James Hitchcock’s article “Abortion and the ‘Catholic Right’” in the Human Life Review says that The Wanderer has a “seamless garment” agenda. Does this Catholic weekly put economic issues and the Iraq war ahead of the sin of abortion?
My guess is no. I believe, that like the weekly columnist Pat Buchanan whom The Wanderer publishes, the newspaper would hold their nose and vote for a W. Bush over an anti-war, but radically pro-abortion Democrat candidate.
Hitchcock makes a good point about the newspaper’s “unacknowledged internal conflict” on economic views.
Joe Sobran who recently retired does “espouses a minimalist view of the state, according to which almost every project that government undertakes does nothing but harm,” whereas Rupert Ederer, who is the economic expert for the newspaper thinks the government should get more involved in “trade, tax, and monetary” issues as Hitchcock noted in his article.
Both Ederer and Sobran have appeared to write that other issues are of equal weight to abortion.
On December 7, 2006 in The Wanderer on December 7, Ederer said:
“We need to recognize that there are Ten Commandments, not one or two. Along with the Fifth Commandment (murder of the innocent) and the Sixth Commandment (against sodomy) there is also the Seventh, about stealing (depriving the working man of his just wages), and the Eighth, about lying (a devastating war based on lying).”
On December 15, 2006 in The Wanderer on December 7, Sobran said abortion is “worse than aggressive warfare” but “. . . after all, legal abortion is going to be around for a while and the Iraq war, whatever you think of it, is urgent right now.”
Ederer would say this is the Catholic position, while Sobran would probably say this is the conservative position.
What would Pope Benedict XVI say about this positions?
On July 3, 2004, the then Cardinal Ratzinger in a titled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” wrote:
“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
“Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia,” ‘Ratzinger wrote,’ “when a persońs formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”
Even the pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage National Catholic Reporter admitted that “Benedict [in May of this year] clearly seems to feel that a Catholic politician who knowingly and consistently supports legislation that expands access to abortion is in violation of church teaching, and thus should not receive communion.”
The Pope has shown that other issues, like economics, “waging war and applying the death penalty” is not proportionate to the sins of abortion and euthanasia.
The Wanderer position is, I believe, the Pope’s position.
Unfortunately some of the contributors to the paper appear to think otherwise. The problem is not that there are differing views on these other issues, but that some Catholic writers are claiming that their opinion is the official Church teaching and excommunicating other faithful Catholics who as the Pope said may have a “legitimate diversity of opinion” on this issues.
More worrisome is the “From the Mail’ section of the paper which has in recent years featured the writings of E. Michael Jones who is misrepresenting the authoritative teaching of the Church on Catholic/Jewish relations. Jones appears to have gone over to the far right wing The Remnant “Jewish-Masonic conspiracy” theory.
My great worry is that a great Catholic newspaper like The Wanderer might fall out of the Church and become a sect rag like The Remnant.
E. Michael Jones is a true intellectual whose writings I’ve admired for years. His writings in recent years have broken my heart. Intellect will not save us. Only intellect at the service of love, faith and humility in Christ and His words as well as Christ’s Church will saves us.
On the practical level, after prayer and humility, the answer for The Wanderer is to admit the “legitimate diversity of opinion” in the Church and have lively debates on these issues. If they think I and others are wrong about Jones’ opinions not being legitimate for Catholics then debates us.
I would have loved to have seen a debate between Ederer and Sobran on the governments place in society. It would be fun if Paul Likoudis and a pro-Iraq war Catholic debated in the editorial section. It is my opinion that Likoudis should take over the slot of the retired Joe Sobran.
I believe these changes would bring back some of the subscribers who canceled their subscriptions because they’ve told me the paper was “too negative.” It’s my opinion they thought the weekly was forgetting about the “legitimate diversity of opinion” in the Church.
But most of all as a long time subscriber I want to thank the folks at The Wanderer for the great service they have done for Jesus Christ and His Church. You are in my prayers.
Is E. Michael Jones Anti-Semitic?
This a sad day for me. I learned many deep insights from E. Michael Jones. I stopped getting his Culture War magazine a number of years ago because it started sounding anti-Semitic. I hoped Jones would listen to Pope John Paul II and turn away from this path.
Today I decided to do a little research. Jones said "This “Judenfeindlichkeit[("hostility-toward-Jews")],” if we use Brumlik’s word, is part of the essence of Catholicism."
Paul Tarsax in his blog says:
"He will argue that it is founded on religion, but I have never once seen Mr. Jones claim that "part of the essence of Catholicism" is being hostile toward non-Christian Germans, non-Christian French, or non-Christian Chinese. For Mr. Jones, this hostility is to be directed at Jews who reject Christ, and any Hebrew living today who is not a Christian falls into this category."
A better comparison would be "I have never once seen Mr. Jones claim that "part of the essence of Catholicism" is being hostile toward" the non-Christian Muslims who have killed millions of Christians and the non-Christian Communist such as Stalin and Mao, non-Jews, who killed tens of millions of Christians.
We need to defend ourselves from them and pray for them, but "part of the essence of Catholicism" is not being hostile or hating non-Christian, even non-Christian Muslims who have killed millions of Christians and the non-Christian Communist who killed tens of millions of Christians.
Wasn't that the lesson of Jesus on the Cross saying "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."
Wasn't that the lesson of the Catholic martyrs who died under the pagan Romans who were converted by "the blood of the martyrs."
Next, Jones said "John Sharpe, on the other hand, who is being attacked because he is Catholic and upholds the traditional Catholic position on the Jews is demonized as an anti-Semite because of his tenuous association with a group, American Renaissance, which the SPLC goes out of its way to certify as not anti-Semitic."
Jones needs to do a little research on Sharpe. A good place to start is the Ratzinger Fan Club Blog, which contacted Sharpe directly. After a dialogue with Sharpe, the Ratzinger Fan Club Blogger said:
"Had Sharpe expressed the slightest bit of concern over [anti-Semitic] Michael Hoffman II's writing and views on Judaism, or Derek Holland's ideological history as a Third Positionist; or admitted that he was indeed the founder of Legion of St. Louis, but had repudiated the [anti-Semitic]opinions he was disseminating at the time as editor, I would have been inclined to let the matter rest and give IHS Press 'the benefit of the doubt.'
But the fact that he immediately went on the defensive in his support for Michael Hoffman II's Strange Gods of Judaism, his utter lack of concern for Derek Holland and his connection as founder of the Legion of St. Louis prompted the writing of this article."
Finally, Jones said:
"Willis Carto could make a fortune in Washington by being paid to be photographed beside any candidate’s political enemies, but instead he is the publisher of The American Free Press and The Barnes Review, at whose offices Willis and Michael Collins Piper interviewed me after the talk. After I expounded on the thesis of the revolutionary Jew for about an hour, Willis said, “So you don’t hold much to the racial explanation of Christian identity,” a position he defended in a pamphlet he sent to me. To which I said, “No, the New Israel is the Catholic Church. It has no racial identity.” So we agreed to disagree, knowing that two grown men with two different sets of ideas could talk to each other intelligently and be open and frank about our differences...
Guilt by association is an old story. It is an old Jewish story as well. The Pharisees, if you’ll remember, criticized Jesus for eating with prostitutes and tax-collectors, as if somehow their sins could contaminate the Logos. His response was to say that it is the sick who need the doctor and to dismiss the idea that anything that goes into a man’s mouth makes him unclean."
Jones seems to have forgotten the reason Jesus associated with with prostitutes and tax-collectors. It was to convert them to God and that they turn away from sin. It was not to so "we agreed to disagree, knowing that two grown men with two different sets of ideas could talk to each other intelligently and be open and frank about our differences."
If he was trying to convert Carto, it was from being a racist to being hostile or hating "revolutionary Jews." Tarsax says Jones "implies that all non-Christian Jews belong to this category of people toward which the Catholic must be hostile." This is very sad.
The Ratzinger Fan Club Blog, Paul Tarsax and Jones articles are below. Please pray for Mr. Jones that he may get out of this dark hole.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Hiding Behind Words
A quote from E. Michael Jones' October 2006 article, The Conversion of the Revolutionary Jew:
Anti-Semitism now has an entirely different meaning. An anti-Semite used to be someone who didn’t like Jews. Now it is someone whom the Jews don’t like. No Christian can in good conscience be an anti-Semite, but every Christian, insofar as he is a Christian, must be anti-Jewish. In contemporary parlance the two terms are practically synonymous but their meanings are very different, and the distincition is deliberately obscured for political purposes. (E. Michael Jones, "The Conversion of the Revolutionary Jew", Culture Wars, October 2006)
Note well the way in which Mr. Jones hides behind fuzzy definitions of words, and clever obfuscations. Catholics are not anti-Semites, but we must be "anti-Jewish." He later explains what he means by the term "Jewish" or "Jew":
The Church is not and cannot possibly be anti-Semitic, because the term refers primarily to race and racial hatred ... However, the Gospel of St. John makes clear that there is a deep and abiding animus Christian against the Jews who rejected Christ. This “Judenfeindlichkeit,” if we use Brumlik’s word, is part of the essence of Catholicism. The Church is hostile to “Jews” because they have defined themselves as rejecters of Christ. The Church is anti-Jewish, but unlike the Jews ... Christians are told to love their enemies. The “Jews” by which St. John means the Jews who rejected Christ, became by that fact Christians’ enemies, but all Jews had been transformed by the coming of Christ. They had to accept him as the Messiah or reject him. Those Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah became known as Christians. Those Jews who rejected him became known as “Jews.” (E. Michael Jones, "The Conversion of the Revolutionary Jew", Culture Wars, October 2006)
In E. Michael Jones' vocabulary, a "Jew" is a Hebrew from the time of Christ who rejected the Messiah. "Jew", in this sense, is a religious designation that identifies a Christ-rejecter. Mr. Jones' definition has two serious problems with it.
1) The definition is historically false. A "Jew" is a Hebrew who is descended from the line of Judah. The name "Judah" is where we get the word "Jew."
2) He defines a "Jew" as someone who lived during the time of Jesus and rejected Him as the Messiah, and yet he uses the word in the present tense: "The Church is hostile to 'Jews'", "The Church is anti-Jewish", "every Christian, insofar as he is a Christian, must be anti-Jewish". This implicitly and indiscriminately accuses all present-day, non-Christian Jews of being Christ-haters, an accusation which is explicitly ruled out by Nostra Aetate: "what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures." (NA, 4)
For Mr. Jones, one is either a Christian or a Jew: "Those Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah became known as Christians. Those Jews who rejected him became known as 'Jews.'" For a Hebre to become a Christian, apparently, means that his Jewishness must be swallowed up and assimilated into "Christianess."
Mr. Jones claims that "Judenfeindlichkeit" ("hostility-toward-Jews") is "part of the essence of Catholicism." He tries to play games with words by treating this exclusively as a religiously-directed hostility, as opposed to a racially-directed hostility (which would be open anti-Semitism), but then implies that all non-Christian Jews belong to this category of people toward which the Catholic must be hostile.
In his clumsiness, Mr. Jones shows his true feelings for what they are. He is an anti-Semite, insofar as he tries to justify a hostility that is founded upon ethnicity. He will argue that it is founded on religion, but I have never once seen Mr. Jones claim that "part of the essence of Catholicism" is being hostile toward non-Christian Germans, non-Christian French, or non-Christian Chinese. For Mr. Jones, this hostility is to be directed at Jews who reject Christ, and any Hebrew living today who is not a Christian falls into this category.
Posted by Paul Tarsax at 12:33 AM 0 comments
Guilt by Association
by E. Michael Jones
People love to take your picture in Washington. I was in that labyrinthine town to speak at a symposium entitled “Sam Francis and America’s Culture War,” which had been arranged by Fran Griffin of FGF books to promote a posthumous collection of Sam Francis’s columns, Shots Fired: Sam Francis on America’s Culture War. As I was getting ready to give my speech at the National Press Club, I looked at all the photos on the wall. It was full of pictures of celebrities I had known from my youth—people like Art Buchwald, Eric Severeid, Marvin Kalb—but somehow they all looked older and uglier than I remembered them. These photos were not a thing of beauty and a joy forever, or even for the few short minutes I had to view them. So they must have served some other purpose. What the picture did was to testify to the bona fides of the people it portrayed. Both people were validated by the photo of one man giving an award and the other man receiving it—at least in primitive cultures like Washington.
The converse of the same thought occurred to me after I gave my talk. After Joe Sobran gave his speech, someone pushed me in his direction and demanded to take a picture of both of us. Just before the flash went off, I turned to Joe and said, “Joe, this picture is going to ruin your career.” Without missing a beat, Joe responded, “Mutually assured destruction.”
In other words, the idea that somehow Joe was going to be held responsible for what I said or that I was going to be held responsible for what he said, struck us both as inexpressibly funny. It was almost as funny as the idea that either of us had careers to worry about.
And that was almost as funny as the reaction I got to my talk. For those of you who are tuning in late, the talk I gave was in honor of Sam Francis and was essentially the review of two books connected with the late Sam Francis, which appeared in the March issue of Culture Wars. My ruminations on the role race played in Sam’s writings set off an explosion which still has debris falling around me. Most of the howling came from Peter Brimelow, editor of the vdare website and author, 12-years ago, of Alien Nation: Common Sense about America’s Immigration Disaster. On the Monday following the talk, the following passage appeared on Peter Brimelow’s blog, describing the conference.
CSPAN was there, but VDARE.COM readers probably won’t get to watch the conference because of an extraordinary performance by E. Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars and a prize specimen even by the standards of my lifelong study of characters on the American Right. Jones denounced Elizabethan England, Puritans, capitalism, Protestants, “revolutionary Jews” (but not all Jews, he was quite nuanced) and, for good measure, the idea that race matters or that America was ever a nation. I like Catholic bigots as much as anyone else, but this had nothing to do with anything Sam Francis ever wrote - except where it actually contradicted his views. Sam felt bitterly that he never had the recognition he deserved while he was alive. Jones ensured that he won’t get it now that he’s dead.
Mr. Brimelow had apparently calmed down by Monday because missing from his blog entry was the hysteria which characterized his e-mails in the immediate aftermath of the conference. It is a rare and disedifying sight to see a grown man so consumed by fear, but here was Peter Brimelow absolutely petrified. And what was he afraid of? That someone might have photographed him standing next to E. Michael Jones! In the immediate aftermath of the conference, Mr. Brimelow professed to be appalled by my talk, which is his right. The really funny part came later in the same communication when he announced that “I can’t be associated with anything in which that speech is featured [or] . . . to be in any photographs or material of any kind in which Jones is present.” (I had to edit his original text because fear evidently rendered his syntax incoherent.)
Now that is serious fear. Unfortunately, it was a bit too late to do anything about it. On page 2 of a brochure handed out by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation on the day of the conference, there we are—Peter Brimelow and I—cheek by jowl, pictures and all, right next to each other. It’s not quite the usual press club deal with the two of us arm in arm the one receiving a plaque from the other, but you got the impression that Peter Brimelow felt this was career-ending material, and there wasn’t a damn thing that Peter Brimelow could do about it. Hence, the terror.
That impression was strengthened when Peter Brimelow’s lawyer contacted conference organizer Fran Griffin on the Tuesday following the talk. In one of those chilling missives that only lawyers know how to write, Fran Griffin, who is a woman by the way, (Why do people like Peter Brimelow beat up on women for things they did not say?) was informed that she must respect Peter Brimelow’s “right of publicity and exclude his speech and any reference to his conference participation from any publication that includes Dr. Jones’s speech.” (As some indication of the sort of association which Mr. Brimelow does not fear, his v-dare site has links to the Zionist fanatic Daniel Pipes.)
Well, as I said, it’s a little late for that. Peter Brimelow can ask his lawyer to beat up Fran Griffin or beat the sea with chains or whatever, but the simple fact of the matter is that Peter Brimelow and E. Michael Jones were, on March 20, 2007, not only in the same room together but were both speakers at the same conference, and all of the lawyers in Washington, D.C. can’t change that fact.
Fran Griffin’s response was suffused with a common sense notably absent from the hysterical response of Peter Brimelow and his pit bull lawyer:
If Peter Brimelow is so worried about Jones, he should take the advice I gave him last Tuesday: ignore Jones, don’t mention Jones, don’t complain about Jones, pretend Jones doesn’t exist. This is the most sensible thing he could have done. If he is worried about Jones, why is he linking himself with him? Why is he giving his readers worldwide a chance to Google him by mentioning him and outlining his complaints against him (see transcript from V-dare below)? This makes no sense. Has Peter ever spoken at a symposium before where he disagreed with a speaker? Or does he always agree 100% with every speaker at every forum he attends?
She then brought up the fact that I might be offended by Brimelow’s tactless joke about burning crosses and the Ku Klux Klan. So let me go on record at this point and say, that Peter Brimelow need have no fear that my lawyer is going to contact him for the offense of being in the same room with me or cracking tactless jokes that the overwhelming majority of American citizens would find offensive. If, however, a photo of the two of us comes into my possession, he can take it off my hands by leaving $10,000 in unmarked bills at the foot of the Washington Monument at a time to be mutually agreed upon.
I never knew that photos could be so important, or that they could cause such panic. Once Brimelow and Peter Gemma started circulating their e-mails, however, the panic among the fair weather culture warriors spread like wildfire. Linda Muller, a conference attendee and Buchanan supporter, fired off an e-mail of her which could serve as a primer on how not to react to pressure: “Fran needs to end CYA [i.e., cover your ass] and do a long-winded PRIVATE mea culpa,” which involved the following steps: “1) Admit the mistake; 2) Apologize profusely; 3) Denounce E. Michael Jones; 4) Define a thorough separation from Jones — Sam Francis and those who attended the event.” Mrs. Muller, who describes herself as a “traditional Catholic,” would have loved Stalin’s show trials. She is also probably a fan of cropping photos to delete disgraced members of the Politburo. I say this because her first reaction to my speech indicated sympathy for that behavior. Once the panic gripped her, Muller sabotaged the Sam Francis website, “I just deleted every reference to the conference off the shotsfired.us website. If anyone has an issue with that, they can try to justify it with me directly.” (Oddly enough, Fran Griffin, the owner of the site, did have an issue with that.) By the end of her e-mail, Muller was recommending that everyone pretend that I had never set foot in Washington. “Right now I suggest the best thing for all of us to do is to act like the conference never happened.”
Now, given the face that my DNA has inflicted on me, I can understand why people might not want to be photographed standing next to me. I have been told that faces like mine can break cameras, and given the expensive cameras in operation during the conference, who would want to be held liable for the expense of repairing them?
But what I can’t understand is how someone like Peter Brimelow could be held accountable for a talk that I gave. He doesn’t look at all like me. He is much more handsome than I am. His hair is gray, and my hair, at least most of it, is brown. He has had two Irish Catholic wives (the first one died), and so far I haven’t had any. (My first wife, the one I am still married to, was an Episcopalian.) There was no possibility of mistaken identity at the conference either. When he took to the podium during the Q and A afterward, Mr. Brimelow shook his fist at me claiming, “I like Elizabethan England.” There could have been no possibility of mistaken identity because I clearly expressed the opposite point of view during my talk.
So why all this nervousness about pictures and making sure that the Washington Times spiked the story they were going to run and making sure that C-Span never ran its footage of the conference? Why, in other words, was this conference sabotaged by the very people who should have wanted to promote it? The answer is fear. Washington is a primitive culture which runs on the sympathetic magic known as guilt by association. The denizens of this primitive culture run in fear of guilt by association because it is inflicted on them on an ongoing basis. One of the few sensible reactions to the talk came from Taki, the Greek playboy co-publisher of the American Conservative, who weighed in about two weeks after the conference on his blogsite. Taki, who gave an off-the-cuff talk about drinking champagne with Mickey Mantle, criticized me for not talking about Sam Francis. Sam, as far as I know, did not have a lot to say about Mickey Mantle, but he did pose the question “Are Jews White?” as I mentioned in my talk, and he did write an introduction to a book by Kevin MacDonald on the Jews.
But that wasn’t the profound part of what Taki had to say. That came later, when he wrote. “The trouble is in a free society speakers are not vetted before they speak. None of us, Fran Griffin included, were responsible for Michael Jones’s opinions—some (not all) of which were right on, incidentally.” One wonders what free society Taki is talking about here, certainly not Washington, DC, where the prime rule of discourse is guilt by association. This system of control only works if you can be held responsible for the views of the people sitting next to you. That is what happened to John Sharpe. That fact of life is what sent Peter Brimelow into hysterics. That is what provides the maximum amoung of intimidation in the political control of discourse. Taki, in this regard, is either more courageous or less perceptive than Linda Muller and Peter Brimelow, who are smart enough to know that the system of intimidation can only work if everyone else in the room could be held responsible and punished for the views that I expressed. If everyone believed what Taki believed, the system of guilt by association would collapse overnight. Since the system is in full force, it should be obvious that no one believes that people can only be held accountable for what they themselves say. If that were the case, why would Peter Brimelow and Linda Muller have exhibited such a panic attack for things they had not said?
A refreshing exception to the fear that pervaded the conference was my meeting with Willis Carto. When it comes to Washington photographs, Willis Carto is even more radioactive than E. Michael Jones. Willis Carto could make a fortune in Washington by being paid to be photographed beside any candidate’s political enemies, but instead he is the publisher of The American Free Press and The Barnes Review, at whose offices Willis and Michael Collins Piper interviewed me after the talk. After I expounded on the thesis of the revolutionary Jew for about an hour, Willis said, “So you don’t hold much to the racial explanation of Christian identity,” a position he defended in a pamphlet he sent to me. To which I said, “No, the New Israel is the Catholic Church. It has no racial identity.” So we agreed to disagree, knowing that two grown men with two different sets of ideas could talk to each other intelligently and be open and frank about our differences. Before I left, Willis insisted that one of his staffers take a picture of us together, at which point I turned to Willis and said, “This picture is going to ruin your career.”
Next to lust and greed, guilt by association is the most common form of political control in Washington. Perhaps Mr. Brimelow was nervous because, after attacking the idea that race could explain anything of significance, including the race wars of the 1960s, I mentioned what had just happened to Lt. Cmdr. John Sharpe. This is what I had to say about John Sharpe in my revised talk, which did not appear in CW:
The same forces which used the NAACP to turn the Negro into the revolutionary vanguard in the United States, the same forces which subverted the idea of conservatism, are still at work today. As Nelson Algren once said, every movement begins as a cause, becomes a business, and ends up being a racket. This is nowhere more true than in the civil rights movement, where the NAACP made the transition from cause to business, and the name of the racket is the Southern Poverty Law Center. In case you haven’t noticed, the SPLC has declared war on Catholics. Traditional Catholicism is now featured as harboring 100,000 anti-Semites. I have been listed as one of the most prominent of those 100,000, even though I am not now nor have I ever been a traditionalist. Another man on the list is Lt. Commander John Sharpe, who has just been put on administrative leave as public relations officer on the USS Carl Vinson pending an investigation into his involvement in “supremacist” organizations.
Why has John Sharpe, an Annapolis graduate and career officer in the Navy, incurred the wrath of the SPLC? Was it because he plotted to blow up a Church in the South? Was it because he was lowering in the bushes in Mississippi with a rifle waiting to shoot civil rights marchers? Was it because he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan? Was it because he believes in racial supremacy? Was it because he urged people to harm Jews? No, John Sharpe was singled out for persecution because he was a Catholic and because he decided that he didn’t want to go along with all of the Catholic prostitutes—Father Sirico of the Acton Institute springs immediately to mind— who were claiming that free market laissez faire capitalism was completely compatible with what the popes had to say in encyclicals like Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno. John Sharpe made the mistake of re-publishing distributist classics by writers like G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, and for that his patriotism has been called into question.
But it wasn’t just distributism that got John in trouble with the SPLC. It was also his two-volume attack on the war in Iraq, Neoconned and Neoconned Again, to which I contributed. The slanderers at the SPLC referred to the Neoconned volumes as containing “several articles by racists and anti-Semites.” If the Navy had taken the time to look at the book the SPLC cited they might have found notorious anti-Semites like Noam Chomsky, Paul Gottfried, and Jeff Steinberg among its contributors. Why would a Jew hater include Jews among the contributors to his book? Probably because he is not what the SPLC says he is. The article in the Navy Times attacking John Sharpe was based on the legwork of the SPLC’s paid troupe of character assassins, and it gives new credence to the old oxymoron joke about military intelligence.
In the end, when Father Scalia entered his hospital room and asked him if he wanted the sacraments of the Church, Sam Francis chose the Higher Logos, and we can honor him by choosing the cause of Logos as we enter the next phase of the culture wars. Both Sam Francis’s deathbed conversion to Catholicism and the persecution of John Sharpe are symbolic of a shift in the culture wars. The offensive launched by the Southern Poverty Law Center is the best indication I can offer that the main front in the culture wars is now the confrontation between Jews and Catholics. The Enlightenment is finally dead. There are no more quasi-Masonic movements, where each of us can rise above whatever sect he belongs to and join the Lodge known as “conservatism” or liberalism, or whatever. I think we, no matter what our religious or ethnic background, should rejoice at this development because in this confrontation 1) the Church has both a history and a set of beliefs that will lay to rest forever the charge of anti-Semitism and destroy it as a tool of political oppression and 2) because no matter how much they want to finesse the attack by focusing on what they consider fringe groups, the Jews have taken on a considerable group of people, who will react eventually to the attack. The situation in Hungary now is a case in point.
And finally, we should be happy because the attack clearly defines the terms of engagement, all of which are all spiritual. The revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he is a rejecter of Logos, not because of his DNA. We are not anti-Semites because we oppose the machinations of the revolutionary Jew. No, we are true Christians because of that, as the Church from the time of St. Peter onward has proclaimed. Like St. Peter and St. Paul, we are suffering at the hands of the Jews, “the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting in a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the whole human race” (I Thess 1:15).
We are now engaged in a battle which has ebbed and flowed over the centuries, but the sides in this battle have not changed. What has changed are the odds. The Jews have never been stronger; the Catholics have never been weaker, but the outcome of spiritual battles—and the battle for the soul of the West, as Tolkien knew, is a spiritual battle—no matter what the odds, is rarely predictable. If St. Paul, representing the Christian position, has to say, “When I am weak, I am strong.” Then the revolutionary Jew, representing the opposite position has to say, “When I am strong, I am weak.” We are outgunned on every front in the culture wars, but that is no reason for despair, if we follow the Logos that St. Paul followed, because he was outgunned by the Jews too, outgunned but not undone, saying, “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down but not destroyed.”
And so, as Theoden said, “we come to it in the end, the great battle of our time, in which many things will pass away. But at least there is no longer need for hiding.” Nor, might we add, any place to hide. Many if not most of us are here today because our careers have already been destroyed by the revolutionary Jew and his goyische front men. The Jews spy on us through our computers. They suborn fellow Catholics to betray us, get us fired, prevent us from speaking. Our backs are to the wall. But in attacking John Sharpe, the SPLC has created the American Catholic version of the Dreyfus affair. They have clarified the issue. By going along with their slanders, the Navy has put itself on trial. It is our duty to play the cards which providence has dealt us. We have never been weaker, and our enemies have never been stronger, but that is no reason for despair, because as Elrond says, “this quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong.” And why is that? Because “such is the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them as because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.” (I, p. 283).
Perhaps the mention of John Sharpe made Peter Brimelow nervous because if there were ever a man who was the victim of character assassination via guilt by association, it was John Sharpe. On the day of my talk, someone handed me an article which had just appeared in the Navy News. Andrew Scutro, staff writer for that paper, quoted Heidi Beirich, one of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s paid character assassins, as saying that she “witnessed him [John Sharpe] selling books at a gathering of a group known as ‘American Renaissance,’ that welcomes activists to ‘help the cause of whites,’ according to its web site.” Sharpe countered by claiming that American Renaissance was “the white man’s version of the NAACP” and that he was there to sell books. He also mentioned that he had attended a meeting of progressive Democrats for the same reason. Interestingly, the SPLC did not accuse John Sharpe of being a liberal Democrat because of that fact. Publishers go to events to sell their books, not to endorse the views of the speakers there. Sharpe’s Neoconned and Neoconned Again volumes opposed the war in Iraq and so might have found acceptance in left-wing circles, but the SPLC ignored that fact because it did not serve their main interest, which was character assassination via guilt by association. In her response to the Navy Times reporter, Ms. “Beirich scoffed at Sharpe’s apparent ignorance of the subversive nature of the American Renaissance. “Literally next to him,” Beirich continued, “in the next booth, was a guy selling ‘White Power’ T-shirts . . . . You had to be an idiot not to know where you were.”
Which is true enough. But no one is claiming that John Sharpe didn’t know where he was. He is claiming that he attended the conference to sell books, but Ms. Beirich is claiming that he is guilty of racism because of the T-shirts the man in the booth next to him was selling. Conspicuous by its absence from this exercise in guilt by association was any mention of the books that he was selling or their contents.
I noticed the same thing in the SPLC attack on me. After announcing that my wife and I almost made it to Woodstock on our honeymoon (something you would think would endear me to the hearts of SPLC supporters), Beirich et al announced that I had sponsored a conference in Germany on “deracination,” something dear to the hearts of neo-Nazis. First of all, after reading this feeble attempt at character assassination via guilt by association, I became aware 1) that the Einsteins at the SPLC didn’t know that the word “deracination” refers to roots and not race and 2) that they aren’t in the practice of consulting the dictionary when they run across big words that they don’t understand. But their intention was clear. I was a Nazi because I held a conference in Germany and used a big word that they didn’t understand.
But let’s engage in a thought experiment that will make guilt by association even easier for the cub reporters at the SPLC. Suppose for a moment that I had addressed a Neo-Nazi rally in Germany. Is there any doubt in anybody’s mind what I would have told them? I would have given exactly the same speech that I gave at the Sam Francis memorial in Washington. I would have told them that our enemy is the revolutionary Jew, and that racism is stupid because it prevents us from addressing the real problem, which is the Jewish rejection of Logos and not any malignant (or mystical) DNA. If, by some miracle of regeneration, Adolf Hitler had been present at my talk, I would have told him the same thing and would not have been contaminated because of any proximity to him. If Adolf Hitler at this point stepped forward to have his picture taken standing beside me, I would have said to him what I said to Joe Sobran and Willis Carto, “Adolf, this picture will ruin your career.”
Guilt by association is an old story. It is an old Jewish story as well. The Pharisees, if you’ll remember, criticized Jesus for eating with prostitutes and tax-collectors, as if somehow their sins could contaminate the Logos. His response was to say that it is the sick who need the doctor and to dismiss the idea that anything that goes into a man’s mouth makes him unclean. No, the Christian believes that it is what comes out of your mouth and heart that makes you unclean, and this statement posits the a fortiori truth that we are not responsible for what comes out of someone else’s mouth.
So, as the pope once said, “Be not afraid, Peter.” When it comes to guilt by association, the choice is fairly clear: we can choose the Logos which sets us free to engage the world in dialogue and allows us Christian freedom of association, or we can succumb to Jewish taboo and fear of the Jews and the constant anxiety that we can at any moment be expelled from the synagogue of political correctness and respectability by an involuntarily incurred instance of intellectual ritual impurity. Once our culture turned away from Christ and began to embrace the Talmud, fear of ritual impurity would become one of the main instruments of political control, a fact nowhere more evident than in Washington.
The more we delve into this matter the more evident the hypocrisy associated with guilt by association becomes, as one of the main forms of political control. To get back to our original instance, John Sharpe is being demonized by the character assassins at the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-Semite because he attended an American Renaissance conference. Yet, if we log on to the SPLC website and type American Renaissance into their search engine, we find that the SPLC has good things to say about that racist organization. In fact, a quick search of the SPLC web site informs us that AR president Jared Taylor is “an opponent of anti-Semitism.” Shawn Mercer, the man in charge of the American Renaissance’s web discussion group, we are told, “deletes most postings excoriating the Jews.” This only confirms what we have learned from other sources. In an obit on Sam Francis which appeared in the American Conservative, we were told that Jared Taylor wanted to do for white nationalism what William F. Buckley did for conservatism. And what is that? Well, to subvert it in the interests of the Jews. One of the entries at the SPLC site claims that “It is well-known that the American Renaissance does not allow anti-Semitism; it is uptown, 100% clean WN [white nationalism]. Call it a first step if you like, but it is a very important first step, and Jared Taylor has had success.”
Success in what? The dirty secret of “uptown” racism is that it offers cover to revolutionaries by claiming that Jews are white—hence Sam’s question, hence the uproar my exploration of that question caused among the “uptown” race crowd. As I said in my talk, the real armature of the culture wars is ethnic not racial. The American Renaissance is exactly what John Sharpe said it was, although not quite in the way that he intended. The American Renaissance is the white man’s version of the NAACP, which is to say, one more organization which manipulates the race issue in the interests of the revolutionary Jews. The main purpose of the American Renaissance is to convince deracinated Protestants that Jews are white, and, therefore, no threat to their interests. In obscuring the problem by playing the race card, the American Renaissance engages in cultural mystification every bit as much as the NAACP and the Black Panthers, two Jewish-run operations, did before them. In obscuring the real nature of the culture wars, white nationalism becomes a form of political control and a worthy successor to the Jewish-led black operation known as conservatism. No wonder the race crowd was upset with my talk.
The race crowd, it turns out, was more upset by my talk than the Jews. Even though I identified the revolutionary Jew as our enemy, I made it clear that insofar as he follows Logos, the Jew is not our enemy. If the Jew accepts the Higher Logos known as Catholic Christianity, he is not only not our enemy, he is one of us. Throughout history, Jews have rejected the rejection of Logos, and when they did one of the first things they proposed was burning the Talmud. When Joseph Pfefferkorn converted to Catholicism in 1507, he gave expression to his new-found zeal for the faith by wanting to burn the Talmud, and the Cologne Dominicans supported him in his desire.
Nothing much has changed since then. The chattering class both then (i.e., Erasmus and the humanists) and now was distinguished not so much by their love for the Jews as by their skepticism about the efficacy of baptism to change Jewish DNA, as if that were the issue. Both then and now, the Jews who follow Logos and the Jewish converts to the higher Logos saw that racism deprived the Jew of both his reason and his humanity. He was nothing more than a function of his wicked DNA, which baptism could not change and which Logos could not touch.
One of the people who attended the talk and who was not afraid to have her picture taken with me (she, in fact, took many of the pictures) was Kristin Kazyak, a spiritual daughter of Nicholas Donin, Joseph Pfefferkorn, and Edith Stein. She was, in other words, a Jewess who had accepted the Higher Logos and was, therefore, one of us:
I heard Jones speak on March 20, 2007 at the Sam Francis conference at the Natl Press Club and frankly, of all those who spoke Jones distinguished himself by a presentation that was well-reasoned coupled with a delivery and demeanor that fitted the type of intellectual discussion desired, needed and invited.
Sadly, a couple of those on the panel, either because they knew or hob knobbed with Sam Francis were, in fact, emotionally disturbed dysfunctionals who projected their racism and virulently anti-Catholic bigotry both during their own lectures and also by disrupting the conference with startling, as well as, embarrassing irrational acts and statements.
When Jones failed to join them, they realized — like the Liberals at Vatican II — they stood alone (foiled again which really exorcised them to projectile vomit and foam at the mouth) in highlight with their racist and bigoted statements and antics — engraved and burned for public consumption on DVD and C-SPAN, and in VIVID contrast with Jones and the other guest lecturers who were well reasoned and who exhibited their good will (and good manners).
Being of Jewish descent (and not merely having a Jewish great-great-great grandmother but a Jewish Mother and the very same Jewish Mother who conceived Jesus Christ making Him one with His “People of The Name” — the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mother Mary) with family members in Kozienice exterminated at Treblinka and Auschwitz http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/Kozienice/kozXI.html#K I have no sympathy for homosexuals (no descendants of Lot here) and little sympathy for empty-headed demi-political Catholics (Protestants and Liberal Revolutionary Jews) who fall for the homosexual agenda and attack “neo-cons” for crawling OUT of the dank black scummy swamps of Chaos made by Gay-jewish Revolutionaries, only to find themselves stumbling about on stony ground during a BLACKOUT near-total eclipse of Faith and Reason (while the winds and gates of Hell howl in vain maelstrom against the Church).
In working the crowd after the talk Kazyak found that, even though (or perhaps, because) I identified the revolutionary Jew as the enemy, the Jews she spoke to were more sympathetic to my talk than the racists were:
I’ve found nothing in Jones’ book or his speech at the Sam Francis conference that Fr John A Hardon, SJ (Saint pending) or Pope Benedict XVI would not agree with entirely. I spoke with an undercover Jew (or two) at the conference who (being of right reason and ergo “lower logos”) agreed as well and then some with Jones! I would suggest a near future conference to include E. Michael Jones and Rabbi Levin and certain others (of similar Moral Virtue and intellectual fortitude) — it’s time WE came out with our Light from under the bushel (her emphasis).
The doors of our conference MUST be closed to ALL intellectual and moral predators. (Leave faggots to shout their racism and anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish bigotry at Queer Nation conferences — they can buy our unedited DVDs). I think Sam’s conference dug the graves for some of his former “hanger-ons” who have neither the moral nor intellectual capacity to follow Sam to the Higher Logos. I don’t think they like being left behind, but that Is LIFE, and the difference between willing LIFE and choosing death.
They can continue to choose death. Sam willed Life. We can pray for those who choose the gods of Chaos rather than the One God, Who Is Love, Truth and Life but I’d fire up our thermonuclear detonators along with our laser swords and shields and beg the Angel with the Flaming Sword, as well, to keep the Chaos OUT (demoniacs can gnash their teeth outside our conference doors) and Eternally far from US in the event of any future conferences — open to all men of good will who love the Truth — both lower logos and Higher Logos.
So what I said in my talk about the Jewish subversion of the civil rights movement and the Jewish attempt to turn the Negro into the revolutionary vanguard in the United States is a fortiori true of white racism. The SPLC supports “uptown” racism of the American Renaissance variety, because the SPLC, like the NAACP before it, is an essentially Jewish organization. Supporting “uptown” racism absolves the revolutionary Jew of any responsibility in the culture wars by giving them the cover of being “white,” and once they are certified as white, they are certified as “good” because of their DNA. How any one can believe this mumbo jumbo is beyond me. If you want a more detailed explanation, I suggest that you contact Jared Taylor.
So, the answer to the question Sam Francis posed and which began my talk, “Are Jews white?” is yes. Jews are white in the eyes of the American Renaissance, and as a result the SPLC, which is a Jewish organization, which is ostensibly against racism, supports them in their efforts to redefine Jews out of the cultural equation. Once race becomes the all-important issue, Jews disappear from the radar screen because, well, because they are not black. John Sharpe, on the other hand, who is being attacked because he is Catholic and upholds the traditional Catholic position on the Jews is demonized as an anti-Semite because of his tenuous association with a group, American Renaissance, which the SPLC goes out of its way to certify as not anti-Semitic.
Is that clear? No? If it isn’t, it’s because guilt by association is fundamentally irrational. It is the hallmark of a group of people who derive their identity from hatred of Logos. Insofar as we embrace the Logos, we are absolved from these fears. Just as Jesus could eat with whores and tax-collectors, we can get our pictures taken with Joe Sobran and Willis Carto and even people like Peter Brimelow without fear of contamination. The more we embrace the light, the less we will be kept in the dark by the deliberate manipulation of racial doctrines whose purpose is to keep us all divided, confused, and full of fear.
E. Michael Jones is editor of Culture Wars.
This article appeared in the May 2007 issue
IHS Press, Potential Fascist & Antisemitic Connections, Etc.: A Chronicle of Disturbing Patterns
I usually am not inclined to blog on this kind of topic, but having conducted several weeks' investigation into this matter I believe the questions raised by fellow Catholic Matthew Anger (Fringe Watch) are credible, and that this issue, disturbing as it is, should be brought to the greater attention of the public. Please note that as any more information pertaining to this issue becomes available this post may be updated in the future -- Thanks, CB].
In September 2001, John Sharpe and Derek Holland founded IHS Press, its stated mission "to bring back into print the classics of last century on the Social Teachings of the Catholic Church" -- which the publishers hope will be "a welcome and refreshing change for any socially-conscious reader who, in a search for a humane solution to modern social problems, is looking for a break from worn-out theories."
In December 2005, IHS Press, under the imprint "Light and Darkness," published the two-part anthology Neo-Conned and Neo-Conned Again. Featuring "20 months of extensive research" and the contributions of a broad range of authors (a "who's who" of those who opposed the Iraq war), including "paleoconservative" Pat Buchanan (The American Conservative), Joseph Sobran, Deacon Keith Fournier (former editor of TCRNews.com), Paul Likoudis (The Wanderer), William T. Cavanaugh, Ph.D. (author of Torture and Eucharist), Scott Ritter (former chief UN weapons inspector for UNSCOM), journalist Robert Fisk, Professor Noam Chomsky, Justin Raimondo (antiwar.com), Mark & Louise Zwick (Houston Catholic Worker) and E. Michael Jones (Culture Wars) -- with endorsements by everyone from Dale Vree (New Oxford Review) to Howard Zinn (historian, Boston University) to Bishop Williamson (SSPX). . . . in the publisher's words, "a hard-hitting, no-holds-barred examination of the immorality, the injustice, the illegality, and the insanity of America’s aggression against Iraq."
* * *
In December 2005, Matthew Anger (who some might recognize as a frequent contributor to the Seattle Catholic) launched a blog called Fringe Watch, its primary aim "a study on the Third Positionist neo-fascist infiltration of conservative/traditional Catholic circles," but extending its investigation into such controversial figures as Bishop Williamson (SSPX), Fr. Leonard Feeney (1897-1978) . . . and IHS Press founders John Sharpe and Derek Holland. The relevant posts from his blog are as follows:
The Real Con Job: John Sharpe's "Anti-War" Series Dec. 29, 2005
John Sharpe's Legion of St. Louis Dec. 30, 2005
John Sharpe's Ties to Holland and Fiore Dec. 31, 2005
More on Derek Holland and IHS Press January 20, 2006
IHS/Legion Extremism Confirmed February 17, 2006
The Political Soldier Part I (a study of Holland's pseudo-spiritual 1984 manifesto popular in neo-fascist circles) and The Political Soldier Part II:, the second work published in 1989 as Thoughts on Sacrifice and Struggle.
Readers curious in making the connections can read the relevant posts; but to summarize Anger's investigation: IHS Press founder John Sharpe, a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, former submarine officer and media spokesman for the Atlantic Fleet, has ties to Legion of St. Louis, a traditionalist website which peddles anti-semitic/anti-Judaic literature such as Henry Ford's International Jew, A.K. Chesterton's The New Unhappy Lords (what Anger describes as "the Mein Kampf of British neo-fascism by A. K. Chesterton, founder the racialist National Front") and Judaism's Strange Gods by Holocaust-revisionist and "white-separatist" Michael Hoffman II.
It also appears that the co-founder of IHS Press is none other than Derek Holland (presently going by the name of Deric O'Huallachain), a former International Third Position (ITP) leader with a sympathy for anti-American Arab governments, having traveled to Libya in 1988 (a field trip organized by Ayran Nations Australia leader Robert Pash).
According to Wikipedia's biography:
Holland's last public appearance was at a Swedish nationalist convention in 2002 (hosted by Nationaldemokratisk Ungdom, the youth wing of the National Democrats). Since that time the ITP appears to have gravitated towards the European National Front, and Holland has retired from active involvement in politics, though his Political Soldier writings are still circulated amongst radical nationalists.
Holland has received considerable treatment in works on European extremist nationalism, including Fascism: A History by Roger Eatwell (1997) and Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (2002). Holland’s writings on the Political Soldier are also featured in Fascism: A Reader published by Oxford University Press (1995).
According to Matt Anger, Derek Holland now resides in Ireland and sits on the board of directors of IHS Press:
From the moment that IHS Press was established in 2001, people expressed concern, but were reassured (as was this writer) that Holland had put his extremism "behind him." Apparently that didn't stop him from being guest speaker at the February 2002 racial nationalist Nationaldemokratisk Ungdom (NDU) in Sweden. In March of that year the German neo-nazi Deutsche Stimme (German Voice) featured his essay, "Theory and Strategy: The Path of the Political Soldier." An overnight transition from political radicalism to religious orthodoxy seems improbable. And his activities in Ireland have covered as recently as 2005 in the Brandsma Review.
Roberto Fiore, Holland's close collaborator, was a member of the political wing of the Armed Revolutionary Nuclei which claimed responsibility for the 1980 Bologna bomb attack which claimed 85 lives. In 1997 Fiore came out of hiding in the UK to head the openly fascist Forza Nuova party in Italy.
What is the link to Neo-Conned? Fiore, as part of the ITP, helped set up the St. George Educational Trust which is the UK counterpart to, and collaborator with, Sharpe's pseudo-Catholic Legion of St. Louis. [More on this later on -- CB]
* * *
Having blogged previously on the disturbing presence of anti-semitism in "radical traditionalist" circles -- Dubious Sources in Catholic Family News May 17, 2003; Anti-semitism: Another Obstacle to SSPX Reconciliation Against the Grain Dec. 28, 2003; Pope Benedict XVI, the SSPX and Impediments to Reunion Sept. 10, 2005 -- I took an immediate interest in Matt Anger's investigation. (And lest you suspect Anger of possessing "neocon" affinities like myself, do read his Anti-War Conservatives vs. Subversives: A Clarification Fringe Watch Jan. 20, 2005).
* * *
Where is all this heading? -- Back in January I had touched on John Sharpe's dubious connections in my introduction to Matt Anger's blog. I was at the time greatly disturbed by these revelations concerning IHS Press, on account that various bloggers and websites I knew(TCRNews.com, for instance) were vigorously promoting the Neoconned series.
Likewise, I myself had promoted IHS Press on my website The Church and the Liberal Tradition (focusing on Catholic social doctrine and the debate between "Whig-Thomists" and "Augustianian Thomists"), and listed one of their books, Dr. Amintore Fanfani's Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism.
Others, however, were somewhat dismissive of Matt Angers' investigation. One commentator protests:
. . . As for Sharpe's views on "the Jews," which I knew nothing of until reading Matt's piece, that is separate. We at our end believe we can praise one work while deploring the rest. We do the same with First Things all the time, which we consider theologically very substantive though politically compromised (again, from our point of view; no offense intended to anyone here).
I responded in turn that this was a grave mistake: perhaps one can separate the content from the source, "praising the work while deploring the source" -- but in this case, I would be pressed to ask whether, under the present circumstances, it is right to further the financial gain of this kind of publisher without at least inquiring more closely about their political/ideological views?
Another friend urged me to write John Sharpe and IHS Press regarding these allegations, and I agreed it would be the best idea to confront them directly. On February 8, 2006, I emailed the publishers at IHS Press, by way of their own website as well as their Neoconned promotional page, inquiring about the present connections of John Sharpe to the Legion of St. Louis and IHS Press' co-founder Derek Holland's relationship to the International Third Position (as described in the article Faith-based fascists bridging the waters, Searchlight March 2004). (Recieiving no response, I wrote them again on Februrary 21st).
On February 21, 2006 I received the following response from IHS Press:
I write on behalf of IHS Press as the editor. You should contact the Legion of St. Louis for information on their status or activities. IHS Press is not connected to the Legion of St. Louis.
As an aside, as for the books you mention, I have not read Ford's so could not comment on its quality one way or the other, but the Michael Hoffman book you refer to is an excellent and balanced treatment of an obviously difficult question. His treatment is not unlike the treatment of the question by orthodox Catholics of the 1800s and 1900s. No doubt you've read it, since you seem to take exception to it. On the off chance that you haven't read it, I recommend you do so, both for the possibility that it will make a more favorable impression upon you than you seem to have of it currently, and for you to have your facts assembled if you do intend to further criticize it.
As for the 'political affiliations and views' of Mr. O'Huallachain, our co-editor and co-publisher, I suggest you provide some specific questions which I would be happy to forward to him. Regarding lectures or interviews he may have given, these are matters for him to discuss and are of no concern to the Press. We don't make it our business to "authorize" or otherwise get involved in the private or non-IHS Press-related activities of our staff, provided of course that these activities do not contravene either Catholic doctrine and morality or the law, which I am quite certain -- in this case -- they do not.
We are greatful to hear of your promotion of Fanfai's great book. We'd be pleased if that promotion could continue. If you enjoyed the editors' introduction to that volume you might reflect upon it as an illustration of the orthodoxy of the Press's editors. As an additional aside regarding whatever your questions might be about the editors' 'views or political affiliations,' you may rest assured that our views are expressed in what we publish and, more specifically, what we have written as introductory material to what we publish.
We'd be happy to answer any further or more specific questions.
Mr. Sharpe and I corresponded further on the above topics, although his responses to my inquiries regarding the Legion of St. Louis and Derek Holland's background were in large part the same and stuck to the above points. My observations are as follows:
John Sharpe and the Legion of St. Louis
Mr. Sharpe advises: "You should contact the Legion of St. Louis for information on their status or activities. IHS Press is not connected to the Legion of St. Louis." (He reiterated this point in our subsequent correspondence). Now, while this is "factually" true (there is indeed, no formal connection between the two organizations), it remains the case that the founder of "The Legion of St. Louis" is none other than John Sharpe, as documented by the "founding email" of the organization, reproduced here on The LeFloch Report, and this article in the Dec. 13, 2002 edition of Seattle Catholic.
John Sharpe's Commentary on 9/11
[Note: This particular section has been revised on 3/1/06 in light of additional documentation uncovered from MediaMonitors.net -- CB]
Furthermore, as "editor of the Legion of St. Louis", Mr. Sharpe authored a series of essays on 9/11 for conspiracy website MediaMonitors.net, in which he airs views that would be of concern to most Catholics. In the first essay, "Thou Shall Not Kill Sept. 17, 2001, Sharpe suggests that the United States pretty much brought 9/11 on itself. Citing the work of (suprise!) "the master of secret history, Michal A. Hoffman, II," Sharpe muses that "there remains the possibility that that official story [of 9/11] will be a cover for something else, and that there are individuals who benefit from the results . . . who are other than the hypothetical crazy Arabs," speculating in his second essay (The Mainstream Media Reaction to the Attacks: Who's Pulling the Strings? Sept. 19, 2001) that the culprits may very well be "The Mossad or the U.S. Govt."
In this third essay, Islam vs. the West: Is This Another Crusade? October 18, 2001, Sharpe charges that:
Commentary on the geopolitical situation of 2001 can be neither complete nor sufficient if it fails to take into account the Jewish Nation. The temporal power that the Jews have achieved since, picking a somewhat arbitrary date, 1789, is both pervasive and relatively unchallenged. Some readers will doubtless call this extremism, anti-Semitism, and, God-forbid, some strange brand of Nazi fanaticism. On the contrary. It is simply a fact. The forces of high finance, government, and the media have been in largely Jewish hands for some time now; we should therefore expect that the direction in which the world is guided by those forces (or at least in which those forces attempt to guide the world) largely corresponds to a generally Jewish aim.
Sharpe goes on to discuss the Catholic response to 9/11 from the Vatican ("little more than a nicely robed fan club for everything modern") and Pope John Paul II ("of scandalous Koran-kissing fame") -- such references to the Holy Father are to be expected -- before concluding:
1. The current and historical mortal enemy of Christian civilization is Judeo-Masonry. There can be no doubt about this fact from an analysis history, both recent, and that which dates from the time of Our Lord. Islam is a sideshow, albeit a powerful and vigorous one, to the main drama. It has been a tool of Jewry and may in fact be so in this case.
2. There is nothing to suggest that bin Laden, assuming he is the guilty party – or whoever is responsible for the attacks of 9-11 – considered the attacks to be an assault on the West, insofar as it is the uniquely Christian West. [. . .]
4. In truth, there is no longer a Christian West to attack. To suggest that the US of A is the last bastion of Christian civilization is a sad mockery of the truth. It has been a greater Israel for many years; the rise of Hollywood, Wall Street, the Fed, and Roosevelt’s State and Treasury departments assured that.
Part III of Sharpe's 9/11 commentary ends with the anticipation that he "will try to pull together what is known about the "official story" and why it doesn’t wash. It will also consider just what role this 'greater Judaism' may have had in 9-11, particularly in light of the ideological gains which it continues to reap in the name of pluralism and tolerance."
The Sept. 11, 2002 - "9/11 Anniversary Edition" of the LSL's Legion News & Views [available here on the restored website of the LSL, or via the Google cache], again indulges in wild conspiracies about 9/11, recommending the conspiracy-theory websites The Abbé de Nantes" and http://www.whatreallyhappened.com -- speculating (from the former) that Bin Laden is "the secret ally of the United States"; (from the latter), that the Zionists, again, were the true perpetrators of the crime.
John Sharpe's endorsement of Judaism's Strange Gods, by Michael Hoffman II
Mr. Sharpe recommends Michael Hoffman's Judaism's Strange Gods as an "excellent and balanced treatment of an obviously difficult question." Who is Michael Hoffman II?
Michael Hoffman II is a conspiracy-theorist and Holocaust-revisionist, who heads the revisionist website Campaign for Radical Truth in History. He has authored a number of books such as Hate Whitey - The Cinema of Defamation ("tracking Hollywood's psychological war against whites, Christians, Germans and gentiles"); Witches and Rabbis: Legacy of the Reagan White House (the chapter titles alone are a good indication of the content: "Reagan's Kosher Cash Cow; Greatest Presidential Friend of the Israelis; Patron Saint of the Holohoax Lobby," etc.); on revisionisthistory.org, he bemoans the fact that
"The white race --at least in its current degenerate state as manifested in modern America-- is now the golem of the rabbis. Without the unstinting financial and military support of America's white leaders and white voters, the Israeli Zionists would not have one-tenth their power in the world today. The supremacy of whites in America such as George W. Bush, Donald Rumsefeld, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, George Bush Sr., Justice Antonin Scalia, . . . is synonymous with the rise of Judaic supremacy. I repudiate white supremacy and Judaic supremacy with every ounce of my being."
In subsequent correspondence with Mr. Sharpe I pointed out Michael Hoffmann II's rather dubious connections and asked, whether in light of his other writings as a Holocaust revisionist, Hoffman's Judaism's Strange Gods could honestly be considered to offer a "excellent and balanced" exploration of Judaism. Mr. Sharpe responded:
I am not aware of the books of his that you say indulge "in the worst form of 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion"-esque conspiracy-theorizing", whatever that means exactly. Notwithstanding your own point of view of Mr. Hoffman, his book on Judaism is balanced and enlightening. I suggest you read it before you comment on it one way or another.
Although Sharpe professes an ignorance of Hoffman's other works, he has freely cited Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare in his speculations on 9/11. Although he may not be aware of his other works, I admit I was greatly disturbed by his apparent lack of concern about Hoffman's connections when I pointed these out to him.
Truth be told, I have not bothered to read Strange Gods of Judaism. While I am somewhat familiar with the selective-quotation from the Talmud by anti-semites (see the Anti-Defamation League's The Talmud in Anti-Semetic Polemics February 2003, which addresses the spurious charges of Michael Hoffman II and white-supremacist David Duke), the fact that Michael Hoffman II is a celebrated author of, and heavily marketed by, white-nationalist, neo-nazi, "revisionist history" and "New World Order" conspiracy-theory organizations is enough to repel me.
With regards to learning about Judaism as a religious tradition, I have found Hayim Halevy Donin's To Be a Jew: A Guide to Jewish Observance in Contemporary Life (Basic Books, 1991) particularly helpful, along with Back To The Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts (Simon & Schuster, 1986); I suppose Rabbi Joseph Telushkin's Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion, Its People and Its History wouldn't hurt, either. And to understand Judaism from a Christian/Catholic perspective, one might read Roy H. Schoeman's Salvation is From The Jews (Ignatius Press, 2004).
Point being: if you want to learn about contemporary Judaism, ask a Jew. Better yet, ask a religious orthodox Jew, not a conspiracy-theorist with a background in "white-separatism" and Holocaust-revisionism.
John Sharpe's Lack of Concern about Derek Holland
That IHS Press' founder should plead ignorance of and willful disregard for the past activities of Derek Holland is extremely troubling for this reason: according to Matthew Anger,
The [International Third Position] has long been involved in a scheme of Marxist style "entryism" – with the aim of co-opting groups which profess non-mainstream views (not extremist per se) in the hopes of bringing them under their neo-fascist umbrella. But a breakthrough came with the ITP's St. George Educational Trust (SGET) set up in the early 90s as a "Catholic charity" organization (an investigation of the group by the UK Charity Commission took place in 1997).
But a breakthrough came with the ITP's St. George Educational Trust (SGET) set up in the early 90s as a "Catholic charity" organization (an investigation of the group by the UK Charity Commission took place in 1997).
[For more on the investigation into the 'St. George Educational Trust,' see "Two 'Catholic' charities linked to Nazis, says report", by Paul Kelso The Guardian Sept. 18, 2000, and "Charities told to sever link to far-right nationalists", The Guardian May 21, 2001]
It has to be understood that within European "revolutionary nationalism" there are two trends: one, professedly neo-pagan and even anti-Christian; the other, espousing a selective religiosity (not unlike the Klan and "Christian Identity" racialists in the US). But when push comes to shove, all such extremists put aside personal differences to unite in their hatred of Jews, non-whites and the United States. It is the totalitarian tendency which trumps everything else.
The problem with Sharpe's activities is not just a question of overlapping ideas, but of overlapping resources. A look at my library shows that the SGET, whose books are sold by the [Legion of St. Louis], has the same mailing address as the ITP’s Legion Books at Forest Place in Hampshire, England.
The SGET/LSL pamphlet Catholic Action: Uses, Abuses and Excuses is written by Derek Holland under the pen name of "Liam Connolly." The article "Why Catholics Are Cowards" by Liam Connolly was published by the LSL and SGET in the booklet Faith and Fear. It first appeared in the Christmas 1998 issue of Candour, an anti-Semitic newsletter run by the ITP (now operating in the UK as "England First").
In subsequent correspondence, John Sharpe reiterated his position that
IHS does not scrutinize the activities of its staff provided those don't violate either the moral or the civil law, and, to repeat, Mr. O'Huallachain's activities - whether or not you endorse them - don't violate either. Therefore they are of no concern to IHS Press.
In light of the fact that 1) IHS Press co-founder Derek Holland/Deric O'Huallachain has a known history of involvement in British fascism, including the origination of the International Third Position; 2) Derek Holland's comrade, Italian fascist Roberto Fiore, masterminded a plot in the 1990's to fund "nationalist commmunes" in Spain through "Catholic charities" which purported to be merely thrift stores and distributors of traditional Catholic literature; 3) that, as late as 2002, Derek Holland had a speaking engagement to a convention of the German NPD (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands) . . . then, in this writer's humble opinion, it probably would be in Sharpe's best interest to evaluate his background before entering into a joint publishing venture.
* * *
In the past several years, IHS Press has received recognition as a mainstream Catholic publisher. In September 11, 2003, Zenit News Service interviewed Mr. Sharpe on the founding of IHS Press and the revival of Catholic social doctrine ("As a complete sociopolitical creed the social doctrine really is a third way that isn't just between the Left and Right -- it rather transcends both Left and Right and rises above them with its own vision of social order"). They have received a fidelity rating of "excellent" by CatholicCulture.com; and in a November 2004 book review for the New Oxford Review, Thomas Storck commended their publication of Chesterton and Belloc, "their efforts to provide American readers with these foundational works cannot be praised too highly."
In addition to its promotion of traditional Catholic works, IHS Press has, through its "Sheffield Hallam University Press" imprint , published several books on economic socialism, including study of the controversial publisher Alfred Richard Orage and Gary Taylor's Socialism and Christianity: The Politics of the Church Socialist League -- a study of late 19th, early 20th century Christian socialism in England which challenges the notion that "socialism is anti-Christian".
Under its "Traditionalist Press" imprint, IHS Press also published the book The Rural Solution: Modern Catholic Voices on Going “Back to the Land”, an anthology which argues "why city-dwelling Catholics should settle and work in the country." The authors of the text are listed as:
Richard Williamson is a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. Peter Chojnowski is a teacher of religion, philosophy, and social thought at Immaculate Conception Academy. Christopher McCann is an associate of Angelus Press, a Catholic publisher of books about contemporary issues of the Catholic faith. John Marx was a professor of social science and economics at Catholic University of America. Willis Nutting was a frequent contributor to the Catholic journal Integrity.
Now, Bishop Williamson is more than "a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church," being in fact excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in 1988, along with the other leaders of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) (see John Paul II's apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei Adflicta); Angelus Press is more than "a Catholic publisher" -- being the inhouse publisher of the SSPX, and Peter Chojnowski currently teaches for the Society of Saint Pius X at Immaculate Conception Academy in Post Falls, ID.
I should also mention that Richard Williamson also has a history of extremist views that mirror those of Sharpe and Derek Holland (see The Politics of Bishop Richard Williamson Fringe Watch January 25, 2006).
While it appears that the publishers' description of Williamson, Chojnowski and McCann could be construed as a willful attempt to conceal their controversial membership in the SSPX, one should also note that, according to Matt Anger, “whether one agrees with the SSPX or not, it is clear that Bishop Williamson has been an extremist and divisive force in Catholic tradition,” and that many within the SSPX remain severely critical of Richard Williamson’s relationship with Sharpe, Holland, and their involvement in neo-fascism.
Likewise, we should distinguish between those within the SSPX militantly opposed to Rome (like Williamson) and those who are not averse to entering into dialogue with Benedict XVI, with the goal of reconciliation.
IHS Press has also been vigorously marketing the Neo-Conned series, which received positive reviews by Dr. John Hubert TCRNews.com, Catholic "traditionalist" Michael Semin, and, curiously, a group called Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth (the latter reviewer has his own distinct criteria for determining the book's quality: "I went back through the book counting the 9/11 references. According to my quick survey, Neoconned Again includes 14 references (in ten essays) that take the official story [of 9/11] for granted; ten that cast doubt upon it indirectly or through innuendo; and three clear statements that the official story of 9/11 is a lie").
Over the past months, John Sharpe has also done promotional spots on left-wing radio (AntiWar.com's "Weekend Interview") and television (Dr Hesham Tillawi's "Current Issues" interview no longer available online but Sharpe's photo is posted). He will be presenting his work on Neo-Conned and Neo-Conned Again: Hypocrisy Lawlessness and the Rape of Iraq an an Arab/Islamic Center on March 31, 2006.
* * *
The publishers of the Neo-Conned volumes present themselves in a rather innocuous light:
J. Forrest Sharpe is the publisher and managing director of IHS Press. He is a student of Catholic Social Doctrine and the English Distributist movement. D. Liam O'Huallachain is the editorial director of IHS Press and is a student of Catholic Social Doctrine, the English Distributist Movement, and contemporary alternative political movements. Both have edited and annotated editions of works by 20th-century social thinkers such as G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, Fr. Vincent McNabb, Fr. Heinrich Pesch, and Dr. George O'Brien.
But as we have seen in this post, there is more to D. Liam O'Huallachain's study of "contemporary alternative political movements" than a cursory or academic interest.
At the time of this writing, it also appears that the domain name "http://www.legionofstlouis.com/" expired (on February 6, 2006 to be precise). Perhaps we may take this as a sign that Mr. Sharpe intends to abandon his earlier project and concentrate fully on the advancement of IHS Press. One may hope as much -- but in light of Sharpe's past editorship of the Legion of St. Louis, his co-founder's questionable political activities (which continued even after the founding of IHS Press), and the many controversial connections unnearthed by Matthew Angers' Fringe Watch investigations, serious questions and concerns remain.
Had Sharpe expressed the slightest bit of concern over Michael Hoffman II's writing and views on Judaism, or Derek Holland's ideological history as a Third Positionist; or admitted that he was indeed the founder of Legion of St. Louis, but had repudiated the opinions he was disseminating at the time as editor, I would have been inclined to let the matter rest and give IHS Press "the benefit of the doubt."
But the fact that he immediately went on the defensive in his support for Michael Hoffman II's Strange Gods of Judaism, his utter lack of concern for Derek Holland and his connection as founder of the Legion of St. Louis prompted the writing of this article.
Given their ideological background and connections, is it a good idea to lend one's support to these publishers by way of promoting their books?
And what of the "neo-fascist infiltration of conservative/traditional Catholic circles"? -- in addition to the left-wing and "paleoconservative" authors who penned works for the Neo-Conned volumes, there were also good Catholics who supported this project, either by contributing their work or lending their voice in endorsement.
Would they have done so as readily had they been fully aware of the ideological affiliations of its publishers?
Matt Anger brings to my attention a third essay on 9/11, available on the website of the Legion of St. Louis, which claims that "Bin Laden's call to attack the West lacks a supernatural geo-political perspective because it is concerned ONLY with defending the rights, albeit in some cases legitimate, of Muslim states. The media perspective is faulty because it equates the West with the Enlightenment, secularism, and materialism. And the analysis put forward by some Catholic parties is flawed not so much in itself as in what it leaves out of consideration – Judeo-Masonry."
A Final Conflict NewsEmail dated March 20th, 2001, a nationalist "skinhead" Third Positionist publication, contains a note attributed to "email@example.com" (One observes as well a mutual interest in Michael Hoffman II ("a seminal piece which exposes Judaism's dualistic Kabbalah/Talmud based faith . . . Judaism has NOTHING to do with Christianity or even the Old Testament -- but is essentially occultist"), which of course begs the question: what is a Catholic organization doing fraternizing with this kind of movement?
The August 25, 2002 edition of Legion News & Views [Google cache] contains a review of an IHS Press book on Chesterton, confirming that that the organization was in existence and functioning at least a year after the founding of the publishing company. Matt Anger notes (Legion of St. Louis Website: Gone But Not Forgotten Fringe Watch Feb. 27, 2006):
. . . the LSL site was in place in October 2001 and the IHS Press site went up no later than November of that same year, demonstrating that Mr. Sharpe was promoting supposedly Catholic publications via IHS at the same time that he was peddling anti-Semitism and neo-fascism with the LSL; and Derek Holland, veteran British neo-fascist, is a member of the IHS Press board of directors and was openly involved in extremist activities even after IHS Press was founded.
As of March 1, 2006, the Legion of St. Louis website appears to be "back in business," the domain name renewed on March 1, 2005 -- although the registrant's identity is removed.
I. Shawn McElhinney (Rerum-Novarum) notes that "some who have been zealously promoting this series have sought to take a moral theology approach to justifying these books propagation amongst their readers" -- he responds in On IHS Press, Potential Fascist Connections, Antisemitism, Etc. (Aka "Hand Caught in the Cookie Jar" Dept.).
In studying this topic I am also indepted to Bill Cork's extensive investigation "Antisemitism and the Catholic Right, an investigation of Robert Sungenis.
Labels: extremism, neocons
Comments (226) | Trackback (1)
posted by Fred Martinez @ 11:46 PM
A lot of good info.
I saw this one too by Tarsax:
And these ones on Jones' protege Robert Sungenis: