The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersE. Michael Jones Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
How Identity Politics Became Identity Theft
🔊 Listen RSS

Karl Marx once said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce. Nothing proved the truth of Marx’s claim better than the farcical battle over the statue of St. Louis in, yes, St. Louis which followed hot on the heels of the tragedy of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

The battle over the statue began as an exercise in identity politics, and before long it degenerated into an example of identity theft. The main protagonist in this story is Umar Lee, who was born Bret Darran Lee in 1974 to a southern Presbyterian family and grew up in Florissant, Missouri just outside St. Louis. Lee may or may not be Black, which is an ideological marker based upon but independent of biological fact, because he claims, according to The Jerusalem Post that he “has two younger siblings who are half African-American.”[1]

On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown Jr., an 18-year-old Black man, was fatally shot by 28-year-old white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the city of Ferguson, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis, leading to extensive rioting. After the death of Michael Brown, Lee got involved with the Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, and was arrested on two occasions and, in his words, “locked up.” After getting fired from his job as cab driver, Lee became a full-time, but little known activist. In 2015, Lee noticed that statues started coming down in St. Louis, largely because of agitation on the part of St. Louis Jews. At some point during this period, Lee made contact with Ben Paremba, an Israeli restauranteur who was “passionate” about promoting Israel and other Jewish causes. At this point Paremba was as little known to locals as Lee, but all of that changed after the Jewish press took notice of their petition to remove the statue of St. Louis and began promoting them as social justice crusaders, if you’ll pardon the term.

In a series of tweets, Lee tried to establish his position as an aggrieved Muslim, bringing up the Crusades as the cause of his grievance, but the underlying source of his complaint was inspired by a group of Jews, who were incensed that the city where they had come to study had erected a statue in honor of a king who had burned the Talmud.

Once Lee mentioned the term “anti-Semitism,” the Jewish press began carrying stories which lionized Lee as a crusader for Jewish rights. Because of his philo-Semitism, Lee soon found himself lionized in the Jewish press. Writing for the Jewish Telegraph Agency, Ben Sales described Lee as “a local activist who started the petition and also took part in a successful drive to remove a nearby Confederate monument in 2017. Lee, Sales continued, “is not Jewish but started the petition because of Louis IX’s anti-Semitism.”[2] Because Lee’s petition called St. Louis a “rabid anti-Semite” who “inspired Nazi Germany,” it began “drawing Jewish support” from St. Louis Jews like Rabbi Susan Talve, “the founding rabbi of the city’s Central Reform Congregation, who said taking it down would help advance racial justice in the United States.” According to Talve, St. Louis Jews have “been talking about that statue for a long time.” Talve then added that removing the statue would be “a very important part of reclaiming history, reclaiming the stories that have created the institutionalized racism that we are trying to unravel today. If we’re not honest about our history we will never be able to dismantle the systems of oppression that we are living under.”

“Susan Talve hated Cardinal Burke,” according to one Catholic familiar with the local scene. He went on to say that Burke told him that Talve had “an animosity toward me for reasons that I don’t understand.” Blinded by over 50 years of the failed experiment known as Catholic-Jewish dialogue, his eminence was evidently incapable of seeing that Talve’s animosity toward him was based on her ancestral animosity toward the Catholic Church, which he led in St. Louis at the time. Unsurprisingly, Rabbi Talve’s animosity toward the Catholic Church has turned her into an advocate of Lee’s attack on the statue.

St. Louis Catholics were determined to ignore the ethnic animosity behind the struggle. America Needs Fatima, a front group for the Brazilian cult Tradition, Family, and Property joined the fray, criticizing “limp-wristed politicians” who were giving in to “revolutionary extremists.” ANF Protest Coordinator Jose Ferraz, claimed that “American Catholics” who were “strong in their faith” were being “pushed around by anarchist revolutionaries,” but without identifying any of the actual players in the dispute.

After local activist Jim Hoft announced that a group of Catholics associated with his website Gateway Pundit was going to defend the statue, Lee issued a statement describing what he clearly knew to be a group of Catholics as “White Nationalists” along with “those on the alt-right such as those who held the infamous and tragic rally in Charlottesville.”

Hoft then responded by claiming that Lee deliberately misrepresented the Gateway Pundit rosary group as white racists: “We are Christians and Christian allies who believe we still have the freedom to practice our religion in America. We are organizing a prayer rally with Catholic and Christian men. And now we are being threatened — In America. We will not apologize for our Christianity. Not in St. Louis.”

The leader of a local rosary group, taken in by Lee’s propaganda, began to suspect that local Catholic activists at the rosary protest “might be backed by white supremacists” and warned his group off. He then retracted his first tweet after he learned that the Rosary rally was being sponsored by local activist Jim Hoft’s Gateway Pundit and TFP-America Needs Fatima. Neither group talked about the Jews. As a result, neither group was able to discuss the conflict’s most significant player. Both groups as a result became proxy warriors in an exercise in street theater which kept the true dynamics of the conflict hidden.

In his article, Sales found a local Catholic who made a valiant attempt to defend the city’s eponymous saint, only to be shot down later by Talve, who opined that “Asserting that your way is the only way I think is always wrong” with no sense that this was precisely the gist of what the local Jews and their Muslim front man were imposing on the citizens of St. Louis.

🔊 Listen RSS

“Fear” is the first word of The Plot against America, the Philip Roth novel which just got re-cycled as an HBO series by David Simon and Ed Burns, creators of The Corner, The Wire, and Generation Kill. “Fear,” Roth tells us, “presides over these memories, a perpetual fear.” The memories in question are Roth’s, of growing up in a Jewish family in Newark, New Jersey. The fear comes from the one alteration of history that turns these memories into what Roth referred to in an interview with Robert Siegel on NPR as “a kind of false memoir.” The premise of the novel is that Charles Lindbergh was elected president in 1940. Everything else in the book follows from that premise and from Roth’s ethnic paranoia and his ethnic bigotry. The most significant thing about Roth’s book is the fact that it’s fiction. The Plot against America is a Jewish fantasy, which is interesting first of all for what it tells us about Roth personally but also because of what it tells us about the ethnic group which has accepted his paranoid Jewish fantasy as something to be taken seriously by people other than psychiatrists and cultural pathologists.


To give an early example of the kind of fear which pervades the novel, seven-year-old Philip sees a German beer garden on a trip to Union, New Jersey, the town his father is thinking of moving the family to take advantage of a promotion at the insurance firm where he is employed. What follows is the 71-year-old’s bigotry projected into the mind of his seven-year-old name-sake. What ordinary Americans might consider “the homey acre of open-air merriment smack in the middle of town” was in fact some-thing “called a beer garden.” and before you know it the beer garden becomes the American equivalent of Auschwitz according to the following logic: “the beer garden had something to do with the German-American Bund, the German American Bund had something to do with Hitler, and Hitler, as I hadn’t to be told, had everything to do with persecuting Jews.” The beer garden was the place where Americans drank “the intoxicant of anti-Semitism. That’s what I came to imagine them all so carefully drinking in their beer garden that day—like all the Nazis everywhere, downing pint after pint of anti-Semitism as though imbibing the universal remedy.” All this passes through the mind of an allegedly seven-year-old child while driving past in a car.

Roth’s book is some indication that anti-Semitism is the universal remedy, but not in the way that Roth indicates. Charges of anti-Semitism have become the universal remedy to unwelcome discourse. They are also the universal remedy to an accurate history of the 20th century. As evidence of the anti-Semitism which was raging in America on the eve of America’s entry into World War II (and also of unwelcome discourse which got silenced), Roth cites Charles Lindbergh’s Des Moines radio speech at an America First rally; in fact, he gives the entire speech in an appendix to the book. This is a mistake, at least from the point of view of what Roth wants to achieve, because it says the opposite of what Roth wants Lindbergh to say. In the speech we read, among other things, Lindbergh’s statement; “No person with a sense of dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany,” This does not sound like the raving of an anti-Semite. Lindbergh’s point was that three groups were trying to get America into the War at the time—the Roosevelt administration, the English, and the Jews—and that the Jews “would be the first to feel its consequences” because “tolerance cannot survive war and devastation.” It was the last time that anyone in public life in America singled out Jews as a group for criticism. Lindbergh and America First were silenced after the Roosevelt administration entered the war, and they have been demonized ever since. Roth’s book is one more contribution to that demonization.

If Lindbergh was talking about Europe, however, he was profoundly right in a way that no one could have understood at the time. War provided the cover for the annihilation of large numbers of Jews in Europe. If Lindbergh was talking about America, he was wrong because—pace, Mr. Roth—there were no pogroms in America. So which Lindbergh is Philip Roth talking about? He is talking about the Lindbergh in his mind, a fictional prop that is dragged out to justify Roth’s hatred of the goyim and his deep ambivalence toward an America that, even more than Renaissance Poland, has been the paradisus Judaeorum. The ambivalence comes out best in an argument between Roth’s parents. Roth’s father is outraged by the programs of President Lindbergh, shouting “This is our country,” Roth’s mother, on the other hand, responds by saying, “Not anymore. It’s Lindbergh’s. It’s the goyims’. It’s their country.” In other words, the book revolves around the unhealthy dichotomy—it’s our country/it’s their country—without any understanding of why the dichotomy is unhealthy. Roth’s book is exactly what he says it is. It is a “false memoir.” It is a distortion of history for political and racial purposes. It is also an exercise in bigotry and slander. Anything is justified because Roth considers his foes the embodiment of evil and as fully worthy of the hatred he lavishes on them. Roth is no longer promoting sexual liberation, as he did in Portnoy’s Complaint, but the hatred and bigotry are still there, even if the twisted humor is gone.

Because it is a “false memoir,” Roth’s book is the mirror image of what was really going on. If there was such a thing as fascist America, it was created by Roth’s hero Franklin Delano Roosevelt. If there were ever “a plot to replace American democracy with the absolute authority of a despotic rule” in America, Roosevelt inaugurated it, and the presidents who have succeeded him simply implemented what he inaugurated.

The first program which creates indignation among the Roth family is Lindbergh’s “Just Folks Program,” which sends Jewish children off to places like Kentucky—one of the two centers of evil in Roth’s America (the other is Detroit), where Philip’s brother works on a tobacco farm near Danville. “The only purpose of this so-called Just Folks,” Roth tells us, “is to make Jewish children into a fifth column and turn them against their parents.”

Well, that sounds like a plausible explanation of the purpose behind a government program of this sort. But just who was proposing this sort of the thing in the 1930s? The answer is just about everyone in power at the time. The Nazis had their Hitlerjugend, but unmentioned in Roth’s account is that Stalin’s Comsomol was doing the same sort of thing, and unmentioned as well is the fact that “Just Folks” bears an eerie resemblance to the Civilian Conservation Corps, which was, of course, instituted by Roosevelt. According to Roth’s fantasy, Jews “were being coerced to be other than the Americans we were.” Lindbergh had ordered that Jews were “to be shipped thousands of miles from family and friends. . . . The Jews will be scattered far and wide to wherever Hitlerite America Firsters flourish.”

Louis Wirth and Ethnic Cleansing

🔊 Listen RSS

“You must not exact vengeance.” — Leviticus 19:17

“This is not murder. This is mitzvah.” — Meyer Offerman, Hunters

Over the course of 2019 the Jews lost control of the narrative in America. When Jews lose control they get upset, because, in a world without logos, the only order is the order they impose on the rest of us, a group known as the goyim, whom, Jews believe, have a natural tendency toward anti-Semitism. When the Jew loses control, he thinks the world is out to get him, and when he thinks the world is out to get him, his thoughts turn to murder. As a result, we are now being subjected to one paranoid Jewish fantasy after another advocating murder as the solution to what they perceive as the problem of anti-Semitism. A year ago Amazon Prime members were subjected to The Man from High Castle, a fantasy about what America would be like after losing World War II. In mid-March Netflix released the film version of Philip Roth’s paranoid fantasy The Plot Against America, and in late February Amazon Prime released Hunters, probably the most flagrant example of Jewish paranoia leading to Jewish murderous fantasies to date. Hunters is set in America in 1977. In the opening scene, a Jewish couple arrive at a barbecue given by the husband’s new employer, an obnoxious white southerner (Is there any other kind?) wearing a “Kiss the Cook” apron as he presides over grilling hot dogs, which is of course prescient of the Holocaust. After our obnoxious Southern host makes some tactless sexual remarks, the Jewish wife, who looks to be in her thirties, suddenly recognizes him as a former officer in Auschwitz. After trying to brush off her distress with a few humorous remarks, the southerner pulls a gun out of the barbecue and shoots not only the Jewish couple but every member of his own family as well. He then sits down in a lawn chair, where he waits for 24 hours until a fellow Nazi arrives to dispose of the bodies and then shoot him in the arm to give him an alibi.

Does that sound plausible to you? Well, it’s as plausible as this paranoid piece of Jewish revenge porn gets. Hunters tells the story of how Meyer Offerman, “a wealthy Holocaust survivor with a thick Yiddish accent played by Al Pacino,” based loosely on Simon Wiesenthal, who got into the Nazi hunting business in 1977, assembled “a diverse band of Nazi hunters” to kill anyone they suspected of being Nazis from taking over America and turning it into—you will be expecting this—the “Fourth Reich.” Jonah Heidelbaum, the protagonist in this struggle, is a young man whose grandmother got murdered by a man in a black hat, whom Offerman identifies after introducing himself at Grandma’s wake as a Nazi hunter. Jonah initially ignores Offerman’s offer to help, but soon gets busted for selling dope, and when Offerman goes his bail, their collaboration begins.

Al Pacino as Meyer Offerman
Al Pacino as Meyer Offerman

Unfortunately, Jonah shows some initial reluctance at killing people in cold blood even if they’re Nazis. As a result, Offerman spends a good part of the conclusion of the first episode trying to convince Jonah that his homicidal rampage is both religiously and morally justified: “This is not murder,” Offerman tells Jonah, “This is mitzvah,” which means blessing in Hebrew. Once again Hollywood has drawn us into an alternative universe where hate is a Jewish virtue, and we become anti-Semites who are complicit in Nazi crimes if we object to Jews gunning down in cold blood anyone they find suspicious.

Director David Weil told the Jewish Telegraph Agency that “his first and main inspiration was his grandmother, who survived imprisonment in the Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen concentration camps, and whom Weil said he used to see as a superhero while growing up in a Conservative Jewish family on Long Island.” Hunters is “a love letter to my grandmother, it is a way to honor my birthright and my heritage and my Judaism, and it’s a way to shed light on hidden crimes and secrets.”[1]

Weil also had specific movies in mind when he directed Hunters, which is a mash up of Steven Spielberg’s Munich and Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds. “If ‘Inglourious Basterds’ is one end of the spectrum, and ‘Munich’ is the other end of the spectrum, I think ‘Hunters’ lives in the middle,” Weil said in the same interview.[2]

Hunters is also about morality, as Jews like Weil defines that term, which means in this instance comic book morality according to which “The center of the [Hunters] series really revolves around the moral, ethical question about ‘Does it take evil to fight evil? Do you have to be a bad guy in order to effectively combat the bad guys?’” Logan Lerman, who plays the show’s protagonist Jonah Heidelbaum, says in a phone interview from Los Angeles. “I’m really curious to see what people’s responses are.”[3]

As Weil indicates, we have been down this road before. Steven Spielberg’s Munich, an epic drama about Mossad agents who seek to retaliate against the Palestinians responsible for the “Munich Massacre” at the 1972 Olympics, offers two arguments for the need for violent Jewish revenge — one is the biblical eye-for-an-eye means of paying back the Nazis for the suffering they caused. Hunters, which gets its moral theology from Munich, is full of flashbacks to scenes of chilling Nazi atrocities, such as a chess match that SS officers play involving real prisoners, who are forced to kill each other as the game progresses. The other argument is one of self-defense. As the hunters torture a Nazi by blaring loud music into his ears, Jonah urges them to stop — he is clearly conflicted by inflicting pain on someone else. But since the goal of the torture is to extract information about who else the Nazi might be working with in order to stop a possible plot that could harm Jews and others, he reluctantly accepts the death of the Nazi they were trying to interrogate.

• Category: Arts/Letters, Ideology • Tags: Anti-Semitism, Hollywood, Jews, Nazis 
🔊 Listen RSS

“Die Eule der Minerva beginnt erst mit der einbrechenden Dämmerung ihren Flug.[1]”
— G.W.F Hegel, Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts

“I am a scientist working to stop coronavirus. We should cancel all Masses.[2] ”
— Patrick O’Neill

Pestilence is portrayed in scripture as a punishment for sin. Yahweh forgave David after he committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband Uriah killed to cover up his original sin, but after David caved into the pride of the Israelites and decreed a census, the punishment which had been postponed became inevitable. But even here God relented and attempted to mitigate the punishment by giving David a choice. In the name of Yahweh, Gad the prophet offered the king a choice between three years of famine, “fleeing for three months from your pursuing enemy,” or three days of pestilence. Confronted with these options, David is forced to admit: “This is a hard choice. But let us rather fall into the power of Yahweh, since his mercy is great, and not into the power of men. So David chose pestilence” (2 Sam 24:14-5).

The question has relevance to the current coronavirus crisis. Did any of the world’s leaders choose pestilence? Genetically modified biological weapons did not exist in David’s day, but the fact that they do in our own gives new meaning to the idea that a ruler can choose pestilence. The two main suspects in this regard are the United States and China. Currently, two equally plausible but competing explanations are making their way through the media: 1) the coronavirus is a bio-weapon which was either released into the population deliberately or escaped by accident, or 2) the coronavirus pandemic is a manufactured crisis. These two alternatives, however, are not mutually exclusive.

In order to make the right choice, David had to distinguish categories of nature—between reality, the thing, the disease—and categories of the mind—things like politics, military strategy, policy, including the weaponization of the thing, etc.—before he could make an informed choice as ruler of the Israelites. Pestilence was a category of nature then, but it may not be that in an age when viruses have been weaponized.

Leaders in our day are facing similar choices. What they lack is the ability to distinguish between categories of nature and categories of the mind. Ever since the publication of Newton’s Principia Mathematica, political policy has been based on categories of the mind imposed by the state in the name of categories of nature. The Whig oligarchs weaponized Newtonian physics through Masonic lodges which were established on the continent to bring down the Bourbon monarchy under the direction of Jean Theophilus Desaguliers, who was a member of the Royal Society, a Freemason and protégé of Newton himself. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations is another weaponization of Newtonian physics, with self-interest and competition taking the place of gravity and inertia, which allowed them to masquerade as forces of nature while promoting the interests of the Whig oligarchs who fostered Smith’s career. Feminism is a more recent example of the same thing. According to this ideological distortion, woman—an obvious category of nature which no one can deny—gets weaponized through the simultaneous creation and imposition of “women’s rights,” which includes, of course, abortion. If you acknowledge the existence of women, according to this line of thinking, you must admit the liceity of killing the fetus. Similarly, if you admit the existence of COVID-19, you must accede to the state’s guidelines in dealing with it. Science, as the Anglo-American tradition which derives from Newton tells us, is used to define what is real, which is to say all categories of nature. Religion now concedes to science the right to say what is real and what is not real. Pestilence, as a result, may come from God but its existence can only be validated by science, which establishes the guidelines which all politicians must follow. Those guidelines now trump all other guidelines, like those requiring attendance at Mass under pain of mortal sin.

Absent any assistance from the Church in distinguishing between acts of God and categories of the mind, the state wasted no time in taking control and not letting another crisis go to waste. Following the lead of governors in more important sections of the United States, Eric Holcomb, the governor of Indiana, declared a state of emergency, banning public gatherings in places like restaurants, which the local bishops then applied to their churches. Unlike David, Governor Holcomb declared that pestilence was war. The arrival of COVID-19 had created a state of war in the state of Indiana. “To those who think we are overreacting,” Governor Holcomb said, “I assure you we are not. We are at war with COVID-19 and we will win this war.”[3]

China agreed with the governor of Indiana, claiming that the United States had launched a biological warfare attack against them. On February 13, 2020, the Communist Party Committee of Beijing Centers for Disease Control issued a “wartime state order” requiring party members to recognize the fact that China had entered a state of war.[4] By mid-March, many commentators had abandoned the official story that COVID-19 had “originated in the Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market in Wuhan”[5] in favor of seeing a biological weapon as the cause of the pandemic. Opinions differed on how the virus made it into the general population. Metallicaman said that the release was intentional.[6] Drawing from his years of experience in the CIA, Philip Giraldi said that the danger of unintentional contamination from the deployment of biological weapons was so strong that it effectively nullified its use.[7]

P-4 Biosafety Lab
P-4 Biosafety Lab

Those unusable weapons continued to be made, however, and one of the places they got produced was the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which houses China’s only P4-Level Biosafety Laboratory, a facility which is capable of storing, studying, or engineering Pathogen Level 4 microbes like the coronavirus. Coincidentally or not, the Wuhan Institute of Virology is only 8.6 miles from the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak in China, causing Bill Gurtz of the Washington Times to report, “the deadly animal virus epidemic spreading globally may have originated in a Wuhan laboratory linked to China’s covert biological weapons program, according to an Israeli biological warfare expert.”

The Wuhan Institute of Virology was at the center of a web of top-secret biological warfare research and academic espionage that stretched around the world. In 2013 two Chinese virologists were caught stealing and smuggling some of the most deadly viruses on earth from the National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg, Canada’s only Pathogen Level 4 virology laboratory, back to Wuhan, where both smugglers, virologist Dr. Xiangguo Qui and biologist Dr. Keding Cheng, were involved in China’s biological warfare program.[8] According to ZeroHedge, “the couple is responsible for infiltrating Canada’s NML with many Chinese agents as students from a range of Chinese scientific facilities directly tied to China’s Biological Warfare Program, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Chengdu Military Region.”[9]

🔊 Listen RSS

Once again Michael Brown has held me responsible for attacks on Jews. Last year it was Pittsburgh and Poway. This time it was Jersey City and Monsey, New York. In order to make these accusations sound plausible against me, a man who prefaced virtually every YouTube video he ever posted on the Jewish Question with the statement “no one has the right to harm the Jew,”[1] Brown had to confect an overarching principle known as “Christian anti-Semitism,” to condemn me for what I did not say. “Christian anti-Semitism” turns out to be an oxymoron if we construe it racially or a straight forward reading of the Scriptures if we change the term to “anti-Jewish.”

Brown’s solution to the problem is banning hate speech as the ADL defines that term. That means de-platforming people like me. One day after Sasha Baron Cohen gave his speech calling for Internet censorship, the ADL issued a list of ten people who needed to be de-platformed immediately, and out of the literally billions of people on this planet who make use of social media platforms like Youtube and Facebook I had the distinction of being one of the ten people who were singled out by name.

If the ADL were smart, they would have left me in the realm of “dynamic silence,” where I have been languishing for years. But—pace, Jared Taylor—Jews aren’t smart. Heinrich Graetz, the father of Jewish historiography, laid that “canard” (one of the ADL’s favorite terms) to rest in Volume V of his history of the Jews when he wrote that the morality of Polish Jews, who constituted the majority of that people on this earth, had been corrupted by their “scholarship,” because scholarship meant the study of the Talmud, which taught them how to lie, steal from, and cheat the goyim. “Love of twisting, distorting, ingenious quibbling, and a foregone antipathy to what did not lie within their field of vision,” Graetz wrote, “constituted the character of the Polish Jews. Pride in their knowledge of the Talmud and a spirit of dogmatism attached even to the best rabbis, and undermined their moral sense. The Polish Jews of course were extraordinarily pious but even their piety rested on sophistry and boastfulness.”[2]

Either way, this category of Brown’s mind was too complicated to serve as a plausible explanation, which is why the media ignored Brown and came up with their own idea of the source of the problem in the wake of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. According to their reading, the cause of anti-Semitism is white racism. White people are the problem, and restricting their ability to speak and assemble is the solution.

If we look into what has been happening in New York City lately, we discover that the details reveal a completely different story, primarily because all of the perpetrators of anti-Semitic violence so far have been Black. The Jersey City attack which left four people dead was perpetrated by a bizarre religious sect known as the Black Hebrew Israelites.[3] The Hanukkah attack in Monsey was carried out by a machete wielding Black psycho who had stopped taking his meds. Beyond that there were the attacks which were too trivial to make the headlines. Surveillance camera footage captured the image of an obviously Jewish Hasid, a group locally known as “beards,” having a chair thrown at him by three Blacks while walking down a street in Brooklyn. Incident after incident reveals a huge reservoir of Black-Jewish animosity, but nothing even remotely resembling white racism.

Sensing the collapse of an important paradigm, Jewish pundits rushed in to impose damage control so that they could regain control of the narrative. Commentary magazine, a publication of the American Jewish Committee, portrayed every attempt to explain what was happening by the locals as an attempt to blame the victim, claiming that “anti-Orthodox sentiments” in New York State “have been a bipartisan affair as politicians blame Orthodox Jews for overdevelopment and gentrification, and commentators even argue that the increasing size of Hasidic communities will “foster prejudice” and anti-Semitism—in short, blaming anti-Semitism on Jews themselves.[4]

The explanations from the locals, however, have more plausibility than the claims of the ADL alleging uncaused anti-Semitism. Jersey City council member Joan Terrell Page laid the blame for that city’s attack on overzealous “brutes of the Jewish community” who were so aggressive in approaching “Black homeowners” who “were threatened, intimidated, and harassed by Jews telling them I WANT TO BUY YOUR HOUSE” that the city council had to pass a “no knock” ordinance to protect home owners from harassment.[5] The Associated Press got accused, at least implicitly, of promoting anti-Semitism for reporting that “Orthodox communities had taken advantage of open space and cheaper housing to establish modern-day versions of the European shtetls where their ancestors lived for centuries before the Holocaust,” leading to “flare-ups of rhetoric seen by some as anti-Semitic.” Joan Coaston, the author of an article in Vox, finds it hard to believe that “anti-Semitic violence with rocks and machetes logically stems from disputes over housing stock,” but the idea is hardly far-fetched.

Norman Podhoretz
Norman Podhoretz

One of the most famous articles ever published in Commentary was “My Negro Problem, and Ours,”[6] written by Norman Podhoretz, its editor and a man who would go on to become one of the founding fathers of neoconservatism. Written in 1963 at the high water mark of the Black-Jewish alliance that created the Civil Rights movement, Podhoretz’s article described Black violence against Jews in graphic detail from personal experience beginning in grade school:

I think there was a day—first grade? second grade?—when my best friend Carl hit me on the way home from school and announced that he wouldn’t play with me any more because I had killed Jesus. When I ran home to my mother crying for an explanation, she told me not to pay any attention to such foolishness, and then in Yiddish she cursed the goyim and the Schwartzes, the Schwartzes and the goyim. Carl, it turned out, was a schwartze, and so was added a third to the categories into which people were mysteriously divided.[7]

• Category: History, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: ADL, Anti-Semitism, Blacks, Censorship, Jews 
🔊 Listen RSS

Pornography is the unacknowledged subtext of Todd Phillips’ film Joker, which is a mash up of two films by Martin Scorcese, Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. The scene of revolutionary violence which brings Joker to a close is a remake of Times Square during the era of Taxi Driver, which is to say, the 1970s, in which all of the cinema marquees advertise pornographic films. Director Todd Phillips’ recycling of Scorces’s material in Joker, however, makes the nihilism of Taxi Driver look benign by comparison. Similarly, The King of Comedy, which Roger Ebert described as “one of the most arid, painful, wounded movies I’ve ever seen,”[1] comes across as warm and light-hearted compare to Philips’ appropriation of Scorcese’s material.

When Hegel insisted that “the owl of Minerva always flies at twilight,” he indicated that cultures produce philosophy only in the terminal stages of decline. What is true of philosophy is a fortiori true of stand-up comedy, which became conscious of itself when Martin Scorcese directed The King of Comedy, which premiered in January of 1983. Robert De Niro got the idea for The King of Comedy by hanging out at open mike night at Catch a Falling Star, the comedy venue opened by Budd Friedman, the man David Brenner referred to as “Shylock,” because “He never stopped being a bastard.”[2] Catch a Falling Star promoted the new, nihilistic comedy which turned life into a joke. Catch a Falling Star in 1979, according to Bill Maher, who wrote a roman a clef about his days there:

was not the Village Gate in 1963; in the audience there were no poetic types hoping to be challenged by Lenny Bruce. It had a lot of tourists and bachelor parties from Brooklyn and New Jersey hoping to hear dick jokes. The more the non-cognoscenti took over the club scene, the more the comedians tailored their acts along crowd pleasing lines to survive. And the more the comedians did that, the more the people in berets stayed away.[3]

Needless to say, it didn’t take a genius to tell dick jokes to the bridge and tunnel crowd. In fact, the main joke at Catch a Falling Star was “how bad the jokes were,”[4] something De Niro eventually worked into the script of The King of Comedy. Tonight show host Johnny Carson had become the broker for comedic talent, or the lack thereof, and because of that fact he became the model for Jerry in The King of Comedy. Stars appeared overnight like mushrooms after the rain. Freddie Prinze became famous at the age of 19 after his Tonight Show debut in 1973.[5]

By the time The King of Comedy made it onto the screen, it seemed that everyone was famous, but that no one had talent. The best example of this phenomenon was Andy Kaufmann, who was performing in New York when Robert de Niro was frequenting comedy clubs and could have been one of the models for Arthur Fleck, because “when no one laughed at his jokes, Andy started blubbering about how badly he needed the work, then suddenly pulled out a gun to shoot himself.”[6] In Joker, Arthur shot the host, played by Robert de Niro, but in real life, the host grabbed the gun and, after the show returned from a commercial break, continued with the interview. Kaufmann could also have been the source for the refrigerator scene in Joker because “one time he had a refrigerator delivered onstage; when audience members came up to open the door, Kaufman was inside balancing a checkbook.”[7]

The King of Comedy premiered in 1983 at the height of the national comedy glut which followed the New York comedy strike of 1979, but the idea for it began in the early ‘70s, when a writer for Newsweek by the name of Paul D. Zimmerman became fascinated by Johnny Carson’s ability to confer instant stardom on anyone who could tell a joke, no matter how badly, and how one man became obsessed with cashing in on the fame Carson conferred so effortlessly.[8] Zimmerman worked initially with Milos Forman, who had developed similar material when he directed One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. When Forman dropped out of the project, Zimmerman was able to attract the interest of Robert de Niro, who then persuaded his friend Martin Scorcese to direct it in spite of his initial reluctance based on “the deliberately cringe-worthy material in the script,” which Scorcese found “unpleasant even from behind the camera.”[9] Scorcese’s attitude didn’t improve as the project developed. The material was “so unpleasant and disturbing” that Scorcese had to struggle through the filming. He found the film so unsettling once it was completed that he avoided seeing in the theater after its release. The fact that the film earned only early a little more that $2.5 million by the end of its box office run only confirmed Scorcese’s negative opinion of the film.

Ebert went on to say that The King of Comedy lacked all of the “big city life” and “violence and sexuality” which Scorcese put on the screen in movies like Taxi Driver and Mean Streets. Ebert described The King of Comedy as an exercise in “cinema interruptus,” in which the director “doesn’t direct a single scene for a payoff.” The cringe worthy characters spend their time in front of the camera “waiting for the other person to stop talking so they can start.” No on listens to anyone else, “and everybody’s so emotionally isolated in this movie that they don’t even seem able to guess what they’re missing. . . . The whole movie is about the inability of the characters to get any kind of a positive response to their bids for recognition.”[10]

That was then. Now, as some indication of the moral and cultural decline I just mentioned, reviewers are claiming that Todd Phillips’ appropriation of Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy material makes Scorcese look warm and “empathetic” by comparison:

Whereas Scorsese always reveals himself to be an empathetic filmmaker first and foremost, Phillips has shown in his first foray into dark, character-centric storytelling that his disposition as a filmmaker is much more cynical and cold than the famous Italian-American screen giant. By presenting us with a narrative bereft of comedy, without a clear voice of reason, in a world that is as un-ironic as it is disturbing, Joker functions as a Scorsese movie devoid of Scorsese’s most important quality: humanity.[11]

Even after he abandoned the Catholic faith, Scorcese never stopped celebrating the values he abandoned. This made him incapable of directing horror movies, a fact he made clear in a conversation with the Jewish Canadian horror-meister David Cronenberg, because, unlike Cronenberg, Scorcese never lost his sense of moral causality. Scorcese, according to Cronenberg, was an ex-Catholic who “does deal with good and evil in very proto-Catholic terms, and I’m sure that what he meant was that when he saw my films.” Scorcese, on the other hand, told Cronenberg that he didn’t understand his own films. Scorcese, according to Cronenberg, “saw the struggle” between good and evil “being played out. I don’t see it quite that way because I really don’t see the lines drawn in those terms.” Scorcese spends his time rebelling against a moral order he cannot ignore. Cronenberg, on the other hand, does horror because he has lost his grasp on moral causality. “I have difficulty thinking in terms of good and evil,” Cronenberg continued, “I’m sure if I had been raised a Catholic I would have no trouble because those issues are raised at a very early age.”[12]

• Category: Arts/Letters • Tags: Comedy, Hollywood, Movies, Pornography 
🔊 Listen RSS

After John Haldane’s tight-rope walk over a swamp of politically correct crocodiles at the University Notre Dame’s 2019 ethics and culture conference, John Waters’ talk seemed subdued by comparison. After getting used to the somber tone of his talk, the audience quickly fell under his spell. With his balding pate surrounded by a halo of what was left of his hippie hair, his white stubble beard and cane, Waters had the air of a man who had something important to say after being released from a military infirmary where he underwent protracted convalescence following a battle in which he almost died. The fact that he described another casualty in the culture wars in Ireland did not disguise the fact that he was one of that campaign’s most famous victims.

On January 11, 2014, in a broadcast of The Saturday Night Show, Rory O’Neill, an Irish drag queen who goes by the name of Miss Panti, moved from a discussion of the upcoming Irish referendum on gay marriage, to a discussion of homophobia, to calling the Irish journalist John Waters a homophobe in a series of logical leaps that left everyone but Waters, who was home at the time minding his own business, befuddled by the charge. Waters, who had been a columnist for The Irish Times for 20 years, demanded an apology and got instead weeks of legal prevarication, which only got resolved when the newspaper threw in its hand and paid Waters a six figure settlement rather than let his defamation case go to trial. O’Neill went on to become famous, and Waters, who became a pariah after being forced out at the Irish Times, tries to explain how this could happen in a Catholic country like Ireland in his book Give us back the Bad Roads.[1]

The fact that Waters found it impossible to defend himself against the drag queen’s charge had devastating personal consequences, but the incident transcended the merely personal in its significance. Bad Roads is not so much a description of what happened to John Waters, as it is the story of what really happened to Ireland over the course of the first decade of the 21st century. As Waters puts it:

What I had experienced and observed in the 16 months prior to the vote of May 2015 had chilled me to the marrow, and alerted me to the fragility of our democracy. In effect, a baying mob had acquired the free run of Irish society’s media apparatus. The drag queen who had baselessly demonised me had, more or less as a result, become a national celebrity, himself given the run of the so-called ‘National Theatre’ and of radio and TV chat shows coast to coast. In due course he would be given an honorary degree by Trinity College.[2]

As a journalist, Waters was used to controversy, but “the unmitigated venom” which he encountered online after his appearance on The Saturday Night Show now made it “unsafe for me to walk down the street.” The “sense of menace” he encountered was not only unprecedented in Irish society, it was especially befuddling to those who mistakenly thought that this hate campaign was being waged in the name of tolerance. The main problem was semantic. Waters was forced to defend himself against a word, homophobe, which had no correlation to the world of reality. Rather, the term “Homophobe” was:

a word with a deliberately cultivated demonic aura and a capacity to strike fear into bystanders lest they too be daubed with its nauseous meanings and innuendoes. The condition I found myself in seemed to arise almost by something like ‘appointment’ of Rory O’Neill, by virtue of some odd form of ordinance within his remit as a gay man. He could call me a homophobe and did not need to proffer evidence. All I could do was deny it, but I would, wouldn’t I?

In his 20 years as a journalist for The Irish Times, Waters had never experienced the ferocity of what happened after his appearance on The Saturday Night Show. Waters found himself engulfed in a “tsunami of outrage” which made him responsible for “all of the wrongs suffered by homosexuals in Ireland in living memory and before.”


Bad Roads is the protocol of a man who woke up in the cultural equivalent of the intensive care unit after a bad accident and was now trying to piece together not only what happened to him but how the accident could have happened in the first place. “How did I end up under the wheels of a homosexual juggernaut,” we can imagine him saying, “when I thought I was safe in my office writing columns for a newspaper?”

Waters couches his book in a literary conceit, writing as if he were addressing his deceased father and the Ireland that his father represented. As part of his report, Waters, who was born in 1955, has to make some fundamental observations and clarifications. This attack could only have taken place because the Ireland he had grown up in—symbolized in Bad Roads by his father, to whom the book is addressed—is no longer the same Ireland which celebrates drag queens by conferring honorary doctorates on them. The Ireland of Waters’ youth is symbolized best by his father, the inveterate tinkerer. Remembering that his father had assigned him to grind the cylinders of a second-hand automobile engine he had purchased, Waters writes that:

One of the things I unconsciously adapted from your personality was the idea of reconstructing myself to cohere with some unfocused ‘moral’ paradigm for the benefit of my growing daughter. It’s strange to think how easily I fell into this without thinking about it, becoming pious and solemn and serious-minded, without knowing what purpose this might serve.

Waters may have found logos in an automobile engine, but he was a reluctant conscript in the culture wars. Up to his appearance on The Saturday Night Show in January 2014, Waters had no strong feelings about homosexual unions as a marriage issue. But he had very strong feelings about paternity. Because of the discrimination he had encountered after he had fathered a child out of wedlock with the Irish singer Sinead O’Connor, Waters felt that fathers were systematically deprived of what should have been inalienable rights which stemmed from biology not the permission of politician or the whims of social workers. Homosexual marriage, he feared, would further weaken whatever remaining rights fathers still had by denying that fatherhood was a biological fact and making it a lifestyle choice granted to privileged minorities.

The state trumps biology now by defining who can call themselves the child’s parents. Under assault from the bullying power of LGBT activists, the now chronic dishonesty and abdication of journalists, the say-so of multinational corporations and the craven self-interest of politicians, virtually the entirety of family protections was being dismantled and rewritten

It is hard to say when I became aware of these tendencies in Ireland. If you pushed me I would say around 2007/8, though I cannot outline for you in any precise way the putative connections between these tendencies and the meltdown in the economy that occurred at the same time. I expect there is one, but the precise nature of it may not emerge with any clarity for a long time.

These tendencies accelerated over time, speeding exponentially at the time of the “marriage equality” referendum, when Ireland:

The Hexenhammer Debate
🔊 Listen RSS

At 4:30 pm on March 30, 2002, Israeli military forces took over Palestinian TV stations when they occupied Ramallah in the West Bank. Shortly after occupying the Al-Watan TV station, the Israeli forces began broadcasting pornography over its transmitter. The Palestinians were outraged and bewildered. “Why in the world,” one woman wondered, “should one do such a thing?” The answer is simple. The Israelis broadcast pornography because pornography is a weapon in the arsenal of psychological warfare.

We are told that “Sexual freedom goes hand in hand with freedom of speech” and that “The issue of pornographic images is intrinsically linked to the issue of freedom of speech,”[1] but in reality pornography is a form of control. Pornography has nothing to do with freedom. Pornography is a weapon because, as St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out, lust “darkens the mind.” Lust makes you blind. A blind opponent is easily defeated. Pornography is the weaponization of Lust.

The best symbol of the military use of lust is Samson and Delilah. After Samson’s reason lost control of his passions, he ended up “eyeless in Gaza, grinding at the mill with slaves.” The Israelis unleashed the same weapon at the same place 3,000 years later because they wanted to make the Palestinians “eyeless in Gaza” as well. The Israelis wanted to enslave the Palestinians. They did not want to liberate them.

St. Augustine brought the biblical story of Samson up to date in his day shortly after the fall of the Roman Empire when he wrote, “It is clear that sin is the primary cause of servitude.” That means, he continued in another passage from the same book, that “a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.”[2]

Man was free as long as he was moral, which is to say as long as he acted according to the dictates of practical reason. Man is not free to be irrational. Man can use his freedom to give into passion, but at that point he becomes a slave. Pornography was a part of Roman culture as the mosaics in whorehouses at Pompei made clear. After the fall of Rome, pornography disappeared because Christian Europe based its culture on Augustine’s principle that a man had as many masters as he had vices.

Roughly 1,300 years later, the world got turned upside down. The word for that sort of political change is revolution. Pornography re-entered western culture as a weapon in the 18th century. I’m referring to the illustrated versions of the Marquis de Sade’s pornographic opus Justine, which appeared at the Palais Royale before the French Revolution and were instrumental in bringing about that revolution as well. In case you forgot, the Marquis de Sade started the French Revolution from his cell in the Bastille. The Marquis de Sade wrote that “The state of the moral man is one of tranquility and peace, the state of an immoral man is one of perpetual unrest.” That sounds like something St. Augustine could have written. St. Augustine would say, if you want to be free be moral. But, turning the idea upside down, the Marquis de Sade was telling the tyrants who emerged during the course of the French Revolution that if you want to enslave a population, promote vice.

The Marquis de Sade is simply Augustine turned upside down. He understood that in order to create a revolution you have to subvert the morals of the people first. To bring this about the Marquis de Sade proposed exhibiting women naked in the theaters. This created a problem because in a big theater it’s difficult to see the girls, but in a small theater where the girls are visible, the crowd is small.

Technology solved that problem. Pornography is always a function of technology. What followed was 200 years of more and more refined methods of control based on more and more advance technology. One major technological breakthrough was the motion picture, an invention which created cultural civil war between America’s three main ethnic groups—Protestants, Catholics, and Jews—during the 1920s. Hollywood was a Jewish creation, and within a decade of its founding the Jews, like the Israelis who invaded Ramallah, were using the motion picture industry as a weapon against the people of the United States of America, who were outraged at their promotion of obscenity and demanded that the government take action. When the Protestants under Will Hays failed to rein in Jewish obscenity, the Catholics instituted a boycott which threatened to bankrupt Hollywood, and the Jews backed down and instituted the Production Code in 1934.

Pornography got weaponized again in Germany. In the period following Germany’s defeat in 1919, Jews like Magnus Hirschfeld brought Hitler to power by his flagrant attempts to promote homosexuality through his Institute for Sexual Science.

In 1947 the United States scrapped the Jewish Morgenthau plan to starve the conquered German people to death and put Marshall plan in its place, to restore Germany as a Bulwark against Soviet communism. That meant pumping money into the economy and to ensure that the Germans had something to buy the Allies imported 150 tons of obscene material into Germany.[3] Pornography was weaponized once again, this time to destroy the moral fiber of the German people, which was the Jewish way to ensure that there was no resurgence of National Socialism. The Catholic Church mounted a campaign against “Schmutz und Schund,” but it was no match for that country’s illustrated magazines, all of which had to get a license from a Jewish psychiatrist by the name of David Mardachi Levy.

For 31 years, the Catholics protected the American people against the weaponization of human sexuality, but in 1965, in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, the Catholics lost their nerve and the Jews broke the code with their Holocaust porn film The Pawnbroker. Within seven years, hard core pornography—Deep Throat, The Devil and Miss Jones, and Behind the Green Door—was being shown in first-run movie houses. In 2004, Professor Nathan Abrams wrote:

Jewish involvement in porn…is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion…Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged.[4]

Which is one more way of saying that pornography is a weapon which Jews wielded to destroy the Christian culture of the countries which allowed them the rights they granted to their citizens.

In 1978 Jimmy Carter appointed Paul Volcker as head of the Federal Reserve System as a way of placating the creditor class, which felt that inflation had gotten out of control. Volcker’s “cure” for inflation was raising interest rates to unheard of levels. By 1980 T-bills were paying 20 percent interest. In order to lend money at these rates, banks had to persuade legislators to abolish state usury laws. The result was the collapse of America’s manufacturing base, low wages, and the rise of vulture capitalism. The sexual liberation of the ‘70s along with the de-criminalization of usury distracted workers from the fact that their wages had stagnated. As the compound interest which drives usurious loans kicked in and more and more money got concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people, the children of the baby boomers who cheered the sexual liberation of the ‘70s woke up to find themselves enslaved to unrepayable student loan debt and addicted to pornography.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Libertarianism, Pornography 
🔊 Listen RSS

In his first intellectual incarnation as a conservative, Sam fell under the spell of one-time Communist James Burnham, then writing for the conservative journal National Review. In retrospect, it’s difficult to ignore the materialist, if not Marxist, nature of the categories both men employed in trying to understand the hidden grammar of American political life. Sam, as a result, saw politics not as part of a universal logos according to which “human beings can order their common life through rational deliberation, but as an arena in which they seek to dominate one another or escape domination by others.”[19]

Leviathan and its Enemies, Francis’s posthumous work, does not describe his own development because Francis wrote it in the early 1990s, long before he was expelled from the synagogue of mainstream conservatism. Instead, “Leviathan describes the historical process by which American liberalism captured the institutions of government, education, and media, rendering itself invulnerable to conventional conservatism—but exposed to nationalist populism.”[20] According to Francis, the managerial revolution was “one of the major inflection points in postwar American politics” and as such comparable to world-historic events like “the neolithic transition from subsistence hunting to farming.”[21]

The bourgeois elites which dominated American life from the Civil War until World War II were replaced by the new managerial elites who showed more competence in running the gigantic industries and corporations which the American Empire now required. Liberalism was the ideology which rationalized and justified the rule of the new oligarchic minority, which ruled through a “homogenization” which set out to destroy all of the intermediary structures which protected the individual from the Leviathan liberal state.

In Leviathan and its Enemies, Francis confronts not only the managerial elites who rule via liberalism, but also the conservative opposition which proved too obtuse or too feckless to oppose their tyrannical rule effectively. Abandoning the American conservatism which had become little more than “the obsolete ideology of a vanquished class,” and “an anachronism whose only function is to provide a veneer of ideological diversity to American public life,” Francis placed his hopes in a group he referred to as “Middle American Radicals” (MARs), a term he borrowed from sociologist Donald Warren, whose analysis of “voter surveys in the 1970s had produced a profile of a group of voters, then making up about a quarter of the electorate, who had not been closely studied before.”[22] MARs were:

white and earned incomes in the middle and lower-middle income brackets. They had not attended college, and they held jobs in skilled and semi-skilled professions. Warren found that their political views, though consistent across elections, did not correspond to the platforms of either major party. On the one hand, these voters defended entitlements and union membership and were skeptical of large corporations and free trade. On the other hand, they opposed welfare and school busing and held conservative views on social issues, especially those involving race.[23]

Francis spends a good deal of time trying to define this group of people because he saw them as the avant garde of the revolution against the tyranny of the managerial elites. In order to identify a group which he claimed was “defined principally by its ideology,” Francis had to specify definite “socio-economic correlates” based on objective criteria like income levels, education, and, most importantly, religion: “MARs had an annual family income of $3,000 to $13,000.” Warren went on to claim “that northern European ethnics and Italians were strongly represented among them, that they were nearly twice as common in the South as in the north central states, that they tended to have completed high school but not to have attended college, were more common among Catholics and Jews than among Protestants and among Mormons and Baptists than among other Protestant sects, and were likely to be males in their thirties or their sixties.[24]

Kevin Phillips had to make use of similar criteria to define the same group, which Ronald Reagan inherited from Richard Nixon. Reagan’s coalition, according to Phillips:

coincides with the traditional populist and anti-elitist component of U.S. political geography. . . . Moreover, the coalition’s critical new religious adherents—Northern Catholic right-to-life and Southern fundamentalist Protestant—represent constituencies whose traditionalist morality, over the last fifty years, has been complemented by support for the New Deal and economic activism.[25]


The “New Majority” of which Nixon wrote had “its roots mainly in the Midwest, the West, and the South,” and included “manual workers, Catholics, members of labor union families, and people with only grade school educations” who “had never before been in the Republican camp” and “had simply never been encouraged to give the Eastern liberal elite a run for its money for control of the nation’s key institutions.”[26]

More recently, Matthew Rose attempted to describe the same group in his own words:

MARs feel they are members of an exploited class—excluded from real political representation, harmed by conventional tax and trade policies, victimized by crime and social deviance, and denigrated by popular culture and elite institutions. Their sense of grievance points both upward and downward. They believe they are neglected, even preyed upon, by a leadership class that favors simultaneously the rich and the poor over the middle class.[27]

These “working-class whites” were not necessarily conservative and so they found no easy fit in the political system in which conservatism as “measured by the orthodoxies of conservative think tanks and the Republican donor class,” because that group attempted to define their identity by fiat so that they could control them rather than by trying to identify them as they are so that they could represent their needs and aspirations.

After describing this group in his book The Emerging Republican Majority, Kevin Philips got them to leave the Democratic Party and support Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972. Patrick Buchanan attempted to mobilize them in his unsuccessful bids to become president in 1992 and 1996. Buchanan, however, was successful in resurrecting the term “America First” from what Richard John Neuhaus referred to as the “fever swamps” of isolationism and anti-Semitism, and it was Steve Bannon, who used a now rehabilitated version of America First to propel Trump into the White House in 2016.

🔊 Listen RSS

Three weeks ago the Zionist ADL produced a “short list of social media accounts that should have been removed long ago.” Catholic scholar E Michael Jones, myself amongst other academics and intellectuals were shortlisted by the Zionist book burning apparatus. Three days ago I was interviewed by E Michael Jones. We agreed on many things, we disagreed on others. We touched upon many ‘hot topics’ such as: Identitarian politics, White Nationalism, Logos, Athens vs. Jerusalem, Jewish wisdom and others. I do believe that a society that cannot handle such a well mannered dialogue between scholarly oriented thinkers is doomed!


The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings