|January 5th, 2010||#21|
Join Date: Jul 2007
EMJ's strongest statement against WN:
The Hispanic Challenge and the Logic of Empire
by E. Michael Jones
The Mexican Threat
Ever alert to threats to the American Imperium, Huntington has turned his eyes away from the Muslim threat to something closer to home, namely, the Mexican threat, which is not military (not even in the sense of terrorist attack) but cultural and demographic. Huntington sketches out the domestic version of The Clash of Civilizations in the March/April issue of Foreign Policy (p. 30). He calls it “The Hispanic Challenge,” but before long it’s clear that messianic politics is going to rear its ugly head once again. The first hint comes early on, when Huntington not only defines America as an ideological nation; he also defines its as a nation run on messianic puritan principles. “American identity,” he tells us, “is now defined in terms of culture and creed.” The creed, it turns out,
was the product of the distinct Anglo-Protestant culture of the founding settlers. Key elements of that culture include the English language; Christianity; religious commitment; English concepts of the rule of law, including the responsibility of rulers and the rights of individuals; and dissenting Protestant values of individualism, the work ethic, and the belief that humans have the ability and the duty to try to create a heaven on earth, a “city on a hill” (p. 32, my emphasis).
Huntington’s thesis is in trouble from the moment he articulates it, something he fails to understand. To begin with, culture and creed are antinomies. The more a nation has a culture, the less it needs a creed. Failing to understand this, Huntington presents us with a nation—the United States—which is based on no culture and a false creed. Actually what Huntington is proposing is worse than no culture and a false creed. What he is proposing is a self-defeating creed, self-defeating because of the very terms on which he is proposing it. To be an American, according to Huntington’s view means being not only an “Anglo-Protestant,” which is to say the member of a diminishing group of churches in crisis, it means being in the tradition of the most Judaizing and radical of all of the Anglo-Protestant sects, namely, the Puritans, the descendants of regicides like Cromwell, who felt they had “the duty to create a heaven on earth.” At the very moment when he needs all the help he can get to preserve American culture from what he sees as the Mexican onslaught, Huntington attempts to define America as essentially anti-Catholic. Like Paul Blanshard and many before him, Huntington feels that Catholics are un-American. “Would the United States,” he muses,
be the country that it has been and that it largely remains today if it had been settled in the 17th and 18th centuries not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish or Portuguese Catholics? The answer is clearly no. It would not be the United States; it would be Quebec, Mexico or Brazil.
“Scholars,” Huntington tells us at another point, “have suggested that the Southwest could become the United States’ Quebec. Both regions include Catholic people and were conquered by Anglo-Protestant people.”
Then—meaning when Paul Blanshard was the toast of the terminally ill WASP establishment—as now the threat is Catholic fertility. “The most serious challenge to American’s traditional identity,” Huntington informs us, “comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico, and the fertility rates of these immigrants compared to black and white American natives.” Fear of immigration is, as it has been since the time of Theodore Roosevelt, is another word for contraception and abortion. As soon as elites become sexually degenerate, which is to say, as soon as contraception becomes the norm in marriage and homosexuality not uncommon, fear of the fecund alien becomes paramount concern. The movie Alien, especially the first sequel, where Sigourney Weaver tries to destroy the pullulating monster with a flame thrower and then nuclear weapons, bears this out, as do subsequent remakes and spin-offs like the Giger-inspired exercise in xenophobia known as Species. “In 2002,” Huntington informs us, “fertility rates in the US were estimated at 1.8 for non-Hispanic whites, 2.1 for blacks, and 3.0 for Hispanics. . . . As the bulge of Latinos enters peak child-bearing age in a decade or two, the Latino share of America’s population will soar.”
And what does this mean? It means that
Mexican Americans in the Southwest will soon have “sufficient coherence and critical mass in a defined region so that, if they choose, they can preserve their distinctive culture indefinitely. They could also eventually undertake to do what no previous immigrant group could have dreamed of doing: challenge the existing cultural, political, legal, commercial, and educational systems to change fundamentally not only the language but also the very institutions in which they do business (my emphasis).
The message here is clear enough. Any group which has enough coherence and critical mass to preserve its distinctive culture indefinitely poses a threat to the American Imperium. Here again Huntington reveals what we have been saying all along. The American establishment, true to its Judaizing Puritan heritage of Messianic Politics, is at war with culture. If we accept Huntington’s definition of America, America’s creed entails the destruction of any and all opposing cultures, which at this moment in history means the deliberate destruction of Islam abroad and Catholic Mexican culture at home. This is only the logical extension of the social engineering which worked to destroy the ethnic neighborhoods of America’s Catholics in the period following World War II.
The irony, of course, is that Huntington by promoting his creed has destroyed anything that might be considered native American culture as well, including the Anglo-Protestant variety he claims to praise. Huntington criticizes Mexicans as being “increasingly comfortable with their own culture and often contemptuous of American culture.” But he never gets around to telling us what he considers American culture. Is it Hollywood movies? If so, which movie? Is it Stagecoach or the Mel Brooks’ send up of the cowboy movie, Blazing Saddles? “The persistence of Mexican immigration into the United States reduces the incentives for cultural assimilation,” he continues. “Mexican Americans no longer think of themselves a members of a small minority who must accommodate the dominant group and adopt its culture. As their numbers increase, they become more committed to their own ethnic identity and culture.”
This sort of statement is not without irony, no matter how unintended. Huntington reveals himself in the course of his article as a man who is at war with culture. Hence his emphasis on creed—to fill the vacuum, so to speak. Huntington, as his reference to Gunnar Myrdal and Morris Janowitz makes clear, is the heir of the WASP psychological warfare establishment of the 1940s, the people who gave us social engineering on a massive scale, the same social engineering—from urban renewal to busing to feminism—which not only destroyed all forms of indigenous American culture, but was designed to bring about that end.
Others have noticed the same thing. Writing in the November 1997 issue of Chronicles, editor Thomas Fleming notes that the same WASP establishment which is now decrying the Mexican invasion, destroyed the only culture the country had to assimilate them. “The ruling class,” according to Fleming, which is to say, the entity which Huntington portrays as the bearer of American culture,
constructed a welfare state to divide the generations from each other; they did their best to destroy every vestige of regional and religious loyalty. They got rich building highways that broke up the old familiar patterns of life and spattered the children of the house across the continent; they destroyed every obstacle to their own profit and called their actions progressive and philanthropic (p. 11).
And now they, in the persona of Samuel Huntington, are worried about a demographic surge that is largely if not completely of their own making. Huntington informs us that “Mexican immigration increased steadily after 1965” without telling us that it was the United States forcing World Bank loans and the invariably concomitant contraception policies on Mexico in the late ‘60s which undermined peasant agriculture in that country and started the proletarianization of the population which necessitated the northern migration. Those policies were aggravated by GATT and NAFTA, which, while robbing the American worker of industrial jobs, at the same time flooded Mexico with cheap grain and agriculture from the midwest which made farming economically unfeasible. That, in turn, created even more migration. Then as now, the driving force for what Huntington laments is not clashes between civilizations but government policies which are detrimental to the interests of the average citizen in both Mexico and the United States.
Like the monster in the Alien movies, Huntington’s demographic bogeyman is largely a creature of his (or his class’s) own making. The ruling class in the United States, as George Bush’s recent amnesty of illegal aliens made perfectly clear, will never renounce its addiction to cheap labor. If there is one constant in American culture it is the voracious desire for cheap labor, not some Anglo-Puritan creed confected by Huntington. That desire has remained constant from the advent of African slavery to the outsourcing of computer programming and X-ray technicians and triple A tow truck dispatchers to India. If the ruling class will not renounce its desire for cheap labor, it must accept cultural extinction as part of its Faustian pact with the devil.
The ruling class, of course, has never accepted that dichotomy. The name it gives for wanting to have its cake and eat it too—i.e, cheap labor and sexual degeneracy and permanent cultural hegemony—is social engineering, but as we have already seen, social engineering destroyed the very fabric of American culture in its attempt to “Americanize.” In destroying the towns, clubs, local non-consolidated high schools and ethnic parishes that were part of the warp and woof of American culture, the social engineers also destroyed the only cultural engine that was effective enough to “Americanize” the newly arriving immigrants, be they from Mexico or China or wherever. There is no escaping this monster. The more violent the means used to destroy it; the more persistently the monster returns. Alien, the monster, is the perfect allegory for the illegal aliens who stream across the border with Mexico. The Alien is, in the final analysis, a function of the disordered desires of the ruling class. Like Dr. Moebius in Forbidden Planet, Samuel Huntington is being hunted down by a monster that is in the last analysis nothing but his class’s own disordered desires.
Whenever a man’s actions subvert his intentions this radically, it is a sure sign that we are in the presence of formal causality. The form, in other words, has a logic of its own which is inexorable and which replicates itself independently of material circumstance. Alien is an expression of formal causality. So too are illegal aliens. They are not a function of something that can be tweaked or fixed (no matter what the social engineers tell us); they are an expression of the form of the system itself, namely, its voracious desire cheap labor, a desire which subverts every other intention, including the intention to preserve cultural hegemony. America, if by that term we mean the philosophy of the ruling class, is exactly what Huntington says it is. It is Anglo-Protestantism or, more precisely, Judeo-Puritanism. It is the promises of Christianity projected backward onto the notion of race, i.e., a chosen people, whose ultimate model is the Jews, the ethnic group that has the longest track record in striving to create “heaven on earth.”
Hence, it is not surprising that Huntington turns to race at the end of his article. White Nationalism, Huntington informs us, is “the next logical stage for identity politics in America.” Actually Huntington is citing Carol Swain here, a Black single mother who is also on the faculty of the Vanderbilt Law School, whose book The New White Nationalism in America is not surprisingly a defense of affirmative action. Swain dedicates her book to Robert K. Merton, Louis Wirth’s colleague at the University of Chicago Sociology Department who helped Wirth forged this country’s race-based program of social engineering after World War II. At first it might seem odd to see the heirs of Louis Wirth looking sympathetically at the racist groups Wirth fought against for his entire life, but on closer inspection the dichotomies disappear because race has always been the default setting for American society. The only thing which changes, in this regard, is which race the ruling class will favor at any particular moment. “Race,” according to Thomas Fleming, “is the American religion, which is why no one can talk about it truthfully.” Certainly not Mr. Huntington, who is even more oblique than the normal racialist when he opines that “The most powerful stimulus to such white nativism will be the cultural and linguistic threats whites see from the expanding power of Hispanics in US society.”
What Mr. Huntington really means to say is that race is another word for deracination. As such it is now in the interest of the ruling class to promote the very white racism which they have demonized for the past 60 years as a counterforce to oppose the Mexican ethnics. In this regard, formal logic transcends any racial allegiance. The ruling class will continue to promote racial polarization as a way of keeping the real ethnic and local identities from coalescing into something politically powerful. The so-called Melting Pot is, in this regard, what it has always been from its inception during the days when the CPI staged Melting Pot Pageants across the country during the summer of 1918 as part of the propaganda campaign it had designed to cut European ethnics—most notably Germans—off from their country of origin.
Huntington’s fears revolve around the image of the melting pot, which is to say, around either a misunderstanding or a deliberate misrepresentation of ethnicity in America. Huntington cites former National Intelligence Council Vice Chairman Graham Fuller, who fears “We may be building toward the one thing that will choke the melting pot,” namely “an ethnic area and grouping so concentrated that it will not wish, or need, to undergo assimilation into the mainstream of American multi-ethnic English-speaking life.” This means that “Demographically, socially and culturally, the reconquista (re-conquest) of the Southwest United States by Mexican immigrants is well underway.” Citing the Cubanization of Miami as a worst case scenario for the rest of the country, Huntington informs us that “the Anglos” living there
had three choices . . .they could attempt to adopt the manners, customs and language of the Hispanics and assimilate into the Hispanic community--”acculturation in reverse,” . . . . Or they could leave Miami .. . a popular bumper sticker: “Will the last American to leave Miami, please bring the flag.”
Huntington is, of course, simply restating the situation that every immigrant had to face when he came to this country. Weren’t the newly arrived Poles confronted with the same choice when they were forced to adopt the English language and “Anglo-Protestant” values? Huntington, in other words, loses the argument by the way he frames its terms. If the Poles, or the Blacks, or the Irish were brought here because they were a source of cheap labor, why should they somehow think that English is superior to Spanish? From their perspective, learning another language (or culture) is simply the price of doing business. If the system treats them as nothing more than cheap labor, why should they want to assimilate its values? If the American system were something more than the manipulation of cheap labor, there would be no Mexican problem to begin with. Huntington confers the aura of religious superiority onto a system which has always been based on grinding the poor and is offended when other people fail to honor his gods. This is symptomatic of either chutzpah or naiveté or both at the same time. If the Mexican challenge goes unanswered, Huntington informs us, “it would, have, been the end of the America we have known for more than three centuries.” The irony here lies in the fact that Huntington and his colleagues in the psychological warfare establishment have been waging war on American cultural institutions far more effectively than any Mexican could. They have waged war on the country’s cultural immune system, and then profess themselves shocked when the country gets sick with a foreign virus.
So Mr. Huntington ends his essay by promoting white racism because white racism, like all racism, is another word for deracination. With affirmative action now firmly in place in this nation’s institutions, the ruling class has established a racial dialectic which perpetuates division because division facilitates control. There are other reasons to promote white racism as well. The most compelling reason to promote it from the perspective of the ruling class is racism’s power to obfuscate the real issues in American politics, which are ethnic and religious. White racism is first and foremost a form of deracination. That means that “whites” who are still in touch with their ethnic and religious heritage will be immune to its appeal primarily because they already have an identity.
White racism appeals to those who lack identity: “The antiwhite propaganda on television,” Tom Fleming writes, “only makes them sympathetic to David Duke, and looking around for something to believe in, some place to take their stand, they can find nothing more compelling than the abstractions of white identity” as a substitute for religious and ethnic identity. “So long as whites remain nominally Christian (or Jewish) and dimly aware of their ethnic heritages” they remain immune to the appeal of racism. White racists, according to Fleming, want to “undermine both Christianity (which they regard as a stumbling block to genocide) and the national traditions that keep white peoples divided.”
The fact that white racism is another word for deracination is something which Robert S. Griffin makes clear, albeit inadvertently, in his recent book One Sheaf, One Vine: Racially Conscious White Americans Talk about Race (no place: Robert S. Griffin, 2004) ISBN 1-4107-4419-1. One Sheaf grew out of Griffin’s previous book, a biography of William Pierce, founder of the white nationalist organization the National Alliance. Griffin found himself contacted by so many “racially conscious” Americans after his Pierce book that he decided to write another book about the audience for his first. What emerges in the course of the book is a sort of anatomy of the typical white racist. In enumerating their characteristics, deracination rates high on the list; it is the one thing that just about everyone shares; deracination becomes by the end of the Griffin book another word for white racism, something which becomes especially apparent in the generation of the baby boomer’s children.
Rob Freeman, who is 33 years old, is a “racially conscious American,” because
for white kids of my generation, it seemed as if our heritage was taken away from us. We grew up with no place in the world, that’s what it felt like. My parents and most of the parents of the kids I knew were liberals, and they didn’t pass on a legacy of who we were. The didn’t give us an identity.
The typical racist is an atheist who used to be a Protestant, living in a country which deliberately destroyed local communities. Since the Protestant churches were essentially voluntary organizations, as opposed to geographical parishes, they were especially vulnerable. In addition to that, their oftentimes unsophisticated theology led to rejection on rational grounds. Alex Linder, who is two years older than Freeman and now runs the Vanguard News Network, was born in Madison, Wisconsin into a family that then moved to three other states, and raised by a mother who was a Christian Scientist. Linder eventually rejected Christian Science because of its irrational contention that “disease is a product of bad thought.” That, he felt, was “a ridiculous clam. Just like the idea that Jesus walked on water.” Linder then became associated with movement conservatism in the Reagan years, specifically the American Spectator, where he served as an intern, and when that god failed too, he became a white racist because “racism is simply factual reality,” and “true conservatism has to do with facts and limits.” Linder despises Mexicans (“They are an offbrand people.”) but not as much as he despises college administrators. “They are very weak and unprincipled people. I consider them worse than Mexicans, the absolute lowest.”
Deracination is not limited to former Protestants. One 21-year-old college student was raised in Southern California because that is where his Canadian father met his Irish mother. He attended Catholic grade schools and “was pretty religious growing up.”( I assume the past tense is intentional.) The defining racial moment for this young man cam when his mother took him and his sister back to Ireland at the end of third grade. The first thing that the young man noticed was the fact that Ireland was “all white.” The next thing he noticed was the fact that everyone wasn’t an anonymous stranger, as was the case in California, “I thought it was really cool how close the community was there and how everybody knew each other and how everybody’s family went back. Ireland was just a very close-knit, family oriented place and I really liked it a lot. . . . In California I didn’t even know my next-door neighbors, where in Ireland, I knew everybody.”
Racism is, in other words, a function of lack of community. It is also an argument for the ethnic parish, which the Catholic Church abandoned at the moment the federal government began promoting large-scale black migration from the South to the cities of the north. As the Irish Jesuits at the Gesu parish in North Philadelphia argued in the 1930s, Black Catholics could have preserved their faith and identity better if they had been given an ethnic parish of their own rather than attempting to integrate them into the ethnic parishes which had already been established for other nationalities. The same is true now for the Irish and the descendants of the other European ethnics now living in a place like Southern California. If the Church had allowed these people to retain their own communities, they would not now be abandoning Catholicism for white racism.
Before this young man became a white racist, he became a “wigger,” which is to say a white nigger, wearing baggy pants, gold chains and backward baseball caps and listening to rap music. His identity, in other words, was not racial, not when he was a wigger and not when he was a white racist. If anything it was determined more by the music he listened to than his genes.
As a result our young Irishman was drawn toward “Norwegian black metal” music because it made him and his deracinated friends feel “kind of special, like it was our music, like it was made just for us.” Black metal bands, he continued,
use pagan imagery, European imaginary [sic]. . . . Most of the band members had long hair and wore all black or they might have some form of medieval armor and tall boots. They’d pose for pictures in forest with swords. All that appealed to us, because, for one, it was a sort of a white thing. . . . Members of these bands seemed to be dead serious. In interviews, they would talk about overthrowing Christianity and returning to a Middle-Ages-type European society. [History is not their strong suit.] My friend and I spent time reading about pagan religion. I began to really have a hatred for Christianity because I thought, “Look what Christianity has done to us. It’s disarmed our people and made us tolerate and embrace other races who bring us down.”
Norwegian black metal music was the perfect antidote for those who “don’t feel like you belong . . .” When our young deracinated Irishman listened to “a Norwegian guy named Varg Vikernes,” the racist, neo-Viking, neo-pagan singer “had a big impact on me. He would come out and say, “I do my own thing, and if anybody doesn’t’ like it, I will kill him.”
As a result of listening to Varg, he “started reading about Norway and about European history, the Vikings in particular. It was my way of reaching toward my European roots—having some kind of identity.” Without that ethnic identity (even though he does not identify it as such and mistakes it as racial), this young men and his friends “were just considered so weird,” and he and his friends “had no one to back me up if I got in trouble.” With the Viking mythology, they were granted “some sense of identity. It made us feel out an feel kind of good.”
If music was the most important factor in the construction of this young man’s racial identity, literature ran a close second. After discovering racial music, he discovered H. P. Lovecraft, Robert Howard’s Conan the Barbarian, and then Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, all of which he construed as racially motivated. Or perhaps not. After reading Tolkien, he found himself looking “back fondly to a European-type society where life was simpler,” by which he meant “a homogeneous environment where men were men and women were women and life was hard but closer to nature,” which is to say, a culture that was the opposite of “being a kid stuck in multi-racial California” which is to say, a place “where I couldn’t be free to be who I was and was alienated from everything.”
The influence of music worked in the other direction too. Eric Owens is another child of the babyboomers, whose parents divorced and left him to find his own cultural direction in post-’60s Los Angeles. As a result he became a skinhead, another group which derived its identity largely from the music it consumed or, in Owens’ case, produced. But, as Plato could have predicted, when Owens changed his music, his politics changed along with it:
I got sick of the lunkhead mentality that went along with rock music. I also wanted to get back into my roots. I had been raised on irish music, and I’m Irish myself. My father was very much into Irish music and played it. I wanted to play the music of my heritage and not the music of the commercial multi-racial system which I felt rock to be. I thought rock music was degenerate, non-white music.
Music, in other words, allowed Owens to make contact with his ethnic roots, which he still misconstrued as something racial: “Letting go of the skinhead persona started when the music changed.”
Even though many of the Irish bands were leftist and the music wasn’t really racial, it was still hundreds of years old and traditional, and it was my heritage no matter who was singing or what they were singing about. I always loved Irish music and I always loved the dancing. They were things of beauty, and in LA there is not much beauty of any kind. Although I should point out that it wasn’t just tradtional Irish music I liked. I have always been a fan of traditional American music as well. Like I have always been a fan of Doc Watson and American flatpickers. . . . I started playing Irish music and then I put my own racial ballads in there. . . Now, I consider myself a Celtic fok musician. I have recorded a couple of folk albums thath have a militant pro-white message. . . .Now, just about the only time I play is if a group such as the National Alliance is having a gathering.
Race is, in other words, a cultural phenomenon. It is, as such the exact opposite of what Madison Grant, the classic American racist said in his epoch-making magnum opus The Passing of the Great Race. Grant, in addition to feeling that culture was the result of DNA, also felt that Europe was inhabited by three separate races —the Nordic, the Alpine and the Mediterranean—all of which were white. Because only the Teutonic race was suited for America, or positions of leadership there, Grant successfully lobbied for immigration restriction that curtailed immigration from Catholic Europe. That in turn led to the rise of the Negro as the most influential group in American politics in America from World War II to some time before the end of the last century. This gives new meaning to the idea that racism created the civil rights movement.
For the baby boomers themselves, white racism becomes a synonym for cluelessness in general, but cluelessness about social engineering in particular. Many of these people are Catholic, and because of their age, they experienced the ethnic cleansing of their neighborhoods first hand, which led them to see the Negro as prime mover, when in fact he too was manipulated by the same forces that were using him to destroy ethnic neighborhoods.
Denis Ruiz is a 50 year old computer programmer who grew up in Fairview Village, a planned community neighborhood near Camden, New Jersey. Ruiz is Slovakian on his mother’s side and Spanish, “by way of Cuba,” on his father’s side. He is, in other words, the typical pan-European American Catholic. The Triple Melting Pot, as opposed to the Melting Pot which Huntington and his ilk invoke, states that country of origin is replaced by religion as the source of ethnicity after the third generation. That means that the real source of ethnic identity in America is religion. Race is a pseudo-identity, like Harley-Davidson riders and NASCAR dads, which has always served the interests of the ruling class, no matter how much that class would demonize any one particular race at any one particular time. So the three main ethnic identities in America are Anglo-Protestant, Pan-European Catholic, and Eastern European Jewish (with whom the German Jews and the Sephardim had to reach an accommodation).
Unlike the Melting Pot, the Triple Melting Pot actually works. It actually creates a real American ethnic group out of various component parts. Unlike the Melting Pot which invariably functions as a result of government coercion, the Triple Melting Pot works by way of marriage. Protestants marry Protestants; Catholics (no matter what their country of origin) marry Catholics, and Jews (again no matter what their country of origin) marry Jews. The result is three typically American ethnic groups, which really functioned as actual engines of assimilation, and all of them were subject to the attack of the social engineers, whose spokesman is now Samuel Huntington. The social engineers, in other words, destroyed the only America which could have assimilated the Mexicans.
This was the America of Ruiz’s parents in Fairview Village in the 1950s, where
our impulse all along had been to bury our heritage and minimize our differences with others and become full-fledged Americans.” That America was destroyed by social engineering. Ethnic America, the real America, is Triple Melting Pot America. Anything else is creed at the expense of culture, which is another word for social engineering, something which Ruiz saw through his grandparents’ eyes, when they were living in Philadelphia, which had been their home since the 1920s, until “the area became flooded with black people from the South.
White racism is largely the response to the cultural revolution of the ‘60s. That and cluelessness. “In those years,” Ruiz explains, “I didn’t understand what media was [sic] and how they shaped reality for people.” As a result, even as late as the 1980s, “Any level of white racial consciousness wasn’t there yet for me.” Ruiz was a product of the Triple Melting Pot. That meant that “Coming out of my childhood, I had an awareness that there were Italians and Irish and Polish, but I had no sense of being white. As for blacks, I just saw them as different” (my emphasis).
Social engineering changed all that. It turned Catholic ethnics into white people. Ruiz’s conversion (or deracination) “didn’t happen for me until 1997,” when “a guy I work with whom I really respect” steered him to “a web site called the White Nationalist Library.” St. Paul’s conversion pales in comparison. Ruiz started reading racial material and suddenly all
“was clarity and sunshine. Here was somebody explaining the history of the last few decades accurately and in a way that I could understand. I felt like a fool. I was kicking myself that I hadn’t figured all this out on my own.” As a result of his conversion, “race has become a lens through which I look at the world and my own life. I have concluded that a war is being waged against whites in America, against European Americans.”
But even after this epiphany and conversion, the cluelessness remains. Ruiz knows that a cultural war has taken place where he grew up, because “In a war, there is demographic turmoil: populations get displaced, people flee. The neighborhood that was destroyed in my hometown and the refugees that were created are a component of that war.” But even understanding all this, Ruiz is forced to admit that
Exactly who is waging this war against whites, I don’t really know. But I do believe that blacks, and more recently Hispanics are being used as weapons against the racial and cultural world created by European people on this continent, and against the white people who live here now. A sophisticated Marxist-type struggle is going on against white people, but instead of class warfare, it uses ideas as weapons—racism, oppression, multiculturalism, diversity, white privilege, and so on. It manipulates, even creates, ethnic and racial grievances against whites and uses them to bludgeon white people (my emphasis).
By assuming that “this war” is being waged against “whites,” Ruiz will never understand it, because, most certainly in Philadelphia, as I have documented in my book The Slaughter of Cities, the people waging the war were every bit as white as the people against whom it was waged. The Quakers who staffed Friends Suburban Housing and other black operations against Philadelphia’s (and New Jersey’s) Catholic ethnics were every bit as white as their opponents. In fact, according to Madison Grant, they were whiter. So to frame the cultural revolution of the ‘60s and the ethnic cleansing that went along with it as “this war against the whites,” is to forever misunderstand what was going on. Which is another reason why it would be in Samuel Huntington’s interest to promote white nationalism. He is promoting white nationalism now for the same reason that his ilk promoted black nationalism in the ‘60s, as a way of weakening the real ethnic groups in America, most notably the Catholics who were just then emerging from the Triple Melting Pot. Black nationalism then functioned as a Lumpenproletariat whose criminal behavior drove Catholic ethnics into the suburbs, where they became “white.” White nationalism now takes Catholic ethnics out of a real group, one of America’s three main ethnic groups, and gives them a pseudo-identity as “white people” which prevents them from linking up with their Mexican co-religionists, who are on their way, via the Triple Melting Pot, to becoming co-ethnics as well.
During the 1950s and 1960s, the Catholic Church failed to understand the challenge to its parishes (and therefore its existence) which social engineering posed. Obsessed with the (largely Irish) desire to assimilate, the Church ( or at least its intellectual leaders at place like the Catholic Interracial Council) adopted the racial categories of its oppressors and condemned the ethnics who defended their neighborhoods as “racists” when in fact it was the racists who were trying to destroy the neighborhood. When the largely Catholic population of Folcroft rioted when the Quakers smuggled a black family into their neighborhood, Catholic interracialists like Dennis Clarke had them punished by having their pastor read the U.S. Bishops 1958 statement on race from the pulpit, a document which was written in response to a school desegregation dispute in Little Rock, Arkansas. Like Nostra Aetate in the hands of the Jews, the 1958 bishops’ statement on race became a weapon for beating up Catholics and dividing them internally. When it was read at the Catholic parish in Folcroft, many, if not most of the parishioners there literally got up and walked out of the Church. Many of them kept right on walking, and, like Dennis Ruiz, they discovered white racism at the end of their journey from the Catholic church, which failed to understand what was going on. Thus, did black racism create white racism, and thus do both of them serve the interests of the social engineers who continue to divide in order to conquer.
Samuel Huntington is now promoting “white nationalism” for the same reason that his ilk promoted black nationalism in the ‘60s, as a way of blunting one more Catholic demographic threat to what is left of WASP hegemony. Racism is a way of preventing enracination. Huntington quotes with approval sociologists Richard Alba and Victor Nee, who in 1997 “pointed out that the four decade interruption of large scale immigration after 1924 ‘virtually guaranteed that ethnic communities and culture would be steadily weakened over time.’”
Last edited by Mike Parker; January 5th, 2010 at 08:56 AM.
|January 5th, 2010||#22|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Great point about creed vs. culture, but for someone who lectures fellow Catholics on knowing their true enemy, EMJ goes wrong by mistaking Huntington for a member of the establishment. At the end he was just a glorified journeyman whose ideas were used when they were good for the Jews. He opposed the Iraq war to no avail, and the media even twisted his work to help rationalize it.
EMJ’s misplaced spite against Huntington aside, it’s obvious the “ruling class” doesn’t favor white racism, and must instead, in Jones’s own words, dispatch Jared Taylor to “subvert it in the interests of the Jews.” From what I can see, the establishment actually favors Jones’s ethnicities. PBS celebrates Italian food and Irish dancing, but says nothing (good) about whites. The goal is to distract us with these harmless cultural affinities that can be crammed into the not-so-gorgeous mosaic of Jew-controlled multiculturalism.
EMJ makes an interesting point about mass Mexican immigration being a threat to the imperium, but it’s not about them linking up with their white co-religionists. White Catholics are fully assimilated into the empire, from its kwap forces to its Supreme Court to its patriotard talk radio. If Mexican immigration helps bring the system down it will be because mestizos are racially incompatible with whites. La Raza, WN and Jones’s fellow ethnics all understand that. Only Jones’s Catholicism doesn’t understand it.
|January 5th, 2010||#23|
Join Date: May 2007
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
Last edited by Igor Alexander; January 5th, 2010 at 06:33 PM.
|December 17th, 2010||#25|
Join Date: Jul 2007
The End of Dialogue and the Beginning of Unity
by E. Michael Jones
“Heretics, Jews and Heathens have made a unity against Unity.” St. Augustine, Sermons
In an article which appeared just before Christmas, David D. Kirkpatrick of the New York Times anointed Princeton Professor Robert P. George as “this country’s most influential conservative thinker.” The proximate reason for the anointing was a manifesto known as The Manhattan Declaration, which George launched in September in the library of the Metropolitan Club. According to Kirkpatrick, George in collaboration with “conservative evangelicals like the born-again Watergate felon Chuck Colson,” Metropolitan Jonah, the primate of the Orthodox Church in America, and “more than half a dozen of this country’s most influential Roman Catholic bishops, including Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, Archbishop John Myers of Newark, and Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia . . . drafted a 4,700 word manifesto that promised resistance to the point of civil disobedience against any legislation that might implicate their churches or charities in abortion, embryo-destructive research or same-sex marriage.”
The Manhattan Declaration was ecumenical dialogue in action:
We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.
At a Washington Press conference two months after the launching of the manifesto, Professor George stepped aside to let Justin Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia make the case for the natural law basis for the Manhattan Declaration’s position. “They,” Rigali claimed, referring to
1) The profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.
“are principles that can be known and honored by men and women of good will even apart from divine revelation. They are principles of right reason and natural law.”
The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience was conceived as a political coalition, based on what has come to be seen as the great paradigm of American moral reform and interreligious cooperation, namely, the civil rights movement. According to the Manhattan Declaration, “The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class.”
That the Manhattan Declaration chose the civil rights movement as its paradigm is hardly surprising. The civil rights movement has become the paradigm for virtually every political mobilization of Christianity since that time, including “work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes – from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination.”
At Notre Dame in May 2009, both sides in the battle over the Obama invitation invoked the name of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement as a justification for their actions, whether those actions were civil disobedience or ordering the arrest of demonstrators for committing civil disobedience. We are talking about something which has become de rigueur. Any group which wants moral credibility must wrap itself in the mantle of the civil rights movement.
That includes, of course, the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is suspect because it lacks diversity in the contemporary political sense of the word. It may include people from every nation on earth but all its members are, by definition, Catholic. All political coalitions based on the civil rights movement model are by definition heterogeneous, i.e., composed of various groups espousing various beliefs but exhibiting unity in diversity. Coalitions of this sort involve, in other words, a subtle denigration of the Church as the supreme ecclesia. Coalitions of this sort are subtly Masonic because they give the impression that, unlike the Church, they are motivated by ideals which transcend narrow sectarian boundaries.
The Manhattan Declaration’s characterization of the civil rights movement as the great Christian crusade is deceptive in other ways as well. To give just one, it ignores the contribution Jews made to the civil rights movement. It also ignores the motivation of all of the parties concerned. In his book Fatal Embrace, Benjamin Ginsberg corrects the notion that the Civil Rights movement was in any sense a “Christian movement.” It was, in reality, “a coalition of Jews and liberal Protestants and a smaller number of liberal Catholics within the Democratic party.” Similarly, when it came to motivation, the Jews and Christians who made up the Civil Rights movement were less than altruistic because they
sought both to increase their power inside the federal government and to expand the power of the federal government vis a vis the states and local governments. Alliance with blacks on a platform of civil rights was the critical instrument that served both those purposes. Enfranchising blacks while discrediting Southern and conservative forces as racists [sic] increased the power of liberal forces at the federal level. At the same time, civil rights and later Great Society programs served to increase the federal government’s power vis a vis the states and other jurisdictions. . . . Northern Democratic liberals . . . found in the issue of civil rights a means of discrediting their opponents within the Democratic party—initially Southern conservatives and subsequently working-class ethnics in the North. . . . For Jews and other middle class liberals, support for civil rights was not only a moral commitment but also an important political tactic. By allying themselves with blacks, enfranchising black voters and delegitimating Southern White state and local governments, Jews and other liberals hoped to undermine the power of the same forces that had accused them of disloyalty.
Invocation of the Civil Rights Movement as the paradigm of civic religion in America ignores the fact that baser motives were at work. Like Harold Cruse, Ginsberg feels that the Civil Rights movement was payback for the lynching of Leo Frank. By promoting civil rights, Jews were able to exact revenge on the conservative Southern wing of the party, “a group that had been associated with the anti-Communist and anti-Semitic campaigns of the 1950s.” When Martin Luther King arrived in Chicago in 1966, the Jews got to settle scores with the Catholic ethnics as well. Or as Ginsberg puts it: “Through participation in the civil rights movement, Jews were striking a blow against their own foes in the Democratic coalition as much as against the enemies of blacks.”
The real civil rights movement turns out to be different than the one that constantly gets invoked as part of America’s Civic Religion. This gap between appearance and reality raises a number of troubling questions about the historical basis of this model of coalition building.
Troubling questions abound even more the closer we examine the philosophical basis of the Manhattan Declaration. If the Manhattan Declaration is based on “principles that can be known and honored by men and women of good will even apart from divine revelation,” why were Jews excluded as signatories? The same question applies to the Manhattan Declaration’s invocation of the civil rights movement? Martin Luther King certainly didn’t exclude Jews from his organization. According to Murray Friedman’s account of the civil rights movement, the movement could not have succeeded without Jewish participation. Wouldn’t a manifesto like the Manhattan Declaration be more like the civil rights movement which it invokes as its model if it were more diverse and had Jewish signatories? Surely Midge Decter, author of the famous Commentary piece on the homosexual take-over of Fire Island, “The Boys on the Beach,” is against gay marriage. By excluding Jews as signatories Professor George seems to imply that all Jews are in favor of same-sex marriage or that they are not open to the natural law. In an oblique reference to the Manhattan Declaration, Neocon National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg opined that “On the right, many conservatives have been trying to fashion something which might be called theological diversity amid moral unity. Culturally conservative Catholics, Protestants, and—increasingly—Jews find common cause.” Surely, Jonah Goldberg is open to “principles that can be known and honored by men and women of good will even apart from divine revelation.” Why then was he excluded from signing on when the MD was pitched as a collaboration of Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians?
The mystery deepens when we learn that Professor George is the heir apparent to the late Richard John Neuhaus, or, as Kirkpatrick puts it:
With the death of the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, a Lutheran minister turned Roman Catholic priest who helped bring evangelicals and Catholics together into a political movement, George has assumed his mantle as the reigning brain of the Christian Right.
By this point the disingenuous nature of both the New York Times article and the Manhattan Declaration itself has become too big to ignore. To talk about Richard John Neuhaus without mentioning First Things and Neoconservatism is like doing a remake of King Kong without the monkey. For those of you who spent the first decade of the 21st century living in a cave, First Things was the flagship of Neoconservatism, and Neoconservatism, as Murray Friedman, among others, pointed out, was a Jewish political movement. Or as New York Times columnist David Brooks defined the term “con is short for ‘conservative’ and neo is short for ‘Jewish.’” How is it possible to name Professor George as Neuhaus’s intellectual heir without talking about Neoconservatism? How is it possible to talk about a political coalition like the Religious Right without mentioning Neoconservatism? How is it possible to talk about Neoconservatism without including the Jews? Why then were Jews excluded as signatories from the Manhattan Declaration? And why wasn’t this noticed by the Times, which is abnormally sensitive to issues of the Jewish persuasion? Why, then, was there no mention of Neoconservativism and the legacy of Catholic-Jewish collaboration at organs of opinion like First Things, Crisis, and National Review? Is the exclusion of Jews from the Manhattan Declaration a tacit admission that coalitions of this sort are intrinsically unworkable?
Neoconservatism has evidently disappeared down the memory hole of contemporary discourse, and it’s difficult not to see its disappearance as intentional because in leaving out its immediate predecessor (while mentioning distant relatives like the civil rights movement) the Manhattan Declaration lays claim to an originality which it simply does not have. There is simply too much history here, as Ginsberg points out, which could contextualize its claims if it were available. By omitting this history, the MD and its apologists are denying us the ability to learn from the past. Perhaps both George and the Kirkpatrick had Santayana’s dictum in mind: “Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.” Perhaps that is the point after all. Perhaps we are being pushed into a new arrangement, the Manhattan Declaration, which condemns us to repeat the mistakes of the old arrangement, Neoconservatism. The omission of Richard John Neuhaus’s political affiliations prevents us from seeing the political affiliations of his heir apparent, as well as depriving us of an understanding of who the true beneficiaries of interfaith dialogue are.
Professor George did not spring full-blown from the mind of Zeus. He may be, as the Times claims, the intellectual heir of Richard John Neuhaus, but Neuhaus could just as easily be described as the intellectual heir of William Buckley, or Michael Novak, or Deal Hudson, former editor of the now defunct Crisis, a magazine which came into existence ten years before First Things. All of these men claimed to be Catholic spokesmen for reformist political movements, but were in reality creations of Jewish money men like Marvin Liebman, or foundations like the Bradley Foundation, or think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, and their careers—but more importantly, their ideas—were a function of the money those institutions disbursed. “He who pays the piper calls the tune” has more relevance in the realm of foundation-backed ideas than it has to music.
To begin with, Richard John Neuhaus founded First Things in response to Jewish concern about the rise of Pat Buchanan and paleoconservatism. I have told this story before, but it is interesting to consult Benjamin Ginsberg, who wrote Fatal Embrace, when paleoconservatism was considered a very real threat in Jewish circles. Beneath the façade of interfaith collaboration on the civil rights movement model, Ginsberg discerns bedrock ethnic identity, which in America means religious affiliation. So the paleocons, led by Patrick Buchanan, “are socially conservative” and “some, like Buchanan, are conservative Catholics who reject the reforms mandated by liberal popes and the Vatican II conference [sic].” They were disgruntled in the early ‘90s because they had been swindled by the Republicans on the right-to-life issue, or, as Ginsberg puts it, “Though Reagan and Bush paid lip service to the concerns of these groups by praising the right-to-life movement and other moral goals, both lacked a genuine commitment to social issues that eventually became apparent and led to a sense of betrayal among social conservatives.”
Pat Buchanan was the Ahmadinejad of his day. He was the revenant of Father Coughlin, Henry Ford, and Charles Lindbergh all rolled up into one. He was the most significant threat to Jewish hegemony over American culture since America First, and Ginsberg’s description of him shows how dire the threat seemed to American Jews as of 1993:
After a long hiatus, anti-Semitism has once again become a significant phenomenon on the political right. The most noteworthy expression was, of course, Pat Buchanan’s charge that the Persian Gulf war was promoted by the Israeli Defense Ministry and its “amen corner” in the United States and his subsequent description of Congress as “Israeli-occupied” territory.
Richard John Neuhaus’s patrons Midge Decter and Norman Podhoretz were every bit as concerned about the Pat Buchanan phenomenon and paleoconservatism as Benjamin Ginsberg. Seeing an opportunity, Neuhaus became a double agent. While still working as editor of the Rockford Institute’s Religion and Society newsletter, Neuhaus was undermining the institution which published it, referring to the Rockford Institute as located in “the fever swamps” of intellectual discourse at cocktail parties in Manhattan. Finally, the hostility came out in the open and after a high speed car chase in Manhattan to secure the filing cabinet containing donor names, Neuhaus succeeded in diverting a $250,00 Bradley Foundation grant from Rockford to be used as the founding nest egg for First Things.
The founding of First Things was just one skirmish in a decade-long campaign which involved the subversion of just about every Catholic journal of opinion by Neoconservative agents of influence. Dale Vree, editor of the New Oxford Review recounted his big chance when a Jewish donor from the East Coast showed up at his offices and offered NOR money if it would support 1) free market economics and 2) a muscular American foreign policy. Vree declined, but the editorial record of other Catholic publications speaks for itself.
Even though Professor George has been identified as the Richard John Neuhaus’s heir apparent without any reference to the Neoconservatism Neuhaus promoted at First Things, the legacy of Neoconservative subversion is apparent in the agenda of the Manhattan Declaration. In fact, the agenda has remained unchanged, even if the Neoconservative label has become an embarrassment to the agenda’s promoters. The Manhattan Declaration is, in effect, the same deal which Dale Vree turned down, souped up a bit by the addition of heavy-duty natural law philosophizing. It is part and parcel of the cynical Republican exploitation of Catholic sentiment on abortion which led to the paleocon uprising in 1992. Catholics in Pennsylvania awoke to this scam when they rejected Rick Santorum’s attempt to get re-elected in 2006. Santorum, who tried to get Catholic voters in Pennsylvania enthused over bombing Iran, ended up losing the election instead, and as consolation prize took a job at the American Enterprise Institute, where his Jewish backers got to pay his salary directly. Professor George, it should be noted, was a supporter of Senator Santorum.
George’s message is simple. Catholic bishops should concentrate on abortion and stop talking about economics. In particular they should stop “lobbying for detailed economic policies like progressive tax rates, higher minimum wage.” Or, as David Kirkpatrick put it,
Last spring, George was invited to address an audience that included many bishops at a conference in Washington. He told them with typical bluntness that they should stop talking about the many policy issues they have taken up in the name of social justice. They should concentrate their authority on “the moral social” issues like abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and same-sex marriage, where, he argued, the natural law and Gospel principles were clear. To be sure, he said, he had no objection to bishops’ “making utter nuisances of themselves” about poverty and injustice, like the Old Testament prophets, as long as they did not advocate specific remedies. They should stop lobbying for detailed economic policies like progressive tax rates, higher minimum wage, and, presumably, the expansion of health care—“matters of public policy upon which Gospel principles by themselves do not resolve differences of opinion among reasonable and well-informed people of good will,”. . .
To begin with, this strategy is not based on “principles of right reason and natural law.” If unaided human reason can conclude that adultery is wrong, then it is equally capable of seeing that theft and murder (either by suction curette or by unmanned drones in an unjust war) are equally wrong. Professor George cannot invoke the application of the moral law in one instance and then revoke it in another, not if he wants to be taken seriously. But that is precisely what he does, and, in spite of his anointing by the New York Times, that is precisely why he is not taken seriously and why his coalition is going to bring about the very opposite of what they claim they want to achieve.
George never really tells us what his economic views are, but he implies that the whole economic thing is hopelessly complicated and best left to the experts. This idea is, of course, congenial to the leveraged buy-out kings who bankroll think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, which funds Catholic “thinkers” like Rick Santorum and Michael Novak because it lends an aura of moral probity to their predatory looting operations. In a book which by its title purports to bring sex and economics together in a consistent theory, George claims that marriage “is about children and property,” but he remains explicit on sex and vague on economics and never really brings the two issues together in any coherent way. At one point he cites approvingly James Q. Wilson’s thesis that “the marriage system made possible by the emergence of individual land ownership in turn helped to make England ‘the natural place for the emergence of capitalism,’” but in keeping with his policy of explicitness on sexual issues and vagueness on economics, he never gets around to telling us that “emergence of land ownership” was another word for the looting of Church property.
This a-historical acceptance of the status quo is typical of libertarian economics and finds expression in another essay in the same book by Jennifer Roback Morse, “Why Unilateral Divorce Has No Place in a Free Society,” which gets more specific about markets, but never quite explains whether they help or hinder marriage. Morse is handicapped from the start because she has to admit that the libertarian position on sexuality contradicts not only her own views but also what Professor George would call “natural reason.” George is a proponent of the metaphysically parsimonious “New Natural Law Theory” which takes seriously the Enlightenment idea that one can’t derive and “ought” from an “is.” The fact that “Libertarians want to combine the ‘fiscal right,’ which wants minimal government taxation, spending, and regulation with the ‘lifestyle left,’ which wants minimal governmental definition of proper sexual, marital, and family behavior” puts Catholic Libertarians like Roback Morse in a bind because “it is not possible for a society to be both fiscally conservative and lifestyle liberal. It sounds good on paper, but in practice it simply is not possible.”
Instead of abandoning Libertarianism as a fatally flawed ideology, Roback Morse attempts to square the circle by creating the philosophical equivalent of a political coalition on the Manhattan Declaration model. She does this because she is attracted simultaneously to the idea that “marriage [is] a unique social institution that deserves to be defended on its own terms, and not as a special case of something else” and because
One of the attractive features of the market as a social institution is its self-regulating character. Set up a society with property rights, contract law, and a court and police system; populate it with people who have a functioning conscience and sense of reciprocity; give the system a push—and it runs itself.
Roback Morse tries to reconcile these two views and fails because these views cannot be reconciled. This is so for a very simple reason: the moral law applies equally to both sexual and economic intercourse and neither marriage nor a sound economy is compatible with “the posture of a night-watchman state.” Libertarianism, like the Manhattan Declaration, invokes the moral law when it suits its purposes, something that Professor Roback Morse concedes when she writes that:
Libertarians recognize that a free market needs a culture of law-abidingness, promise-keeping, and respect for contracts. Similarly, a free society needs a culture that supports and sustains marriage as the normative institution for the begetting, bearing and rearing of children.
Flawed fundamental principles lead to flawed applications in the real world. Professor Roback Morse proves this axiom when she takes on the problem of welfare, especially to unmarried mothers with dependent children:
The libertarian approach to caring for the dependent is usually described in terse form as “let families and private charity take care of it and get the government out of the way.” This position is sometimes ridiculed as unrealistic or attacked as harsh. But the libertarian position, once fully fleshed out, is both humane and realistic.
Once again ideology trumps history in Libertarian thought. The only way Libertarian social solutions sound plausible is by ignoring the historical causes which led to the problem in the first place. Poor Laws in England are an example of state intervention, but they became necessary only in the aftermath of the great period of capital formation in England otherwise known as the Reformation, otherwise known as the looting of Church property. When English culture and England’s economic system was under the control of the Catholic Church, there were no Poor Laws. If there had been no looting, if England had continued for the next 900 years under the regime which had ruled it for the 900 years previous to the Reformation, there would have been no need of state welfare because huge amounts of property would have continued to be dedicated to the common good. Poverty of the sort that became endemic to English life, poverty of the sort that Charles Dickens wrote about three centuries after the looting of Church property had taken place was unknown in England before the reformation, and it was unknown in England for almost an entire millennium before the looting that gave birth to Capitalism took place because during that period economic exchange was subordinated to the moral law, and the moral law was enforced by the Catholic Church. The state had to step in to keep Englishmen from starving to death only after Capitalism had destroyed the social order. If Professor Roback Morse were familiar with encyclicals like Rerum Novarum, she would know that socialism follows inexorably from Capitalism. The Catholic position on the relationship between marriage and markets is that low wages of the sort favored by Libertarians like Professor Morse endanger the existence of the family, something the whole world was aware of by the end of the 19th century.
Those who advocate the natural law need to understand that morality is all of one piece, and that adultery, theft, and murder are all wrong. Even the morally challenged folks at the New York Times have figured this out. Anyone who claims that we are supposed to ignore nine of the Ten Commandments in the interest of political effectiveness is either a fool or someone who is trying to instrumentalize both philosophy and morals for political purposes. Those who make this claim also destroy their own reputation as thinkers in the process. Professor George is part of the same cadre of Neoconservative Catholics who destroyed their credibility during the run up to the Iraq war in 2003. As Kirkpatrick points out:
The intentional killing of innocent civilians in war is as grave a moral crime as abortion, George says, but what constitutes a “just war” is a more complicated judgment call. Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he wrote an op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal arguing that the attack was not necessarily unjust and might even be a moral obligation. . . . But the opposition to banning abortion and embryo-destructive research is “straightforward.”
The “straightforward” immorality of the Iraq War was apparent to Pope John Paul II. In fact it was apparent to many Catholics not in the pay of Neocon-controlled foundations. Neoconservative Catholics like Robert George and George Weigel lost their credibility by slavishly backing the Bush Administration’s unjust war. Michael Novak, who bragged about his candle-light dinners with the pope, couldn’t get an audience to plead his case at the Vatican because the idea that America’s invasion of Iraq could be squared with the Just War principles of the Catholic Church was patently absurd. When the Scottish Catholic philosopher John Haldane tried to suggest that there might be a disconnect between “the principles of right reason and natural law” and the agenda of the Republican Party or that the Republicans lost the 2008 election because Catholics “took moral exception to some of the policies pursued by the Bush administration,” such as “the running sore of structural deprivation running through American society, or the prosecution of an unjust war,” George responded with derision, sarcasm, and ridicule:
When I asked George about the letter, he was derisive. “John, thanks for the advice!” he said sarcastically. “Gosh, I wish we would have taken it. We would have the strong and vibrant social conservative movement that you guys have in Great Britain!”
So much for “His critics, including many of his fellow Catholic scholars, [who] argue that he is turning the church into a tool of the Republican Party.”
If we were to ask which institution can give us an infallibly reliable guide to the relationship between adultery, theft and murder, the answer would be the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church. Any coalition which silences the Church on any of these issues is nothing more than an instrument of political control. The beneficiaries of these coalitions are not the Catholics, be they bishops or laymen, who are asked to join them. The beneficiaries are the Republican Party and the money men behind the Republican Party, who pay the salaries of the agents who promote their ideas. If Robert George didn’t exist, Karl Rove, a self-proclaimed Robert George fan, would have to invent him, or another representative in the line of Buckley, Novak, Neuhaus, and Hudson. Conservatism is another name for Catholics being paid to control Catholics, by confining the operation of their minds to ideas congenial to the rich and powerful.
To claim that unaided reason can know that adultery is wrong but not that prosecution of an unjust war is equally wrong so contradicts the mind’s ability to grasp the truth, that we are forced to look for other than rational motives when seeking to explain the ideas being proposed. As Kirkpatrick points out, George never lets an opportunity pass to quote with disapproval “Hume’s famous formulation, “reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions and may never pretend to any office other than to serve and obey them.” George’s disapproval notwithstanding, there are many passions and appetites, and the craving for money and human respect are two of the most powerful, even more powerful for some than the sexual appetite. Professor George has subordinated the natural law to a political agenda. On just about every issue, the real criterion of whether the natural law should be taken seriously comes down to whether the policy in question is in conformity with the agenda of the Republican Party.
George claims that by limiting their focus the Catholic Bishops will gain in political effectiveness, but the evidence from the Neoconservative era all militates against drawing this conclusion.
After explaining the nature of the coalition which made up the civil rights movement, Ginsberg is equally frank in talking about the neoconservative alliance which succeeded it. At the heart of that alliance was the Republican or neoconservative strategy on abortion. Catholics were told that if they went along on economic issues that went against their own interests (“Blue collar unionized workers [i.e., Catholics],” Ginsberg tells us, “were among the major victims of Reaganomics.”), the Republicans would do something about abortion. This, it turns out, was a cruel hoax, because “Though Reagan and Bush paid lip service to the concerns of these groups by praising the right-to-life movement and other moral goals, both lacked a genuine commitment to social issues that eventually became apparent and led to a sense of betrayal among social conservatives.” This was so because the Jews were the senior partners in the Neocon alliance, and the Jews were not interested in doing anything about abortion. In fact, Ginsberg continues, “many neocons are fond of saying privately that social issues are merely useful bait with which to attract the votes of the riff-raff.”
So, first it was Michael Novak, and then it was Rick Santorum, who co-sponsored a bill on stem cell research with Arlen Spector which received Robby George’s support. And then it was Richard John Neuhaus. And then it was Chris “hate crimes” Smith. And now it’s Robby George, and through it all we are all supposed to pretend that we can’t see the man behind the curtain operating the money machine, which is the ultimate source of all of these ideas and coalitions.
The link between Michael Novak and the American Enterprise Institute is, if anything, even more obvious than the link between Richard John Neuhaus and the Bradley Foundation under Irving Kristol’s protégé Michael Joyce. No possible interpretation of the natural law can come to the conclusion that adultery is wrong but theft, even in sophisticated forms such as leveraged buy-outs, is not. Hence, we must seek the rationale of George’s advice to the bishops to downplay economics in places other than in the natural law. The make up of the board of trustees of the American Enterprise Institute might be a good place to start. David Rubenstein, co-founder of the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm which plunders companies by taking them over and loading them down with debt, is one of the 24 trustees of the American Enterprise Institute. Marc Lipschultz, a partner with Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts, another private equity firm is another. Upon closer examination, the Manhattan Declaration rests not upon the natural law, but upon another sort of foundation, The Bradley Foundation.
What conclusions are we to draw from all this, other than the feeling that Catholics have been duped every time they allowed themselves to be drawn into political alliances? The main conclusion is that unity is better than dialogue. When the Catholic Church was strong and unified, she had a positive effect on American culture, as for example, when the Catholics of Philadelphia boycotted Warner Brothers theaters there in the 1930s and forced Hollywood Jews to accept the Production Code and ban nudity and obscenity from their films. Or when Msgr. Ryan stood up to Margaret Sanger and the Rockefeller interests and defeated their plan for government-funded birth control. Once the Church chose dialogue over unity, she lost whatever power she had to influence the culture and earned only the contempt of her enemies in return.
Unity with your friends and fellow-believers, in other words, is better than dialogue with your enemies. If we ever needed proof of that statement, we have almost 50 years of experience with the failed experiment known as Catholic-Jewish dialogue. One year after the end of the Second Vatican Council, the Jews used dialogue to divide the Church. One of the first casualties was the Oberammergau Passion Play, which was caught, as Shapiro puts it, “between the anvil of Nostra Aetate and the hammer of Jewish organizations.”
In the years following Vatican II, Dialogue became the main vehicle for bringing the Catholic mind under Jewish control. Dialogue has also become a synonym for subversion of Church teaching. After years of dialogue, the USCC, under the direction of Cardinal Keeler of Baltimore, issued a joint Catholic-Jewish statement on “Covenant and Mission” which affirmed that Jews could be saved without accepting Christ as their savior. In May of 2009 the same bishops had to issue a “clarification” which repudiated their own statement. It turns out that, upon reflection, the bishops concluded that the Mosaic covenant was no longer “eternally valid,” and Jews did have to convert if they wanted to be saved after all. The bishops’ volte face on the Jews is one indication that after 40 years the Jewish control of the Catholic mind is beginning to fade. Over the past three years we have seen a change of historic magnitude, and a catalyst for that change has been Culture Wars magazine.
Other people have noticed the same thing. Having watched with amazement as House Democrats acceded to the US Catholic bishops’ demand that abortion funding be removed from their health care bill, Pat Buchanan is forced to wonder, “Is the Church Militant Back?” When the Church is united and acts on her own, unfettered by self-imposed political constraints, good things happen.
Kirkpatrick cites the Stupak amendment, the bishops’ successful attempt to get abortion funding stripped from the Obama administration’s health care bill as an example of the successful implementation of George’s strategy when in fact it shows the opposite of what the Manhattan Declaration is proposing. Abortion got stripped from the health care bill when the bishops acted in a unified manner with a resolve which they never had during the birth control battles of the ‘60s and which they could not have mustered if they were working under Republican-controlled restraints in concert with other Christian denominations. It was Catholic Democrats in the House who cast the decisive vote against abortion. Working in concert with Jews against abortion is unthinkable.
George tries to drag religious liberty into the discussion, but it’s clear that Catholic doctrine is going to suffer from the inevitable political horse-trading that this involves. Instead of asserting the historical truth that the Church has never repudiated her right to coerce the baptized, including recalcitrant politicians, George comes out in favor of civil disobedience, based on the historically false claim that, “Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required.” The Church counseled patience and suffering and in extreme cases of manifest injustice the overthrow of wicked regimes, but it never condoned “civil disobedience.” The source of this claim lies neither in Scripture nor Tradition, but, unsurprisingly in George’s reading of the Civil Rights movement, in particular the tract written by Christian Socialist and Catholic apostate Michael Harrington under the name of Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself. Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience. King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.
Rather than accept a hollow and specious religious freedom and the dubious privilege of going to jail, the bishops would do better to claim, in opposition to the Manhattan Declaration, that the Church has never believed in being bound by non-coercion when it comes to the baptized. Strengthened by that principle they should concentrate on restoring the unity of all believers, including Catholic politicians, who would then act more like Congressman Stupak than the late Senator Kennedy. Dialogue does nothing but weaken this resolve. The net result is dialogue with “Catholic” universities like Notre Dame—another fruit of Vatican II and another colossal waste of time.
What is true of abortion is also true of the re-admission of the Anglicans. After almost 500 years of schism and almost 50 years of fruitless palaver, the pope re-admitted Anglicans disgusted with feminist bishops and openly homosexual clergy without a word of dialogue. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who found out about the merger when the rest of the world did, was the last one to know.
Dialogue has weakened the resolve of Catholics, but all of this good will has led to no concessions on the part of the Jewish-controlled press. If anything, that press has become more virulently anti-Catholic in response to what they perceive as Catholic weakness. Even the bishops, the main apologists for the failed experiment known as Catholic-Jewish dialogue, have started to take notice. Archbishop Timothy Dolan tried to explain the Catholic/Jewish double standard in an op-ed piece he sent to the New York Times, which the Times refused to publish. When it comes to sexual abuse, the Catholic Church is subjected to a “scurrilous ... diatribe” by Maureen Dowd “that rightly never would have passed muster with the editors had it so criticized an Islamic, Jewish or African-American” faith, but when the New York Times “exposed the sad extent of child sexual abuses in Brooklyn’s Orthodox Jewish Community ... 40 cases of such abuses in this tiny community last year alone,” wrote the archbishop, “the district attorney swept the scandal under the rug, and the Times held up the carpet.” Buchanan went on to mention Catholic/Jewish relations as one of the main areas of change in American life:
The Vatican has reaffirmed that Catholics in interfaith dialogues have a moral right if not a duty to convert Jews, and reaffirmed the doctrine that Christ’s covenant with his church canceled out and supersedes the Old Testament covenant with the Jews. When Abe Foxman, screech owl of the Anti-Defamation League, railed that this marks a Catholic return to such “odious concepts as ‘supercessionism,’” he was politely ignored.
The American bishops’ repudiation of Cardinal Keeler’s “Reflections on Covenant and Mission” marks more than just a stunning reversal of 50 years of bad theology. That repudiation had global political implications as well, implications which became clear when the Jerusalem Post ran an article on “why Israel is losing the PR war.” According to the Jerusalem Post, the main reason for the precipitous drop in Israel’s approval rating (from 70 to 40 percent) is the “resurgence of replacement theology,” their term for supercessionism, i.e., the traditional Catholic teaching that the Jews have been superceded, and that the Church is the New Israel.
As some indication that great minds run in the same circles, I submit Abe Foxman’s outraged response to the bishops’ clarification of the Keeler statement. Both Abe Foxman and Mike Jones agree that dialogue and evangelization are mutually exclusive alternatives. Since the bishops have been commanded by the Gospels to go and baptize all nations, they have no choice but to abandon dialogue because, as Foxman pointed out, it’s the antithesis of proselytism.
Both the ADL and Culture Wars have concluded that Catholic/Jewish dialogue has failed, and Catholics are finally awakening to the fact that this dialogue has failed because the Jews have used it as a cover for their hidden agenda of control from the beginning. As some indication of what those motives are, all of the major Jewish organizations recently signed a friend of the court brief demanding that the Obama administration allow the Catholic Church no exemptions of conscience when it comes to hiring homosexuals.
Actions speak louder than words. In spite of all the dialogue, there was no collaboration in the area of religious freedom and freedom of conscience when it came to the health bill and the concerns it raised for Catholics. Beyond that, the intent behind Jewish support of the homosexual agenda became crystal clear: use “tolerance” to create a homosexual fifth column within the Catholic Church, one which, because of the nature of its sexual activities, can be used to create a whole new series of lawsuits. With Elder Brothers like this, who needs enemies?
Abe Foxman was outraged by what he considered a volte face on dialogue, but the simple fact remained: whenever the bishops engaged in dialogue with the Jews, they repudiated the Gospel. Conversely, whenever they acted on their own and reaffirmed the Gospel, they invariably outraged the Jews. This leads me to refine my previous statement: the Church can proclaim the Gospel or she can have good relations with the Jews, but dialogue, which is to say both at the same time, is impossible.
Why is that? Well, anyone who has read The Gospel of St. John or the Acts of the Apostles or St. Paul’s Epistle to the Thessalonians should know the answer. It’s because the Jews rejected Christ, and in rejecting Christ they rejected Logos, and in rejecting Logos, they became, as St. Paul put it, “enemies of the entire human race.” Dialogue, in other words, is not possible without logos. This rejection of logos in general and the Logos made flesh is now the core of Jewish identity, and it will remain so until they reject their rejection and accept Christ as their savior. Michael Medved recently said the same thing. In a symposium which appeared in the September 2009 issue of the American Jewish Committee’s publication, Commentary, on Norman Podhoretz’s latest book, he wrote that “For most American Jews, the core of their Jewish identity isn’t solidarity with Israel; it’s rejection of Christianity.”
Michael Medved has articulated the fundamental Jewish idea. As Richard Weaver told us “Ideas have consequences,” and one of the consequences of the fundamental Jewish idea is blasphemy. Over 40 years of dialogue led America’s Catholic bishops into a denial of the Gospel, but it didn’t put a stop to Jewish blasphemy. At the same time that the American bishops were trying to placate Abe Foxman, Larry David was busy urinating on a picture of Jesus Christ during a segment of the HBO sitcom “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” When David’s Catholic secretary uses the bathroom after him, she mistakes David’s urine for Jesus’s tears and claims that the picture is weeping. The latest instance of Jewish blasphemy brought forth fundraising letters from fire-breathing defenders of the faith, who demanded that Catholics “take action” and send in a contribution, but they couldn’t quite bring themselves to say that Larry David was a Jew, and that the Jewish penchant for blasphemy goes back to the central Jewish document, the Talmud, and that all of this behavior has to do with, as Michael Medved put it, the “rejection of Christianity,” which lies at the core of Jewish identity.
No one, it seems, is allowed to connect the dots. Catholics can’t connect the dots for a very simple reason; connecting the dots leaves one open to the charge of anti-Semitism. In May 2009, following the appearance of my article on Deborah Lipstadt and Holocaust Denial, the ADL put me on their most wanted list. This means that I have moved out of the realm of “dynamic silence.” Since the ADL has been getting the magazine for years now (They are, in fact, our most faithful readers. We never have to send them a second renewal notice), I can only assume that something must have happened recently to bump up my status. What happened is very simple: Culture Wars has broken the lock which has kept the Catholic mind under Jewish control for the past 40 years. The ADL now realizes that the Church is heading in the other direction on all of the issues the Jews consider important. After 40 years of unprecedented advances in subversion and covert warfare, the Jews are finally starting to lose their control over the Catholic mind.
Dialogue is a failed experiment. It had no roots in tradition. In just about every instance it involved the bishops in compromising the gospel. In fact, as the Manhattan Declaration made clear, the main requirement for dialogue is a willingness to suppress some Catholic truth of importance to the person engaged in dialogue. There was always an aura of make-believe surrounding the Church’s dialogue with the world which began in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The main element of make believe had to do with wishing away the Church’s enemies. It turns out that the Church’s enemies did not disappear after all. Instead, they used their feigned status as our friends to gain unprecedented hegemony over the Church they never gave up trying to destroy.
The Church fathers were wiser than their successors in this regard. They understood, as Augustine said, that “Heretics, Jews and Heathens have made a unity against Unity.” History is another word for the story of this alliance and its war against the Church. In spite of the illusions generated by the Second Vatican Council, nothing has changed. As A. E. Houseman wrote about sobering up after a drinking binge,
I was I; my things were wet
The world it was the old world yet.
As we sober up from the intoxication generated by the failed experiments of the ‘60s, we are left with certain fundamental truths. The most fundamental is that there can be no dialogue without logos. The only antidote to rejection of logos is rejection of that rejection, otherwise known as conversion. Since dialogue has made conversion impossible, it is time to dispense with dialogue and return to the tradition that promoted evangelization and conversion as the antidote to the world’s ills because unity with fellow believers is more important than the ability to chatter on endlessly with our enemies.
E. Michael Jones is the editor of Culture Wars.
This article was published in the July/August 2010 issue of Culture Wars.
|March 31st, 2011||#26|
Join Date: Jul 2007
The Sunic Journal: Interview with E. Michael Jones #2
December 14, 2010
13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.
Great comments on the Enlightenment (reason) and Puritan (Messianic) roots of American politics, and on Vatican II, result of fatal Cold War embrace between Church and US. New work on the history of capitalism promises to be another tome: he's still on the Florentine Renaissance.
Last edited by Mike Parker; March 31st, 2011 at 10:51 AM.
|January 13th, 2015||#28|
Join Date: Jul 2014