Philosophy and Religious Belief (Part 1)

Part 2 is available here.

Originally Titled: State of the Americas On Subverting a Religion

Today we are having historian and catholic author Dr. E. Michael Jones, author of "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit" as well as many other influential books with important critiques on race, religion, history and mainly capitalism from a Catholic perspective, mainly influenced by the encyclicals that cover this issues (rejection of both capitalism and marxism for example). But as well as my project has advanced further, I would like to do my own breakdown of the JQ by interviewing 4 different doctors to cover the religious, psychological, political and historical aspect of this, after that I will have my conclusion which would become part 5 of this side-quest of mine. The main topics to cover as the title states is how the subversion of christianity started, the internal battle that has been going on deep within the church and mainly the enemy that the Cross has been dealing with since the beginning of our religion (yes I am christian as well) which is the Star.

Covered and expanded more on this, Mexican reporter and revisionist historian Salvador Borrego Escalante concludes in his book "La Cruz y la Espada" (The Cross and The Sword) that near the end of WW2 it was very symbolic that both sides of the allies had a Star painted on their tanks, while the soviet communists had a red star, the American capitalists had a silver star, both representing the 2 sides of the coin of materialism, while the germans were portraying the Iron Cross of the older Teutonic Knights that would represent spirituality and transcendance, thus symbolizing the maximum metaphysical cataclysm of this last century in the war between The Cross vs The Star.

1:04 - 3:45 The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit

3:55 - 6:51 On Zionism

6:54 - 9:02 Charles Darwin, Materialism and his buddy Karl Marx

9:05 - 13:17 Fascism and Catholicism

14:53 - 19:02 The Inquisition and the JQ

19:15 - 23:43 Protestantism and Pentecostalism [Judeo-Christianity]

23:50 - 28:37 Opus Dei, Milton Friedman and CIA vs Communists in South America

29:08 - 36:47 The 113 Popes Prophecy, Pietro Parolin and Sedevacantism

From Zero Schizo’s YouTube Channel

Why is Sodomy a Shame for Some But Not for Others

E. Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars magazine, discusses homosexual issues in the Catholic Church and their relationship to the community in which he lives, South Bend - Notre Dame IN. Mike's article in the September issue of Culture Wars magazine, "Cardinal McCarrick and the Homolobby," reveals that the mainstream media's portrayal that the crisis in the Church centers around pedophilia is wrong. Most sexual violations by the clergy involve homosexual violations or sex between priests and men of adult age. But since pedophilia is either illegal or seen as more egregious, the media wants to describe the homosexual activity as pedophilia. Mike explains how the Jesuits, primarily, have created a homomafia within the Church and have been intimidating the weaker clergy to say and do nothing when they discover these abominations in their midst. Or as Mike writes:

"Allow us to act on our homosexual impulses, the Jesuits said, and we will act as a fifth column serving oligarchic interests within the Church."

Mike compares the crisis in the Church to what is happening locally in South Bend. The local bishop (Rhoades) came from Pennsylvania and is now having to defend himself from accusations of covering up the supposed molestations. Ninety percent of the Notre Dame University professors are said to be for same sex marriage. When the homosexual mayor of South Bend was living openly with his future male bride and then later married him in the Episcopal Church, hardly a word of criticism came from the Notre Dame and South Bend Christian communities. "The Church may destroy itself from within - just as has already been the case in many places in the West. A Church which contradicts itself, rejects its own teaching, becomes useless and dies, like the Church in Holland. Anything that is self-contradictory is bound to disappear. Bad theology is dangerous.”

Capitalism, Neoconservatism and Americanism

Vendée Radio: I'd like to build on what we talked about last time, and talk a little bit more about Economic Liberalism, Neoconservatism and the effect that this has had on the Catholic Church. And what prompted me to want to get your thoughts on this was the news that three sort of solidly conservative bishops here in England, who I've got a lot of respect for, that they're very solid on current moral issues, recently attended the International Bishops Forum in Portugal run by the Acton Institute. And I just kind of... my heart sunk in a way, because while they're well, as I mentioned they're very Orthodox on moral issues, I just kind of worry that there's another kind of subversion going on here. Could you tell us a little bit about what the Acton Institute is?

E Michael Jones: Yes, you're right. There is subversion going on here. The subversion of Catholic social teaching, which finds both Capitalism and Communism equally repugnant. The Acton Institute was created in the 1980's by a man named Robert Sirico. Culture Wars magazine exposed the past of Robert Sirico in a number of articles. During the 1970's he was a flaming homosexual. Not just a flaming homosexual, but actively engaged in the promotion of so-called Homosexual Rights. He has the distinction of performing the first Gay Marriage in the United States of America. But during the 1970's he went, along with a lot of other homosexuals in San Francisco, he went through a conversion experience. And he converted to Austrian School Economics. Justin Raimondo is another homosexual converted around the same time. And at this point he disappeared from public view and ended up in the seminary. And became a priest!

Now this man should never have been ordained a priest, okay? Being a homosexual, even if it's just orientation and not acting out on the orientation, is an impediment to ordination. So he was ordained under false circumstances. And then he continued his activity as a subversive agent by now moving to the other end of the spectrum. Okay, the beginning of his public life he promoted sodomy, now he's gone the other way. After he becomes a Catholic priest, he hasn't stopped being a subversive. He's now promoting usury, okay? So he spent his entire life promoting sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. You know, the bishops in this country are completely negligent, and I'm talking about his own bishop in his diocese. They're completely negligent, because they have done nothing to stop this man from continuing to subvert the Church's teaching on economics. That's his job. He's paid a lot of money. And what he does here is he spreads this money around by luring bishops and priests and most of all seminarians to expensive junkets where they get lots of wining and dining, and they're basically seduced into betraying the Catholic Church's teaching on economics.

Vendée Radio: One thing that kind of strikes me about these Catholic Neoconservatives is: if you look into their backgrounds so often, almost to a man, they have periods where they were kind of Leftists to varying degrees. If you look at father Richard John Neuhaus, Michael Novak, Rod Dreher, they all kind of have these periods early in their lives. And I'm kind of tempted to say, you know, never trust a former Leftist. I mean does that kind of play into it? This idea that a leopard doesn't change its spots?

E Michael Jones: No, if there's ever a man who changed its spots, his political spots anyway, it's Michael Novak. I think he was completely sincere. As a Leftist he protested against Humanae Vitae. He signed the statement rejecting Humanae Vitae. He wrote for Time magazine, which at that time during the Second Vatican Council was an organ of the CIA and was actively involved in trying to disrupt the proceedings to get outcomes congenial to the CIA. So it was completely sincere in that regard. What happened is the world changed, okay? At a certain point Leftism became repugnant to most people, and he switched horses. You know, I don't want to say bad things about the dead. He's gone now, but I said bad things about him when he was alive! He was opportunist. Way back at the beginning when I got started in journalism, the Neocons recruited me to write for the National Catholic Register, which was probably also another CIA front operation since the owners were involved in the world Anti-Communist Crusade at that time. So anyway, Sure, I'll write for you. So one of the other writers for the National Catholic Register was Michael Novak. Well, I interviewed Michael Novak about his new book back then, called the Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. It was Notre Dame, he was there in a hotel room, and so he was going on in typical fashion then... We forget about it now, but it was like: What does this dumb Polack know about economics? In reference to the Pope! This is before the Pope became the big hero of Solidarity, you know. So he was completely dismissive of Catholic social teaching and the Pope who was trying to represent it. Completely dismissive. Completely patronizing. Condescending, as if he had any room to talk. He, at that time, was working for the American Enterprise Institute. The American Enterprise Institute is - look it up - it's Zionism. It's Capitalism. It's Jewish money from Private Equity Firms like the Carlyle Group. He was bought and paid for to write something to undermine Catholic social teaching, okay? That's what he was doing then, and over the course of time other people joined him. Okay, so he was not insincere as a Leftist. He was an opportunist. He saw which way the wind was blowing, and he switched at the end of the 1970's, and early 80's. And he became a flaming devotee of Free-Market Capitalism.

Vendée Radio: His book the Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. Did that come out before Pope John Paul the Second's Encyclical Centesimus Annus in '91?

E Michael Jones: Yes, it came out between Laborem Exercens and Centesimus Annus. And over that period of time Novak insinuated himself into the Vatican and he claimed that Centesimus Annus was the first Papal Encyclical which basically gave a Papal blessing to Capitalism. If you read the document this is simply not true. It's one of those urban myths that just gets circulated because there's so many Right-Wing Think Tanks promoting it, but basically the passage he is referring to is conditional. Centesimus Annus says IF by Capitalism you mean, you know, people working hard and blah blah blah, then yes it is compatible. BUT IF by Capitalism you mean something that is independent of the moral law, NO it's not. It's not! Well, we know that Capitalism is of course exactly what he referred to in the second instance! The Pope was dealing with a semantic issue here. Every time you mention the word Capitalism you get involved in a semantic issue, and his attempt to clarify the semantic issue was taken by Novak as a sign that the Pope has now blessed Capitalism. It's not true.

Vendée Radio: Yep. I think a lot of Catholics are familiar with the subversion of what could be called from the Sexual Left of Catholic teachings, but this aspect of subversion from the Economic Right is, I think, a much less known story. Do you see the Bradley Foundation as the font of, you know, funding for these various groups?

E Michael Jones: Yes, it was a crucial funder. I've already mentioned the American Enterprise Institute that funded Novak's Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. The Bradley Foundation was also crucial. In 1984 Michael Joyce became the head of the Bradley Foundation. Money from military vehicles. And at that point Joyce became the agent of Irving Kristol and the other Neoconservatives. And they basically started to determine who got the money, and the only people who got the money were people who were willing to toe the Capitalist line. Dale Vree, who was the editor of New Oxford Review, wrote a column in which he said he was approached by someone - he wouldn't give the name - but he said basically: "If you support Free-Market Economics and a muscular American foreign policy, we will give you lots of money". Dale turned him down, but the offer was made. It's clear that that type of thing was going on.

The best example of this would be First Things. Richard John Neuhaus at the time... let's go back to the 1980's. Late 80's, he's working for the Rockford Institute, writing the Religion and Society Report. Rockford became the promoters of Paleo-Conservatism, which was basically a reaction to Neoconservatism. The word was coined by Tom Fleming, who was the editor of Chronicles at the time. The best expression of Paleo-Conservatism at that time was Pat Buchanan running for the Presidency, which completely upset the Republican Party. It was the return of the repressed, and by the repressed I mean the Catholic influence in Conservatism. Which was, I said, Isolationist. It was a throwback to the America First Movement.

Okay, this upset these people no end because the Bradley Foundation, the Neocons, all these people, they wanted to have a monopoly on determining Conservatism. So during this period of time Richard John Neuhaus is privately bad-mouthing them. He's working for Rockford but he's bad-mouthing them to the New York crowd. New York and Rockford are opposite poles in American politics. It's Wall Street versus Main Street. That goes continually throughout American history. So Neuhaus is bad-mouthing Tom Fleming. Tom Fleming and Allan Carlson are having lunch with Richard John Neuhaus. Allan gets up to go to the bathroom and Richard John tells Tom Fleming: "I'm gonna cut you off at the knees". Okay, so Allan comes back and Tom said, "Would you mind repeating that, now that Allan's here?" And of course he wouldn't do that. So how he did this was he basically hijacked a quarter of a million dollar grant from the Bradley Foundation. It was written up in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. High speed car chases down 7th Avenue to get the mail first... It was really exciting stuff for Conservatism. And the result was that he created the magazine called First Things, and that made him a star. One person of the Holy Trinity of Catholic Neoconservatism.

So when I'm in New York City in 2006 and I'm listening to EWTN reporting on the Pope's visit, and here is Richard John Neuhaus bloviating for like hours on end. And I'm thinking, the thought just occurred to me: who made you our leader? Who appointed you our leader? And then it came to me immediately. Well, it's obvious! It was Midge Decter and Norman Podhoretz. They are the ones who appointed this man as the leader of the Conservative Catholic Movement in the United States, and completely subverted everything that I stood for when I started Fidelity, I'd say everything that Pat Buchanan stood for when he ran for President, and so on and so forth. In other words, completely cut out and subverted a whole group of American Catholic thought.

Vendée Radio: It's really fascinating, and it makes me think that the whole of sort of Conservatism Dot Incorporated that, you know, this kind of it seems like a managed movement. And if you look at someone like even Justice Scalia who was, you know, by all accounts a really traditional Catholic, even he said that the state should permit abortion if that's what the electorate wants, and that the task of government is quote-unquote "protecting person and property and ensuring the conditions for prosperity". So do you think that Conservatives in America are just another variety of Lockean Liberals?

E Michael Jones: Absolutely! There's no question about it. I mean, if there's ever a sign of the failure of Conservatism, it's that all those Catholics on the Supreme Court can't do anything! Can't stop Gay Marriage, can't do anything! They're completely useless. Cripples. Intellectual cripples. But to get back to Conservatism, it was created after World War Two. Now the two instances of its creation were William Buckley and the creation of National Review, and Russell Kirk and the Conservative Mind. I knew Henry Regnery. Henry Regnery, a real gentleman, a man from Chicago and whose father was the treasurer of America First. Henry told me, "The day after Pearl Harbor, the FBI showed up and went to my father and demanded the mailing list for America First, and they killed it." America First, meaning the movement led by Henry Ford, Father Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh, represented German-American thought. They wanted to keep America out of the war. They didn't want all these entangling alliances. It was destroyed by Pearl Harbor. And let's face it, there was a British agent here working for the Rockefellers. Intrepid. His name was Sir William Stephenson. So it was a Black Op. A collaboration between MI5 and the OSS and the Deep State of its day.

And so it's over. So America First, which is a genuine Conservatism, which represents the interests of the of the Midwest, manufacturing as opposed to New York Finance, Henry Ford, all other types of stuff, was killed. So it's over. So what are we going to do now? Well we have to create a new movement, and the new movement is called Conservatism. And William F Buckley and Russell Kirk are representatives of it. And Henry Regnery collaborated with it. Henry Regnery was an honorable man. I always liked Henry Regnery, but I never got around to asking him, you know, what is going on here? What was going on here? I sat next to Joe Sobran at dinner, you know, we're talking about Buckley. I said, "Was the National Review a CIA front?" Well, no one can answer that question. I mean this was the time when the Congress of Cultural Freedom was promoting front operations. Der Monat in in Germany. Encounter. Irving Kristol was the editor of Encounter, I believe. These are all CIA fronts. Was National Review a CIA front? I don't know. There are suspicions. Everybody has suspicions, but there's been no definitive proof about it. But what it did do is create a new way of thinking for American Catholics. So I think we were the main suckers who fell for the whole National Review operation. It basically neutered American Catholicism by proposing some type of bogus alternative, named Conservatism. So now it wasn't cool to be an Isolationist. Now you had to be part of the Anti-Communist Crusade. And you had to support Capitalism. And that's the role the National Review played in basically co-opting American Catholics. And it morphed later into Neoconservatism.

Vendée Radio: There's a bigger issue here, and I think that's the kind of engagement between Catholics and the American Commercial Republic, if you want to call it that. And I wonder to what extent it's kind of in America's DNA, this Liberalism. And, you know, how best Catholics can interact with that. Because if you go back to the 19th century, Pope Leo the 13th condemns what he calls Americanism. You've got some bishops such as Archbishop John Ireland who say that Catholicism and Americanism are in complete agreement. And then that's as opposed to Father Anton Wahlberg who was a German-born Cincinnati priest writing in 1889 who said, "The ideal set before every American youth is money. Money is not only needful, but is the one thing needful. Money is a power everywhere, but here it is the supreme power… In Europe, a man enjoys his competence; but here, no one has enough… The Anglo-Saxon nationality has always been in England and in this country the bulwark of Protestantism and the mainstay of the enemies of the Faith. It is so puffed up with spiritual pride, so steeped in materialism, that it is callous, and impervious to the spirit and the doctrines of the Catholic religion."

E Michael Jones: Well God bless him! If he were alive I'd have asked him to write for Culture Wars magazine! But you're putting your finger on one of the biggest problems in American Catholicism, which is basically the battle between the Irish, who were Americanists to a man, virtually, people like John Ireland, and the Germans, who had their own sense of preserving their own culture and had a much deeper understanding. They had their own economic tradition: writers like Heinrich Pesch, Oswald von Nell-Breuning, Bischof von Keppler... These people were all instrumental in the production of both Rerum Novarum, which is the beginning of Catholic social teaching, and Quadragesimo Anno. Now, I can speak plainly here because I happen to be biracial. I am Irish and German, so I don't have a dog in this fight, okay? But there was a big fight, and basically the Irish won. They won this battle. They drove the German scholars out of Catholic U. Bishop Ireland was famous for referring to the distinguished German theologian Kingsley at Catholic U as a "beer guzzling Dutchman". This is the type of narrow mindedness that the Irish prelates were notorious for. They created the Polish National Church in this country because of their stupid insensitivity.

Now I'm half-Irish myself, so don't get on my case about this. But the fact of the matter is that the Germans had a different view. And if you go to a city like Cincinnati, where one of my children and his wife used to live, there's the Immaculata Church. Beautiful church, on top of a hill overlooking the Ohio River, and behind the church there is two angels holding a banner. The banner says, "O Maria, ohne Suende empfangen, bitte fuer die Bekehrung dieses Landes, Amerika." (Holy Mary pray for the conversion of this country) So the Germans who came here felt that they had a superior culture, and we're going to the American barbarians, the American wilderness, and we're going to civilize them. Well, that's not the Irish attitude, you know? It wasn't the attitude that the Irish had, and the Irish won. And as a result, that notion that Catholics should be in charge of their own culture, should have a separate culture, just lost out, and assimilation became the ideal for American Catholics.

Vendée Radio: Do you buy into the idea, Dr. Jones, that there was some kind of Catholic moment, around the 1950's perhaps, when what you've just said about a kind of a deeper conversion of America to Catholicism was a potential possibility?

E Michael Jones: Yes. I think there was a Catholic moment. I think it happened right after World War Two. I think 1948 was a crucial year - other than the fact that I was born in that year. This is the year that Thomas Merton's Seven Storey Mountain came out. It was the year in which Bishop Sheen brought Clare Boothe Luce into the Church. She became the wife of the publisher of Time magazine, a very influential lady during this period of time. It was the period of Avery Dulles, the scion of the American WASP establishment. He's the son of John Foster Dulles, and the nephew of Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA. He converted to Catholicism while he was at Harvard, under the influence of Father Feeney. And you probably know that Father Feeney was excommunicated because of his interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. So what you saw here at this time, that’s a good example of what I'm talking about. Cardinal Cushing hated Father Feeney because he was getting flack from the people who wanted him to go along, wanted the Church to go along. And so the Church turned on its own people.

The new bishop, when he arrived in Detroit, turned on Father Coughlin and silenced him. Cushing turned on Feeney at Harvard. And over the period of time, the man who rose to prominence was basically John Courtney Murray: an assimilationist and Americanist. A Jesuit. I can't think of any more insulting terms. But he ended up on the cover of Time magazine, which is proof that you're a wicked person, I think. But he was the one who became the paradigm, right after John F Kennedy got elected President. He shows up on the cover of Time magazine, and now he's going to tell you what it means to be a Catholic and an American. And over this period of time there's no question but that Time magazine had the biggest influence on the Catholic mind than any other institution in the United States of America. Much more than any other Catholic publication.

Vendée Radio: Right. And do you see any bishops today who are kind of looking at John Courtney Murray, the impact that he had and seeing that he was, you know, working potentially subversively, and are kind of waking up to that at all?

E Michael Jones: No absolutely not. Fidelity Press has published a book by David A. Wemhoff called John Courtney Murray, Time/Life, and the American Proposition: How the CIA's Doctrinal Warfare Program Changed the Catholic Church which shows, without the shadow of a doubt, that John Courtney Murray was working with the CIA at the Second Vatican Council. He was there to create a certain outcome and to basically have the document that became Dignitatis Humanae basically baptize the separation of Church and state. That did not happen, okay? But as with Nostra AetateTime magazine took over the interpretation of the council and used people like Michael Novak to basically say what the council did not say. He also wrote the notes for the first edition of the documents in English and they were wrong. They were subversive.

So this story is being suppressed to this day, okay? The Jesuits are riding high here, now that they have one of their men as Pope. When the John Courtney Murray book came out, I tried to take out an ad in America magazine. You would think that they would want to know about their star John Courtney Murray. Well, they wouldn't accept the ad, okay? I can't run it. They are suppressing this because they know that Murray was working for the CIA and they don't want to talk about it, okay? That's why he went from the cover of Time magazine and the superstar of the American church to complete obscurity today. Because they backed away from it. They don't want to open that closet door.

Vendée Radio: So for the second half of the show, Dr. Jones, I'd just like to get your thoughts on the right interpretation of Catholic social teaching and those scholars who have looked to see what that would look like, you know, in the modern world. And I know you're very knowledgeable about Solidarism, Heinrich Pesch... how does that compare to Distributism and the work of Belloc and GK Chesterton?

E Michael Jones: Now like all good Catholics I admire Chesterton and Belloc, but they were out of their depth when it came to economics. Okay, Belloc's book on economics has an error. Tom Woods, the Catholic guy who went to Harvard with my son and who is now the guru of Libertarian Economics, rejoiced when he found Belloc's error. He made a mistake about the Church's teaching on usury. He made a mistake. With all due respect to Chesterton and Belloc, Distributism does not have the depth that the German tradition does. It just doesn't, I'm sorry. I'm talking primarily about Heinrich Pesch's Lehrbuch der Nationalökonomie. Rupert Ederer, who translated it into English calls it a “Summa Economica", but it's a widespread, wide-ranging analysis of all of German thought at that time, and a lot of English thought as well on economics. And all this thinking has been completely suppressed, you know? The book costs $1,300! Even libraries are not going to spend thirteen hundred dollars for a book. So I wrote Barren Metal to popularize German economics in general and the thinking of Heinrich Pesch in particular.

I wrote this book while working with a friend who's an Australian economist familiar with Catholic social teaching, familiar with the standard Whig interpretation of economic history, which begins with Adam Smith, and I mentioned Friedrich List. He had never heard of Friedrich List! He thought he was a Hungarian pianist. Friedrich List was a crucial figure in the development of both the economic systems in Germany and the United States. A crucial figure in the creation of the system of protective tariffs, which was the American system. I hope I don't offend any of my English listeners here, but there was a war in which America broke away from England, you know? I mean there's no hard feelings now, but there were then. And basically it was an American rejection of English Free Market Economics. Nobody knows this anymore because the whole system has been suppressed, largely thanks to the efforts of people like Michael Novak and Robert Sirico who have done tremendous damage to thought in general and the Catholic mind in particular.

Vendée Radio: Please talk about the interpretations of Dignitatis Humanae, and what the documents actually say, and then what different bishops have taken it to mean, and the impact on Catholic thought.

E Michael Jones: Well, the definitive interpretation came in 1979 when Pope John Paul the Second arrived in Philadelphia. His homily about the relationship between Church and state is absolutely brilliant and it should lay to rest any type of discussion about Dignitatis Humanae. First of all, I think that John Courtney Murray was defeated at the council, okay? But if there are elements that are doubtful, every Church document has to be interpreted in light of tradition. And that is precisely what John Paul did, and he clearly stated that the notion of a separation of Church and state is not compatible with Church teachings. The Church's teaching is that basically that the Church is the soul and the state is the body. The Church should be the soul of the state. Now obviously in an anti-clerical country like England or like the United States that's not going to be possible, and the Church has to make some type of accommodation.

Okay, but the question is: to what extent are you going to make an accommodation? To what extent are you going to say, "Okay, we need to function here but we're not going to sell out principles." You know? Well, the statement that John Paul II made in Philadelphia when he came to visit the United States, it's really the best statement. It lays the whole thing to rest, okay? That doesn't mean that there aren't going to be people who are going to be campaigning for the opposite, and I think that the problem here is that the Church started pursuing policies that were basically more in line with John Courtney Murray than they were with Dignitatis Humanae. And I'm talking about this whole idea of beating the drum for religious freedom. That, I think, has divided the Church. It has led them into a position that is not Catholic. We're basically, instead of saying: "Well, the Church should be the soul of the state", they're basically saying: "You know, we're just like everyone else. Just leave us alone and we'll be like the Amish and we won't bother you".

Vendée Radio: Yeah, and you said last time that that has a lot to do with the Church looking to America as some kind of protector, which she's sort of done before and made that mistake before. Whether it's Habsburg Spain or Bourbon France; you know, this idea that she has to kind of fall into line with some other political entity.

E Michael Jones: Yes. That's the Achilles’ heel of the Catholic Church. It's always looking to the state as the protector. And in the United States this happened with a vengeance after World War Two, with the Anti-Communist Crusade. You know, nobody liked Communism, but they used that antipathy to basically drag the Church into all sorts of compromising positions. And it's still there! I mean basically the same people who came as the Anti-Communist Crusade tried to turn it into the Anti-Muslim Crusade. You know, justify the war in Iraq. Same type of rhetoric. And now after that, we're back to the old anti-Russian rhetoric all over again! It's like deja-vu all over again, as Yogi Berra would say, you know? Now we're back to hating Russians again. You know, it never stops here.

Vendée Radio: This is a kind of tangential question, but when you look at the impact of Jewish finance on the socialist revolutions in in Eastern Europe, and particularly Russia, and then the kind of the lead you've just spoken about, that Neocons and the kind of Anti-Communist Crusade they had rolling back that Russian revolutionary influence, how did that kind of come about?

E Michael Jones: You had a split in the Communist Party, and that's where Neoconservatives came from. I mean, Irving Kristol was a Trotskyite. He was in Alcove B of the City College of New York. Alcove A was the Stalinists, and they got into really ugly battles, you know? To the point where the main enemy of a Stalinist was a Trotskyite, and the main enemy of a Trotskyite was a Stalinist! And so these people then started attacking the Soviet Union during the 1970's, and that led to the rise of Neoconservatism. Which, in many ways I think, is the logical fulfillment of what Trotsky wanted. Trotsky wanted perpetual war, and we got that. Trotsky was head of the army. Trotsky used the army to spread this ideology. You know, there are lots of uncanny similarities. Trotsky believed that everybody should belong to one class. David Brooks wrote a book, called Bobos in Paradise, about "Bohemian Bourgeoisie". He was actually doing a book signing, going on and on about Bobo this and Bobo that, and some woman came up to him and said, "Don't you mean Jews?" He wrote that up in one of his columns! Yeah, that's what you meant! That is what he meant.

Vendée Radio: Does it also have a relation to the fact that the Soviet Union was supporting Arab states, which were, you know, in the 70's, you know, basically fighting with Israel?

E Micheal Jones: Yeah, I mean the Jews who went to Israel from the Soviet Union were all Communists. They were convinced of it. You know, up until '67 Jews were Communists. And then in '67, with that war with Israel, suddenly there was this big change, a sea change, and most of them became Zionists. And this was also the year that the Black-Jewish Alliance ended. And this was Norman Podhoretz's moment. He was there, as editor of Commentary, and he basically steered a lot of Jews away from their traditional allegiance to the Communist Party or to Left-Wing political movements, and got them involved in so-called Right-Wing movements that were not all that different than what Trotsky was proposing. That's the whole point. It wasn't Conservative at all. In any way. By any stretch of the imagination. It was not Conservative. It was a co-optation of a term that had become popular and they were very successful in writing of it.

Vendée Radio: I remember seeing a Pew Research poll which was talking about different groups and their political sympathies. I think it was particularly by religion, and amongst sort of white Evangelicals their highest levels of sympathy were with Jews, but then with Jews their lowest level of sympathy was with Evangelicals.

E Micheal Jones: Yeah. That's got to be one of the saddest stories in American history.

Vendée Radio: Yeah, could you talk about Christian Zionism and how that kind of came about?

E Michael Jones: Yeah. It was basically the Scofield Bible. Scofield was a con man who wrote notes to a Bible, and then he got invited to join the Lotus Club in New York City. And basically the Jewish publishers like Mr. Louis Untermeyer realized this is a goldmine for Jewish influence. And so these people started promoting the Scofield Bible, and it became known as Dispensationalism. My friend Peter Hellen is doing shows on YouTube about this, with one of these poor benighted Evangelical pastors who never thought about it. He's been living in a world all by himself. You're talking about Southern Indiana here. They're all Christian Zionists. Mike Pence was a Catholic, raised as Catholic, and he got politically ambitious. And he realized if you want to succeed in Southern Indiana, you have to be one of them, a Christian Zionist. And that's what he did. So it's sad. It's sad because, you know, the Jews are holding these people in contempt. They're the quintessential dumb Goyim. But they follow leaders like Jerry Falwell. The late Jerry Falwell was given a jet by Menachem Begin so he can fly around and support Zionism. Pat Robertson. These are very influential people in this community, and they're all Christian Zionists, you know? And that's this symbiosis in American politics that makes it so difficult to break. If it all came down to just voting, the Jews couldn't get anybody elected. But when you have 40 and 50 million people that pull the lever because they believe that if you bless Israel, God will bless you, and that the thugs who showed up from Eastern Europe are the children of Moses, and all this other type of stuff, well then you've got a powerful political bloc. And that's the problem here.

Vendée Radio: During the last war with Gaza, I think it was a couple of years ago, and the airstrikes that were going on there, was there any kind of sense of a change? I know that in opinion polls, sympathy towards Israel took a bit of a dip then. Can you see any kind of change on the horizon there?

E Micheal Jones: Among the Christian Zionists? No! I have been here for forty years, and it's two completely different worlds. I mean Catholic Indiana and Protestant Indiana. Completely different worlds, you know? I think that they're impervious to reason. I mean that the atrocities that got committed during that attack on Gaza... the dropping of white phosphorus on women and children... these are war crimes by any stretch of the imagination. And this stuff, first of all it's all suppressed here. Recently I just got a YouTube video. It's on Jordan Peterson, you know? And it's interspersed with pictures of white phosphorus, and the baby, that horrendous photo of that baby burned to death with white phosphorus, okay? Well, YouTube took it down. They said the video is offensive. Well yeah! It is offensive. But what's the cause of the offense? Is it the person showing the picture, or is it the Israelis who are murdering women and children with white phosphorus? Because that's the big question. So it's still here, you know? I mean it's repressed, you know and there are people changing gradually, but I don't see big changes in that community at all.

Vendée Radio: What do you think of Jordan Peterson?

E Michael Jones: Did you see the video where he said "I can't do it"? No? Well it's a video, so it's on YouTube now. He's giving a talk in New York. A man stands up and he starts talking about Solzhenitsyn's book Two Hundred Years Together. And Jordan gets kind of a pained look on his face. And then the man switches to the Holodomor, the starving to death of millions of Ukrainians (which was done by a man by the name of Lazar Kaganovich, one of Stalin's Jewish henchmen) and so he asked Jordan Peterson, "What is your take on this? Have you read Solzhenitsyn's book?" So Peterson looks at him, he's gotten this look like the deer in the headlights, then he walks off to the other end of the stage. Now he looks like Hamlet, kind of agonizing, with his hand on his forehead. Then he walks back and he's ready to say something, and he says, "I can't do it." So that's it. So this is happening around the same time that David Brooks has written an article called The Jordan Peterson Moment, where he's basically anointing Jordan Peterson as Mr. Anti-Political Correctness. You know, standing up... and anybody who says anything in Canada against Transgenderism or Gender Ideology is immediately proclaimed a hero. And I don't want to take any credit away from him for doing that, but I mean there's certain topics that he simply cannot bring himself to address.

Vendée Radio: Yeah. I was listening to him the other day and he does talk about Logos as the sort of cornerstone of Western civilization. I thought that was particularly interesting, but his understanding or his conceptualizing of it was quite limited, I think.

E Micheal Jones: Yeah. I mean I detect elements of Nietzsche, I detect the elements of Social Darwinism. When he talks about Jews, he talks about their high IQ and so on. We're back to this kind of crypto-racial argument here. And people who don't like Jews are basically envious of their success, I mean this is the story that he's saying. Needless to say, that's not the story that I've been telling. That's not the story of the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, you know? Which is based on an understanding of Logos. And the whole point of that book is that basically when the Jews turned on Christ and called for His crucifixion they killed the Logos Incarnate, and once they did that they became rebellious against Logos, and when you're rebellious against Logos (which is the order of the universe, including the social order) you become a revolutionary. And I'm saying that's been their identity for 2,000 years now.

Vendée Radio: Jewish Revolutionary Spirit is transmitted via primarily the Talmud. But one thing I wanted to ask you was, if that kind of explains the sort of subversion for the main stretch of history, but when you come up to today where you know most Jews, like Christians, grew up in essentially secularized environments. You know, they don't believe in God, they don't go to synagogue, etc. How is that Talmudic ideology transmitted?

E Michael Jones: Well, it comes through concepts like Tikkun Olam, right? Which is basically their notion that the Jews' mission is to heal the world, okay? And then that gets transmuted into messianic politics or messianic political movements, like Bolshevism for example. The Jews were very much in favor of Bolshevism when it came out because they thought it was going to change the world for the better. Well, the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit is constantly coming up with new forms of messianic politics throughout history. So just most recently, it just goes from, "Okay, now it's Feminism." Well, Feminism sounds a lot like Marxist culture class conflict transposed to the sexual realm, okay? If you just say that, or if I say that, I'm called an Anti-Semite, okay? If the Jew says it - well, that's great! Because that's, "Yeah, of course that's what we're doing! We're trying to heal the world!" So what you have now is this colossal double standard here. So one of the latest manifestations of the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit was Gay Marriage, okay? Everybody knows it was a Jewish creation. Joe Biden said it! The Vice President of the United States said the Jews were behind Gay Marriage, and everybody cheered when he said it. Then Amy Dean in Tikkun magazine (which is for Tikkun Olam, okay, that's the concept I'm talking about here) says if it weren't for Jews there would be no Gay Marriage. Well when I say that, they call me an Anti-Semite. This is just an intolerable double standard, but I'm bringing it up because these are all manifestations of the same revolutionary spirit in some form of messianic politics. The Jews have an addiction to it. They just can't break it.

Vendée Radio: Do you see that in Silicon Valley? In, you know, almost this kind of idolatry of technology? You know, Zuckerberg talking about making a better world, and Google and all of that.

E Michael Jones: Yeah sure, sure. That's exactly what they're trying to do. Everything they do, by the fact that the Jew does it, is going to heal the world! That's obvious, you know? It's basically by definition: anything that the Jew does is going to be something that's going to heal the world. That's what we're seeing here. We see it over and over and over again. And then they also get to demonize anybody who objects! It even goes like this with Jewish comedians. I cover a lot of these Jewish comedians in the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. The latest version of the Jewish comedian is Sarah Silverman. She says the most outrageous kind of blasphemous stuff, the most obscene stuff imaginable - and if you object, well, you're an Anti-Semite. Because this is progressive thought. She said, you know, she'd kill Christ again if she had the chance. She just said that anti-abortion legislation makes her want to go out and eat a fetus. She just called Jeff Sessions a cunt! She can do whatever she wants and you can't object to it, because if you do you're an Anti-Semite.

Vendée Radio: It's almost a pathological isn't it?

E Michael Jones: It is pathological. This lady needs counseling. She's out of control. And why is this funny? She's known as a comedian. She's a stand-up comedian. I haven't heard anything that she's said that is even remotely funny.

Vendée Radio: Do, you know, Orthodox Jews, Hasidic Jews, the more religious Jews, do they not oppose it?

E Michael Jones: Well yeah. I mean they do. I mean there's Neturei Karta - it's a completely Anti-Zionist operation that opposes the State of Israel. They're always out there demonstrating against the State of Israel. My friend, my late friend, Rabbi Dresner wrote a book. He's the one who got me started on the pathological effect that Jews like Woody Allen had on our culture. It was a Jew who brought that to my attention. Ford is a Jew, now a Jew. He wasn't before, but he's the one who started talking about Jews and pornography. So yeah, there are lots of them bringing it up. The best description of what it's like to be a Jew was from one of Israel Shamir's books. When he's fighting for the IDF during the '67 war and waiting for the artillery barrage to just obliterate them, and he realized that he's like a human shield! The big Jews use little Jews like Israel Shamir as a human shield to advance their agenda. It's also very apparent if you watch the Coen Brothers movie, A Serious Man. This whole split between the Jewish Leadership and the Jews themselves. They're basically held hostage to an agenda. Because of their rejection of the Logos, they've imprisoned themselves. They've become hostages because of their rejection of the Logos.