Category Archives: Political Theory
Sam Francis On Anarcho-Tyranny
Samuel Francis, Chronicles, July 1994
“This condition, which in some of my columns I have called ‘anarcho-tyranny,’ is essentially a kind of Hegelian synthesis of what appear to be dialectical opposites, the combination of oppressive government power against the innocent and the law-abiding and, simultaneously, a grotesque paralysis of the ability or the will to use that power to carry out basic public duties such as protection of public safety.”
SPLC smears alt-right sites for inciting Bowers shooting
Hunter Wallace responds to smears by the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)that the alleged Pittsburgh synagogue shooter, Robert Bowers, was emboldened by rhetoric from sites like his:- Continue reading
Islamic Thinkers Or NWO Operatives?
From the blog of a Muslim sociologist, an analysis of a leading Islamic thinker from Afghan, who turns out to have been a freemason and possibly a British operative:
Jamal ud Din Al Afghani, and Muhammad Abduh are documented to be freemasons in the service of British Government, through their membership in the Oxford freemasons movement established for the purpose of creating Salafi movement in outside Britain under the freemason control which was established by Benjamin Disraeli, the Prime Minister of Great Britain.
Doubts over the relationships between Salafi leaders at the start ( Jama ul Din al Afghani and Muhammad Abdu) and the British government are spelled as documented reports that both leaders were members of the Oxford freemasons which was established in the 1820’s. The group of missionaries was appointed by a combined movement of Oxford University, the Anglican Church, and Kings College of London University, under Scottish Rite Freemasonry, as part of a plot to foster the creation of an occult brotherhood in the Muslim world, dedicated to the use of terrorism on behalf of the Illuminati in the City of London (1)
The leading promoters of the Oxford Movement were Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, Lord Palmerston of the Palladian Rite, and Edward Bullwer-Lytton, the leader of a branch of Rosicrucianism that developed from the Asiatic Brethren. The Oxford movement was also supported by the Jesuits. Also involved were the British royal family itself, and many of its leading prime ministers and aides.
Benjamin Disraeli was Grand Master of Freemasonry, as well as knight of the Order of the Garter. It was in Coningsby, that he confessed, through a character named Sidonia, modeled on his friend Lionel de Rothschild, that, “the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” Of the influence of the secret societies, Disraeli also remarked, in Parliamentary debate:
“It is useless to deny. . . a great part of Europe the whole of Italy and France, and a great portion of Germany, to say nothing of other countries are covered with a network of these secret societies, just as the superficies of the earth is now being covered with railroads. And what are their objects? They do not attempt to conceal them. They do not want constitutional government. They do not want ameliorated institutions; they do not want provincial councils nor the recording of votes; they want. . . an end to ecclesiastical establishments.”(2)
Throughout his forty-year career as a British intelligence agent, Jamal ud al Afghani was guided by two British Islamic and cult specialists, Wilfred Scawen Blunt and Edward G. Browne. E. G. Browne was Britain’s’ leading Orientalist of the nineteenth century, and numbered among his protégés at Cambridge University’s Orientalist department Harry “Abdullah” St. John B. Philby, a British intelligence specialist behind the Wahhabi movement. Wilfred S. Blunt, another member of the British Orientalist school, was given the responsibility by the Scottish Rite Masons to organize the Persian and the Middle East lodges. Al Afghani was their primary agent.
Very little is known of Jamal ud Din al Afghani’s origins. Despite the appellation “Afghani”, which he adopted and by which he is known, there are some reports that he was a Jew. On the other hand, some scholars believe that he was not an Afghan but a Iranian Shiah. And, despite posing as a reformer of orthodox Islam, al Afghani also acted as proselytizer of the Bahai faith, the first recorded project of the Oxford Movement, a creed that would become the heart of the Illuminati’s one-world-religion agenda.”
Howard Zinn: Card-Carrying Communist
One of the things you can learn from M. Stanton Evans’ recent book on Joe McCarthy’s investigations, Blacklisted by History, is how deeply the FBI had penetrated CPUSA. One reason that McCarthy’s was sometimes unable to publicly substantiate his accusations was that he relied on secret information passed along by the FBI. McCarthy couldn’t identity the source of his information without compromising the FBI’s investigations, so when his critics tried to make it appear that McCarthy’s suspicions were without merit, McCarthy couldn’t simply say, “Here is the FBI file.”
As we see from this file, the FBI had access to the CPUSA mailing list, which is not the same as a membership list, but is certainly strong evidence when combined — as in Zinn’s case — with admitted high-level involvement in a slew of front-group activities.
UPDATE III: Even if all the other FBI files proved nothing, this 1957 memorandum based on information from a former CPUSA member would seem rather conclusive:
So, according to the informant, Zinn appeared to have been a member of the Brooklyn section of CPUSA before the informant joined that section in 1949 — tending to corroborate information previously developed by the FBI.
Here is something very interesting: George Kirschner is named as co-author of Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States: The Wall Charts. Whether this is the same person as the George Kirshner who reportedly hosted CPUSA meetings in Brooklyn in 1952 might be a subject worth researching.
At any rate, the fact that “Informant T-1” was “brought up on charges of ‘white chauvinism’ by the CP” is also very interesting. This was the kind of “thought-crime” inquisition to which CPUSA members were sometimes subjected. Certainly an avid Communist like the informant, who had been a Party member since 1948, could not have been an outright racist, so we don’t know why he would have faced such an accusation. But it should be kept in mind that Stalin purged and executed many of the original Bolsheviks on fabricated pretexts of “deviationism,” and a similar Stalinist impulse might have made “T-1” a scapegoat.
This would seem to be the clincher: “T-1” is reported to have taken a photo of Zinn teaching a class on Communist doctrine in 1951, and to have provided the photo to the FBI in 1956. Zinn reportedly “took the position [in the 1951 class] that the basic teachings of Marx and Lenin were sound and should be adhered to.”
In May 1955, the FBI had de-activated its “Security Index” card on Zinn, who at that time was working on his Ph.D. at Columbia University and teaching at Upsala College in East Orange, N.J. Zinn’s file was re-opened by the FBI’s Atlanta office in 1957, after Zinn joined the faculty of Spellman College in Atlanta. A few years later, during the Kennedy administration, Zinn wrote an article in the Sunday edition of the Daily Worker disparaging Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and the FBI for their supposed failure to protect civil rights — without ever acknowledging that Zinn himself had been interviewed a decade earlier by the FBI for his own Communist activities.
UPDATE IV: A little more Googling turns up George Kirschner’s December 2008 obituary in the New York Times, with commenters memorializing his association with Zinn:
KIRSCHNER–George. Beloved grandfather and greatgrandfather, father, husband, teacher and friend will be remembered for his contagious smile and energy, unwavering principles, profound sense of justice, unequivocal commitment to activism, and open and welcoming heart. Born in New York City, George served in the US Coast Guard during WWII. He began as a brewer, later went to college, and found his professional love as a teacher of history at the Walden School in New York City.
His age and biography as a longtime New Yorker would lend credence to the suspicion Kirschner was the same as the “Kirshner” listed in the FBI files as hosting Brooklyn CPUSA section meetings. So we may therefore presume that Kirschner is, like Zinn, now the only kind of good Communist.
UPDATE V: FBI files from the 1960s connect Zinn to a Who’s Who of the New Left anti-war radicalism:
In 1966, the main publication of the Socialist Workers Party, the Militant, reported Zinn joining with then-SDS president Carl Oglesby on a committee to defend a South African activist. After the SDS split in 1969 that led to the formation of the Weather Underground, Oglesby subsequently became a JFK assassination conspiracy theorist.
Zinn participated in a 1967 anti-war “teach-in” at Harvard, sponsored by SDS in cooperation with the American Institute for Marxist Studies, an organization founded by historian Herb Aptheker, chief theoretician of CPUSA.
At an MIT teach-in, Zinn was joined by Noam Chomsky.
In one of Zinn’s most infamous exploits, he traveled to Hanoi in 1968 with the radical priest Daniel Berrigan, an event hailed at press conference involving Tom Hayden (SDS co-founder and principal author of the “Port Huron Statement”) and socialist/pacifist Dave Dellinger, subsequently of “Chicago 7” notoriety.
What we see in all this, then, is how Zinn’s career forms a major thread in a rope that connects ’60s radicalism back to the Stalinism of the 1940s and ’50s. Zinn was a consistent advocate of Marxist-Leninist doctrine throughout his career, and it is amazing that his teachings — his anti-American history — are so popular nearly two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
America won the Cold War, but the Communists won the campuses.”
Did America win the Cold War? Or was that victory simply a propaganda coup?
Roots, Not Symptoms, Mr. Raspail
Michael Hoffman, whose other views I don’t necessarily endorse, sees through Jean Raspail’s race-war propaganda classic, “The Camp of the Saints”:
How strange – not one word from Jean Raspail about who is really at fault for the invasion of France–the French themselves! Who were (and are) too hedonistic and selfish to average three or more French children per couple. Into this vacuum quite naturally (i.e. by the iron law of biology) rush those people who have enough sense to reproduce themselves (the Muslims) and who need lebensraum. Raspail deals, as do so many others, with symptoms and scapegoating: “those politicians” and that “sepulchral media” who vex “the still healthy body of the French nation.”
I assure Monsieur Raspail that the French people are desperately sick, not healthy, and that the “sepulchre” was built by the French themselves and the bones one finds there are of the aborted children who would have obstructed the multiple vacations, the second house, the third car. This sepulchre is also peopled by the spectre of millions of French children who were never conceived, for the same reasons.
Those white nations which do not have sufficient spark of life to reproduce themselves are indeed doomed, but this is no “conspiracy.” These are the inevitable wages of the Masonic, “secular Republic” that is France. The same is true for Italy, where the Catholic Church has auto-destructed and Germany, Spain, Sweden...all secular, all playboys and playgirls.
One cannot merely pay lip service to Christianity, tossing a bone to a mere nostalgia. The French, or for that matter the American intellectuals, even on the Right, dare not look to see what culture and religion prevailed when Charles Martel marched to Poitiers in 732, when Isabella reconquered Granada in 1492, when Pius V was victorious at Lepanto in 1571 and Nicholas, Graf von Salm in Vienna in 1529 and John Sobieski in that same city in 1683.
The West today, ruled ideologically by the spirits of Jean Jacques Rousseau, Charles Darwin, Albert Pike, Sigmund Freud and Menachem Mendel Schneerson cannot conquer, except from the cockpit of a glorified airborne video game attached to missiles.
Who is to blame for the demise of Europe– the healthy, fertile Muslims or the anemic, self-extinguishing denizens of the House of Usher? If lebensraum was a virtue for the Germans is it a vice for the Muslims? The most primitive pagan in the jungle knows what the “advanced” Europeans do not know, that sex without children is death!
And the current “Crusade”? It was only forty years ago that Jacqueline Kennedy wore a black veil at the funeral of her assassinated husband, and Christian women throughout Europe and America–sophisticated women of the middle and upper classes–wore head coverings in church. Now crusader George W. Bush is on a campaign to “free Muslim women” from standards of propriety and modesty not so different–at least in spirit– from what prevailed universally in the West as recently as four decades ago.
France has banned girls from wearing head scarves in its public schools, lest the girls appear too modest, and this in a France where rectums and genitals are on display on every street-corner kiosk, yet there is a morbid fear of the least display of chastity.
The Muslims rightly despise us because we have lost all self-respect; because we are not the people of the West any longer, but the people of the alchemical crucible of constant, ruinous transvaluation.
The West cannot turn its back on God and retain any territory anywhere, and when I say God I am not speaking of the god of the rabbis.
Roots, not symptoms, Monsieur Raspail.”
Subversion Of Language As Thought-Control
Note: I have had time to read more at Kreeft’s website, and, though I think he’s a good writer and thinker, he’s also wrong on several things. Here’s one:
He claims Hinduism is pantheistic. It is not. It is panentheistic (in its most developed forms), which is quite a different thing.
It is also monistic in some traditions, theistic in others, and even materialistic in still others.
Whether this is the sign of an agenda being pursued, I don’t know, not having read enough of Kreeft.
ORIGINAL POST
Peter Kreeft, a Christian professor of philosophy, the author of 75 books defending Christianity, explains how cultural subversion works through language:
In light of the President’s recent “evolution” on same-sex marriage, here’s a 2004 interview Dr. Peter Kreeft gave to the Boston College Observer (text posted at PeterKreeft.com):
What are your thoughts on the current debate about gay marriage?
Dr. Peter Kreeft: As a philosopher the thing that strikes me most is the brilliant strategy of the gay marriage movement. Like Orwell in 1984 it sees that the main battlefield is language. If they can redefine a key term like “marriage” they win.
Control language and you control thought; control thought and you control action; control action and you control the world.
Mussolini knew that too. He made it illegal for Italians to say “hi” in the traditional way. The Italian for “how are you?” is “Come sta lei?” “Lei” is the feminine inclusive pronoun. Fascist ideology held that this was emasculating and weak, so you had to say “Come sta lui?” from now on. “Lui” is the masculine pronoun. So no one could say “hi” in Italy without identifying themselves as pro or anti-fascist.
In America, the feminists have succeeded in exactly the same way. They’ve labeled the traditional inclusive language, the language of every single one of the great books of Western civilization written in English, as exclusive because it uses “he” and “man” to include women; and they’ve labeled their new artificial ideological invention, which insists, contrary to historical fact, that “he” and “man” exclude women—they’ve labeled this “inclusive” language. And amazingly, nearly everyone follows like sheep!
So it will be easy, I think, for them to redefine marriage. Hell, they’ve already redefined “human beings” or “persons” so that they can murder the littlest ones whenever they want to. Why should they feel any guilt about dishonesty when they don’t feel any guilt about murder?
I think you will find that there is an overwhelmingly strong connection between these three agendas: gay marriage, feminism, and abortion.
Lila: It was the reading I did while researching my blog posts that led me to the same conclusion – something I’d sensed when I was much younger in a more inchoate fashion:
Very seldom do you find people who are for one but not the other, or against one but not the other. And what they all have in common is this attitude toward language: it is what the most powerful and insidious propaganda film in history called “the triumph of the will.”Already in Canada it is a crime, punishable by a fine or even imprisonment, to speak against homosexuality in public. Politically incorrect ideas, such as Biblical morality, are now defined as “hate speech.”
One of the things I fear from this is an ugly backlash against homosexuals. If the truth is now whatever we will, then just as there is nothing to stop society today from redefining marriage, there is nothing to stop it tomorrow from redefining personal dignity and rights so as to take them away from homosexuals. The Nazis did exactly that.
The Church is the best friend of homosexuals, both because she tells them they are made in God’s image and have intrinsic dignity and rights and are called to be saints, and because she is the only social force left that insists on moral absolutes—so when they sin against themselves she says NO, just as she does to heterosexuals who sin against themselves sexually, but when others sin against them she says NO also.
No one else dares to say NO. She speaks up for everyone, including homosexuals.
Read the rest at PeterKreeft.com.
Some of the best friends I’ve had in this country have been homosexuals. Their intelligence and empathy for a foreigner (I’m actually a foreign-born citizen) helped me immeasurably in my life.
Several of them were spiritually inclined; all were more than ordinarily intelligent and perceptive. No personal animosity toward them as people, no physical repugnance toward their sexuality (“homophobia” properly called) motivates me.
I simply see in the diabolically subtle propaganda surrounding this issue frightening portents of the future for everyone, including homosexuals themselves, as Dr. Kreeft convincingly argues.
The one who says “no” is not necessarily the one who is inimical to you. The one who says “yes” is not necessarily your friend.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus – Dogma Of Man, Not God
An explanation of why the Catholic doctrine of “no salvation outside the Catholic church” (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) is based on an incorrect interpretation of the Biblical text from Orthodox Research Institute.org:
Although there are many issues which divide Orthodox and Roman Catholics such as the Latin addition to the Nicene Creed concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Filioque), and the Roman doctrines of Indulgences, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Papal Infallibility, Created Grace, and Original Sin, the most divisive doctrine between the two Churches has been the doctrine of Papal Supremacy. The Church of Rome claims that Christ made Peter and his successors the chief rulers over the Church; the successors of Peter are the Popes of Rome; the Church of Christ (the means of salvation) is located where Peter and his successors are. Therefore, (according to traditional Roman Catholic theology) union with him (the Pope) is necessary for salvation. As the visible head of the Church, he is the final judge of truth, the supreme teacher, the visible sign of unity, and the Vicar of Christ. Since the Pope is the head, the bishops of the Church can do nothing without him. The converse of this is, however, not true. Although the Pope generally acts in concert with his fellow bishops, he can at least in theory, act independently of them.
If these claims are true, then the Orthodox are the guilty party in the schism for not recognizing the supreme authority of the Pope, and must repent. If, on the other hand, it can be historically proven that the Bishop of Rome did not originally possess this power over the Church, but usurped it, then the Papacy is guilty of schism and must repent. Below is an examination of the problems associated with these papal claims.
The first concern that Orthodox have with this premise has to do with the presupposition that Peter was the unique rock upon which the Church was built. The Orthodox Church sees the following…problems associated with this claim.
First of all, although Peter was given the prominent role as the first of the apostles, he was always equal to the other apostles. Christ told the apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28). A special throne was not set up for Peter. Moreover the “keys” were given to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18). The other apostles were also the foundation upon which the Church was built (Eph. 2:20). If the Roman view is to be believed, it is interesting to note that when the disciples disputed among themselves as to who would be the greatest, (Lk. 22:24-27), they seemed unaware that Christ had already picked Peter.
Second, the Rock upon whom the Church is established is Christ. When Christ says, “Thou art Peter,” He called him “PETROS,” which means “small stone.” But when He says, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” the Greek term for rock is not Petros but “PETRA” which means “bedrock.” This bedrock which the Church is built upon was always understood by the Greek Fathers and many Western Fathers to mean either Christ Himself, or the profession of faith in Christ’s Divinity.
[Lila: studying the Bible with eyes sharpened by research into Preterism, I believe the “rock” is nothing more than the “corner-stone” of the church, Jesus, the same corner-stone which crushed his enemies in 70 AD, which Daniel predicted when he talked of the stone which crushes the last great world-empire of his vision.]
Third, the patristic witness is that no Father of the Church has seen, in the primacy of Peter, any title of jurisdiction or absolute authority in Church government. The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal: “It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superior to him and to the other Apostles? No, but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself.” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, pp. 173-174).
Furthermore, he taught that Peter’s primacy was not one of honor or rank, but of faith and confession: “As soon as Peter heard these words, ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ remembering his place, he exercised this primacy, a primacy of confession, not of honour; a primacy of faith, not of rank.” (Ibid., p. 174).
Blessed Augustine, one of the “Doctors” of the Roman Church, considered Peter and Paul equal. He puts these words in Paul’s mouth: “I am in nothing inferior to Peter; for we were ordained by the same God for the same ministry” (Ibid., p. 187). Blessed Augustine, also referred to Peter’s primacy, but he does not understand this to mean power over the Church. “He had not the primacy over the disciples but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons” (Ibid., p. 176).
The second concern that Orthodox have with the Latin premise is with the claim that an exclusive transference of power occurred from the Apostle Peter to the Bishop of Rome, and from the Church in Jerusalem to the Church in Rome. The Orthodox would first point out that all bishops are successors of all the apostles, and that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, does not therefore have exclusive rights to Peter. Second, since Peter died before the Apostle John, this would mean, according to the Papal doctrine, that the Beloved Apostle would have been under the universal rule of the Bishop of Rome (at that time), thus reversing the intended order of rank.
Third, Peter ordained several bishops in Rome. (Irenaeus and Eusebius write that he ordained Linus, and Tertullian states that he ordained Clement.) How could they be his successor while he was still alive?
Fourth, Jerusalem had unique authority in the Church. It was the Mother of all the Churches. But it never attempted to lord it over the other Churches as its supposed successor did.
And fifth, if we admit a succession from apostle to bishop and (from) Jerusalem to Rome, then there would be a decrease in authority, due to the unique place of the Apostle and of Jerusalem. Rome, however, has claimed more authority that Peter or Jerusalem ever claimed.
The last concern that the Orthodox have is with the Roman presupposition that the authoritative role of the Papacy always existed from ancient times. To demonstrate the novelty of this idea I cite the ancient witness of Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), one of the greatest of the Popes. Pope Gregory was concerned that the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Faster, had accepted the title of Ecumenical (or Universal) Patriarch. He condemned any such title for the following reasons.
First, anyone who would use such a title would have fallen into pride, equal to the anti-Christ. He wrote: “I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others” (Ibid., 226).
Second, St. Gregory believed that such a title would be perilous to the Church. “It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the Church crumbles if that universal one fall” (Ibid., p. 223).
Finally, he refused the title for himself because he believed that he was equal with and not superior to his fellow Patriarchs. He wrote to the Bishop of Alexandria these words: “Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, ‘as you have commanded me.’ I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity” (Ibid., p. 227). Is it possible that Pope Gregory the Great, one of the greatest of all popes, would be unaware that Peter had universal authority over the Church? Is this fact not proof enough that Peter’s supremacy over the Church as well as his passing on that power to the Bishops of Rome, was an invention and not instituted by Christ?
It is illuminating to understand that even some very illustrious Roman Catholic theologians today recognize that the Papacy as it now exists is of late origin. W. DeVries admits, “… throughout the first ten centuries Rome never claimed to have been granted its preferred position of jurisdiction as an explicit privilege” (Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism by Methodios Fouyas, p. 70). Avery Dulles considers the development of the Papacy to be an historical accident. “The strong centralization in modern Catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of Rome, with its rich heritage of classical culture and legal organization” (Models of the Church by Avery Dulles, p. 200).
The Church was never intended to be an institutional government that is ruled with worldly power (See Matt. 23:8-10). Rather its leaders must be the servant of all. Orthodox rejoice that the Pope now prefers to be called the servant of the servants of God. Sadly, this has not always been the case, and its claims have at times been incongruent with these words of Christ. I entreat my Catholic friends to examine these facts. Do they not give ample evidence that the cause of the Great Schism is rooted in the exaggerated Papal claims and that the way to unity is to return to the Church which did not fall into this error?”
Lila: Better to avoid confusing the institutional church (the visible structure) with the body of believers, which, if Jesus is really taken at his word, included many outside any organized church at all.
Indeed, we would be wise to really look closely at what Jesus meant by belief, whom he was addressing in particular passages, and what the “fruits of the spirit” are.
Bloomsbury’s Last Secret: Sado-Masochism
Lytton Strachey, the cultural critic and author of “Eminent Victorians,” a book that aimed to expose the darker nature of Christian public figures like Florence Nightingale, is one of the most celebrated figures of the early twentieth century British intellectual circle called the Bloomsbury group.
The group was named after the Bloomsbury neighborhood in central London where members lived and worked.
The circle included some of the most important intellectuals of the time – the famous economist John Maynard Keynes; the feminist writer Virginia Woolf and her husband, the critic Leonard Woolf; the author E.M Forster and the philosopher G.E.Moore.
Many of them had met while students at Cambridge and they continued to maintain close ties with Cambridge scholars and with groups like the Fabian Society.
The Fabians advocated socialism through gradualism and evolution rather than revolution, but, as with Marx and Engels, they were not from the working-class that they claimed to champion, but from the upper middle-class and higher.
Bertrand Russell, the mathematician, was one of the Fabians and he promoted the one- world government favored by the elite class, as well as its cultural agenda of rampant hedonism, practicing the latter by discarding three wives in turn.
The Fabians also included Beatrice and Sidney Webb, notorious for covering up Soviet communist atrocities; the great playwright George Bernard Shaw, who admitted that the “democratic” part of the Fabian platform was pure propaganda; Annie Besant, a theosophist who was instrumental in the founding of the Indian Independence Movement, which was thus from the start infiltrated by the British; and Harold Laski, whose socialist theories filtered down to the former colonies through his teaching position at the London School of Economics. Generations of post-colonial leaders were indoctrinated there in an ideology that was inherently atheistic, radically egalitarian, and totalitarian in nature.
[Celebrated artist Eric Gill, along with G.K. Chesterton, one of the founders of an alleged “third-way” between capitalism and socialism, was also a Fabian at one point.
Gill was regarded for a long time as a kind of secular saint.
But research in recent years has revealed a different picture.
Unknown to the public, Gill was an incestuous pedophile and adulterer, drew pornographic religious art, and dabbled in exhibitionism, homosexuality, and zoophilia, both before and after his “conversion” to Catholicism.]
Through the Woolfs and their friends, the Bloomsbury group was closely tied to the universities, the occult societies, the Fabians, the left, the anti-colonial leadership, and the League of Nations.
The ideas that permeated one area were inextricably joined with the ideas influencing another.
Property redistribution melded into wife/lover-swapping, polyamory, homosexuality, bisexuality, and pederasty.
Property, Christianity, bourgeois morality, and empire – they all had to fall together.
Not surprisingly, the enlightened Fabian agenda hid many base appetites.
Keynes was an open homosexual/bisexual and pederast:
Zygmund Dobbs wrote in his work Keynes at Harvard:
“ In 1967 the world was startled by the publication of the letters between Lytton Strachey and Maynard Keynes. Undisputed evidence in their private correspondence shows that Keynes was a life-long sexual deviate. What was more shocking was that these practices extended to a large group. Homosexuality, sado-masochism, lesbianism, and the deliberate policy of corrupting the young was the established practice of this large and influential group which eventually set the political and cultural tone for the British Empire.Keynes’ sexual partner, Lytton Strachey, indicated that their sexual attitudes could be infiltrated, “subtly, through literature, into the bloodstream of the people, and in such a way that they accepted it all quite naturally, if need be, without at first realizing what it was to which they were agreeing.” He further explained, privately, that, “he sought to write in a way that would contribute to an eventual change in our ethical and sexual mores—a change that couldn’t ‘be done in a minute,’ but would unobtrusively permeate the more flexible minds of young people.” This is a classic expression of the Fabian socialist method of seducing the mind. This was written in 1929 when it was already in practice for over forty years. It is no wonder we are reaping the whirlwind of student disorders where drug addiction and homosexuality rule the day.[9]
Virginia Woolf, who had a history of molestation and mental illness, had a lesbian affair and eventually killed herself.
Strachey himself was a homosexual pederast.
Letters published in 2005 show that Strachey also practiced S&M and once staged a blasphemous sado-masochistic crucifixion scene with his gay lover.
Thus behind the political revolution, we find the sexual revolution, and behind that an agenda that is essentially anti-Christian.
“Although Strachey had had a heterosexual relationship with the painter Dora Carrington, with whom he set up house in 1917, he soon became predominantly homosexual – with an occasional flicker of interest directed at women, including Katherine Mansfield. His last boyfriend was Roger Senhouse, who subsequently became a distinguished publisher.
Dearest old creature, what a villain you are! It was certainly settled that you were to keep Monday for me, and now I gather you’ve arranged to do something else. Tut, tut! What is to be done with you? What fearful punishment? To stand with the right ear nailed in the pillory, I think, at Piccadilly Circus, from midday to sunset on that very Monday!
To Roger Senhouse, Wednesday, July 30, 1930
Strachey had always delighted in verbal blasphemy – and, as described here, playing at crucifixion added erotic spice. I imagine the cut was made, à la Longinus’s spear, in Strachey’s side, which would have made it difficult to apply the salve.
My own dearest creature. Such a very extraordinary night! The physical symptoms quite outweighed the mental and spiritual ones – partly because they persisted in my consciousness through a rather unsettled but none the less very satisfactory sleep. First there was the clearly defined pain of the cut (a ticklish business applying the lanoline – but your orders had to be carried out) and then the much vaguer afterpangs of crucifixion – curious stiffnesses moving about over my arms and torso, very odd – and at the same time so warm and comfortable – the circulation, I must presume, fairly humming – and vitality bulking large… where it usually does – all through the night, so it seemed. But now these excitements have calmed down – the cut has quite healed up and only hurts when touched, and some faint numbnesses occasionally flit through my hands – voilà tout, just bringing to the memory some supreme highlights of sensation…”
Marranos Behind Puritanism, Utopianism, Revolution:
Note (added on Nov. 2, 2014) :
E. Michael Jones, like the owner of the Fish-eaters website, is a traditional Catholic of a stronger variety (radical) than most mainstream traditional Catholics.
I don’t subscribe to radical traditionalist dogma, being an eclectic/syncretist Christian myself, although I am very sympathetic to several of the positions that rad trads take.
I posted Jones’ piece, because it gives an analysis of history not found in mainstream accounts.
A further note:
Not having studied the matter at first hand to any great degree, I don’t dispute most of the mainstream version of the Holocaust narrative, although I also don’t think revisionists should be silenced or persecuted. One can admit that Germans suffered enormously from Allied war crimes, without denying that Jews also suffered enormously from German war-crimes. To me, this demythologizes Jewish people from being either the super-heroes…or the super-villains…of Western (and thus, world) history.
E. Michael Jones on the Marranos behind the revolutionary Protestant movements of the 16th century and thereafter:
Once the Jews who were expelled from Spain began to regroup in the newly-Protestant regions of the North, their settlements began to draw Marranos
(Lila: Jewish converts to Christianity, who most often continued to practice their old faith)
like a magnet, and the disaffected Catholics who had once been living double lives as clerics with concubines in places like Saxony and Thuringia now began to make common cause with the Jews who had led double lives as well by converting to Catholicism simply to preserve their wealth.
Revolution, which is to say, a pan-ethnic coordinated attack on the cultural hegemony of the Catholic Church over Europe, emerged as a force in world history when these two groups merged in places like Antwerp in the middle of the 16th century. Revolution was, in other words, a Protestant-Jewish alliance from its inception.
The Jews, as Newman shows so well, promoted every “reform” movement in Europe, from the Hussites to the Anabaptists, as a way of weakening the hegemony of the Catholic Church, reasoning—falsely in the case of Luther—that the enemy of their enemy was their friend.
In places like Antwerp and Amsterdam, the Jews put their wealth as well as their considerable expertise in finance and publishing at the disposal of the libidinous German monks and their princely protectors as their way of waging cultural warfare against the Catholic Church and Spain, its defender…………
..The revolutionary link between Jews and Reformers was theoretical as well as practical.
The “Reformers” for their part could justify their criminal behavior only by cloaking it in the imagery of the Old Testament. Regicide was the most heinous of crimes and viewed with revulsion by all of Christian Europe, and yet Cromwell justified his role in the murder of Charles I ……
Cromwell, according to one commentator, “was making a startling reference to the biblical story of Phineas, who thrust a javelin through a sinfully copulating couple, thus saving the people of Israel from the wrath of God. In the end, only brutal summary justice against the King had served to complete God’s work to save the nation from His wrath and to secure his continuing love.”
By 1649, when Charles I went on trial, the tradition of Judaizing which had been extirpated from Spain had struck deep roots in England. The English judaizers were known as Puritans, and Cromwell as their leader was as versed in using Biblical figures as a rationalization for his crimes as he was in using Jewish spies from Spain and Portugal as agents in his ongoing war with the Catholic powers of Europe.
The Puritans in England could implement the idea of revolution so readily precisely because they were Judaizers, and that is so because revolution was at its root a Jewish idea.
Based on Moses’ deliverance of Israel as described in the book of Exodus, the revolutionary saw a small group of chosen “saints” leading a fallen world to liberation from political oppression.
Revolution was nothing if not a secularization of ideas taken from the Bible, and as history progressed the secularization of the concept would progress as well. But the total secularization of the idea in the 17th century would have made the idea totally useless to the Puritan revolutionaries. Secularization in the 17th century was synonymous with Judaizing.
It meant substituting the Old Testament for the New.
The concept of revolution gained legitimacy in the eyes of the Puritans precisely because of its Jewish roots. Graetz sees the attraction which Jewish ideas held for English Puritans quite clearly.
The Roundheads were not inspired by the example of the suffering Christ, nor were they inspired by the medieval saints who imitated him. They needed the example of the warriors of Israel to inspire them in their equally bellicose campaigns against the Irish and the Scotch, who became liable to extermination because the Puritans saw them as Canaanites. Similarly, the King, who was an unworthy leader, like Phineas, deserved to die at the hands of the righteous, who now acted without any external authority, but, as the Jews had, on direct orders from God……
Graetz puts his finger on the heart of the issue when he identifies Puritan role models as “at once religious and national champions.”
Revolution as practiced by the Puritan Judaizers of England was a reversion to a more primitive, pre-Christian model. There was no separation the two swords of pope and emperor here—or, to use the terms of a later more secular era, no separation of church and state—instead, both pope and emperor were fused into one charismatic revenant of King David.
Israel had become ethnic once again, except that now the real Jews were Englishmen, the visible elect on earth, and England (or New England) was the New Jerusalem.
…….One can almost hear in Milton’s tendentious pleading for the legalization of divorce, the devotees of Planned Parenthood arguing that the logical sequel to America’s conquest of Afghanistan or Iraq should be contraception and abortion. Messianic politics and sexual liberation have gone hand in hand from the beginning, and they still do, now that America is the uncontested new Israel.
Messianic politics lies at the heart of what the Jewish and Puritan revolutionaries of the 16th century had in common, which is to say, both the Puritan and the Jew shared a desire to attain the spiritual goods promised in the Bible by secular means.
Messianic politics was a form of magic, since the attainment of wealth and power by spiritual means had always been the goal of Simon Magus and his followers, and as such it had a powerful appeal to a group of people who were just discovering the natural sciences at the same time that they were full of revulsion at the cross of Christ and the ideal of suffering which it embodied. “It is better,” St. Augustine wrote, summarizing the Catholic alternative to Simon Magus, “to love God and make use of money, than to love money and make use of God.”
The Puritan rejection of the medieval worldview of the Catholic Church (and its Anglican surrogates) was ultimately traceable to the Jewish rejection of the suffering Christ as an unworthy Messiah. “The chief priests,” St. Matthew tells us, “with the scribes and elders mocked him in the same way. ‘He saved others,’ they said, ‘he cannot save himself. He is the king of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him.’”