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

 Remember My Information

 TeasersE. Michael Jones Blogview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hexenhammer Debate
🔊 Listen RSS

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

🔊 Listen RSS

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



🔊 Listen RSS

“The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people.”

— Samuel Francis

American Renaissance Conference, May 1994

“In sum, the diminution and rupture of the human family and the rise of identity politics are not only happening at the same time. They cannot be understood apart from one another.”

— Mary Eberstadt, Primal Screams

It was sheer coincidence, which of course does not exist in the mind of God, that allowed me to take part in this year’s Arbaeen march organized largely by Iraqi Shi’a in Dearborn, Michigan. My opportunity to go on the real Arbaeen pilgrimage from Najaf to Karbala in Iraq to mourn the death of Hussein ibn Ali at the hands of the wicked Khalif Yazid had been thwarted by an unexpected surgery three years ago. Participating in the American replication of that march was more interesting from a sociological point of view because it allowed me to ponder one of the fundamental pillars of ethnic life in America, namely, the Triple Melting Pot. For those who are unaware of its existence, the Triple Melting Pot is “a metaphor that describes a pattern of assimilation in which various nationality groups merge through intermarriage, but with a strong tendency to do so within the three major religious groupings: Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish.” The Triple Melting Pot argues that “as immigrants assimilated into American culture, religious boundaries would replace ethnic boundaries as the main point of differentiation among people of European descent in the United States.”

In spite of the claim in the Pledge of Allegiance that we are “one nation under God,” America is a country of three nations or ethnic groups under God based on three religions, Protestant, Catholic, and Jew. Religion, in other words, is the source of ethnic identity in America. According to Will Herberg, the most famous popularizer of the Triple Melting Pot concept, America demanded that immigrants learn how to speak English “from the very beginning,” but “we did not really expect a man to change his faith,” because “almost from the beginning, the structure of American society presupposed diversity and substantial equality of religious associations.” Religion supplied the identity which was missing after the third generation lost its immigrant grandparents’ language. Unlike the foreign language which separated immigrants from their new American neighbors, “the old ethnic religion” was:

both genuinely American and a familiar principle of group identification. The connection with the family religion had never been completely broken, and to religion, therefore, the men and women of the third generation now began to turn to define their place in American society in a way that would sustain their Americanness and yet confirm the tie that bound them to their forebears, whom they now no longer had any reason to reject, whom indeed, for the sake of a “heritage,” they now wanted to “remember.” Thus “religion became the focal point of ethnic affiliations.… Through its institutions, the church supplied a place where children could learn what they were.…”

Herberg based his understanding of the Triple Melting Pot on an article by Ruby Jo Kennedy which appeared in the January 1944 issue of the American Journal of Sociology under the title “Single or Triple Melting Pot?” That article analyzed marriage patterns among large nationality groups in New Haven, Connecticut and found that “while strict ethnic endogamy is loosening, religious endogamy is persisting.” Catholics, Kennedy discovered:

married Catholics in 95.35% of the cases in 1870, 85.78% in 1900, 82.05% in 1930, and 83.71% in 1940; members of Protestant stocks married Protestants in 99.11% of the cases in 1870, 90.86% in 1900, 78.19% in 1930, and 79.72% in 1940; Jews married Jews in 100% of the cases in 1870, 98.82% in 1900, 97.01% 1930, and 94.32% in 1940.

After reviewing the data, Kennedy concluded that: “The traditional ‘single melting pot’ idea must be abandoned, and a new conception, which we term the ‘triple melting pot’ theory of American assimilation, will take its place, as the true expression of what is happening to the various nationality groups in the United States” and that this division “seems likely to characterize American society in the future.” After three generations in America, when the grandchildren of the first wave of immigration had lost the language of its forebears, the religious community becomes the “over-all medium” in which “remaining ethnic concerns are preserved, redefined and given appropriate expression.” Being a generic American wasn’t enough. Ethnic identity was essential because it answered the basic question: Who am I? Herberg points out that:

When an American asks of a new family in town, “What does he do?”, he means the occupation or profession of the head of the family, which helps define its social-class status. But when today he asks, “What are they?”, he means to what religious community do they belong, and the answer is in such terms as: “They’re Catholic (or Protestant, or Jewish).” A century or even half a century ago, the question, “What are they?”, would have been answered in terms of ethnic-immigrant origin: “They’re Irish (or Germans, or Italians, or Jews).”

This means that those who lack religious affiliation in America lack identity. As Herberg puts it: “Unless one is either a Protestant, or a Catholic, or a Jew, one is a “nothing”; to be a “something,” to have a name, one must identify oneself to oneself, and be identified by others, as belonging to one or another of the three great religious communities in which the American people are divided.”


Will Herberg died on March 26, 1977, long before Muslim immigration became a significant issue in American life, largely thanks to the 1965 Immigration Bill proposed by New York’s Jewish Senator Jacob Javits. The intention of the bill was to dilute European ethnicity, but the Jewish intervention into immigration also denied Muslims a place in the Triple Melting Pot. Herberg is adamant in insisting that “in order to be ‘something’ one must be either a Protestant, a Catholic, or a Jew” in a negative sense which excluded Muslims. Jews had a place at the table, but the church played the main role in “identity politics” in the 1950s, because “the church supplies a place where children come to learn what they are.”

Ten years ago, I attempted to make this point at a memorial service for the paleo-conservative thinker Sam Francis when I claimed that the culture wars weren’t fought along racial lines, but they were fought along ethnic lines. Sam and I were both “white,” whatever that meant, but we belonged to two different ethnic groups because ethnicity in America is based on religion. I then brought up the Triple Melting Pot and claimed that America far from being some unified nation inhabited by generic Americans turns out to be a lot like the former Yugoslavia, a country made up of three ethnic groups based on three religions, each engaged in a form of long-standing covert (and in Yugoslavia, oftentimes overt) warfare against each other. As I attempted to show in my book The Slaughter of Cities, one of the most common forms of warfare in both America and Yugoslavia involves ethnic cleansing.

I bring up the connection between Sam Francis and the Triple Melting Pot now because the posthumous publication of his book Leviathan and its Enemies has sparked renewed interest in his writings. Francis, according to an article by Matthew Rose in First Things:

🔊 Listen RSS

The conventional narrative on climate change got a new lease on life when Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish environmental activist, arrived in New York to address the United Nations General Assembly in September. As if to lend heightened drama to her entrance, Greta arrived from her native Sweden not by plane but by sail boat, crossing the Atlantic at the height of hurricane season with her father to lessen their carbon footprint. The fact that the sailboat was in fact one of the Rothschild family’s racing yachts came out only after the fact, as did the fact that the entire crew along with Greta and her father were scheduled to fly back to Sweden after their stay in America, but these inconvenient truths exposing who was behind the agenda did little to diminish the drama surrounding her arrival.2

The main-stream media greeted Greta as the child Messiah of climate change. Influenced by all of the hype emanating from New York, the Church of Sweden, which was the state church until it got disestablished in 2000, re-tweeted their “Announcement!” of December 1, 2018, declaring that “Jesus of Nazareth has now appointed one of his successors, Greta Thunberg.”3

The Swedes had a long history of turning climate change into a sacred cause. In an article which dismissed the climate change hysteria surrounding Thunberg’s visit as a moral panic, retired MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen mentioned the crucial role which Swedes like Olaf Palme, the father of Swedish social engineering, played as early as the 1970s, when he served on the board of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.4 It was the IPCC’s predictions about carbon dioxide which played a crucial role in converting Greta’s mother to the climate change cause. Or as she put it:

Around 30 years ago, James Hansen stood before the US congress and explained why global warming wasn’t a myth. “We can say with 99 percent certainty that global warming is not caused by natural variations but rather by human releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.” He declared on June 23, 1988.5

Missing from Ernman’s account is the fact that Gavin Schmidt:

Jim Hansen’s successor at NASA’s New York shop, GISS, has remarked that “general statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media.” He went on to say that it takes only a few seconds’ thought to realise that the popular perceptions that “global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time” is “nonsense.”6

Henrik Palmgren, founder and editor of Red Ice, documented Greta’s connection to Swedish political circles, calling her “a manufactured asset constructed by the very elites she claims to be fighting.”7 Her fame comes from the fact that she organized a school strike for climate on August 20, 2018, all by herself, or at least that was how it was portrayed in the main stream media. Missing from that account was any mention of Ingmar Rentzhog, director of the organization known as Climate Change: We Don’t Have Time, who just happened to be walking by the Swedish Parliament on the morning of August 20, 2018 and just happened to bump into Greta.8 Rentzhog was a graduate of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, who shared the stage at the Climate Parliament with Melania Ernman, who just happened to be Greta’s mother. Rentzhog had been informed of Greta’s protest a week before by another Swedish climate activist. Far from being a loner, Greta was the flower of what Henrik called “an incestuous circle of energy sector social democrats,” in addition to being the product of four generations of social engineering in Sweden.

She was also—perhaps because of that fact—mentally ill, a fact which prompted Fox News commentator Michael Knowles to claim that “the climate hysteria movement is not about science.” If it were about science, Knowles continued, “it would be led by scientists rather than by politicians and a mentally ill Swedish child who is being exploited by her parents and by the international left.”9 Knowles’ claim prompted a “visceral reaction” from liberal pundit Christopher Hahn, who abandoned his role as commentator and became instead a defender of the conventional climate narrative by portraying Knowles’ as “a grown man . . . attacking a child.”

“Shame on you, skinny boy,” Hahn shouted at Knowles. “She’s trying to save the planet because your president doesn’t believe in climate change. You are despicable for talking about her like that on national television and you should apologize to her right now.”

Fox News spared Knowles the effort by apologizing for him. In a statement to The Daily Beast, a spokesman for Fox News said, “The comment made by Michael Knowles who was a guest on The Story onight was disgraceful—we apologize to Greta Thunberg and to our viewers.”10 Fox News later told The Hollywood Reporter’s Jeremy Barr that it has no plans to book Knowles again as a guest.11


This is just an excerpt from Culture Wars Magazine, not the full article. To continue reading, purchase the November, 2019 edition of Culture Wars Magazine.

🔊 Listen RSS

“Most philosophers, rightly or wrongly, believe that philosophy . . . can give us knowledge, not otherwise attainable, concerning the universe as a whole and concerning the nature of ultimate reality.”[1]

At the beginning of 2015, I spent six weeks traveling through India. The Catholics are a tiny minority in a sea of over one billion people, most of whom are Hindu. But they have a significant cultural asset. They have established a network of schools which are the best in India. Because of that fact, 80 percent of the students attending those schools are Hindus. I met one of those students at a Catholic school I visited in Delhi. After I gave a short talk to an English class of 16 year olds, a Hindu teenager by the name of Samil stood up and asked if I could come up with a scientific proof for the existence of God.

He asked this question because he lived in a culture which had lots of religion and lots of science, but no coherent explanation of how the one related to the other. I discovered this during a trip to Mumbai where my guide, Fr. Cyril Fernandes (who had founded four Catholic schools himself), took me to that city’s temple of Ganisha. Fr. Cyril assures me that it’s famous, and if the crowd is any indication, what he said must be true. To get in you have to take your shoes off and get in line with the worshippers. Before we got to the big attraction, we had to pass by two big silver mice. The Hindus approach them with garlands which they put around the mice’s necks. One man placed what looked like a saddle blanket or doily over a mouse’s back, bent down and whispered his prayers, which is to say his requests, into the mouse’s ear. The mouse is then supposed to scamper off and tell God what he just heard. So, instead of, “From your mouth to God’s ear,” it’s “From your mouth to the mouse’s ear to God’s ear.” His wife and children then did the same.

The main show was a bit disappointing after that. The idol of Ganisha, the chubby fellow with the elephant’s head, was gold with a silver background, but disappointingly small, especially after I saw the three-story tall monkey god Hanuman in Delhi. The Hindu priest was bare-chested but wearing a saffron skirt. After taking the pilgrims’ offerings, he gave half of them back as a sort of quid pro quo.

After visiting Ganisha’s temple, we went directly to the Nehru Science Center, something like the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago or the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. As we stood in line to get in, I contemplated a mural just inside the front door entitled “Cosmic Evolution,” which attempted to portray the history of the cosmos from the Big Bang to the present. The passive voice abounded. At the beginning of absolutely everything, we were told, “Atoms formed.” The extensive use of the passive voice in the mural was a dead giveaway to the fact that “cosmic evolution” was another word for an attack on causality. To say that “Atoms formed” was the scientific equivalent to saying, “Shit happens.” The shit in question, according to the Nehru Science Center’s cosmology, had uncanny similarities to the traditional Hindu cosmology, symbolized by the image of the earth resting on the back of an elephant and an elephant standing on a turtle. From that point on, it’s turtles all the way down for both Nehru and Ganeesh.

The juxtaposition of the Hindu Temple and the Nehru Science Center on the Mumbai bus tour was instructive. The fact that India has gone from worshipping elephants, monkeys, and cobras to worshipping science, with no metaphysical experience in between, reminded me that G. B. Shaw described America as “a country that went from barbarism to decadence without finding civilization along the way.” So, India seems destined to become a country of cobra worshipping computer programmers. The Catholics could make a significant contribution through their educational system, but they seem disinclined to push the issue at the moment, perhaps because of India’s penchant for syncretism, perhaps because of the rise of Hindu nationalism and the forced conversions they are orchestrating among India’s Christians, or perhaps out of fear of losing their schools. During the course of my trip, I had a long philosophical discussion with another Catholic priest about Hindu philosophy. He says the Hindu concept of Maya, the world as a veil of illusion, is similar to Plato’s idea of the world of becoming, which is incomprehensible, as opposed to the forms or the world of being which is transcendent. Similarly, the Hindu concept neti neti—not this, not that—is not unlike the via negativa of the mystics.

I’m sure there are similarities, but in spite of them India is the land of 33 million gods where Logos died a long time ago. So, I was not surprised when Samil asked me to prove the existence of God, which I did in the following way: Nothing comes from nothing; there is something; therefore, there was never nothing. This something could not bring itself into existence, because to do that it would have to exist before it existed, which is impossible. Therefore, something else had to bring it into existence. That something is what Aristotle called the uncaused cause and the unmoved mover. Aquinas ends his proofs for the existence of God by saying that this being all men call God. There was a moment of stunned silence (or incomprehension), and then Samil asked me if time travel were possible and I said, “Of course, I’ve come from the future. The sexual revolution that America experienced in the ‘60s is happening in India now.” More stunned silence.

One of the best-known expositors of the dichotomy between religion and science in the English-speaking world was Bertrand Russell. Russell believed in an “ultimate reality” and he believed that he could know it and convey it to his readers because he was a philosopher, and “most philosophers, rightly or wrongly, believe that philosophy . . . can give us knowledge, not otherwise attainable, concerning the universe as a whole and concerning the nature of ultimate reality.”[2] Russell’s publisher felt the same way. On the frontispiece to An Outline of Philosophy, we read:

Throughout the book Russell attempts to reveal the sort of world in which, according to modern science, we really live and just how it differs from the world in which we seem to live. He makes clear the effect of modern scientific advance which has transformed our concept of the world; in this book the new world is presented with great clarity.[3]

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Philosophy, Religion and Philosophy 
🔊 Listen RSS

Midsommar is an overly long, ultimately incoherent American horror film set in Sweden. It is the fruit of cross-cultural collaboration. Ari Aster, the film’s director, is a Jew from New York City who was born in 1986 and grew up fascinated with horror movies. Aster felt the film was personally cathartic because it allowed him to combine fascination with the horror genre with the experience of breaking up with his girlfriend, which felt “apocalyptic, like the world is ending.” So, from Aster’s perspective, Midsommar is “a perverse wish fulfillment fantasy,” in which sex leads to horror. Aster is, however, quick to add: “Nobody in the movie is a surrogate for my ex-girlfriend. It’s not like this is what I want to do to my ex, but there is a feeling of you want to set fire to that part of yourself and that part of your life and move on clean because it’s so painful.”

The key to understanding the incoherence is the name given to the main character, whose name is “Christian.” The name is pregnant with significance, but ultimately incomprehensible given the way the director handles it. Aster’s explication of his use of the name in Midsommar is no better than his dramatization in the film. “Christian and his friends,” according to Aster, are unaware that “they’re all walking into a folk horror movie and that’s what the movie is going to be for them. But for [Christian’s girlfriend] Dani, by the end it’ll be revealed that in fact the movie is a fairy tale only for her.”

Don’t feel bad if you’re still in the dark because the movie makes no sense of the term either. “Christian” is one of a group of 20-something anthropology students who talk a lot about sex and take a lot of dope, but his behavior isn’t remotely Christian, not even in the hypocritical sense so beloved by Jewish movie directors. Christian’s friends spend most of the beginning of Midsommar trying to convince him to break up with his girlfriend Dani. Christian and his buddies live in a clearly post-Christian world, so post-Christian in fact that the only remnant of what this film is really about is the protagonist’s first name. The main character is Christian in name only; his name has nothing to do with his behavior. He is not an authority figure; he is a grad student in anthropology who has “no idea what his thesis is.”[2]

The film begins with scenes of Swedish woods in Haelsingland in winter and then cuts to a house in suburban Minnesota. “The neighborhood is very quiet,” but Dani, a grad student in Brooklyn, is worried about her family, after she gets a dark e-mail message from her sister, who writes: “I can’t anymore – everything’s black – mom and dad are coming too. Goodbye.” Worried that something bad is about to happen, Dani calls her boyfriend, “Christian,” who announces that he “just smoked some resin,” introducing the drug-use theme that will continue throughout the rest of the film. Christian is unavailable emotionally at Dani’s time of need.

“Christian” manifests this lack of concern for both Dani and her emotionally needy sister, whose imminent suicide, which involves the murder of her parents as well, is dismissed as “another clear ploy for attention.”3 Christian has become too self-absorbed to care about anyone but himself. So when Dani says to him “I’m really lucky to have you,” he replies, “Me too.” Dani then says, “I love you,” to which Christian replies, “So do I.” Christian is looking for a way out of what seems like a sexless relationship with Dani. After conferring with his 20-something grad student buddies at a pizza parlor in New York, Christian is told that he needs to “find some new chick who actually likes sex.” When fellow anthropology student Josh brings up Christian’s uncompleted Ph.D, the waitress gives Christian a seductive smile, and a discussion of those sexual possibilities ensues only to be broken off when Dani calls to say that her sister committed suicide, taking her parents with her, by filling their house with carbon monoxide from two cars in the garage. Back in Dani’s apartment, Christian holds his crying girlfriend while he “stares into space, imagining a future that he’s being chained to. He looks TRAPPED.” In the window behind the couple “HEAVY SNOW,” we are told, is “raging in a black vacuum.”

In order to understand Midsommar we have to go outside of a film that has difficulty telling its own story. Like most Hollywood films, Midsommer is a remake. Aster describes it as “a conjoined hybrid of The Wicker Man-style folk horror with the painful examination of heartbreak as in Modern Romance.” The 1973 film The Wicker Man has nothing to do with an affair gone bad. Quite to the contrary, it is the story of a man who believes that sex should be reserved for marriage, as well as a brilliant analysis of the rise of neo-paganism in Britain. The main character is a policeman, Sergeant Howie (played by Edward Woodward), who shows up on a remote island off the western coast of Scotland to investigate the disappearance of a 12-year-old girl. Shortly after his arrival, Sergeant Howie, who is a devout Christian and a virgin who is engaged to be married and shown as taking communion, is confronted by the rampant sexual decadence which has taken over the island. After a protracted struggle with temptation when the hotel’s waitress (played by Britt Eckland) tries to seduce him, Sergeant Howie loses no time explaining that he represents the Christian social order which the islanders have evidently abandoned. Whenever he tries to get something done or obtain a crucial bit of information, the islanders refer him to Lord Summerisle (played by Christopher Lee), who is the source of all authority on the island. On his way to Summerisle’s castle, Sergeant Howie notices a number of women dancing naked in a field on his property, leaping over a fire. The scene is right out of Euripedes’ Bacchae, and it has similar consequences for Sergeant Howie, who is now clearly identified with Pentheus, the ruler of Thebes, who must restore order after the arrival of Dionysos has lured the women away from their looms to dance naked on the mountain side. But Sergeant Howie is also something of an Oedipus figure because he is determined to find out who is responsible for the disappearance of the girl, no matter what the conseqences. Like Oedipus’s Thebes, which is suffering from the plague, Summerisle has experienced crop failures. The island became an agricultural powerhouse after Lord Summerisle’s Victorian freethinking grandfather introduced scientific farming principles and, more importantly, paganism, which is equally responsible for the resurgence of fertility there. Every year the natives make animal sacrifices, but when the crops fail nonetheless, the gods need human sacrifice, which means, in this instance, the missing girl Rowan Morrison, whom Sergeant Howie has come to find.

• Category: Arts/Letters, Ideology • Tags: Movies, Pornography 
Is it a Hate Crime to Call Roberta Kaplan a "chubby lesbian kike"?
🔊 Listen RSS

What is Hate Speech?

In keeping with the so-called “Christchurch Call to Action” which flowed from a meeting of government officials and internet giants on May 15, 2019 in Paris, Facebook issued an internal document entitled “Hate Agent Policy Review,” which, according to Breitbart, which received a copy from a source inside Facebook, “outlines a series of ‘signals’ that Facebook uses to determine if someone ought to be categorized as a ‘hate agent’ and banned from the platform.”[1]

The guidelines were simultaneously draconian and incoherent. You can be designated as a “hate agent” if “you praise the wrong individual, interview them, or appear at events alongside them.”[2] Hate agent status is evidently contagious because Facebook may designate you as a hate agent if you associate with a “Designated Hate Entity,” like the Englishman Tommy Robinson. You can also be designated a hate agent “merely for speaking neutrally about individuals and organizations that the social network considers hateful.” Facebook tagged someone in October of last year simply because he gave what they considered was a “neutral representation of John Kinsman,” who is a member of “Proud Boys,” a group which Facebook does not like and does not want you to like. So, in order to absolve yourself from any suspicion of being a “hate agent,” you have to hate what Facebook hates.

The main way to characterize someone as a “hate agent,” however, is to show that he engages in something called “hate speech.” On June 20, 2019, YouTube banned the video “Owen Benjamin Finding Logos with E. Michael Jones,” which had originally aired several months earlier on March 21. That interview was one of fourteen videos that YouTube banned from the E. Michael Jones channel on YouTube in June. As with other thirteen, the only explanation YouTube gave was that the video violated its rules concerning hate speech, i.e., “We also don’t allow any content that encourages hatred of another person or group of people based on their membership in a protected group.” YouTube’s notice did not identify the offending hate speech or the “protected group.”

The terms “hate agent” and “hate speech” are equally vague; however the latter term is easier to define because its origins are clear. Hate speech is a creation of the Anti-Defamation League, which touts itself as “the world’s leading anti-hate organization.”[3] Like the analogous term “anti-Semitism,” hate speech is any utterance which Jews at organizations like the ADL find offensive. As the incoherence of the Facebook guidelines have shown, it is impossible to understand the current wave of internet censorship unless we see it as a Jewish operation. This becomes apparent when we look at how the press is defining (or misdefining) the whole censorship/deplatforming issue. A recent article in Summit News attributed the banning of “Natural News, which had 2.5 million followers,” to “the fact that Facebook is now ruthlessly enforcing its far-left ideology across its own platform.”[4] The fact that many if not most Jews espouse a far-left ideology is undeniable, but it is also beside the point because “hate speech” is not a political designation; it was created by the Anti-Defamation League to silence speech Jews’ did not like.

Lest anyone think that is not the case, consider the “ADL Statement on YouTube Policy Changes to Reduce Extremist Content,” a June 5, 2019 press release in which the ADL praises itself for causing the just initiated YouTube purge of “hate speech” channels and videos and then demands more action by YouTube and other tech companies:

“Online hate and extremism pose a significant threat — weaponizing bigotry against marginalized communities, silencing voices through intimidation and acting as recruiting tools for hateful, fringe groups,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, ADL CEO and National Director. “That’s why ADL has been working with technology companies, including YouTube, to aggressively counter hate on their platforms. We were glad to share our expertise on this and look forward to continuing to provide input. While this is an important step forward, this move alone is insufficient and must be followed by many more changes from YouTube and other tech companies to adequately counter the scourge of online hate and extremism.”[5]

Jewish Mobster Meyer Lansky
Jewish Mobster Meyer Lansky

For those who don’t know, the ADL was created in the wake of the Leo Frank lynching in 1915 to engage in domestic spying and blackmail, if necessary, to protect Jewish interests in the United States. The ADL was also a money laundering operation. Jewish criminals like Meyer Lansky and Moe Dalitz got to label anyone who accused them of criminal activity an anti-Semite in exchange for large “charitable contributions” to the ADL. During Lansky’s heyday, the ADL wasn’t powerful enough to prevent his deportation, but that situation changed in the 1980s, when the ADL began its collaboration with the FBI. During this same decade, the ADL successfully rehabilitated Moe Dalitz by giving him their Torches of Liberty award, again in exchange for large charitable contributions to their organization.[6]

The ADL and The FBI

In 1928 a Russian Jew by the name of Meyer Lansky, who had grown wealthy from bootlegging in New York, correctly foresaw the end of prohibition in America and decided to re-invest the ill-gotten gains he had made from bootlegging in gambling. After the repeal of the Volstead Act in 1933, regional centers of vice like Newport, Kentucky re-tooled and became involved in gambling and prostitution. Loansharking provided a crucial link between the speakeasies of the past and the casinos of the future. After the stock market crash of 1929, bankrupt businessmen turned to Jewish bootleggers like Lansky for loans, setting in motion a process which would continue for decades, until by the ’70s, “the lines separating the legal and illegal had become almost indistinct.”[7]

🔊 Listen RSS

The big issue at Sister’s shamba is the construction of the fish farm. The water is there during the rainy season. All that is necessary to produce fish is building three terraced retention ponds at the back of the property which slopes gradually and then abruptly into a ravine which is dry during most of the year. The technology is already there. The first step is the removal of the eucalyptus trees on the slope. The second step is the digging out of the terraces and the construction of the walls that will retain the water in the ponds. This can be done with the mud from the slope and the wood from the eucalyptus trees. In one of the houses we visited, the husband had just closed up a doorway, exposing the construction of the wall, which was made of woven branches which provided the latticework that supported the mud. He was letting the mud dry before he applied the final coat.

The same technique, covered with rubberized paper available from the fisheries ministry could be applied here. The big question is the mobilization of labor. Samuel, the man who constructed the wall, and Sister’s brother Caroly need to collaborate. First cut down the trees, then build the terraces, then bring in the fish, then raise them, then market them.

The fish farm can strengthen the subsistence economy of the shamba by providing a high value product that can be sold at local markets, but it cannot provide the transition from subsistence agriculture to an industrial wage economy. Only one thing can do that, and that is the manufacture of cloth.

In 14th century Italy, industry meant turning wool into cloth. Florentine cloth manufacture reached its zenith around the year 1350. Clothing was the first European industry, and it gave rise to the money economy as well as advances in keeping track of money and the organization of labor. The wool industry facilitated commerce as well, because the areas best suited for the production of wool were not necessarily the areas best suited for the manufacture of cloth. The best wool, the so-called Garbo wool, came from the Castilian tableland, where for centuries there was no cloth manufacturing. On the other hand:

the major centers of the medieval woolen industry—Flanders, Brabant, and northern France, certain towns of southern France, Lombardy, Venetia and Tuscany—did not derive their superiority from local flocks or pastures so much as from their trade, which enable them to import choice wools easily, even from a distance.38

The wool industry, which was in place by the end of the 12th century, facilitated the division of labor, which increased productivity. According to Schulte,

No medieval industry dissolved into such a number of successive tasks, performed by different persons, as the preparation of woolen goods. . . . Gaul provided the greatest variety of colored cloths; and the people who were looking for novelty took a fancy to the many colors. Flanders, where everyone made his material according to his own taste and sense of color sent to Germany its green and dark blue cloths for clothing the nobility, which did not know how to make such colors. However, even here we were not completely at a loss. The Rhine area produced lightweight black cloths for monks and nuns, the Swabians produced red cloth where the color was not dyed in the wool; and along the Danube materials with natural colors that were weather repellant (loden) were produced , than which there is no better cloth in all of Germany. . . .[39]

Division of labor in the wool industry not only fostered commerce, the medieval cloth industry was the source of modern economic development. The manufacture of wool cloth enabled a gradual transition from the natural economy to the city economy because it did not require a large capital outlay. The same process that was necessary to produce cloth for home consumption could simply be extended, and the surplus could be offered for sale on the international market, which fostered the circulation of money. The fact that different regions of Europe produced different kinds wool and, therefore, woolen cloth that served different needs led to increased commerce. The cloth produced in one region was desirable in other regions because each type of wool had unique qualities. The wool industry also fostered commerce because:

A cloth merchant, in order to satisfy all of his customers, had to provide commodities coming from a vast variety of sources. And just as he himself got his woven goods from far away, his producers had to provide for sales at great distances.[40]

Commerce as of the 11th century meant traveling to fairs like the famous fair of Champagne with bags of money and/or bolts of cloth:

In the large-scale export of northern cloth to the south and south-east, either from the centres of production or through the fairs of Champagne, Italian merchants were the most active and enterprising agents; and it was mainly due to them that northern draperies . . . were able to reach the principal markets of the Mediterranean. From the 11th century onwards, a growing number of “Lombard” merchants frequented the markets of France and the Low Countries, and this they did for the primary purpose of buying cloth. Indeed, the whole class of greater merchants in Italy built up their business and economic power on the local sale and re-export of foreign textiles.[41]

The fairs allowed the small merchant to transcend the limitations of local markets, but they brought with them other difficulties, most of which had to do with the dangers associated with travel: ‘The journey from Florence to Naples. . . bristled with difficulties and dangers. . . . The shortest route from Rome to Naples, the road through Terracina, had such an evil reputation that only troops and public officials dared to use it while all trade went round by sea.”[42] Couriers could travel by post horses from Venice to Bruges in seven or eight days,[43] but “It took four months, on average, to transport a bale of cloth from Flanders to Florence.”[44]

This system was eventually superseded when the merchants began to work with agents and correspondents and eventually developed the letter of credit, a Florentine invention:

Manufacturing on this scale required unprecedented sophistication in the organization of both labor and finance. Increased commerce led to the need for increasingly sophisticated forms of payment and book-keeping. The new methods of trade developed by the Italian city states, “especially the growing tendency to do business by correspondence,”[45]

Cloth revolutionized commerce during the latter part of the 13th century. The bill of exchange made it possible to transfer purchasing power from place to place without the shipping of actual coins. As a result, it became unnecessary for the merchants to convey their goods themselves and to travel in armed caravans. Goods could safely be entrusted to specialized common carriers on land as well as on sea. The development of maritime insurance made it possible to shift the sea risk to underwriters instead of dividing that risk by chartering space on several different ships.[46] […]

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Africa, Poverty