');
The Unz Review •�An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Topics Filter?
Abortion Academia ADL Africa American Media American Military Anti-Semitism Anti-Vaxx Arts/Letters Black Lives Matter Blacks Catholic Church Catholicism Censorship Christianity Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Covid Culture/Society Donald Trump Economics FBI Foreign Policy France Gays/Lesbians Gaza Germany Hamas History Hollywood Holocaust Ideology Iran Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Joe Biden Judaism Movies Nazi Germany Neocons Neoliberalism Philosophy Political Correctness Pornography Poverty Protestantism Race And Religion Race/Ethnicity Roe Vs. Wade Russia Sam Francis Science Terrorism Turkey Ukraine White Americans White Nationalism World War II 2020 Election 2024 Election AI Alain Soral Alexander Dugin Alt Right America First Anglican Antifa Antiracism Antony Blinken Architecture Armenia Armenian Genocide Ayn Rand Azerbaijan Benjamin Netanyahu Bioweapons Bolshevik Revolution Britain British Empire China Civil Liberties Comedy Communism Croatia Dave Chappelle Deborah Lipstadt European Right French Revolution Gay Marriage Global Warming Google Greta Thunberg Hate Speech Immigration Internet Ireland Isolationism Jared Taylor JCPOA Jordan Peterson Judicial System Kamala Harris Kanye West Kyrie Irving LGBT Libertarianism Max Weber Merrick Garland Middle East Monarchy National Review NATO Nazis Nord Stream Pipelines Organized Crime Original Pete Buttgieg Qassem Soleimani Race Racial Reality Racism Religion Religion And Philosophy Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Salman Rushie Serbia William F. Buckley World War I World War III Yuval Noah Harari Zionism
Nothing found
Sources Filter?
Print Archives12 Items •�Total Print Archives •�Readable Only
Books Chronicles
Nothing found
TeasersE. Michael Jones Blogview

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

The Brutalist is a “visually arresting”[1] mash-up of purloined identities whose only coherence comes from the Jewish revolutionary spirit, which is the film’s hidden grammar. Revolution results in a world turned upside-down, which is what happened to America after World War II, largely because of the Jewish immigrants who arrived as refugees from the Holocaust. The visual representation of that revolutionary spirit is epitomized by the film’s edgy cinematography, which portrays the main character (played by Adrian Brody) Laszlo Toth’s arrival in America symbolically by treating us to an upside-down shot of the Statue of Liberty.

Toth is a Jewish immigrant and Holocaust refugee who comes to New York for a better life. He is also an accomplished architect who learned his trade under Walter Gropius at Bauhaus Dessau. A common experience among immigrants of that generation, Jewish or otherwise, is that America did not recognize their old-world credentials, setting the stage for a classic immigrant drama that is as old as Benjamin Franklin, who arrived in Philadelphia penniless from Boston and proceeded to become the classic American success story. Among his many accomplishments, Franklin created the United States of America. Jewish immigrants after World War II turned that country upside down. According to the New York Times, the newspaper which helped Jews accomplish that feat:

One of the first images in “The Brutalist” is an upside-down shot of the Statue of Liberty, a disorienting, topsy-turvy angle that conveys László’s literal point of view as he emerges from the darkened depths of the ship that has carried him to America. The statue is already heavily freighted with complex, contradictory meaning that László embodies and is a harbinger of his destabilized story. It’s also an emblem of [Director Brady] Corbet’s ambitions.[2]

Precisely. Brady Corbet can now chime in with Kate Winslet, who said “now I’ve done my fucking Holocaust movie” after winning that year’s obligatory Holocaust Oscar for playing a child molester in The Reader. When it comes to ambitious young directors like Brady Corbet, the surest way to garner an Oscar nomination is by directing a Holocaust film. But as last year’s edgy film Zone of Interest proved, without showing one scene from Auschwitz, the Holocaust can only be shown obliquely after Steven Spielberg had hot water come out of the showerheads instead of poison gas in Schindler’s List. The Brutalist takes this desire to evoke what no one dare examine any more, i.e., what actually happened in the concentration camps, one step further by removing the mise en scene to America in the years following World War II.

After turning the Statue of Liberty, the symbol of the immigration story, upside down, Corbet upends the moral order by making Toth’s first stop after getting of the boat a whore house. The viewer is then treated to the first of a number of increasingly graphic sex scenes, including clips of actual 1940s-era pornography which disfigure this film. The scene also introduces the viewer to the sexual double standard which renders the film incoherent. Sex is a sign of revolutionary commitment when Toth gets a blow job from a whore, but it is a sign of repugnant terminal decadence when the scion of the Presbyterian industrialist who is Toth’s patron sits down by a stream next to Toth’s niece. Toth projects his own sexual decadence onto the culture which welcomed him as a justification for Jewish resentment and sotto voce condemnations of America as a horrible place, which finds vindication at the end of the film in a bizarre turn of the plot whose only explanation is Jewish resentment seeking a cause for its existence. But more on that later.

The sex scenes in The Brutalist were so disorienting that they spawned an entire thread on Reddit trying to make sense of them. Odd Emotion5 concludes:

Ultimately, the sexuality in The Brutalist feels like an ambitious but clumsy way to explore identity, displacement, and the cracks in the American Dream. It’s meant to unsettle, and it clearly does, but whether it succeeds in enriching the narrative or simply derailing it is up for debate. Your frustration with how these scenes inject themselves into the story is valid because they often feel like they’re vying for attention rather than organically developing the themes.[3]

Another blogger cited the conversation which takes place between Laszlo and his wife Erzsebet after they have been united in American thanks to the generosity of Laszlo’s patron and the acumen of his lawyer. Instead of expressing gratitude, Mrs. Toth whispers about visions of Toth’s infidelities, but they immediately get projected onto the WASP industrialist as examples of how horrible America is. According to Odd Emotion, the brothel scene expresses Toth’s “disconnect from intimacy and his inability to feel grounded, even in America, the land of his supposed dreams.” Anyone whose thought was grounded in a psychology rooted in an understanding of the moral law would have said that the cause Toth’s inability to feel “grounded” in America was his violation of the moral law. Sin causes alienation, not liberation as the revolutionary Jews still tell us. The guilt which invariably accompanies that alienation then gets projected onto the host country as anti-Semitism, which then justifies more subversive activity, which eventually creates genuine animosity against the group which tried to help the Jews escape from Hitler. This vicious circle explains the hidden grammar of The Brutalist and why the viewer feels so dissatisfied with a plot that needs a deus ex machina to resolve its internal contradictions.

The Brutalist is a Holocaust film, apres la lettre. It is about what happened to America after a war which became synonymous with Jewish suffering in concentration camps, largely because Hollywood created the Holocaust genre over the last 80 years to secure control over American culture. In case you missed the Senate hearings, every time Senator Josh Hawley caught a Jew in the Biden administration with his hand in the till or his pants down in flagrant dereliction of his duty, that Jew invariably replied, “I have relatives who died in the Holocaust” as a way of deflecting any further criticism.

In confecting The Brutalist, Director Brady Corbet has taken a number of narratives surrounding immigration to America and turned them upside down by integrating all of them into the Jewish revolutionary spirit as the lens which unites them. Revolution turns the world upside down. Corbet documents that inversion in his bid to get as many Holocaust-reserved Oscars on a miniscule $10 million budget by describing what Jews like the fictional Laszlo Toth did to the country which gave them asylum from the Nazis. The Brutalist seethes with Jewish hatred of America, as manifested by the troubled relationship between Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, America’s three main ethnic groups after World War II.

E. Michael Jones and I break it down

Rumble link Bitchute link FFWN link

Stripe deplatformed me. Here are the workarounds: Spotfund Paypal NEW go-to free speech system SPDonate

Video Link

On December 10, 1896, a new king seized the throne in Paris: King Ubu. It happened during the one and only public performance of Alfred Jarry’s play Ubu Roi, which begins with a bloodcurdling scream “sheeeeee-it!” and only gets more vulgar from there.

When Trump was first elected president in 2016, quite a few commentators noticed that Trump is an American Ubu. As Charles Simic explained in the New York Review of Books:

The only character I can think of in the world literature who resembles Donald Trump is Père Ubu in the play Ubu Roi (“Ubu the King”) by Alfred Jarry that famously opened and closed in Paris on December 10, 1896, after starting a riot. A parody of Shakespeare’s Macbeth and now a classic of the theater of the absurd and the forerunner of the Dada and Surrealism movements, the play is a depiction of the lust for power, full of insolent nonsense and violent horseplay. Père Ubu is a buffoonish pretender to the throne of Poland, a brutal and greedy megalomaniac who, after killing off the royal family, starts murdering his own population in order to rob them of their money. One audience member at the premiere of the play, the Irish poet William Butler Yeats, was aghast at what he had witnessed and reputedly said afterward: “What more is possible? After us, the Savage God.”

That’s how elites are reacting to Trump’s chaotic restoration: “What more is possible? After us, the Savage God.” But the commoners are cheering. They like Trump’s “deport ‘em all” rhetoric, his trashing of DEI and gender-bending, his withdrawal from the WHO and banning gain-of-function research, his threatening political enemies with retribution (including revoking Secret Service protection for Pompeo and Bolton), his releasing assassination records, banning censorship and saving TikTok, pardoning the J-6 protestors and abortion protestors, banning Central Bank Digital Currencies…and above all, promising to restore economic prosperity for working people….though the details, involving invasions of Greenland and Canada and Panama, trade wars and tariffs against the whole world, and ending restrictions on drilling for oil and gas, more tax cuts for the rich, even more lavish and wasteful military spending, and so on, are questionable.

Though Trump’s gangsterish threats to Pompeo and Bolton are both entertaining and defensible, his g enocide-endorsing call to “clean out” Gaza of its human population is Ubu-esque in the bad sense. Trump’s incitement to genocide, which in a civilized world would trigger his summary execution, is presumably related to Kosher Nostra son-in-law Kushner’s plan to develop the ‘very valuable’ potential of Gaza’s ‘waterfront property’ and make billions of dollars for ubu-rich Jewish genocidal gangsters like himself.

Was Alfred Jarry an Antisemite?

It is of course a well-known antisemitic trope that rich Jews are excruciatingly vulgar and greedy beyond belief.* If they weren’t robbing us blind, robbing the Palestinians even blinder (not to mention deader), committing an in-your-face genocide while mendaciously inverting their own racist history of despising and persecuting and dispossessing goyim, and generally crying out while they strike you—putting Western peoples, Middle Eastern peoples, and planet Earth in extreme jeopardy—we would all be rolling on the ground laughing at their Ubu-esque psychopathy.

Which raises the question: Since Ubu seems in many respects a quintessential Jew, was Jarry’s play a satirical depiction of the Jewish conquest of power in the West? In other words, was Jarry an antisemite? Should he be reported to the ADL so his works can be banned and his name first smeared, then forgotten, as has happened to most of the other great Western thinkers and creators who noticed the rise of Père Jewbu?

Since I don’t have Jonathan Greenblatt on speed-dial, I called on the next best thing, ChatGPT, to find out whether Jarry was an antisemite. The AI Oracle, which is hilariously wrong about almost everything,** told me:

•�Category: Ideology •�Tags: Donald Trump

Video Link

On October 10, Catholic Answers released a video by Trent Horn that asked the question “What’s wrong with holocaust denial and why Christians should reject this malicious form of pseudo-history.”[1] According to Trent Horn, “Holocaust denial is morally wrong.”[2] Catholic Answers, for those of you who don’t know is a Catholic apologetics operation founded by Karl Keating to combat Fundamentalists, who would routinely claim that the Church was the Whore of Babylon and other tropes of the Black Legend. Keating has retired and been replaced by Christopher Check, whom I met when he was Tom Fleming’s assistant at the Rockford Institute and Chronicles magazine. Chris is the man who allowed me to finish my sentence after I approached Tom at a meeting in Princeton and introduced myself as having just returned from the Balkans where I was doing research for an article on Medjugorje. Upon hearing that word, Tom walked away in mid-sentence, and it was years later, thanks to Chris’s efforts, that I was finally able to finish my sentence and tell Tom that I didn’t believe in the apparitions. Karl Keating attended one of my lectures on the Jewish revolutionary spirit in California. He left without asking any questions, leaving me half expecting a critical article on my thesis, but nothing happened. He did not denounce me, as he did Bob Sungenis, in a way I thought was unfair.

Video Link

So, since I am the author of a recent book in the Holocaust, and since I was known to both the current and previous heads of Catholic Answers, I was more than mildly surprised to hear Horn propose Sneako and Myron, two twenty-something internet personalities who, I believe, have never written books on anything, as authorities on the Holocaust. In handbooks on rhetoric this is know as creating a straw man. Sneako, as far as I know is a Muslim. Why he should be the target of a podcast aimed at Catholics is anyone’s guess. I suspect it was because he was an easy target and could be used to deny credibility to anyone who questioned the conventional holocaust narrative, a suspicion which deepened when Horn likened Holocaust revisionists to flat earthers and those who claimed that the moon landing was filmed on a back lot in Hollywood.

Which brings us to Trent Horn. Who is this guy, and why is he suddenly a spokesman for the Catholic Church? The answer to the second question is simple enough. Catholic Answers continues to use the term Catholic in its title even though others have been denied this privilege. Michael Voris used to call his media venture “Real Catholic TV” until Bishops Rhoades and Vigneron forced him to change its name. There was a move in the 1960s to force The National Catholic Reporter to remove the word Catholic from its masthead. I am unaware of any directive that Catholic Answers should drop the word Catholic from its name even though the focus of that operation has changed dramatically over the years from defending the faith against fundamentalists to keeping puzzled Catholics on a reservation patrolled by people who impose Jewish fables on Catholics in the name of Church teaching.

This is not the first time something like this has happened. In 1939, Auxiliary Bishop Bernard J. Shiel of Chicago helped establish the Committee of Catholics to Fight Anti-Semitism. To lend itself credibility, the Committee recruited well-known Catholics like Bing Crosby and the boxer Gene Tunney as well as the lesser-known Dorothy Day, foundress of the Catholic Worker movement, along with bishops and priests. Unlike Bing Crosby et al, who never heard back from the organization which used their names, Shiel remained involved but handed the leadership of the organization over to the Jewish convert Emmanuel Chapman, who had been a professor at Fordham University since 1936.

Chapman converted to Catholicism in 1926 in Paris, where he fell under the influence of Jacques Maritain, the French Thomist who would later find a home in America. The Committee published a newspaper known as The Voice, whose first issue featured a vicious attack on Father Charles Coughlin, the radio priest from Detroit, who had millions of followers nationwide and almost unanimous support among American Catholics.

As soon as Chapman accused Coughlin of being an anti-Semite, that support began to dwindle. Chapman had divided Catholics. Like Trent Horn, Chapman imposed Jewish categories like anti-Semitism on the Catholic faithful as if they were binding on their conscience. As we have come to expect, Chapman’s committee got favorable reviews in the mainstream Jewish media and many Catholic papers. The one exception was the Brooklyn Tablet, whose editor Pat Scanlon:

recognized that the attacks against Coughlin were intended to split Catholics. And Scanlon took the committee to task. He called the committee’s newspaper “a preposterous fraud.” For that Scanlon was on the receiving end of a significant backlash. After one year of operation the committee rebranded itself as the Committee of Catholics for Human Rights, and they took on a broader array of social issues.[3]

Video Link

Scanlon refused to back down even though by 1939 the committee, in spite of its name change, “had risen to prominence, thanks not least to its ties to the hierarchy in New York and New Jersey.” But in 1940, “the committee was rocked by a series of scandals and court cases which identified the group’s members as antifascists and crypto-Communists. The scandals led to the full removal of clerical support in 1940. . . . When the Committee for Human Rights shut its doors in 1940, it was because members of the Catholic hierarchy decided that its views were dangerously close to Communist contagion.”[4]

In 1942 Chapman was dismissed from his professorship at Fordham University, but as some indication that he still had support among a certain group of Catholics he “quickly found another teaching job at Hunter College,” whose president was George Shuster, who began his career in military intelligence and ended up becoming Theodore Hesburgh’s assistant at the University of Notre Dame. During the 1930s Shuster spirited Heinrich Bruening, head of the Catholic Central Party, out of Germany and got him an academic sinecure which Bruening later considered tantamount to house arrest. Shuster tried to align Germany’s Catholic bishops with the American cause and became the bagman who brought Rockefeller money to Notre Dame to fund a series of secret conferences from 1962 to 1965 to undermine the Church’s teaching on contraception..

By the time Chapman died in 1947 he had been exposed by Rabbi Benjamin Schulz as a Communist fellow traveler. His brother Abraham Chapman, who was the editor of the Yiddish language newspaper Die Freiheit fled the country and went to Mexico when it became clear that he was going to be asked to testify at the Senate Bella Dodd hearings.

Debating Dr. E. Michael Jones on False Flag Weekly New

Video Link

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link

Dr. E. Michael Jones and I forged our own Catholic-Muslim alliance back in February 2013, when we first met in person at the Hollywoodism conference in Tehran. I had convinced the Iranian organizers to invite Dr. Jones, who has a legitimate claim to being America’s leading Catholic intellectual.

During that conference, on the ride back to Tehran from Qom, E. Michael Jones prophesied a future Catholic-Muslim alliance. I opined that Pope Benedict wasn’t ready for it. Dr. Jones responded: “He won’t be Pope forever.” An hour or so later, as we entered the lobby of our hotel, we were surprised to see big screen TVs interrupting their regular programming with shock headlines: “Pope resigns! First time since 1415!”

Though part of Dr. Jones’ prophecy was realized with uncanny rapidity, we’re still waiting for the new Pope, Francis, to declare an official Catholic-Muslim alliance against the Zionist Antichrist. If I tell Mike “Francis isn’t ready for it” and Mike says “he won’t be Pope forever,” will Francis follow Benedict’s example and quickly resign? It might be worth a try. (From EMJ’s lips to God’s ear!) But since the Zionists and their freemasonic friends, sexual and otherwise, seem to hold sway in the Vatican, I wouldn’t put much faith in the next Pope, whoever he is, declaring an anti-Antichrist alliance.

Although E. Michael Jones and I agree on most things, we disagree on the TQ (Trump Question). A congenital optimist, Mike holds out hope that Trump was, on July 13, saved from an assassin’s bullet by a divine miracle—sparking a change of heart that may, insha’allah, lead Trump to do God’s work. I, on the other hand, am a “Trump pessimist.” While I acknowledge the occasional reality of divine miracles—after all, I studied them while preparing my Ph.D. dissertation on medieval and modern Moroccan miracle stories—I think the July 13 “Trump shooting,” which would indeed have required multiple miracles to have happened as advertised, has a more mundane explanation, like the Medjugorje fake miracles that Dr. Jones has ably debunked. Watch Dr. Jones and I argue about Trump and the “assassination attempt” starting at about 33:30 of the video posted above.

Based on his past record, Donald J. Trump strikes me as pretty much the last person on Earth who will ever participate in an anti-Antichrist alliance. Indeed, as Professor Anthony Hall reminds us, there were reasonably credible reports that, at the behest of his daughter Ivanka and her Kosher Nostra kingpin husband Jared Kushner, Trump converted to the messianic-millenarian Chabad Lubovich sect of Judaism in 2017. That sect is pulling out all the stops to bring on a “Jewish messiah” who will rule the world from a blood sacrifice temple in Jerusalem. That “messiah” would be the person Christians and Muslims call the Antichrist.

Trump’s over-the-top support for the genocide of Gaza burnishes his pro-Antichrist credentials.

My new American Free Press piece pictured above (subscribe to read the whole thing) begins by considering various positive sides of Trump’s campaign, including the participation of RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, before turning to the elephant in the room:

If Trump is fully committed to solving (America’s existential) problems, and turns smart people like Kennedy loose on them, he might wind up on Mount Rushmore. But Trump’s campaign (like RFK Jr.’s rhetoric) is still hobbled by a YUUUUUGE negative: his over-the-top support for Israel.

Trump recently angered veterans when he gave megadonor Miriam Adelson, a de facto agent of Israel, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Trump put his Zionist foot in his mouth by saying that the civilian Medal of Freedom is “actually better” than the Medal of Honor, which is only given to soldiers who are “either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets, or they’re dead.” Speaking of Miriam Adelson, a hideous crone whose even uglier husband Sheldon ruined the lives of countless gambling-addicted Americans, and was rumored to be an organized crime kingpin and mass murderer, Trump said: “She gets it and she’s a healthy beautiful woman and they’re rated equal but she got the Presidential Medal of Freedom.”

Miriam Adelson has reportedly offered Trump $100 million in return for a promise to greenlight “finishing the job” of the complete genocide of Palestine. That places both of them among the worst war criminals in all of history.

As he solicits colossal sums from mobsters in return for genocide endorsements, Trump continues to promise the Jewish lobby that he will be its biggest-ever slave (like he was during his first term, when he pushed through the “Satan Accords” of “abnormalization” that triggered the current war and genocide). Everywhere he goes, or at least everywhere where there is at least one rich Jew in the audience, Trump blathers about anti-Semitism and the horrors of the Holocaust. On August 17, Trump told Fox and Friends: “If you see what’s happening with Israel and Jewish people right now there has never been a more dangerous time since the Holocaust if you happen to be Jewish in America.” The previous night, at the Jewish megadonor event with Adelson, Trump had gone even further, pledging to give Israel complete control over the entire US government. He said if he wins, “you will have the president,” adding that he would make sure Israel also gained complete control over Congress.

Promising to turn the whole US government over to a foreign power in return for money is the textbook definition of conspiracy to commit treason. Based on his own words, Trump ought to be arrested and charged. Though most high-level politicians of both parties—especially those who allow themselves to be filmed by Mossad agents like Jeffrey Epstein while they rape children—should also be brought up on treason charges, they are usually smart enough not to publicly announce plans to turn over the entire American government to the genocidal state of Israel. Along with treason, Trump should be charged with first-degree stupidity.

In La Defaite de l’Occidante, Emmanuel Todd claims that the collapse of the American empire was caused by the evaporation of Protestantism, which he describes as its hidden grammar.

America is now facing defeat in the Ukraine because of the complete disappearance of the Christian foundation of its culture, “un phénomène historique crucial qui, justement, explique la pulvérisation des classes dirigeantes américaines.”[1] Protestantism, which “to a large extent, has been the economic strength of the West, is dead.”[2] Both the United States and England have been caught up in a “centripetal, narcissistic then nihilistic drift,” which has led both the present empire and its predecessor to something which Todd calls the “Zero State,” which he defines as a nation state which is “no longer structured by its original values,” which in this instance means that the Protestant work ethic and the feeling of responsibility which previously animated its population has evaporated.[3] Both Trump and Biden epitomize the apotheosis of the Zero State because Washington’s decisions under both administrations have ceased to be moral or rational.

The Zero State was preceded by the Zombie State, which retains the form but is emptied of its content. Todd sees Benjamin Franklin as a typical Zombie Protestant, who no longer practices his religion but retains its ethics, attached to the values of honesty, work, seriousness, and always aware that man only has a limited amount of time.[4] Zombie Protestant society emerged in Europe when Germany and Great Britain created a world:

in which religious practice withers but where the social values of religion persist, as well as the rites of passage prescribed by the various Churches. Neither baptism, nor marriage, nor burial are called into question. But, as a sign that the West no longer respects the biblical commandment to “grow and multiply,” –fertility is falling in the middle classes. Deprived of its supervision, the Protestant work ethic in Britain devolved into pure nationalism.[5] Literacy is a fundamental Protestant value because sola scriptura requires the masses to be literate in order to have access to the Scriptures, which makes every man his own priest, thus promoting democracy and egalitarianism.

Todd derives his understanding of Protestantism from Max Weber’s famous book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In his attempt to answer the question “Qu’est-ce quel’Occident?” Todd identifies himself specifically as a pupil of Weber. Todd is “en bon élève de Max Weber, qui plaça la religion de Luther et de Calvin à la source de ce qui apparaissait à son époque comme la supériorité de l’Occident.”[6]

The best exposition of the Weber thesis in the English-speaking world is R. H. Tawney’s Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. Tawney writes: “Weber, in a celebrated essay, expounded the thesis that Calvinism in its English version was the parent of capitalism.” According to Weber, “religious radicalism . . . went hand in hand with an economic radicalism.”[7] One of the first critiques of Weber’s thesis, however, noticed the connection between the Puritans and the Jews. In his 1907 book Jews and Modern Capitalism, Werner Sombart points out that everything Weber said about Puritans was a fortiori true of Jews. If Sombart’s earlier book on capitalism caused Weber to write his articles on the Puritan spirit, those articles led Sombart to write his book on the Jews. “In fact,” Sombart writes, “Max Weber’s researches are responsible for this book. I have already mentioned that Max Weber’s study of the importance of Puritanism for the capitalistic system was the impetus that sent me to consider the importance of the Jew, especially as I felt that the dominating ideas of Puritanism which were so powerful in capitalism were more perfectly developed in Judaism and were also of a much earlier date.”[8] Having read Weber’s thesis, Sombart wonders:

whether all that Weber ascribes to Puritanism might not with equal justice be referred to Judaism, and probably in a greater degree; nay, it might well be suggested that that which is called Puritanism is really Judaism.[9]

According to Sombart, Puritanism is nothing more than an aberrant form of Judaism because both are based on:

the preponderance of religion interests, the idea of divine rewards and punishments, asceticism within the world, the close relationship between religion and business, the arithmetical conception of sin, and, above all, the rationalization of life.[10]

Sombart was hardly the first one to notice the connection. He cites Heinrich Heine who asked: “Are not the Protestant Scots Hebrews, with their Biblical names, their Jerusalem, their pharisaical cant? And is not their religion a Judaism which allows you to eat pork?”[11] Or as one Calvinist put it: “If I am to say on my honour why I am become a Calvinist, I shall have to confess that the one and only reason which persuaded me was that among all the religions, I could find nothing which agreed so much with Judaism and its view of life and faith.”[12]

Writing 60 years before Sombart attempted to correct the Weber Thesis by claiming that Capitalism was Jewish, Karl Marx wrote in Zur Judenfrage that the worldly cult of the Jew was huckstering and his worldly god, money, and that the most Jewish country on the face of the earth was New England because of the Puritans who settled there:

the devout and politically free inhabitant of New England is a kind of Laocoon who makes not the least effort to escape from the serpents which are crushing him. Mammon is his idol, which he adores not only with his lips but with the whole force of his body and mind. In his view the world is no more than a Stock Exchange, and he is convinced that he has no other destiny here below than to become richer than his neighbour. Trade has seized upon all his thoughts, and he has no other recreation than to exchange objects. When he travels, he carries, so to speak, his goods and his counter on his back and talks only of interest and profit.[13]

Marx too emphasizes the practical sphere of life, specifically commerce, as the area in which Jewish values have most influenced their nominally Christian imitators and admirers, the Puritans. Money, not theology, is the true ecumenical lingua franca:

Money is the jealous god of Israel, beside which no other god may exist. Money abases all the gods of mankind and changes them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-sufficient value of all things. It has, therefore, deprived the whole world, both the human world and nature, of their own proper value. Money is the alienated essence of man’s work and existence; this essence dominates him and he worships it. . . . The god of the Jews has been secularized and has become the god of this world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange.[14]

As Tawney showed malgré lui, there is no difference on the theoretical level between the Puritan Divine and the Catholic Schoolman when it comes to the relationship between morality and economics. On the practical level, however, the opposite was true. If we ask what the Jew and the Puritan have in common on the practical level, the answer is Capitalism, not theology.

•�Category: History, Ideology •�Tags: Anti-Semitism, Jews, Max Weber, Neocons, Protestantism

When I saw the headline—Catholics Cannot be Anti-Semites—I immediately wrote to Bishop Barron and asked him to inform the ADL that E. Michael Jones cannot be an anti-Semite because he is a Catholic. I have been maintaining that position for years, and it was heartening to have a famous bishop take my side in this argument.

When I read his article, however, I found that his headline had an entirely different meaning. According to his excellency, “Christianity collapses in on itself without constant reference to its Jewish antecedents.” Were the people of the Old Testament Jews? The term arrives relatively late in Scripture, and when it appears in the Gospel of St. John, it is pejorative.

If we are talking about Hebrews, on the other hand, there is no continuity between the people who followed Moses out of Egypt and the Jews who are now engaged in genocide in Gaza. Jesus Christ made that clear when he told the Jews of his day that they were not the children of Moses because they refused to accept Him as their Messiah. He then went on to say that their father was Satan. Does this mean that Jesus Christ was an anti-Semite? Bishop Barron denounced anyone who used the term “Synagogue of Satan” as anti-Semitic, even though the term is taken from the Book of Revelations.

Instead of mentioning any of these relevant passages, Barron, citing St. Paul, tells us that Jesus Christ is: “the yes to all the promises made to Israel,” which is certainly true, but only if the Jews accept baptism, something Bishop Barron failed to bring up in his dialogue with Ben Shapiro. Barron then tells us that “Pope Pius XI declared, ‘We are all spiritually Semites,’ and then as if finishing his syllogism, Barron concludes, “Hence, if you don’t get the Jews, you won’t get Jesus. It’s as simple and important as that.”

Barron then brings up the red herring of Marcionism, “One of the very earliest doctrinal disputes within Christianity.” Marcion claimed that the god of the Old Testament is Satan. Marcionism has made a comeback lately, but generally it is not an issue unless you’re talking to Marek Glogoczowski or Adam Green.

In the speech to the disciples who did not recognize Jesus on the way to Emmaus, Barron tells us that Jesus: “presents himself as the fulfillment of salvation history, the culminating point of the story of the Jews, the full expression of Torah, temple, and prophecy. And it was in the course of that speech that the hearts of the disciples commenced to burn within them.”

And we agree with what his excellency said there, but then he has to impose his tendentious interpretation of his exercise in proof texting on the unsuspecting read by claiming “It was that deeply Jewish speech that led them to conversion.”[1]

What does Barron mean by “deeply Jewish”? Why is that speech “deeply Jewish”? Why is it any more or less Jewish than any other speech in Scripture? Has he read the Gospel of St. John, who uses the term Jew 71 times and in every instance but one as a pejorative term?

Barron muddies the water further by citing the eminent theologian William F. Buckley. Buckley was the commissar who policed the perimeter of the concentration camp known as “conservatism.”

“When William F. Buckley was endeavoring to launch his journal National Review in the 1950s, he was eager to recruit the best and brightest among the conservative thinkers in the Anglosphere. But he was scrupulous in eliminating from consideration any who exhibited anti-Semitic attitudes, for he knew that they would undermine his project, both morally and intellectually.”

Missing from Barron’s claim is the fact that the early Buckley brought up Jewish participation in the Bolshevik Revolution with prominent Jews like David Suskind on Firing Line. By 1990, however, he had learned his lesson from Jewish “conservative” handlers like Norman Podhoretz and obligingly stabbed Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran in the back in a monumental piece of incoherent bombast entitled “In Search of Anti-Semitism.”

With Buckley as his mentor, Bishop Barron now assumes the role of commissar for the Catholic Church, whose job is to expel “anti-Semites” from the Church “because they are, by definition, enemies of Christ.”

The phrase “enemies of Christ” brought another scriptural passage to mind, which Barron’s exercise in proof texting conveniently omitted. In I Thess 2, St. Paul refers to the Jews as “the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the whole human race” (I Thess 2: 14-16).

Is Bishop Barron saying that St. Paul is an enemy of Christ because he said that the Jews were “enemies of the whole human race”? Is he saying that St. John is an anti-Semite because in his Gospel Jesus tells the Jews “Your father is Satan”?

Why is Bishop Barron determined to ignore these passages? Why is he no longer in California? Why is he determined to curry favor with the people who killed Christ? There are generally two answers to this question: sex or money or both via blackmail. Which brings us to Bishop Barron’s “disturbing muscleman fetish.”[2]

One year ago, an article appeared on the Internet claiming that Bishop Barron was causing scandal because he is “always surrounded by one or more muscular, tattooed men…. everywhere he goes…. What’s more disturbing, he employs them, he pays them higher than high salaries, and it appears that one or more of them lives with him.”[3] One of those men is Joseph (Joey) Gloor, Barron’s “producer, travel companion, roommate and closest friend.” Gloor is a male model who posts half-naked pictures of himself which emphasize his muscles and tattoos in ways that homosexuals find attractive. In return for this dubious activity, Gloor receives a $135,000 salary from Barron, something the author finds “extremely troubling,” troubling enough to bring to the attention of Barron’s new ordinary in Minnesota.

Virtually all of the allegations in this article appeared in June of 2022 in the National Catholic Reporter.[4] But that article ignored the homosexual muscleman fetish angle of the article which appeared one year later. The NCR article focused exclusively on women who raised charges of sexual harassment against Gloor and Barron’s handling of the charges. It did not mention the homoerotic atmosphere at Word on Fire ministries or the other body builders in Barron’s employ.

Barron was incardinated in the archdiocese of Los Angeles when rumors of his muscleman fetish began circulating. Apparently, Archbishop Gomez, ordinary of the LA archdiocese, was not amused. One month after the NCR article appeared, Barron was transferred to Minnesota, where the climate is not conducive to half-naked photo shoots.

I remember riding through Tehran next to Kevin Barrett listening to him tell me the story of his conversion to Islam. This was probably in 2013 at the first of many conferences I would attend over the next ten years organized by the late Nader Talebzadeh, a man who brought east and west together in a way that has been sorely missed since his untimely demise. The bus was full of Iranians who were evidently listening to our conversation. I know this because when Kevin said that he had been raised as a Unitarian, I replied “All you did was add camels to your Unitarianism,” at which point the Iranians on the bus all burst out laughing.

I have nothing against camels, but as “America’s leading Catholic intellectual,” as Kevin put it, I have a congenital allergic reaction to Unitarianism and more importantly to the Puritanism which spawned the Unitarian reaction by promulgating the distorted notion of Original Sin that goes by the term innate or total depravity. Ever since Ralph Waldo Emerson gave his Harvard Divinity school address, American culture has been plagued by two equally false understandings of Original Sin. Kevin continues that great American tradition by perpetuating that misunderstanding in one of his recent articles.[1]

Kevin dives into the deep end of the theological pool by citing as his authority on matters Catholic a young man by the name of Paul Kingsnorth. Kingsnorth is an Englishman, who converted from England’s version of Greta Thunbergism to Eastern orthodoxy, without picking up a rudimentary understanding of Christian theology along the way. Kingsnorth’s conversion, however, did allow him to dress up England’s ancestral hatred of Catholicism in theological terminology, and that led him to excoriate the Catholic Church for consigning “countless Irish babies . . . to unmarked graves and presumptive hellfire or purgatory because they were unbaptized.” I’m not sure whether presumptive hellfire is hotter than normal hellfire, but the idea that the Catholic Church sends “countless Irish babies” to hell “or purgatory” is a preposterous claim unknown in Catholic theology. To begin with, only the baptized can go to purgatory, where their souls are purged of the effects of the sins they have committed in this life. The souls in purgatory are known as the church suffering because they have been saved and will eventually enter heaven.

The Catholic Church affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation, but it also affirms that those who through no fault of their own could not know of Christ or his gospel or the requirement of baptism will be saved by how they follow the moral law which has been engraved on their conscience. The doctrine is known as invincible ignorance, and, unfortunately, it does not apply to people like Kingsnorth, who is presumably a member in good standing of the Orthodox church even though he does not understand its theology, which is identical to Catholic theology on baptism and Original Sin.

In a recent interview with Ben Shapiro, Bishop Robert Barron misused the idea invincible ignorance by applying it to Jews alive today. After Shapiro asked him “Am I going to hell?” Bishop Barron hemmed and then he hawed and then he invoked a misunderstanding of documents of Vatican II, when he should have asked simply, “Ben, are you baptized?” Shapiro presumably would have said “no,” and at that point Bishop Barron should have said, “Ben, if you refuse to be baptized, you cannot be saved.” In doing that Bishop Barron would have established at least one Catholic principle—the necessity of baptism for salvation—in a clear cut case, namely, the fact that the Jewish refusal to accept baptism denies them salvation.

The case of unbaptized infants is different even though the same principle applies. Kingsnorth then brings up limbo, another theological concept which he does not understand. Limbo is a theologoumenon, which is to say, a category of the mind which has been deduced according to human reason from theological principles which are certain, like “Baptism is necessary for salvation.” Limbo occupies a middle space between the theological certainty that Baptism is necessary for salvation and the moral certainty that God does not punish the innocent for sins that they did not commit. Original sin is not the same as actual sin. Original sin is a “wound,” the key concept that separates the Catholic understanding from the Calvinist belief in total depravity and the Unitarian Emersonian overly optimistic American version which Kevin seems to have inherited when he claims that nature and man are “perfect.” How anyone can watch the behavior of the unbaptized Israelis and their genocidal attack on innocent women and children in Palestine without feeling the need to appeal to a metaphysical understanding of evil is beyond me, probably because I’m a Catholic who follows the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, as expounded in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from the connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul.” Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission sin even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.[2]

So, to answer the question posed by Kevin’s Muslim wife, who wondered “How could anyone possibly believe that innocent babies who haven’t done anything wrong are sinful?” the Catholic Church responds:

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted. It is wounded in the natural powers proper to it: subject to ignorance, suffering, and the domination of death; and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.[3]

Kingsnorth to his credit brings up the concept of sin embodied in the Greek term “hamartia,” which he does not name, but which does derive from archery. Virtuous behavior is like the arrow which hits the target. Sin is the arrow which misses the target by going to one side—in this instance the Calvinist exaggeration—or the other—in this instance the Emersonian minimalization of Original Sin which still plagues the mind of Unitarianism insofar as it still has a mind left to plague. The Catholic understanding of Original Sin is related to the Catholic understanding of penance, or the effort required to remove the effect of sin even after the sin has been confessed. According to St. John Chrysostom, sin is like an arrow. Even after the arrow has been removed, the wound remains requiring healing. The same thing is true of Original Sin, which is the “wound” which Adam’s sin bequeathed to the entire human race. No one enters heaven until that wound has been healed by the grace of baptism.

Notes

[1] Kevin Barrett, Zionism is Antichrist, December 3, 2023. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGwHxsbrjdzWcfWjLxdxrvKCpsx

[2] Catechism of the Catholic Church , para 403.

[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 404.

•�Category: Ideology •�Tags: Catholic Church, Islam, Original

On Monday, October 30, CNN and Fox ran reports of grieving family members from Lewiston, Maine, who had lost relatives in “the most lethal act of firearms violence in the state’s history.”[1] Three days earlier, the perpetrator had been found dead inside a cargo trailer parked on the lot of a recycling plant where he once worked. Every death diminishes me, as John Donne once said, but no matter how much we mourn for the dead, we need to put a stop to the pernicious undercurrent beneath the mourning which claims that the people who died in Lewiston, Maine were somehow innocent victims. No one on either Fox or CNN was willing to state the obvious. These people deserved to die. Let me list three reasons why.

First of all, every single victim was white. As Noel Ignatiev, the late Harvard professor once put it, decent people need to unite to “Abolish the white race – by any means necessary.”[2] Robert R. Card, the lone deranged gunman in this case, was only carrying what Ignatiev advocated to its logical conclusion, a conclusion shared by virtually every proponent of Critical Race Theory in the United States.

The second reason all of these people deserved to die is that all of the so-called victims were engaged in bowling when they were killed. Bowling, those of us who are old enough to remember its halcyon days know, was an exclusively white activity in a country which still had laws upholding segregation in many southern states at the time.

Finally—and here I come to the main reason why all of these people deserved to die—Lewiston voted for Donald Trump Unmentioned in any of the reporting on the Lewiston Bowling alley shooting was the fact that Donald Trump carried Maine’s second congressional district, which encompasses Lewiston and virtually the entire geographical area of the state of Maine in 2016 and 2020. Maine’s second congressional district is, as you probably suspected, 90.9 percent white.[3]

I know that this conclusion will shock many people, but I am not alone in holding these views, nor should these views be considered hate speech. If they were they would have been banned from You Tube, but even though Alain Soral faces jail time for calling a journalist a “fat lesbian,” Ben Shapiro can advocate Palestinian genocide in Gaza with impunity on You Tube. YouTube also regularly features Jews angered over the current war in Gaza calling for the extermination of Palestinians with impunity. So, it can’t be hate speech, at least as You Tube defines the term.

More importantly, however, I base my claim that there were no innocent victims in the Lewiston bowling alley shootings on the writings of that distinguished moral theologian, Rabbi Dov Fischer, who opined in an article entitled “What Israel Needs to do Now” in the American Spectator that all of the residents of Dresden including all non-combatants, refugees, women and children deserved to die because “the German citizens of Dresden freely voted to make Hitler their democratically elected leader.”[4] If that is the case, then the bowlers in Lewiston deserved to die for voting for Donald Trump. Given Rabbi Fischer’s premises, no other conclusion is possible.

According to Rabbi Fischer’s Talmudic moral theology, that means that “it is imperative” to “exterminate Hamas” even if this means killing innocent civilians, i.e. babies, in Gaza” because “Hamas controls Gaza” in 2023 every bit as much as the Nazis controlled Dresden in 1945. If everyone in Gaza, including women and children, deserves to die “because the population of Gaza have voted for them [Hamas] repeatedly,” as Rabbi Fischer puts it, then I see no reason why the citizens of Lewiston shouldn’t be gunned down for voting for Donald Trump. As Rabbi Fischer would put it, the white people who were gunned down while bowling in Lewiston “are no more innocent than German voters in Dresden who elected Hitler”[5] or the Palestinian babies who are dying under the rubble created by Israeli bombing runs in Gaza.

I know many of my readers may find this conclusion unpalatable and morally repugnant, but it flows logically from the Talmudic thinking that determines our current foreign policy. More importantly it comes from distinguished Jewish rabbis, who can say with Secretary of State Blinken that they have relatives who died in the Holocaust. As I have pointed out in my recent book The Holocaust Narrative, the Holocaust has been used to justify crimes against humanity ever since the founding of the state of Israel. So, it must be true in some sense that that the goyische kop may not understand but should follow, nonetheless.

Notes

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-army-reservist-suspected-lewiston-maine-shootings-found-dead-likely-suicide-2023-10-28/

[2] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/11/17/abolishing-whiteness-has-never-been-more-urgent

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine%27s_2nd_congressional_district

[4] https://spectator.org/what-israel-needs-to-do-now/

[5] https://spectator.org/what-israel-needs-to-do-now/

The good news according to E. Michael Jones

Video Link

Video link Watch on Bitchute

The good news is that World War III has been postponed due to events beyond the Zionists’ control. The bad news is that they’re still trying to figure out how to blow up Al-Aqsa and build a gay disco called The Pink Heifer.

That, anyway, seems to be the considered opinion of this week’s False Flag Weekly News commentator, Dr. E. Michael Jones. Below are excerpts from our conversation.

Kevin Barrett: So here’s our big story. And no, I’m not going to play that song again. Send us money and we won’t play that song again.

Here’s the aircraft carrier. Two of them actually, the Ford and the Eisenhower. Each one has 5,000 sailors on board. Today a few cheap anti-ship missiles probably within reach not only of mid-level powers, not only the serious regional powers like Iran, for example, but even maybe an individual, a wealthy Gulf individual, could probably take out one of these things with 5,000 people on board. There go 10,000 dead Americans into Davy Jones’ locker. Is sending these aircraft carriers right off the coast of Gaza and telling them to say “quack quack” as stupid as I think it is?

E. Michael Jones: It’s the principle of showing the flag. That’s always the principle. If the Greeks don’t pay their debt, the British Navy shows up and bombards Athens, and then they pay their debt. That’s the way it works. The trouble is that the game has shifted to the point that missiles now have made the aircraft carrier obsolete. Now, I don’t think that Hamas has a missile that can sink an aircraft carrier…

Kevin Barrett: But “Hamas” in quotation marks, spoken with a thick Hebrew accent, probably does.

E. Michael Jones: What we do know is that Putin just made a comment. He said “we have a Kinzhal missile” that can sink an aircraft carrier. It’s not a threat, just a statement of fact.

(The Americans) want to intimidate Hamas into giving up. But the problem is that the Israeli air force has already done what the American aircraft carrier can do— they’ve already bombed Gaza. So the Americans could fly in and bomb the rubble again if they wanted to. But the main issue now is whether there’s going to be a ground invasion. And at this point the United States has announced that they have 2 000 troops ready to…enter the tunnels. As I’ve said before, I don’t think the Israelis are willing to enter the tunnels that Hamas has dug. I’m saying this based on what happened in 2006 when it was Hezbollah in the tunnels in Lebanon. Hezbollah had anti-tank missiles that stopped the Merkava tanks, and the Israelis would not go into the tunnels. So I don’t think anything’s changed here. The aircraft carrier is, in this respect, irrelevant. They can only do what has already been done, and that doesn’t need to be done at this point.

Kevin Barrett: Well, if they send Americans into the tunnels to die for the Zionists, I for one am going to be even more annoyed than I already am. But some folks like Bernard over at Moon of Alabama say this aircraft carrier here couldn’t possibly be for use against Hamas (but is instead intended to escalate the war on Syria.)

E. Michael Jones: I don’t think so. I think that the whole point of Biden’s visit was to be the good cop in the good cop bad cop scenario. And I think this is why the Israelis attacked the hospital, in order to narrow his ability to maneuver diplomatically.

Kevin Barrett: Okay, let’s move on to the Gaza Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital explosion story…It was just so insane. It’s shocking to me that people were buying the Zionist version of it.

What actually happened apparently was that a huge Israeli airburst bomb went off above the hospital. And in front of the hospital there were hundreds of Palestinian refugees that Israel had chased out of their homes. And they were sheltering there, thinking it was safe. So Israel just did an airburst right above them and killed hundreds of people who were not even protected by the building. And this confused some people because the hospital itself didn’t get flattened. But it was actually the people outside the hospital that got killed, for the most part.

The mainstream media has been split on this. A lot of them are parroting this ridiculous Zionist cover story that they recorded Hamas saying it was actually Islamic Jihad that did it. But it turns out that’s a complete joke. The recording is blatantly inauthentic. It’s almost like a parody. So even the mainstream is starting to question this, as Caitlin Johnson pointed out. And the pushback is getting pretty extreme.

So, Mike, let’s talk a little bit about the hospital bombing. Why did the Zionists repeatedly tell us they were going to bomb this hospital, send a bunch of non-warheaded rockets to “knock on the door” to show that they were going to bomb it, then did bomb it with an airburst, killing hundreds of people who were sheltering outside? And then they admitted it and bragged about it on Twitter, and then deleted the tweet, then made up a completely transparent bogus cover story, and somehow forced Joe Biden and about half of the mainstream media to parrot this transparently ludicrous cover story?

E. Michael Jones: Yeah, that’s what’s called having your cake and eating it too: They got the effect of it (and the blame-the-Resistance propaganda narrative.) When they realized that it’s caused huge amounts of international protest, they denied that it happened and cooked up this story of a Hamas rocket that sort of went off track. And Biden buys into it. So the question is, did it limit his ability (to broker a deal)? Because he clearly came with the idea that he was going to be the broker.

That was the whole point of the first (post-October 7 US diplomatic visit) when Blinken showed up and said “I come not only as United States Secretary of State, but also as a Jew.” Well, you just lost all your credibility.

Kevin Barrett: And then he starts rambling about the Holocaust, as he always does.

E. Michael Jones: Everywhere he goes, every time he gives a speech, he immediately says, “I have relatives who died in the Holocaust.” It’s wearing a little thin now. But I think he lost. They had to reestablish that notion that the United States is a kind of broker between two sides. And I think that’s why Netanyahu wanted to attack the hospital to force him over toward the Israeli side.

But it looks as if they did the same thing (attempt to broker a deal) anyway. So today the story is that Biden is going to give a speech: The trucks are lined up, the humanitarian aid is going to go in because Biden brokered a deal. So it’s like two steps forward, one step back, as far as I can tell.

In May of 2023, the Biden Administration released the first U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, a document which President Biden claimed “represents the most ambitious and comprehensive U.S. government-led effort to fight antisemitism in American history.”[1]

The historical significance of this document diminished considerably in light of the legal disclaimer which preceded its content. According to that disclaimer:

The U.S National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism does not supersede, modify, or direct an interpretation of any existing federal, state, or local statute, regulation, or policy. It does not constitute binding guidance for the public, states, localities, or Federal agencies and therefore does not require compliance with the principles described herein. The strategy does not purport to alter or preempt existing statutes, regulations, policies, or the requirements of the Federal, state, or local agencies that enforce them. The strategy shall therefore be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. Nothing in this strategy shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect or influence the authority of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in the performance of their responsibilities with regard to the direction, conduct, control, planning, investigation, organization, equipment training, exercises, or other activities concerning counterterrorism, intelligence, and law enforcement activities. Such activities are outside the scope of the strategy. This strategy should also therefore not be construed to discuss or comment on any ongoing federal litigation or investigation.[2]

The U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism attempts to cover up the fact that it has no legal standing by directing our attention to its breathtaking scope in seeking to control every aspect of American life, including the Department of Agriculture (USDA), which “will provide educational opportunities for law enforcement agents of the U.S. Forest Service to learn how to identify and counter antisemitic, Islamophobic, and related forms of discrimination.”

Who knew that Smokey the Bear was an anti-Semite?

The U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism demands that “American sports teams” will now have to “collaborate with nonprofit organizations and one another to create and share best practices for educating fans about Judaism, Jewish heritage, culture, and identity, and the Holocaust, and empowering them to combat antisemitism and all forms of hate.” If the people behind the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism get their way “American leagues” will be forced to commemorate “Holocaust Remembrance Day, similar to how sports leagues observe Memorial Day and 9/11, and to recognize Jewish American History month.”

In June 2023, as part of the publicity campaign surrounding the release of the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, Antony Blinken appeared in a video produced by the World Jewish Congress in which he claimed that his step-father, Samuel Pisar, was sent to Auschwitz as a 12-year old when the Nazis invaded Bialystock, Poland. Samuel Pisar was born in 1929 to Helena and David Pisar, a well-to-do Jewish family which had made its fortune from founding the first taxi company in the area. After being arrested, Pisar spent four years in Nazi concentration camps. Pisar claims that he was sent to the gas chambers at Auschwitz twice and that he managed to evade being killed the second time by picking up a brush and pail and pretending he’d been sent to clean the floors. Pisar’s account of his escape from the gas chamber fails to explain how he could mop a floor covered with dead Jews. “Slowly, I creep forward on the floor. The people whose legs I touch are too benumbed to notice. Reaching the pail, I wet the brush in the water and begin scrubbing the floor. . . . Slowly, I inch my way toward the exit. Now, one of the guards who had brought us in catches sight of me through the open door and looks indifferently the other way, supposing I am carrying out orders. . . . Carrying the pail, with the brush and rag inside, I walk slowly to the door, then out into the open. I expect to be stopped — a cry, an order, a blow on the head. Nothing. With slow, measured steps I walk toward the other barracks and lose myself in the anonymity of the camp.”[3]

Pisar, who, according to Blinken’s account, was the only member of his family to survive, seems to have led a charmed life. Not only did he purportedly survive the Zyklon B gas which killed all of the other Jews in the same room he was cleaning, Pisar also escaped from a death march at the end of the war, after he and and some of his friends “made a break for it,” hiding out in the forest for days. According to Blinken’s account:

one day from their hideout, they heard a deep rumbling sound and saw something that they dreamed of seeing but never imagined that they would see, a tank. But instead of having the iron cross on it, it had the white five-pointed star. As he got to the tank, the hatch opened up and a large African American GI looked down at him. And he looked up at the GI and got down on his knees and said the only three words in English that he knew that his mother had taught him before they were separated “God Bless America.” The American GI reached down and pulled him up into the tank, into freedom, into America.[4]

It’s a moving story. Unfortunately, it never happened. It never could have happened because the 761st was over 100 miles (174 kilometers, to be precise) away from Dachau when it was liberated by the Allies on April 29. Pisar was even even farther away from Coburg, which is 328 kilometers away, when Pisar was hiding out in the woods near Penzing before the liberation of Dachau. This makes Blinken and his late step-father Samuel Pisar Holocaust liars.

You can go to jail in 16 countries in Europe if you deny the Holocaust, but no one ever goes to jail for lying about the Holocaust. That means that you can go to jail for denying a lie. Is saying that Samuel Pisar was never near the 761st Tank Battalion Holocaust denial?

If Deborah Lipstadt, the Biden Administration official who is the main author of the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, gets her way American citizens will go to jail for Holocaust denial, which in this instance means denying things that never happened. Deborah Lipstadt was a fervent promoter of Binyamin Wilkomirski’s Holocaust memoir Fragments. If Lipstadt has her way, you would have gone to jail for denying that Wilkomirski was sent to a concentration camp as a Jewish child from Latvia.

That means that 60 Minutes reporter Ed Bradley was involved in Holocaust denier because he exposed the fact that “Wilkomirski” was really a Swiss citizen by the name of Bruno Doessekker.[5] Doessekker was not a Jew, and he had never been near a concentration camp. He made up Fragments out of whole cloth, but Lipstadt loved his book. If she has her way the entire crew of 60 Minutes would have gone to prison for exposing his hoax.

“Binyamin Wilkomirski” aka Bruno Doessekker is a Holocaust liar. Because she promoted his book, Deborah Lipstadt is a Holocaust liar after the fact. She is an accessory to what should be a crime, because Holocaust denial can land you in prison.

PastClassics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Hidden History of the 1930s and 1940s
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day