By Henry Makow Ph.D

Usually I don't praise a man I am calling a dupe and hypocrite but David Horowitz is doing invaluable work.

He is waging a crusade against the "politically correct" lib-left-feminist crowd that has killed free inquiry and debate at most universities. He is championing an "Academic Bill of Rights," state legislation that protects academic freedom.

Through his "Centre for the Study of Popular Culture" and online journal, FrontPage Magazine, he has (quote) "distributed half a million books and pamphlets on the war on terror, the Middle East crisis and the anti-American left. ...He has spoken on over thirty-five college campuses addressing between 300 and 1200 students at each stop and generating major attention from local and campus media...building a campus network across the country..."

Back in the 1960's, Horowitz was editor of Ramparts Magazine, a pillar of the New Left, but he saw the light, embraced what became "Neo-Conservatism" and is now a dedicated and inspired "anti Communist."

In essence, he switched from being a dupe of the Communist wing of the Masonic conspiracy to being an agent of its Zionist wing, which explains his ample funding.

Both Communism and Zionism are Masonic cults. The Red Star and Star of David are Masonic occult symbols. Most Communist and Zionist leaders are Freemasons.

Freemasonry is an instrument of the London-based cabal of central bankers who wish to translate their control over our credit into political and cultural hegemony. They are building a one-world dictatorship and religion called the New World Order under the guise of "globalization." See my "Rothschild Conducts Red Symphony."

Communism and Zionism are both a cruel hoax. Their idealistic talk of public ownership or a national homeland for Jews is bait for the naive. Their real purpose is to advance totalitarian Masonic world government.

Horowitz's Centre for the Study of Popular Culture, which claims 40,000 supporters, is a Zionist shill. It is (quote) "dedicated to defending the cultural foundations of a free society, a task made even more pressing by the attack on America of September 11th, the Iraq conflict and the internal opponents of freedom this attack has revealed."

As if the Zionists and Neo Cons weren't responsible for these attacks, and the phony "War on Terror" which protects our freedom by taking it away.

The "Left-Right" debate that so polarizes and controls Americans is based on these Zionist-Communist pincers.

Horowitz and his ilk play their part by presenting the so-called "Conservative" side of this NWO matrix. Genuine Conservatives are rarely heard.

Both Masonic wings feel they have a monopoly on truth and are equally repressive. Both would impose their version of the truth and repress all others, as I will show later.

THE QUEST FOR TRUTH

We tend to build our identity around whatever version of reality we have been given. We must consider the possibility that we have been deliberately or inadvertently deceived. Our loyalty must be to the real truth no matter how difficult and painful it is for us to change.

We must treat our intellectual adversaries with respect, as brothers in the quest for truth. Like Horowitz I used to be a Socialist and scorned Conservatives as the cause of the world's problems.

Now I am a Conservative and I am grateful to the people I once despised. Naturally I am glad I did not have the power to repress them.

I now believe all so-called "progressive" movements (left-lib-socialist feminist) are designed to overturn the natural and healthy order of society and to create the NWO. Genuine Conservatives are people who are trying to apply the brakes on the NWO and change course.

Progressive movements appeal to people who suffer from arrested development and want the government to be their parents and look after them.

They appeal to people who cannot appreciate the inherent meaning in ordinary life and need to "change the world" to give their lives worth.

Get it? The Illuminati take away God and His spiritual laws and promise a worldly "paradise" ("Humanism") in His place based on their secret specs.

Progressives have many valid criticisms but they are not aware that the hidden agenda is to divide and undermine society. Now let's return to David Horowitz.

WHAT I LIKE ABOUT DAVID HOROWITZ

David Horowitz ventures bravely into occupied territory, the socialist feminist American campus, with the message that education and indoctrination are not the same thing.

Recently at Bowling Green University, where he was heckled and called a Christian fascist (although he is Jewish) he said entire departments are dedicated to indoctrinating students in Leftist ideologies. These courses, which include Women's Studies, Ethnic Studies, American Studies and "Peace" Studies, are obligatory and portray the US as racist, sexist, exploitive and imperialistic.

He deplored "faculty bullies" who betray their professional responsibilities as teacher and use their enormous power over students to ridicule and abuse those whose conservative views they despise."

He derided the radical professors as hypocrites who haul down huge salaries making it impossible for poor students to attend the university where tuition is $15,000.

"Eighty percent of the school budget is salaries. You make between $60,000 and $100,000 a year. You teach on average two courses and spend six hours a week in class. You work eight months out of the year and have four months paid vacation. And every seven years you get ten months paid vacation. If you are really as concerned about the working class as you pretend, why don't you volunteer to teach four courses and twelve hours a week and lower the tuition costs for these kids?"

He is dead on. However David Horowitz is himself driven by ideology. He is not so much interested in genuine academic freedom as in reasserting the phoney Neo-Conservative Vs. Left Lib Communist matrix on campus.

He refers to (quote) "Michael Moore's hate film Fahrenheit 911 and the American liberation of Iraq." I suspect he wouldn't have any problem with a professor promoting a Neo Conservative agenda to a captive audience. I suspect he wouldn't have a problem repressing alternative points of view if he could.

HOROWITZ WEB SITE BULLIES PATRIOT PROFESSOR

In an article "Jihad Jane and the Jews" on Frontpagemag.com , Horowitz wannabe Mike Adams calls Patriot Poly Sci professor Jane Christiansen "a bigot posing as a scholar."

He accuses her of "slander and anti-Semitism" and posts her email and phone number, an implicit invitation to harass her. This is typical of the Left-Communist behavior academic-freedom-loving Horowitz supposedly condemns.

What are Christiansen's crimes?

In the final exam in her course on "The American Presidency" at North Carolina's Wesleyan College she had the temerity to ask students to: "Discuss the sweeping attack on democratic rights under the Bush administration and what this means for the future of democratic government in America."

Adams' comment: "I know most of you will be shocked" by this question.

Christiansen's other crimes? Linking to web sites like Alex Jones' Infowars.com which feature articles suggesting the US is under Zionist control and is doing Israel's dirty work in Iraq.

Another site she links to has a blog which received an unsolicited anti Semitic remark. This certainly does not justify smearing her as "an anti Semite and bigot."

Clearly Horowitz's organization is as adept at slander and repression as the Leftists it deplores. This should comes as no surprise since Zionists and Communists come from the same roots.

CONCLUSION

Horowitz's Neo Conservatism is a "Progressive" movement like those he deplores. It is yet another instrument of the World Revolutionary Movement whose goal is to replace the Christian basis of Western Civilization with occult Illuminism masked as "Secularism".

Horowitz and his socialist-feminist fauxs had better be careful about tarring opponents as "haters." The Nazis used this slander. According to Christopher Story, Germans who resisted firearm registration were arrested by the SS and jailed for "fomenting hatred against the Government and the German people." (World Currency Review, Winter 2004,p.89)

Can we stop being children? Can we stop defaming the people with whom we disagree ?

We won't solve our problems until we rededicate ourselves to truth and to treating each either as brothers. People who cannot do this wish to impose a lie on the human race. They must slander because they cannot appeal to the truth.

Let's look at the Puppet Masters and stop being their puppets.
--------------------------------------

From "David Horowitz's Corrosive Projects by Paul de Rooij" in Counterpunch

Several foundations pour millions ($13.7m through 2003) into the Horowitz projects, and these range from ultra-right-wing The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, to the notorious extreme-right-wing Scaife Foundations [14]. Why would these foundations support Horowitz's hateful and corrosive operations? There is one clue in the funding list where one finds the John M. Olin Foundation contributing $15,000 to "support a public opinion study directed by Frank Luntz." Now, Frank Luntz is a pollster and propagandist for the Republican Party and Fortune 100 companies, but in addition, one of his main preoccupations is defending Israel's image abroad. Luntz is a proponent of what Zionists call hasbara, i.e., an aggressive propaganda campaign to whitewash Israel's image in the US [15]. So, from the funding sources we can surmise that pro-Israeli propaganda is one of the purposes of Horowitz's projects. Furthermore, given the nature of the right-wing funding groups behind his projects one can theorize about the projects' purposes, and these can be categorized as: (1) pushing the envelope and narrowing the political spectrum; (2) an echo chamber effect; (3) smearing critics of the US imperial role and Israel; (4) a ratcheting of smears, and (5) "mirror flak".

The Hasbara Manual, a 131-page propaganda manual, was distributed to US-zionist campus organizations; it lists many techniques to whitewash Israel, and to defuse the message of its critics [18]. Two of its key recommendations are to: (1) "attack the messenger and not the message", and (2) to "gain points" with the public targets by "manipulating," and diverting them from "rationality," "real examination," and "thinking critically". Well now, this is a splendid explanation for the role FrontPage and Campus-Watch play in the US today. Much of what these organizations do is smearing and undermining rational discussion of a range of issues.

See Reader Response Below Scroll Down