Tuesday, October 16, 2007


by Al Benson Jr.

I paraphrase the old poem slightly when I say "What to my wondering eyes should appear but cadres of (Black) Panthers all coming here (to Jena, Louisiana). That was my initial thought after picking up the Monroe, Louisiana newspaper one day recently and reading an article on the first page that stated that the "New Black Panthers" were coming to Jena, Louisiana to "patrol" the streets to keep the infamous Jena 6 and their families safe and secure from alleged Ku Klux Klan threats. My second thought was that the good folks in Jena, both black and white are just going to love this!

I wondered if the local police might possibly try to keep them out as a possible disruptive influence. Then I thought, no, that probably won't happen. It wouldn't be politically correct. Now if they happened to be an outfit called The White Panthers, then you can be sure they would have been denied access to Jena, but the Black Panthers probably won't--"racism" and all that you know.

I can recall when I first got into political activism back in the late 1960s. The original Black Panther Party was alive and well, spreading their black Marxist theology among the masses, and college students ate it up like bread and honey. For all their supposed intelligence they had about as much discernment as a potato chip that has just been stepped on in the parking lot. Of course the "objective" media would never admit the Black Panthers were communists--they finally had to do that themselves--and then the "news" media looked rather pathetic for not having brought that fact out earlier. But then you know how it is with the news media (and I do use that term in the loosest possible sense)--much better to have a communist under every bed than to be forced to admit that he's there. The original Black Panther Party seems to have gone the way of all flesh mostly. Survivors of that original group are now about as old as I am. However, this newest mutation of them has sprouted from the same noxious Marxist weed, and its roots and vines are gradually creeping into the "new civil rights movement."

The New Black Panthers are an interesting group. They claim capitalism is the primary evil in the world ( I always thought that sin was) and naturally they see revolution as the only solution. To say that these people are anti-Christian would be an understatement. However, they claim that they don't draw their inspiration from Karl Marx. Instead, with a clever play on words, they state that Marx drew his ideology from indigenous African cultures, and they, therefore, just eliminate the middle man, so to speak, and hark directly back to those African cultures for what they believe. What they are saying, in effect, is that these African cultures were Marxist before Marx was. Interesting concept.

The present head of the New Black Panthers is one Malik "Zulu" Shabazz. He was born Paris Lewis, but I reckon that didn't sound militantly Muslim enough for him, hence the new moniker. He went to Howard University and got a law degree, was strongly influenced by Louis Farrakhan, and claimed that meeting Farrakhan "changed my life." Oh, I'll just bet it did!

Shabazz has some rather novel views. He thinks all black prisoners in this country should be freed as they could not possibly have gotten fair trials in such a "racist" country. Back in 2002, Shabazz noted his "solidarity" with the former H. Rap Brown (also sporting a new Muslim name). Mr. Brown was eventually convicted of killing a black sheriff's deputy in Georgia. Wonder if they considered that a "hate crime" or just plain murder? Shabazz also falls all over himself to support Mumia Abu Jamal, another convicted cop-killer. He seems to have an odd affinity for people that shoot policemen. Of course we all know that these cop-killers Shabazz so ardently supports are all innocent, pure as the driven snow, because, after all, they were tried in "racist" courts. And this is what's going to be patrolling the steeets in Jena, Louisiana? Folks better hide their daughters and put their pets in the garage!

It would seem that Jena, Louisiana is now to be made the new "civil rights" guinea pig. As such it will be subjected to whatever the Leftist civil rights crowd and our "Justic Department" in Washington can get away with. This will continue until the town's residents are not so subtly "persuaded" to confess their "racism". Then, they can be made to sit on "stools of everlasting repentance" for the rest of their natural lives, while, via sensitivity training and other devices, their hometown is slowly turned into something none of them will even recognize in five years.

As we go along, I as well as many others, begin to wonder about this whole "racist" concept. It rather seems that the people who push it the strongest are among the most ethnocentric people on the face of the planet. Maybe they need to begin to recognize that, whatever supposedly constitutes "racism" they are every bit as guilty as the rest of the human race. However, for them to do that, they would need to admit they are just as sinful and needful of the salvation of Jesus Christ as the rest of us. Wonder what it'll take to make that happen--nothing short of Divine intervention.

Interestingly enough, black author Thomas Sowell labeled the whole Jena scene as "mindless tribalism." Tribalism it was, but at its leadership levels, it was far from mindless. It was Marxism in action!!!

Monday, October 15, 2007


by Al Benson Jr.

Literally for decades now, I've been hearing about how bad "white racism" is. To listen to some people you would think it is responsible for everything from constipation to the latest crop failures in India. In fact, to listen to some of these people you would think that white racism is the one unforgivable sin and that no other sins really mattered. You can be an adulterer--several of those that complain the loudest about white racism have been--but that's excusable just as long as you continue to denounce "white racism." The racist (for that's what they really are) shouters remind me of the 19th century abolitionists in this country. To them, slavery was the only sin worth mentioning. You could be a murderer or a terrorist (as was abolitionist John Brown), but that was all right as long as you were murdering people to protest the "sin" of slavery. All was acceptable. Black racists (yes, Virginia, they exist too), Muslim racists, Latin American racists, and all other manner of racists get to rant about the cardinal sin of "white racism" as they struggle to steal the moral high ground, thus climbing out of the racial morass they have been wallowing around in.

Years ago at O. J. Simpson's "trial" for the murder of his wife, his lawyer cleverly play the race card and O. J. got to walk. It seems that, every time some black man gets arrested for some horrible crime that white racism is the cause of it. One black may have murdered or robbed another black, but "white racism" is really the culprit. Let a new property tax levee somewhere for government schools get turned down and its the fault of "white racism." Illiegal aliens from Mexico, one in awhile, do get caught and shipped back to Mexico (not to worry, they'll be back for another try) and that's the fault of white racism.

That's basically the tack that former Mexican president Vicente Fox recently took. Fox recently said that the United States is letting racism dictate its policies in regard to immigration. He said "The xenophobics, the racists, those who feel they are a superior race...they are deciding the future of this nation." Dare I say it, but the future of this nation is none of Fox's business. But, not to be stopped, he continued: "To be so repressive isn't democratic or free...to be putting up fences, chasing Mexicans, that isn't right." Pardon me, Mr. Fox, but if those Mexicans are here illegally, there is not one whit of wrong involved in chasing them back into Mexico, or putting up a border fence to help keep them in Mexico, though I seriously doubt the politicians in this country will ever allow much of the fence to be built.

If the Mexican government would try to work out policies to give Mexicans decent work in their own country, maybe some of them would stay there. That fact that they won't be bothered doing that shows they really have no regard for their own people and they want the U.S. to take care of them. And we realize that, with the innate corruption in Mexico as a way of life, waiting for them to take responsibility for their own people just isn't going to happen. Much easier to accuse us of "white racism" than it is to assume personal responsibility themselves.

And, a question for Mr. Fox and friends,--what about those extreme Left-wingers from Mexico and other points south that comprize such organizations as La Raza (the race)? Any racism in these groups Mr. Fox? Oh no, of course not, none of them are racist because they aren't white and we all know that no other race has any racist problems except whites. Why, if you're white you are automatically a racist, but if you belong to any other race, why everyone just knows that you never had a racist thought in your entire life--all has been sweetness and light! This is the way the game is played by these shameless hypocrites. It's a pile of bovine fertilizer and they all know it. What they hope is that you don't know it. Supposedly, by making white folks feel ashamed of being white they can feel proud of whatever race they belong to. The problem is that if you have to tear someone else down to life yourself up, then maybe you don't have as much to offer as you think you do. They would do well to consider that aspect.

I've had black friends over the years, as well as friends of other races. Often we have sat and talked of the War of Northern Aggression, slavery, and other "touchy" issues. However, it was done in a Christian manner, with Christian charity on both sides, and no one got mad or called names if someone else didn't totally agree with him. If you want someone to respect you, then treat them with respect too--but then, mutual respect is not part of the agenda for these racist hypocrites--seeking to create more racial animosity is part of the agenda.

And, as far as ex-president Fox in Mexico is concerned, allegations have arisen about "illicit wealth." It seems a magazine down there published photos of his newly renovated ranch. Fox claimed that this was nothing but "yellow journalism." So maybe it helps Fox in this instance to attempt to sound "moral" by accusing us Americans of "white racism." It may take a little of the heat off him at home. As I said earlier--shameless hypocrites--and racist hypocrites at that. A classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. Condemn others, elevate yourself--it's a classic Marxist tactic.

Sunday, October 07, 2007


by Al Benson Jr.

We have been told for decades now that the public or government school system is a dire necessity so that the country's children can be properly educated, so they may learn to read, write, and all the rest. Although if you look at the failing public school test scores you might conclude that the program is a gigantic bust. But then the teachers' unions will pop us, like a pop-up add on your computer and tell you that "all we need is more money so we can provide a quality education." (And more, and more, and more). Most of us have heard that old saw for years now. Yet, having observed the public education scene for over three decades now, I am forced to admit that the more money we toss down the government school rathole the dumber our kids seem to get. Ask kids in some school districts who George Washington was and they will tell you they think he was a linebacker for the New Orleans Saints. Many of them can't find Texas on a map of the United States, and anything that happened before the advent of the Beatles is a complete mystery to them.

Back in the early 1980s Samuel Blumenfeld wrote an illuminating book called Is Public Education Necessary? Mr. Blumenfeld contended it wasn't, and I agree with him. He checked out the literacy rates back in the country's early days and found out that, without public schools, they were higher than they are now with public schools. In his book , on page 20, he noted: "Prof. Lawrence Cremin, in his study on colonial education, estimated that, based on the evidence of signatures on deeds, wills, militia rolls, and voting rosters, adult male literacy in the American colonies ran from 70 to 100 percent. It was this high literacy rate that, indeed, made the American Revolution possible."

Other sources, even without deliberate intention, undergird this contention. Author Benson Bobrick, in his interesting book on the American War for Independence, Angel in the Whirlwind
noted on pages 46 and 47 that: "The literacy rate in America was extrodinarily high. Although there was no public education system as such, almost every community had a church or parish school..." And on page 49 he observed: "The broad literacy and political involvement of the people in their democratic institutions helped turn the average American into a kind of citizen-lawyer." And I recall hearing a speech years ago by a man that told us the Federalist Papers were written so the farmers in upper New York state would understand what was taking place regarding the debates on ratification of the Constitution. To most folks today, trying to read the Federalist Papers is like trying to read Chinese, yet in those days the farmers in New York could understand what they said quite well. What does that tell us about our "educational" level today? All this points to the fact that this country did very well in regard to education without a government school system. Note Bobrick's comments about each community having a church or parish school. That meant that the Christian church has, at that point, upheld its responsibility to educate and enlighten the population, and this fact of local Christian education was what initially brought the government schools into existence--they were a reaction against Christian education.

The people that initially started government schools in this country were Unitarians like Horace Mann who disbelieved in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and they were encouraged and supported by socialists like Robert Owen. Both the Unitarians and the socialists realized that if they could just get true Christianity out of the educational curriculum without people realizing it, then they could substitute their own theology for it. That's right, I said theology. For, at heart, all education is theological and either promotes a Christian worldview or some other worldview far less desirable.

Dr. Wilson L. Thompson, in his lecture entitled Revolution Through Routinization noted that: "The socialists saw the public school as their tool to reform American character and to establish a socialist society. But religious conservatives were conned into believing public education was a viable means of maintaining Protestant supremacy over a huge influx of Catholic immigrants. But, Catholics established their own parochial schools, leaving Protestants mired in secular schools." But, then, that's exactly where the Unitarians and socialists wanted them. Dr. Thompson also noted: "Harvard's Unitarian elite soon moved to adopt the Prussian model of state-controlled education, and they ultimately included its compulsory school attendance laws." They wanted a captive audience.

Samuel Blumenfeld noted that the Unitarians viewed state-controlled education as the only way to solve the problem of evil. They really thought that compulsory government schools would eventually do away with evil, poverty, and crime and create the perfect man--the new "Soviet man" if you will. So the Unitarians viewed compulsory public education as the world's messiah. After all, who needs Jesus Christ for salvation when you have such a magnificent government school system, capable of curing all the ills of the world? Why just "educate" the kiddies properly and you can dump all those outmoded ideas about man's original sin and his need of salvation only through Jesus Christ and you can create the new perfect man by tinkering with his environment. Sounds just wonderful. The only problem is, it doesn't work--never has, never will. If it was working the way they told us it would and should then why did we have situations like the one in Columbine a few years ago? Oh, the public school system is an excellent vehicle for the promotion of socialist propaganda. It has been that since day one! The government school system is not a system of education it is a system of indoctrination. True education doesn't even begin to enter the picture. Since when have Unitarians, socialists, and today's secular humanists ever been interested in truth? The agenda is the name of the game, not education.

Those people that say "If we could just get the public schools back to where they were when we went to them we'd be okay" don't begin to get the big picture, nor do they begin to understand the real function of public education (if such it can be called). The government school system has been a vehicle for socialist propaganda and anti-Christian theology since its inception. Pray tell, in that case, what do you "reform" it back to? If the tree bears bad fruit it needs to be cut down, not just have a few branches trimmed off.

So if the literacy rate was better before we were "blessed" with a public school system, then why do we need one? Let education be returned to the private sphere. It functioned better there anyway, because, for the most part, it was education and not propaganda.

It is worth remembering that the tenth plank of Marx's Communist Manifesto was "free education for all children in public schools." The alternative to this is to do away with compulsory attendance laws. Then let Christian education flourish--classical Christian schools, homeschooling, regular Christian schools, however you want to do it. But get government at all levels out, completely out of the education business.