Download the July/August 2019 issue of Culture Wars to read the full article.

What is Hate?

$4.00

Add To Cart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Defines Hate?

The crucial issue is who gets to define “hate”? Who gets to define “violence”? The SPLC has never designated Antifa as a hate group. As a result, not one member of Antifa was charged with inciting violence at the Charlottesville rally. Because of its roots in Bolshevism, Antifa becomes, like the homosexual, a bearer of Jewish Privilege, something which comes in handy in places like Charlottesville when the local DA hands down indictments. The same is true of anyone who supports abortion. They too become bearers of Jewish Privilege by proxy because abortion, while undoubtedly violent and bloody, has the support of most Jews, who define it as a basic right. The same is true of pornography. Is pornography a form of violence? The answer is no, not because it isn’t intrinsically and oftentimes explicitly violent, but because the Jews who control the pornography industry have defined it as a form of freedom of speech. Why is pornography not part of the discussion of violence on the internet? The answer to that question is Jewish Privilege. When Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin claimed that pornography was violence against women, Betty Goldstein Friedan stepped in and defended the pornographers because they as Jews shared in Jewish Privilege.

In spite of Roberta Kaplan’s efforts to punish them, the men who are the main victims of pornography are starting to emerge from their mothers’ basements. Virtually every week now, I get letters like the following:

Dr. Jones,
I am writing anonymously because of the topic. I’d rather not even write this, but the joy of Our Lord demands that I do.
I’m male, good Catholic family. When I was 13, nearly 14, I discovered self-gratification. At the time I pretty much thought I had found my calling in life with self-gratification. I had some idea that the act was shameful, but I had no idea. I had seen some pornography, but I had enough sense to tell that porn - at least - is wrong. Perhaps a year-and-a-half later, my parents probably caught on to my self-gratification, and my dad dropped hints about how it’s a mortal sin. The day that he said that to me was one of the worst days of my life. I was shocked, horrified. I really had no idea. Now this was the ’80s and everything was weak and ridiculous in the Catholic Church, especially in our diocese, and I have been struggling with this problem on-and-off since then - roughly three decades!!
But I have been listening to your podcasts about “Libido Dominandi,” and it’s changed me. In the last couple of weeks, my desire for self-pleasure is gone. Why? If rat b@stards like George Soros et alii want me to self-abuse so as to neutralize me and thereby destroy my ethnos, then screw them!! Now I can even see attractive women and 95% of the time I can even appreciate that they are sexually attractive with no personal desire.
I understand that it would be much more ideal if I’d overcome this because I love Jesus so much more than personal pleasure … but what can I say? I am a sinner. I am selfish. But I will be damned if I am going to help those rotten oligarchs to ruin the world. SCREW THEM! I’d rather take a bullet than help those rotten SOBs do anything.
So I suppose I am a very broken person that it took me impudence against my enemies to overcome this vice, instead of love for God. But you have changed my life forever. It’s only been two weeks, but I can tell. It’s different this time. I can only imagine that even if I don’t love Him like I should, that Our Lord, and also Our Lady and my guardian angel, etc., are absolutely delighted that at least my vice has evaporated. I owe that to you, Dr. Jones; you are an answer to three decades of prayer. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I am weeping as I write this. Thank you so very much.
God bless you.
Anon

Jewish “activists” like Kaplan have a license to ruin your life. The name of this license is Jewish Privilege. As the white boys scrambled to pay their legal bills, Ms. Kaplan made plans to spend the summer at the Hamptons, where she attends a conservative synagogue:

After the DOMA victory, the Conservative Synagogue of the Hamptons celebrated by commissioning the composition of a new piece of music that is set to verses from Psalm 85: “Kindness and truth have met; righteousness and peace have kissed. Truth will sprout from the earth, and righteousness will look down from heaven.”

Summer, we are told, is:

a deeply spiritual season for Kaplan. Even she slows down and can take more time to go to services. Also, the season leads up to the High Holidays. Those are her favorites, she said, because they are so conducive to private prayer and connection with God. It’s God, Kaplan said, who inspires people to act selflessly, bravely, kindly.1

God so far has not favored Elizabeth Sines. Sines v. Kessler is still dragging through the courts.[2] Mike Enoch extricated himself from the suit when he successfully defended himself pro se. James Fields, the rally-goer who killed counter-protester Heather Heyer by driving his car into a crowd of people, was sentenced to life in prison for murder in December 2018.[3] In March 2019, Fields pled guilty to federal hate-crime charges, as part of a deal in which prosecutors agreed not to seek the death penalty;[4] on June 28, he was instead sentenced to life in prison.[5] Charlottesville Police Chief Alfred Thomas resigned abruptly on December 18, 2017, just seventeen days after the release of a report that was highly critical of the police department’s handling of the Charlottesville rally.[6] Former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia Timothy Heaphy claimed that Thomas told officers in the police command center that day to ”Let them fight for a little. It will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.”[7] Summing up the meaning of Sines v. Kessler with the benefit of two years of hindsight, Roberta Kaplan opined: “It’s pretty hard to shock me, and the one thing that I found in this case to be really quite shocking is that while all these defendants hate blacks and LGBT, are not thrilled with Hispanics and women, the one element that is their raison d’etre is anti-Semitism.”[8]

The irony in this statement only becomes apparent if we view Jewish Privilege as something inhering in “the Jews,” and not in any one particular Jew, because each Jew has plausible deniability that absolves him from any responsibility for upholding the privilege he enjoys. So Dr. Michael L. Brown, a self-described “Jewish follower of Jesus,”[9] can call me anti-Semitic[10] but say that he doesn’t want me to go to jail for disagreeing with him. And Israel’s UN ambassador, Danny Danon, can say he wants anti-Semitism criminalized,[11] but claim that he never called me an anti-Semite. But if we put both comments together as an expression of Jewish Privilege, the consequences become clear. If they get their way, you will go to jail for disagreeing with a Jew.[12]

Similarly, sixty years ago, Jewish “activists” like Leo Pfeffer could claim with a straight face that Jews were in favor of free speech, and, indeed, sixty years ago they were because they had not yet completed the dismantling of this culture’s protections of sexual morality. The Jews then were in the forefront of undermining anti-obscenity and anti-abortion laws. With the sexual lure as the bait, they persuaded the goyim to abandon the moral law. Once this happened, social anarchy followed. Since anarchy is intolerable, a new code had to be imposed. That new code used to be known as political correctness; it is now known by its opposite, namely, hate speech, which is, as we have indicated, a Jewish creation. Unlike practical reason or the moral law, this new code is an irrational mish-mash of virtue signaling and identity politics, i.e., racial and sexual politics. Because this code is irrational, its imposition on the overwhelming majority of the people of the United States and, now, the world, creates violence. Mayor Buttigieg’s preaching of homosexual privilege (a variant on Jewish Privilege) has created violence in South Bend, Indiana because any time anyone preaches contempt for one part of the moral law (the sixth commandment, for instance) he preaches contempt for all of it, and any deviation from the moral law leads eventually and inevitably to violence. When violence breaks out—as it did in Charlottesville—Jewish Privilege determines who will get punished while the real perpetrators of violence, in this instance Antifa, will go unpunished. This, of course, leads to more violence, as the Poway synagogue shootings showed, and at this point we have to conclude that the creation of violence is intentional because it justifies more draconian forms of control. All artificially created codes of behavior, in other words, lead to violence because all are ultimately the imposition of the will of the powerful on the behavior of the weak with—and this is the important point—no regard to Logos or the real order of the universe which is based on the mind of God and demands justice. Jewish Privilege is, therefore, the main source of violence in our day, and it needs to be confronted as such in our day before we all end up suffering the fate of Jez Turner in England. St. John Capistrano, pray for us.

[…]

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

Culture Wars: Volume 38 Issue 8

$4.00

Add To Cart