Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Mass Killings--Do You Detect a Pattern?

by Al Benson Jr.

There has been all manner of commentary on the Internet  regarding the recent tragic shootings in Newtown, Connecticut.

Some have suggested that we look at the bigger picture--one the includes Aurora, Colorado, Columbine High School, the recent Oregon shootings and several others. In each of the school shootings there seems to be a number of things that repeat themselves. It's almost like there is a set formula for these events, as if they are all part of a staged drama, brought about to create a certain public climate.

One commentator noticed that every one seems to take place in a "gun free" area, which means that there are already laws on the books banning guns in those places. Yet we continue to hear the multitudinous screams for more gun control.  If these shootings are taking place in already-existing gun free zones, then what good will more gun control laws do? That question is never answered, or even addressed.  In fact it is studiously ignored.

He also noted that every shooter, when they get to him, is either already dead or is mentally impaired or in some way unable to be questioned. Therefore none of them is ever available to make any public statements. How convenient!

After each shooting the "news" media delves almost exclusively into the human interest part of the event. No questions are asked that will reveal any kind of information about the shooting or possible shooters other than the one found dead on the scene. It is all media fluff--guaranteed to be real "tear-jerker" stuff, while passing no real information along to the public.

Then comes the usual plethora of calls for more gun control, heralded forth by the usual suspects in the socialist and ultra-liberal camps and their compliant lap dog media. You've heard it all before and you will hear it all again--until the federal government manages to do away with the Second Amendment. That's what it's all about.

According to CNN's Don Lemon, guns "...should only be available to police officers and to hunt al-Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt elementary school children." Leave it to CNN to put that kind of a spin on it, but let's face it, that's what they are there for.

The Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo--that bastion of constitutional liberty--is now busy tinkering with ideas to force gun confiscation in his state, by hook or by crook, makes no difference. You must remember that to these people the end justifies the means.

Just remember, "gun control is really people control." That's the real name of the game.

Monday, December 10, 2012

"Right Wing Fascists"

by Al Benson Jr.

I remember when I was a youngster, (ancient history now) that people used to refer to Hitler as a "right-wing fascist" and they used to promote the false idea that while Stalin was on the far left, Hitler was on the far right. Now granted, Communists and fascists did not especially like one another, but the reason for that was that they were in competition for total government and no total government figure likes competition.

Of the two systems, fascism is the most efficient because the people living under it maintain the facade of owning the property, which means that they are responsible for its upkeep and the government tells they what they can or cannot do with it and when. With Communism, the state claims ownership of all property, and therefore the state is responsible for taking care of it all. So, as a totalitarian worldview fascism is more efficient.

Both Communism and fascism are different forms of total government and therefore both systems belong over on the far left of the political spectrum. That being the case, if the far left represents total government, then the far right has to mean almost no government at all--anarchy. So as far a Communism and fascism go politically, we have all been lied to--both are on the far left and both are equally reprehensible.

It shouldn't be that hard to figure out, yet how many people really stop to think about it? Most just accept what they've heard all their lives and never give it a thought. You'd think that civics or political science classes in public schools would deal with something as elementary as this, yet in school I don't ever recall hearing anything about this and I was in school during some of the Cold War years, graduating back in 1956.

I recall briefly seeing some of the McCarthy hearings on television and not paying them any mind. I wish I had had the perception back then to realize what it was all about. I never heard anything about both Communism and fascism being on the political left until I heard a speaker in 1970 give a talk on different systems of government.

I wondered why this mystery was never cleared up until I realized that it was deliberate. The politicians and news-twisters we call the "news" media wanted it that way. They wanted Hitler portrayed as a right-winger so that people on the right politically could be smeared with the Nazi identity brush. Mostly it worked.

So, folks, remember this brief little political history lesson--both Communism and fascism are way over there on the far left politically--and theologically--because they are both totalitarian theologies..
He Was Red All Along

by Al Benson Jr.

For literally decades we were assured that Nelson Mandela from South Africa was not a Communist, that this wild accusation was thrown at him only so the forces of apartheid  in South Africa could stigmatize him before the world. We were told his only crime was wanting equal treatment for blacks in South Africa, that he was really a South African patriot--and on and on the usual media drivel went.

Now that South Africa has basically gone Communist (is there a lesson for the US here?) we are informed that, guess what, Mandela was a Communist after all. What a surprise! Some of us knew this forty years ago in spite of what the media told us. Groups like the John Birch Society were smeared as "Red baiters" simply for telling the truth that Mandela had lied about.

In an article by Colin Freeman and Jane Flanagan that was on http://www.telegraph.co.uk appeared the following: "For decades it was one of the most enduring disputes of South Africa's anti-apartheid struggle.  Was Nelson Mandela. the leader of the African National Congress, really a secret Communist, as the white-only government at the time alleged?...Now nearly half a century after the court case that made him the world's best known prisoner of conscience, a new book claims that whatever the wider injustices perpetrated, the apartheid-era prosecutors were indeed right on one question:  Mr. Mandela was a Communist Party member after all."

The articles continued: "But research by a British historian, Professor Stephen Ellis, has unearthed fresh evidence that during his early years as an activist, Mr. Mandela did hold senior rank in the South African Communist Party, or SACP.  He says Mr. Mandela joined the SACP to enlist the help of the Communist superpowers for the ANC's campaign of armed resistance to white rule."

Let's get one thing straight here. If Mandela was a Communist then his first primary concern was to further whatever agenda the Communist Party in his country put forward, and not to help black people. Communists are noted the world over for using black people as cannon fodder in their "wars of resistance." So if Mandela was, indeed, Red, then his first loyalty was to the Party and not his people.

The British researcher, after noting Mandela's Party membership, went on to talk about how "magnanimous"  Mandela was to all South Africans.  Anyone who knows anything about Communists knows they are not magnanimous people. That sentiment does not fit into their agenda for world governance, which, contrary to poplular opinion, they still have.

I wonder if Mandela's magnanimity extended to his wife, Winnie, who, while he was still in prison was noted for her practice of having her political opponents "necklaced." If you don't know what that term implies check it out on the Internet referencing it to her.

So it's all just another case of the public, world-wide, being lied to by the politicians and the media movers and shakers. So what else is new?

Wednesday, December 05, 2012

The Marxist Mindset

by Al Benson Jr.

Some writers have observed Marxists and their actions  and concluded that they are liars and hypocrites. These do not understand the Marxist mindset or worldview.

The late Dr. Fred Schwarz wrote in his informative little book You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists) the following: "The Communists are not hypocrites. They suffer from paranoic delusions of an intense sincerity. They are so enmeshed in the delusions of Marxism-Leninism that they are beyond the scope of rational argument and conviction. All observed phenomena are interpreted within the framework of their preconceived  conclusions. If they were hypocrites it would be much easier to deal with them.  You can make a bargain with a huypocrite;  you can scare a hypocrite. When you are dealing with paranoia of highly organized delusional patterns,  your sole resource is to acknowledge and understand these patterns and take appropriate measures to protect yourself against the conduct which results from the delusions."

Dr. Schwarz noted that it is not possible for a Communist to lie in the interest of Communism because any statement he or she makes that will further the Communist agenda is automatically the truth in their eyes. Any statement that advances the Communist program is, therefore, true and we can always trust Communists to tell "Marxist-Leninist truth." Therefore, any lie, fable, or fairy tale that will advance Communist conquest and/or control is automatically not a lie, but rather is "Marxist truth." Final and complete maturity for the Communist is reached when you get to the point where you identify your emotions completely with what the Party wants. Not the slightest bit of room for individual thinking here--even the very thought of it is :"thought crime."

People need to realize that this is where Marxists are coming from and that any action they take--robbery, rape, falsehood, deception--anything they do that will advance the Marxist agenda is, in their eyes, the truth and is, therefore, righteous and "holy" to them.  Communism is, in fact, a false theology. Whittaker Chambers, in his  excellent book Witness noted that Communism and Christianity are, in fact, two irreconcilable faiths. At root, Communism is not economic, it is theological.  It's adherents would deny that truth, but it is nonetheless a truth. If you wish to understand the Marxist then begin to understand his mindset.

One might be led to wonder if this is one reason the Republicans have so much trouble dealing with Obama on so many issues. He was raised in  a totally Marxist environment and that's the way he thinks. Of course since the current crop of Republican "leaders" lives for no other reason than to pretend to resist Obama's agenda before dutifully caving in to it, it may not make that much difference.

Whittaker Chambers'  book Witness is still available on Amazon.com and would be worth picking up to grasp the Communist worldview. Having just finished reading it, I recommend it.