If you have read E. Michael Jones’ Libido Dominandi, Is Notre Dame Still Catholic?, The Jews and Moral Subversion, The Catholic Church and the Jews, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History, and David A. Wemhoff’s John Courtney Murray, Time/Life, and the American Proposition: How the C.I.A.’s Doctrinal Warfare Program Changed the Catholic Church, then you will find virtually nothing new in Taylor Marshall’s new book, Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within.

Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within

By Taylor Marshall

Buy on Amazon

Infiltration is disappointing largely because it miserably fails to name names and identify the real antichrist that has been waging a cosmic or universal war against the Church for the past two thousand years or so. Instead of calling out the real enemy, Taylor Marshall deliberately uses vague terms like “Liberalism,” “Modernism,” “Crypto-Modernism,” “Socialism,” or even “Communism” to describe the diabolical forces that have come to challenge the Catholic position in the culture wars. What is the ethnic group behind Communism? Protestants, Catholics, or Jews? Well, Marshall completely and astonishingly avoids addressing that issue, presumably because that could get him into trouble. And he obviously doesn’t want to tread down that path.

It seems that Marshall hasn’t picked up a copy of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century, which is published by Princeton University Press. Perhaps Marshall hasn’t read the book because he is a secret philo-Semite, as indicated throughout his book The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism & the Origins of Christianity. “God quickened the process of my conversion to the Catholic Faith with an insight that I gained from a Jewish rabbi,” Marshall writes.[1] He moves on to misrepresent the Catholic position on the Jews by saying:

We must note that it is not correct or fair to speak of ‘the Jews’ as corporately rejecting Christ. The early Church was almost entirely Jewish. All the Apostles were Jewish and Saint Paul himself was a Jewish Rabbi. The Blessed Virgin Mary was Jewish.[2]

So two thousand years of Church’s teaching on the Jews has just been debunked in just four sentences with no serious examination. Surely Marshall knows that the central issue has absolutely nothing to do with race or biology. Surely he knows that Catholic thinkers throughout the ages were aware of the fact that the early Church “was almost entirely Jewish” in an “ethnic” sense. So Marshall is subtly building a straw man here.

What Marshall doesn’t tell his readers is that by the time a person gets to John chapters 8 and 9, the word “Jew” ceases to be an ethnic term and takes on a theological meaning. For example, John tells the story of a man born blind, and by the middle of that story we read: “These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he [Jesus] was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue” (John 9:22).

Wait a minute. St. John, the author of the gospel, was a Jew. In fact, both the protagonists and the antagonists at the time were all Jews. So why did St. John specifically say that the parents of the man born blind were afraid of the Jews? Well, as E. Michael Jones cogently argues in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, by this time in the gospel the word Jew is no longer an ethnic term. The word Jew is now defined as a categorical and metaphysical rejection of Christ. This has been a turning point throughout the book of Acts. And this metaphysical rejection is still the major issue today.

Alan Dershowitz, of all people, agrees. He writes in The Vanishing American Jew: “In America, and in other nations that separate church from state, one’s Jewishness is a matter of self-definition and anyone who wants to be considered a Jew or a half Jew, or a partial Jew or a person of Jewish heritage has a right to be so considered.”[3] Everyone can become Jew if he has “Jewish blood,” but Christians, Dershowitz clarifies, are not entitled to this definition. “I do not mean to include former Jews who practice Christianity under the deliberately misleading name of Jews for Jesus. A Jew for Jesus already has a name: a Christian.”[4] Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner concurs, saying that “Jews who practice Christianity cease to be part of the ethnic Jewish community, while those who practice Buddhism remain within.”[5]

This attitude stretches into history as well; Jewish historiographer Heinrich Graetz notes that:

“an actual line of separation was drawn between Jews and Jewish Christians; the latter were placed below the sect of Samaritans, and in some respects below heathens. It was forbidden to partake of meat, bread, and wine with the Jewish Christians, as had been the case shortly before the destruction of the Temple with regard to the heathens, and to the same end—that of preventing closer intercourse with them. The Christian writings were condemned, and were put on par with books of magic.”[6]

As we shall see later, even the nation of Israel has proved that the issue has virtually nothing to do with “race” and has everything to do with rejecting Christ or Logos. St. Paul declares: “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men” (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15). Again, didn’t Paul know that he was an ethnic Jew? Or could it be that Marshall’s interpretation is wrong? And why didn’t Marshall discuss passages like this?

Things get more complicated by the time we reach the book of Revelation:

I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan…. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie” (Revelation 2:9; 3:9).

Who call themselves Jews today? The Chinese? The Japanese? The Belgians? The Jamaicans? You see, Marshall’s view is neither theologically sound nor intellectually plausible or coherent.

In any event Yuri Slezkine, who is a Jewish professor at the University of California, begins his study by saying that “The Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the twentieth century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.” Slezkine continues to say that “Modernization, in other words, is about everyone becoming Jewish.”[7] Russell Jacoby, another Jewish historian at the University of California, writes in his book The Last Intellectuals:

The Jewish contribution to the Left in the United States during the twentieth century ranks the highest of any immigrant or ethnic group…American Jewry has provided socialist organizations and movements with a disproportionate number—sometimes approaching or surpassing a majority—of their leaders, activists, and supporters.[8]

So is it really bizarre that Marshall would spend one chapter after another talking about Socialism or “Liberalism” without even suggesting that its roots are largely Jewish? This categorical blunder has intellectually crippled Marshall. By failing to address the root of Socialism, Marshall surreptitiously absolves the Jews of any responsibility in the culture wars. E. Michael Jones has dealt with Catholics who are not holding Jews responsible for pushing things like gay marriage and pornography in the culture in his book Catholics and the Jew Taboo. Instead of identifying the ethnic group that has universally changed the culture, says Jones, archbishops like Charles Chaput chose to use vague terms like “secularizing activists.” This implicitly tells us that Catholics like Chaput have become, in Jones’ words, “symptomatic of the problem.”

In that sense, Catholics like Chaput and even Marshall have invariably internalized the commands of their virulent enemies. Jones writes: “Catholics have been losing the culture wars for the past 53 years because Catholics can’t identify the enemy, and they can’t identify the enemy because they can’t say the word ‘Jew.’” In order to make progress in this cosmic battle, Jones declares that we must be “willing to hold Jews responsible for what they brag about in their own magazines.” Why? Because Jews:

broke through public resistance in the past on issues ranging from school prayer to pornography to abortion to homosexuality….The battle that the Jews won 50 years ago in the public square is now being fought in the sanctuary of every Catholic Church during Holy Week. At the Stations of the Cross held during Lent at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart on the campus of the University of Notre Dame, Catholics were told that ‘Nicodemus visited Jesus by night out of fear of the Temple Authorities,’ a passage which deliberately censored the Gospel of St. John, which referred to ‘fear of the Jews.’

If you think Jones is a vicious anti-Semite or that what he says here is farfetched, then crack-open just a few scholarly studies and see who is attacking the Church’s position on marriage and abortion. Jewish scholars, historians and activists have known for years that Jews have challenged virtually every moral law in America—and, unlike people like Taylor Marshall, they are not afraid to name the actual ethnic group responsible for this. For example, in his book Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture, which is published by New York University Press, Josh Lambert of the University of Massachusetts writes:

In the postwar decades, many of the most influential lawyers who took on obscenity cases were also Jewish…Stanley Fleishman was the most prominent First Amendment lawyer in Los Angeles for several decades; and Ephraim London argued key film-censorship cases in front of the Supreme Court.

In addition to their legal work, these lawyers also wrote or edited books and essays for popular audiences in which they agitated against the suppression of literature and art, presenting the relevant arguments to authors, publishers, and general audiences who were unlikely to consult articles in legal journals. Some Jewish judges also exerted substantial influence on the development of the law of obscenity. For example, in 1933, Benjamin Greenspan, a founder of the Wall Street Synagogue, ruled against the suppression of Erskine Caldwell’s novel God’s Little Acre.[9]

Lambert sounds as if he is talking to people like Taylor Marshal when he writes:

Cultural and legal historians and literary scholars who have studied literary obscenity in the United States and England have tended to avoid the question of the relationship of Jewishness to their subject. Not wanting to reproduce the nativist anti-Semitism of Comstock and other antivice crusaders or to provide support for the racist claims about Jewish sexuality trumpeted by avowed anti-Semites, serious scholars of American law and culture tend not to dwell on the Jewishness of so many of the figures who played key roles in the history of obscenity and pornography in the United States, even while these same scholars do attend scrupulously to the religious and ethnic affiliations of Protestants and Catholics. Jewishness is typically mentioned in the finest books on this subject only when it is raised unavoidably by the participants themselves, and scholars then typically eschew any commentary.[10]

In a similar vein, Jewish scholar Nathan Abrams declares in his book The New Jew in Film: “[O]lder generation of Jewish filmmakers and actors, here [Woody] Allen, [Stanley] Kubrick and [Ron] Jeremy, arguably not only increased the Jewishness of their work, but updated it to match the new post-1990 sensibility by defining it in increasingly sexualized (and pornographic) terms.”[11]

Lambert declares that Jews use pornography and most specifically obscenity “to fight anti-Semitism…”[12] He adds that people like Larry David and Sarah Silverman “are challenging America’s powerful religious, family-friendly culture and asserting their Jewishness by glorifying obscenity.”[13]

Similarly, Abrams declares that “Jewish involvement in porn” is actually “the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.”[14] How? Well, ask Jewish director and producer Eli Roth, who said unequivocally that his movies, specifically his Netflix series Hemlock Grove, aspire to “fuck up an entire generation.”[15]

What if an entire generation does not want to be screwed and resists Roth’s subversive ideology? Obviously Roth and his Jewish brethren will call those people anti-Semites. In fact, those who dare say that Hollywood is controlled by Jewish revolutionaries have been labeled anti-Semites. But there is no doubt that Jews in Hollywood are largely using movies to subvert the culture.

Director David Cronenberg is a classic example. When asked by the Rolling Stone, “Does the artist have any moral or social responsibility?” Cronenberg responded: “No…Your responsibility is to be irresponsible.”[16] William Beard of the University of Alberta has pointed out that Cronenberg’s philosophy is nothing but “the disappearance of ethics.”[17] It is actually “a world of unimpeded desires without consequences, where ‘everything is permitted.’”[18] Cronenberg admits: “Whenever I kill somebody in my films I’m really rehearsing my own death.”[19]

No responsibility, no morality, no ethical values, and no limit, nothing but ultimate meaninglessness and existential hell in movies. Existence itself, as indicated in Cronenberg’s movie eXistenZ, means corruption, moral degradation, and ultimately pathetic death. The axiom of eXistenZ is that “nothing is true; everything is permitted.”[20] Cronenberg said in an interview:

For me, all art is subversive. And that means that you cannot possibly abide by the rules of politeness and decorum that many mainstream movies thrive on…Real art must be subversive to the status quo to some extent. It doesn’t mean that you’re preaching political revolution necessarily—although that would be a possibility. It’s inevitable if you consider yourself an artist, then you are going to bother people, that you’re going to disturb people, that you’re going to knock over a few walls….There is an urge to get under the surface of things. Sometimes I do that literally… . That does upset a lot of people.[21]

Catholics like Joseph I. Breen understood Jews like Cronenberg when Breen said way back in the 1930s:

They are simply a rotten bunch of vile people with no respect for anything beyond the making of money. . . . Here [in Hollywood] we have Paganism rampant and in its most virulent form. Drunkenness and debauchery are commonplace. Sexual perversion is rampant . . . any number of our directors and stars are perverts. . . . These Jews seem to think of nothing but moneymaking and sexual indulgence. The vilest kind of sin is a common indulgence hereabouts and the men and women who engage in this sort of business are the men and women who decide what the film fare of the nation is to be. They and they alone make the decision. Ninety-five percent of these folks are Jews of an Eastern European lineage. They are, probably, the scum of the earth.[22]

Breen essentially articulated the Catholic position in Hollywood, and the American culture was blessed because of the Motion Picture Production Code. Contrast that to our day, where Jews like Cronenberg have been given the license to subvert the moral law. Listen to Cronenberg here:

Nothing is true. It’s not an absolute. It’s only a human construct, very definitely able to change and susceptible to change and rethinking. And you can then be free. Free to be unethical, immoral, out of society and agent for some other power, never belonging. Ultimately, if you are an existentialist and you don’t believe in God and the judgment after death, then you can do anything you want: You can kill, you can do whatever society considers the most taboo thing.[23]

Cronenberg’s calculus here is logically and philosophically incoherent and existentially worthless. If “nothing is true,” then Cronenberg’s statement that “nothing is true” is not true. In order for the statement to make sense, Cronenberg has to assume that it is true! And if it is true, then “nothing is true” is categorically false, which means that his entire argument collapses. In short, Cronenberg is presumably positing truth claims while denying truth exists! He is trapped in his essentially Talmudic matrix. Cronenberg cannot apprehend truth because he does not want to submit his will to the moral life. In that sense, he is both intellectually and spiritually crippled. As E. Michael Jones puts it in Degenerate Moderns:

The intellectual life is a function of the moral life of the thinker. In order to apprehend truth, which is the goal of the intellectual life, one must live a moral life. One can produce intellectual product, but to the extent that one prescinds from living the moral life, that product will be more a function of internal desire—wish fulfilment, if you will—than external reality. This is true of any intellectual field and any deeply held desire.[24]

Who Sexualized Catholic Priests?

This brings us to a central point in our discussion: If Jewish sex therapist Ruth Westheimer is right in saying that “Judaism is intensely sexual” and that “sex, in and of itself, has never been a sin for Jews,”[25] then is it possible for Jewish revolutionaries to consciously attempt to seduce priests and nuns into a diabolical and sexual ideology?

That is an issue which Jones pursues in Libido Dominandi. In fact, the man who coined the term “sexual revolution” was none other than Wilhelm Reich, the author of The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Reich specifically declared how subverters like himself should overthrow the sexual order among Catholic priests. Reich wrote:

The first prerequisite for healthier human and sexual relationships is the elimination of those moral concepts which base their demands on allegedly supernatural commands, on arbitrary human regulations, or simply on tradition… . We do not want to see natural sexual attraction stamped as ‘sin,’ ‘sensuality’ fought as something low and beastly, and the ‘conquering of the flesh’ made the guiding principle of morality![26]

Reich discovered from the very beginning of his subversive enterprise that sexual deviancy, particularly masturbation, can be used as a weapon to destroy Catholic priests and nuns. If you can get priests and nuns involved in masturbation and sexual debauchery, then the idea of God or morality will eventually evaporate from their minds. As Jones writes in Libido Dominandi:

What Reich discovered…was a fundamental truth of sexual politics, one discovered by the Catholic Church long ago. It can be formulated in either of two ways: either masturbation destroys your prayer life, or prayer destroys your ability to enjoy masturbation. The two forms of activity are psychically mutually exclusive. Anyone interested in changing the default settings of the culture would notice that the settings are binary as well: either/or.

There are only two cultural options. Either the state fosters prayer, belief in God, the authority of the father as God’s representative, and the social order based on morals, or it fosters masturbation, which is to say, illicit sexual activity, which brings about an inability to pray, the “death” of God, the loss of authority by the father, revolution, and—the evidence from the Russian Revolution which Reich ignored—social chaos.

The first prerequisite for healthier human and sexual relationships is the elimination of those moral concepts which base their demands on allegedly supernatural commands, on arbitrary human regulations, or simply on tradition… . We do not want to see natural sexual attraction stamped as ‘sin,’ ‘sensuality’ fought as something low and beastly, and the ‘conquering of the flesh’ made the guiding principle of morality![26]

What Reich discovered…was a fundamental truth of sexual politics, one discovered by the Catholic Church long ago. It can be formulated in either of two ways: either masturbation destroys your prayer life, or prayer destroys your ability to enjoy masturbation. The two forms of activity are psychically mutually exclusive. Anyone interested in changing the default settings of the culture would notice that the settings are binary as well: either/or.

As Jones further explains, Reich understood that “he who controls sex controls the state…. The illusion of the Enlightenment, the illusion which Reich shared when he formulated his idea of some self-regulating sex economy, is that vice may be harnessed for the general good.” Reich theorized in the Mass Psychology of Fascism: “We do not discuss the existence or nonexistence of God, we merely eliminate the sexual repressions and dissolve the infantile ties to the parents. The inescapable conclusion of all this is that a clear sexual consciousness and a natural regulation of sexual life must foredoom every form of mysticism; that, in other words, natural sexuality is the arch-enemy of mystical religion.” Jones concludes:

The logical conclusion of this is also clear: the total sexualization of a culture would mean the total extinction of the Church and the classical state based on the moral law. The real revolutionaries could triumph over repression—and this was the program of the ’ 60s—just by having a good time, by smoking dope, getting laid and listening to subversive music. Their political agenda came directly from Reich…. [Reich] mentions “clerics” who find it impossible to continue in their vocation once they have “felt on their own body” the “physical consequences” of sexual license.”

Carl Rogers and others were indirectly harnessing the sexual possibilities that people like Reich had already set in motion and projected them onto priests and nuns, who then dropped their morals and vows and began to get involved in sexual debauchery. As Jones historically documents, this was largely the beginning of sexual deviancy among nuns, particularly the nuns at the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Los Angeles. Jones writes:

By the spring of 1965, James Francis Cardinal McIntyre, archbishop of the archdiocese of Los Angeles, had become upset at the large number of Immaculate Heart nuns who had asked to be dispensed from their vows. Large, as time would show, was a relative term in this respect. Soon the number of nuns asking to be laicized would tum into a flood, and the sensitivity training which Carl Rogers would unleash on the order under the auspices of the Education Innovation Project would play a major role in their leaving. By the time the experiment was over, the order would cease to exist, leaving subsequent generations to puzzle over an incident which had become a classic instance of renewal gone wrong in the aftermath of Vatican II.

The logic is pretty straightforward: though Reich and Rogers never seemed to have read each other’s work, their worldviews ideologically gradually merged. As the United States Body Psychotherapy Journal puts it, Rogers’ and Reich’s “writings about human nature, science, and the nature of the universe are remarkably similar (Davis, 1997). So too are their views of society and their prescriptions for moving beyond individual and group neurosis toward a full life (Reich, 1948; Rogers, 1977a).”[27] Reich’s ideas have been highly praised in academic circles because he attempted to deconstruct what Kant calls the categorical imperative or practical reason in the cultural firmament. But most people could not or did not want to see the moral and intellectual consequences of Reich’s ideas, which can be reduced to simple, logical steps.

If there are no moral standards, then there are no right and wrong. If there are no right and wrong, then there are no sexual ethics. If there are no sexual ethics, as Aldous Huxley himself puts it in Ends and Means, then sexual freedom—freedom to do just about anything—should be encouraged or applauded. If sexual freedom is the key, then things like rape and pedophilia are plausible and even permissible. Marquis de Sade, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Jean Paul Sartre understood this logic pretty well.

Rogers himself indicated that he was interested in a field in which he would have unlimited freedom. He said: “I wanted to find a field in which I could be sure my freedom of thought would not be limited.”[28] Rogers also made it very clear that he “could not work in a field where I would be required to believe in some specified religious doctrine.”[29] Rogers found “religious doctrine” repulsive, but he himself consulted an actual Ouija board through which he contacted the spirit of his dead wife.[30]

The interesting thing is that Catholic priests who were too naïve or stupid enough to follow Rogers’ or Reich’s wicked ideologies to their practical conclusions are now universally and ontologically being condemned as perverts by the same people who said that there are no moral standards! Like Winston Smith in George Orwell’s 1984, these people hate morality, but they are condemning a system or institution on moral principles. One needn’t be a logician to realize that this edifice is philosophically incoherent and existentially indefensible.

Marshall’s Infiltration Avoids Deep Issues

The fundamental question is this: does Marshall’s Infiltration address some of these deep issues? Does it really detail how the forces of darkness attempted to seduce priests and nuns with what Reich himself called “sex economy”? Of course not. In fact, Infiltration doesn’t even remotely touch on how Wilhelm Reich, Sigmund Freud, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, and the entire humanistic psychology which spiritually stemmed from “the smoke of Satan,” created confusion among Catholic priests and nuns in the 1960s and beyond.

As Lambert puts it, “The Reichian association of sexual repression with Nazism and fascism…came to be widely accepted by American cultural critics in the following decade.”[31] We can conclude that humanistic psychology and Rogers’ “encounter group” were indeed the forces of darkness attacking Catholic priests and nuns. If you doubt this, then listen to William Coulson, a protégé of Rogers who accompanied him on his trips to nunneries and seminaries:

[Our] theories made priests and nuns feel good about being bad. Once we began to peel the onion at these workshops, there was no end to the shocking things people would say. They became persuaded of this subjective theory of morality which says that the highest morality is the one you locate within you. And after a while these religious forgot about the teachings of the Church.

After our workshop at Alma [the Jesuit seminary then in California], one of the young Jesuits wrote, “Never in my life before that group experience had I experienced me so intently.” The Franciscans were so enamored with our psychology that they introduced it to Saint Anthony’s seminary in Santa Barbara. Years later, 11 or 12 friars were accused of molesting 34 high school boys. I’m afraid we planted the seeds and they carried the seeds to the next generation and they germinated.[32]

There you have it: Rogerian or Reichian theory planted the seeds of sexual rebellion into the minds of Catholic priests and nuns. Coulson quoted Roger himself saying that he “greatly underestimated the reality of evil,” hoping that “Rogerian theory goes down the drain.”[33] The sad thing is that Marshall’s Infiltration doesn’t even explore those covert activities which ended up weakening the spiritual lives of Catholic priests and nuns.

It is therefore safe to say that Infiltration would not have become a bestseller at Amazon had Marshall even remotely identified the real central forces that have sought to destroy the Church since the beginning of time. For example, Marshall writes in the chapter entitled “Communist Infiltration of the Priesthood” that since 1953, Communists tried “subversive ways” to “infiltrate American institutions.” Building on the testimonies of former Communists Bella Dodd and Manning Johnson, Marshall declares:

[I]n the late 1920s and all during the 1930s, Communist agents in the United States followed directives from Moscow. One such order from Russia was to destroy the Catholic Church from within by planting Communist Party members in seminaries and in diocesan positions.[34]

Well, who were those Communists, Marshall? How did the movement come about? Isn’t the author of Infiltration intellectually and truthfully obligated to tell his readers the root of the subversive movement which was responsible for the deaths of at least 60 million lives?[35] Were the Communists following what E. Michael Jones aptly terms “the Jewish revolutionary spirit”? Since Marshall fails to tell this important story, let’s briefly discuss it here.

Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within

By Taylor Marshall

The Real History

During the 1930s, many colleges and universities did not want to hire Jews mainly because of the fact that Jewish intellectuals usually associated themselves with subversive movements, particularly Communism.[36] In fact, the Neoconservative movement loosely began in the 1930s in New York, and spread its ideological orbit in the 40s and 50s.[37]

Historians usually refer to the founders of this movement as the “New York Intellectuals,” who, as Alexander Bloom puts it, “were young, Jewish, urban intellectuals whose radical politics became bound up with an assimilationism begun when their parents left Europe.”[38] People like Hannah Arendt, William Barrett, Daniel Bell, Saul Bellow, Elliot Cohen, Midge Decter, Leslie Fiedler, Nathan Glazer, Clement Greenberg, Paul Goodman, Richard Hofstadter, Sidney Hook, Irving Howe, Alfred Kazin, Irving Kristol, Seymour Martin Lipset, Mary McCarthy, Dwight Macdonald, William Phillips, Norman Podhoretz, Philip Rahv, Harold Rosenberg, Isaac Rosenfeld, Delmore Schwartz, Susan Sontag, Harvey Swados, Diana Trilling, Lionel Trilling, Robert Warshow, were all part of this movement.[39]

These New York Jews witnessed the downfall of Communism in Russia and in Eastern Europe,[40] so while rejecting the communistic ideals that had driven their parents out of Europe, they also did not wish to associate themselves with the classical conservatism that had dominated American policy for centuries. Instead, they began to seek a new approach, one that was radical and highly strategic:

Neoconservatism. With this new approach—not liberal or conservative in the classical sense—the largely Jewish individuals who formed the New York intellectuals sought to completely reshape the face of America.[41]

This point is not controversial among scholars at all. In fact, former Neoconservative luminary Francis Fukuyama of Stanford (formerly of Johns Hopkins) compares the Neoconservative movement to Leninism. Neoconservatism, says Fukuyama, is the reincarnation to some extent of both Leninism and Bolshevism.[42] Fukuyama’s observation makes sense when even Irving Kristol, who founded the movement, proudly admitted that the “honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the [Trotskyist] Young People’s Socialist League (Fourth International).”[43]

In short, the Neoconservative movement was a metaphysical revolt against Logos in the political sphere in America in particular. It was and still is part of the Jewish revolutionary spirit that E. Michael Jones eloquently discussed in his book. It is also safe to say that “the Jewish revolutionary spirit” has played a central role in the “de-Christianization” of America. If this seems farfetched, then listen to Jewish historian Murry Friedman in his book The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy: “Jewish groups had come to play a critical role in the ‘de-Christianization’ of American culture.”[44]

These people, Friedman continues, “had successfully challenged Bible reading in the public schools and any form of state aid to parochial schools. So dominant had the ‘separatist’ view become that even a nonsectarian prayer prepared by the New York Regents Board in 1962 was ruled by the Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale to be a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.”[45]

Jewish historian Benjamin Ginsberg added, “Religious symbols and forms of expression that Jews find threatening have been almost completely eliminated from schools and other public institutions. Suits brought by the ACLU, an organization whose leadership and membership are predominantly Jewish, secured federal court decisions banning officially sanctioned prayer in the public schools and crèches and other religious displays in parks and public buildings.”[46]

Jewish professor Stephen M. Feldman of the University of Wyoming says something very similar in his study Please Don’t Wish Me a Merry Christmas: A Critical History of the Separation of Church and State.[47] Jewish writer J. J. Goldberg noted: “Jews were overwhelmingly against permitting public-school prayer or allowing religious symbols—any religious symbols—on government property. Other Americans were strongly in favor of both.”[48]

The de-Christianization aspect reached full steam after the world wars. Jewish historian Howard Sachar declares that it was a “postwar danger” for Jews.[49] Goldberg likewise states that “Jewish advocacy in the postwar era worked hard to expand the church-state separation.”[50]

Goldberg goes further to say that there is a general consensus among liberal Jews to dominate “immigration and refugee policy, civil rights and affirmative action, abortion rights, church-state separation issues, and much more.”[51] Virtually every aspect of American life has been bugged by the Jewish revolutionary spirit. Marshall cannot just use evasive terms like “secularism” to describe this phenomenon at all. It just doesn’t add up.

Jewish “Secularism” Took Over Academe

Contrary to what Marshall indicates in Infiltration, it wasn’t Liberalism or Secularism that waged a frontal war against the Church in the first century; things have come and gone, but the people who opposed the Church over the centuries have remained the same,[52] and this is an issue Jones meticulously and historically underscores in his Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. Even Rodney Stark acknowledges in The Rise of Christianity that the Jews “survived to confront the church in later, more fully documented eras…It is also known that at some point a curse against Christians (Nazarenes) was inserted into the Jewish Eighteen Benedictions—presumably as a method to prevent Jewish Christians from acting as presenters in the synagogue.”[53]

The same spirit got morphed into different subversive movements over the centuries. If Marshall again did pick up a copy of Rabbi Louis Newman’s Jewish Influence in Christian Reform Movements,[54] he probably would have discovered that the issue had and still has very little to do with “Secularism.” And who has been called “the father of the secular humanist movement”[55] in America? It is none other than the late Paul Kurtz, a Jewish professor of philosophy at State University of New York and author of books such as The Humanist Manifesto, In Defense of Secular Humanism, and A Secular Humanist Declaration.

Irving Kristol was proud to say that secular humanism had been “good for the Jews,” giving them an “unparalleled degree of comfort and security.”[56] “Jews are at heart secular humanists, he wrote, which may be ‘why American Jews are so vigilant about removing all the signs and symbols of traditional religions from ‘the public square,’ so insistent that religion be merely a ‘private affair,’ so determined that separation of church and state be interpreted to mean the separation of all institutions from any signs of a connection with traditional religions.’”[57]

So when Jews took over academe, they turned it to “secularism” by propounding things like separation of church and state, which is pure fiction. In fact, Jewish intellectuals at the time knew very well that the universities could be used to spark a revival of Jewish revolutionary activity. For example, Irving Howe would talk about how students would change completely after taking philosophy classes with Jewish professor Morris Cohen, who, “like a fencing master facing multiple foes…challenged students to his left and to his right, slashing their premises, destroying their defenses…You went to a Cohen class in order to be ripped open and cut down.”[58]

It was Cohen who taught Howe that an intellectual life can be used as “a form of combat.”[59] Jewish historian Howard M. Sachar calls this chapter in American history “The insurrection of the intellectuals.”[60] University campuses, therefore, were bound to create revolutionary cells.

For that very reason, many universities were hesitant to hire Jewish professors. Raised in a Stalinist family, Ronald Radosh for example tells in his memoir that many Jews like himself were sent from New York to Wisconsin to take over the university,[61] which in turn would reignite Jewish revolutionary programs. Radosh himself talked about “my baptism into the world of Jewish radicalism, a world so small and insular that it existed inside a political and social ghetto.”[62]

Radosh believes that though the radical world from which the Jewish intellectual movement sprung is no longer with us, its spirit is still vibrating, “well captured by the late Irving Howe in his classic book The World of our Fathers.”[63] In other words, “the world of our fathers” is a world in which Jewish radicals would become the doorkeepers of America, from controlling American foreign policy to reshaping the American culture in their own image. This has been documented by scholars and historians of various stripes.[64] Jared Kushner is the culmination of Jewish power in academe. Even journalist Vicky Ward has recently written:

Around the time that Jared was applying to colleges, Charlie [Kushner, his father] pledged $2.5 million to Harvard and made additional promises to Princeton and Cornell. He also got New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg, who was an investor in at least one of his projects and to whom Kushner Companies had donated more than two hundred thousand dollars, to make a call to Senator Ted Kennedy, who, in turn, phoned Harvard’s dean of admission. When Jared was accepted at Harvard, his high school teachers were aghast, alternating, according to a student, between disbelief and disgust. A classmate of Jared’s, who had been in the class’s first track and who had been rejected by Harvard, cried when she heard he got in. It was unheard of for anyone in the third track at Frisch Academy to be admitted to any Ivy League school, let alone Harvard. ‘His GPA did not warrant it, his SAT scores did not warrant it,’ one school official told the author Daniel Golden.65

Ward got the source from Daniel Golden’s 2007 book The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges–and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates. “Admissions policies channel the children of the privileged into premier colleges,” writes Golden, “paving their way into leadership positions in business and government.”[66] It is common knowledge in admissions parlance that “so many spaces at elite universities are reserved for well-connected students that ‘the poor schmuck who has to get in on his own has to walk on water.’”[67] Golden continues to say:

It’s considered crass for wealthy parents to approach college officials directly with a financial proposal while their child is applying. “Everyone in my position was offered bribes,” said Mary Ann Schwalbe, former associate dean for admissions at Harvard. Parents would come in for their child’s interview, she said, and then ask to speak to her privately. “They would say, ‘Not only will I give Harvard $1 million, but I’ll give you and your husband a house or a cruise,’” Mrs. Schwalbe recalled, laughing. “I’d come home and Douglas [her husband] would say, ‘Do it!’”[68]

Communism and Modernism

Marshall argues over and over that Communism and Modernism are two powerful enemies that sought to eradicate the Church. What he doesn’t document is that Communism was a largely Jewish phenomenon which also gave birth to the Bolshevik Revolution,[69] the very subversive movement whose ideology ended up liquidating more than sixty million.[70] Not even Winston Churchill, who was a thorough Zionist pawn and ethnic cleanser,[71] could deny this fact.[72] When Communism and Socialism produced “the god that failed,” the spirit left that movement and settled in America with the Neoconservative movement, which is Talmudic in its political and ideological orientation. Jewish writer Sidney Blumenthal has said exactly that. The fabric of the Neoconservative movement, he wrote in The Rise of the Counter-Establishment: From Conservative Ideology to Political Power, found its political and intellectual ideology “in the disputatious heritage of the Talmud.”[73]

This subversive movement gave us the war in Iraq, which was based on categorical lies and fabrications. This war eventually gave America a six-trillion-dollar debt.[74] The same war made former soldiers disillusioned as well.[75]

So the Bolshevik/Communist Revolution didn’t stop in Soviet Russia. The same revolutionary ideology moved to China under the name of Maoism, and from 1958 to 1962, at least forty-five million people got exterminated.[76] In short, Communism and its ideological brainchild produced perpetual wars in the Middle East and massive deaths in virtually the entire world.[77] For Marshall to talk about Communism without even remotely pointing out where the diabolical movement originated is simply disingenuous. It’s like writing an entire book on the cell without even mentioning the nucleus.

“For over a century,” writes Marshall, “the organizers of Freemasonry, Liberalism, and Modernism infiltrated the Catholic Church in order to change her doctrine, her liturgy, and her mission from something supernatural to something secular.”[78] Perhaps Marshall should pick up a copy of E. Michael Jones’ The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History and discover how Freemasonry even during the French Revolution was an essentially Jewish phenomenon which sought to bring down Christendom and the social order.[79] Isaac M. Wise, who was called “the foremost rabbi in America” by the time of his death in 1900, wrote in 1866 that “Masonry is a Jewish institution, whose history, degrees, charges, passwords and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end.”[80]

The Smoke of Satan

Marshall writes:

Although smoke is nearly always a sign of holiness, sacrifice, and worship, in the book of Revelation, we find a handful of exceptions. We repeatedly observe how Satan mimics God, just as the Egyptian magicians copycatted the miracles of Moses. For example, Revelation presents a perverted satanic trinity of the devil, an antichrist king, and a false prophet. In place of a Holy and Virginal Church wedded to Christ, Satan establishes the Whore of Babylon riding the antichrist. In like manner, we observe sacred incense smoke in the eighth chapter of Revelation, and then immediately we read of the demonic smoke of Satan in the ninth chapter…[81]

Marshall fails to tell us again that the book of Revelation which he refers to also says something about some of the activities of the antichrist. How can Marshall skip those essential passages? Obviously Marshall doesn’t want to come out and declare that Rabbinic Judaism is essentially the synagogue of Satan. Its rejection of Christ is metaphysical and categorical because it is done deliberately—in the face of, rather than in spite of, evidence to the contrary. As E. Michael Jones points out, the real-life consequence of that theological rejection is revolution and subversive ideology.[82]

Moreover, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ becomes a paradigm shift in history and even theology. This brings us to a fundamental principle which Jones has cogently articulated in the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: attacking Christ, the Sustainer of all things, invariably leads to attacking the logical, moral, political, social, and even sexual order.

In that sense, Jewish revolutionaries are essentially antichrists. St. John tells us: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also” (1 John 2:22-23). “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:2-3).

The plot thickens. For Marshall to summon liberalism as the enemy of the Church without even making reference to the clear description of the antichrist is not serious scholarship at all. Marshall could have saved himself some trouble by picking up a copy of Peter Schafer’s Jesus in the Talmud. The theological premise of the Talmud is meant to deconstruct Christ and thereby reduce the Christian message to a pile of rubbish. To say that Jesus was not born of a virgin, was the son of a whore, and practiced sorcery and even black magic is the worst kind of blasphemy ever uttered against Christ. Schafer points out that this language was deliberate.[83]

This was one reason why the Christian writers of the early Church had to challenge that theological system because it is the antithesis of what the gospel represents. The early church approached this subject on a theological ground—it was one of the main reasons that Justin Martyr wrote Dialogue with Trypho, a literary work which deals with a conversation between Justin and Trypho, a Jew. Justin Martyr argues that although Christianity is under the umbrella of the New Covenant, it is not under a new God. The same God who gave the Ten Commandments has also shown His love to humanity through His Son Jesus. Moreover, without Jesus, one cannot be God’s people.

For Justin Martyr, the root of the issue is always theological. After Justin argues that Trypho cannot be part of God’s people by rejecting Christ, Trypho replies, “What is this you say? That none of us shall inherit anything on the holy mountain of God?” Justin responds:

I do not say so; but those who have persecuted and do persecute Christ, if they do not repent, shall not inherit anything on the holy mountain. But the Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and have repented of the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who are descended from Jacob, even though they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts. Assuredly they shall receive the holy inheritance of God.[84]

Justin Martyr nailed it, and St. Augustine and others made it clear that the whole panorama of human history is essentially divided into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Logos and the kingdom of anti-Logos. The New Testament makes it very clear that the antagonists of Christ are those who metaphysically reject his teachings, and the books of Acts makes it clear that the main antagonists were invariably Jews.

Paul lamented that those people “have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost” (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16). As St. Paul begins to explain the work of the law and the work of Christ in his epistles, the Jews’ special relationship progressively becomes mute (Romans 2:28-29; Galatians 3:28-29). And by the time the book of Revelation was written, Rabbinic Judaism theologically and exegetically became the synagogue of Satan, the spiritual and diabolical cell from which all subversive activity springs—from the first century and all the way to the twenty-first.

In that sense, the French Revolution was the offspring of Freemasonry, which was heavily based on Jewish mysticism. If you doubt this, then listen to Rabbi Geoffrey W. Dennis in his Encyclopedia of Jewish Myth, Magic and Mysticism:

Virtually every form of Western mysticism and spiritualism known today draws upon Jewish myth and occult teachings—magic, prayer, angelology, alchemy, numerology, astral projection, dream interpretation, astrology, amulets, divination, altered states of consciousness, alternative, and rituals of power—all have roots in the Jewish occult. But for millennia, many of these core teachings have been unavailable to the general public, concealed by barriers of language and by the protective principles governing the teaching of Kabbalah, which has both nurtured and guarded such knowledge.[85]

The revolutionary spirit which “Jewish myth” created has never died out, and over the centuries has jumped around from place to place and movement to movement and has even taken different forms and variations. It manifested itself briefly in fourteenth-century Spain where usury ended up oppressing the peasants and provoking anti-Jewish reactions in the region. It sent shockwaves across much of Europe during the Hussite rebellion in the fifteenth century.[86]

The revolutionary spirit reached its pinnacle during the Peasant Revolt in the sixteenth century when judaizing Christians ended up smearing excrement on crucifixes and vandalizing and destroying churches and monasteries. From 1221 until 1796, the Statute of Kalisz provided the background for exclusively Jewish courts in Poland, free of society’s rules and, in the process, exempted Jews from punishment for engaging in slavery. This eventually led again to usurious activity, which drove the peasants into abject poverty and led to anti-Jewish reactions,[87] although some scholars state that the peasants’ charges were based on false grounds.[88] This itself is based on false historical grounds, and even the father of modern Jewish historiography, Heinrich Graetz, admitted that by immersing themselves in the study of the Talmud, Polish Jews found a sophisticated way to cheat the Gentiles.[89] This has been pointed out by other historians of various stripes.[90]

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the revolutionary spirit produced false Jewish messiahs such as Shabbatai Zevi (1626-1676), who spearheaded the Sabbatean movement, and later produced staunch disciples and lesser known messiahs such as Barukhia Russo, Miguel Cardoso, Mordecai Mokia, Lobele Prossnitz, and Jacob Joseph Frank, compounding disaster on disaster.[91] The revolutionary spirit swept Europe in the nineteenth century with the rise of Marxism and Communism, which were the ideological brainchild of Karl Marx and Moses Hess.[92]

In the nineteenth century, the revolutionary spirit showed itself in much of Europe and sections in America in the sex industry, which was largely a Jewish enterprise—an enterprise which gave rise to Hitler’s negative conception of the Jews.[93] The spirit also had a great influence on the slavery business in the nineteenth century and beyond—a business which again was largely Jewish and which is now laid at the feet of helpless Europeans.[94] In the twentieth century, the revolutionary spirit got morphed in the psychoanalytic movement with Sigmund Freud as the founder,[95] who brought “the plague” (Freud’s own words) to America in 1909.[96]

This gradually branched off into the obscenity scene in the 1920s and all the way to the 1940s in New York and other parts of the United States.[97] Freud ended up redefining sexuality and pornography and was indirectly a key figure in the sexual revolution. Wilhelm Reich took Freud’s ideology and spread it across the board, and for that he was eventually kicked out of Germany.

Finally, the revolutionary spirit reached a crescendo when Jewish revolutionary Jerry Rubin took it to the masses, particularly to blacks like Eldridge Cleaver, who wrote the introduction of Rubin’s DO IT!: Scenarios of the Revolution. Rubin declared in the book:

The Revolution declared war on Original Sin, the dictatorship of parents over their kids, Christian morality, capitalism and super masculinity trips… Our tactic is to send niggers and longhair scum invading white middle-class homes, fucking on the living room floor, crashing on the chandeliers, spewing sperm on the Jesus pictures, breaking the furniture, and smashing Sunday school napalm-blood Amerika forever.[98]

So shouldn’t we all hold people like Rubin responsible for the disasters they have created? If the answer is yes, then what about the disasters the same people have created across the religious and political spectrum? And what about people who are consciously or unconsciously avoiding to address the serious issues? More importantly, shouldn’t these people be ashamed of themselves when Jewish scholars themselves are bragging about those issues?

For example, Yuri Slezkine declares at the very beginning of The Jewish Century: “The modern age is the Jewish Age, and the twentieth century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.” Slezkine has more interesting things to say. “Modernization,” he continues, “is about everyone becoming Jewish.”[99] Similar sentiments have been echoed by other Jewish scholars and writers such as Benjamin Ginsberg, J. J. Goldberg, Nathan Abrams, Josh Lambert, etc.[100]

If Marshall happened to say the same thing in Infiltration, he would be condemned as a vicious anti-Semite by Jewish groups virtually across the world. He obviously knows that. In that sense, one can say that Marshall is living in fear. Catholics have been crippled by this kind of dishonesty or cowardice for decades. Some have ended up leaving the ministry and ended up attacking the New Testament for being “anti-Semitic.” For example, ex-priest James Carroll has already made it clear that the New Testament itself is anti-Semitic. This has been a pattern all the way to the twenty-first century.[101] In 2012 Greg Smith—a Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa—released a stunning article in the New York Times essentially saying that Goldman Sachs executives want to screw their customers and the U.S. economy. They just care about how much money their customers are going to bring them. If you cannot do exactly that, then they are going to dump you like trash. Smith asked, “What are three quick ways to become a leader?” He then provided a litany of answers:

a) Execute on the firm’s ‘axes,’ which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients—some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t—to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.

Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.[102]

Has Goldman Sachs changed over the years for good? No. In an article entitled “Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: ‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model?’,” we are told that Goldman Sachs does not want patients to be cured because it is not good for business! If you are dying of cancer and aspiring to get well, Goldman Sachs would simply ask: How much money would your cancer bring to the company? If curing you will turn out to be bad for business, then you might as well continue to suffer. Listen to this:

The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies, analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday. While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.

Richter cited Gilead Sciences’ treatments for hepatitis C, which achieved cure rates of more than 90 percent. The company’s U.S. sales for these hepatitis C treatments peaked at $12.5 billion in 2015, but have been falling ever since. Goldman estimates the U.S. sales for these treatments will be less than $4 billion this year, according to a table in the report.[103]

No matter how you cut it, this is simply diabolical. Plain and simple. We are living in a world in which companies like Goldman Sachs have sacked the pharmaceutical industry and are obviously selling sickness.[104]

Should the government allow those companies to destroy lives? Would it be anti-Semitic to say that those people should not be in position of power? Wouldn’t such position save multiple lives? And if John Connelly disagrees, then we would like him to provide a better solution. The Church, for hundreds of years, did provide a modus vivendi known as Sicut Judaeis-non, which states that no one has the right to harm the Jews, and the Jews have no right to destroy the Christian culture. It’s that simple.

If Connelly has a better solution, then let him flesh it out because when anti-Semitism was rampant throughout Europe, Jews went to the Church to get protection. Jewish historian Israel Abrahams made it clear in his 1896 work Jewish Life in the Middle Ages that it “was a tradition with the popes of Rome to protect the Jews who were near at hand.”[105] What was that tradition based on? Sicut Judaeis-non.

Finally, it must be emphasized again that the Jewish question is neither racial nor biological. It is theological. In fact, the protagonists and antagonists in the Gospels were all Jews! This element is largely missing in the debate. As E. Michael Jones points out in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, the word anti-Semitism didn’t exist until 1871. The nation of Israel itself proves that the issue is not “racial” but theological:

In 1962 Shmuel Oswald Rufeisen, known as ‘Brother Daniel,’ petitioned the High Court of Justice (the Supreme Court) to instruct the state [of Israel] to recognize him as a Jew by nationality. Rufeisen was born to a Jewish family in Poland in 1922, and as a teenager joined a Zionist youth movement. He fought as a partisan against the Nazi occupation and saved the lives of many Jews. At some point he hid in a monastery, where he converted to Christianity. After the war he studied for the priesthood, and in order to go to Israel he became a Carmelite monk.

In 1958 he went to Israel because he wished to take part in the Jewish destiny and still saw himself as a Zionist. Having given up his Polish citizenship, he applied to become an Israeli citizen on the basis of the Law of Return, arguing that although he was a Catholic by religion, he was still a Jew by ‘nationality.’ When his application was rejected by the Ministry of the Interior, he petitioned the High Court of Justice. By a four-to-one decision, the court rejected his petition to be given Israeli citizenship on the basis of the Law of Return. He was, however, granted an Israeli identity card, which stated, ‘Nationality: Not clear.’[106]

Israeli historian Shlomo Sand of Tel Aviv University, who provides serious historical depth to the almost two-thousand-year-old conflict, comments: “Ultimately, Brother Daniel’s betrayal of Judaism by joining the religion of the Nazarene overcame the deterministic biological imaginary. It was categorically decided that there was no Jewish nationality without its religious shell. Ethnocentric Zionism needed the Halakhic precepts as its principal criteria, and the secular judges understood this national-historical necessity very well.”[107] But that is not the end of the story:

In 1968 Major Binyamin Shalit petitioned the High Court of Justice to order the minister of the interior to register his two sons as Jews. Unlike Brother Daniel, the mother of these boys was not a born Jew but a Scottish gentile. Shalit, a well-regarded officer in Israel’s victorious army, argued that his sons were growing up as Jews and wished to be considered full citizens in the state of the Jewish people. By what seemed a miracle, five of the nine judges who heard the petition decided that the boys were Jewish by nationality, if not by religion. But this exceptional decision shook the entire political structure.[108]

The plot thickens: Israeli officials and geneticists, according to Sand, cannot use DNA to prove that they are descendants of Moses,109 and the Church has been saying this for thousands of years. In addition, Jews do not have bad DNA in their systems. If the central issue revolves around DNA, as racialists David Duke and Kevin MacDonald erroneously perpetuate, then there is no way to hold Jews accountable for breaking the moral law. As E. Michael Jones tried to explain to both MacDonald and Lasha Darkmoon back in 2010, MacDonald’s claim that

‘My moral sense certainly does not come from Catholicism but is intimately tied up with evolutionary thinking’ is preposterous. It is impossible to derive the moral order from biology much less evolution…From an evolutionary point of view, KMac should be a philosemite. Haven’t the Jews won out in the struggle for existence in the United States, and therefore, the world? His evolution undermines his morality and vice versa.
DNA is also part of God’s Logos, but biological mechanisms, while they determine how fish spawn, do not tell us how to act. Intellect and will do that for us. Confusing the biology which runs the brain with the mind which needs the brain as its necessary condition is part of the unfortunate legacy of Darwinism, and something which keeps Miss Darkmoon and Professor MacDonald from reaching their full potential as thinkers.[110]

If DNA is the basis upon which Jews act, then what about Christ and His disciples? What about Solomon Michael Alexander, Hermann Cohen, Baptista Giovanni Jonas, Leopold Cohn, Theodore Ratisbonne, Michael Polanyi, Israel Shahak, Israel Shamir, Mortimer Adler, Gilad Atzmon, Roi Tov, and other Jews who embrace Logos in one way or another? How did these people get rid of their bad behavior?

No one has been able to answer that central question. In fact, I raised that same issue in my interaction with David Duke years ago, but no solid answer was provided.[111]

Finally, if Jewish behavior is genetic, why would people be upset when Jews act in a bad way? Don’t we all know that what happens genetically happens automatically?

To sum up, Taylor Marshall’s Infiltration cannot be taken seriously because it deliberately avoids the metaphysical issues and the very people who have stood against the Church for centuries.

I did make an attempt to contact Marshall before I started writing a review of his book. In order to get in touch with him, a person has to go to his Facebook page, “like it,” and then post a question or comment. Here’s what I said on the last day of June: “Hi Dr. Marshall: Are you familiar with the work of Dr. E. Michael Jones? I am planning to review your new book in the Culture Wars magazine.” To this very day, I don’t know if Marshall received the comment or not because I was planning to send him a copy of this current review before I published it.

We need Catholic writers and scholars who have some moral and intellectual courage to say uncomfortable but true things. We all should take our hats off to E. Michael Jones because he has been a light when all lights seem to go out. He certainly has gained the respect of his contemporaries.

Culture of Death Watch

Sidney Rittenberg: The Jew Behind Communist China

by David Martin

Buyers Remorse in Ireland: Nostalgia for Bad Roads

by Geraldine Comiskey

Features

Greta Thunberg: Climate Change and Mental Illness

by E. Michael Jones

Reviews

Fatally Flawed: A Review of Taylor Marshall’s Infiltration

by Jonas Alexis

End Notes:

Taylor Marshall, The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism & the Origins of Christianity (Dallas: St. John Press, 2009), 1.
Ibid., 57.
Alan M. Dershowitz, The Vanishing American Jew: In Search of Jewish Identity for the Next Century (New York: Touchtone, 1997), 324.
Ibid.
Quoted in E. Michael Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 18.
Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, Vol. II (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1893), 379.
Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 1.
Russell Jacoby, The Last Intellectuals: American Culture in the Age of Academe (New York: Basic Books, 1987), 87.
Josh Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2013), 8.
Ibid., 10.
Nathan Abrams, The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012), 72.
Josh Lambert, “‘Dirty Jews’ and the Christian Right,” Haaretz, March 2, 2014.
Ibid.
Nathan Abrams, “Triple-exthnics,” Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2004.
Quoted in Stuart Dredge, “Netflix series Hemlock Grove: ‘People want their horror horrific,’ says Eli Roth,” Guardian, April 10, 2013.
Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70.
William Beard, The Artist as Monster: The Cinema of David Cronenberg (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), 434.
Ibid., 443
“David Cronenberg: 'I never thought of myself as a prophet,’” Guardian, September 12, 2013.
Beard, Artist as Monster, 434
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL1MOf1gTTo; emphasis added.
See E. Michael Jones, “Rabbi Dresner’s Dilemma: Torah v. Ethnos,” Culture Wars, May 2003.
David Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70.
E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2012), 15.
Quoted in Lambert, Unclean Lips, 11.
Wilhelm Reich, The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Governing Character Structure (New York: Doubleday, 1971), 53.
Peter S. Fernald, “Carl Rogers: Body-Oriented Psychotherapist,” United States Body Psychotherapy Journal, Vol. II, Number 1, 2003: 31.
Carl Rogers, On Becoming a Person (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961), 8.
Ibid.
See William Kirk Kilpatrick, The Emperor’s New Clothes (Westchester: Crossway Books, 1985).
Lambert, Unclean Lips, 45.
George Neumayr, “The Church of Carl Rogers,” American Spectator, August 13, 2016; emphasis added.
Ibid.
Taylor Marshall, Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within (Manchester, New Hampshire, Crisis Publications, 2019), Kindle edition.
For historical accounts on this, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999); Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987); Frank Dikötter, Mao's Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-62 (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010).
For studies on these issues, see Alan M. Wald, The New York Intellectuals: The Rise and Decline of the Anti-Stalinist Left from the 1930s to the 1980s (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987); Joseph Dorman, Arguing the World: The New York Intellectuals in Their Own Words (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000); Neil Jumonville, Critical Crossings: The New York Intellectuals in Postwar America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990); David Laskin, Partisans: Marriage, Politics, and Betrayal Among the New York Intellectuals (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001).
See Terry A. Cooney, The Rise of the New York Intellectuals (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004); Francis Fukuyama, America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007); Alexander Bloom, Prodigal Sons: The New York Intellectuals and Their World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).
Bloom, Prodigal Sons, 4.
See for example Ruth R. Wisse, “New York (Jewish) Intellectuals,” Commentary, November 1987.
Irving Kristol once said, “It’s crazy for intellectuals not to be anti-Communist when all you have to do is look and see what Communism does not only in Russia but in Eastern Europe.” Dorman, Arguing the World, 114
Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 12-17.
Francis Fukuyama, “After Neoconservatism,” NY Times, February 19, 2006.
Stephen Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 43.
Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution, 25.
Ibid., 41.
Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 2.
See Stephen M. Feldman, Please Don't Wish Me a Merry Christmas: A Critical History of the Separation of Church and State (New York and London: New York University Press, 1997).
J. J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside The American Jewish Establishment (New York: Perseus Books, 1996), 26.
Howard M. Sachar, A History of the Jews in America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), 81-82.
Goldberg, Jewish Power, 314.
Ibid., 5.
For historical studies on similar issues, see for example Jacob Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2006); Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006).
Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 50-51. For a detailed presentation these issues, see Ruth Langer, Cursing the Christians?: A History of the Birkat HaMinim (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
Louis I. Newman, Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements (New York: University of Columbia, 1925).
https://pointofinquiry.org/2007/09/paul_kurtz_the_new_atheism_and_secular_humanism/.
Friedman, Neoconservative Revolution, 219.
Ibid.
Friedman, Neoconservative Revolution, 29.
Ibid.
Sachar, History of the Jews in America, 436-440.
See Ronald Radosh, Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2001).
Ibid., 1.
Ibid.
See for example Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, The Road to Iraq: The Making of a Neoconservative War (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014); Michael MacDonald, Overreach: Delusions of Regime Change in Iraq (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014); Scott A. Bonn, Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq (Piscataway: Rutgers University Press, 2010); E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008); John M. Schuessler, Deceit on the Road to War: Presidents, Politics, and American Democracy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2015).
Vicky Ward, Kushner, Inc.: Greed, Ambition, Corruption (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2019), 18.
Daniel Golden, The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates (New York: Crown Publishing, 2006), 1.
Ibid., 14.
Ibid., 60.
See Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), chapter 3; Jerry Z. Muller, Jews and Capitalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), chapter 3; Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the Left (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982); for related studies, see Erich Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008).
See for example Jean-Louis Panné, et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999); for related studies, see Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987); The Great Terror: A Reassessment (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990 and 2008); Sheila Fitzpatrick, Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999); Orlando Figes, A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924 (New York: Penguin, 1998); Steven Rosefielde, Red Holocaust (New York: Routledge, 2010).
See Jonas E. Alexis, “Winston Churchill’s Darkest Hour?,” Veterans Today, January 6, 2018; E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), chapter 87.
Winston Churchill, “Zionism vs. Bolshevism: The Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920.
Sidney Blumenthal, The Rise of the Counter-Establishment: From Conservative Ideology to Political Power (New York: HarperCollins, 1998), 124.
Ernesto Londono, “Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion,” Washington Post, March 28, 2013; Bob Dreyfuss, The $6 Trillion Wars,” The Nation, March 29, 2013; “Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study,” Huffington Post, May 14, 2013; Mark Thompson, “The $5 Trillion War on Terror,” Time, June 29, 2011; “Iraq war cost: $6 trillion. What else could have been done?,” LA Times, March 18, 2013.
Benjamin Percy, “On the Ground,” NY Times, October 4, 2012.
Frank Dikötter, Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-1962 (New York and London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010); for related studies, see Jasper Becker, Hungry Ghosts: Mao’s Secret Famine (New York: Henry and Holt, 1996); Xun Zhou, The Great Famine in China, 1958-1962: A Documentary History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012); Yang Jisheng, et al., Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958-1962 (New York: Farrar, Strau & Giroux, 2008).
For recent studies on this, see Andrew J. Bacevich, America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History (New York: Random House, 2016); Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2013); Michael MacDonald, Overreach: Delusions of Regime Change in Iraq (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014).
Marshall, Infiltration, Kindle edition.
Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 539-550.
Ibid., 549.
Marshall, Infiltration, Kindle edition.
Jones articulates this in Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 41-42.
Peter Schafer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), kindle edition.
Geoffrey W. Dennis, The Encyclopedia of Jewish Myth, Magic and Mysticism (Woodbury, MN: Llewellyn Publications, 2007), 1.
See Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.
See Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski, Jews in Poland: A Documentary History (New York: Hippocrene Books, 1993).
See Keely Stauter-Halsted, “Jews as Middleman Minorities in Rural Poland: Understanding the Galician Pogroms of 1898,” Robert Bloblaum, ed., Anti-Semitism and its Opponents in Opponents in Modern Poland (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005), chapter 2.
Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1894), 4:80-81.
For an excellent study on this, see E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014).
See Matt Goldfish, The Sabbatean Prophets (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004); Cengiz Sisman, The Burden of Silence: Sabbatai Sevi and the Evolution of the Ottoman-Turkish Dönmes (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015); Marc David Baer, The Dönme: Jewish Converts, Muslim Revolutionaries, and Secular Turks (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010); Pawel Maciejko, The Mixed Multitude: Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement, 1755-1816 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011); Sabbatian Heresy: Writings on Mysticism, Messianism, and the Origins of Jewish Modernity (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2017); Gershom Gerhard Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973).
See E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), chapter 13.
See Edward J. Bristow, Prostitution and Prejudice: The Jewish Fight Against White Slavery, 1870-1939 (New York: Schocken, 1983); for related studies, see Laurie Marhoeffer, Sex and the Weimar Republic: German Homosexual Emancipation and the Rise of the Nazis (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015); Maria Tatar, Lustmord: Sexual Murder and Weimar Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer of Princeton declares that Bolshevism drove Hitler into a bloody conflict with the Soviet Russia. Arno J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The “Final Solution” in History (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988).
Hollywood movies such as Amistad and 12 Years a Slave are classic examples.
For studies on how Freud deliberately lied about his research and how he was involved in some kind of “Jewish mystical tradition,” see for example David Bakan, Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition (New York: Dover Publication, 2004); Frederick Crews, Freud: The Making of an Allusion (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2017); Thomas Szasz, Anti-Freud: Karl Kraus's Criticism of Psycho-analysis and Psychiatry (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1990).
See Richard Wolin, The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 68.
See Jay A. Gertzman, Bookleggers and Smuthounds: The Trade in Erotica, 1920-1940 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999).
Jerry Rubin, DO IT!: Scenarios of the Revolution (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1970), 42.
Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 1.
See Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993); J. J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside The American Jewish Establishment (New York: Basic Books, 1997); Nathan Abrams, The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema (Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2012); Josh Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2013).
For study on this, see E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014).
Greg Smith, “Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs,” NY Times, March 14, 2012.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html.
See Ray Moynihan, Alan Cassels, Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients (Australia: Allen & Uwin, 2006); John Abramson, Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine (New York: Harper Collins, 2004).
Israel Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages (New York: MacMillan Company, 1896), 400.
Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People (New York: Verso, 2009), 288-289.
Ibid., 289.
Ibid.
Ibid., 275-276.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/09/07/on-the-moral-code-an-exchange-among-lasha-darkmoon-e-michael-jones-and-kevin-macdonald/.
For some discussions on these, https://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/21/arguments-can-only-go-so-far-why-i-have-permanently-given-up-on-david-duke/; https://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/17/david-duke-gets-it-wrong-about-the-so-called-khazar-theory-again/; https://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/21/david-dukes-cardinal-and-metaphysical-blunder/; https://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/06/29/david-duke-eugenics-and-the-aryan-vision/; https://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/06/23/e-michael-jones-on-david-duke-and-his-weltanschauung/; https://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/08/david-duke-strikes-back/; https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/06/29/debating-the-alt-right/;

News

Fatally Flawed: A Review of Taylor Marshall's Infiltration