The United States is the "Main Enemy"

by Al Benson Jr.

Recently, I came across a batch of old books about Soviet Communism and its war on America, both in this country and around the world.

I am not one of those naive people who believes that "communism is dead, that it died when the Berlin Wall came down." In our day that's what our own government would have us to believe, in fact our own government may be among the biggest allies the communists have, especially with the present Marxist administration that is in power.

I just finished reading an informative book called The Secret World  written by Peter Deriabin, a Soviet defector to this country back in 1954. In 1953 he had been stationed in Vienna, Austria, where he was the Chief of Soviet Counterintelligence and the Communist Party boss for the Austro-German section. He ended up testifying before both the Senate and the House Un-American Activities Committee back in 1959. He wrote and co-authored several books about his life as a secret policeman in the Soviet Union. Mr. Deriabin's book that I read can still be found on Amazon.com  It went though three printings, the one I read from 1959, one in 1982 and another in 1987 and the full text can be found online.

Deriabin offered clear analysis in several areas. On page 29 he observed: "The Communist rulers, furthermore, steeped in the Marxist 'working-class' theory of Revolution, distrusted and despised the Russian farmer both as a class and individually and saw him as an enemy of their state. Collectivization appeared to offer a solution by turning the independent farmer into an agricultural 'worker.' He would, then, it was hoped, develop a true 'working-class' psychology and a necessary loyalty to the regime, because he would be so dependent on it." A true principle of Marxism/Leninism--do away with private property and make sure it all belongs to the "state." That way everyone is dependent on the State for his bread one way or another.

Another theory that had real currency among the Communists was the "guilty until proven innocent" theory. Deriabin noted: "To the Chekist (secret police) inefficiency is the same as criminality, and criminality, by definition, is not an individual's deviation, but automatically a political crime against the state. To a mind trained in this pattern a faulty conveyer belt is sabotage unless conclusively proved otherwise. A fire in a factory suggests the existence of smouldering 'anti-Sovietism'  among the workers...Gossip is enough to start a complicated investigation. No specific crime or utterance need be alleged...The question of guilt or innocence has long since been rendered academic." It seems to me that, more and more, we are operating on that theory in this country. With the IRS, if they find a "problem" they don't have to prove your guilt, you have to prove your innocence.

I just read an article on the Internet about the federal government trying to decide whether to use a drone to kill a US citizen in Pakistan because he is a "suspected" terrorist. No concern about trying to determine whether he is really guilty or not, just concern over whether they should take him out because he is "suspected" of terrorism.

Deriabin noted the difference in the standard of living between ordinary Soviet citizens and the ruling elite there. The Marxist concept of a classless society looks great on paper and in theory, but in reality it doesn't work that way in real life in any Communist country. Under Marxism the rich (ruling elite) get richer and the poor get even poorer so they can contribute to the comfort which the ruling elite think they are entitled to live in. In this country we now have a (Marxist) "health care" system which all citizens are expected to participate in and which they can tax you for if you don't choose to participate. But our ruling elite, Congress, the cabinet, and all those wonderful office-holders and bureaucrats in Washington are exempt from that. They have their own plan and it's lots better than what the ordinary citizen can afford, but they don't have to worry--we pay for it all.

Toward the end of the book Deriabin said: "But no one can properly appreciate freedom unless he has been deprived of it." We are in the process of being deprived of it in this country and most of us don't even have a clue to what is happening to us. We won't grasp that until it happens--and maybe that's what it will take to make us appreciate it--our losing it by default--because that's what's happening.

Most Americans don't want to be bothered defending their liberty--too much trouble and responsibility to all that--let George do it so it doesn't interrupt my poker night next week. We fail to realize that our liberty is a gift from God, and as such, we are obligated to seek to defend it and protect it. We are too busy squandering it to be concerned about it. One bright morning we will wake up and find we no longer have it. Our current Marxist-in-Chief will have decreed, by executive order, that we don't need it any longer and so we will now have martial law from henceforth into eternity--so he hopes.

A final thought, if our liberty is God-given, what will the Lord say to each of us on Judgment Day when He asks us what we did with the liberty He gave us and we stand before Him and have to tell Him we frittered it away because it was too much of a responsibility to be bothered with?

The United States used to be the "Main Enemy" of Marxism. It isn't anymore.

So Who's Kidding Who?

by Al Benson Jr.

I just got through reading an article on http://www.newsmax.com in which political commentator Mary Matalin, wife of former Bill Clinton adviser James Carville, stated that Republicans don't have to worry in the next presidential election because Hillary won't even be running.  She then went on to list many of the possible candidates in the Republican Party that might be making a run for the presidency, some of them even retreads left over from 2012.

As I read the article, the thought came to mind that "this is a great article for fooling the naive among the conservatives into thinking they will really have a choice of who gets to run for president among the Republican half of the oligarchy."  They can argue among themselves (and it's all purely academic) about who would be better for the country--Christie, Jindal, Jeb Bush, Huckabee or Ted Cruz from Texas. And you know what? None of it will make any difference.

The vast majority of the electorate, comprising both parties, fails to realize that there is one elite clique, made up of people in the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, along with the Bilderberger Group that controls both major political parties and so they, in the end, get to decide who will run for both parties. This means that there is hardly any meaningful difference between the candidates for both parties. The differences are purely cosmetic--just enough to fool the average voter into thinking there is a major difference where none really exists. Do you begin to realize now why these people could not, under any circumstances, allow Ron Paul to get anywhere near the White House, no matter what they had to do to prevent him? He was truly the odd man out when it came to the political game in Washington--he was honest--and no honest man gets into the White House anymore because he might upset the apple cart of our ruling elite and shoot down their agenda, so that can't happen.

Goldwater was the last man to do that in 1964 and they had to stop him at all costs. They did. George Wallace caused them some problem in 1968 when he won five states in the South, but it wasn't enough to derail them. Wallace was a big speed bump in their road and so they made sure that when he ran as a Democrat in 1972 that he was cleared out of the road. After that it was smooth sailing until now and to the One World Government people it doesn't really make any difference which party resides in the White House. Since they control both parties they get their agenda enacted either way. The rhetoric may vary from party to party but that's all that does.

I can't verify whether it is totally accurate or not, but some sources I have seen have stated that it's already been decided that Hitlery, er, I mean Hillary, will be the next president. If this is so it means that our election process has become nothing more than an One World Government-orchestrated charade. After all, as Stalin is reported to have said "It isn't who votes, but who counts the votes." In the last election there were places where Obama was reported to have gotten 140% of the vote. In other areas he only got 100% of the vote. You mean to tell me there were places in the country, mostly in the North, where there was not a single Romney voter? And how do you get 140% of the vote anywhere? Yet, with all this foolishness, the Republican Party never once issued a complaint. They were quieter than church mice. That means that the folks that run the party were satisfied with the outcome. Romney was a weak sister, as was McCain before him. Both were only put up there because the Republican Party had to have someone to run against Obama, who everyone in the know in both parties knew was going to win anyway.

The only way your vote really counts anymore is if you are a dead Democrat in Chicago, or in Gary, Indiana--and then your vote counts, and counts, and counts. The motto in those two cities is "vote early and vote often." Maybe that's how Obama got his 140%!

Frankly, we are wasting our time playing around with presidential politics because the real establishment candidate is going to win anyway, no matter which party he belongs to. Seems we'd be better off trying to elect some honest folks at the local level and the county and parish level and then working to make sure they stayed honest, because the power inherent in government will corrupt.

Who really cares which CFR/Trilateral candidate occupies the White House? You get the same One World Government agenda either way. But if you can elect some honest, principled people for local offices and they are willing to stay with it then you might start to make a difference in a couple generations. That may sound long term to some folks, but let's face it, what we are doing now ain't working--except in favor of the One World folks. Something to think about.