During the Vietnam War, there was a powerful anti-war movement in the United States and Western Europe. Although the idealistic participants did not know it, the program was a Soviet stratagem directed from Moscow. The Leninist goal was to foster disunity and conflict within target nations and to create internal political pressure for their disarmament. That would have given the Soviets a nuclear superiority and allowed them to blackmail the free world into submission. The innocents were drawn mostly from college campuses where Leninist professors had implemented the party line by scaring the wits out of them with visions of global annihilation - not realizing that, if disarmament actually had been pursued, the chances of a nuclear attack against the United States and Western Europe would have been greatly increased.
The so-called “peace symbol” for this movement was a circle containing a vertical line and two downward sloping lines, one on each side. Pacifists had been told that the symbol was created in 1958 for use in the Aldermaster Easter Peace Walk in England. Supposedly, the design was a combination of semaphore signs for the letters N and D, standing for Nuclear Disarmament. The reality, however, is quite different. It was fashioned after a medieval symbol of Satanism, depicting the broken cross of Christianity. The “witch’s foot” or “raven’s foot,” as it was called in Europe, was then adopted by the Muslim world. When the Saracens invaded Spain in 711 A.D., the broken cross decorated their shields. In 1099 A.D., the Saracens fought the Crusaders under the same symbol. The symbol was chosen for the Aldermaster Easter Peace Walk by its well-known organizer, Bertrand Russell. The story about the semaphore symbols was an afterthought. Russell was fiercely opposed to all religion, but particularly Christianity. He had been an officer in the Communist Teachers League of England. The Daily Worker, which was the official newspaper of the Communist Party in the U.S., quoted Russell as saying: “There is no hope in anything but the Soviet way.” Russell was also a prominent member of the Fabian Society. After 1958, the so-called peace symbol became an indispensable accessory for just about every Communist-led movement throughout the Western world.
The recent war in the Middle East has once again brought the symbol back onto our streets. Once again, well-intentioned participants flock behind this banner totally unaware of its origins. They do not question the agendas of the individuals leading these demonstrations. They do not question how this movement has sprung up simultaneously throughout the entire Western World, exactly the same as during the Vietnam War, and they are not curious about the tremendous funding and coordination that such movements require. They do not recognize the old-line Marxist-Leninist slogans against capitalism spouted by their leaders. Therefore, they are not aware that most of these organizations have been aligned with the Leninist branch of world collectivism for decades. For them, it is sufficient only to know that the cry is for peace.
In the Vietnam War, we were given a false choice of supposedly being hawks or doves. We were expected to be either for the war or against it. Considering that the conflict was fought as a war of containment in which victory was not the goal, we actually were given a choice of being in favor of pulling out of the war and turning Vietnam over to the Vietcong quickly or doggedly staying in the war and turning the country over to the Vietcong slowly. That was no real choice at all. Yet those were the false options that divided so much of the free world at that time. Never was it ever suggested by governments or the media that there was a third option, which was to win the war, and then get out of there.
The so-called “peace symbol” for this movement was a circle containing a vertical line and two downward sloping lines, one on each side. Pacifists had been told that the symbol was created in 1958 for use in the Aldermaster Easter Peace Walk in England. Supposedly, the design was a combination of semaphore signs for the letters N and D, standing for Nuclear Disarmament. The reality, however, is quite different. It was fashioned after a medieval symbol of Satanism, depicting the broken cross of Christianity. The “witch’s foot” or “raven’s foot,” as it was called in Europe, was then adopted by the Muslim world. When the Saracens invaded Spain in 711 A.D., the broken cross decorated their shields. In 1099 A.D., the Saracens fought the Crusaders under the same symbol. The symbol was chosen for the Aldermaster Easter Peace Walk by its well-known organizer, Bertrand Russell. The story about the semaphore symbols was an afterthought. Russell was fiercely opposed to all religion, but particularly Christianity. He had been an officer in the Communist Teachers League of England. The Daily Worker, which was the official newspaper of the Communist Party in the U.S., quoted Russell as saying: “There is no hope in anything but the Soviet way.” Russell was also a prominent member of the Fabian Society. After 1958, the so-called peace symbol became an indispensable accessory for just about every Communist-led movement throughout the Western world.
The recent war in the Middle East has once again brought the symbol back onto our streets. Once again, well-intentioned participants flock behind this banner totally unaware of its origins. They do not question the agendas of the individuals leading these demonstrations. They do not question how this movement has sprung up simultaneously throughout the entire Western World, exactly the same as during the Vietnam War, and they are not curious about the tremendous funding and coordination that such movements require. They do not recognize the old-line Marxist-Leninist slogans against capitalism spouted by their leaders. Therefore, they are not aware that most of these organizations have been aligned with the Leninist branch of world collectivism for decades. For them, it is sufficient only to know that the cry is for peace.
In the Vietnam War, we were given a false choice of supposedly being hawks or doves. We were expected to be either for the war or against it. Considering that the conflict was fought as a war of containment in which victory was not the goal, we actually were given a choice of being in favor of pulling out of the war and turning Vietnam over to the Vietcong quickly or doggedly staying in the war and turning the country over to the Vietcong slowly. That was no real choice at all. Yet those were the false options that divided so much of the free world at that time. Never was it ever suggested by governments or the media that there was a third option, which was to win the war, and then get out of there.
Comment