any State or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.” Wonder if he included the invasion of the South after Fort Sumpter in that catagory.

I will do more with Rekilling Lincoln as the Lord allows, but this was a good starting point. You can begin to see that “Honest” Abe’s attitude toward slavery and slaves ain’t quite what you were taught in school that it was. If you want more of the truth of the reasons behind the “Civil War” then get this book.

Black History, Lincoln, and Passed Over Truth

by Al Benson Jr.

Well, this month black history is supposed to be celebrated and memorialized. So is Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. Ironic that the two come together in the same month. I notice that during black history month the activities of Martin Luther King are recalled and celebrated, but little is ever said about the accomplishments of people like Booker T. Washington or George Washington Carver. This is in error, unless the real agenda for this month is to promote the civil rights movement instead of showcasing the accomplishments of blacks that really accomplished something worthwhile as Washington and Carver did.

And then there is Lincoln’s birthday. Mr. Lincoln has been promoted as the one who freed the slaves (which he didn’t) and anyone who has read the normal “history” books in the last hundred years will be led to champion him as the “great emancipator” (which he wasn’t). He is portrayed as a great friend to black people (which he wasn’t). He is portrayed is one who believed in and promoted the equality of the blacks to whites (which he didn’t). To find out where Lincoln stood on that issue you need to check out the Lincoln Douglas Debates–the first complete unexpurgated text–published by Harper Perennial in 1993. Particularly you want to check out pages 61, 63, 189, 283, and 284.

Even after you have done that you will run across people who will blithely inform you that, when he died, Lincoln’s view of blacks had “matured” and that he didn’t feel that way anymore. Horse feathers! Lincoln’s view of blacks changed little and, again, contrary to what some will tell you he had not given up on the idea of deporting the freed slaves to some other country or countries that would have them. Interestingly enough, one of the promoters of the Emancipation Proclamation was Robert Dale Owen, well-known socialist and free thinker. Donnie Kennedy and I noted this in Lincoln’s Marxists on page 41. We stated: “…Owen’s personal letter to Lincoln was very influential in Lincoln’s issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation.” You might wonder why a socialist was interested in pursuing emancipation and let me tell you, it wasn’t for the benefit of the black folks.

Donnie Kennedy, in his book Myths of American Slavery observed that: “Not only did Lincoln hold to the belief of Negro inferiority, he was also a proponent of removing the African-American population from America once they were freed…Lincoln as the archenemy of slavery, promoter of equality, and friend of oppressed African-Americans is one of the most pervasive myths in modern America.” Of course, since the winners get to write the “history” books, inconvenient facts that get in the way of the agenda need to be shoved down the “memory hole” where, hopefully, no one will bother trying to pull them out. Another book you might want to check out along these lines is How the North Promoted, Prolonged and Profited From Slavery. It was written by three reporters from a newspaper in Connecticut, who, when digging into this subject in their own area, found a lot of information they hadn’t expected to find.

So, as this month progresses, look for heart-rending tales of Lincoln’s great love and concern for the slaves and look for more heart-rending stories about Martin Luther King’s heroic struggle against black oppression in the South, but don’t hold your breath waiting for any mention of Booker T. Washington or other blacks that have contributed to society. That’s not what black history month is really all about. Much of it is about pushing a “civil rights” agenda that is so overloaded with Marxism that it almost topples. There are those out there using the blacks as cannon fodder in their own revolution, and Lincoln did the same thing. The socialists and Marxists had an abiding interest in the War of Northern Aggression and they have an abiding interest in the so-called civil rights movement today. You have to wonder who pays the tab for all these protesters that show up at different demonstrations around the country because they sure don’t pay their own way.

Lincoln’s birthday is a great day for propagandists to get out there and spread even more of the prevarications they’ve been spreading for around 150 years now. They have to keep on running with the falsehoods. They can’t allow the next generation to get anything near the truth about Lincoln, the slavery questions, civil rights, or anything along those lines. Once they lose the propaganda edge their house of cards starts to tilt seriously–an event we can all seriously pray for.

Truths About Slavery

By Al Benson Jr.
If you listen to the current and recent stories about slavery and the slave trade you will be led to think of it as an entirely Southern institution. You will think it was created by Southerners for the benefit of Southerners and that no one else had anything to do with it. This is how you are supposed to think. This is how your public school “education” has programmed you to think. Truth has little or nothing to do with it. You are “educated” to believe “Marxist” truth whether you realize it or not. However, those who have educated your teachers realize it even if the teachers don’t.

Most of the time, though, Marxist truth (whatever supports the current agenda) will be a far cry from reality. This is one more reason to remove your kids from public school.

One small example here, from Donnie Kennedy’s book Myths of American Slavery: “On April 21, 1861, the American slaver Nightengale, affectionately known as the ‘Prince of Slavers” was built in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, fitted out for the slave trade in Salem, Massachusetts, and its captain was from New York. When captured by the USS Saratoga, the Nightengale was flying the United States flag, and had more than nine hundred slaves on board. One of the last American vessels to be captured in the slave trade was the Erie, Nathaniel Gordon of Portland, Maine, commander. It should be noted that these vessels were not bringing slaves into the South.” How come, you might ask? Well, for a couple good reasons—one was that the Constitution of the Confederate States did not allow the importation of African slaves. Another reason was that the Union blockage had pretty much curtailed any importation of slaves into the South. Don’t expect to find this kind of information in your history books. They are usually so full of the “Uncle Toms’ Cabin” sort of fables they frequently have no room for the truth.

You are never told that, in much of the North, slavery was abolished to protect the white population from having to compete with slave labor. Lincoln, contrary to the popular myths about his fondness for black people and how he “grew” into this cherished position, felt that blacks were inferior and he was strongly in favor of moving them out of the country once they became free. He never changed that opinion. Donnie Kennedy’s book states, on page 165,: “Add to these the state of Illinois, which, in 1862 (while its sons were pillaging the South) by an overwhelming vote of the people, passed an amendment to the state constitution declaring that ‘no negro or mulatto shall immigrate or settle in this state.” If you ever noticed, the “underground railway” to free slaves ran all the way from different places in the South up into Canada. It didn’t end in New York or Michigan or wherever, and part of the reason for this was that most Northern folks did not want the blacks living too close to them.

Recently an article by Donald W. Livingston appeared on http://lewrockwell.com which dealt, to some degree, with the slavery issue. The name of the article was Lincoln’s Inversion of the American Union. Dr. Livingston made several interesting points. He noted: “Only around fiteeen percent of southerners even owned slaves, and the great majority of those had holdings of one to six. Jefferson Davis was an enlightened slave holder who said that once the Confederacy gained its independence, it would mean the end of slavery. The Confederate Cabinet agreed to abolish slavery within five years after the cessation of hostilities in exchange for recognition by Britain and France. Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery, but simply and solely because they were being invaded. And the North certainly did not invade to abolish slavery. Nor should this be surprising considering the Negrophobia that prevailed everywhere in the North. It was assumed by the vast majority of Americans, North and South, that America was a white European polity, and that the Indian and African populations were not—and were never to be—full participants in that polity.“ Dr. Livingston cited a passage from the Oregon state constitution to prove this. Again, where have you read this in your “history” books? Dr. Livingston noted that free blacks in Northern states were “severely regulated.” All you ever see in the “history” books are comments about how Jim Crow laws were enacted in the South. You are never told they had the same thing in the North. That part is just omitted.

And why did the northern states emancipate the blacks who had been slaves there? Dr. Livingston observed: “Emancipation laws in the antebellum North were designed to rid the North of its African population. They typically declared that the children of slaves born after a certain date would, upon reaching a certain age, be emancipated. This meant the adult slaves were not freed and that families could be sold South before the children reached the age of emancipation. Emancipation led to a reduction of the African population in the North, not to an increase, as it did in the South.” And that was the sole reason, in most cases, for African emancipation up North. Sell the slaves South and then complain about Southern slaver holders and the “sin”of slavery. If it was a sin for Southerners to own them wasn’t it also a sin for Northerners to own them? Hush! You ain’t supposed to ask that question! Livingston pointed out that: “Even abolitionists were careful to point out that it was not the slave they loved but the slaveholder they hated, and that emancipation did not at all mean social and political equality with whites.” This is the part you are never told about.

So basically the abolitionists hated the South and Southerners and they used the slaves as a wedge to pry the South apart from its foundations. If you look at the theological underpinnings of many of the abolitionists the reason for this is apparent. Their agenda called for much more than freeing slaves. That was the foot in the Southern door and that’s all it was.

I have never forgotten the story my father told me years ago. When he was a boy he knew an ex-slave. They used to fish in the same river and got talking. The old slave talked about what life had been like before he was free. He told my Dad that the family that owned them always treated them well and they had grown to love them. After the 13th Amendment was passed freeing them, many of the slaves did not want to leave what, to them, was home. One day the Yankee soldiers came and to them they were free and so they should pack up whatever they could carry on their backs and go. One of the slaves, with a little presence of mind asked the soldier “If we free then why can’t we stay if we want to?” My Dad never forgot the soldier’s reply. He told the slave “You’re free to go but not to stay.” How typical of Yankee/Marxist “freedom.” You’re free to do what we tell you to do but not what you might want to do. How different is our “freedom” today? “Reconstruction” still marches on! But, with our public school “educations” we still don’t get the message.