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
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.”
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?
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.”
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.
Peter Kreeft, a Christian professor of philosophy, the author of 75 books defending Christianity, explains how cultural subversion works through language:
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.
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.