Robert Wolfe in The New England Review:
“Tuchman, in Bible And Sword, saw a connection between Protestantism, rejection of Papal authority and Christian Zionism.
As she put it on page 80, Wherever the Reformation took hold the Bible replaced the Pope as the final spiritual authority. The Palestinian origins of Christianity were stressed more and more in order to reduce the pretensions of Rome
The Masons too claimed “Palestinian origins,” and pre-Christian ones at that. Their focus on the rebuilding of the Temple could and did align them even more closely with the Jews than non-Masonic Protestants. But it would prove little to put together a list of all the Masons who associated themselves with the Zionist concept in some way. Such a list would be difficult to compile in any case due to the extreme reluctance of historians of Zionism to look into the Masonic connection.
This reluctance is a natural reaction to the anti-Semitic charges of a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy.
[Lila: Which makes me suspect that indeed there is some factual basis to the “conspiracy”…]
Zionism certainly
[Lila: What is certain about this?]
did not grow out of a conspiracy, whether Judeo-Masonic or any other. It was a broadly based movement rooted in 3000 years of Jewish history
[Lila: Where is the proof?]
The question is rather whether Judeo-Masonic thought tended to create a favorable context for the success of the Zionist movement. This question clearly has to be answered in the affirmative.
[Lila: Aha. So the preceding paragraph was simply to distance himself from any charge of anti-Semitism, while admitting that the “anti-Semites” do indeed have evidence for their assertions!]
That Freemasonry was inherently favorable to Zionism is suggested by the fact that the three main supporters of the Zionist movement in modern times, England, France and the United States, were also the three main centers of Freemasonry. In the United States, today Israel’s strongest supporter, at least 13 Presidents have been Freemasons, including Harry Truman, who was responsible for United States recognition of Israel in 1948.
Freemasonry helped to create a receptive climate for Zionism by its legitimation of Judaism, by its association with movements for national independence and above all by its focus on the Temple. Although this focus could be interpreted in many different ways, it was difficult to resist the implication that the Jews would have to participate in some manner in the rebuilding of the Temple. This view in turn conditioned Freemasons to accept the Zionist movement when it arose among Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries. Zionism was in no sense their creation
[Lila: But it’s clear from the historical record that Zionism did spring out of Masonic conspiracy]
but without their aid its success would have been considerably less likely.
The Temple
That the Temple was central to Freemasonry from the start is shown by Stevenson in “The Origins Of Freemasonry.” After a thorough examination of the few references to Freemasonry in 17th century Scottish texts, Stevenson concluded that the early Scottish lodges were consecrated to the memory of the Temple. He put it this way, on page 149:
The lodge of the early Scottish masons was clearly intended to be Solomon’s Temple. It does not seem to have been mentally furnished with the pillars of the temple, but they were present through the use of their names as secret words, and the references to the lodge being orientated like the temple and to the first lodge having been held in the temple porch help stress this identification – as does the grave of Hiram, the temple’s architect. This being the case, the “work” to which the master puts the masons in the lodge was presumably regarded as symbolising the building of the temple. In the religious literature of the day “building the Temple” was frequently used as a synonym for building the new Jerusalem, the creation of a true godly community.
Stevenson’s testimony is all the more suggestive in that it never occurred to him that this focus on the Temple might have derived from the Templars. Stevenson also had no interest in a Jewish connection, but noted on page 133 that a 1689 Scottish text referred to the “Mason Word” as a “Rabbinical mystery.” Stevenson theorized that “as the words of the Mason Word were connected with Solomon’s Temple it was natural to connect their use with Jewish tradition.”
The point about the Temple is that it symbolized not only “the creation of a true godly community” but also it was built at the height of the power and prestige of the kingdom of Judah and it survived only so long as the Jewish people was able to defend it.
Physical force was also the main concern of the Templars, who were a military order who engaged in constant military training. Physical force was also a prominent element in Masonic culture, as shown by the long list of generals and other military men who were Masons. It is just this point which makes Robinson’s theory of the origins of the Freemasons so plausible. Wat Tyler’s rebellion was also an expression of physical force, and one which was remarkably well organized and destructive. It is hard to understand how a group of neo-Platonic mystics could have given rise to most of the great revolutionary movements of the 18th and 19th centuries, but it is easy to see how a radical underground formed by ex-Templars might have done so.
The moral of the story is that the Temple matters. The modern Zionist movement paid little attention to the issue of the Temple, and yet it has continually surfaced all the same. The seizure of the Temple Mount by the Israeli armed forces during the Six Day War in 1967 was viewed by many as a dream come true. Since 1967 Israel has marked time, retaining physical control of the Temple Mount but leaving its administration entirely in the hands of Muslim authorities. Forty years have elapsed in this manner, but forty years are but a moment in the 3000 year history of the Temple and its legend. Sooner or later the issue of the Temple will have to be addressed. Who will decide its future – Jews, Muslims, Christians, the United Nations? To me it appears equally inconceivable that the Temple Mount will remain entirely Muslim or that an entirely Jewish “Third Temple” will replace the existing Islamic structures. Some compromise will have to be devised, but what this compromise might be no one really knows. One thing is for sure the Judeo-Masonic concept of the rebuilding of the Temple remains very much alive, and much depends on how this concept will be translated into practice in the years to come. “
John Stossel, ABC reporter [RP says he’d be in charge of consumer affairs]; Walter Williams, UPenn faculty (neo-conservative, fully on board the Global War on (some) Terror) [ RP would put him in charge of economics]; James Grant, Barron’s financial columnist, hard money columnist [RP wanted him for Secretary of Treasury]; Robert Pape; Michael Scheuer (ex-CIA).
Paul has also given a shout out to constitutional law professor and media expert Jonathan Turley (a favorite of mine) and to judge Andrew Napolitano.
Block, Napolitano, Schiff, and Williams, are staples in libertarian circles. Stossel is a more mainstream libertarian. Grant is a senior figure in the hard money crowd; Turley is a well-known civil libertarian and the only one who has shown any open anti-Zionist leanings.
Of course, these aren’t advisors, but possible picks in a Paul administration, but they do give an idea of the direction of his thinking.
What is interesting is that all of them are media personalities, each in his own right (no women, you’ll notice). They are all established authors and make the lecture/TV or YouTube circuit. In that sense, this list is a very media savvy one, since everyone on it commands name recognition and would bring in their own following.
I am not sure what that means in other ways, though. Perhaps it means that media clout rather than credibility in office is Paul’s main aim. Perhaps it means something else.
What follows now is an assessment of the potential and credibility of Paul’s choices in a libertarian administration. My considerations are limited to two things – Zionism and professional integrity.
(Note: None of this is a personal attack on these figures. I wish them all well)
John Stossel, well-known for his investigations into government corruption, manages to be not too libertarian (remember that thing about force AND FRAUD?) when it comes to the vast bankster-speculator-regulation fraud going on for the last 20 years at least. He ignores it.
A Jewish libertarian, a major mainstream figure, who has never talked about the financiers but has gone on about government corruption?
Verdict – Zionist. Fails smell test for professional integrity. Probably competent.
Walter Williams – Zionist. Supports GWOT.
Fails smell test for professional integrity (Sorry, you don’t get to call yourself libertarian and then sign onto perpetual war. I don’t know enough to assess his professional competence.
Walter Block – Zionist (see above). (more later)
Peter Schiff – Zionist (see above). Wrote “Crash Proof,” warning of inflationary excesses in market.
Passes smell test for professional integrity and competence.
Bruce Fein – Zionist and suspected Israeli agent (see Boiling Frogs Post).
Lobbyist with suspect ties and ethical infractions. Strongly civil libertarian but appears to be opportunistic.
Fails smell test for professional integrity. Passes for competence.
Jim Grant – Doyen of hard-money crowd, columnist for major Wall Street magazine, Barron’s (Barron’s is owned by the hedge-fund crowd and is the home of the criminal short-selling cabal, see Deep Capture), author of adulatory biography of Zionist financier, Bernard Baruch, lives in Brooklyn. None of that sounds too encouraging from the point of view of the average Joe, but, Grant has sounded a consistent note of skepticism about the market and predicted a day of reckoning. So while he is a possible Zionist,he passes the smell test for professional integrity and competence.
Andrew Napolitano – Libertarian constitutional scholar, judge and media personality.
Michael Scheuer – ex-CIA, has written vehemently against the Zionist agenda and neoconservatives (but then, so has Bruce Fein). Scheuer was the man on the job during the biggest intelligence failure in US history. That and his kiss-and-squeal book gives him a “fail” for professional competence.
The jury is out as far as professional integrity goes, but I tend to suspect mainstream figures who spout “anti-Semitic” stuff too glibly. Like all those fake-Jihadi sites.
Oh, and his “OBL did it, did it, did too do it,” subtext suggests “limited hang-out” to some observers.
[Anti-Zionist activist, Maidhc O’ Cathail points out why].
Robert Pape: At least, Pape did a good thing by showing that suicide bombing was not invented by Islamicists and is not peculiar to them. It is in fact uncommon and motivated world-wide by strategic considerations rather than religious fundamentalism.
What is interesting is that the two people RP names both have a professional interest in terrorism. Pape’s research into the subject is considered paradigm shifting. He has done extensive work on the group that invented suicide bombing. the Marxist Tamil Tigers, and Fein has been a lobbyist for the Tigers since 2008, after lobbying against them from 2004 until 2007.
The selection of two people whose professional activities relate to terrorism suggests that even if the US is contemplating withdrawal from the Middle East (after having secured Israeli military domination and destabilized the area), it will be engaging in more intervention in another area (read South Asia), where terrorism is rife.
Non-intervention in Palestine then is just another word for nothing left to gain there and more to come in Pakistan-India (Islamic terrorism, LTT terrorism, Maoist/Naxalite terrorism, Naga terrorism).
Says Pape, who heads up the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism:
“Even if al-Qaeda becomes a thing of the past, that doesn’t mean terrorism will disappear. This field has become a key component of the academic world, and it will continue to contribute to our understanding of world events in the future.”
Pape’s other writing (on the uses of air power and the efficacy of economic sanctions, among others) tends toward a realist and conservative use of force, one that limits itself to sharply circumscribed circumstances and methods. Nothing not to like here.
But, not unexpectedly, his research doesn’t seem to run to the deep structures (drugs, crime, mafias, covert operations) that more and more dominate the actual conduct of politics.
Political sympathies unknown. Passes the smell test for professional integrity and competence.