Who is behind the American Left? Soviets started it, ChiComs run it now, but the Freemasons probably started it

Judge Emmet Sullivan's insane judicial acts in the past week have garnered a lot of attention, and I rejoice to see the great Sidney Powell has gotten a quick response from the Appellate Court. 

But of course, the whole railroading/framing of General Flynn is only a part of a long-standing, deeply wide-ranging attack on the "American Right" or, as it actually is, the John Lockean "Classical Liberal" school of political thought that created the United States in the first place. 

From what does the Left come, though? Originally, as most political histories (political histories that aren't Leftist, of course) will teach that Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the "father" of what has become Leftism. In some ways that's true. Rousseau was born in 1712 (in Geneva, Switzerland). If ever there was a seventh-century man, Jean-Jacques could be said to be it, as immoral as the Bourbons and as stupid, too. 

But in 1717 something else was born, and that organization was the real "power-that-was" in fashioning Leftism and Communism, or whatever form Socialism takes. I refer, of course, to Freemasonry.

Today, in the U.S., I suppose the ChiComs are behind a lot of the Left's antics. The Chinese Communist Party has bought up U.S. politicians like it has bought up industry, agriculture, and real estate – indeed, but beyond those obvious gambits that we talk about so much, it is probably true that a lot of "sleeper cells" of various sorts are being activated to do their mischief. The Soviets were famous for their "sleeper cells", of course; the Chinese are even more patient and "Long March" than the Soviets ever dreamed of being. In any event, originally, it would have been Russian Soviets directing all that back in the 1920s and esp, once FDR was in office, they pretty much controlled the new "Administrative State" he created. 

Joe McCarthy and Dick Nixon would later put a dent into all that in the '50s, but probably only a dent. (To the extent Nixon was successful, he gained the implacable hatred of the American media, which was only too happy to use Watergate to bring him down.) Jack Kennedy, for all his many, many faults, was at least a serious Cold Warrior (and close friend of McCarthy, BTW), and look what happened to Jack: taken out in an obvious KGB op that the government and media "powers-that-be" (as in Scotty Reston of the NY Times) hid in plain sight. About the over-all Communist game, Diana West has written extensively. She her American Betrayal, The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character.) 

Then, as the Russian Communists began to fade out, the ChiComs were only too glad take their place, ironically able to do so because of Nixon's "Opening" of China. Actually, we can thank both Nixon and Kissinger for this turn of events, but it was post Reagan presidents, Democrats (Clinton and Obama) and the Republican Bushes, who really made China's near total power in the world possible. The de-industrialization of the U.S. to the point that we didn't even make our medicines was not something that just happened, or followed naturally from unbridled Capitalism à la David Ricardo. It had to be planned, especially so as it happened so fast.

But behind all of the Leftists, whether Communist or Socialist, behind all the machinations, were the Freemasons. I know it has been made to sound "tinfoil hat" to bring them up, especially in the U.S., where they've been either not noticed at all, or made fun of, or perhaps the hospital Shriners, but in the 18th century they were an association of extremely influential elites, a truly trans-national organization in an age when the only other "trans-national" institution was the Roman Catholic Church! Freemasonry was contemporary to the rationalism of the 18th century, contemporary to the atheism (Deism) so fashionable in that century. 

From what I understand; i.e. they would later foster the whole Communist/Socialist ideal, from back in the days of Karl Marx on, for whatever Black Arts/Utopian reasons they had conjured up in the 18th century – but they certainly would have been the original "Globalists" and "New World Order" types. Consider it: they were the only "Globalists" in town, the only Global Idealists for a couple of hundred years; until the Bolsheviks seized Russia and broadcast their intention to spread Communism across the world, nobody else even thought of such an outlandish set of ideals involving all nations, the entire world.

Today? I don't know what, if any, role they might play today in all this. The Left might have, like Frankenstein's monster, taken on a life of its own (Lenin wasn't polite to the Masons in Russia!). It might well just be running on its own steam now, a perpetual motion machine – like Captain Kirk's Doomsday Machine in the Star Trek episode of the same name, a weapon set in motion eons ago in a war long forgotten, but still running, and still deadly.

An Préachán

Belgian Cardinal says the Church must conform to modern society and not try to "conquer lost ground"

Amici,
I recommend a great article on Vatican II's teaching on human dignity and freedom at 1P5. It's an excellent critique of the awful Vat2 pastiche Dignitatis Humanae. 

Here is an example of what Vatican II and Dignitatis Humanae have wrought, and if one is to know a tree by its fruit, this is a wormy fruit Vat2 produced, indeed.

An excerpt (this is a cardinal, mind ye):

I believe that being a Catholic in Europe today means being part of
this scenario. It is the desire to live together while respecting
others. The Church is not here to “reconquer lost ground”. This is not its mission. To be Catholic is to be faithful to one’s convictions in an environment that has changed to a pluralistic society. This implies respect for human being and his or her beliefs.
We must always be respectful of each other, to accept the person as
he or she is, without wanting to impose ourselves on an individual
person or on society. However, we have a mission inside this society. We have convictions and values that we want to defend. It must also be noted that there is interfaith solidarity and this is the mission of the Catholic Church. We stand in solidarity with all those who strive for a more just and more fraternal society.
If we fight for the respect of freedom of religion, it is because we
agree with secularised society, but within this society, we have values to defend. The Catholic Church does not oppose a secularised society.
Citizens have the right to believe or not to believe and I stand for
that.

An Préachán again: as an old, cantankerous Irishman from the West might say, "Don't that drive the spike through the back of the donkey that carried Christ into Jerusalem, now!"
Don't it now, mhuise.

They used to put signs in windows in America: "NINA", No Irish Need Apply". So it is here, with Christ Himself. No place for Our Lord as the purpose and point of life, and transforming the world to Him, baptizing it in His Name. We Catholic Christians just have "values that are important to us" and "interfaith solidarity" to defend. Indeed, or in other words, "We surrender, utterly.

And doesn't line sound so Freemasonry? "We stand in solidarity with all those who strive for a more just and more fraternal society." It just reminds me of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité", itself a Masonic slogan.

An P

Wny Relativism Is Feminism

A friend wrote me the other day:

All together , God makes it clear in the bible that He does not expressly sanction any religion and facilitates a multitude of religions (that are, de facto, human made).

I can’t agree with this, of course. It is neither Biblical teaching (Old Testament) nor New Testament/Catholic-Orthodox Church (the Historical Church) teaching. 

It’s Relativism, of course, and really essentially Masonic. It is also decidedly feministic, an integral aspect of this “femmed” culture we live in, i.e. in the sense that “feminism” wants to make no judgments, no ruling about who’s right and who’s wrong – such judgement is something essentially masculine – fathers have this burden whereas mothers “mother”. This feminized culture rather would mother us all (to death, really) by telling us we’re all good and everybody is nice, and so on.

An example of this: I was introducing my kids to the old Irish Rovers song The Unicorn, how they played games instead of getting on the Ark, and all drowned, and my wife interjected with how horrible that was to teach to 10-year-olds (and 9 and 7-year-olds) and that somehow the Unicorns were saved. The mother wanted to "mother" her kids and protect them from the harsh realities of life, whereas the father sat in judgment and wanted his children to face reality. 

A perfect example. 

An Préachan

A Most Interesting Article on Freemasonry and the Catholic Church

From the there's an old saying that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't really after you department: Freemasonry and the Church: Freemasonry as a secularizing philosophy being the essential reason for the Church's long war against it.
Well worth the review:

http://catholicherald.co.uk/issues/august-11th-2017/the-real-reason-catholics-cant-be-freemasons/

An excerpt:

He (Pope Leo XIII) specifically referred to the aim of secularising the state and society. He referenced in particular the exclusion of religious education from state schools and the concept of “the State, which [Masonry believes] ought to be absolutely atheistic, having the inalienable right and duty to form the heart and the spirit of its citizens.” He also decried the Masonic desire to remove the Church from any control in, or influence over, schools, hospitals, public charities, universities and any other body serving the public good. Also specifically highlighted was the Masonic push for the reimagining of marriage as a merely civil contract, the promotion of divorce, and support for the legalisation of abortion.

It is almost impossible to read this agenda and not recognise it as the underpinning of almost all of our contemporary political discourse. The settled view on these matters of many, if not all, of our major political parties, indeed the very concept of the secular state and its consequences on Western society, including the pervasive divorce culture and near universal availability of abortion, is a victory of the Masonic agenda. And this raises very real canonical questions about Catholic participation in the modern secular political process.
...
Masonic infiltration of the hierarchy and Curia has long been treated as a kind of Catholic version of monsters under the bed, or McCarthyite paranoia about commie infiltrators. In fact, when you speak to people who work in the Vatican, you will quickly discover that for every two or three people who laugh at the very notion, you can find someone who has directly encountered it. I myself know at least two people who were approached about joining during their time working in Rome. The role of Masonic lodges as a confidential meeting point and network for those with heterodox ideas and agendas has changed little from pre-Revolutionary France to the modern Vatican; 300 years after the founding of the first Grand Lodge, the conflict between the Church and Freemasonry is still very much alive.



An Préachán