Skip to main content


Stop for a moment of silence, ask God what He want you to do next. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Dear Dr. Jones,

Can you give me your take on this so I can post on my blog.



Dear Mr. Martinez,

In the 2007 blog entry you sent to me, the quotation concerning the "essence of Christianity" is taken out of
context from my writings, specifically my piece "The Conversion of the Revolutionary Jew," . The quotation must be placed in its original context within
at least the entire paragraph in which it occurs to be understood or criticized. Without quotation of that
entire paragraph, the meaning of the quotation is much too easily misperesented or misinterpreted.


E. Michael Jones

The Conversion of the Revolutionary Jew

by E. Michael Jones


This article was published in the October 2006 issue of Culture Wars magazine. Order


On June 15, 2006, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States passed a resolution condemning the Gospels as “anti-Jewish” documents. Since the conclusion which the Episcopalians drew from their recognition of that fact was to censor the Scriptures, especially their liturgical use, by removing anything a Jew might find offensive, many Episcopalians concluded that this was the final apostasy in a long slide which began at the Lambeth conference of 1930 when that church approved the use of contraceptives. Whether it is or it isn’t is beyond our purview here. No matter what conclusions the Episcopalians draw from the fact, the statement that the Gospels are anti-Jewish is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, true. The only real question is why it took the Episcopalians two thousand years to wake up to this fact or why they didn’t draw what seems to be the more logical conclusion, namely, that if Episcopalians want to be faithful to the example of Jesus Christ, they must be anti-Jewish as well.

The Episcopalians did not say that the Scriptures were anti-Semitic. If they had said that, the statement would have been false. Anti-Semitism is a relatively recent word. It was created in 1870 by a German by the name of Wilhelm Marr. It refers to race, and claims that Jews are hateful because of certain ineradicable biological characteristics. That idea led to Hitler, but the defeat of Hitler led to a re-definition of the word. Anti-Semitism now has an entirely different meaning. An anti-Semite used to be someone who didn’t like Jews. Now it is someone whom the Jews don’t like. No Christian can in good conscience be an anti-Semite, but every Christian, insofar as he is a Christian, must be anti-Jewish. In contemporary parlance the two terms are practically synonymous but their meanings are very different, and the distincition is deliberately obscured for political purposes.

On October 16, 2004 President Bush signed into law the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, which establishes a special department within the U.S. State Department to monitor global anti-Semitism, reporting annually to Congress. As one of the major steps in the implementation of that law, Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice swore in Gregg Rickman as head of the State Department’s office of global anti-Semitism on May 22, 2006. Rickman had ties with both Jewish organizations and congress. He was staff director for former Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.), and chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition. But his main qualification for the job was the role he played in conjunction with Senator Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY) in shaking down $2 billion from the Swiss banks during the late ‘90s. “Gregg Rickman, working with Sen. D’Amato, is almost single-handedly the one who uncovered the corruption and the immorality of the Swiss banks,” is how William Daroff, vice president for public policy of the United Jewish Communities, the umbrella body of North American Jewish federations, and director of its Washington office put it. “That kind of doggedness will serve him well in his new capacity, according to representatives of groups that liaise between Washington and small, vulnerable Jewish communities overseas.”

Mr. Rickman will not have to define anti-Semitism. His state department office has already done that for him. In its “Report on Global Anti-Semitism” and its “Global Anti-Semitism Report,” the U.S. State Department lists the following set of beliefs as anti-Semitic:

1) Any assertion “that the Jewish community controls government, the media, international business and the financial world” is anti-Semitic.

2) ”Strong anti-Israel sentiment” is anti-Semitic.

3) ”Virulent criticism” of Israel’s leaders, past or present, is anti-Semitic. According to the State Department, anti-Semitism occurs when a swastika is portrayed in a cartoon decrying the behavior of a past or present Zionist leader. Thus, a cartoon that includes a swastika to criticize Ariel Sharon’s brutal 2002 invasion of the West Bank, raining “hell-fire” missiles on hapless Palestinian men, women and children, is anti-Semitic. Similarly, when the word “Zionazi” is used to describe Sharon’s saturation bombing in Lebanon in 1982 (killing 17,500 innocent refugees), it is also “anti-Semitic.”

4) Criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders or literature (especially the Talmud and Kabbalah) is anti-Semitic.

5) Criticism of the U.S. government and Congress for being under undue influence by the Jewish-Zionist community (including AIPAC) is anti-Semitic.

6) Criticism of the Jewish-Zionist community for promoting globalism (the “New World Order”) is anti-Semitic.

7) Blaming Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ is anti-Semitic.

8) Diminishing the “six million” figure of Holocaust victims is anti-Semitic.

9) Calling Israel a “racist” state is anti-Semitic.

10) Asserting that there exists a “Zionist Conspiracy” is anti-Semitic.

11) Claiming that Jews and their leaders created the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia is anti-Semitic.

12) Making “derogatory statements about Jewish persons” is anti-Semitic.

The State Department criteria has serious implications for anyone alive today. The most serious is that it turns many Jews, who have made many of the above claims in books and articles they have written, into anti-Semites. But the State Departmen’s definitions have serious historical implications as well. If we take numbers 4 and 7 for example, it seems clear that not just ordinary Catholics but Catholic popes and saints were guilty of anti-Semitism, according to the State Department’s criteria. Numerous popes beginning with Pope Gregory IX in 1238 have condemned the Talmud as a blasphemous assault on the person of Christ and the Christian faith and have urged Christians to confiscate and burn it. Concerning #7, St. Peter, the first pope claimed in the Acts of the Apostles that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ. Even Nostrae Aetate, the declaration of Vatican II on the Jews which ushered in an era of good feeling and “ecumenism” claimed that some Jews were responsible for Christ’s death. By their promiscuous use of the term anti-Semitism Rickman and his cohorts in the State Department have turned traditional Catholic teaching into a hate crime.

In spite of 40 years of Jewish exaggeration and chutzpah, certain facts remain. The Church is not and cannot possibly be anti-Semitic, because the term refers primarily to race and racial hatred. The Church cannot promote racial hatred of any group, certainly not of the Jews because its founder was a member of that racial group. However, the Gospel of St. John makes clear that there is a deep and abiding animus Christian against the Jews who rejected Christ. This “Judenfeindlichkeit,” if we use Brumlik’s word, is part of the essence of Catholicism. The Church is hostile to “Jews” because they have defined themselves as rejecters of Christ. The Church is anti-Jewish, but unlike the Jews, who, as Rabbi Solveichik has explained in First Things, feel that hatred is a virtue, Christians are told to love their enemies. The “Jews” by which St. John means the Jews who rejected Christ, became by that fact Christians’ enemies, but all Jews had been transformed by the coming of Christ. They had to accept him as the Messiah or reject him. Those Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah became known as Christians. Those Jews who rejected him became known as “Jews.”

And why did the Jews reject Christ? Because he was crucified. They wanted a powerful leader, not a suffering servant. The leaders of the Jews, Annas and Caiphas, representing all Jews who would reject Him, told Christ that if he came down from the cross, they would accept him as the Messiah. Because they could not accept a Messiah who suffered and died instead of restoring the kingdom as they wanted it restored, which is to say in carnal fashion, the Jews who rejected Christ became revolutionaries. The Jews who rejected Christ became revolutionaries at the foot of the cross, but the full implication of their decision didn’t become apparent until 30 years later, when the Jews rebelled against Rome, and Rome retaliated by destroying the Temple. At this point, the Jews had no temple, no priesthood and no sacrifice, and as a result they had no way of fulfilling their covenant. Seeing which way the battle for Jerusalem was going, a rabbi by the name of Jochanan ben Zakkai had himself smuggled out of Jerusalem in a shroud, and after being recognized as a friend of Rome was granted the privilege of founding a rabbinical school at Javne.

It is at this moment, 30 some years after the founding of the Church, that modern Judaism, Judaism as we know it, was born. The Jews were no longer the children of Moses performing certain rituals in fulfillment of their covenant. Judaism had become essentially a debating society, because in the absence of a Temple, that was all the Jews could do. The results of these interminable debates became known as the Talmud, which got written down over the next six centuries.

The debating did nothing to eradicate the spirit of revolution from the Jews. In many ways, it intensified it by teaching the Jews to look for a military Messiah. The Jews got their military Messiah roughly 60 years after the destruction of the Temple, when Simon bar Kokhbar rose up against Rome in 136. All of the rabbis in Jerusalem recognized bar Kokhbar as the Messiah, and as if to prove that racial Judaism had become meaningless, the Christian Jews were expelled for not recognizing him.

The expulsion of the Christian Jews at the time of Simon bar Kokhbar proved that the Jew was not a racial but a theological construct. The ultimate determinant of Jewishness had become rejection of Christ, and that rejection led inexorably to revolution. When they rejected Christ Jews became revolutionaries. For the past 2000 years, history has been a struggle between the spiritual descendents of two groups of Jews: those who accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah and those who rejected him. History became, in some sense an intra-Jewish struggle at the foot of the cross.

In the fall of 2003, Mahathir Mohammed, prime minister of Malaysia, announced that “The Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.” Mahathir was immediately denounced as an anti-Semite and accused of making “an absolute invitation for more hate crimes and terrorism against Jews” in spite of the fact that he had said no such thing and in spite of the fact that many Jews agreed with him. Henry Makow felt that Mahathir’s speech “opposed terrorism.” Another Jew, who agreed with Makow that Mahathir wasn’t a terrorist, had something similar to say. Elias Davidson, a native of Jerusalem, feels that Jews do rule the world by proxy. He goes on to explain how:

As a Jew myself (but opposed to Zionism) I need no encouragement from Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohammed to observe what should be obvious to the blatant eye: Namely that Jews effectively rule US foreign policy and thus determine to a great extent the conduct of most countries. . . . So it is with the proposition that Jews control the world. Surely they do not control every single action; surely it does not mean that every Jew participates in the “control.” But for all practical purposes the proposition holds.

What distinguishes a Jew like Davidson from a Jew like, say, Stanley Fish is obviously not his ethnicity. It is not even his politics. What distinguishes them is their divergent forms of literary criticism. Davidson believes in the objectivity of statements. He holds the Malaysian Prime Minister to what he actually said and, as a result, finds nothing anti-Semitic in his statement. “Mahathir,” Davidson continues,

has neither asked to discriminate against Jews, let alone to kill Jews. It is shameful to equate him to the Hitlerites. He urges Muslims to fight Jews by adopting modern methods, technology and educate themselves, in other words to surpass Jews in excellence. What’s wrong with that? By this he is doing service to the Muslims (over 1 billion people) and to humanity. Jews must know their place and content themselves with influence derived from their small number. Jews must learn some humility... .

The Jews, if by that we mean the cabal that rules the Jews under the name of the Sanhedrin, the Kahal, the politburo or the ADL or the other major Jewish organizations, has had centuries of experience in dealing with Jews like Makow and Davidson. The modus operandi of Jewish leaders working over Jews who disagree with their leadership goes all the way back to the beginning of modern Judaism, which is to say, to the time of Christ, when, according to the Gospel of St. John, the parents of the man born blind refused to speak “out of fear of the Jews, who had already agreed to expel from the synagogue anyone who should acknowledge Jesus as the Christ.” Any Jew who chooses Logos—in any of its forms— over Talmud, which is to say the anti-Christian ideology confected by Jewish leaders to keep their people in bondage, will feel the ire of organized Jewry. Spinoza felt it in Amsterdam in the 17th century; in our day Norman Finkelstein has felt it as well. Since it sounds more than a little preposterous to call Jews who disagree with other Jews anti-Semites, the modern day Kahal has come up with a new term. Jews who disagree with the latter day Kahal are called “self-hating Jews” as they are being expelled from the modern day synagogue of acceptable speech.

The Kahal was the autonomous legal system which the Jews established in Poland to take care of their own legal affairs. The spirit which informed that legal body was the Talmud. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Talmud is “the supreme authority in religion . . . for the majority of Jews.” The Talmud is a “systematic deformation of the Bible” in which “The pride of race with the idea of universal domination is therein exalted to the height of folly. . .. the Ten Commandments are not of obligation in their regard.. . . With regard to the Goim (non-Jews) everything is allowed: robbery, fraud, perjury, murder. . . .” Whenever its contents were made known, Christians have condemned the Talmud as incompatible with any rational social order. Jewish converts to Catholicism from the time of Nicholas Donin onward have condemned the Talmud as well. Numerous popes have condemned the Talmud because it was a direct assault on both the divinity of Christ and the moral law as handed down by Moses. According to the ex-Rabbi Drach, “the Talmud expressly forbids a Jew to save a non-Jew from death or to restore to him his lost possessions, etc, or to take pity on him.”

The Talmud was created to keep Jews in bondage to Jewish leaders by prohibiting all contact with Logos, whether that is understood as the person of Christ or the Truth or reasoning based on true principles and logic. Taught to deceive by the Talmud, the Jews end up deceiving themselves and playing into the hands of the leaders who manipulate them for their own ends.

The Talmud has led to revolution. You don’t have to be religious to be talmudic. Karl Marx was an atheist, but according to Bernard Lazare, he was also “a clear and lucid Talmudist,” and, therefore, “full of that old Hebrew materialism which ever dreams of a paradise on earth and always rejects the far-distant and problematical hope of a garden of Eden after death.” (p. 99). Marx was the quintessential Talmudist and the quintessential Jewish revolutionary, and as such he proposed one of the most influential false Messiahs in Jewish history: world communism. Baruch Levy, one of Marx’s correspondents, proposed another equally potent false Messiah, namely, the Jewish Race. According to Levy,

the Jewish people taken collectively shall be its own Messias. . . . In this new organization of humanity, the sons of Israel now scattered over the whole surface of the globe . . . shall everywhere become the ruling element without opposition . . . The governments of the nations forming the Universal or World -Republic shall all thus pass, without any effort, into Jewish hands thanks to the victory of the proletariat. . . . Thus shall the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, that, when the Messianic epoch shall have arrived, the Jews will control the wealth of all the nations of the earth.

So, it turns out that there was basis in Jewish history for what Mahathir Mohammed as well as ample evidence—the creation of the state of Israel, for instance—that world Jewry had advanced considerably toward its goal of world domination in the century and a half since Levy wrote to Karl Marx. The Jews, quite simply, could not shake themselves loose from the notion that they were God’s chosen people, not even after they stopped believing in God. By rejecting Christ, they condemned themselves to worship one false Messiah after another—most recently Communism and Zionism. In their book La Question du Messie, the Lemann brothers, both of whom converted from Judaism to Catholicism, and both of whom became priests, compared present day Jews to the Israelites at the foot of Mount Sinai: “having grown weary of waiting for the return of Moses . . . they feasted and danced around the golden calf.” Zionism and Communism are two of the most recent false Messiahs which the Jews have fallen down to worship. Having rejected the supernatural Messiah who died on the cross, the Jews condemned themselves to worship one false natural Messiah after another and repeat the cycle of enthusiasm leading to disillusionment over and over again throughout their history. Those illusions both found fulfillment in and lent themselves to the creation of the birth of the Jewish state. On January 6, 1948, the chief rabbi of Palestine announced that ““Eventually it [Israel] will lead to the inauguration of the true union of the nations, through which will be fulfilled the eternal message to mankind of our immortal prophets.” In the history of Jewish messianism, fantasies of racial superiority alternate with contradictory fantasies of universal brotherhood. “The great ideal of Judaism,” The Jewish World announced on February 9,1883 “is that . . .the whole world shall be imbued with Jewish teaching and that in a Universal Brotherhood of Nations—a greater Judaism in fact— all the separate races and religions shall disappear” (p. 98).

The Jews were condemned to seek heaven on earth through false Messiahs from the moment they chose Barabbas over Christ, a fact that leads to the already mentioned cycle of enthusiasm followed by disillusionment. When the Jews refused to be “heralds of a supernatural kingdom,” they condemned themselves to the endless task of imposing their vision of a naturalistic heaven on earth onto the world, “and they have put all their intense energy and tenacity into the struggle for the organization of the future Messianic Age.” Whenever a nation turns away from the Supernatural Messiah, as was the case during the French and Russian revolutions, that nation “will be pulled into the direction of subjection to the Natural Messias” and end up being ruled by Jews.

Does that mean that every Jew is a bad person? No, it does not. Jewish leadership controls the “synagogue of Satan,” which in turn controls the ethnic group into which Jews are born. No one has control over the circumstances of his birth. That is why anti-Semitism, if by that term we mean hatred of the Jews because of immutable and ineradicable racial characteristics, is wrong. Over the course of their lives, Jews come to understand that theirs is an ethnic group unlike any other. In spite of the propaganda of racial superiority which the Talmud seeks to inculcate in them, many Jews come to understand that a peculiarly malignant spirit has taken up its home at the heart of their ethnos. Once they become aware of the magnitude of that evil, Jews are faced with a choice. Depending on the disposition of the heart, which only God can judge, they either dedicate themselves to that evil or they reject it—completely as in the case of St. Paul, Nicholas Donin, Joseph Pfefferkorn and other Jews too numerous to mention—or inchoately, as in the case of the Jews of conscience who refuse to go along with something which they know is morally wrong, be that abortion or the eviction of Palestinians from their ancestral lands.

The purpose of the Talmud is to prevent defections from the synagogue of Satan. Behavior based on the Talmud naturally leads to resentment on the part of non-Jews. The leaders of the Jews promote that behavior knowing full well that it will cause reactions because “Pogroms in which the rank and file of the Jewish nation suffer serve the useful purpose of keeping them in absolute dependence on their leaders.” This is another way of saying that the Trotskys promote the revolution and the Braunsteins suffer for it. Jewish leaders promote pogroms, wittingly as the Gomeler Pogrom of 1905 or when Mossad agents deliberately killed Iraqi Jews to spread panic, because pogroms promote fear, and fear is the way the Kahal keeps ordinary Jews in line.

Alice Ollstein, Jewish high school student from Santa Monica, California, noticed this when she attended a recent policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Conference in Washington, DC in 2006. Miss Ollstein went as an enthusiastic Zionist but returned “feeling manipulated, disturbed and disgusted with a great deal of what I witnessed there” (

What she witnessed was non-stop fear mongering. In fact the “first thing” she noticed about the conference was “the carefully manufactured atmosphere of fear and urgency.” The hall where the plenary sessions were held

was always filled with dramatic classical music, red lighting and gigantic signs reading “Now Is The Time.” That, combined with the montages of terrorism footage projected onto six giant screens, whipped the audience into a “Save Israel” fervor that most found inspiring. By the time we finished our meal, the audience seemed eager to agree to anything that would protect Israel— even war. . . . Each speaker played upon the audience’s deepest fears. . . .

The Neoconservatives were in charge of the fear-mongering. In particular, John Podhoretz, son of Norman and a columnist for The New York Post, “got to have the first word and the last word on almost every question.” Ollstein found the comparisons which AIPAC drew between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hitler particularly manipulative.

To the tune of more dramatic classical music, the six enormous screens flashed back and forth between Hitler giving anti-Jew speeches and Ahmadinejad giving anti-Israel speeches. The famous post-Holocaust mantra “Never Again” popped up several times. Everything was geared toward persuading the audience that another Holocaust is evident ... unless we get them first.

Alice Ollstein resented “being forced to think” that the Prime Minister of Iran was “pure evil through clever sound bites and colorful images.” She came away from the conference feeling manipulated by what Walt and Mearsheimer have characterized as the main agent of the Israel lobby in America. She is not the only Jew who feels this way. Zionism has reached the state of wretched excess that signals that a reaction is about to set in. Jewish disillusionment with the god that failed that was known as Communism came to be known as neoconservatism. The Jewish reaction to Zionism can be seen in the proliferation of “proud, self-hating Jews.”

In response to a Danish magazine running a series of anti-Muslim cartoons in March 2006, a group of Israelis organized an anti-Semitic cartoon contest. Gilad Atzmon, who described the contest on his web site, finds it only natural that “a few Jews who happen to be ethically motivated and talented enough to express themselves would raise their voices” in protest against what was fundamentally a black operation designed to get European countries so annoyed at the Muslim reaction to the cartoons that they would support a nuclear attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Atzmon claims that “the morally deteriorated conduct of the Jewish state and its supportive Jewish lobbies around the world” has engendered “a celebration of what I tend to define as ‘proud Jewish self-hatred.’”

Atzmon is only half joking. The objective moment at the heart of this parody is the slow spread of disillusionment with Zionism among Israelis. At the very moment when Israel through proxies like AIPAC rules the world, the Jews they claim to speak for are undergoing a moment of deep disillusionment. Gilad Atzmon, the Israeli musician who has nominated himself as the spokesman for the proud, self-hating Jew, believes “that it is the proud SHJs that will bring Israeli Zionism and even global Zionism down.”

Having been born an Israeli, Atzmon had been subjected to Zionist propaganda for his entire life. He fought in the army, and then one day he woke up and didn’t believe it anymore.

The very program that worked so well and still works at large in the instance of my former fellow countrymen failed in my case. Not only had I stopped loving myself, I somehow failed to hate the Goyim. This is when I realized for the first time that actually there was no anti-Semitism around. Somehow, when I stopped loving myself, I also started to suspect the entire official Jewish historical narrative, both the Zionist one as well as the biblical one. How to say it, it didn’t take long before I started to question the official Zionist Holocaust tale.

Belief in Zionism, like belief in Communism, was an all or nothing proposition. Once the first doubt took root in Atzmon’s mind the entire edifice was doomed to collapse. The first thing Atzmon doubted was that dogma that “Jew-hating is an irrational act of madness or some backward Christian tendency.” Unlike Ruth Wisse, who articulated one of the dogmas of contemporary Judaism when she claimed that “anti-Semitism is not directed against the behavior of Jews but against the existence of Jews,” Gilad Atzmon began to entertain “the possibility that anti-Jewish feelings may come as a response or even retaliation to Jewish acts.” In fact, he continued, “Zionism is maintained by anti-Semitism. Without anti-Semitism there is no need for a Jewish State and without the Holocaust there wouldn’t even be a Jewish State.”

According to Atzmon, Jewish organizations like AIPAC and the ADL “are all remarkably good in generating hatred against Jews.” That hatred in turn generates fear and fear is what keeps the average Jew in bondage to the synagogue of Satan. During the course of his soliloquy, Atzmon concludes that as a proud, self-hating Jew he hates neither Jews nor Judaism, which he defines in ethnic terms. His quarrel is with what he calls “Jewishness, . . . the supremacist tendency that draws its force from a materialist secularized misinterpretation of the Judaic code. It is Jewishness rather than Judaism that fuels Zionism with murderous zeal.”

What Atzmon calls “Jewishness” is what Nicholas Donin and Joseph Pfefferkorn and the Fathers Lemann would have called the Talmud, which is to say, the racist, messianic ideology that has been the main engine driving revolutionary Jews throughout history. Many Jews have had this experience. They wake up one day and realize that their ethnic group has been colonized by some dark evil force for centuries. The name of that evil is the Talmud. The Talmud is the constitution for the synagogue of Satan, the cabal which had ruled Jews through fear for 2000 years.

Atzmon isn’t alone in feeling disillusionment with Zionism. Yuri Slezkine also says that “The Zionist revolution is over”:

The original ethos of youthful athleticism, belligerence, and single mindedness is carried on by a tired elite of old generals. Half a century after its founding, Israel bears a distant family resemblance to the Soviet Union half a century after the October Revolution. The last representatives of the first Sabra generation are sill in power, but their days are numbered (p. 367).

The rhetoric of racial superiority is hopelessly outdated, even when surrounded by the window-dressing of holocaust victimhood. Holocaust culture postponed the final reckoning, but by the beginning of the 21st century it had become clear that “The rhetoric of ethnic homogeneity and ethnic deportations, tabooed elsewhere in the west, is a routine element of Israeli political life.” The realization arrives half-way through Steven Spielberg’s film Munich, when the Jewish toy maker turned bomb maker tells Avner Kauffman, “Jews don’t do wrong because our enemies do wrong . . . . We’re supposed to be righteous.” During the course of Munich, Aver Kauffman comes to the realization I have already mentioned, the same one which turned Gilad Atzmon into a proud, self-hating Jew.

At this point it is not clear whether the proud, self-hating Jew can leverage his disillusionment with Zionism into an escape from the dialectic of Jewish history with its regular cycle of enthusiasm followed by disillusionment followed by enthusiasm for a new Messiah. The objective moment here involves an understanding of what Atzmon calls “Jewishness.” Jewishness is not just another version of ethnicity like Irishness or Polishness. “Jewishness” is an ideology. It is a Talmudic deformation of Logos that has caused suffering, largely in the form of revolution, throughout the last 2000 years of history.

The Catholic Church has always condemned anti-Semitism because Anti-Semitism, which is to say, hatred of the Jewish race, is wrong in and of itself. But beyond that anti-Semitism is also an inappropriate response to what Atzmon calls “Jewishness.” Anti-Semitism is in many ways a competing form of “Jewishness.” Anti-Semitism cannot deal with “Jewishness,” because a Jew is not someone with Abraham’s DNA in his cells. Most Jews aren’t even Semites. The Jew, insofar as he appropriates his “Jewishness,” is a theological construct. He is a rejecter of Christ. The Talmud was created to keep the Jewish people in bondage to a leadership that has existed under various manifestations throughout history—the Sanhedrin, the Kahal, the Politburo, the ADL, AIPAC. Each of these groups has proposed a false messiah as the antidote and alternative to the true Messiah, and each has led either to violent reaction or equally violent disappointment throughout history. In the 20 years following 1648, the entire cycle played itself out. The Chmielnicki pogroms and Shabbetai Zevi were reaction, Messiah, disappointment.

There is some indication that the same thing is happening again. Sixty years ago, the Communist empire spread across the face of the earth, and yet at the same time the Jews who had supported Stalin so faithfully began to experience widespread disillusionment with Communism. The same thing is now happening to Zionism, at the very moment when the Israel Lobby has reached the pinnacle of worldly power.

If this is the case, what are the options at the present moment? In one of his more cryptic moments, Atzmon claims that “Salvation is the Masada of the Proud, Self-Hating Jew.” Atzmon is referring to the mass suicide which followed the 70 AD insurrection against Rome which eventuated in the destruction of the Temple. The 21st century version of Masada would be much more dramatic because today’s despairing Zionists have nuclear weapons, a fact which lends new urgency to dissuading the Jews from taking the whole world with them when they go through one of their inevitable periods of disillusionment.

The other option is conversion, the option which has always been there since the beginning. This means conversion to Logos in all of its forms, from philosophical realism and the tenets of onto-theology to acceptance of Jesus Christ as the one and only Messiah. It also means an equally firm rejection of all forms of Talmudic deception, including sexual liberation, racism, messianic politics, and deconstruction.

The Catholic Church, which throughout its history has urged the conversion of the Jews, has thus far been incapable of lending assistance in this regard because it has been lamed by an interpretation of Nostra Aetate which contradicts the Gospels. One of the rituals of post-Nostra Aetate ecumenism which has developed over the past 40 years entails having some church dignitary stand up at an ecumenical gathering—after the Jews have denounced the Church as the font of all anti-Semitism and the immediate cause of Hitler’s genocide—and announce that the Jews do not need Christ as their savior. In May 2001, at a meeting of the international Catholic-Jewish Liaison committee in New York, Walter Cardinal Kasper, the Vatican official in charge of the Church’s relations with the Jews, tried to quell the Jewish discomfort caused by the issuance of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church by claiming that “God’s grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises” (emphasis added).

In placating the Jews, Kasper not only contradicted the Gospels and 2000 years of Church teaching, he also contradicted the recently issued Dominus Iesus, which claimed that

There is only one salvific economy of the one and triune God realized in the mystery of the incarnation, death and resurrection of the Son of God, actualized with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit and extended in its salvific value to all humanity and to the entire universe. “No one, therefore, can enter into communion with God except through Christ by the working of the Holy Spirit.”

Kasper also contradicted Pope John Paul II’s 1990 encyclical Redemptoris Missio, which claimed that

Christ is the one Savior of all, the only one able to reveal God and lead to God. In reply to the Jewish religious authorities who question the apostles about healing the lame man, Peter says: “By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well . . .And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” . . . salvation can only come from Jesus Christ.

In attempting to extricate himself from hot water, Kasper only made matters worse by muddying the already muddy waters even more. In November 2002, Cardinal Kasper gave a speech at Boston College in which he claimed that Jews could be saved if they “follow their own conscience and believe in God’s promises as they understand them in their religious tradition, they are in line with God’s plan, which for us comes to historical completion in Jesus Christ” (my emphasis).

In using the phrase “for us,” Kasper implied that there were two ways to salvation, a clear contradiction of the Gospels and recent Vatican pronouncement like Dominus Iesus. Kasper, however, was not alone in making these heretical claims. In August 2002, the US Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and interreligious Affairs, under the direction of William Cardinal Keeler, along with the US National Council of Synagogues issued a paper entitled, “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,” which claimed that: “A deepening Catholic appreciation of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people, together with a recognition of a divinely given mission to the Jews to witness to God’s faithful love, lead to the conclusion that campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”

Once the heretical nature of statements like that became apparent, Cardinal Keeler tried to control the damage by claiming that the covenant and Mission statement that the USCCB Committee had released did not constitute any kind of formal position on the part of the US bishops, but rather merely represented “the state of thought among participants” in the dialogue “between Catholics and Jews.” As some indication that Rome agreed, the paper was never promulgated as an official document of the United States Bishops’ conference.

Deep Crisis

But the fact that it got written at all gave some indication that Nostra Aetate had led to a deep crisis in the Catholic Church. In order to participate in ecumenical dialogue with Jews, Catholic “experts” had to be willing to make heretical statements which contradicted the teaching of the Catholic Church. They had to be willing to deny fundamental tenets of Catholic theology. The Church was suddenly in a position where she could not articulate a coherent position because denial of the Gospel had become the condition sine qua non of dialogue with the Jews.

In many ways, this problem went all the way to the top. Viewing the history of Pope John Paul II’s relations with the Jews, one of the most ultramontane of American Catholic commentators was forced to conclude that “Even Pope John Paul II . . . could occasionally create the impression that the Church was perhaps now prepared to cut a few corners in the interests of better relations” with the Jews. In the “Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Judaism,” delivered to a Jewish group in Mainz, Germany, in 1980, “John Paul II,” according to the same commentator, “actually made the remark that the old covenant with the Jews had in fact ‘never been revoked by God.’” The statement was theologically defensible because God never revoked the covenants with Noah or Abraham, but it gave the impression that the “new and everlasting covenant” which Christ Himself established did not apply to the Jews.

Pope John Paul II’s gestures were even worse in this regard. His prayer at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem was theatrical but ambiguous. Jews who pray at the Wailing Wall pray for the restoration of the Temple. No pope could ever contemplate doing what would be a completely wicked act, but Jewish artists lost no time memorializing that act and all of the ambiguity it embodied as a way of justifying their call for a ban on all forms of “proselytism.” It is no wonder then that people like Roy Schoeman are confused. Schoeman is a Jewish convert to Catholicism who thinks the end times have arrived. As a Catholic Schoeman now looks forward to the restoration of the Temple without understanding that if that were to happen it would be tantamount to the abomination of desolation spoken of in Revelations and not the second coming.

The idea of the Jews converting at the pinnacle of their worldly power is implausible unless looked at from a theological perspective, but since the premise of our argument is that the Jew is an essentially theological construct, that is precisely how we should view the issue. To begin with, the synagogue of Satan needs to be viewed as the antithesis of the Church. So, if Christians, following the example of St. Paul can say, “when I am weak, then I am strong,” the synagogue of Satan would have to say the exact opposite, namely, “when I am strong, then I am weak.” And that admission corresponds uncannily to the psychological phenomenon of the “proud, self-hating Jew” which we have been discussing.

The final collapse of Jewish resistance to Logos will have to take place when they have reached the pinnacle of worldly power. We have no way of knowing what the future will bring, but we can say with confidence that at no time in the history of the past 2000 years have Jews had more power than they hold at the present moment. The fact that the Jews are now in full possession of Jerusalem and, according to some reports, planning to rebuild the temple, lends credence to the belief that the stage is being set for that last great battle over who will rule over the Jewish soul. Fr. Augustin Lemann, himself a Jewish convert, feels that the future conversion of the Jewish people is certain. He bases this on the testimony of many Church Fathers. “There is a well-known tradition cherished by the faithful,” writes St. Augustine, “that in the last days before the Judgment, the great and admirable Prophet Elias is to explain the law to the Jews and to lead them to the acceptance of the True Messias Our Christ” (Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, p. 101). Then “These carnal Israelites,” Augustine continues, “who today refuse to believe in Jesus Christ, will one day believe in Him . . . Osee foretells their conversion in the following terms: ‘The children of Israel shall sit many days without king and without prince and without sacrifice, and without altar and without ephod and without theraphim.” “Who is there,” Denis Fahey interjects, “who does not see in this a portrait of the present state of the Jewish people” (p. 101-2).

Augustine is not alone in his belief that the Jews will at some point close to the culmination of human history convert. St. Thomas Aquinas claims that “as by the fall of the Jews, the Gentiles who had been enemies were reconciled, so after the conversion of the Jews near the end of the world, there will be a general resurrection by which men will rise from the dead to immortal life.” (p. 105). According to Father Augustin Lemann,

The prophet Elias then shall return upon the earth to bring back the Jews to the Savior. Our Lord Himself has clearly affirmed it (Matt: XVII, II). . . The fathers are the patriarchs and all the pious ancestors of the Jewish people, the sons represent the degenerate race of the time of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the succeeding centuries. It is however only some time before the second coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ, before the dreadful day of the Divine Judgment dawns that our Savior will send the prophet Elias to the Jews to convert them and to save them from chastisement.

St. Paul claims that this conversion will only take place at the end of time, and that until that time, the Jews will continue “to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end.” St. Jerome also believes that the Jews will convert at the end of the world when they will “find themselves in dazzling light, as if Our Lord were returning to them from Egypt. . . .” According to Suarez, “The conversion of the Jews will take place at the approach of the Last Judgment and at the height of the persecution which Antichrist will inflict on the Church.” The Jews will, according to all accounts, continue to express their hostility to Christ until the moment of their conversion. The conversion will be dramatic and in the last time Christians will resemble the Jews “because of our sins, in fact they will be worse.” In this regard, Origen supports the contention of Yuri Slezkine in his claim that modernity is Jewish. St. John Chrysostom claims that “God will recall the Jews as second time,” when the Christians have abandoned the faith. Jews will become Christians when Christians will have become Jews.

The Antichrist will be a Jew

At that point of apostasy, the Antichrist will appear, and he will be a Jew, who, according to Suarez, will find “his chief support among the Jews.” He will also “restore the city of their ancestors and its temple in which they have always taken a special pride” because if he did not, he could not “get himself accepted as the Messias by the Jews who dream of earthly glory for Jerusalem and imagine that that city will become the capital of the future Messianic kingdom.” If Suarez could have been catapulted into the future to contemplate the state of the state of Israel in 2006, he might well conclude that the end times were at hand. If he read Gilad Atzmon’s website, he might conclude that the conversion of the Jews was at hand as well. The unprecedented strength of the Jews, coupled with the unprecedented weakness of the Church, allows nothing but apocalyptic explanations.

At the culmination of history, the Jewish antichrist will be strong, stronger than he has ever been in history, and the Church will be weak, weaker than she has ever been in history. At that moment, the Messianic kingdom of heaven on earth, the kingdom of maximal wealth and power for the Jews (and maximal misery for everyone else) will be at hand and all that the synagogue of Satan has longed for for centuries will seem to be within its grasp. At that point, the Jews will have a choice forced upon them, and, according to Christian tradition, many will choose Christ. Why they would do that then is easy enough to explain. Rabbi Dresner does so in his book on the plight of the American family which is really a tract on the plight of American Jews, who

in their search for passion and pleasure and power, have lost themselves in the kingdom of Caesar. Is it not ironic that the descendants of those who wrote the Psalms and offered prayer to the world became, according to all accountings, the least worshipful. . . . The chosen people seemed to flatten into normality, becoming what the prophets had warned against: “like the nations.” . . . Many postmodern Jews have discovered a puzzling truth. No license has replaced the Law; no symphony, the Psalms, no chandelier, the Sabbath candles; no opera, Yom Kippur; no country club, the synagogue; no mansion, the home; no Jaguar, a child; no mistress, a wife; no banquet, the Passover seder; no towering metropolis, Jerusalem; no impulse, the joy of doing a mitzvah; no man, God. (p. 329).

At the heart of Rabbi Dresner’s panegyric on American Jews, we uncover the psychological mechanism that will lead to their conversion. When they are strong, they are weak. Alan Dershowitz has said something similar about Jewish demographics in America in his book The Vanishing American Jew. The more wealth and power the Jews accumulate the weaker they become because becoming rich has deprived the Jew of one of his most perduring illusions, namely, that Tevye would be happy “if I were a rich man.” Tevye’s grandchildren are, as Rabbi Dresner indicates, far richer than Tevye could have imagined, but in becoming rich and powerful they ended up being “proud, self-hating Jews.” Money is, in many ways, the least important issue here. As Rabbi Dresner indicates darkly, “Jews have tried all things.” After having “exhausted modernity,” Jews now “seek the recovery of the sacred” (p. 330).

What Rabbi Dresner failed to understand is that the sacred cannot be recovered by performing outmoded rites. Jews cannot find the sacred among the dead. They can only find it among the living. The Church can capitalize on this moment and save the world from Masada with nuclear weapons but only if it reasserts its traditional position on the Jews. That means “Sicut Iudeis non . . . “ which states that no one may harm the Jew or disturb his worship, but that Christians have an equally solemn duty to prevent Jewish subversion of faith and morals. That means that the Church should condemn anti—Semitism, which means “hatred of the Jews as a race,” but, by the same token the Church should not allow the Jews to define the term for her, because in that instance the Jews will use “the word to designate any form of opposition to themselves” and their infernal project of cultural subversion. According to the Jewish definition of the term, “anyone who opposes Jewish pretensions is more or less mentally deranged.”

Balancing Act

The Church has never in its history been anti-Semitic. Traditional Catholic teaching on the Jews has always involved a delicate balancing act:

On the one hand, the Church has spoken for the Jews to protect their persons and their worship against unjust attacks . . . On the other hand, the Church has spoken against the Jews, when they wanted to impose their yoke on the faithful and provoke apostasy. She has always striven to protect the faithful from contamination by them. As experience in past centuries showed, if the Jews succeeded in attaining to high offices of State they would abuse their powers to the detriment of Catholics, the church always strove to prevent Catholics from coming under their yoke. They were forbidden to proselytize and were not allowed to have Christians as slaves or servants” (Fahey, p. 80).

At the darkest hour of Nazi persecution during the ‘30s, Pope Pius XI defended the Jews from their persecutors by proclaiming that “anti-Semitism is inadmissible. We are spiritually Semites.” Less well known is the rest of what he had to say. After affirming that it was “impossible for Christians to be Anti-Semites,” Pope Pius XI went on to say that “we acknowledge that everyone has the right to defend himself, in other words to take the necessary precautions for his protection against everything that threatens his legitimate interests.”

In giving his gloss on Pius XI’s speech, Denis Fahey simply reiterates what the church has always proclaimed in the statements on the Jews known as “Sicut Iudeis non . . .”:

On the one hand, the Sovereign Pontiffs strive to protect the Jews from physical violence and to secure respect for their family life and their worship, as the life and worship of human persons. On the other hand, they aim unceasingly at protecting Christians from the contamination of Jewish Naturalism and try to prevent Jews from obtaining control over Christians. The existence of the second needs to be strongly stressed because to some extent it has been lost sight of in recent times. Catholics need to be made familiar, not only with the repeated Papal condemnations of the Talmud, but with the measures taken by the Sovereign Pontiffs to preserve society from the inroads of Jewish naturalism. Otherwise they will be exposed to the risk of speaking of Pope St. Pius V and Pope Benedict XIV, for example as Anti-Semites. . . . .

Opposition to Jewish ambition “to impose its rule on other nations” is not anti-Semitism, even if the Jews want to portray it that way. The Christian must oppose anti-Semitism, defined as hatred of the Jewish race, but he must also oppose the Jewish agenda of opposition to Logos. As many Catholics have done in the past, the Catholic must oppose the agenda of the revolutionary Jew, even now—nay, especially now— when Jews have adopted the tropes of conservatism to disguise their true aims.

St. Pope Pius X felt that the endtimes had arrived in 1903. And in a sense he was right, by the time the dust had settled after World War I, all of Europe’s remaining Catholic empires had been toppled and the Jewish communist antichrist had been placed on the vacant throne of Russia’s Christian Czar. Perhaps Pius X had a vision of the future when he wrote on October 4, 1903 that

Whosoever weighs these things has certainly reason to fear that such perversion of mind may herald the evils announced for the end of time and as it were, the beginning of those calamities and that the son of perdition of whom the Apostle speaks may have already made his appearance here below. So great are the fury and hatred with which religion is everywhere assailed, that it seems to be a determined effort to destroy every vestige of the relation between God and man. On the other hand — and this is, according to the same Apostle, the special characteristic of Antichrist—with frightful presumption man is attempting to usurp the place of his Creator and is lifting himself above all that is called God. . . is dedicating the visible world to himself as a temple, in which he has the pretension to receive the adoration of his fellow men. ‘So that he sitteth in the temple of God showing himself as if he were God’” (II Thess, II, 4). (p. 177).

As John the Evangelist has written, there are “many Antichrists” (I John II, 18), and the Jews have welcomed all of them. “Down the centuries,” writes Father Lemann, “the Jews have welcomed all the enemies of Jesus Christ and his Church and have constituted themselves their auxiliaries. In the Great Sanhedrin, held at Paris in 1807, they applied the Biblical titles, exclusively reserved to the Messias to Napoleon, though Napoleon was not of Jewish blood. They even welcomed the principles of the French Revolution as the Messias: “The Messias came for us on Feb. 28, 1790, with the Declaration of the Rights of Man.’” (p. 187).

Inspired by Pius X’s statement Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson wrote Lord of the World, a novel which appeared in 1907 but which was set in the early 21st century, roughly 100 years in the future, which is to say in 2007. In that novel a weakened English pope confronts an antichrist with the iconic name of Julian Felsenburgh on the plains of Megiddo.

In June of 2006 Pope Benedict XVI announced that he was going to Megiddo in 2007. Megiddo is another word for Armageddon. The apocalyptic aura of his visit was overshadowed by the apocalyptic nature of the age. George Bush, like the antichrist Julian the Apostate was locked in an unwinnable war in Iraq and threatening to extend that war to the east by dropping nuclear weapons on Iran. Judging from appearances, the conversion of the Jews did not seem imminent. The Jews had never been more powerful; the Church was weak. But appearances can be deceiving. Benedict XVI was the author of Dominus Iesus and had said, even before becoming pope, that he was looking forward to the conversion of the Jews. Reversal was in the air.

E. Michael Jones is editor of Culture Wars.

The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History by E. Michael Jones. Jews for Jesus versus Jews against Jesus; Christians versus Christians versus Jews. This book is the story of such contests played out over 2000 turbulent years. In his most ambitious work yet, Dr. E. Michael Jones provides a breathtaking and controversial tour of history from the Gospels to the French Revolution to Neoconservatism and the "End of History." A Must Read. $48 + S&H, Hardback. Read Reviews Order

| Top of Page |


| Home | Books | Tapes | Orders/Subscriptions | Culture Wars | Fidelity Reprints | Donate |


Culture Wars • 206 Marquette Avenue • South Bend, IN 46617 • Tel: (574) 289-9786 • Fax: (574) 289-1461

On Sat 10/09/18 18:56 , sent:
> Dear Dr. Jones, Can you give me your take on this so I post
> on my blog. Thanks, Fred
> This a sad day for me. I learned many deep insights from E.
> Michael Jones. I stopped getting his Culture War magazine a number of
> years ago because it started sounding anti-Semitic. I hoped Jones
> would listen to Pope John Paul II and turn away from this path.
> Today I decided to do a little research. Jones said "This
> “Judenfeindlichkeit[("hostility-toward-Jews")],” if we use
> Brumlik’s word, is part of the essence of Catholicism."
> Paul Tarsax in his blog says:
> "He will argue that it is founded on religion, but I have never once
> seen Mr. Jones claim that "part of the essence of Catholicism" is
> being hostile toward non-Christian Germans, non-Christian French, or
> non-Christian Chinese. For Mr. Jones, this hostility is to be
> directed at Jews who reject Christ, and any Hebrew living today who
> is not a Christian falls into this category."
> A better comparison would be "I have never once seen Mr. Jones claim
> that "part of the essence of Catholicism" is being hostile toward" the
> non-Christian Muslims who have killed millions of Christians and the
> non-Christian Communist such as Stalin and Mao, non-Jews, who killed
> tens of millions of Christians.
> We need to defend ourselves from them and pray for them, but "part
> of the essence of Catholicism" is not being hostile or hating
> non-Christian, even non-Christian Muslims who have killed millions of
> Christians and the non-Christian Communist who killed tens of
> millions of Christians.
> Wasn't that the lesson of Jesus on the Cross saying "Father forgive
> them for they know not what they do."
> Wasn't that the lesson of the Catholic martyrs who died under the
> pagan Romans who were converted by "the blood of the martyrs."
> Next, Jones said "John Sharpe, on the other hand, who is being
> attacked because he is Catholic and upholds the traditional Catholic
> position on the Jews is demonized as an anti-Semite because of his
> tenuous association with a group, American Renaissance, which the SPLC
> goes out of its way to certify as not anti-Semitic."
> Jones needs to do a little research on Sharpe. A good place to start
> is the Ratzinger Fan Club Blog, which contacted Sharpe directly.
> After a dialogue with Sharpe, the Ratzinger Fan Club Blogger said:
> "Had Sharpe expressed the slightest bit of concern over
> [anti-Semitic] Michael Hoffman II's writing and views on Judaism, or
> Derek Holland's ideological history as a Third Positionist; or
> admitted that he was indeed the founder of Legion of St. Louis, but
> had repudiated the [anti-Semitic]opinions he was disseminating at the
> time as editor, I would have been inclined to let the matter rest and
> give IHS Press 'the benefit of the doubt.'
> But the fact that he immediately went on the defensive in his
> support for Michael Hoffman II's Strange Gods of Judaism, his utter
> lack of concern for Derek Holland and his connection as founder of
> the Legion of St. Louis prompted the writing of this article."
> [
> tml]
> Finally, Jones said:
> "Willis Carto could make a fortune in Washington by being paid to be
> photographed beside any candidate’s political enemies, but instead
> he is the publisher of The American Free Press and The Barnes Review,
> at whose offices Willis and Michael Collins Piper interviewed me
> after the talk. After I expounded on the thesis of the revolutionary
> Jew for about an hour, Willis said, “So you don’t hold much to
> the racial explanation of Christian identity,” a position he
> defended in a pamphlet he sent to me. To which I said, “No, the New
> Israel is the Catholic Church. It has no racial identity.” So we
> agreed to disagree, knowing that two grown men with two different
> sets of ideas could talk to each other intelligently and be open and
> frank about our differences...
> Guilt by association is an old story. It is an old Jewish story as
> well. The Pharisees, if you’ll remember, criticized Jesus for eating
> with prostitutes and tax-collectors, as if somehow their sins could
> contaminate the Logos. His response was to say that it is the sick
> who need the doctor and to dismiss the idea that anything that goes
> into a man’s mouth makes him unclean."
> Jones seems to have forgotten the reason Jesus associated with with
> prostitutes and tax-collectors. It was to convert them to God and that
> they turn away from sin. It was not to so "we agreed to disagree,
> knowing that two grown men with two different sets of ideas could
> talk to each other intelligently and be open and frank about our
> differences."
> If he was trying to convert Carto, it was from being a racist to
> being hostile or hating "revolutionary Jews." Tarsax says Jones
> "implies that all non-Christian Jews belong to this category of
> people toward which the Catholic must be hostile." This is very sad.
> The Ratzinger Fan Club Blog, Paul Tarsax and Jones articles are
> below. Please pray for Mr. Jones that he may get out of this dark
> hole.
> Fred
> Friday, August 31, 2007
> Hiding Behind Words
> A quote from E. Michael Jones' October 2006 article, The Conversion
> of the Revolutionary Jew:
> Anti-Semitism now has an entirely different meaning. An anti-Semite
> used to be someone who didn’t like Jews. Now it is someone whom the
> Jews don’t like. No Christian can in good conscience be an
> anti-Semite, but every Christian, insofar as he is a Christian, must
> be anti-Jewish. In contemporary parlance the two terms are
> practically synonymous but their meanings are very different, and the
> distincition is deliberately obscured for political purposes. (E.
> Michael Jones, "The Conversion of the Revolutionary Jew", Culture
> Wars, October 2006)
> Note well the way in which Mr. Jones hides behind fuzzy definitions
> of words, and clever obfuscations. Catholics are not anti-Semites,
> but we must be "anti-Jewish." He later explains what he means by the
> term "Jewish" or "Jew":
> The Church is not and cannot possibly be anti-Semitic, because the
> term refers primarily to race and racial hatred ... However, the
> Gospel of St. John makes clear that there is a deep and abiding
> animus Christian against the Jews who rejected Christ. This
> “Judenfeindlichkeit,” if we use Brumlik’s word, is part of the
> essence of Catholicism. The Church is hostile to “Jews” because
> they have defined themselves as rejecters of Christ. The Church is
> anti-Jewish, but unlike the Jews ... Christians are told to love
> their enemies. The “Jews” by which St. John means the Jews who
> rejected Christ, became by that fact Christians’ enemies, but all
> Jews had been transformed by the coming of Christ. They had to accept
> him as the Messiah or reject him. Those Jews who accepted Christ as
> the Messiah became known as Christians. Those Jews who rejected him
> became known as “Jews.” (E. Michael Jones, "The Conversion of the
> Revolutionary Jew", Culture Wars, October 2006)
> In E. Michael Jones' vocabulary, a "Jew" is a Hebrew from the time
> of Christ who rejected the Messiah. "Jew", in this sense, is a
> religious designation that identifies a Christ-rejecter. Mr. Jones'
> definition has two serious problems with it.
> 1) The definition is historically false. A "Jew" is a Hebrew who is
> descended from the line of Judah. The name "Judah" is where we get
> the word "Jew."
> 2) He defines a "Jew" as someone who lived during the time of Jesus
> and rejected Him as the Messiah, and yet he uses the word in the
> present tense: "The Church is hostile to 'Jews'", "The Church is
> anti-Jewish", "every Christian, insofar as he is a Christian, must be
> anti-Jewish". This implicitly and indiscriminately accuses all
> present-day, non-Christian Jews of being Christ-haters, an accusation
> which is explicitly ruled out by Nostra Aetate: "what happened in His
> passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction,
> then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the
> new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or
> accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures." (NA,
> 4)
> For Mr. Jones, one is either a Christian or a Jew: "Those Jews who
> accepted Christ as the Messiah became known as Christians. Those Jews
> who rejected him became known as 'Jews.'" For a Hebre to become a
> Christian, apparently, means that his Jewishness must be swallowed up
> and assimilated into "Christianess."
> Mr. Jones claims that "Judenfeindlichkeit" ("hostility-toward-Jews")
> is "part of the essence of Catholicism." He tries to play games with
> words by treating this exclusively as a religiously-directed
> hostility, as opposed to a racially-directed hostility (which would
> be open anti-Semitism), but then implies that all non-Christian Jews
> belong to this category of people toward which the Catholic must be
> hostile.
> In his clumsiness, Mr. Jones shows his true feelings for what they
> are. He is an anti-Semite, insofar as he tries to justify a hostility
> that is founded upon ethnicity. He will argue that it is founded on
> religion, but I have never once seen Mr. Jones claim that "part of
> the essence of Catholicism" is being hostile toward non-Christian
> Germans, non-Christian French, or non-Christian Chinese. For Mr.
> Jones, this hostility is to be directed at Jews who reject Christ,
> and any Hebrew living today who is not a Christian falls into this
> category.
> Posted by Paul Tarsax at 12:33 AM 0 comments
> [
> hael+jones+anti+semitism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]Guilt by Association
> by E. Michael Jones
> People love to take your picture in Washington. I was in that
> labyrinthine town to speak at a symposium entitled “Sam Francis and
> America’s Culture War,” which had been arranged by Fran Griffin
> of FGF books to promote a posthumous collection of Sam Francis’s
> columns, Shots Fired: Sam Francis on America’s Culture War. As I was
> getting ready to give my speech at the National Press Club, I looked
> at all the photos on the wall. It was full of pictures of celebrities
> I had known from my youth—people like Art Buchwald, Eric Severeid,
> Marvin Kalb—but somehow they all looked older and uglier than I
> remembered them. These photos were not a thing of beauty and a joy
> forever, or even for the few short minutes I had to view them. So
> they must have served some other purpose. What the picture did was to
> testify to the bona fides of the people it portrayed. Both people
> were validated by the photo of one man giving an award and the other
> man receiving it—at least in primitive cultures like Washington.
> The converse of the same thought occurred to me after I gave my
> talk. After Joe Sobran gave his speech, someone pushed me in his
> direction and demanded to take a picture of both of us. Just before
> the flash went off, I turned to Joe and said, “Joe, this picture is
> going to ruin your career.” Without missing a beat, Joe responded,
> “Mutually assured destruction.”
> In other words, the idea that somehow Joe was going to be held
> responsible for what I said or that I was going to be held responsible
> for what he said, struck us both as inexpressibly funny. It was
> almost as funny as the idea that either of us had careers to worry
> about.
> And that was almost as funny as the reaction I got to my talk. For
> those of you who are tuning in late, the talk I gave was in honor of
> Sam Francis and was essentially the review of two books connected
> with the late Sam Francis, which appeared in the March issue of
> Culture Wars. My ruminations on the role race played in Sam’s
> writings set off an explosion which still has debris falling around
> me. Most of the howling came from Peter Brimelow, editor of the vdare
> website and author, 12-years ago, of Alien Nation: Common Sense about
> America’s Immigration Disaster. On the Monday following the talk,
> the following passage appeared on Peter Brimelow’s blog, describing
> the conference.
> CSPAN was there, but VDARE.COM readers probably won’t get to watch
> the conference because of an extraordinary performance by E. Michael
> Jones, editor of Culture Wars and a prize specimen even by the
> standards of my lifelong study of characters on the American Right.
> Jones denounced Elizabethan England, Puritans, capitalism,
> Protestants, “revolutionary Jews” (but not all Jews, he was quite
> nuanced) and, for good measure, the idea that race matters or that
> America was ever a nation. I like Catholic bigots as much as anyone
> else, but this had nothing to do with anything Sam Francis ever wrote
> - except where it actually contradicted his views. Sam felt bitterly
> that he never had the recognition he deserved while he was alive.
> Jones ensured that he won’t get it now that he’s dead.
> Mr. Brimelow had apparently calmed down by Monday because missing
> from his blog entry was the hysteria which characterized his e-mails
> in the immediate aftermath of the conference. It is a rare and
> disedifying sight to see a grown man so consumed by fear, but here
> was Peter Brimelow absolutely petrified. And what was he afraid of?
> That someone might have photographed him standing next to E. Michael
> Jones! In the immediate aftermath of the conference, Mr. Brimelow
> professed to be appalled by my talk, which is his right. The really
> funny part came later in the same communication when he announced
> that “I can’t be associated with anything in which that speech is
> featured [or] . . . to be in any photographs or material of any kind
> in which Jones is present.” (I had to edit his original text
> because fear evidently rendered his syntax incoherent.)
> Now that is serious fear. Unfortunately, it was a bit too late to do
> anything about it. On page 2 of a brochure handed out by the
> Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation on the day of the conference, there we
> are—Peter Brimelow and I—cheek by jowl, pictures and all, right
> next to each other. It’s not quite the usual press club deal with
> the two of us arm in arm the one receiving a plaque from the other,
> but you got the impression that Peter Brimelow felt this was
> career-ending material, and there wasn’t a damn thing that Peter
> Brimelow could do about it. Hence, the terror.
> That impression was strengthened when Peter Brimelow’s lawyer
> contacted conference organizer Fran Griffin on the Tuesday following
> the talk. In one of those chilling missives that only lawyers know
> how to write, Fran Griffin, who is a woman by the way, (Why do people
> like Peter Brimelow beat up on women for things they did not say?)
> was informed that she must respect Peter Brimelow’s “right of
> publicity and exclude his speech and any reference to his conference
> participation from any publication that includes Dr. Jones’s
> speech.” (As some indication of the sort of association which Mr.
> Brimelow does not fear, his v-dare site has links to the Zionist
> fanatic Daniel Pipes.)
> Well, as I said, it’s a little late for that. Peter Brimelow can
> ask his lawyer to beat up Fran Griffin or beat the sea with chains or
> whatever, but the simple fact of the matter is that Peter Brimelow
> and E. Michael Jones were, on March 20, 2007, not only in the same
> room together but were both speakers at the same conference, and all
> of the lawyers in Washington, D.C. can’t change that fact.
> Fran Griffin’s response was suffused with a common sense notably
> absent from the hysterical response of Peter Brimelow and his pit
> bull lawyer:
> If Peter Brimelow is so worried about Jones, he should take the
> advice I gave him last Tuesday: ignore Jones, don’t mention Jones,
> don’t complain about Jones, pretend Jones doesn’t exist. This is
> the most sensible thing he could have done. If he is worried about
> Jones, why is he linking himself with him? Why is he giving his
> readers worldwide a chance to Google him by mentioning him and
> outlining his complaints against him (see transcript from V-dare
> below)? This makes no sense. Has Peter ever spoken at a symposium
> before where he disagreed with a speaker? Or does he always agree
> 100% with every speaker at every forum he attends?
> She then brought up the fact that I might be offended by Brimelow’s
> tactless joke about burning crosses and the Ku Klux Klan. So let me
> go on record at this point and say, that Peter Brimelow need have no
> fear that my lawyer is going to contact him for the offense of being
> in the same room with me or cracking tactless jokes that the
> overwhelming majority of American citizens would find offensive. If,
> however, a photo of the two of us comes into my possession, he can
> take it off my hands by leaving $10,000 in unmarked bills at the foot
> of the Washington Monument at a time to be mutually agreed upon.
> I never knew that photos could be so important, or that they could
> cause such panic. Once Brimelow and Peter Gemma started circulating
> their e-mails, however, the panic among the fair weather culture
> warriors spread like wildfire. Linda Muller, a conference attendee
> and Buchanan supporter, fired off an e-mail of her which could serve
> as a primer on how not to react to pressure: “Fran needs to end CYA
> [i.e., cover your ass] and do a long-winded PRIVATE mea culpa,”
> which involved the following steps: “1) Admit the mistake; 2)
> Apologize profusely; 3) Denounce E. Michael Jones; 4) Define a
> thorough separation from Jones — Sam Francis and those who attended
> the event.” Mrs. Muller, who describes herself as a “traditional
> Catholic,” would have loved Stalin’s show trials. She is also
> probably a fan of cropping photos to delete disgraced members of the
> Politburo. I say this because her first reaction to my speech
> indicated sympathy for that behavior. Once the panic gripped her,
> Muller sabotaged the Sam Francis website, “I just deleted every
> reference to the conference off the website. If anyone
> has an issue with that, they can try to justify it with me
> directly.” (Oddly enough, Fran Griffin, the owner of the site, did
> have an issue with that.) By the end of her e-mail, Muller was
> recommending that everyone pretend that I had never set foot in
> Washington. “Right now I suggest the best thing for all of us to do
> is to act like the conference never happened.”
> Now, given the face that my DNA has inflicted on me, I can
> understand why people might not want to be photographed standing next
> to me. I have been told that faces like mine can break cameras, and
> given the expensive cameras in operation during the conference, who
> would want to be held liable for the expense of repairing them?
> But what I can’t understand is how someone like Peter Brimelow
> could be held accountable for a talk that I gave. He doesn’t look
> at all like me. He is much more handsome than I am. His hair is gray,
> and my hair, at least most of it, is brown. He has had two Irish
> Catholic wives (the first one died), and so far I haven’t had any.
> (My first wife, the one I am still married to, was an Episcopalian.)
> There was no possibility of mistaken identity at the conference
> either. When he took to the podium during the Q and A afterward, Mr.
> Brimelow shook his fist at me claiming, “I like Elizabethan
> England.” There could have been no possibility of mistaken identity
> because I clearly expressed the opposite point of view during my
> talk.
> So why all this nervousness about pictures and making sure that the
> Washington Times spiked the story they were going to run and making
> sure that C-Span never ran its footage of the conference? Why, in
> other words, was this conference sabotaged by the very people who
> should have wanted to promote it? The answer is fear. Washington is a
> primitive culture which runs on the sympathetic magic known as guilt
> by association. The denizens of this primitive culture run in fear of
> guilt by association because it is inflicted on them on an ongoing
> basis. One of the few sensible reactions to the talk came from Taki,
> the Greek playboy co-publisher of the American Conservative, who
> weighed in about two weeks after the conference on his blogsite.
> Taki, who gave an off-the-cuff talk about drinking champagne with
> Mickey Mantle, criticized me for not talking about Sam Francis. Sam,
> as far as I know, did not have a lot to say about Mickey Mantle, but
> he did pose the question “Are Jews White?” as I mentioned in my
> talk, and he did write an introduction to a book by Kevin MacDonald
> on the Jews.
> But that wasn’t the profound part of what Taki had to say. That
> came later, when he wrote. “The trouble is in a free society
> speakers are not vetted before they speak. None of us, Fran Griffin
> included, were responsible for Michael Jones’s opinions—some (not
> all) of which were right on, incidentally.” One wonders what free
> society Taki is talking about here, certainly not Washington, DC,
> where the prime rule of discourse is guilt by association. This
> system of control only works if you can be held responsible for the
> views of the people sitting next to you. That is what happened to John
> Sharpe. That fact of life is what sent Peter Brimelow into hysterics.
> That is what provides the maximum amoung of intimidation in the
> political control of discourse. Taki, in this regard, is either more
> courageous or less perceptive than Linda Muller and Peter Brimelow,
> who are smart enough to know that the system of intimidation can only
> work if everyone else in the room could be held responsible and
> punished for the views that I expressed. If everyone believed what
> Taki believed, the system of guilt by association would collapse
> overnight. Since the system is in full force, it should be obvious
> that no one believes that people can only be held accountable for
> what they themselves say. If that were the case, why would Peter
> Brimelow and Linda Muller have exhibited such a panic attack for
> things they had not said?
> A refreshing exception to the fear that pervaded the conference was
> my meeting with Willis Carto. When it comes to Washington
> photographs, Willis Carto is even more radioactive than E. Michael
> Jones. Willis Carto could make a fortune in Washington by being paid
> to be photographed beside any candidate’s political enemies, but
> instead he is the publisher of The American Free Press and The Barnes
> Review, at whose offices Willis and Michael Collins Piper interviewed
> me after the talk. After I expounded on the thesis of the
> revolutionary Jew for about an hour, Willis said, “So you don’t
> hold much to the racial explanation of Christian identity,” a
> position he defended in a pamphlet he sent to me. To which I said,
> “No, the New Israel is the Catholic Church. It has no racial
> identity.” So we agreed to disagree, knowing that two grown men
> with two different sets of ideas could talk to each other
> intelligently and be open and frank about our differences. Before I
> left, Willis insisted that one of his staffers take a picture of us
> together, at which point I turned to Willis and said, “This picture
> is going to ruin your career.”
> Next to lust and greed, guilt by association is the most common form
> of political control in Washington. Perhaps Mr. Brimelow was nervous
> because, after attacking the idea that race could explain anything of
> significance, including the race wars of the 1960s, I mentioned what
> had just happened to Lt. Cmdr. John Sharpe. This is what I had to say
> about John Sharpe in my revised talk, which did not appear in CW:
> The same forces which used the NAACP to turn the Negro into the
> revolutionary vanguard in the United States, the same forces which
> subverted the idea of conservatism, are still at work today. As
> Nelson Algren once said, every movement begins as a cause, becomes a
> business, and ends up being a racket. This is nowhere more true than
> in the civil rights movement, where the NAACP made the transition from
> cause to business, and the name of the racket is the Southern Poverty
> Law Center. In case you haven’t noticed, the SPLC has declared war
> on Catholics. Traditional Catholicism is now featured as harboring
> 100,000 anti-Semites. I have been listed as one of the most prominent
> of those 100,000, even though I am not now nor have I ever been a
> traditionalist. Another man on the list is Lt. Commander John Sharpe,
> who has just been put on administrative leave as public relations
> officer on the USS Carl Vinson pending an investigation into his
> involvement in “supremacist” organizations.
> Why has John Sharpe, an Annapolis graduate and career officer in the
> Navy, incurred the wrath of the SPLC? Was it because he plotted to
> blow up a Church in the South? Was it because he was lowering in the
> bushes in Mississippi with a rifle waiting to shoot civil rights
> marchers? Was it because he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan? Was it
> because he believes in racial supremacy? Was it because he urged
> people to harm Jews? No, John Sharpe was singled out for persecution
> because he was a Catholic and because he decided that he didn’t
> want to go along with all of the Catholic prostitutes—Father Sirico
> of the Acton Institute springs immediately to mind— who were
> claiming that free market laissez faire capitalism was completely
> compatible with what the popes had to say in encyclicals like Rerum
> Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno. John Sharpe made the mistake of
> re-publishing distributist classics by writers like G. K. Chesterton
> and Hilaire Belloc, and for that his patriotism has been called into
> question.
> But it wasn’t just distributism that got John in trouble with the
> SPLC. It was also his two-volume attack on the war in Iraq, Neoconned
> and Neoconned Again, to which I contributed. The slanderers at the
> SPLC referred to the Neoconned volumes as containing “several
> articles by racists and anti-Semites.” If the Navy had taken the
> time to look at the book the SPLC cited they might have found
> notorious anti-Semites like Noam Chomsky, Paul Gottfried, and Jeff
> Steinberg among its contributors. Why would a Jew hater include Jews
> among the contributors to his book? Probably because he is not what
> the SPLC says he is. The article in the Navy Times attacking John
> Sharpe was based on the legwork of the SPLC’s paid troupe of
> character assassins, and it gives new credence to the old oxymoron
> joke about military intelligence.
> In the end, when Father Scalia entered his hospital room and asked
> him if he wanted the sacraments of the Church, Sam Francis chose the
> Higher Logos, and we can honor him by choosing the cause of Logos as
> we enter the next phase of the culture wars. Both Sam Francis’s
> deathbed conversion to Catholicism and the persecution of John Sharpe
> are symbolic of a shift in the culture wars. The offensive launched
> by the Southern Poverty Law Center is the best indication I can offer
> that the main front in the culture wars is now the confrontation
> between Jews and Catholics. The Enlightenment is finally dead. There
> are no more quasi-Masonic movements, where each of us can rise above
> whatever sect he belongs to and join the Lodge known as
> “conservatism” or liberalism, or whatever. I think we, no matter
> what our religious or ethnic background, should rejoice at this
> development because in this confrontation 1) the Church has both a
> history and a set of beliefs that will lay to rest forever the charge
> of anti-Semitism and destroy it as a tool of political oppression and
> 2) because no matter how much they want to finesse the attack by
> focusing on what they consider fringe groups, the Jews have taken on a
> considerable group of people, who will react eventually to the
> attack. The situation in Hungary now is a case in point.
> And finally, we should be happy because the attack clearly defines
> the terms of engagement, all of which are all spiritual. The
> revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he is a rejecter of Logos, not
> because of his DNA. We are not anti-Semites because we oppose the
> machinations of the revolutionary Jew. No, we are true Christians
> because of that, as the Church from the time of St. Peter onward has
> proclaimed. Like St. Peter and St. Paul, we are suffering at the
> hands of the Jews, “the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and
> the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting
> in a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the
> whole human race” (I Thess 1:15).
> We are now engaged in a battle which has ebbed and flowed over the
> centuries, but the sides in this battle have not changed. What has
> changed are the odds. The Jews have never been stronger; the
> Catholics have never been weaker, but the outcome of spiritual
> battles—and the battle for the soul of the West, as Tolkien knew, is
> a spiritual battle—no matter what the odds, is rarely predictable.
> If St. Paul, representing the Christian position, has to say, “When
> I am weak, I am strong.” Then the revolutionary Jew, representing
> the opposite position has to say, “When I am strong, I am weak.”
> We are outgunned on every front in the culture wars, but that is no
> reason for despair, if we follow the Logos that St. Paul followed,
> because he was outgunned by the Jews too, outgunned but not undone,
> saying, “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed;
> perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck
> down but not destroyed.”
> And so, as Theoden said, “we come to it in the end, the great
> battle of our time, in which many things will pass away. But at least
> there is no longer need for hiding.” Nor, might we add, any place
> to hide. Many if not most of us are here today because our careers
> have already been destroyed by the revolutionary Jew and his goyische
> front men. The Jews spy on us through our computers. They suborn
> fellow Catholics to betray us, get us fired, prevent us from
> speaking. Our backs are to the wall. But in attacking John Sharpe,
> the SPLC has created the American Catholic version of the Dreyfus
> affair. They have clarified the issue. By going along with their
> slanders, the Navy has put itself on trial. It is our duty to play
> the cards which providence has dealt us. We have never been weaker,
> and our enemies have never been stronger, but that is no reason for
> despair, because as Elrond says, “this quest may be attempted by
> the weak with as much hope as the strong.” And why is that? Because
> “such is the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world:
> small hands do them as because they must, while the eyes of the great
> are elsewhere.” (I, p. 283).
> Perhaps the mention of John Sharpe made Peter Brimelow nervous
> because if there were ever a man who was the victim of character
> assassination via guilt by association, it was John Sharpe. On the
> day of my talk, someone handed me an article which had just appeared
> in the Navy News. Andrew Scutro, staff writer for that paper, quoted
> Heidi Beirich, one of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s paid
> character assassins, as saying that she “witnessed him [John
> Sharpe] selling books at a gathering of a group known as ‘American
> Renaissance,’ that welcomes activists to ‘help the cause of
> whites,’ according to its web site.” Sharpe countered by claiming
> that American Renaissance was “the white man’s version of the
> NAACP” and that he was there to sell books. He also mentioned that
> he had attended a meeting of progressive Democrats for the same
> reason. Interestingly, the SPLC did not accuse John Sharpe of being a
> liberal Democrat because of that fact. Publishers go to events to
> sell their books, not to endorse the views of the speakers there.
> Sharpe’s Neoconned and Neoconned Again volumes opposed the war in
> Iraq and so might have found acceptance in left-wing circles, but the
> SPLC ignored that fact because it did not serve their main interest,
> which was character assassination via guilt by association. In her
> response to the Navy Times reporter, Ms. “Beirich scoffed at
> Sharpe’s apparent ignorance of the subversive nature of the American
> Renaissance. “Literally next to him,” Beirich continued, “in
> the next booth, was a guy selling ‘White Power’ T-shirts . . . .
> You had to be an idiot not to know where you were.”
> Which is true enough. But no one is claiming that John Sharpe
> didn’t know where he was. He is claiming that he attended the
> conference to sell books, but Ms. Beirich is claiming that he is
> guilty of racism because of the T-shirts the man in the booth next to
> him was selling. Conspicuous by its absence from this exercise in
> guilt by association was any mention of the books that he was selling
> or their contents.
> I noticed the same thing in the SPLC attack on me. After announcing
> that my wife and I almost made it to Woodstock on our honeymoon
> (something you would think would endear me to the hearts of SPLC
> supporters), Beirich et al announced that I had sponsored a
> conference in Germany on “deracination,” something dear to the
> hearts of neo-Nazis. First of all, after reading this feeble attempt
> at character assassination via guilt by association, I became aware
> 1) that the Einsteins at the SPLC didn’t know that the word
> “deracination” refers to roots and not race and 2) that they
> aren’t in the practice of consulting the dictionary when they run
> across big words that they don’t understand. But their intention was
> clear. I was a Nazi because I held a conference in Germany and used a
> big word that they didn’t understand.
> But let’s engage in a thought experiment that will make guilt by
> association even easier for the cub reporters at the SPLC. Suppose
> for a moment that I had addressed a Neo-Nazi rally in Germany. Is
> there any doubt in anybody’s mind what I would have told them? I
> would have given exactly the same speech that I gave at the Sam
> Francis memorial in Washington. I would have told them that our enemy
> is the revolutionary Jew, and that racism is stupid because it
> prevents us from addressing the real problem, which is the Jewish
> rejection of Logos and not any malignant (or mystical) DNA. If, by
> some miracle of regeneration, Adolf Hitler had been present at my
> talk, I would have told him the same thing and would not have been
> contaminated because of any proximity to him. If Adolf Hitler at this
> point stepped forward to have his picture taken standing beside me, I
> would have said to him what I said to Joe Sobran and Willis Carto,
> “Adolf, this picture will ruin your career.”
> Guilt by association is an old story. It is an old Jewish story as
> well. The Pharisees, if you’ll remember, criticized Jesus for
> eating with prostitutes and tax-collectors, as if somehow their sins
> could contaminate the Logos. His response was to say that it is the
> sick who need the doctor and to dismiss the idea that anything that
> goes into a man’s mouth makes him unclean. No, the Christian
> believes that it is what comes out of your mouth and heart that makes
> you unclean, and this statement posits the a fortiori truth that we
> are not responsible for what comes out of someone else’s mouth.
> So, as the pope once said, “Be not afraid, Peter.” When it comes
> to guilt by association, the choice is fairly clear: we can choose
> the Logos which sets us free to engage the world in dialogue and
> allows us Christian freedom of association, or we can succumb to
> Jewish taboo and fear of the Jews and the constant anxiety that we
> can at any moment be expelled from the synagogue of political
> correctness and respectability by an involuntarily incurred instance
> of intellectual ritual impurity. Once our culture turned away from
> Christ and began to embrace the Talmud, fear of ritual impurity would
> become one of the main instruments of political control, a fact
> nowhere more evident than in Washington.
> The more we delve into this matter the more evident the hypocrisy
> associated with guilt by association becomes, as one of the main
> forms of political control. To get back to our original instance,
> John Sharpe is being demonized by the character assassins at the
> Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-Semite because he attended an
> American Renaissance conference. Yet, if we log on to the SPLC
> website and type American Renaissance into their search engine, we
> find that the SPLC has good things to say about that racist
> organization. In fact, a quick search of the SPLC web site informs us
> that AR president Jared Taylor is “an opponent of anti-Semitism.”
> Shawn Mercer, the man in charge of the American Renaissance’s web
> discussion group, we are told, “deletes most postings excoriating
> the Jews.” This only confirms what we have learned from other
> sources. In an obit on Sam Francis which appeared in the American
> Conservative, we were told that Jared Taylor wanted to do for white
> nationalism what William F. Buckley did for conservatism. And what is
> that? Well, to subvert it in the interests of the Jews. One of the
> entries at the SPLC site claims that “It is well-known that the
> American Renaissance does not allow anti-Semitism; it is uptown, 100%
> clean WN [white nationalism]. Call it a first step if you like, but
> it is a very important first step, and Jared Taylor has had
> success.”
> Success in what? The dirty secret of “uptown” racism is that it
> offers cover to revolutionaries by claiming that Jews are
> white—hence Sam’s question, hence the uproar my exploration of
> that question caused among the “uptown” race crowd. As I said in
> my talk, the real armature of the culture wars is ethnic not racial.
> The American Renaissance is exactly what John Sharpe said it was,
> although not quite in the way that he intended. The American
> Renaissance is the white man’s version of the NAACP, which is to
> say, one more organization which manipulates the race issue in the
> interests of the revolutionary Jews. The main purpose of the American
> Renaissance is to convince deracinated Protestants that Jews are
> white, and, therefore, no threat to their interests. In obscuring the
> problem by playing the race card, the American Renaissance engages in
> cultural mystification every bit as much as the NAACP and the Black
> Panthers, two Jewish-run operations, did before them. In obscuring
> the real nature of the culture wars, white nationalism becomes a form
> of political control and a worthy successor to the Jewish-led black
> operation known as conservatism. No wonder the race crowd was upset
> with my talk.
> The race crowd, it turns out, was more upset by my talk than the
> Jews. Even though I identified the revolutionary Jew as our enemy, I
> made it clear that insofar as he follows Logos, the Jew is not our
> enemy. If the Jew accepts the Higher Logos known as Catholic
> Christianity, he is not only not our enemy, he is one of us.
> Throughout history, Jews have rejected the rejection of Logos, and
> when they did one of the first things they proposed was burning the
> Talmud. When Joseph Pfefferkorn converted to Catholicism in 1507, he
> gave expression to his new-found zeal for the faith by wanting to
> burn the Talmud, and the Cologne Dominicans supported him in his
> desire.
> Nothing much has changed since then. The chattering class both then
> (i.e., Erasmus and the humanists) and now was distinguished not so
> much by their love for the Jews as by their skepticism about the
> efficacy of baptism to change Jewish DNA, as if that were the issue.
> Both then and now, the Jews who follow Logos and the Jewish converts
> to the higher Logos saw that racism deprived the Jew of both his
> reason and his humanity. He was nothing more than a function of his
> wicked DNA, which baptism could not change and which Logos could not
> touch.
> One of the people who attended the talk and who was not afraid to
> have her picture taken with me (she, in fact, took many of the
> pictures) was Kristin Kazyak, a spiritual daughter of Nicholas Donin,
> Joseph Pfefferkorn, and Edith Stein. She was, in other words, a
> Jewess who had accepted the Higher Logos and was, therefore, one of
> us:
> I heard Jones speak on March 20, 2007 at the Sam Francis conference
> at the Natl Press Club and frankly, of all those who spoke Jones
> distinguished himself by a presentation that was well-reasoned
> coupled with a delivery and demeanor that fitted the type of
> intellectual discussion desired, needed and invited.
> Sadly, a couple of those on the panel, either because they knew or
> hob knobbed with Sam Francis were, in fact, emotionally disturbed
> dysfunctionals who projected their racism and virulently
> anti-Catholic bigotry both during their own lectures and also by
> disrupting the conference with startling, as well as, embarrassing
> irrational acts and statements.
> When Jones failed to join them, they realized — like the Liberals
> at Vatican II — they stood alone (foiled again which really
> exorcised them to projectile vomit and foam at the mouth) in highlight
> with their racist and bigoted statements and antics — engraved and
> burned for public consumption on DVD and C-SPAN, and in VIVID
> contrast with Jones and the other guest lecturers who were well
> reasoned and who exhibited their good will (and good manners).
> Being of Jewish descent (and not merely having a Jewish
> great-great-great grandmother but a Jewish Mother and the very same
> Jewish Mother who conceived Jesus Christ making Him one with His
> “People of The Name” — the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mother Mary)
> with family members in Kozienice exterminated at Treblinka and
> Auschwitz I
> have no sympathy for homosexuals (no descendants of Lot here) and
> little sympathy for empty-headed demi-political Catholics
> (Protestants and Liberal Revolutionary Jews) who fall for the
> homosexual agenda and attack “neo-cons” for crawling OUT of the
> dank black scummy swamps of Chaos made by Gay-jewish Revolutionaries,
> only to find themselves stumbling about on stony ground during a
> BLACKOUT near-total eclipse of Faith and Reason (while the winds and
> gates of Hell howl in vain maelstrom against the Church).
> In working the crowd after the talk Kazyak found that, even though
> (or perhaps, because) I identified the revolutionary Jew as the
> enemy, the Jews she spoke to were more sympathetic to my talk than the
> racists were:
> I’ve found nothing in Jones’ book or his speech at the Sam
> Francis conference that Fr John A Hardon, SJ (Saint pending) or Pope
> Benedict XVI would not agree with entirely. I spoke with an
> undercover Jew (or two) at the conference who (being of right reason
> and ergo “lower logos”) agreed as well and then some with Jones!
> I would suggest a near future conference to include E. Michael Jones
> and Rabbi Levin and certain others (of similar Moral Virtue and
> intellectual fortitude) — it’s time WE came out with our Light
> from under the bushel (her emphasis).
> The doors of our conference MUST be closed to ALL intellectual and
> moral predators. (Leave faggots to shout their racism and
> anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish bigotry at Queer Nation conferences —
> they can buy our unedited DVDs). I think Sam’s conference dug the
> graves for some of his former “hanger-ons” who have neither the
> moral nor intellectual capacity to follow Sam to the Higher Logos. I
> don’t think they like being left behind, but that Is LIFE, and the
> difference between willing LIFE and choosing death.
> They can continue to choose death. Sam willed Life. We can pray for
> those who choose the gods of Chaos rather than the One God, Who Is
> Love, Truth and Life but I’d fire up our thermonuclear detonators
> along with our laser swords and shields and beg the Angel with the
> Flaming Sword, as well, to keep the Chaos OUT (demoniacs can gnash
> their teeth outside our conference doors) and Eternally far from US
> in the event of any future conferences — open to all men of good
> will who love the Truth — both lower logos and Higher Logos.
> So what I said in my talk about the Jewish subversion of the civil
> rights movement and the Jewish attempt to turn the Negro into the
> revolutionary vanguard in the United States is a fortiori true of
> white racism. The SPLC supports “uptown” racism of the American
> Renaissance variety, because the SPLC, like the NAACP before it, is
> an essentially Jewish organization. Supporting “uptown” racism
> absolves the revolutionary Jew of any responsibility in the culture
> wars by giving them the cover of being “white,” and once they are
> certified as white, they are certified as “good” because of their
> DNA. How any one can believe this mumbo jumbo is beyond me. If you
> want a more detailed explanation, I suggest that you contact Jared
> Taylor.
> So, the answer to the question Sam Francis posed and which began my
> talk, “Are Jews white?” is yes. Jews are white in the eyes of the
> American Renaissance, and as a result the SPLC, which is a Jewish
> organization, which is ostensibly against racism, supports them in
> their efforts to redefine Jews out of the cultural equation. Once
> race becomes the all-important issue, Jews disappear from the radar
> screen because, well, because they are not black. John Sharpe, on the
> other hand, who is being attacked because he is Catholic and upholds
> the traditional Catholic position on the Jews is demonized as an
> anti-Semite because of his tenuous association with a group, American
> Renaissance, which the SPLC goes out of its way to certify as not
> anti-Semitic.
> Is that clear? No? If it isn’t, it’s because guilt by
> association is fundamentally irrational. It is the hallmark of a group
> of people who derive their identity from hatred of Logos. Insofar as
> we embrace the Logos, we are absolved from these fears. Just as Jesus
> could eat with whores and tax-collectors, we can get our pictures
> taken with Joe Sobran and Willis Carto and even people like Peter
> Brimelow without fear of contamination. The more we embrace the
> light, the less we will be kept in the dark by the deliberate
> manipulation of racial doctrines whose purpose is to keep us all
> divided, confused, and full of fear.
> E. Michael Jones is editor of Culture Wars.
> This article appeared in the May 2007 issue
> []
> IHS Press, Potential Fascist & Antisemitic Connections, Etc.: A
> Chronicle of Disturbing Patterns
> I usually am not inclined to blog on this kind of topic, but having
> conducted several weeks' investigation into this matter I believe the
> questions raised by fellow Catholic Matthew Anger (Fringe Watch) are
> credible, and that this issue, disturbing as it is, should be brought
> to the greater attention of the public. Please note that as any more
> information pertaining to this issue becomes available this post may
> be updated in the future -- Thanks, CB].
> In September 2001, John Sharpe and Derek Holland founded IHS Press,
> its stated mission "to bring back into print the classics of last
> century on the Social Teachings of the Catholic Church" -- which the
> publishers hope will be "a welcome and refreshing change for any
> socially-conscious reader who, in a search for a humane solution to
> modern social problems, is looking for a break from worn-out
> theories."
> In December 2005, IHS Press, under the imprint "Light and Darkness,"
> published the two-part anthology Neo-Conned and Neo-Conned Again.
> Featuring "20 months of extensive research" and the contributions of
> a broad range of authors (a "who's who" of those who opposed the Iraq
> war), including "paleoconservative" Pat Buchanan (The American
> Conservative), Joseph Sobran, Deacon Keith Fournier (former editor of
>, Paul Likoudis (The Wanderer), William T. Cavanaugh,
> Ph.D. (author of Torture and Eucharist), Scott Ritter (former chief
> UN weapons inspector for UNSCOM), journalist Robert Fisk, Professor
> Noam Chomsky, Justin Raimondo (, Mark & Louise Zwick
> (Houston Catholic Worker) and E. Michael Jones (Culture Wars) -- with
> endorsements by everyone from Dale Vree (New Oxford Review) to Howard
> Zinn (historian, Boston University) to Bishop Williamson (SSPX). . .
> . in the publisher's words, "a hard-hitting, no-holds-barred
> examination of the immorality, the injustice, the illegality, and the
> insanity of America’s aggression against Iraq."
> * * *
> In December 2005, Matthew Anger (who some might recognize as a
> frequent contributor to the Seattle Catholic) launched a blog called
> Fringe Watch, its primary aim "a study on the Third Positionist
> neo-fascist infiltration of conservative/traditional Catholic
> circles," but extending its investigation into such controversial
> figures as Bishop Williamson (SSPX), Fr. Leonard Feeney (1897-1978) .
> . . and IHS Press founders John Sharpe and Derek Holland. The
> relevant posts from his blog are as follows:
> The Real Con Job: John Sharpe's "Anti-War" Series Dec. 29, 2005
> John Sharpe's Legion of St. Louis Dec. 30, 2005
> John Sharpe's Ties to Holland and Fiore Dec. 31, 2005
> More on Derek Holland and IHS Press January 20, 2006
> IHS/Legion Extremism Confirmed February 17, 2006
> The Political Soldier Part I (a study of Holland's pseudo-spiritual
> 1984 manifesto popular in neo-fascist circles) and The Political
> Soldier Part II:, the second work published in 1989 as Thoughts on
> Sacrifice and Struggle.
> Readers curious in making the connections can read the relevant
> posts; but to summarize Anger's investigation: IHS Press founder John
> Sharpe, a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, former
> submarine officer and media spokesman for the Atlantic Fleet, has
> ties to Legion of St. Louis, a traditionalist website which peddles
> anti-semitic/anti-Judaic literature such as Henry Ford's
> International Jew, A.K. Chesterton's The New Unhappy Lords (what
> Anger describes as "the Mein Kampf of British neo-fascism by A. K.
> Chesterton, founder the racialist National Front") and Judaism's
> Strange Gods by Holocaust-revisionist and "white-separatist" Michael
> Hoffman II.
> It also appears that the co-founder of IHS Press is none other than
> Derek Holland (presently going by the name of Deric O'Huallachain), a
> former International Third Position (ITP) leader with a sympathy for
> anti-American Arab governments, having traveled to Libya in 1988 (a
> field trip organized by Ayran Nations Australia leader Robert Pash).
> According to Wikipedia's biography:
> Holland's last public appearance was at a Swedish nationalist
> convention in 2002 (hosted by Nationaldemokratisk Ungdom, the youth
> wing of the National Democrats). Since that time the ITP appears to
> have gravitated towards the European National Front, and Holland has
> retired from active involvement in politics, though his Political
> Soldier writings are still circulated amongst radical nationalists.
> Holland has received considerable treatment in works on European
> extremist nationalism, including Fascism: A History by Roger Eatwell
> (1997) and Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of
> Identity by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (2002). Holland’s writings on
> the Political Soldier are also featured in Fascism: A Reader
> published by Oxford University Press (1995).
> According to Matt Anger, Derek Holland now resides in Ireland and
> sits on the board of directors of IHS Press:
> From the moment that IHS Press was established in 2001, people
> expressed concern, but were reassured (as was this writer) that
> Holland had put his extremism "behind him." Apparently that didn't
> stop him from being guest speaker at the February 2002 racial
> nationalist Nationaldemokratisk Ungdom (NDU) in Sweden. In March of
> that year the German neo-nazi Deutsche Stimme (German Voice) featured
> his essay, "Theory and Strategy: The Path of the Political Soldier."
> An overnight transition from political radicalism to religious
> orthodoxy seems improbable. And his activities in Ireland have
> covered as recently as 2005 in the Brandsma Review.
> Roberto Fiore, Holland's close collaborator, was a member of the
> political wing of the Armed Revolutionary Nuclei which claimed
> responsibility for the 1980 Bologna bomb attack which claimed 85
> lives. In 1997 Fiore came out of hiding in the UK to head the openly
> fascist Forza Nuova party in Italy.
> What is the link to Neo-Conned? Fiore, as part of the ITP, helped
> set up the St. George Educational Trust which is the UK counterpart
> to, and collaborator with, Sharpe's pseudo-Catholic Legion of St.
> Louis. [More on this later on -- CB]
> * * *
> Having blogged previously on the disturbing presence of
> anti-semitism in "radical traditionalist" circles -- Dubious Sources
> in Catholic Family News May 17, 2003; Anti-semitism: Another Obstacle
> to SSPX Reconciliation Against the Grain Dec. 28, 2003; Pope Benedict
> XVI, the SSPX and Impediments to Reunion Sept. 10, 2005 -- I took an
> immediate interest in Matt Anger's investigation. (And lest you
> suspect Anger of possessing "neocon" affinities like myself, do read
> his Anti-War Conservatives vs. Subversives: A Clarification Fringe
> Watch Jan. 20, 2005).
> * * *
> Where is all this heading? -- Back in January I had touched on John
> Sharpe's dubious connections in my introduction to Matt Anger's blog.
> I was at the time greatly disturbed by these revelations concerning
> IHS Press, on account that various bloggers and websites I
> knew(, for instance) were vigorously promoting the
> Neoconned series.
> Likewise, I myself had promoted IHS Press on my website The Church
> and the Liberal Tradition (focusing on Catholic social doctrine and
> the debate between "Whig-Thomists" and "Augustianian Thomists"), and
> listed one of their books, Dr. Amintore Fanfani's Catholicism,
> Protestantism, and Capitalism.
> Others, however, were somewhat dismissive of Matt Angers'
> investigation. One commentator protests:
> . . . As for Sharpe's views on "the Jews," which I knew nothing of
> until reading Matt's piece, that is separate. We at our end believe
> we can praise one work while deploring the rest. We do the same with
> First Things all the time, which we consider theologically very
> substantive though politically compromised (again, from our point of
> view; no offense intended to anyone here).
> I responded in turn that this was a grave mistake: perhaps one can
> separate the content from the source, "praising the work while
> deploring the source" -- but in this case, I would be pressed to ask
> whether, under the present circumstances, it is right to further the
> financial gain of this kind of publisher without at least inquiring
> more closely about their political/ideological views?
> Another friend urged me to write John Sharpe and IHS Press regarding
> these allegations, and I agreed it would be the best idea to confront
> them directly. On February 8, 2006, I emailed the publishers at IHS
> Press, by way of their own website as well as their Neoconned
> promotional page, inquiring about the present connections of John
> Sharpe to the Legion of St. Louis and IHS Press' co-founder Derek
> Holland's relationship to the International Third Position (as
> described in the article Faith-based fascists bridging the waters,
> Searchlight March 2004). (Recieiving no response, I wrote them again
> on Februrary 21st).
> On February 21, 2006 I received the following response from IHS
> Press:
> I write on behalf of IHS Press as the editor. You should contact the
> Legion of St. Louis for information on their status or activities.
> IHS Press is not connected to the Legion of St. Louis.
> As an aside, as for the books you mention, I have not read Ford's so
> could not comment on its quality one way or the other, but the
> Michael Hoffman book you refer to is an excellent and balanced
> treatment of an obviously difficult question. His treatment is not
> unlike the treatment of the question by orthodox Catholics of the
> 1800s and 1900s. No doubt you've read it, since you seem to take
> exception to it. On the off chance that you haven't read it, I
> recommend you do so, both for the possibility that it will make a
> more favorable impression upon you than you seem to have of it
> currently, and for you to have your facts assembled if you do intend
> to further criticize it.
> As for the 'political affiliations and views' of Mr. O'Huallachain,
> our co-editor and co-publisher, I suggest you provide some specific
> questions which I would be happy to forward to him. Regarding
> lectures or interviews he may have given, these are matters for him
> to discuss and are of no concern to the Press. We don't make it our
> business to "authorize" or otherwise get involved in the private or
> non-IHS Press-related activities of our staff, provided of course
> that these activities do not contravene either Catholic doctrine and
> morality or the law, which I am quite certain -- in this case -- they
> do not.
> We are greatful to hear of your promotion of Fanfai's great book.
> We'd be pleased if that promotion could continue. If you enjoyed the
> editors' introduction to that volume you might reflect upon it as an
> illustration of the orthodoxy of the Press's editors. As an
> additional aside regarding whatever your questions might be about the
> editors' 'views or political affiliations,' you may rest assured that
> our views are expressed in what we publish and, more specifically,
> what we have written as introductory material to what we publish.
> We'd be happy to answer any further or more specific questions.
> Mr. Sharpe and I corresponded further on the above topics, although
> his responses to my inquiries regarding the Legion of St. Louis and
> Derek Holland's background were in large part the same and stuck to
> the above points. My observations are as follows:
> John Sharpe and the Legion of St. Louis
> Mr. Sharpe advises: "You should contact the Legion of St. Louis for
> information on their status or activities. IHS Press is not connected
> to the Legion of St. Louis." (He reiterated this point in our
> subsequent correspondence). Now, while this is "factually" true
> (there is indeed, no formal connection between the two
> organizations), it remains the case that the founder of "The Legion of
> St. Louis" is none other than John Sharpe, as documented by the
> "founding email" of the organization, reproduced here on The LeFloch
> Report, and this article in the Dec. 13, 2002 edition of Seattle
> Catholic.
> John Sharpe's Commentary on 9/11
> [Note: This particular section has been revised on 3/1/06 in light
> of additional documentation uncovered from -- CB]
> Furthermore, as "editor of the Legion of St. Louis", Mr. Sharpe
> authored a series of essays on 9/11 for conspiracy website
>, in which he airs views that would be of concern to
> most Catholics. In the first essay, "Thou Shall Not Kill Sept. 17,
> 2001, Sharpe suggests that the United States pretty much brought 9/11
> on itself. Citing the work of (suprise!) "the master of secret
> history, Michal A. Hoffman, II," Sharpe muses that "there remains the
> possibility that that official story [of 9/11] will be a cover for
> something else, and that there are individuals who benefit from the
> results . . . who are other than the hypothetical crazy Arabs,"
> speculating in his second essay (The Mainstream Media Reaction to the
> Attacks: Who's Pulling the Strings? Sept. 19, 2001) that the culprits
> may very well be "The Mossad or the U.S. Govt."
> In this third essay, Islam vs. the West: Is This Another Crusade?
> October 18, 2001, Sharpe charges that:
> Commentary on the geopolitical situation of 2001 can be neither
> complete nor sufficient if it fails to take into account the Jewish
> Nation. The temporal power that the Jews have achieved since, picking
> a somewhat arbitrary date, 1789, is both pervasive and relatively
> unchallenged. Some readers will doubtless call this extremism,
> anti-Semitism, and, God-forbid, some strange brand of Nazi
> fanaticism. On the contrary. It is simply a fact. The forces of high
> finance, government, and the media have been in largely Jewish hands
> for some time now; we should therefore expect that the direction in
> which the world is guided by those forces (or at least in which those
> forces attempt to guide the world) largely corresponds to a generally
> Jewish aim.
> Sharpe goes on to discuss the Catholic response to 9/11 from the
> Vatican ("little more than a nicely robed fan club for everything
> modern") and Pope John Paul II ("of scandalous Koran-kissing fame")
> -- such references to the Holy Father are to be expected -- before
> concluding:
> 1. The current and historical mortal enemy of Christian civilization
> is Judeo-Masonry. There can be no doubt about this fact from an
> analysis history, both recent, and that which dates from the time of
> Our Lord. Islam is a sideshow, albeit a powerful and vigorous one, to
> the main drama. It has been a tool of Jewry and may in fact be so in
> this case.
> 2. There is nothing to suggest that bin Laden, assuming he is the
> guilty party – or whoever is responsible for the attacks of 9-11 –
> considered the attacks to be an assault on the West, insofar as it is
> the uniquely Christian West. [. . .]
> 4. In truth, there is no longer a Christian West to attack. To
> suggest that the US of A is the last bastion of Christian
> civilization is a sad mockery of the truth. It has been a greater
> Israel for many years; the rise of Hollywood, Wall Street, the Fed,
> and Roosevelt’s State and Treasury departments assured that.
> Part III of Sharpe's 9/11 commentary ends with the anticipation that
> he "will try to pull together what is known about the "official
> story" and why it doesn’t wash. It will also consider just what
> role this 'greater Judaism' may have had in 9-11, particularly in
> light of the ideological gains which it continues to reap in the name
> of pluralism and tolerance."
> The Sept. 11, 2002 - "9/11 Anniversary Edition" of the LSL's Legion
> News & Views [available here on the restored website of the LSL, or
> via the Google cache], again indulges in wild conspiracies about
> 9/11, recommending the conspiracy-theory websites The Abbé de
> Nantes" and -- speculating (from the
> former) that Bin Laden is "the secret ally of the United States";
> (from the latter), that the Zionists, again, were the true
> perpetrators of the crime.
> John Sharpe's endorsement of Judaism's Strange Gods, by Michael
> Hoffman II
> Mr. Sharpe recommends Michael Hoffman's Judaism's Strange Gods as an
> "excellent and balanced treatment of an obviously difficult question."
> Who is Michael Hoffman II?
> Michael Hoffman II is a conspiracy-theorist and
> Holocaust-revisionist, who heads the revisionist website Campaign for
> Radical Truth in History. He has authored a number of books such as
> Hate Whitey - The Cinema of Defamation ("tracking Hollywood's
> psychological war against whites, Christians, Germans and gentiles");
> Witches and Rabbis: Legacy of the Reagan White House (the chapter
> titles alone are a good indication of the content: "Reagan's Kosher
> Cash Cow; Greatest Presidential Friend of the Israelis; Patron Saint
> of the Holohoax Lobby," etc.); on, he bemoans
> the fact that
> "The white race --at least in its current degenerate state as
> manifested in modern America-- is now the golem of the rabbis. Without
> the unstinting financial and military support of America's white
> leaders and white voters, the Israeli Zionists would not have
> one-tenth their power in the world today. The supremacy of whites in
> America such as George W. Bush, Donald Rumsefeld, Dick Cheney, Jeb
> Bush, George Bush Sr., Justice Antonin Scalia, . . . is synonymous
> with the rise of Judaic supremacy. I repudiate white supremacy and
> Judaic supremacy with every ounce of my being."
> In subsequent correspondence with Mr. Sharpe I pointed out Michael
> Hoffmann II's rather dubious connections and asked, whether in light
> of his other writings as a Holocaust revisionist, Hoffman's Judaism's
> Strange Gods could honestly be considered to offer a "excellent and
> balanced" exploration of Judaism. Mr. Sharpe responded:
> I am not aware of the books of his that you say indulge "in the
> worst form of 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion"-esque
> conspiracy-theorizing", whatever that means exactly. Notwithstanding
> your own point of view of Mr. Hoffman, his book on Judaism is
> balanced and enlightening. I suggest you read it before you comment
> on it one way or another.
> Although Sharpe professes an ignorance of Hoffman's other works, he
> has freely cited Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare in his
> speculations on 9/11. Although he may not be aware of his other
> works, I admit I was greatly disturbed by his apparent lack of concern
> about Hoffman's connections when I pointed these out to him.
> Truth be told, I have not bothered to read Strange Gods of Judaism.
> While I am somewhat familiar with the selective-quotation from the
> Talmud by anti-semites (see the Anti-Defamation League's The Talmud
> in Anti-Semetic Polemics February 2003, which addresses the spurious
> charges of Michael Hoffman II and white-supremacist David Duke), the
> fact that Michael Hoffman II is a celebrated author of, and heavily
> marketed by, white-nationalist, neo-nazi, "revisionist history" and
> "New World Order" conspiracy-theory organizations is enough to repel
> me.
> With regards to learning about Judaism as a religious tradition, I
> have found Hayim Halevy Donin's To Be a Jew: A Guide to Jewish
> Observance in Contemporary Life (Basic Books, 1991) particularly
> helpful, along with Back To The Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish
> Texts (Simon & Schuster, 1986); I suppose Rabbi Joseph Telushkin's
> Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish
> Religion, Its People and Its History wouldn't hurt, either. And to
> understand Judaism from a Christian/Catholic perspective, one might
> read Roy H. Schoeman's Salvation is From The Jews (Ignatius Press,
> 2004).
> Point being: if you want to learn about contemporary Judaism, ask a
> Jew. Better yet, ask a religious orthodox Jew, not a
> conspiracy-theorist with a background in "white-separatism" and
> Holocaust-revisionism.
> John Sharpe's Lack of Concern about Derek Holland
> That IHS Press' founder should plead ignorance of and willful
> disregard for the past activities of Derek Holland is extremely
> troubling for this reason: according to Matthew Anger,
> The [International Third Position] has long been involved in a
> scheme of Marxist style "entryism" – with the aim of co-opting
> groups which profess non-mainstream views (not extremist per se) in
> the hopes of bringing them under their neo-fascist umbrella. But a
> breakthrough came with the ITP's St. George Educational Trust (SGET)
> set up in the early 90s as a "Catholic charity" organization (an
> investigation of the group by the UK Charity Commission took place in
> 1997).
> But a breakthrough came with the ITP's St. George Educational Trust
> (SGET) set up in the early 90s as a "Catholic charity" organization
> (an investigation of the group by the UK Charity Commission took
> place in 1997).
> [For more on the investigation into the 'St. George Educational
> Trust,' see "Two 'Catholic' charities linked to Nazis, says report",
> by Paul Kelso The Guardian Sept. 18, 2000, and "Charities told to
> sever link to far-right nationalists", The Guardian May 21, 2001]
> It has to be understood that within European "revolutionary
> nationalism" there are two trends: one, professedly neo-pagan and
> even anti-Christian; the other, espousing a selective religiosity
> (not unlike the Klan and "Christian Identity" racialists in the US).
> But when push comes to shove, all such extremists put aside personal
> differences to unite in their hatred of Jews, non-whites and the
> United States. It is the totalitarian tendency which trumps
> everything else.
> The problem with Sharpe's activities is not just a question of
> overlapping ideas, but of overlapping resources. A look at my library
> shows that the SGET, whose books are sold by the [Legion of St.
> Louis], has the same mailing address as the ITP’s Legion Books at
> Forest Place in Hampshire, England.
> The SGET/LSL pamphlet Catholic Action: Uses, Abuses and Excuses is
> written by Derek Holland under the pen name of "Liam Connolly." The
> article "Why Catholics Are Cowards" by Liam Connolly was published by
> the LSL and SGET in the booklet Faith and Fear. It first appeared in
> the Christmas 1998 issue of Candour, an anti-Semitic newsletter run
> by the ITP (now operating in the UK as "England First").
> In subsequent correspondence, John Sharpe reiterated his position
> that
> IHS does not scrutinize the activities of its staff provided those
> don't violate either the moral or the civil law, and, to repeat, Mr.
> O'Huallachain's activities - whether or not you endorse them - don't
> violate either. Therefore they are of no concern to IHS Press.
> In light of the fact that 1) IHS Press co-founder Derek
> Holland/Deric O'Huallachain has a known history of involvement in
> British fascism, including the origination of the International Third
> Position; 2) Derek Holland's comrade, Italian fascist Roberto Fiore,
> masterminded a plot in the 1990's to fund "nationalist commmunes" in
> Spain through "Catholic charities" which purported to be merely thrift
> stores and distributors of traditional Catholic literature; 3) that,
> as late as 2002, Derek Holland had a speaking engagement to a
> convention of the German NPD (Nationaldemokratische Partei
> Deutschlands) . . . then, in this writer's humble opinion, it
> probably would be in Sharpe's best interest to evaluate his
> background before entering into a joint publishing venture.
> * * *
> In the past several years, IHS Press has received recognition as a
> mainstream Catholic publisher. In September 11, 2003, Zenit News
> Service interviewed Mr. Sharpe on the founding of IHS Press and the
> revival of Catholic social doctrine ("As a complete sociopolitical
> creed the social doctrine really is a third way that isn't just
> between the Left and Right -- it rather transcends both Left and
> Right and rises above them with its own vision of social order"). They
> have received a fidelity rating of "excellent" by
>; and in a November 2004 book review for the New
> Oxford Review, Thomas Storck commended their publication of
> Chesterton and Belloc, "their efforts to provide American readers
> with these foundational works cannot be praised too highly."
> In addition to its promotion of traditional Catholic works, IHS
> Press has, through its "Sheffield Hallam University Press" imprint ,
> published several books on economic socialism, including study of the
> controversial publisher Alfred Richard Orage and Gary Taylor's
> Socialism and Christianity: The Politics of the Church Socialist
> League -- a study of late 19th, early 20th century Christian
> socialism in England which challenges the notion that "socialism is
> anti-Christian".
> Under its "Traditionalist Press" imprint, IHS Press also published
> the book The Rural Solution: Modern Catholic Voices on Going “Back
> to the Land”, an anthology which argues "why city-dwelling Catholics
> should settle and work in the country." The authors of the text are
> listed as:
> Richard Williamson is a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. Peter
> Chojnowski is a teacher of religion, philosophy, and social thought at
> Immaculate Conception Academy. Christopher McCann is an associate of
> Angelus Press, a Catholic publisher of books about contemporary
> issues of the Catholic faith. John Marx was a professor of social
> science and economics at Catholic University of America. Willis
> Nutting was a frequent contributor to the Catholic journal Integrity.
> Now, Bishop Williamson is more than "a bishop of the Roman Catholic
> Church," being in fact excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in 1988,
> along with the other leaders of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) (see
> John Paul II's apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei Adflicta); Angelus Press
> is more than "a Catholic publisher" -- being the inhouse publisher of
> the SSPX, and Peter Chojnowski currently teaches for the Society of
> Saint Pius X at Immaculate Conception Academy in Post Falls, ID.
> I should also mention that Richard Williamson also has a history of
> extremist views that mirror those of Sharpe and Derek Holland (see
> The Politics of Bishop Richard Williamson Fringe Watch January 25,
> 2006).
> While it appears that the publishers' description of Williamson,
> Chojnowski and McCann could be construed as a willful attempt to
> conceal their controversial membership in the SSPX, one should also
> note that, according to Matt Anger, “whether one agrees with the
> SSPX or not, it is clear that Bishop Williamson has been an extremist
> and divisive force in Catholic tradition,” and that many within the
> SSPX remain severely critical of Richard Williamson’s relationship
> with Sharpe, Holland, and their involvement in neo-fascism.
> Likewise, we should distinguish between those within the SSPX
> militantly opposed to Rome (like Williamson) and those who are not
> averse to entering into dialogue with Benedict XVI, with the goal of
> reconciliation.
> IHS Press has also been vigorously marketing the Neo-Conned series,
> which received positive reviews by Dr. John Hubert,
> Catholic "traditionalist" Michael Semin, and, curiously, a group
> called Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth (the latter
> reviewer has his own distinct criteria for determining the book's
> quality: "I went back through the book counting the 9/11 references.
> According to my quick survey, Neoconned Again includes 14 references
> (in ten essays) that take the official story [of 9/11] for granted;
> ten that cast doubt upon it indirectly or through innuendo; and three
> clear statements that the official story of 9/11 is a lie").
> Over the past months, John Sharpe has also done promotional spots on
> left-wing radio ('s "Weekend Interview") and television
> (Dr Hesham Tillawi's "Current Issues" interview no longer available
> online but Sharpe's photo is posted). He will be presenting his work
> on Neo-Conned and Neo-Conned Again: Hypocrisy Lawlessness and the
> Rape of Iraq an an Arab/Islamic Center on March 31, 2006.
> * * *
> The publishers of the Neo-Conned volumes present themselves in a
> rather innocuous light:
> J. Forrest Sharpe is the publisher and managing director of IHS
> Press. He is a student of Catholic Social Doctrine and the English
> Distributist movement. D. Liam O'Huallachain is the editorial
> director of IHS Press and is a student of Catholic Social Doctrine,
> the English Distributist Movement, and contemporary alternative
> political movements. Both have edited and annotated editions of works
> by 20th-century social thinkers such as G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire
> Belloc, Fr. Vincent McNabb, Fr. Heinrich Pesch, and Dr. George
> O'Brien.
> But as we have seen in this post, there is more to D. Liam
> O'Huallachain's study of "contemporary alternative political
> movements" than a cursory or academic interest.
> At the time of this writing, it also appears that the domain name
> "" expired (on February 6, 2006 to be
> precise). Perhaps we may take this as a sign that Mr. Sharpe intends
> to abandon his earlier project and concentrate fully on the
> advancement of IHS Press. One may hope as much -- but in light of
> Sharpe's past editorship of the Legion of St. Louis, his co-founder's
> questionable political activities (which continued even after the
> founding of IHS Press), and the many controversial connections
> unnearthed by Matthew Angers' Fringe Watch investigations, serious
> questions and concerns remain.
> Had Sharpe expressed the slightest bit of concern over Michael
> Hoffman II's writing and views on Judaism, or Derek Holland's
> ideological history as a Third Positionist; or admitted that he was
> indeed the founder of Legion of St. Louis, but had repudiated the
> opinions he was disseminating at the time as editor, I would have
> been inclined to let the matter rest and give IHS Press "the benefit
> of the doubt."
> But the fact that he immediately went on the defensive in his
> support for Michael Hoffman II's Strange Gods of Judaism, his utter
> lack of concern for Derek Holland and his connection as founder of
> the Legion of St. Louis prompted the writing of this article.
> Given their ideological background and connections, is it a good
> idea to lend one's support to these publishers by way of promoting
> their books?
> And what of the "neo-fascist infiltration of
> conservative/traditional Catholic circles"? -- in addition to the
> left-wing and "paleoconservative" authors who penned works for the
> Neo-Conned volumes, there were also good Catholics who supported this
> project, either by contributing their work or lending their voice in
> endorsement.
> Would they have done so as readily had they been fully aware of the
> ideological affiliations of its publishers?
> Updates (1/28/06)
> Matt Anger brings to my attention a third essay on 9/11, available on
> the website of the Legion of St. Louis, which claims that "Bin
> Laden's call to attack the West lacks a supernatural geo-political
> perspective because it is concerned ONLY with defending the rights,
> albeit in some cases legitimate, of Muslim states. The media
> perspective is faulty because it equates the West with the
> Enlightenment, secularism, and materialism. And the analysis put
> forward by some Catholic parties is flawed not so much in itself as
> in what it leaves out of consideration – Judeo-Masonry."
> A Final Conflict NewsEmail dated March 20th, 2001, a nationalist
> "skinhead" Third Positionist publication, contains a note attributed
> to "" (One observes as well a mutual interest
> in Michael Hoffman II ("a seminal piece which exposes Judaism's
> dualistic Kabbalah/Talmud based faith . . . Judaism has NOTHING to do
> with Christianity or even the Old Testament -- but is essentially
> occultist"), which of course begs the question: what is a Catholic
> organization doing fraternizing with this kind of movement?
> The August 25, 2002 edition of Legion News & Views [Google cache]
> contains a review of an IHS Press book on Chesterton, confirming that
> that the organization was in existence and functioning at least a
> year after the founding of the publishing company. Matt Anger notes
> (Legion of St. Louis Website: Gone But Not Forgotten Fringe Watch
> Feb. 27, 2006):
> . . . the LSL site was in place in October 2001 and the IHS Press
> site went up no later than November of that same year, demonstrating
> that Mr. Sharpe was promoting supposedly Catholic publications via
> IHS at the same time that he was peddling anti-Semitism and
> neo-fascism with the LSL; and Derek Holland, veteran British
> neo-fascist, is a member of the IHS Press board of directors and was
> openly involved in extremist activities even after IHS Press was
> founded.
> As of March 1, 2006, the Legion of St. Louis website appears to be
> "back in business," the domain name renewed on March 1, 2005 --
> although the registrant's identity is removed.
> I. Shawn McElhinney (Rerum-Novarum) notes that "some who have been
> zealously promoting this series have sought to take a moral theology
> approach to justifying these books propagation amongst their readers"
> -- he responds in On IHS Press, Potential Fascist Connections,
> Antisemitism, Etc. (Aka "Hand Caught in the Cookie Jar" Dept.).
> In studying this topic I am also indepted to Bill Cork's extensive
> investigation "Antisemitism and the Catholic Right, an investigation
> of Robert Sungenis.
> Labels: extremism, neocons
> Comments (226) | Trackback (1)
> [
> tml]
> posted by Fred Martinez @ 11:46 PM
> John said...
> A lot of good info.
> I saw this one too by Tarsax:
> And these ones on Jones' protege Robert Sungenis:
> nues-to.html
> anti.html
> n-williams.html
> 10:51 PM somaie
> said...
> Experts have talked about this before. How many times have you read
> about the importance of ‘adding value’ for your audience? How
> many times have you read about ‘building trust’ with your
> readers/prospects?
> Many, many times. You know it well. Every marketing guru has spoken
> about this topic. I’m sick of hearing it. But it STILL bears
> repeating.
> 9:58 PM
> Post a Comment
> Name: Fred Martinez Location: United States
> Fred Martinez is a widely published Catholic writer and former TV
> broadcaster who has been a pro-life activist, speaker and Board
> member/adviser with various organisations for many years. In 1985 he
> founded the Juan Diego Society through which hundreds of babies under
> threat of abortion were saved. Praise for Fred Martinez’s The
> Hidden Axis : "[T]horough piece of journalism.”- Dale Ahlquist,
> EWTN host and American Chesterton Society President, "[N]ecessary
> reading." - Ginny Hitchcock, National pro-life leader and longtime
> colleague of Fr. Paul Marx, “[A] moral tour de force that is must
> reading .”- Chuck Morse, radio talk show host, WROL-Boston, "[O]ne
> incredible, thought-provoking book." - Tony DiGirolamo, Executive
> Producer of the Culture Shock television show, “[P]rofoundly
> important." - Dr. Pravin Thevathasan, Catholic Psychologist,
> “[T]renchant expose.” Click here for "Hidden Axis":
> f
> View my complete profile
> *Is Michael Savage Anti-Catholic?
> *Will Catholics Vote Against Iraq or Abortion?
> *"For the homosexual movement in San Diego, it is c...
> *Is the Savage Radio Show the Last Open Forum?
> *Psychology and Sigmund Freud’s Cocaine Addiction
> *Pray for Michael Savage Who is Facing the New Nazi...
> *This isn't Superstition it was Taught by St. John ...
> *Eighth Grade Students to be Taught Homosexual Sexu...
> *Son Suing Mother and Lesbian Partner for Horrifyin...
> [4]
> -------------------------
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]


Popular posts from this blog

Bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx "Exemption" Letter & Stated: "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary"

Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx " exemption" letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin...docx(20KB)) and stated that "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary":  COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 |   [Date]   To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious

Does Francis's "Right-hand Man" Parra have a "Sexual Predation against Seminarians, Adultery, and even a Deadly Sex Game...[that] 'might even be a Scandal Surpassing that of McCarrick'"?

  Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra with Francis Today, the Call Me Jorge website asked "What could be so important that Francis interrupted his weekly adulation [Audience] session?": Pope gets a phone call during the Audience. Haven’t seen this before. Then he quickly leaves and says he will be back. — The Catholic Traveler (@MountainButorac) August 11, 2021 It was Abp. Mons. Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, Substitute for the Secretariat of State, who was involved in the recent scandal of mismanagement during the acquisition of a € 300 million building in London. Still no word on what the phone call was about . [] Who is Archbishop Edgar Robinson Peña Parra ? Parra according to the Catholic Herald is Francis's "right-hand man"[] In 2019, Life Site News reported that Parra alleged

Might it be Good for all of us & for Francis to Read about the "Gruesome Death of Arius"?

  I have read the letters of your piety , in which you have requested me to make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians , in consequence of which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death of Arius . With two out of your three demands I have readily undertaken to comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the heresy . But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which has taken place among you concerning the heresy , has issued in this question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the Church ; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his death, as thinking that the question woul