by Al Benson Jr.
It would seem that the local group of the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Tampa, Florida has done something that has really driven the liberal/Communist establishment up the wall. For years, various Leftist fringe/hate groups have marched, moaned and in general paraded around complainly loudly about Southern flags and symbols. The mere sight of a Confederate flag anywhere seems to set their noses to twitching and their ears to smoking. They caper, drool, and moan about how their delicate sensibilities have been "offended" at the mere sight of a small Confederate flag on a grave marker somewhere. Of course they have no concern whatever about the sensibilities of other folks that they may offend. The rest of us are just supposed to take that in stride while they moan about how we've offended them!
Well, guess what? Their delicate Leftist sensibilities can now really be offended. The SCV folks in Tampa, Florida have, on private property, near Routes I 4 and I 75 outside of Tampa, erected a huge flagpole with a 30' X 50' Confederate Naval Jack on it. The flagpole is 139 ft. high and is located at the construction site of a monument to Confederate veterans.
And what will be even worse for those Left-wingers, once the Confederate monument is completed, that big flag will be illuminated at night. At that point the Lefties will get to be "offended" twenty four hours a day. Doesn't your heart just bleed for them? (Don't all answer at once!)
The usual suspects have crawled out from beneath their collectivist rocks to make the usual complaints. The Hillsborough County president of the NAACP has said "I'm surprised they would let something like this go on in Hillsborough County." Buddy, I hate to disallusion you, but if the flag and monument are on private property and have met all zoning requirements, which they seem to have, then no one can tell them what they can and can't have on their own property. It seems that the NAACP would abrogate people's right to use their own property if they could get by with it.
And it was common knowledge the Fox News sent out a reporter to cover this incident. That man, Orlando Salinas, has to be one of the few remaining decent reporters in the entire country. He interviewed all the folks concerned and actually turned in an objective report, giving the Southern Heritage folks their just due. Fox News was then reported to be considering cancelling Mr. Salinas' piece because it didn't paint the Confederate flag as racist. When this became known, I think Fox News got lots of emails and calls and Mr. Salinas' report ended up being run after all, much to the chagrin of those on the Left.
The SCV folks in Tampa are adament--the big flag stays. They say they are tired of their history and heritage being constantly trashed and this big flag is one way they are fighting back. May the Lord bless their efforts.
If you are trying to figure out who is right in all of this, just look at the credentials of those who oppose not only this flag but any and all Southern flags and symbols. The majority of them are dedicated Leftists, socialists, "Red Republicans", Communists, and ultra-liberals.
And, at root, their main problem is still that these Southern symbols are mainly Christian symbols. That's what "those people" really hate--Jesus Christ and the Christian faith.
If you would like to read about some of the origins of political and religious Leftism in this country then get hold of the book "Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists" by Donnie Kennedy and myself. It deals with the radical Leftists in both Lincoln's armies and in the early Republican Party, which, contrary to some, has NO real conservative roots. Check out the website for Ole South Books to find out how to get a copy of the book.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN !!!
by Al Benson Jr.
Folks, the system is broken! It doesn't work for ordinary folks (and hasn't since 1861).
A few years back I read an article about a Harvard University political scientist who was mourning the fact that more Americans don't take part in the political process nowadays. He noted polls indicating that the number of Americans who worked for political parties fell 42% between 1973 and 1994. He also observed that the number who attended political meetings fell 35% and the number who bothered to write a letter to their congress critters fell by 23%. He mourned that we have become "a nation of bystanders" and he felt that when ordinary folks quit taking part in the civil life of a "democratic" society then that society tends to become unbalanced. I might enquire, in my cynicism what "democratic" society is is talking about. One can hardly label the corporate fascist society we exist under todaly as "democratic" unless he uses that term in the classic Marxist sense.
The political scientist claimed that our present problem did not exist earlier, where civic participation was to be expected to some degree at most levels of society. The article stated that: "Everyday Americans had a voice, and the nation's leaders listened because they depended on them--whether as citizen-soldiers, taxpayers, or volunteers." Sounds nice, but in all honesty, we are forced to recognize that the situation being described has not existed in this country for many, many years. It sounds so warm and fuzzy that we must reflect that it is simply not realistic. This country's leadership couldn't care less what ordinary people think or feel. They have their agenda and that agenda, a One-World government one, will be pushed and promoted regardless of how the public at large might feel about it. Look at the illegal immigration problem, for example. Polls have shown that somewhere around 80% of the public wants strong action from the government to curb illegal immigration. Are they giving it to us? If you think they are you must be dreaming. What has been the national "leadership's" response in both branches of the Republicrat Party? They've done a lot of promising and rhetorical side-stepping and that's it. They voted for a border fence and then told us the funding isn't available for it. So their solution is to ignore the problem and hope we don't notice that all the rhetoric doesn't amount to doodly-squat. The One-World clique in control of both major political parties wants the illegal immigrants in here. They will help to totally adulterate what is left of American culture as a definable entity and that's what they want. So we'll get that from them whether we want it or not. They want the illegals here; they mean to have them here--and the public be damned!
We also need to take note of our government "education" system, the one that most of us were forced to endure for twelve miserable years. It is a system that does not encourage political participation unless it be in a variety of Left-wing causes. For instance, we celebrate "Earth Day" in April. I remember the first Earth Day they celebrated and made such a fuss over way back in 1970. They just "happened" to pick the day to begin observing that on the day that was the 100th anniversary of Lenin's birth. The purest of coincidences of course!
It seems that many folks, one way or the other, have finally figured out that the political system we now have (the same one we've had since the Lincoln administration) doesn't work, and will never work for them and their families. That being the case, they have just sort of "tuned out" and refuse to bother taking part anymore. The dog and pony show we euphemistically refer to as the "national elections" don't interest them any longer, and who can really blame them? Most of these folks couldn't tell you rationally what's wrong with the country if you asked them. Yet, in spite of their government school "educations" in their heart of hearts they instinctively know something is wrong, something isn't working right, and they know they are powerless to change it. For ordinary people THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN and never to be fixed. Ordinary folks must continue to pay the confiscatory taxes and take with a grain of salt the constitutionally illegal usurpations of their freedoms the system dishes out, and so they, having little idea of how the game is really played at the top, attempt to live with the current situation with as little personal hassle as possible. Some of them over the years, me included, went to political meetings and wrote letters to our Congress critters about the many problems we saw. About all most of us ever got back for our efforts were those nice, meaningless form letters from them, telling us how important our opinions were and how they would take them into consideration when they voted. A pile to cow chips--bovine fertilizer, if you will! Most of them never saw our letters. Some ribbon clerk in a back office somewhere in Washington rubber-stamped the congressman's "signature" on form letters back to their constituents and they couldn't have cared less about our opinions on anything! They were going to vote on this or that whether we wanted it or not, because the One-World government clique wanted it and that was that.
In the current dog and pony show, has anyone listened to Hitlery or Obama or McCain in the soundbytes we get on the tube? Are any of them really saying anything different than the others? Are any of them really saying anything? Seems to me all we are getting is pious socialist platitudes from all of them. Years ago George Wallace said there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties. Whatever else you might think of Wallace one way or the other, he was right on this point. It doesn't make any difference which party sits in the White House after next November--you are going to get the same agenda either way. Only the rhetoric will be different. The politics of plunder, confiscation, and collectivism, with an aim to completely restricting our liberties will remain the same. You think something like this new "North American Union" isn't part of this? Think again.
So lots of folks just don't bother to participate in the workings of the system any longer because they know, at the gut level, that the politicians that rant and rave at them, pandering for their votes, don't mean a thing they say, will break every promise they made after the elections are over, and business as usual will continue on in Washington and most of our state capitals--compliments of the Council on Foreign Relations and the rest of the One World government crowd.
Unfortunately, many Christians who should know better, mostly don't. They've been gulled into thinking that "voting Republican" will, somehow save the country. Many of them and their fathers have been doing that, voting Republican, since Abraham Lincoln--and look where that has got us. And I'm not saying that because I'm a Democrat--I most assuredly am not.
If Christians are not going to wake up enough to work to change this moribund culture, then they at least should do enough homework to realize that they need to start thinking about third party candidates. If ever we are to see any meaningful change in this country we have got to begin to look somewhere else rather than to the two branches of America's Socialist Internationale that today call themselves Republicans and Democrats.
If you want to check out a little of the sorry history of this country since the conclusion of the War of Northern Aggression in 1865, please check out my website at http://www.albensonjr.com and if you want to check out the book Donnie Kennedy and I have written "Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists" then please check out the website of Ole South Books.
Folks, the system is broken! It doesn't work for ordinary folks (and hasn't since 1861).
A few years back I read an article about a Harvard University political scientist who was mourning the fact that more Americans don't take part in the political process nowadays. He noted polls indicating that the number of Americans who worked for political parties fell 42% between 1973 and 1994. He also observed that the number who attended political meetings fell 35% and the number who bothered to write a letter to their congress critters fell by 23%. He mourned that we have become "a nation of bystanders" and he felt that when ordinary folks quit taking part in the civil life of a "democratic" society then that society tends to become unbalanced. I might enquire, in my cynicism what "democratic" society is is talking about. One can hardly label the corporate fascist society we exist under todaly as "democratic" unless he uses that term in the classic Marxist sense.
The political scientist claimed that our present problem did not exist earlier, where civic participation was to be expected to some degree at most levels of society. The article stated that: "Everyday Americans had a voice, and the nation's leaders listened because they depended on them--whether as citizen-soldiers, taxpayers, or volunteers." Sounds nice, but in all honesty, we are forced to recognize that the situation being described has not existed in this country for many, many years. It sounds so warm and fuzzy that we must reflect that it is simply not realistic. This country's leadership couldn't care less what ordinary people think or feel. They have their agenda and that agenda, a One-World government one, will be pushed and promoted regardless of how the public at large might feel about it. Look at the illegal immigration problem, for example. Polls have shown that somewhere around 80% of the public wants strong action from the government to curb illegal immigration. Are they giving it to us? If you think they are you must be dreaming. What has been the national "leadership's" response in both branches of the Republicrat Party? They've done a lot of promising and rhetorical side-stepping and that's it. They voted for a border fence and then told us the funding isn't available for it. So their solution is to ignore the problem and hope we don't notice that all the rhetoric doesn't amount to doodly-squat. The One-World clique in control of both major political parties wants the illegal immigrants in here. They will help to totally adulterate what is left of American culture as a definable entity and that's what they want. So we'll get that from them whether we want it or not. They want the illegals here; they mean to have them here--and the public be damned!
We also need to take note of our government "education" system, the one that most of us were forced to endure for twelve miserable years. It is a system that does not encourage political participation unless it be in a variety of Left-wing causes. For instance, we celebrate "Earth Day" in April. I remember the first Earth Day they celebrated and made such a fuss over way back in 1970. They just "happened" to pick the day to begin observing that on the day that was the 100th anniversary of Lenin's birth. The purest of coincidences of course!
It seems that many folks, one way or the other, have finally figured out that the political system we now have (the same one we've had since the Lincoln administration) doesn't work, and will never work for them and their families. That being the case, they have just sort of "tuned out" and refuse to bother taking part anymore. The dog and pony show we euphemistically refer to as the "national elections" don't interest them any longer, and who can really blame them? Most of these folks couldn't tell you rationally what's wrong with the country if you asked them. Yet, in spite of their government school "educations" in their heart of hearts they instinctively know something is wrong, something isn't working right, and they know they are powerless to change it. For ordinary people THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN and never to be fixed. Ordinary folks must continue to pay the confiscatory taxes and take with a grain of salt the constitutionally illegal usurpations of their freedoms the system dishes out, and so they, having little idea of how the game is really played at the top, attempt to live with the current situation with as little personal hassle as possible. Some of them over the years, me included, went to political meetings and wrote letters to our Congress critters about the many problems we saw. About all most of us ever got back for our efforts were those nice, meaningless form letters from them, telling us how important our opinions were and how they would take them into consideration when they voted. A pile to cow chips--bovine fertilizer, if you will! Most of them never saw our letters. Some ribbon clerk in a back office somewhere in Washington rubber-stamped the congressman's "signature" on form letters back to their constituents and they couldn't have cared less about our opinions on anything! They were going to vote on this or that whether we wanted it or not, because the One-World government clique wanted it and that was that.
In the current dog and pony show, has anyone listened to Hitlery or Obama or McCain in the soundbytes we get on the tube? Are any of them really saying anything different than the others? Are any of them really saying anything? Seems to me all we are getting is pious socialist platitudes from all of them. Years ago George Wallace said there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties. Whatever else you might think of Wallace one way or the other, he was right on this point. It doesn't make any difference which party sits in the White House after next November--you are going to get the same agenda either way. Only the rhetoric will be different. The politics of plunder, confiscation, and collectivism, with an aim to completely restricting our liberties will remain the same. You think something like this new "North American Union" isn't part of this? Think again.
So lots of folks just don't bother to participate in the workings of the system any longer because they know, at the gut level, that the politicians that rant and rave at them, pandering for their votes, don't mean a thing they say, will break every promise they made after the elections are over, and business as usual will continue on in Washington and most of our state capitals--compliments of the Council on Foreign Relations and the rest of the One World government crowd.
Unfortunately, many Christians who should know better, mostly don't. They've been gulled into thinking that "voting Republican" will, somehow save the country. Many of them and their fathers have been doing that, voting Republican, since Abraham Lincoln--and look where that has got us. And I'm not saying that because I'm a Democrat--I most assuredly am not.
If Christians are not going to wake up enough to work to change this moribund culture, then they at least should do enough homework to realize that they need to start thinking about third party candidates. If ever we are to see any meaningful change in this country we have got to begin to look somewhere else rather than to the two branches of America's Socialist Internationale that today call themselves Republicans and Democrats.
If you want to check out a little of the sorry history of this country since the conclusion of the War of Northern Aggression in 1865, please check out my website at http://www.albensonjr.com and if you want to check out the book Donnie Kennedy and I have written "Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists" then please check out the website of Ole South Books.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
COMMUNIST DOUBLESPEAK--It's all in a word and how you use it
by Al Benson Jr.
Ever run into a situation where one word means two different things to two different people? Those who have taken the trouble to understand the Communist mindset (sorry folks, but communism isn't dead) will understand what I'm talking about. Over the years Communists have often used common, everyday terms that we all use, but to them these mean something else entirely. This is called aesopian language and it is one way Communists were able to fool liberal "useful idiots" in the West into thinking that they were great humanitarians instead of the international thugs they really were (and are).
Back in the early 1970s Professor Roy Colby wrote an informative little book called "A Communese-English Dictionary" in which he dealt with many, if not most, of the terms that Communists regularly employed in their dealings with the West that meant the complete opposite of what we've been conditioned to think they mean.
Hence, when some Red diplomat came to this country and gave a speech, he would prattle on long and loud about how the Communists in his particular country really wanted only "peace" with the United States. Many in the fawning liberal news media actually believed this twaddle and took such statements seriously. They wrote glowing accounts of the Soviet or Red Chinese Communist's quest for "peace" and they castigated the West for being a batch of warmongers. Of course some in the media knew the diffence, but they willingly lied to us anyway. Thus, you ended up with headlines in many liberal rags that passed for newspapers such as "Kruschev wants peace." No one ever bothered to ask Mr. Kruschev what he meant by the word "peace."
Professor Colby, in his book, told us. When the Communist told you he wanted "peace" what he really meant was that he sought "Absense of resistance to Commmunist expansionism, Western policy or practice favorable to Soviet or Communist objectives, An international climate in which Communism may flourish..." Suffice it to say that's not quite what you and I were brought up to think the term meant. But Communist use of the word for Western consumption always employed this meaning. So a "peacebreaker" was one who resisted Communist aggression. Do you begin to see how the game is played?
The term "racial discriminatio" was used by the Reds in much the same way. To the Communist it meant "Opposition of any kind to black demands or to the Party Line on the black revolution." So, if you resisted radical black demands for reparations or whatever, no matter how utterly riduculous they were, you were automatically a racist. It mattered not at all how far out these black demands might have been--anyone speaking out against them was automatically suspect. Still works the same way today, doesn't it?
When I said earlier that communism wasn't dead, I meant it. This is exactly the way the term "racist" is used by the Cultural Marxists in our day. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, anyone resisting the demands of radical blacks or radical illegal immmigrants, or just speaking up in defense of Southern heritage, is a flaming racist. Their use of the term "racist" is thoroughly Marxist in origin--the same way the Marxist term "reconstruction" was used after the end of the War of Northern Aggression to justify the rape of the Southern states.
Some naive soul might be tempted at this point to ask in the SPLC is really a Cultural Marxist group. To which I would answer "will the sun rise in the East tomorrow?"
There are many individuals and groups out there that qualify to be considered as Cultural Marxists. They continue to use language today exactly the way the Communists used it for decades. Today they rail about "diversity" when what they really mean is "no whites need apply." They carry on endlessly about "multi-culturalism" in which there is supposedly a place at the table for everyone--except us white folks of course. We are the reason for all the world's problems--so we should just stay away--except when those people want our money--and then we should dutifully line up with wallets in hand to fork over our long green, all the time displaying the proper amount of self-guilt and loathing. Right?
Wrong!!! The Cultural Marxists have no regard whatever for truth or common decency. They work to manipulate their intended victims, who should know better, but thanks to government education, mostly don't. If makes you wonder where the churches have been for the past several decades. They sure haven't, for the most part, been on the front lines educating the Lord's people, who, when it comes to Cultural Marxism, are usually as dumb as dirt!
Ephesians 5:11 tells Christians to "...have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove (expose) them." Had more of our churches taken the trouble to try to do this we might have had less people deceived by the Communists years ago and less deceived by their spiritual grandchildren, the Cultural Marxists, today.
Ever run into a situation where one word means two different things to two different people? Those who have taken the trouble to understand the Communist mindset (sorry folks, but communism isn't dead) will understand what I'm talking about. Over the years Communists have often used common, everyday terms that we all use, but to them these mean something else entirely. This is called aesopian language and it is one way Communists were able to fool liberal "useful idiots" in the West into thinking that they were great humanitarians instead of the international thugs they really were (and are).
Back in the early 1970s Professor Roy Colby wrote an informative little book called "A Communese-English Dictionary" in which he dealt with many, if not most, of the terms that Communists regularly employed in their dealings with the West that meant the complete opposite of what we've been conditioned to think they mean.
Hence, when some Red diplomat came to this country and gave a speech, he would prattle on long and loud about how the Communists in his particular country really wanted only "peace" with the United States. Many in the fawning liberal news media actually believed this twaddle and took such statements seriously. They wrote glowing accounts of the Soviet or Red Chinese Communist's quest for "peace" and they castigated the West for being a batch of warmongers. Of course some in the media knew the diffence, but they willingly lied to us anyway. Thus, you ended up with headlines in many liberal rags that passed for newspapers such as "Kruschev wants peace." No one ever bothered to ask Mr. Kruschev what he meant by the word "peace."
Professor Colby, in his book, told us. When the Communist told you he wanted "peace" what he really meant was that he sought "Absense of resistance to Commmunist expansionism, Western policy or practice favorable to Soviet or Communist objectives, An international climate in which Communism may flourish..." Suffice it to say that's not quite what you and I were brought up to think the term meant. But Communist use of the word for Western consumption always employed this meaning. So a "peacebreaker" was one who resisted Communist aggression. Do you begin to see how the game is played?
The term "racial discriminatio" was used by the Reds in much the same way. To the Communist it meant "Opposition of any kind to black demands or to the Party Line on the black revolution." So, if you resisted radical black demands for reparations or whatever, no matter how utterly riduculous they were, you were automatically a racist. It mattered not at all how far out these black demands might have been--anyone speaking out against them was automatically suspect. Still works the same way today, doesn't it?
When I said earlier that communism wasn't dead, I meant it. This is exactly the way the term "racist" is used by the Cultural Marxists in our day. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, anyone resisting the demands of radical blacks or radical illegal immmigrants, or just speaking up in defense of Southern heritage, is a flaming racist. Their use of the term "racist" is thoroughly Marxist in origin--the same way the Marxist term "reconstruction" was used after the end of the War of Northern Aggression to justify the rape of the Southern states.
Some naive soul might be tempted at this point to ask in the SPLC is really a Cultural Marxist group. To which I would answer "will the sun rise in the East tomorrow?"
There are many individuals and groups out there that qualify to be considered as Cultural Marxists. They continue to use language today exactly the way the Communists used it for decades. Today they rail about "diversity" when what they really mean is "no whites need apply." They carry on endlessly about "multi-culturalism" in which there is supposedly a place at the table for everyone--except us white folks of course. We are the reason for all the world's problems--so we should just stay away--except when those people want our money--and then we should dutifully line up with wallets in hand to fork over our long green, all the time displaying the proper amount of self-guilt and loathing. Right?
Wrong!!! The Cultural Marxists have no regard whatever for truth or common decency. They work to manipulate their intended victims, who should know better, but thanks to government education, mostly don't. If makes you wonder where the churches have been for the past several decades. They sure haven't, for the most part, been on the front lines educating the Lord's people, who, when it comes to Cultural Marxism, are usually as dumb as dirt!
Ephesians 5:11 tells Christians to "...have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove (expose) them." Had more of our churches taken the trouble to try to do this we might have had less people deceived by the Communists years ago and less deceived by their spiritual grandchildren, the Cultural Marxists, today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)