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 • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
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

The media hype surrounding the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade brought back memories of my engagement in the almost fifty years of America’s abortion wars . Eleanor Smeal, who was then head of the National Organization of Women, had just given a talk on abortion at the University of Notre Dame in what must have been the 1980s. The room was packed with feminists from that university and St. Mary’s College, the soi disant Catholic institution which had fired me for being against abortion a few years earlier. As my attempt to inject some reality into what was obviously a pep rally for what St. Paul referred to as silly women obsessed with their sins, I asked Ms. Smeal during the Q & A “Does the fetus have sex?” Seeing that Ms. Smeal was taken aback by the question, I rephrased it: “Is the fetus identifiable as either male or female?” Expecting a realistic answer to the question, I was ready to follow it up with asking how the National Organization of Women justified the murder of unborn women, but what I got was unexpected. “The process of sexual differentiation,” the president of NOW opined, “begins at birth.” Pondering whether there were any professors of biology in the room who could back up this astounding statement, I started to write down what Ms. Smeal had said, whereupon she screamed at me from across the room, “Don’t write that down. You got me crazy.”

Roe v. Wade, in other words, had no basis in reality. It was, as Bernard Nathanson pointed out in his memoir, a Jewish fantasy concocted by what he termed a bunch of crazy Jews from New York which got imposed upon the United States of America by raw judicial power. Actually, raw judicial power was only part of the story. Abortion got imposed on New York before it got imposed on America by a Jewish newspaper known as The New York Times at around the same time that this same Jewish newspaper imposed another Jewish narrative, known as the Holocaust, on the country during a period stretching from the late 1960s to the mid-1970s. In both instances, the operative editorial principle at the nation’s Jewish paper of record was that truth was the opinion of the powerful. In both instances, this principle worked fine until it stopped working, and it stopped working because reality has a way of putting an end to fantasies, which is another way of saying that the repressed always returns, because whatever is being repressed is only being repressed because it is true.

Once it became clear that Jerzy Kozinski was part of the Sulzberger clique which ran the Times, Elie Wiesel certified Kozinski’s book The Painted Bird as a Holocaust classic. I used the word book advisedly, because Kozinski played a double game with his publisher and the reading public by claiming that what was a second rate novel was really a memoir which really happened, etc. That fiction fell apart when the Village Voice published an expose which explained not only that what Kozinski said never happened, but also how his memoir had been written by a ghost writer for the princely sum of \$500. So, in addition to being a fraud, the most celebrated Holocaust novelist since Elie Wiesel also turned out to be a cheapskate as well.

Something similar happened to Roe v. Wade. The fundamental truth of Roe v. Wade is that truth is the opinion of the powerful. If enough guilt ridden women got together and claimed that the process of sexual differentiation began at birth, then, dammit, that was a true statement, no matter what the biology department had to say to the contrary, because truth was the opinion of the powerful, and if you didn’t believe a loudmouth harridan like Ellie Smeal, then the Sulzberger clique at the Jewish paper of record was there to back up whatever she said, no matter how absurd. The result was that this preposterous fiction was kept on life support for almost 50 years, until reality intervened and what seemed like immutable “settled law” disappeared as suddenly as a soap bubble making contact with a thorn bush.

But not before it did a lot of damage. Millions of children died because of this Jewish fantasy. Nothing we can do will bring them back. Instead of going on to lead fulfilling lives, they became martyrs to the truth, and it was in the end the truth that prevailed, but not before a lot of collateral damage was inflicted on the culture which allowed their murder. Because of Roe v. Wade, the concept of equality before the law was eliminated from our judicial system, to be replaced by a two-tiered system, in which you fit into one of two categories. Everyone was now either a fetus, in which case he had no rights whatsoever, or he was a feminist, in which case he had Jewish privilege and was above the law.

So, the demonstrators who showed up at Charlottesville thinking that the had First Amendment rights to assembly and free speech, as well as the Trump supporters who showed up at the Capitol on January 6 fell into the category of fetus, which meant that they had no rights at all. Antifa, on the other hand, and Jane’s Revenge, which went on a spree of burning down churches and prolife centers after Alito’s brief was leaked, had Jewish privilege and were above the law, as was Roberta Kaplan, the “chubby lesbian kike” who enriched herself by waging lawfare against the hapless white boys from Charlottesville. Attorney General Merrick Garland has clearly internalized this Roe-based distinction and has turned the Justice Department into the American version of the CHEKA, which is now waging war on the American people, just as the Jews at the original CHEKA waged war against the Russian people after the Bolshevik coup d’etat of 1917.

The “Summer of Rage” narrative which has been confected by NPR and other mainstream Jewish media outlets is very similar to the same narrative that they have confected concerning the war in the Ukraine. Once again, the operative principle is that truth is the opinion of the powerful. And, once again, this fragile fantasy is about to burst like already mentioned soap bubble, as soon as it comes in contact with the category of reality known as the Russian army. The more Russia crushes the Ukrainian Nazis in battle, the more stories we hear extolling Ukrainian President Zelenskyy as the latest avatar of Winston Churchill. Russia’s inexorable advances ever westward call forth petulant gestures on the part of NATO which attempt to put a happy face on the fact that Ukraine is losing the war, and do nothing to bring about a recognition of the reality of the situation and the initiation of concrete steps, like negotiation, to deal with that reality. In this, coverage of the summer of defeat in Ukraine is similar to coverage of the Summer of Rage in America. In each case, the concoction of Jewish fables serves as a substitute for honest reporting about what is real. Truth, it turns out, isn’t the opinion of the powerful after all, because nothing is more powerful than what is real, and what is real is always the correspondence of mind and the thing. It is never the mind in lieu of the thing.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Abortion, Jews, Judicial System, Roe vs. Wade 

As if determined to lend credence those who claim he is suffering from dementia, President Biden logged on to his Twitter account and opined:

Putin has the gall to claim that he is de-Nazifying Ukraine. This lie isn’t just cynical; it’s obscene. President Zelensky was democratically elected. He is Jewish; his father’s family was wiped out in the Nazi Holocaust.[1]

Biden is giving expression to what could be called the a priori school of foreign policy, according to which he can deduce a statement about reality from abstract principles. So, there can be no Nazis in Ukraine because its president is Jewish. Another member of this school of foreign policy is Catholic neocon pundit George Weigel, who said much the same thing, dismissing any references to actual Nazis in Ukrainian army units like the Azov Brigade as chimeras evoked by conspiracy theories. One of the most puzzling features of the current war in the Ukraine is the alliance between Jews and Nazis which makes up its current government. When Weigel was confronted with this fact, he dismissed it as an inherently impossible piece of “prevarication,” just as President Biden, who is normally on the other side of the political spectrum, had done:

Ukraine is a country with a democratically elected president of Jewish heritage whose first language was Russian. To say, as Putin did, that this man and the government he leads require “denazification” set a new low for Kremlin prevarication.[2]

As if to outdo his Jewish mentors Max Boot and Bill Kristol, who have also called for military intervention in Ukraine and regime change in Russia, Weigel thumps his chest in an even more bellicose manner, demanding that the Biden administration “pour western aid into Ukraine. . . including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry,”[3] insuring that innocent people will die in a futile attempt to stop a Russian invasion which has already decapitated the Ukrainian military. Like his Jewish mentors, Weigel makes these demands from the safe confines of his desk at his own Washington think tank, the Ethics and Public Policy Center. In making these claims, Weigel must surely know that President Zelensky has called for volunteers to take up their AK-47s and defend the gay disco known as Ukraine, but as of this writing neither Weigel, nor Boot, nor Kristol have announced plans to fly to Kiev.

But let’s be fair here. Weigel, Boot, and Kristol may not be simply despicable cowards who want the goyim to die for their agenda; they may be despicable cowards who are genuinely confused, because the situation is certainly confusing. Why would Jews ally themselves with Nazis? The statement seems a priori preposterous. It’s every bit as absurd as claiming that the were 13 bioweapons labs in Ukraine, a claim that was soundly denounced by the fact checkers, until Victoria Nuland made the same claim in testimony before the US Senate, because unlike the fact checkers who are paid to lie, Nuland is paid to lie unless she is testifying under oath. Where are the fact checkers when we need them to dispute the obviously false claim that Jews would ever lower themselves to work with Nazis? Well, we’re still waiting, and we’re not holding our breath because it isn’t going to happen. Reality has intervened canceling another category of the mind whose shelf life as propaganda just expired.

The first crack in this dam occurred when Facebook changed its hate speech policy. The same platform which banned Nazis from spreading their hate now allowed its followers to praise Nazis, as long as those Nazis were spreading their hate while fighting under Ukraine’s Jewish president. The same is true of death threats, which are now definitely okay as long as Washington chest thumpers like Lindsey Graham call for the death of Vladimir Putin, as Graham did on his Twitter account with impunity.

Before long, however, the same mainstream media which could no longer deny reality decided instead to spin what they could no longer deny. And so we read in the Washington Post that Nazis “have been recruited by groups like the Azov Battalion, a far-right nationalist Ukrainian paramilitary and political movement.” The Post then went on to tell us that the Nazi Azov Brigade “was absorbed into the Ukrainian national guard in 2014 and has been a basis for Putin’s false claim that Ukraine’s government is run by neo-Nazis.”

Wait a minute, no one, least of all Vladimir Putin, is claiming that “Ukraine’s government is run by neo-Nazis.” The claim is that the Jews who run the government have incorporated Nazi brigades into their military, which is what the Post just admitted in its article. So why is this a false claim? Is it false because the Post deliberately misstated what is really going on? The Post goes on to say that “Though Azov remains a fringe movement in Ukraine, it is a larger-than-life brand among many extremists. It has openly welcomed Westerners into its ranks via white-supremacist sites. Azov stickers and patches have been seen around the globe. . . .”

Then things get really confusing:

because Western white supremacists and neo-Nazis, for the most part, do not support the current Ukrainian government — and not simply because of its ban on antisemitism, President Volodymyr Zelensky’s Jewish heritage or other specific matters. Ukraine is a developing democracy, which far-right extremists oppose as contrary to the fascist governments they want to see. As the administrator of a popular German and English neo-Nazi chat group wrote while urging members to join Azov, “I am not defending Ukraine, I am defending National Socialism.”

At this point the ADL got involved, but the organization which has been demonizing critics of Jewish behavior as anti-Semites and neo-Nazis only succeeded in muddying the waters even more. On 4 March, the Anti-Defamation League published an article by Andrew Srulevitch, its director of European affairs, in an attempt to defuse the increasingly embarrassing Nazi problem in Ukraine. On March 15 ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt republished the article in an attempt to explain how “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and other misinformation” linking Zelensky and the neo-Nazi Azov Brigade are “spreading in the wake of the invasion.”

In order to downplay the present-day cult of Stefan Bandera and support for Nazism in Ukraine, the ADL finds it necessary to rewrite some history and in doing so ends up promoting Holocaust denial. Srulevitch’s article takes the form of a Q&A with David Fishman, a professor of Jewish History at the Jewish Theological Seminary who is also a member of the academic committee of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

“We’ve seen torchlit marches in the middle of [Kiev] with the red and black flags of UPA … and pictures of Stepan Bandera, who allied with the Nazis during WWII,” Srulevitch asks. “Isn’t that evidence of Nazism in Ukraine?”

“For Ukrainian nationalists, UPA and Bandera are symbols of the Ukrainian fight for Ukrainian independence. The UPA allied with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union for tactical – not ideological – reasons,” Fishman responds.

 

“The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.” — Polish proverb

The wicked flee when no one pursues. . . . — Proverbs 28:1

The murderer always returns to the scene of the crime.(1)

As in the culture wars, there are no truces in the war on Christmas. Although he didn’t start it, former Fox pundit Bill O’Reilly played a major role in popularizing the idea that someone was waging a war on Christmas when The O’Reilly Factor ran a segment on “Christmas under Siege” on December 7, 2004. “All over the country,” O’Reilly complained, “Christmas is taking flak. In Denver this past weekend, no religious floats were permitted in the holiday parade there. In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg unveiled the ‘holiday tree,’ and no Christian Christmas symbols are allowed in the public schools. Federated Department Stores—that’s Macy’s—have done away with the Christmas greeting ‘Merry Christmas.’”(2) Within days, conservative pundit Pat Buchanan joined the fray when he claimed that banning Christian symbols from public events during the Christmas season constituted “hate crimes against Christianity.”(3)

The Conservative counterattack in the Christmas wars was unfortunately hampered by an inability to identify the enemy. Bill O’Reilly described the source as “secular progressives” and went on to claim that they could never succeed in institutionalizing things like “gay marriage, partial birth abortion, euthanasia, legalized drugs, income redistribution through taxation and many other progressive visions because of religious opposition.” As anyone who has been following the culture wars now knows, the “secular progressives” have been spectacularly successful in imposing their agenda on us in spite of “religious opposition.” Does anyone remember Robbie George’s Manhattan Declaration that marriage could only be between a man and a woman? Amy Dean could hardly conceal her Schadenfreude when that initiative succumbed to the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision.

One year later, on December 7, 2005, Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, joined the Christmas Wars when he announced “I am your enemy. Make me your enemy.” Stewart, whose real name is Liebowitz, then announced that he hated Christmas, Christians, morality, and, to distract everyone from the fact that he was Jewish and that Jews made up the core of opposition to Christmas, “Jews,” as well. Leibowitz/Stewart’s disingenuous addition of Jews as a category which incurred his hatred did little to change the fact that the Christmas Wars had always been a Catholic-Jewish battle.

As early as 1920, Henry Ford wrote in The International Jew that “the whole record of the Jewish opposition to Christmas … shows the venom and directness of [their] attack.”(4) Ford complained that just as “3,000,000 Jews can control the affairs of 100,000,000 Americans, … ten Jewish students can abolish the mention of Christmas and Easter out of schools containing 3,000 Christian pupils.”(5) In 2016, David Duke resurrected Ford’s claim, adding that “the effort to destroy Christmas traditions has been led by the organized Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the ADL and a host of powerful Jewish groups have led the attack against Christmas.”(6)

“The ACLU,” Duke continued

is also active. Since its inception the ACLU has been dominated by Jewish lawyers and Jewish funding. …To put it bluntly, the war on Christmas has been led by Jewish organizations, financed by Jewish financiers, fought in the courts by Jewish lawyers, and enacted in government, by Jewish influence over Gentile collaborators. … Underlying the whole campaign is the Jewish dominated media. Extremist Jews who make up less than three percent of the population have prevailed over the wishes of 90 percent of the American people.(7)

During the first two decades of the 21st century, Jewish organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union created a country in which the Menorah, which was not a religious symbol according to the Jews who ran the ACLU, drove the first the cross, then the creche, and finally the Christmas tree, out of the public square because they were religious symbols, at least according to the ACLU. In Duke’s home state of Louisiana, “the Jews continue to turn the Christmas holiday into a ‘multi-cultural,’ ‘multi-religious,’ ‘secularized’ event. For the promotion of the diversity of cultures & religions creates a plethora of disorganized minorities wherein the powerful, wealthy, and very organized minority of Jews gains control over the American masses.”(8)

Duke and Ford were only saying publicly what American Jews like Philip Roth had been saying to each other privately for decades. In his book Shylock: A Confession, Roth claimed that even relatively benign figures like Irving Berlin had “de-Christed” Christmas:

The radio was playing “Easter Parade” and I thought, but this is Jewish genius on a par with the Ten Commandments. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then He gave to Irving Berlin “Easter Parade” and “White Christmas.” The two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ — the divinity that’s the very heart of the Jewish rejection of Christianity — and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both! Easter he turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow. … He turns their religion into schlock. But nicely! Nicely! So nicely the goyim don’t even know what hit ‘em. They love it. Everybody loves it. … If schlockified Christianity is Christianity cleansed of Jew hatred, then three cheers for schlock. If supplanting Jesus Christ with snow can enable my people to cozy up to Christmas, then let it snow, let it snow, let it snow!(9)

Like “White Christmas,” virtually every Christmas song that gets played on the radio during Advent was composed by a Jew, not because Jews celebrated Christmas but because they controlled the music publishing business in New York and saw Christmas songs as a surefire way of making money off of goyische sentimentality. The Americans’ image of Santa Claus was created by the American Swede Haddon Sundblom, who was not a Jew, but the image became popular because of advertising as the basis of a campaign to promote Coca-Cola. Christmas, as a result of advertising, became a Jewish narrative not unlike the “Torches of Freedom” campaign which co-opted the Easter Parade in New York City in 1929. The man behind that campaign was Eddy Bernays, the Jewish father of advertising and public relations and the nephew of Sigmund Freud.

 

Greetings,

Dr. E. Michael Jones and I met in Tehran in 2013. We’ve been crossing paths ever since—most recently last night on Press TV. (Watch above.)

And speaking of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, whose martyrdom anniversary is tomorrow, below is my forthcoming written interview on the topic, which should be published soon at PressTV.ir.

Best

Kevin

#1: Iran has called on the United Nations General Assembly to issue a resolution condemning the US assassination of the country’s top anti-terror commander General Qassem Soleimani to safeguard international peace and uphold human rights. Why do you think the UN refuse to do so?

As of this writing (January 2) the UN General Assembly has not yet responded to Iran’s request yesterday to condemn the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani. It is conceivable that a resolution condemning the assassination will be passed by the General Assembly. In July 2020 the UN Rapporteur for Extrajudicial Killing issued a report stating that the assassination was unlawful and in violation of the UN charter. So there is no obvious reason why the General Assembly would not pass a resolution agreeing with its own Rapporteur. But it’s also possible that many nations are afraid of the US reaction to such a move. The current US government, despite its apparent hostility to the previous Trump regime, does not want to call attention to the US government’s criminal history in its relations with Iran, because that would undercut its position in the current standoff over the JCPOA and other issues. So it will pressure UN members to oppose any resolution condemning the assassination.

#2: The West has also remained silent despite the fact that Gen. Soleimani played a key role in uprooting terrorism. Why?

The West has been hypnotized by a false narrative about terrorism at least since the false flag events of September 11, 2001. That crime, like virtually all terrorism in the world today, was committed by agents of the Anglo-Zionist Empire. Western leaders and their psychological operations experts have brainwashed the public to hysterically fear the very terrorism that those leaders and experts have created, armed, funded, and directed. So the leaders of the West never truly appreciated Gen. Soleimani’s heroic victories over the Daesh terrorists that those Western leaders themselves had organized and unleashed in service to the Oded Yinon plan to Balkanize the region along ethnic and sectarian lines.

#3: Do you think that , by his assassination, his path will be stopped and he will be forgotten?

Like such historical figures as Imam Hussein, Malcolm X, and Che Guevara, General Qassem Soleimani will continue to inspire resistance to injustice and oppression long after his death. His killers were apparently too arrogantly stupid to realize that they were creating a martyr who would create even more problems for them dead than alive. General Soleimani’s martyrdom has galvanized not only the Iranian nation, but also the forces of resistance to Zionism and imperialism throughout the region and beyond. The real revenge for this cowardly and dastardly crime will be the complete expulsion of the Anglo-Zionist empire from the region, which may very well precipitate its final downfall.

 

“I will vote for him when he runs. I would have voted for his father, but I was too young. But I will vote for him. He was doing this before it got to be center stage, and now he’s the man of the hour.”

That was Dr. E. Michael Jones, one of America’s leading Catholic intellectuals, talking about Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose new book The Real Anthony Fauci has become a surprise bestseller—drawing panicky pushback from the usual suspects.

Video Link

But E. Michael Jones doesn’t approve of RFK Jr.’s painting a Hitler mustache on Fauci: “Why are you bad-mouthing Hitler by associating him with Dr. Fauci?”

He elaborates: “I think in order to understand the reaction (to COVID) I think we have to go to Germany (where the unfreedom is greatest). And in order to understand Germany, we have to understand the social engineering that got imposed on Germany after the war. It is this that is responsible for the sidelining of the Catholic church—the Catholic church is hors-de-combat in the COVID strike—and it all goes back to the social engineering that got imposed on Germany first, then America, then the entire English-speaking world.”

So according to E. Michael Jones, CJ Hopkins’ brilliant new essay “The Year of the New Normal Fascist” misuses the F-word. Hopkins is right, of course, about the nightmare he’s experiencing in his adopted hometown of Berlin:

In New Normal Germany, “the Unvaccinated” are under de facto house arrest. We are banned from society. We are banned from traveling. We are banned from protesting. Our writings are censored. We’re demonized and dehumanized by the New Normal government, the state and corporate media, and the New Normal masses on a daily basis. New Normal goon squads roam the streets, brutalizing pensioners, raiding barber shops, checking “papers,” measuring social distances, literally, as in with measuring sticks. The Gestapo even arrested Santa Claus for not wearing a mask at a Christmas market. In the schools, fascist New Normal teachers ritually humiliate “Unvaccinated” children, forcing them to stand in front of the class and justify their “Unvaccinated” status, while the “Vaccinated” children and their parents are applauded, like some New Normal version of the Hitler Youth. When New Normal Germany’s new Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, announced that, “for my government, there are no more red lines as far as doing what needs to be done,” apparently he wasn’t joking. It’s only a matter of time until he orders New Normal Propaganda Minister Karl Lauterbach to make his big Sportpalast speech, where he will ask the New Normals if they want “total war” … and I think you know the rest of this story.

But according to E. Michael Jones, the villain here isn’t fascism, it’s American-style social engineering.

Whatever you call it, it’s bad news.

Can RFK Jr.—and the populist pro-freedom wave he’s riding—save the day? Stay tuned to future FFWNs to find out.

 

Katharina Volckmer, The Appointment: A Novel (Avid Reader Press/Simon & Schuster, 2020, Kindle file).

Katharina Volckmer
Katharina Volckmer

Reviewed by E. Michael Jones

Zelda Biller begins her review of Katharina Volckmer’s debut novel The Appointment, by claiming that it tells “a story that no German publishing house dared to publish.”1 The assertion is correct, but not in the way she intended it. Blinded by Volckmer’s deliberately obscene and transgressive narrative, Biller concluded that the issue was sex. If so, that issue resolved itself when a German publishing house decided to publish a German translation of the original English edition as if to prove that “all of the sexually inhibited German editors” who turned down Volckmer’s manuscript were somehow unrepresentative of the German publishing industry. So, it wasn’t about sex after all. Volckmer’s book is, however, most definitely about taboos, and she is clever enough to hide those very real taboos behind sexual taboos which disappeared a long time before she was born. No publishing house, either English or German, would have published this book if their editors understood what Volkmer is really saying about the real but hidden taboos which dominate Germany at this moment in time.

The Appointment begins by describing sex in a way that has become typically German in its deliberately transgressive crudity. The nameless narrator/protagonist is being examined gynecologically by a surgeon who is taking the lay of the land in anticipation of doing a sex change operation. Biller summarizes the situation by telling us that:

In the course of her treatment, she tells him about herself and her neuroses, about everything that enrages her about the world we live in, about what she considers trivial or unjust. Her detailed descriptions of quotidian banalities are always critical and pointed, and frequently funny (yes, really!), sometimes metaphorical, usually poetic, and now and then pathetic. As this young lady reveals more and more of herself to Dr. Seligman, like her great love, like performing fellatio in public toilets, like LEGO concentration camps, ponytail butt plugs, and Jesus machines, two things become more and more apparent. First of all, this German Catholic woman has a complex about her own body, as well as a Hitler complex. And secondly, she’s a hypocrite.2

The mise-en-scène of Volckmer’s novella immediately reminded the reviewer mutatis mutandis of Philip Roth’s 1969 novel Portnoy’s Complaint. Instead of a self-hating Jew lying on a psychiatrist’s couch, Volckmer describes an equally narcissistic self-hating German with her legs in the gynecologist’’ stirrups contemplating a sex change operation. Both books deal with the same themes: sex, perversion, guilt, shame, body issues. But even granting their similarities, the two confessional novellas couldn’t be more different because while the hero in Roth’s novel is more Jewish like no other Jew, the heroine in Volckmer’s novella is more German than either she herself or the author seems to understand.

With that cryptic statement, “die Heldin in Volckmers Roman [ist] deutscher, als ihr selbst bewusst zu sein scheint,” Biller opens the bagbut refuses to let the cat out of it. What Biller meant to say and what Volckmer actually did say is that German identity is now bound up with Jewish sexual perversity. The German woman now identifies herself as a Jewish sexual fantasy. Volckmer has transformed herself into a masochistic shiksa straight out of a Philip Roth novel.

By mentioning Roth, however, Biller sends the reader off on a wild goose chase that ultimately distracts him from the true source of Volckmer’s book. As the name of the plastic surgeon indicates, Dr. Seligman, the Jewish surgeon in T he Appointment is based on Dr. Seligman the Jewish psychiatrist in Lars von Trier’s porno film Nymphomaniac. Both Volckmer’s novella and von Trier’s film involve a “conversation between Judaism and Christianity,” as Leil Leibovitz put it. Both “Volckmer” and Joe, the eponymous nymphomaniac in von Trier’s film, have sexual issues which can only be resolved by talking to a Jewish psychiatrist because, according to Leibovitz:

The alternative to Christ is Seligman. A perfect embodiment of Jewish eschatology, he believes, like the sages of old, that there aren’t any fundamental differences between our own time and the days of the Messiah to come and that all attempts at redemption must focus not on some desperate thrust heavenward but on a series of small and incremental earthly steps. If you believe this—if you believe that everything you do is an important step toward salvation—interpretation becomes your steeliest sword. If you are your own savior, and if every one of your acts facilitates the saving, you are likely to read a lot into everything. That’s how we got the Talmud, the ultimate book of ordering the world, and that’s how we got a grinning Seligman, alone in his apartment with his books, trying to do the same.3

Lars von Trier is Volckmer’s ideal mentor in this regard because he is a Catholic who thought he was a Jew growing up. It turns out that his mother’s Jewish husband wasn’t his father, something that Lars didn’t learn until later in life. It also turns out that his mother was, as he puts it, “a slut,” who had sex with a musician and composer because she wanted Lars to be a great artist.4 Since God is always an exalted father, Lars has a markedly ambivalent attitude toward the Catholic faith:

I don’t know if I’m all that Catholic really. I’m probably not. Denmark is a very Protestant country. Perhaps I only turned Catholic to piss off a few of my countrymen. Here’s my message: I believe it is very difficult to die like the last Pope did. In the knowledge that he was responsible for the deaths of so many people. I know that people say that the Pope has got a good line to God. But I say to the Pope: it’s not the will of God that millions of people around the world die from Aids because of some stupid Pope.5

In May 2011, von Trier compounded his identity crisis when he announced at the Cannes film festival, following the premier of his film Melancholia, “I’m a Nazi,” which turns out to be the mirror image of being a Jew:6

The only thing I can tell you is that I thought I was a Jew for a long time and was very happy being a Jew, then later on came [Danish and Jewish director] Susanne Bier, and suddenly I wasn’t so happy about being a Jew. That was a joke. Sorry. But it turned out that I was not a Jew. If I’d been a Jew, then I would be a second-wave Jew, a kind of a new-wave Jew, but anyway, I really wanted to be a Jew and then I found out that I was really a Nazi. Because my family was German… which also gave me some pleasure. So I’m kind of a… What can I say? I understand Hitler. But I think he did some wrong things, yes absolutely, but I can see him sitting in his bunker. But there will come a point, at the end of this… I’m just saying, I think I understand the man. He’s not what you would call a good guy, but yeah, I understand much about him and I sympathize with him a little bit. But come on, I’m not for the Second World War, and I’m not against Jews… I am of course, very much for Jews. No, not too much, because Israel is a pain in the ass. But still, how can I get out of this sentence? No, I just want to say about the art, I’m very much for Speer. Albert Speer, I liked. He was also maybe one of God’s best children. He had some talent that was kind of possible for him to use… okay, I’m a Nazi.7

 
Who watches over the guardians of tradition?

On July 16, 2021, the Vatican issued a motu proprio on the Latin Mass under the title of Traditionis Custodes which effectively revoked Pope Benedict’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificium, which made the Latin Mass more readily available to the faithful. That story began in 1988 when Pope John Paul II issued his own motu proprio Ecclesia Dei in the wake of the Lefebvrite schism of that same year. Worried that the Lefebvrites would follow the Latin Mass out of the Church, Pope John Paul II made the Tridentine rite available on a limited basis. As part of his efforts to end the Lefebvrite schism, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of the four bishops Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated and expanded access to the Tridentine rite, by issuing his own motu proprio. Both Summorum Potificium and Ecclesia Dei were, in Pope Francis’s words, “motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the ‘just aspirations’ of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.”[1]

In his motu proprio withdrawing those privileges, Pope Francis maintains that the permission which Pope John Paul II granted in 1988 was issued conditionally, and that Pope Benedict’s renewal of the mandate in 2007 reinforced this conditionality by intending to introduce “a clearer juridical regulation” in this area. Claiming that his understanding of the current situation is clearer than Ratzinger’s in 2007, Bergoglio is claiming that “serious difficulties came to light” in the implementation of the norms “once the Motu proprio came into effect,” which require drastic action on his part because toleration of two separate rites has led to disunity in the Church.

After sending a questionnaire to the world’s bishops, Francis “regrettably” discovered that Ratzinger’s desire “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew” had “been seriously disregarded,” prompting Francis to take action. Contrary to Ratzinger’s intentions, the Latin Mass had become a source of division in the Church. Instead of consoling those who missed the old rite, the Latin Mass has been “exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.” The Latin Mass has been instrumentalized to authorize “a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the ‘true Church.’”

This is a serious problem because “to doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.” By abusing the privilege previous popes had granted them, the Traditionalists forced the pope’s hand, leaving him “constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors.” Acting as the principal of unity who is in charge of the “sacrament of unity,” Pope Francis made “the firm decision to abrogate all the norms, instructions, permissions and customs that precede the present Motu proprio, and declare that the liturgical books promulgated by the saintly Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, constitute the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.

Initial reports were confusing because even though the official translation was published in English on the Vatican website, it did not include the eight articles of implementation which were included in the Catholic News Agency article. Those include an instruction to the bishops to ban all celebrations of the Latin Mass from “parochial churches” as well as a ban on “the erection of new personal parishes.”[2] The articles of implementation contained a tone which was guaranteed to generate animosity and did. The reaction was predictable. Here is one of the tamer responses I received:

I have now received several emails about the Francis attack on the true Mass. One of them included a recent article telling [sic] that young people given a choice are overwhelmingly choosing the true Mass of antiquity. No wonder this anti-Pope – or maybe even anti-Christ – is at his worst. Note well that this announcement, in the middle of July, fits into the new, tougher, phase of world genocide, especially in nations where Christian civilization once ruled, closing in with constantly greater force and restriction. The devil never misses a beat. He knows that his ONLY earthly enemy is THE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH and that it is the Virgin Mary who crushes his head. Has anyone noticed that, now also in the U.S., antifa type destroyers, whenever they have done their destruction in Catholic Churches, always make it a point to destroy any image or picture of Mary? Doesn’t get much press, does it? This is all the same war, that supernatural war described by St. Paul. The “reset” which the highest satanists are pursuing, hiding behind the false pandemic, amounts to the open rule of Satan even to the total destruction of God’s double-edged gift to all humanity, FREE WILL. Full enslavement of any non-satanic people who might escape the genocide. Well, it’s a very good sign that the TRUE CATHOLIC RELIGION, TRUE ADORATION OF GOD, is the one the young are drawn to, not the satanic/talmudic/masonic/wholly protestant false-humanism hatred of it in Catholic drag, called “Vatican II” or “novus ordo.”

Here is on of the less tame responses:

I penned a very polite letter to Pope Francis. I’m sure you’d love it. Ahaha. Actually it’s not polite at all … Hey Pope Francis, I just went to a Traditional Latin Mass in St. Louis. No one is listening to your Motu Proprio. Every single parish that was doing it is still doing it. Literally everyone is ignoring you

This diatribe then descends into language associating the Pope with pedophilia that I would rather not repeat. Both responses could have been written by a liturgist who wanted to prove that everything Pope Francis said about the traditionalists in his motu proprio was true. After reading a number of responses, I began to discern a pattern that I had noticed long ago. The furor surrounding the Latin Mass is not about the Latin Mass. As before the Latin Mass has been claimed by various protest groups. The Latin Mass in the first instance cited above is the standard bearer for those protesting the Church’s inadequate response to the COVID pandemic. The following letter makes equally clear that the Latin Mass has been co-opted by those protesting the pedophile crisis. After the Lefebvrite schism, the Latin Mass became the symbol of a protest movement organized by people who were either intellectually incapable of understanding the chaos which followed the Second Vatican Council or unwilling to confront the Church’s real enemies.

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Catholic Church, Political Correctness 

Our topic today is “Is race an important topic or a fiction?” And so, I’d like to begin our discussion of the concept of race with a reminder that historically race referred to ethnicity as well as physical characteristics.

But before I do that I’d like to explain the difference between categories of the mind and categories of nature or reality by describing the biggest crisis to hit Indiana since the Civil War. I’m talking about the decision to put Indiana on daylight saving time:

On April 29, 2005, with heavy backing from Governor Mitch Daniels’ economic development plan, and after years of controversy, the Indiana General Assembly passed a law stating that, effective April 2, 2006, the entire state of Indiana would become the 48th state to observe daylight saving time.[1]

Video Link

What no one knew at the time is that Indiana had weathered a similar crisis in the 1970s by refusing to reset their clocks twice a year. The unsung heroine in the time change battle of the 1970s was a woman who called in to a talk show and opined that her lawn was already brown, and one more hour of sunlight would kill it completely. That argument carried the day in Indiana for almost 40 years, and it was in that woman’s honor that I wrote what is probably the only song in existence on Daylight Saving Time.

The more philosophically minded among you may have noticed that there is a flaw in her argument. She made a category mistake by confusing categories of nature or reality with categories of the mind. The day is divided into hours based on a category of the mind, which can be changed. The year is based on a certain number of days, which is fixed and cannot be changed.

What does all this have to do with race? Race, as we now understand the term, is a conflation of categories of reality and categories of the mind. I have been asked to defend the proposition that race is a fiction, as opposed to an “important reality.” Those of us who have studied philosophy will recognize that the topic of this debate is based on what philosophers would call a false dichotomy.

In order to demonstrate what I mean I would ask you to contemplate what I am now holding in my hand. It is a copy of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel The Scarlet Letter. It is what you would call “a piece of fiction.” It is, in other words, real. Fiction, in other words, is not a fiction. If you think about characters like Hamlet or Shylock or Hester Prynne, the fact that we know their names after centuries and can write books about them, as I did when I wrote The Angel and the Machine, means that these fictions are in some sense more real than any Jew, prince, or Puritan lady you ever met in the real world even though they are categories of the mind and Shylock et al never existed as real people. Fiction in this instance means category of the mind, and that brings me to my thesis: race is a fiction, by which I mean that race category of the mind which gets imposed for political purposes. To be more specific, race, as we now understand the term, is a category of the mind which gets imposed on subject peoples as a form of marginalization and control.

According to the OED, race refers to “a group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin. The offspring or posterity of a person; a set of children or descendants. A limited group of persons descended from a common ancestor; a house, family, kindred. A tribe, nation, or people, regarded as of common stock.”

In Europe in the Middle Ages, everyone belonged to one “limited group of persons descended from a common ancestor” or another, but “the white race” was a completely unknown concept. The earliest example of a European author referring to fellow Europeans as ‘white people’ didn’t occur until 1613 when an African King in Thomas Middleton’s play The Triumphs of Truth looks out on an English audience and declares, “I see amazement set upon the faces/Of these white people, wond’rings and strange gazes.”[2]

When I refer to myself as bi-racial, meaning that I come from Irish and German stock, I am simply making use of what was once the accepted meaning of the term according to the OED, which defines race as “A group of several tribes or peoples, forming a distinct ethnical stock.” In 1883 Green wrote in his Conquest of England that “Courage was a heritage of the whole German race.”

The term “race” was also used to describe “One of the great divisions of mankind.” Race, in this instance meant “having certain physical peculiarities in common.” In 1861 Blumenbach grouped those “physical peculiarities” into “five races: 1st. The Caucasian; 2nd The Mongolian; 3rd the Ethiopian; 4th the American; 5th the Malay.” But this was only one use of the term.

So what do we mean when we say that race is “real”? We mean that ethnicity has always been a category of reality. We also mean that physical characteristics are real and that they differ depending on what part of the planet you come from. The shape of your nose and the color of your skin are categories of reality. The virtues or vices associated with them, however, are categories of the mind, which get applied for political reasons.

So, to get back to our original example, does the fact that the 24-hour day is a category of the mind mean that there is no difference between night and day? No, of course not. The 24-hour day organizes night and day; it does not replace them. Similarly, categories like “the white race,” whether they are cited by Jared Taylor or Noel Ignatiev, mobilize biological characteristics for political purposes in a way that is independent of the characteristics themselves.

Had “the white race” been known in the Middle Ages, it would have been called a universal. A universal is something outside of nature which is brought to nature in order to organize nature and make it, as a result, comprehensible. Universals can also be used to weaponize nature for political purposes.

To give a recent example of the manipulation of universals for political purposes, there is a group of people, and I happen to be one of them, who voted for Donald Trump in 2016. This is a category of reality. These people have real identities; they have names and addresses, and presumably all of them are registered voters, and if they’re not they should be.

Hillary Clinton, who lost that election, described this group of people as “a basket of deplorables.” Now what type of term is that? I think everyone here would agree that it is a weaponized category of the mind. More specifically “deplorables” is a word which describes a category of Hillary Clinton’s mind which has no relation to anything else but Hillary Clinton’s mind. Are those people deplorable? Only in Hillary Clinton’s mind. Deplorable is a category of the mind based on a category of nature. It is similar to the term feminism, another term which is based on a category of nature, namely, woman, but which has been weaponized for political purposes. This becomes apparent when we move from “women” to “women’s rights” and from “women’s rights” to abortion. By commandeering the term “woman,” which is a category of nature, feminists hope to coerce agreement to propositions which are nothing but categories of the mind.

 

Understand the Empire (The title should end with an exclamation point!) is the English translation of Alain Soral’s 2011 best seller Comprendre l’Empire, which was his prescient attempt to explain the role which France played in the global empire. Because it is only a part of that empire, France presents a simplified case study which allows us to understand the whole. That’s why this ten-year old study is still instructive. The past hasn’t changed. The forms of control which got imposed on the French people through the empire’s proconsuls are virtually identical to the forms which got imposed on Americans because it is the same oligarchs who are imposing them throughout the world.

In comparing the American Empire with a vassal state like France, the similarities outweigh the differences. The American Revolution begat the French Revolution, but America did not have to suffer the same consequences as France because, as a vast expanse of unsettled wilderness, it lacked the social structures to implement them. Nonetheless, in the not-too distant past, Freemasons constituted the covert ruling class of the American Republic. That is no longer the case, but the Masonic grammar of esoteric vs. exoteric organizations has suffused all of American culture, including business and academe. France, in this regard, continues to be what America was. The hidden grammar of French political and economic life is, according to Soral, Masonic:

Freemasonry, freed of blood ties, shared faith, and class homogeneity, is the network of influence that exemplifies post-Enlightenment modernity. Possessing a sort of egalitarian solidarity founded on complicity and combined with hierarchical submission based on deception, Masonry has in effect rebuilt a new “corps intermédiaire” between citizen and State, the Republican equivalent of the old corporations that were abolished by the Republic! The Grand Orient de France (GODF) and its estimated 50,000 brothers are omnipresent in French politics, just as the Grande Loge Nationale Française (GLNF) and its declared 43,000 brothers are omnipresent in French business. Together, they are a testament to the reality of power-sharing by the Left and the Right: one manages social affairs, while the other manages capital. The more modern Club Le Siècle and its 630 high-powered members (of which 150 are guest members) constitute the hidden hand that sets the country’s direction. All of these networks epitomize the lie that is democracy.1

Lie is too strong a word. Oligarchic organizations like the Freemasonry have declared war on representative government, which is now making a come back in the United States in states like Florida, which just banned de-platforming, and Texas, which was the first state to defy the COVID lockdown, and Missouri, which has banned abortion. Soral’s book predicted the equivalent of that pushback in France years before it happened, and the only flaw in Understand the Empire[!] is the missing chapter on Macron, the Yellow Vests, and the COVID lockdown which destroyed the biggest uprising in France since the May revolt of 1968. In that missing chapter, Soral should proclaim his identity as that rarest of all creatures, the prophet who has been vindicated by the course of events. But even in its absence, Understand is worth reading for its historical analysis.

The main legacy of Freemasonry in America is the reality of oligarchic control and its total hegemony over the political process, rendering local government an essentially meaningless formality. The Duc d’Orleans, who changed his name to Phillippe Egalite when he abandoned aristocratic privilege and joined up with the French Revolution, expressed this trajectory best when he said, in a memoir written the night before the revolution which he supported marched him to the scaffold, that the lodge was to the revolution what the candle was to the sun. Once the sun of revolution rose, the candle was no longer necessary.

This is precisely what happened in America. Once the oligarchs had taken control of finance and the flow of information, they…

[…] This is just an excerpt from the June 2021 Issue of Culture Wars magazine. To read the full article, please purchase a digital download of the magazine, or become a subscriber!

 

One of the most puzzling events of the first 100 days of the Biden Administration was the president’s decla­ration that the deaths of Armenians that occurred in 1915 constituted genocide. Was Hunter Biden dating Kim Kardashian? That was certainly more plausible than Joe dating Kim, but not really an explanation of what was actually going on. The New York Times made a stab by invoking the Biden administration’s “commitment to human rights,” which according to the Times was “a pillar of its foreign policy. It is also a break from Mr. Biden’s predecessors, who were re­luctant to anger a country of strategic importance and were wary of driving its leadership toward American adversaries like Russia or Iran.”1 Did that explain why the president said that, “Each year on this day, we re­member the lives of all those who died in the Otto­man-era Armenian genocide and recommit ourselves to preventing such an atrocity from ever again oc­curring,” Mr. Biden said in a statement issued on the 106th anniversary of the beginning of a brutal cam­paign by the former Ottoman Empire that killed 1.5 million people. “And we remember so that we remain ever vigilant against the corrosive influence of hate in all its forms.”2

Traditionally, only two groups were concerned about the use of the term genocide: the Turks and the Jews. This standoff has been complicated by the fact that the Armenian genocide story has been absorbed into the Holocaust narrative. Like the Jews, the Armenians have attempted to make their genocide “a closed issue similar to the Jewish holocaust” and any denial of it a form of hate speech punishable by law. Three years before France officially recognized what happened to the Armenians as genocide on May 29, 1998,3 Ber­nard Lewis was found guilty of violating that country’s hate speech laws by taking the Turkish position on the matter. Lewis was sentenced on June 2, 1995, but only a token fine was imposed as punish­ment, thereby making a dead letter of the law and keeping the contro­versy alive.4 One pro-Armenian au­thor “has suggested that denial of the Armenian genocide represents hate-speech and therefore should be illegal in the United States,”5 but Lewis remained undeterred in his determination to dissociate the two events.

On March 25, 2002, Lewis “once again reaffirmed his belief that the Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey were linked to the massive Armenian rebel­lion and, therefore, were not comparable to the treat­ment of the Jews under the Nazis.”6 Lewy has adopted Lewis’s view, affirming that: “The Armenian commu­nity in Turkey was not simply ‘an unarmed Christian minority,’ and it is not acceptable to discuss the events of 1915-16 without mentioning the fifth-column role of the Armenian revolutionaries.”7 According to this reading, the Armenians have no right to claim Holo­caust victim status because their armed rebellion was different in kind from the behavior of the unarmed Jews who fell victim to the Nazis.

Israeli historian Yair Auron, however, takes a dif­ferent tack by linking Germany to the Turks and claiming that Germany “was involved directly and indirectly in the Armenian genocide.”8 Auron’s claim has no basis in fact. Evidence suggests that the charge stems from allied propaganda during the war years. In fact, there is overwhelming archival evidence that the German government, while accepting the military ne­cessity of the relocations, “repeatedly intervened with the Sublime Porte in order to achieve a more humane implementation.”9

The claim that the Germans “bear some of the re­sponsibility and even some of the guilt for the mass murder of the Armenians in World War I”10 would seem to rehabilitate the Armenians’ status as victims. Unfortunately, even a link to (albeit, pre-Nazi) Ger­many fails to create an equivalence between Armenian and Jewish suffering in the eyes of Israeli historians like Auron. Like most Israeli historians, who “seek to emphasize the singularity of the Holocaust,”11 Yehuda Bauer claims that Jewish suffering is unique, even while keeping the Armenian story in play by adding that “The Armenian massacres are indeed the closest parallel to the Holocaust.”12

[…] This is just an excerpt from the June 2021 Issue of Culture Wars magazine. To read the full article, please purchase a digital download of the magazine, or become a subscriber!

 
• Category: History • Tags: Armenian Genocide, Holocaust, Turkey, World War I 
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2