People love to take your picture in Washington. I was in that labyrinthine town to speak at a symposium entitled “Sam Francis and America’s Culture War,” which had been arranged by Fran Griffin of FGF books to promote a posthumous collection of Sam Francis’s columns, Shots Fired: Sam Francis on America’s Culture War. As I was getting ready to give my speech at the National Press Club, I looked at all the photos on the wall. It was full of pictures of celebrities I had known from my youth—people like Art Buchwald, Eric Severeid, Marvin Kalb—but somehow they all looked older and uglier than I remembered them. These photos were not a thing of beauty and a joy forever, or even for the few short minutes I had to view them. So they must have served some other purpose. What the picture did was to testify to the bona fides of the people it portrayed. Both people were validated by the photo of one man giving an award and the other man receiving it—at least in primitive cultures like Washington.
The converse of the same thought occurred to me after I gave my talk. After Joe Sobran gave his speech, someone pushed me in his direction and demanded to take a picture of both of us. Just before the flash went off, I turned to Joe and said, “Joe, this picture is going to ruin your career.” Without missing a beat, Joe responded, “Mutually assured destruction.”
In other words, the idea that somehow Joe was going to be held responsible for what I said or that I was going to be held responsible for what he said, struck us both as inexpressibly funny. It was almost as funny as the idea that either of us had careers to worry about.
And that was almost as funny as the reaction I got to my talk. For those of you who are tuning in late, the talk I gave was in honor of Sam Francis and was essentially the review of two books connected with the late Sam Francis, which appeared in the March issue of Culture Wars. My ruminations on the role race played in Sam’s writings set off an explosion which still has debris falling around me. Most of the howling came from Peter Brimelow, editor of the vdare website and author, 12-years ago, of Alien Nation: Common Sense about America’s Immigration Disaster. On the Monday following the talk, the following passage appeared on Peter Brimelow’s blog, describing the conference.
CSpan was there, but VDARE.COM readers probably won’t get to watch the conference because of an extraordinary performance by E. Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars and a prize specimen even by the standards of my lifelong study of characters on the American Right. Jones denounced Elizabethan England, Puritans, capitalism, Protestants, “revolutionary Jews” (but not all Jews, he was quite nuanced) and, for good measure, the idea that race matters or that America was ever a nation. I like Catholic bigots as much as anyone else, but this had nothing to do with anything Sam Francis ever wrote – except where it actually contradicted his views. Sam felt bitterly that he never had the recognition he deserved while he was alive. Jones ensured that he won’t get it now that he’s dead.
Mr. Brimelow had apparently calmed down by Monday because missing from his blog entry was the hysteria which characterized his e-mails in the immediate aftermath of the conference. It is a rare and disedifying sight to see a grown man so consumed by fear, but here was Peter Brimelow absolutely petrified. And what was he afraid of? That someone might have photographed him standing next to E. Michael Jones! In the immediate aftermath of the conference, Mr. Brimelow professed to be appalled by my talk, which is his right. The really funny part came later in the same communication when he announced that “I can’t be associated with anything in which that speech is featured [or] . . . to be in any photographs or material of any kind in which Jones is present.” (I had to edit his original text because fear evidently rendered his syntax incoherent.)
Now that is serious fear. Unfortunately, it was a bit too late to do anything about it. On page 2 of a brochure handed out by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation on the day of the conference, there we are—Peter Brimelow and I—cheek by jowl, pictures and all, right next to each other. It’s not quite the usual press club deal with the two of us arm in arm the one receiving a plaque from the other, but you got the impression that Peter Brimelow felt this was career-ending material, and there wasn’t a damn thing that Peter Brimelow could do about it. Hence, the terror.
That impression was strengthened when Peter Brimelow’s lawyer contacted conference organizer Fran Griffin on the Tuesday following the talk. In one of those chilling missives that only lawyers know how to write, Fran Griffin, who is a woman by the way, (Why do people like Peter Brimelow beat up on women for things they did not say?) was informed that she must respect Peter Brimelow’s “right of publicity and exclude his speech and any reference to his conference participation from any publication that includes Dr. Jones’s speech.” (As some indication of the sort of association which Mr. Brimelow does not fear, his v-dare site has links to the Zionist fanatic Daniel Pipes.)
Well, as I said, it’s a little late for that. Peter Brimelow can ask his lawyer to beat up Fran Griffin or beat the sea with chains or whatever, but the simple fact of the matter is that Peter Brimelow and E. Michael Jones were, on March 20, 2007, not only in the same room together but were both speakers at the same conference, and all of the lawyers in Washington, D.C. can’t change that fact.
Fran Griffin’s response was suffused with a common sense notably absent from the hysterical response of Peter Brimelow and his pit bull lawyer:
If Peter Brimelow is so worried about Jones, he should take the advice I gave him last Tuesday: ignore Jones, don’t mention Jones, don’t complain about Jones, pretend Jones doesn’t exist. This is the most sensible thing he could have done. If he is worried about Jones, why is he linking himself with him? Why is he giving his readers worldwide a chance to Google him by mentioning him and outlining his complaints against him (see transcript from V-dare below)? This makes no sense. Has Peter ever spoken at a symposium before where he disagreed with a speaker? Or does he always agree 100% with every speaker at every forum he attends?
She then brought up the fact that I might be offended by Brimelow’s tactless joke about burning crosses and the Ku Klux Klan. So let me go on record at this point and say, that Peter Brimelow need have no fear that my lawyer is going to contact him for the offense of being in the same room with me or cracking tactless jokes that the overwhelming majority of American citizens would find offensive. If, however, a photo of the two of us comes into my possession, he can take it off my hands by leaving $10,000 in unmarked bills at the foot of the Washington Monument at a time to be mutually agreed upon.
I never knew that photos could be so important, or that they could cause such panic. Once Brimelow and Peter Gemma started circulating their e-mails, however, the panic among the fair weather culture warriors spread like wildfire. Linda Muller, a conference attendee and Buchanan supporter, fired off an e-mail of her which could serve as a primer on how not to react to pressure: “Fran needs to end CYA [i.e., cover your ass] and do a long-winded PRIVATE mea culpa,” which involved the following steps: “1) Admit the mistake; 2) Apologize profusely; 3) Denounce E. Michael Jones; 4) Define a thorough separation from Jones — Sam Francis and those who attended the event.” Mrs. Muller, who describes herself as a “traditional Catholic,” would have loved Stalin’s show trials. She is also probably a fan of cropping photos to delete disgraced members of the Politburo. I say this because her first reaction to my speech indicated sympathy for that behavior. Once the panic gripped her, Muller sabotaged the Sam Francis website, “I just deleted every reference to the conference off the shotsfired.us website. If anyone has an issue with that, they can try to justify it with me directly.” (Oddly enough, Fran Griffin, the owner of the site, did have an issue with that.) By the end of her e-mail, Muller was recommending that everyone pretend that I had never set foot in Washington. “Right now I suggest the best thing for all of us to do is to act like the conference never happened.”
Now, given the face that my DNA has inflicted on me, I can understand why people might not want to be photographed standing next to me. I have been told that faces like mine can break cameras, and given the expensive cameras in operation during the conference, who would want to be held liable for the expense of repairing them?
But what I can’t understand is how someone like Peter Brimelow could be held accountable for a talk that I gave. He doesn’t look at all like me. He is much more handsome than I am. His hair is gray, and my hair, at least most of it, is brown. He has had two Irish Catholic wives (the first one died), and so far I haven’t had any. (My first wife, the one I am still married to, was an Episcopalian.) There was no possibility of mistaken identity at the conference either. When he took to the podium during the Q and A afterward, Mr. Brimelow shook his fist at me claiming, “I like Elizabethan England.” There could have been no possibility of mistaken identity because I clearly expressed the opposite point of view during my talk.
So why all this nervousness about pictures and making sure that the Washington Times spiked the story they were going to run and making sure that C-Span never ran its footage of the conference? Why, in other words, was this conference sabotaged by the very people who should have wanted to promote it? The answer is fear. Washington is a primitive culture which runs on the sympathetic magic known as guilt by association. The denizens of this primitive culture run in fear of guilt by association because it is inflicted on them on an ongoing basis. One of the few sensible reactions to the talk came from Taki, the Greek playboy co-publisher of the American Conservative, who weighed in about two weeks after the conference on his blogsite. Taki, who gave an off-the-cuff talk about drinking champagne with Mickey Mantle, criticized me for not talking about Sam Francis. Sam, as far as I know, did not have a lot to say about Mickey Mantle, but he did pose the question “Are Jews White?” as I mentioned in my talk, and he did write an introduction to a book by Kevin MacDonald on the Jews.
But that wasn’t the profound part of what Taki had to say. That came later, when he wrote: “The trouble is in a free society speakers are not vetted before they speak. None of us, Fran Griffin included, were responsible for Michael Jones’s opinions—some (not all) of which were right on, incidentally.” One wonders what free society Taki is talking about here, certainly not Washington, DC, where the prime rule of discourse is guilt by association. This system of control only works if you can be held responsible for the views of the people sitting next to you. That is what happened to John Sharpe. That fact of life is what sent Peter Brimelow into hysterics. That is what provides the maximum amoung of intimidation in the political control of discourse. Taki, in this regard, is either more courageous or less perceptive than Linda Muller and Peter Brimelow, who are smart enough to know that the system of intimidation can only work if everyone else in the room could be held responsible and punished for the views that I expressed. If everyone believed what Taki believed, the system of guilt by association would collapse overnight. Since the system is in full force, it should be obvious that no one believes that people can only be held accountable for what they themselves say. If that were the case, why would Peter Brimelow and Linda Muller have exhibited such a panic attack for things they had not said?
A refreshing exception to the fear that pervaded the conference was my meeting with Willis Carto. When it comes to Washington photographs, Willis Carto is even more radioactive than E. Michael Jones. Willis Carto could make a fortune in Washington by being paid to be photographed beside any candidate’s political enemies, but instead he is the publisher of The American Free Press and The Barnes Review, at whose offices Willis and Michael Collins Piper interviewed me after the talk. After I expounded on the thesis of the revolutionary Jew for about an hour, Willis said, “So you don’t hold much to the racial explanation of Christian identity,” a position he defended in a pamphlet he sent to me. To which I said, “No, the New Israel is the Catholic Church. It has no racial identity.” So we agreed to disagree, knowing that two grown men with two different sets of ideas could talk to each other intelligently and be open and frank about our differences. Before I left, Willis insisted that one of his staffers take a picture of us together, at which point I turned to Willis and said, “This picture is going to ruin your career.”
Next to lust and greed, guilt by association is the most common form of political control in Washington. Perhaps Mr. Brimelow was nervous because, after attacking the idea that race could explain anything of significance, including the race wars of the 1960s, I mentioned what had just happened to Lt. Cmdr. John Sharpe. This is what I had to say about John Sharpe in my revised talk, which did not appear in Culture Wars:
The same forces which used the NAACP to turn the Negro into the revolutionary vanguard in the United States, the same forces which subverted the idea of conservatism, are still at work today. As Nelson Algren once said, every movement begins as a cause, becomes a business, and ends up being a racket. This is nowhere more true than in the civil rights movement, where the NAACP made the transition from cause to business, and the name of the racket is the Southern Poverty Law Center. In case you haven’t noticed, the SPLC has declared war on Catholics. Traditional Catholicism is now featured as harboring 100,000 anti-Semites. I have been listed as one of the most prominent of those 100,000, even though I am not now nor have I ever been a traditionalist. Another man on the list is Lt. Commander John Sharpe, who has just been put on administrative leave as public relations officer on the USS Carl Vinson pending an investigation into his involvement in “supremacist” organizations.
Why has John Sharpe, an Annapolis graduate and career officer in the Navy, incurred the wrath of the SPLC? Was it because he plotted to blow up a Church in the South? Was it because he was lowering in the bushes in Mississippi with a rifle waiting to shoot civil rights marchers? Was it because he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan? Was it because he believes in racial supremacy? Was it because he urged people to harm Jews? No, John Sharpe was singled out for persecution because he was a Catholic and because he decided that he didn’t want to go along with all of the Catholic prostitutes—Father Sirico of the Acton Institute springs immediately to mind— who were claiming that free market laissez faire capitalism was completely compatible with what the popes had to say in encyclicals like Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno. John Sharpe made the mistake of re-publishing distributist classics by writers like G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, and for that his patriotism has been called into question.
But it wasn’t just distributism that got John in trouble with the SPLC. It was also his two-volume attack on the war in Iraq, Neoconned and Neoconned Again, to which I contributed. The slanderers at the SPLC referred to the Neoconned volumes as containing “several articles by racists and anti-Semites.” If the Navy had taken the time to look at the book the SPLC cited they might have found notorious anti-Semites like Noam Chomsky, Paul Gottfried, and Jeff Steinberg among its contributors. Why would a Jew hater include Jews among the contributors to his book? Probably because he is not what the SPLC says he is. The article in the Navy Times attacking John Sharpe was based on the legwork of the SPLC’s paid troupe of character assassins, and it gives new credence to the old oxymoron joke about military intelligence.
In the end, when Father Scalia entered his hospital room and asked him if he wanted the sacraments of the Church, Sam Francis chose the Higher Logos, and we can honor him by choosing the cause of Logos as we enter the next phase of the culture wars. Both Sam Francis’s deathbed conversion to Catholicism and the persecution of John Sharpe are symbolic of a shift in the culture wars. The offensive launched by the Southern Poverty Law Center is the best indication I can offer that the main front in the culture wars is now the confrontation between Jews and Catholics. The Enlightenment is finally dead. There are no more quasi-Masonic movements, where each of us can rise above whatever sect he belongs to and join the Lodge known as “conservatism” or liberalism, or whatever. I think we, no matter what our religious or ethnic background, should rejoice at this development because in this confrontation 1) the Church has both a history and a set of beliefs that will lay to rest forever the charge of anti-Semitism and destroy it as a tool of political oppression and 2) because no matter how much they want to finesse the attack by focusing on what they consider fringe groups, the Jews have taken on a considerable group of people, who will react eventually to the attack. The situation in Hungary now is a case in point.
And finally, we should be happy because the attack clearly defines the terms of engagement, all of which are all spiritual. The revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he is a rejecter of Logos, not because of his DNA. We are not anti-Semites because we oppose the machinations of the revolutionary Jew. No, we are true Christians because of that, as the Church from the time of St. Peter onward has proclaimed. Like St. Peter and St. Paul, we are suffering at the hands of the Jews, “the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting in a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the whole human race” (I Thess 1:15).
We are now engaged in a battle which has ebbed and flowed over the centuries, but the sides in this battle have not changed. What has changed are the odds. The Jews have never been stronger; the Catholics have never been weaker, but the outcome of spiritual battles—and the battle for the soul of the West, as Tolkien knew, is a spiritual battle—no matter what the odds, is rarely predictable. If St. Paul, representing the Christian position, has to say, “When I am weak, I am strong.” Then the revolutionary Jew, representing the opposite position has to say, “When I am strong, I am weak.” We are outgunned on every front in the culture wars, but that is no reason for despair, if we follow the Logos that St. Paul followed, because he was outgunned by the Jews too, outgunned but not undone, saying, “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down but not destroyed.”
And so, as Theoden said, “we come to it in the end, the great battle of our time, in which many things will pass away. But at least there is no longer need for hiding.” Nor, might we add, any place to hide. Many if not most of us are here today because our careers have already been destroyed by the revolutionary Jew and his goyische front men. The Jews spy on us through our computers. They suborn fellow Catholics to betray us, get us fired, prevent us from speaking. Our backs are to the wall. But in attacking John Sharpe, the SPLC has created the American Catholic version of the Dreyfus affair. They have clarified the issue. By going along with their slanders, the Navy has put itself on trial. It is our duty to play the cards which providence has dealt us. We have never been weaker, and our enemies have never been stronger, but that is no reason for despair, because as Elrond says, “this quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong.” And why is that? Because “such is the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them as because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.” (I, p. 283).
Perhaps the mention of John Sharpe made Peter Brimelow nervous because if there were ever a man who was the victim of character assassination via guilt by association, it was John Sharpe. On the day of my talk, someone handed me an article which had just appeared in the Navy News. Andrew Scutro, staff writer for that paper, quoted Heidi Beirich, one of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s paid character assassins, as saying that she “witnessed him [John Sharpe] selling books at a gathering of a group known as ‘American Renaissance,’ that welcomes activists to ‘help the cause of whites,’ according to its web site.” Sharpe countered by claiming that American Renaissance was “the white man’s version of the NAACP” and that he was there to sell books. He also mentioned that he had attended a meeting of progressive Democrats for the same reason. Interestingly, the SPLC did not accuse John Sharpe of being a liberal Democrat because of that fact. Publishers go to events to sell their books, not to endorse the views of the speakers there. Sharpe’s Neoconned and Neoconned Again volumes opposed the war in Iraq and so might have found acceptance in left-wing circles, but the SPLC ignored that fact because it did not serve their main interest, which was character assassination via guilt by association. In her response to the Navy Times reporter, Ms. “Beirich scoffed at Sharpe’s apparent ignorance of the subversive nature of the American Renaissance. “Literally next to him,” Beirich continued, “in the next booth, was a guy selling ‘White Power’ T-shirts . . . . You had to be an idiot not to know where you were.”
Which is true enough. But no one is claiming that John Sharpe didn’t know where he was. He is claiming that he attended the conference to sell books, but Ms. Beirich is claiming that he is guilty of racism because of the T-shirts the man in the booth next to him was selling. Conspicuous by its absence from this exercise in guilt by association was any mention of the books that he was selling or their contents.
I noticed the same thing in the SPLC attack on me. After announcing that my wife and I almost made it to Woodstock on our honeymoon (something you would think would endear me to the hearts of SPLC supporters), Beirich et al announced that I had sponsored a conference in Germany on “deracination,” something dear to the hearts of neo-Nazis. First of all, after reading this feeble attempt at character assassination via guilt by association, I became aware 1) that the Einsteins at the SPLC didn’t know that the word “deracination” refers to roots and not race and 2) that they aren’t in the practice of consulting the dictionary when they run across big words that they don’t understand. But their intention was clear. I was a Nazi because I held a conference in Germany and used a big word that they didn’t understand.
But let’s engage in a thought experiment that will make guilt by association even easier for the cub reporters at the SPLC. Suppose for a moment that I had addressed a Neo-Nazi rally in Germany. Is there any doubt in anybody’s mind what I would have told them? I would have given exactly the same speech that I gave at the Sam Francis memorial in Washington. I would have told them that our enemy is the revolutionary Jew, and that racism is stupid because it prevents us from addressing the real problem, which is the Jewish rejection of Logos and not any malignant (or mystical) DNA. If, by some miracle of regeneration, Adolf Hitler had been present at my talk, I would have told him the same thing and would not have been contaminated because of any proximity to him. If Adolf Hitler at this point stepped forward to have his picture taken standing beside me, I would have said to him what I said to Joe Sobran and Willis Carto, “Adolf, this picture will ruin your career.”
Guilt by association is an old story. It is an old Jewish story as well. The Pharisees, if you’ll remember, criticized Jesus for eating with prostitutes and tax-collectors, as if somehow their sins could contaminate the Logos. His response was to say that it is the sick who need the doctor and to dismiss the idea that anything that goes into a man’s mouth makes him unclean. No, the Christian believes that it is what comes out of your mouth and heart that makes you unclean, and this statement posits the a fortiori truth that we are not responsible for what comes out of someone else’s mouth.
So, as the pope once said, “Be not afraid, Peter.” When it comes to guilt by association, the choice is fairly clear: we can choose the Logos which sets us free to engage the world in dialogue and allows us Christian freedom of association, or we can succumb to Jewish taboo and fear of the Jews and the constant anxiety that we can at any moment be expelled from the synagogue of political correctness and respectability by an involuntarily incurred instance of intellectual ritual impurity. Once our culture turned away from Christ and began to embrace the Talmud, fear of ritual impurity would become one of the main instruments of political control, a fact nowhere more evident than in Washington.
The more we delve into this matter the more evident the hypocrisy associated with guilt by association becomes, as one of the main forms of political control. To get back to our original instance, John Sharpe is being demonized by the character assassins at the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-Semite because he attended an American Renaissance conference. Yet, if we log on to the SPLC website and type American Renaissance into their search engine, we find that the SPLC has good things to say about that racist organization. In fact, a quick search of the SPLC web site informs us that AR president Jared Taylor is “an opponent of anti-Semitism.” Shawn Mercer, the man in charge of the American Renaissance’s web discussion group, we are told, “deletes most postings excoriating the Jews.” This only confirms what we have learned from other sources. In an obit on Sam Francis which appeared in the American Conservative, we were told that Jared Taylor wanted to do for white nationalism what William F. Buckley did for conservatism. And what is that? Well, to subvert it in the interests of the Jews. One of the entries at the SPLC site claims that “It is well-known that the American Renaissance does not allow anti-Semitism; it is uptown, 100% clean WN [white nationalism]. Call it a first step if you like, but it is a very important first step, and Jared Taylor has had success.”
Success in what? The dirty secret of “uptown” racism is that it offers cover to revolutionaries by claiming that Jews are white—hence Sam’s question, hence the uproar my exploration of that question caused among the “uptown” race crowd. As I said in my talk, the real armature of the culture wars is ethnic not racial. The American Renaissance is exactly what John Sharpe said it was, although not quite in the way that he intended. The American Renaissance is the white man’s version of the NAACP, which is to say, one more organization which manipulates the race issue in the interests of the revolutionary Jews. The main purpose of the American Renaissance is to convince deracinated Protestants that Jews are white, and, therefore, no threat to their interests. In obscuring the problem by playing the race card, the American Renaissance engages in cultural mystification every bit as much as the NAACP and the Black Panthers, two Jewish-run operations, did before them. In obscuring the real nature of the culture wars, white nationalism becomes a form of political control and a worthy successor to the Jewish-led black operation known as conservatism. No wonder the race crowd was upset with my talk.
The race crowd, it turns out, was more upset by my talk than the Jews. Even though I identified the revolutionary Jew as our enemy, I made it clear that insofar as he follows Logos, the Jew is not our enemy. If the Jew accepts the Higher Logos known as Catholic Christianity, he is not only not our enemy, he is one of us. Throughout history, Jews have rejected the rejection of Logos, and when they did one of the first things they proposed was burning the Talmud. When Joseph Pfefferkorn converted to Catholicism in 1507, he gave expression to his new-found zeal for the faith by wanting to burn the Talmud, and the Cologne Dominicans supported him in his desire.
Nothing much has changed since then. The chattering class both then (i.e., Erasmus and the humanists) and now was distinguished not so much by their love for the Jews as by their skepticism about the efficacy of baptism to change Jewish DNA, as if that were the issue. Both then and now, the Jews who follow Logos and the Jewish converts to the higher Logos saw that racism deprived the Jew of both his reason and his humanity. He was nothing more than a function of his wicked DNA, which baptism could not change and which Logos could not touch.
One of the people who attended the talk and who was not afraid to have her picture taken with me (she, in fact, took many of the pictures) was Kristin Kazyak, a spiritual daughter of Nicholas Donin, Joseph Pfefferkorn, and Edith Stein. She was, in other words, a Jewess who had accepted the Higher Logos and was, therefore, one of us:
I heard Jones speak on March 20, 2007 at the Sam Francis conference at the Natl Press Club and frankly, of all those who spoke Jones distinguished himself by a presentation that was well-reasoned coupled with a delivery and demeanor that fitted the type of intellectual discussion desired, needed and invited.
Sadly, a couple of those on the panel, either because they knew or hob knobbed with Sam Francis were, in fact, emotionally disturbed dysfunctionals who projected their racism and virulently anti-Catholic bigotry both during their own lectures and also by disrupting the conference with startling, as well as, embarrassing irrational acts and statements.
When Jones failed to join them, they realized — like the Liberals at Vatican II — they stood alone (foiled again which really exorcised them to projectile vomit and foam at the mouth) in highlight with their racist and bigoted statements and antics — engraved and burned for public consumption on DVD and C-SPAN, and in VIVID contrast with Jones and the other guest lecturers who were well reasoned and who exhibited their good will (and good manners).
Being of Jewish descent (and not merely having a Jewish great-great-great grandmother but a Jewish Mother and the very same Jewish Mother who conceived Jesus Christ making Him one with His “People of The Name” — the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mother Mary) with family members in Kozienice exterminated at Treblinka and Auschwitz http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/Kozienice/kozXI.html#K I have no sympathy for homosexuals (no descendants of Lot here) and little sympathy for empty-headed demi-political Catholics (Protestants and Liberal Revolutionary Jews) who fall for the homosexual agenda and attack “neo-cons” for crawling OUT of the dank black scummy swamps of Chaos made by Gay-jewish Revolutionaries, only to find themselves stumbling about on stony ground during a BLACKOUT near-total eclipse of Faith and Reason (while the winds and gates of Hell howl in vain maelstrom against the Church).
In working the crowd after the talk Kazyak found that, even though (or perhaps, because) I identified the revolutionary Jew as the enemy, the Jews she spoke to were more sympathetic to my talk than the racists were:
I’ve found nothing in Jones’ book or his speech at the Sam Francis conference that Fr John A Hardon, SJ (Saint pending) or Pope Benedict XVI would not agree with entirely. I spoke with an undercover Jew (or two) at the conference who (being of right reason and ergo “lower logos”) agreed as well and then some with Jones! I would suggest a near future conference to include E. Michael Jones and Rabbi Levin and certain others (of similar Moral Virtue and intellectual fortitude) — it’s time WE came out with our Light from under the bushel (her emphasis).
The doors of our conference MUST be closed to ALL intellectual and moral predators. (Leave faggots to shout their racism and anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish bigotry at Queer Nation conferences — they can buy our unedited DVDs). I think Sam’s conference dug the graves for some of his former “hanger-ons” who have neither the moral nor intellectual capacity to follow Sam to the Higher Logos. I don’t think they like being left behind, but that Is LIFE, and the difference between willing LIFE and choosing death.
They can continue to choose death. Sam willed Life. We can pray for those who choose the gods of Chaos rather than the One God, Who Is Love, Truth and Life but I’d fire up our thermonuclear detonators along with our laser swords and shields and beg the Angel with the Flaming Sword, as well, to keep the Chaos OUT (demoniacs can gnash their teeth outside our conference doors) and Eternally far from US in the event of any future conferences — open to all men of good will who love the Truth — both lower logos and Higher Logos.
So what I said in my talk about the Jewish subversion of the civil rights movement and the Jewish attempt to turn the Negro into the revolutionary vanguard in the United States is a fortiori true of white racism. The SPLC supports “uptown” racism of the American Renaissance variety, because the SPLC, like the NAACP before it, is an essentially Jewish organization. Supporting “uptown” racism absolves the revolutionary Jew of any responsibility in the culture wars by giving them the cover of being “white,” and once they are certified as white, they are certified as “good” because of their DNA. How any one can believe this mumbo jumbo is beyond me. If you want a more detailed explanation, I suggest that you contact Jared Taylor.
So, the answer to the question Sam Francis posed and which began my talk, “Are Jews white?” is yes. Jews are white in the eyes of the American Renaissance, and as a result the SPLC, which is a Jewish organization, which is ostensibly against racism, supports them in their efforts to redefine Jews out of the cultural equation. Once race becomes the all-important issue, Jews disappear from the radar screen because, well, because they are not black. John Sharpe, on the other hand, who is being attacked because he is Catholic and upholds the traditional Catholic position on the Jews is demonized as an anti-Semite because of his tenuous association with a group, American Renaissance, which the SPLC goes out of its way to certify as not anti-Semitic.
Is that clear? No? If it isn’t, it’s because guilt by association is fundamentally irrational. It is the hallmark of a group of people who derive their identity from hatred of Logos. Insofar as we embrace the Logos, we are absolved from these fears. Just as Jesus could eat with whores and tax-collectors, we can get our pictures taken with Joe Sobran and Willis Carto and even people like Peter Brimelow without fear of contamination. The more we embrace the light, the less we will be kept in the dark by the deliberate manipulation of racial doctrines whose purpose is to keep us all divided, confused, and full of fear.