The Secret Police, Christianity, and Justice

by Al Benson Jr.

Several years ago, in a market of all places, I got into what could be called a lively discussion about the demise, or lack thereof, of the Soviet KGB, Russia’s Committee of State Security. The young man on the other side of the discussion, who had lived in Russia, confidently told me the KGB had been disbanded and that was that—no more secret police after the Berlin Wall came down. I disagreed with him, which did not endear me to him. His claim to having lived in Russia was, no doubt true, but having read all that I have over the years, along with all the knowledgeable people I have talked with, convinced me that he, like many others, didn’t really know what he was talking about. He was only parroting  an establishment line he had been fed and had never bothered doing any homework about the subject. Seeing that he worked for the market we argued in, a couple of his co-workers moved to restrain his “enthusiasm” about the subject, possibly afraid I might complain to the manager about him. I probably would not have, but they didn’t know that.

Like many people today, he had learned everything he thought he knew from television and the “news” papers. More informed sources, even today, disagree with him.

Lawrence Kohn, in an article on  for November 2, 2013, made a couple penetrating observations. He stated: “Vladimir Putin’s out-maneuvering of President Obama following the Syrian chemical weapons attack has led some to ask if Putin is reviving the Cold War purportedly won by the U.S. The question itself reflects a lack of understanding of the unbroken continuity of Cold War behavior by Moscow since the transition from the Soviet Union to the ‘new’ Russia. In Russia the KGB was never disbanded following the advent of the Yeltsin regime in December 1991 despite a number of name changes and reorganizations. The decision by the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) in December 1992 to substitute for the celebration of the first anniversary of the service the celebration of the 72nd anniversary of Lenin’s CHEKA reflected the unbroken continuity  of the power and status of the Soviet secret police…The dramatic events between Gorbachev’s last year and Yeltsin’s first, portrayed world-wide on television, although exhibiting peculiar aspects such as Gorbachev’s ability to broadcast a video while under house arrest and the KGB coup plotters’ failure to cut Yeltsin’s communication lines, masked the strategic continuity between the Soviet Union and Russia.” In other words, folks, nothing has changed behind, or in front, of the Iron Curtain but the names. Changed names, same game.

Shaun Walker, writing in theguardian  for October 6, 2013 has observed: “The FSB is much more than just an ordinary security service. Combining the functions of an elite police force with those of a spy agency, and wielding immense power, it has come a long way since the early 1990s when it was on the brink of imploding. Today’s agency draws a direct line of inheritance from the Cheka, set up by Vladimir Lenin in the months after the Bolshevik revolution, to the NKVD, notorious for the purges of the 1930s in which hundreds of thousands were executed, and then the KGB. As the Soviet Union disbanded, the KGB was dismembered into separate agencies,…As the 1990s wore on the agency got back on its feet and in 1999 Boris Yeltsin asked its then director, Vladimir Putin, who had recently been catapulted into the top job after a career in the service’s lower echelons, to become prime minister. With Putin as PM and then president, much of FSB’s power was restored. Many of his former KGB colleagues ended up in senior positions in government or at the helm of state-controlled companies…” Like I said, the names change but the game stays the same. I wouldn’t expect my young Russian debater to have grasped all of this. It’s interesting, though, that these articles have all come out just last year, which shows that the KGB isn’t exactly dead news.

In recent months, I have read books by Arkady Shevchenko, Peter Deriaban, and Stanislas Levchenko—all ex-KGB case officers and all defectors from the Soviet Union to the free world. Years ago I read a book by Anatoli Granovsky called I Was An NKVD Agent and I read a couple written by John Barron, who worked for Reader’s Digest, on the KGB.

I mention all of these to make a point. And that is that, without exception, all of these men openly testify to the moral corruption of the Soviet secret police. The Russians that defected that I have read about had major problems with their consciences after years in the KGB. They got to the point where doing the subversive work they did literally made some of them sick—in soul as well as in body. That’s not to say that they were all totally virtuous. Like all human beings they were sinners and, at times, did some things they would have been better off not doing. However, even taking that into consideration, the climate they found in the KGB and in the Soviet Union in general was so completely corrupted that their consciences rebelled at some point and they could take no more. And, again, this is not to say that all American (so-called) security agencies are all as pure as the driven snow either, especially not in recent administrations. It seems that the more this country travels down the road to socialism the more corrupt we get here.

The late Presbyterian theologian, R. J. Rushdoony observed in this book Law and Liberty that: “Take away God’s standard of righteousness from the law, and you strip the law of justice and reduce it to anti-law. Without justice, the law becomes a form of theft. Stripped of justice, the law becomes an instrument of extortion and oppression in the hands of whatever group of men control it…And today, because God’s righteousness is despised, the nations of the world are becoming robber states and lands without justice…With socialism, or legalized robbery, the appetite for robbery is only increased.”

And Rushdoony continued: “As a result, while socialism calls itself the workers’ state, it is, in actuality a robbers’ state, wherein the robbers live off the workers and insist that the workers thank them for this new paradise! Nowhere are workers more oppressed than under socialism, and yet they are continually asked to hail, praise, and thank the thieves who live off them.” That’s the way it is under socialism and Marxism. Does any of that sound remotely familiar to the citizens of America? Rushdoony is not bashful about labeling socialism as theft and he is correct. Unfortunately in our less sane day, many Christians have been brainwashed into labeling it as compassion, which shows that they have been educated in such a way that they are not capable of telling the difference between liberty and slavery. It’s like “1984” has arrived and “freedom is slavery” and “less is more.”

Did Rushdoony do what many Christians today seem to be in favor of, accepting socialism as the new wave of “Christian compassion?” He most assuredly did not. In fact, he stated: “Basic therefore to every resistance to the criminal syndicate states are two things: first, personal faith in Christ as Savior, and, second, God’s righteousness as the foundation of civil order, of law, and of  justice. Apart from this, we are merely fighting humanism with more humanism…” So Rushdoony recognized the fact that socialism should be resisted—a position that many Christians today would consider “unloving.”

And he recognized that when true justice is taken out of a court room, “that court simply becomes a political tool whereby one class oppresses another, and justice is replaced by injustice. This, of course, is the theory of Marxist law, for communism uses the law and the courts as a tool for the dictatorship of the proletariat and the oppression of all who in any way oppose, disagree with, or fall out of the favor of the totalitarian state.” So Soviet courts and law are the intended and end result of radical humanism. And this is why many rebel against them, and against a godless humanist system that uses its secret police and its military to promote a worldview that can only be considered anti-Christ.

So what can Christians do? For one thing, they can work to learn the truth about socialism and Marxism and then they can expose that truth to those willing to listen (Ephesians 5:11). They can learn to recognize socialism in this country when it rears its ugly head, often at the local level as well as the national level and they can oppose it where they find it. That might mean going to your local town council meeting and speaking out against the UN’s Agenda 21 program if it has been introduced into your area as it has in many places around the country. But, no matter what the Lord leads you to do (and if you are sincere, He will lead you) you need to always remember that you can only do it effectively in His strength and not your own.

I’ve never forgotten what a Presbyterian pastor told me awhile back when I told him I had some problems with loving my enemies. He knew who I meant and he said “You love them by opposing the evil that they do.” That’s a different answer than you get from most humanistically-trained Christians in our day, but it’s one I can identify with. The Marxists still run Russia and its secret police—no matter what they call them today. And we have the Marxists in this country also, many in Washington in positions of power, and they want to turn this country into the same “workers’ paradise” that Russia is and has been. The ultimate question there is, will the Christians let them? The answer to that is yet to be determined.

Is Communism REALLY Dead?

by Al Benson Jr.

Is Communism really dead? That’s a question many have asked and few have answered satisfactorily.  Many seem to think that because the Berlin Wall was torn down Communism was officially dead, the KGB (secret police) were disbanded and all became sweetness and light in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. This is the same mindset that equates the surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox with the surrender of the Confederate States of America at the end of our “Civil War.” Only problem is that it never happened and the historically ignorant haven’t figured that out yet, just like they haven’t figured out that because the Berlin Wall came down Communism didn’t end when the last brick in the wall was tossed onto the trash heap.

Recently, I read an interesting article on the American Thinker website written by Jason McNew and entitled Did Communism Fake Its Own Death in 1991? In his article Mr. McNew mentions an ex-KGB Major named Anatoliy Golitsyn who wrote a book back in 1984 in which he predicted that the “liberalization” or the fall of the Soviet bloc was nothing more than a strategic deception. I read Mr. Golitsyn’s book back in the early 1990s. But, then, as I often have done, I lent it to someone and never got it back.

In commenting on Golitsyn’s book, McNew says: New Lies For Old  is not light reading, and all of Golitsyn’s predictions appear in the last two chapters, some 327 pages in. Golitsyn began drafting the manuscript in 1968, completed it in 1980, cleared the CIA in 1982, and then finalized and published it in 1984…” You sure can’t say it was a rush job. McNew continued: “Put simply, Golitsyn’s argument was that beginning about 1960, the Soviet Union embarked on a strategy of massive long-range strategic deception which would span several decades and result in the destruction of Western capitalism and the erection of a communist world government. Throughout his works, he refers to this future event as ‘convergence.’” McNew also cites author Mark Riebling who said that: “of Golitsyn’s falsifiable predictions, 139 out of 148 were fulfilled by the end of 1993—an accuracy rate of 94 percent.”

Some critics have pointed out that Golitsyn didn’t get it all right, but McNew points out that “Taken as a complete work, however, Golitsyn got most of it right.” And he notes: “There is other evidence that corroborates Golitsyn’s thesis. In his 1982 book We Will Bury You,  Czech defector Jan Sejna also claimed the Berlin Wall would be torn down and the Warsaw Pact dissolved for reasons of deception…Jeff Nyquist, an independent writer and the author of…Origins of the Fourth World War, seems to be the only Western journalist who not only noticed but paid much attention to Golitsyn. Nyquist has written hundreds of articles discussing both Golitsyn’s thesis and the slow moral and economic decay of America.” Has anyone ever thought there just might be some correlation between the two?

And then McNew leaves us with a very telling thought, one we should consider. He ends with: “The present moral and economic bankruptcy emanating from Washington, D.C. and plaguing America portends something far more dangerous than the unintended consequences of electing so many ideological flunkies with bad educations and misguided ideals. The purpose of warfare is not to kill and maim your enemy; it is his social, economic, political, and religious reorientation. Somewhere Sun Tzu is smiling, and it isn’t at America.” Folks, what it all boils down to is this—it ain’t all happening by accident. I don’t think the West can even begin to grasp the concept of a plan of Communist strategic deception that takes 40-50 years to complete. As far as we are concerned, if we can’t do it in 60 days or less, why bother?

In October of 2010, Mr. McNew was interviewed by Frontpage Mag and he made some worthwhile statements. He noted: “While there were many Soviet defectors during the Cold War, the majority of them were providing (knowingly or not) information which was purposefully designed by the Soviets to mislead their main enemy, the United States and its CIA. It wasn’t until 1984 with the publication of his first book, New Lies For Old  that Anatoliy Golitsyn became known to the public. His book, most of which had actually been written before 1980, was ridiculed and ignored…The re-emergence of communism now (albeit with all manner of different names) craves explanation. Clearly communism did not just ‘die’ in 1991 as everyone was led (told) to believe. Golitsyn’s works are the key to understanding how the ancient principles of Sun Tzu (warfare based on deception) can be practically applied as a comprehensive national strategy. This is exactly what the Soviets (and now the ‘neo-Soviets’) have done. By ‘neo-Soviets’ I mean Vladimir Putin and his ilk in the Kremlin and Lubyanka.” McNew has told us a lot here in just a few sentences.

Warfare by deception! Something we don’t even think about. We are not educated to think in those terms.

Yet, how much material have we all seen from Russia Today  on either television or You Tube? And you have to admit, some of it sounds pretty good. They tell you the truth in many cases and you can’t help but finding yourself agreeing with much of what they say given the abysmal job our own media is doing (on purpose). The Russian newspaper Pravda  has been putting material out of late that sounds downright conservative. They’ve even told us that Marxism is rife in this country, and that’s true. Anyone who even remotely begins to look around and think has to see that. If this character that has been put in the White House moves any further to the left he will trip over Stalin or Ho Chi Minh, not that such would bother him all that much. He’d figure he was in good company. Even the conservatives are starting to pay attention to Russia Today  and Pravda. We see articles and videos on the Internet that tell us of Putin’s “Christian values” as they compare him to Comrade Obama.

Has anyone ever even wondered why the Russians are telling us this much truth? If they have, I haven’t noticed it yet, and our own media is strangely silent (no surprise there). Conservatives and patriotic people find themselves relying on Russia Today  and Pravda  to get their world news. So we are, in many instances, getting our news and information from communist sources. I realize that, at this point, someone will inform me that these sources are no longer “communist” and so we can trust them implicitly.  Sorry folks, but it’s hogwash. Back on April 27th 2012  I did an article on called From Russia Without Love. Since my blog spot gets to around 100 countries, I got quite a few views on that article from the Russian Federation, as you can imagine. I expect this one may get a few also.

I’m sorry, but with my suspicious mind, I question the sense of depending on news from either Russia or the old Soviet Bloc countries. I think we are being had. We know we can’t trust our own media for the truth—but should we end up trusting the Russian media for it? Stop and think about it. For Heaven’s sake, folks, stop and do a little serious reflection. Communism isn’t dead. The KGB has only undergone minute reforms along with a name change. And Putin is no more our friend that any of the other Soviet dictators were, even though he won a “democratic” election in Russia.

This whole scenario is one we need to seriously rethink, and maybe if you can get a copy of Golitsyn’s book you need to plow through some of that and grasp where he is coming from. It’s listed on

Lafayette Curry Baker—Head of the American KGB

by Al Benson Jr.

Nathaniel Weyl wrote an informative book back in the early 1950s called The Battle Against Disloyalty.  There was a good deal of information in it about different eras in this country but there was one chapter, chapter six, that caught my attention. It was titled “Stanton’s Secret Police.”

Since I have, of late, been reading some books dealing with the Soviet Secret Police, the dreaded KGB, which is supposed to have been “disbanded” but has really gone through little more than a name change, I found this of interest. Weyl draws parallels between Stanton’s Secret Police, or the military Secret Service, and the Soviet secret police.

Weyl noted, on page 67, that: “In the Civil War and Reconstruction eras, the United States War Department bore some traces of resemblance to the Soviet secret police.  Its leaders were zealots who believed that, if the end didn’t justify the means, nothing else could.” In other words, they were what I have called “Yankee/Marxists.” Weyl continued: “Wherever possible, they operated in secrecy through military, rather than civilian courts. Guilt by association became a fundamental axiom; perjury was richly rewarded; when political exigencies dictated it, even the President of the United States was arraigned on spectral evidence…During the war years, General La Fayette Curry Baker was chief of the military Secret Service…In February, 1862, Baker’s Detective Bureau was transferred from Secretary of State Seward to War Secretary Edwin M. Stanton. Promoted to the rank of brigadier general, Baker was clothed with almost limitless powers as special provost marshal of the War Department. In Washington he used the methods that had proved so successful in his vigilante days, disregarding due process of law, habeas corpus, or any of the other constitutional frills that normally prevent the imprisonment of Americans at the whim of the military.”

Baker wrote a book about his “exploits” which many have noted is short on fact and long on self-congratulations. Weyl described him as: “An enormously vain and unscrupulous person, Baker was also a congenital liar, intriguer, and twister. A talented counterspy, he was a wretched administrator.” Weyl noted of Edwin M. Stanton that: “The ultimate plans of Stanton cannot be fathomed, but the trend he represented was totalitarian.” And Baker was a willing part of all that.

The site had an interesting article, posted on April 24, 2013 that dealt with Stanton and his secret agents. It stated: “When news spread of his heroic exploits, Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton recruited Baker to be the head of the Union Intelligence Service. Stanton then gave him a job as head of the National Detective Police. In this capacity, Baker operated essentially as the head of a secret police, seeking out and punishing any activity he deemed corrupt or rebellious. Most of Baker’s time was spent tracking down deserters from the Union Army. He also went after profiteers but only to line his own pockets. Baker arrested and jailed those who refused to share their illegal spoils from selling government supplies. Baker violated constitutional rights without fear or reservations since he was wholly backed by Stanton. He routinely made false arrests, conducted illegal searches without warrants, and blackmailed government officials into making endorsements of his almost non-existent espionage service. No one misused his authority or office more than Lafayette Baker.  He developed a reputation for arresting and punishing suspects, ‘without warrant, or the semblance of law or justice.’” At one point, Baker discovered severe corruption in the Treasury Department, and it has been claimed that the only reason he bothered to bring it out into the open was that he didn’t get a cut. One official from the Treasury Department stated plainly that: “Baker became a law unto himself. He instituted a veritable Reign of Terror.

In a classic pre-NSA caper, Baker was eventually caught tapping telegraph lines between Nashville and his boss, Stanton’s, office. This earned him a demotion and he was shuttled off to New York to be placed under the jurisdiction of Charles Dana, Assistant Secretary of War and friend of Karl Marx. You can read about Mr. Dana in the book Lincoln’s Marxists. He had quite a leftist career, so typical for many in the Lincoln administration.

However, immediately following the Lincoln assassination he was called back to Washington and started working on the case.  Within a mere two days all the conspirators except Booth and Herold were in custody. The civilwarbummer article noted: “Within two days, all of the conspirators were in custody. Somehow Baker know exactly where he could find the alcoholic George A. Atzerodt whose nerve had failed him when it came time to kill Vice-President Andrew Johnson. He also knew that Seward’s would-be assassin, Lewis Paine, could be found in the Washington, D.C. boarding house of Mary Surratt.  Colonel Baker knew to arrest Edward Spangler, the carpenter at Ford’s Theater. ..Lafayette Baker had all the answers within forty-eight hours, including the escape route taken by John Wilkes Booth and David Herold.” I find that an amazing amount of detective work to have completed in just two days, and apparently the writer of the article felt the same.

Almost makes you wonder if he didn’t have some kind of advance information about all this.

A group of 25 men, under the command of Lieutenant Edward P. Doherty took out after Booth and Herold, but the overall command of this group ended up being divided between two other men—Baker’s cousin, Luther B. Baker, and Colonel Everton Conger.  The article noted that: “Luther Baker was an enforcer who had carried out several of Lafayette Baker’s dirty deeds. Colonel Everton Conger also worked for Baker’s Intelligence Service  and was willing to go to any lengths for his supervisor.” This group rode straight (no hunting or having to look around) to the farm where Booth and Herold were in a tobacco barn. Herold surrendered but Booth refused, and was subsequently supposedly shot in the back of the head. Conger searched the body of the supposed Booth and came up with, among other things, a leather-bound diary. He had been told by Lafayette Baker to specifically look for the diary. You have to wonder why and you also have to wonder how Baker even knew of its existence.

Conger took the personal effects, diary included, to Baker, who then wanted Conger to go with him when he turned over Booth’s effects to Edwin Stanton. Apparently, Baker wanted two witnesses to the fact that he turned over all of Booth’s effects to Stanton and that Stanton was “the final and only despository of this evidence.” Baker later claimed that someone had “cut out eighteen leaves” from the diary. Stanton claimed he didn’t remove any of the pages. It has been speculated that the missing eighteen pages included the names of those who had financed the “Lincoln conspiracy.”

What happened afterward depends on which sources you believe. One source I read said Baker was called before a  Congressional committee when it was found out that a diary had been taken off Booth’s body. This was when Baker mentioned the eighteen missing pages. Stanton was then called before the committee and said he never removed any pages and Stanton was forced to hand over the diary. Another source I read awhile back said that Stanton had destroyed the written material (evidence) from Booth’s body, that it had, in fact, ended up probably in his fireplace. I supposed whoever might have the diary could disprove that one.

Another blog, for March 6, 2013, gives a little different spin to this. It says: “By 1864, Edwin Stanton was forced to banish Col. Baker to New York City. But Baker, within a year, returned to the forefront via a plot to assassinate Abraham Lincoln, which allegedly ‘was Baker’s bid to recoup his fortunes.  First, elimination of the President, which a large clique in the War Department desired, then a swift ‘solution’ to the crime’ via the subsequent ‘trial’ of patsies Mary Surratt, Louis Paine, Dr. Samuel Mudd, etc.”

Now, fast-forward to the twentieth century. A lot has been written about the Lincoln assassination and its aftermath and needless to say, the historians are, as usual, in wild disagreement with one another, to the point where name calling has almost become a fine art.

Over the years I have read Eisenschiml’s book Why Was Lincoln Murdered?  and I have also read most of his second book In The Shadow of Lincoln’s Death  which I have a copy of. Although some current historians have tried to savage Eisenschiml, he asked a lot of questions that I have never seen satisfactorily answered. I’ve also read Theodore Roscoe’s The Web of Conspiracy  which deals with the assassination. And I’ve read The Lincoln Conspiracy  which is a book that leaned heavily on those written previous to it for information. Another one I have heard of but have not read, one that has been panned by contemporary historians is one by Ray Neff and Leonard Guttridge called Dark Union.  Dr. Neff was an emeritus faculty member of Indiana State University.

A brief biography of Dr. Neff appeared on in which his and Mr. Guttridge’s book, Dark Union, was mentioned. It said: “His and Mr. Guttridge’s conclusion that the assassin Booth had survived and escaped captivity after murdering President Lincoln is controversial and has been largely dismissed by mainstream historians.” All the more reason for some of this to be checked out. After all, it has been “mainstream” historians who have told us that Oswald was the lone assassin of John F. Kennedy, all based on the Warren Commission Report, which even those not versed in any of this have sense enough to realize is balderdash. And then, do you “remember the Maine” the ship the Spanish supposedly blew up that got us into the Spanish-American War. Establishment “history” was a little bit off there, too. And establishment “historians” also told us that Roosevelt did not know about Pearl Harbor before it happened. Several books have now been written that show that this was all so much hogwash. Of course Roosevelt knew. It was his ticket to get us into World War 2 so we could help out his buddies in Red Russia. The “establishment” version of “history” is usually some pat little story that never really happened and is tossed out there so the gullible will be enthralled into never asking any questions about what really did happen.

The fact remains that Edwin Stanton and Lafayette Baker ran a secret police organization in this country during the War of Northern Aggression is something the “historians” need to start looking at rather than denying it and trying to smear those who write about this. You almost have to wonder if the Bolsheviks in 1917 and thereafter used what happened in this country in the 1860s as a pattern for what eventually morphed into the KGB—you know—that “disbanded” organization that really isn’t (quite) disbanded.