Zombie Apocalypse on Wall Street
by E. Michael Jones
Crossing the Brooklyn Bridge into Manhattan on a sunny fall day is one of life’s pleasures that only New York City can provide. The view of the harbor includes the statue of liberty, Ellis Island and the skyscrapers of the financial district. The Brooklyn Bridge is one of the few bridges in New York built with pedestrians in mind, and on this sunny Sunday the entire walkway was one continuous stream of humanity stretching unbroken from Brooklyn to Manhattan.
It reminded me of a protest march, probably because one week before, between 700 and 800 protesters who were taking part in the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations at Zuccotti Park had been arrested after being lured onto the bridge by the police and then attacked by the same people who had said they could march there.
In the spring of 1970, when I graduated from college, I, like many other college students, took part in the protests against President Nixon’s incursion into Cambodia. Four people died at Kent State University in Ohio during one of those demonstrations, when national guardsmen fired into the crowd. The weapons they were issued were M1 rifles, a weapon, which unlike the M16 which replaced it, was accurate over a long distance. Having soldiers fire a weapon like this into an unarmed crowd of students was one of the unforgettable traumas of our generation.
Nothing that dramatic happened on the Philadelphia march, but it was instructive nonetheless. As we marched through Belmont Plateau on our way downtown, a number of protesters emerged from the bushes bearing Vietcong flags and took their position at the head of the parade. I recognized a number of them. They lived across the hall from us in our hippie apartment building. They were members of the communist party; a number of them had been to Cuba on the Venceremos Brigade. They were a typical bunch of Jewish communists of the sort that was impossible to avoid in those days in university circles, and they were always running to the front of the line with their Vietcong flags in one way or the other to give the impression that we, i.e., the rest of the march, were their followers.
It was a lesson I never forgot. For the next forty years, no matter what the movement, there was always someone who was running to the head of the parade carrying a flag and only too happy to claim that everyone else was following him. The late Richard John Neuhaus always struck me as the classic example of the same thing. After listening to Rev. Neuhaus bloviate on EWTN for hours on end about the pope’s visit to the United States, I suddenly blurted out to myself, “who appointed you our leader?” The answer to that question was clear enough. It was two neocons—Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter—who channeled a $250,000 grant to Neuhaus so that he could found First Things. Doing this was the neocon equivalent of what my Communist friends had done in 1970. The Jews had learned how to create front groups during the days when Irving Kristol and his Trotsky-ite buddies were occupying Alcove Two at the cafeteria of City College of New York, and they never lost the ability to put some token goy at the head of any parade that they wanted to co-opt. Catholics have been marching behind self-appointed (or should I say Jew-appointed) “leaders” like Richard John Neuhaus for my entire adult life.
I have to admit that, in spite of the glorious weather and even more glorious view from the bridge, I was heading to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations at Zuccotti Park with the same thought in my mind. When were the communists going to emerge from the bushes and run to the head of the parade? F. William Engdahl, a man I met in Switzerland who always has something intelligent to say on a wide range of topics from finance to genetically modified seeds, claimed recently that George Soros (as an agent of the Rothschilds) was behind the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.
If so, it wasn’t apparent to a casual observer like me. In fact the only thing apparent at the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations at was the lack of focus, which is the surest sign that we are dealing with a genuinely grass-roots movement here. It is also a sign that the 1970 protest against the incursion into Cambodia may not be the best paradigm to explain what is going on in Zuccotti Park. The best paradigm may be the South Bend Zombie Walk, which caught me unawares about a month before I arrived in New York. On a late summer afternoon, hundreds of zombies were marching across the Colfax Street bridge with blood dripping from their mouths and brains and various other organs hanging out of their bodies. It was an inspiring sight. Finally, I thought, a significant number of South Bend residents realized what the dominant culture had been trying to do to us for all these years, or judging from the age of the participants, for their entire lives. The emergence of the Zombie, or Zombie Apocalypse, is a sign that Capitalism has finally succeeded in turning everyone into a mindless consumer. The one word which Zombies utter as they lurch down the street with their arms outstretched in front of them is “brains.” Zombie Apocalypse occurs when the mind of American has been destroyed by the citizens’ adoption of mindless consumerism, something that George Romero, creator of the modern Zombie genre in film, brought out when he set Dawn of the Dead, the sequel to Romero’s ‘60s classic, Night of the Living Dead, in a shopping mall. S. Peter Davis claims:
In the wake of the debt ceiling crisis, left wing commentator Thom Hartmann warned that Tea Party zombies are loose in Washington and that their secret mission is to raze America to the ground and create a “second great depression,” because that totally makes sense, at least if you’re a Saturday morning cartoon villain. Leftist New York Times columnist Paul Krugman calls conservative economic theories zombie economics.
In a brilliant article on zombies and vampires,1 S. Peter Davis claimed that he could correlate their occurrence according to whether a Republican or a Democrat occupied the White House, or as he puts it: “when a Republican is in office, it’s all about zombies. When it’s a Democrat, it’s all about vampires.” The Vampire articulates the deepest fears of the Conservatives:
Vampires represent a combination of all the things the right fears about the left -- a breakdown of traditional morality and sexuality, a rejection of religion (there’s a reason you can ward off a vampire with a cross), and the seduction and corruption of the innocent. It’s everything Mom and Dad fear when their little girl goes off to college. . . . Dracula reinvented the vampire as someone whose bones you would walk over your mother’s grave to jump. It worked then for the exact same reason they work now -- they were the absolute inversion of conservative Victorian ideals. Prim and proper English ladies, after being bitten by the Count, became oversexed slutbags who abandoned their maternal duties to indulge in depravity. The motive of the vampire invasion was to turn England into the Jersey Shore. . . . When Rush Limbaugh said that “individualism, to a liberal, is like showing Dracula the cross,” he wasn’t just making a random analogy. He could easily have said that it’s like showing Superman some kryptonite, or like showing Ke$ha a bar of soap. No, commentators like him love the vampire analogy. He often says “vampire” is just another word for a Democrat -- a parasite, who “sucks the blood out of capitalism.”
Davis is on target when the claims that the Vampire is invariably a foreigner. Virtually every portrayal of Dracula from Bela Lugosi to the “Count” on Sesame Street has him speaking with a thick eastern European accent. According to Davis, when Dracula
arrives in England, he starts “converting” people into the same kind of monster that he is. What really stirs the heroes into action is that the new legion of ex-humans are aggressively loyal to Dracula, not to Britain.
But then Davis takes his insight in exactly the wrong direction when he writes that “if Dracula had been written today, he’d be wearing a turban.” No, if Dracula had been written in the age of the Occupy Wall Street protests, he’d be wearing a yarmulke. Davis could have strengthened his argument considerably if he had cited Hitler’s frequent references to vampires in Mein Kampf, but to do this he would have also had to point out that Hitler equated vampires with Jews. It was Jews—in particular, Jewish financiers—who were bleeding Germany dry in the 1920s, and the same themes are now starting to emerge in the Occupy Wall Street protests. In a youtube video that has gone viral, Patricia McAllister, a black public school teacher from Los Angeles who had come to Zuccotti Park to join the Occupy Wall Street Protests, claimed that the “Zionist Jews who are running the banks . . . need to be run out of this country.”2 A Republican front group tried to dismiss the OWS protests by claiming that they were run by Anti-Semites, something which brought about hasty denials on RT by Arun Gupta, an Egyptian who came to New York to create the Occupied Wall Street Journal.3
Zombie Apocalypse, i.e., people in places like South Bend getting dressed up for the local Zombie Walk, is a sign not so much that Capitalism has triumphed, but that it has failed. The Zombies are parading because they don’t believe in capitalism any more. Consumerism failed to satisfy the human soul. Nothing, not even death, can extinguish the human soul, which is destined for immortality in either heaven or hell. The death in life state symbolized by the Zombie is a metaphor for sin. The sin-burdened soul with no hope of a redeemer (the state of most people in post-Christian America) can be likened to death in life. The Zombie is not alive; the Zombie is undead, and that is precisely the state in which most of those who have succumbed to Capitalism’s dream of consumer heaven on earth find themselves. Add sexual sin to the smorgasbord of consumer items the Capitalism offers to seduce us, and you have the source of all of the ghoulish imagery that the Zombie Walk displayed. More than one young woman in the march had fetal arms and legs protruding from her abdomen. I didn’t know any of these women, but I know that lots of women in their generation have aborted their children, and I suspect that the Zombie Walk was a cryptic way of referring to that fact. Since these women can’t confess their sins to priests and receive the absolution only sacramental confession can provide, they engage in the next best thing. They advert to the abortion in a series of covert gestures, like Dimmesdale in The Scarlet Letter, ripping open his shirt and exposing the A on his breast, but at midnight, when no one can see.
For the most part, the crowd at Zuccotti Park was the sort of crowd you would expect at a New York City protest, at say Washington Square in the ‘60s. There were drummers drumming and hippies dancing and people with tattoos on their faces lying on trash bags in a semi-comatose state. There was a naked woman having her body painted red and black, and there were people who looked to be in their twenties holding signs, not mass-produced signs, but signs that they had made themselves. All four sides of the city block that encompassed Zuccotti Park were lined with people holding home-made signs, most of which dealt with economic issues. “Debt is slavery” was a common theme, with special emphasis on student debt. “Fuck unpaid internships” was another. The majority of the people there were of this age; they looked to be the immediately post-college age and they now had no jobs and the prospect of having their student loans increase in the exponential way that compound interest insures into a burden that was guaranteed to drain off whatever money they might earn—if they ever find jobs—into a black hole that was going to stay with them for their entire lives. Not long before the protests began, the story circulated in the news of a woman who had come out of medical school $300,000 in debt. Ten years after graduation, which is to say, ten years after earning one of the top salaries anyone can earn in this country, her debt stood at $500,000—and if this was the case with someone who earned a physician’s salary, what were the financial prospects of an unemployed computer programmer?
The issue at Zuccotti Park was usury. Needless to say, the “U’ word was not prominently displayed on any of the signs I saw at Zuccotti Park. Whenever I mentioned the “U” word, I got blank stares from virtually everyone.
When I arrived, a group of ministers and divinity students from Union Theological Seminary had assembled at the top of the steps leading up to the eastern entrance to Zuccotti Park. It was the closest thing to an attempt to provide and intellectual focus to the protest, and as far as I could tell the attempt, although full of enthusiasm, was faring badly. The speaker was wearing a Roman collar and explaining how the current system contradicted the gospel. He was not a Roman Catholic priest. His name was Rev. Mike Ellick, and he was a minister at the Judson Memorial Church. He was followed by another cleric in a Roman collar, Rev. Stephen Phelps from the Riverside Church, who said more of the same, with lots of enthusiastic backing from the students at Union Theological Seminary. The speeches were initially disconcerting because of the fact that the crowd would repeat each sentence as soon as it emerged from the speaker’s mouth, sometimes with unintentionally comic results. The Union Theological Seminary students acted like a Greek chorus of sorts, but unlike the chorus that warned Oedipus, all this one could do was repeat the words of the speaker.
So the good news was that the communists had not run to the front of this parade. If anything the Occupy Wall Street demonstration looked like a religious revival. The clerics had taken a leadership role and were viewing the crisis in a Christian light. The bad news is that the clerics who spoke seemed positively allergic to giving the movement focus. In fact they prided themselves on not taking a leadership role.
Afterwards I spoke with Rev. Phelps at length He said that the job of the Church was to support “this.” I then pressed him on what “this” was, but he wouldn’t get specific. He said that for the first centuries of the Church’s existence there was lots of controversy but no one got excommunicated. He said that the people themselves will have to focus this movement and that it might take a long time. When I asked him if “this” was about Capitalism, he refused to agree. He didn’t know what Capitalism meant. Some people say that it’s this; and others say that it’s that. It would obviously take centuries to come to an answer, something that is not in the cards without direction. When I remarked that power, quoting Lenin, was lying in the streets, he shrugged.
“I used to be a composition teacher,” I told Rev. Phelps, “and we used to ask the students to focus their essay by coming up with a topic sentence. So if you could come up with a slogan that encapsulated what the protest was about, what would it be?”
Rev. Phelps pondered the question for a moment and then said, “it would be ‘we want.’” At that he took his leave, leaving me to ponder the meaning of his slogan. “We want”? We want what? At this point the crowd which had listened to Rev. Phelps’ speech assembled behind what looked like a cross between the golden calf and the Merrill Lynch bull logo, and we all started walking south toward Wall Street. One of the marchers was another cleric wearing a Roman Collar, an Episcopalian priest named John Denaro, head priest at St. Mark’s Church in the Bowery. Rev. Denaro was born Italian and raised as a Roman Catholic but had obviously jumped ship for some reason and become an Episcopalian. Rev. Denaro couldn’t focus the discussion any better than Rev. Phelps could, something which became apparent during the conversation we had as we marched toward Wall Street behind the golden calf. In fact, after talking to anyone I could find wearing a clerical collar, it became clear that not wanting to impose views, either prematurely or ever, was one of the hallmarks of clerical involvement in the protests. They were there to support—whatever it was that was going on. Period. Anything more normative or formative was viewed as unseemly, a kind of fascism.
When I asked if the Catholics were involved with the clergy’s efforts, Rev. Denaro thought for a moment and then mentioned a few people from the Catholic Worker, but otherwise, no, no Catholics were involved. It was at this point that he mentioned that both Cardinal Egan and Cardinal Dolan were against gay marriage, and implied that that had destroyed their credibility with clerics of his stripe.
“So sexual liberation has co-opted economic issues?” I volunteered.
Rev. Denaro took issue with the term sexual liberation.
“No one is concerned about sexual liberation,” he said, dismissing the term as hopelessly passe. “But if two people want to get married and happen to be of the same sex, shouldn’t they have the right to do that?”
Needless to say, I did not want to get into a discussion about gay marriage. Equally apparent from all the conversations that I had was the fact that the liberal, pro-homosexual clergy of the mainstream denominations had resolved these issues to their own satisfaction a long time before I arrived on the scene. The striking thing about the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations is how they swept aside all of the New Left sexual rights issues that these clerics had been espousing for decades and replaced them with a whole new set of imperatives, imperatives of the sort that might have found expression in the ‘30s rather than the ‘60s.
Just as it was out of place for Joan Baez to sing “The Ballad of Joe Hill” at Woodstock in 1969, so now the reverse was true. It was equally out of place for the sexually liberated clergy to talk about gay marriage to an unemployed computer programmer who was $100,000 in debt. The clergy did their best to show that their hearts were in the right place, but their minds were unfortunately occupied territory, and they were, as a result, incapable of addressing the situation as it unfolded before them. History had outstripped everyone’s categories and had made them all totally irrelevant. Economics was terra incognita to a group of people who had grown up in unprecedented prosperity with only their sexual compulsions to think about. To say, as Dante had, that sodomy and usury were equally evil, and that its practitioners deserved to end up in the same circle in hell because the one (the sodomite) made sterile what should be fertile, namely sex, while the other (the usurer) made fertile what should be sterile, namely money, would have been unthinkable. Hence, the lack of focus, the lack of leadership, and the lack of any likelihood of success. Hence, the impasse. No one is going to be running to the head of this parade any time soon.
The mainstream media fared no better than the mainline denominations in this regard. Geraldo Rivera showed up at Zuccotti Park shortly before I did and tried to engage the crowd, which reciprocated to his overtures by chanting in unison, “Fox News lies.” Sensing that this was not the best background accompaniment to his report, Geraldo switched to a studio interview with Tavis Smiley and Cornell West, but the negritude of the Civil Rights movement was just as irrelevant to the situation in Zuccottti Park as the pro-homosexual platitudes of the effete mainstream clergy. Eventually the “Fox News lies” chant grew so loud that it drowned out everything Geraldo had to say, causing him to beat a hasty retreat.
Trying to get to the bottom of the Wall Street protests, CNN roving reporter Erin Burnett stalked through Zuccotti Park, looking for someone who could explain it all to her. She found an unemployed software programmer and, cutting to the chase, asked him if he knew that the “taxpayer actually made out on the Wall Street bailouts”? The unemployed programmer was “unaware of that fact.” And Erin used the opportunity to demonstrate that the protesters didn’t have a clue and that she, as the representative of capitalist-owned media giants like CNN, could be relied on once again to vindicate the conventional narrative.
This is not to say that the protests don’t lack coherence. Compared to the Muslims who pulled off the Arab Spring in places like Egypt and Tunisia, they do lack coherence, but then everyone in America lacks coherence in this day and age, including the Catholic Church, the font of all coherence in the world. The protests have been dubbed the “American autumn,” in order to explain their connection to the “Arab Spring.” But what the Arab Spring was about and how it is connected to the American Autumn, other than by the favored use of electronic devices, is not apparent to the savants at the main stream media. Both the American Autumn and the Arab Spring are protests against the failure of capitalism and the human cost that failure invariably exacts. As I said months ago:
As some indication that the upheaval sweeping through the Arab world in the Spring of 2011 was a repudiation of capitalism that was even more sweeping than the repudiation of Communism which swept through eastern Europe beginning in 1989, one of the protesters in Cairo held up a yellow sign on which was written: “Egypt supports Wisconsin workers: one world one pain.” The only thing that Egypt and Wisconsin have in common is capitalism, which was perceived as failing in both places.
Wandering through the zombie apocalypse atmosphere of Zuccotti Park, I kept looking for Erin so that I could give her the explanation of what was going on that she failed to get from the unemployed software engineer. Capitalism is state-sponsored usury. Once the state admits the licit nature of usurious contracts, state-sponsored usury insures that everyone in the capitalist state, including the state itself, eventually gets saddled with unrepayable debt. At this point, with liquidity gone, the state allows the usurers (and the elected representatives they have put in office) to loot labor to pay for the usury burden. That means layoffs, reduced pay, outsourcing, pension fund looting, and all of the other methods that have created the anger and frustration that have led to the protests in Zuccotti Park. It also means that capitalism will increase the money supply to meet the debt burden, which means an on-going debasement of the currency, causing hardship for everyone but most especially for those on fixed incomes.
All of this looting is, of course, to no avail because no force on earth can keep up with compound interest, which is the heart of usury. If anyone needed proof of this fact, they need only study the relationship between the Fuggers, the German Catholic money-lenders who succeeded the Medici as the richest family in Europe, and the Habsburgs, the house which ruled the Holy Roman Empire. The Fuggers made their first loan to the Habsburgs in 1494, at around the same time that Savonarola was protesting against sodomy and usury in Florence. In 1557 the Habsburg King of Spain, Philip II, declared bankruptcy. During that period of time, the Habsburgs owned every gold and silver mine in the New World. Beginning in 1530, that treasure trove of precious metal began to pour into the Habsburg coffers in a river of riches that the world had never seen before and, in terms of the sheer volume of precious metal, would never see again, and yet not all of the gold and silver in the New World could keep up with just 60 years of compound interest on the money the Habsburgs borrowed from the Fuggers, who, it should be noted, prided themselves on never charging more than 6 percent per annum!
If she wanted to know what the protests were about, Erin would have done better to interview the financiers having lunch at the local watering holes rather than the protestors protesting in the park.
Judging from the prices on the menu, I could see that this was an establishment where only high financiers could afford to come to dine. Judging from the yarmulkes on the heads of the diners, I concluded that the restaurant was a watering hole for Jewish finance. If it had been a Chinese restaurant, I would have order “sum dum goy,” but this was clearly no Chinese restaurant. So what was I—neither financier nor Jew—doing there?
I turned the question over in my mind while contemplating an aquarium in the lobby. It was obviously a salt water aquarium because lurking at the bottom of the tank was—no, not what the Jesuits at Civilta Cattolica called “the voracious octopus of Judaism”—but rather, the best symbol of the New York financial world, namely, a shark. The shark fluttered his gills and eyed me with an inexpressive eye reminiscent of an impersonal force, one that might eat you alive but which at the same time bore you no malice.
In this regard, the shark differed from Jewish finance, which is suffused with racial malevolence based on the stored up grudges of two millennia. In March 1866, Alphonse Rothschild, scion of the famous Jewish banking family from the Judengasse in Frankfurt, was asked by a friend after dinner “why, when he was so rich, he worked like a negro to become more so. ‘Ah!’ he replied. ‘You don’t know the pleasure of feeling heaps of Christians under one’s boots.”4 That is the gist of what I learned at lunch at the Jewish restaurant not far from the Wall Street protests. The issue, whether the protesters know it or not, is predatory Jewish finance.
The longer I gazed into that aquarium, the more mesmerizing the eye of the shark became until finally I realized that the shark wanted to communicate with me. The shark took one final turn around the tank and then disappearing behind a heap of coral, reappeared wearing a yarmulke.
Sidonia the Shark
“My name is Sidonia,” the shark said.
Somehow I was not surprised. If you believe a shark can talk, then it is not implausible to believe that he can read as well, and if a shark at a Jewish restaurant can read, then why couldn’t he read novels by Benjamin Disraeli, and if he could read Disraeli’s novels, he most certainly would have read Coningsby. Sidonia, the mysterious stranger who tells Coningsby, “I worship the lord of hosts,” is based on Lionel Rothschild, the model Disraeli had in mind when he wrote Coningsby. Unlike Sidonia, Lionel, son of Nathan, who founded the Rothschild firm in England on the eve of the war with Napoleon, worshipped money, which Karl Marx referred to as the Jewish god. The English descendants of the lords who looted Church property in the 16th century, now known as Whigs, worshipped the same god, which the Jews lent to them at usurious rates throughout the 19th century. The rise of the Rothschilds occurred in direct proportion to the money they lent the English aristocracy. The Earl of Shaftesbury found it “strange, fearful, humiliating” that “the destinies of this nation are the sport of an infidel Jew.”5
What followed was lots of palaver over whether Jews could be English citizens with full rights, as well as lots of self-loathing and anti-Semitism but the outcome in a capitalist society like England was a foregone conclusion. Jewish political control followed inexorably from the practice of predatory finance.
As then, so now. Last May, the Congress of the United States gave the foreign potentate Benjamin Netanyahu 29 standing ovations in an exercise of groveling that was as disgusting as it was unprecedented. Those Congressmen humiliated themselves in this fashion for one reason: they wanted Jew money, in particular the type of largesse that AIPAC, the organization that told them when to stand up and cheer, can provide.
A Congress that is beholden to Jew money to this degree is not beholden to the will of the people. That means that the cause of the Wall Street protests is predatory Jewish finance. The main instrument of predatory finance is now and has always been usury. The Jews who lend money have always understood the predatory nature of what they were doing. As Mayer Rothschild said of Mayer Amschel, his father and founder of the banking dynasty, “Our late father taught us that if a high placed person enters into a [financial] relationship with a Jew, he belongs to the Jew.”6 Disraeli tried to portray Sidonia in as favorable light as possible, but the predatory nature of what he was up to comes through nonetheless:
Sidonia had become one of the most considerable personages in Europe. He had established a brother, or a near relative, in whom he could confide, in most of the principal capitals. He was lord and master of the money market of the world, and of course virtually lord and master of everything else. He literally held the revenues of Southern Italy in pawn, and monarchs and ministers of all countries courted his advice and were guided by his suggestions.7
The Jewish Question
Disraeli thought he could defuse the Jewish Question, but he was wrong. Less than 50 years after the publication of Coningsby, the Jewish Questions was being debated so heatedly throughout Europe that the Vatican felt that it had to get involved. During the fall of 1890 Civilta Cattolica did a three-part series on predatory Jewish finance that remains one of the best analyses of the issue, one that is directly relevant to the economic spectre that is haunting Wall Street. Civilta’s three part series on the Jewish question, which will appear in the November and December issues of Culture Wars, still provides the best analysis of the ethnic and religious animus which was the driving force behind Jewish finance, which was, by extension, the driving force behind the protests not far from where we were eating. The cause of the protests was capitalism. That was clear enough for anyone but an Episcopalian priest to see. Capitalism had always been the operating system for American culture, but there were periods when that system had functioned in a relatively benign matter.
That system took a turn toward the malignancy which its main characteristic today when Jews like Milton Friedman and the Chicago boys overthrew the Keynsians in the ‘70s and created an economic regime that promoted a more virulent strain of usury in the broadest sense of the term than anything American capitalism had known in the past. In one of the notes (for the complete list see the end of the Civilta articles in this issue) appended to the English translation of the Civilta Cattolica pieces on the Jewish question which he arranged, the English editor wrote:
The so-called political economists as David Ricardo or Milton Friedman are essentially Talmudic apologists for economic doctrines of the cutthroat competition used in an economic contraction to consolidate and monopolize industries under Jewish private banking control. These economic doctrines were applied by Charles Darwin to the survival of the fittest doctrine and natural selection. The Jewish newspapers touted Talmudic Darwinism as a means to destroy the Biblical basis of Christian civilization. The vile idea that man emerged from an animal has never been witnessed by the human eye, but was nevertheless used to destroy God’s account of Adam and Eve. The Jews were confounded when, in our century, Adolf Hitler turned the tables on them and characterized them as the inferior species unfit to survive and slated them to be destroyed as the Jewish Bolsheviks like Kaganovich had liquidated the 10 million Christian families in the Ukraine in the Kulak class liquidations; and so the Jews were punished measure-for-measure. It is important to note that, just as Talmudic sexology is contrary to Scripture, reason and natural law, so is Darwin’s Descent of Man contrary to Scripture and empirical natural evidence (i.e., what we can see).
Roughly 20 years after the rise of Friedman and the Chicago boys, Jewish predatory finance reached its apogee when Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers, and Robert Rubin appeared on the cover of Time magazine in 1999 to announce the repeal of the Glass-Steagel act. The goyim who worried about the safety of their investments or their bank accounts now no longer needed the protection of out-moded, Depression-era regulations, especially now that we had three Jewish geniuses in charge of the economy. Those assurances ring hollow now in places like Zuccotti Park, where no one was willing to lay the blame at the feet of those who are responsible. That is why the Civilta series on the Jewish question is important. It returns the discussion to when it got broken off. It restores the real terms of the argument. It eliminates shadowboxing. Much of it seems impossible to imagine in today’s context, but today’s context is changing daily in ways that the masters of the universe cannot control.
What I learned at the Jewish restaurant is what Time magazine had failed to tell the goyim in 1999. Jewish finance is by nature predatory. Capitalism was malignant because it was based on usury, and Jews had always known that usury was ipso facto predatory. That was one of the reasons they were avid to practice it.
Then as now, the main cause of anti-Semitism is Jewish behavior. By the 1880s a wave of anti-Semitism was sweeping through France. The main cause of anti-Semitism in Europe on the hundredth anniversary of the French Revolution and the eve of when the articles on the Jewish Question appeared in Civilta Cattolica was the Jewish practice of predatory finance. The mainspring of Jewish financial behavior is less greed than hatred of Christianity.
Sidonia the Shark has been observing the world of high Jewish finance from his aquarium for decades now. He witnessed crash of October 1987 and pleaded with the Jews at the major firms to reverse their short positions so the economy would not collapse worldwide. But it was all in vain. The Jews’ schemes eventually got out of control, but even when they did they just withdrew from the market to watch the chaos that they had caused. They said to my friend that the Christians had treated them with hatred for two thousand years and now let them get their comeuppance.
“The moral question,” Sidonia continued drawing my attention to Jewish support of both abortion and gay marriage,
is what was the fruit of that day’s rescue. If everything had crashed, would we have had homosexual marriage today? Did we only allow the wicked to get away with more wickedness when they might have been overthrown then? We thought we helped keep people employed and working and that was the positive thing to do.
Anyway, the hatred I saw that today was about the pattern that I saw always. Just take your Catholic blockbusting by creating white flight by forcing the Negroes into the Catholic neighborhoods. When I tried to persuade ADL Jews not to do it, they did not hate me, but they talked with hatred about the Catholics and how they had mistreated Jews all through their history. And now they were getting back at them. You do not know how right you are.
The Crux of the Problem
The crux of the problem of predatory Jewish finance is usury. Sidonia considers Rev. Denis Fahey’s The Mystical Body of Christ and The Reorganization of Society “an extraordinary book” not least of all because of “the profound observation of Aristotle” that “the payment of interest on money brought into existence as debt (fractional reserve banking) involves the payment of more than is issued. This cannot be done without further borrowing so the process means a further progression of debt for the society as a whole.”
“This is quite good,” Sidonia continues,
But Fahey does not here have the broad sweep of Aristotle as you can create extra paper money even if you do not fractionalize your reserves, which he cites elsewhere in the warehouse receipt analogy as it was in the beginning they say of the fraudulent hypothecation of the gold so that the interest could be paid. His main error was to follow the economists by saying money is a medium of exchange, and therefore it did not require an intrinsic value for that money as gold. First of all, it was not intended by Aristotle as a medium but as a value such as gold to pay for something. Therefore it is not a medium or in the middle but there is the gold and there is the object being purchased: one pays for the other and nothing is in the middle. If you give the paper a value though in reality it is nonexistent, it is to use a valueless instrument in payment for something of value which is a kind of fraud. There is much here on the Prussians, Jews and Mason creating the French Revolution to break up the Austrian and French alliance cemented by the marriage of Marie Antoinette and the Dauphin. The French throne had the Cagliostro and the Russian throne their Rasputin, and Parvus for the Russian Revolution.
I found myself wondering what the restaurant’s other patrons would have thought of their shark speaking to me, a goy, so frankly. The shark, who seemed especially fond of 19th century thought, was intimately familiar with the contents of the Civilta series. He then quoted by heart a particular passage in mind which he considered the essence of what was being said then as it applied to the situation now:
For the predominance to which today’s revolutionary law has helped them [i.e., the Jews] is digging an abyss under their feet, whose depth corresponds to the height to which they have risen. And at the first burst of the storm they are provoking by their very predominance at present, they will suffer such an enormous ruin, heralding an event as unequaled in their history as their modern audacity is also unequaled and with which they have trampled the nations that have madly exalted them.
Sidonia the Shark thinks this is an incredibly prescient passage. It predicted the rise of Hitler as the scourge of God for Jewish sins 40 years before the fact. And now the shark thinks that it is prescient again of another punishment, soon to be visited on the Jews because of their support of sodomy, usury, and abortion, a punishment which will make what Hitler did look like a walk in the park.
The thought was so powerful that the Jesuit editors of Civilta Cattolica repeated virtually the same passage eight years later in 1898:
The excessive power which revolutionary law as raised them to today is digging an abyss under their feet equal in depth to the height to which they have been raised. And there is now a whirlwind building in France and in Germany and in Austria and in Romania and in Italy, which provoked by their hubris is going to hurl them into a precipice the likes of which the world has never seen.8
Needless to say, Sidonia the Shark’s explanation of the Civilta series is far from the conventional view. For that you need to turn to a book like La Segregazione Amichevole, whose authors refer to the passage as “ominous and demonically prophetic.” According to Riccardo Di Segni, who wrote the foreword to the above-mentioned book, “Civilta Cattolica had been warning the Jews in a ‘friendly’ manner for a long time.” Then in a veiled reference to the holocaust, he added, “they were not at fault if the Jews died before [they could heed the warning].”9 Segni then goes on to praise the authors of La Segregazione Amichevole, seeing their work as a vindication of the efforts of Vatican II in rectifying the Church’s anti-Semitism as manifested so clearly in the editorial policy of Civilta Cattolica. Beyond that, their work “is a stimulus to the continuation of all the positive thoughts and actions that the Catholic world, with its highest representatives put in place - unfortunately too late - in recent years.”10
Riccardo Di Segni’s explanation ignores the fact that the Jesuits at Civilta Cattolica, like Georg Ratzinger, whom they quote approvingly, denounced anti-Semitism as incompatible with the Catholic faith. But it has the advantage of being both conventional and simple. It is also pure modernism. The Church was wrong then; she was anti-Semitic then, but Vatican II set everything right. After 1960 years of promoting hatred against the Jews, the Church suddenly got it right. His view may be facile but it is perfect harmony with the Enlightenment. Because of that fact, it would have once been considered on a collision course with the Church, especially the Church as it existed in the age when Civilta Cattolica was founded.
Now, in exchange for admission to the Enlightenment’s synagogue of acceptable ideas, the Church has purchased for herself a continuity problem. The modernist interpretation of Nostra Aetate has wrought havoc in the Church by erecting a Chinese wall which has cut Catholics off from their own tradition and has turned them into theological Quislings, who denounce their own saints—St. John Chrysostom springs to mind—as anti-Semites.
Civilta Cattolica published its first number on April 6, 1850. The founder of the review was a young Jesuit by the name of Carlo Maria Curci, who justified the creation of a new journal by claiming that European journalism was “the child of the French revolution, intent on propagating blasphemous and anti-Christian ideas soaked in a rationalism which was both agnostic and atheistic.”11
The Jesuits who founded Civilta Cattolica were not acting on their own. The new magazine was created under the auspices of Pope Pius IX and viewed by him as the application of his anti-modernist theories, as expressed in the Syllabus of Errors, to the political situation of his day. Civilta was to be a bulwark against modernist thought. It would allow the Church to combat the enemies of the Church with their own weapons. Civilta took on “the avarice and pride of an ugly monk in Germany, the insatiable libido of a tyrant king in England, and the cult of national unity and independence which was promoted by all sorts of demagogues in Italy,”12 and it did so with the approval of the pope. Civilta Cattolica was conceived as an instrument in the Church’s intellectual apostolate, and its scope was essentially apologetic and polemical. Civilta distinguished itself from the moment of its inception in a series of battles against revolutionary thought, above all against liberalism, laicism and against the principles which were the inspiration for the French Revolution.13
The pope’s support was both spiritual and financial. In February 1850, Pius IX, while still residing Naples, ordered Cardinal Antonelli to transfer 1,250 ducats from the pope’s account at the Rothschild bank in Naples to the Jesuits and declared his willingness to take on whatever financial burdens necessary to ensure the successful launching of the review.14 The great care the pope took in the launching of the magazine paid off when on March 20, subscription had reached 3,000. During the first three months of publication that number would jump to 6,307.15
The ties between Civilta and the pope only became closer when Pius IX returned to Rome. From that point onward, “Civilta Cattolica was considered as an expression of the voice of the Vatican, as well as a faithful interpreter of the thought of the pope, which was well-research and intellectually superior.”16 On February 12, 1866, the pope, pleased by the success of the magazine, granted canonical status to the editorial staff at Civilta by establishing the “Collegium Societatis Iesu Scriptorum Ephemeridi vulgo La Civilita Cattolica” and granting them the privileges of other colleges of the society. From this moment on, only the pope could intervene in their affairs.
As a result of this approval, Civilta Cattolica soon became the most authoritative offical organ of the papacy, a status which not even the founding of L’Osservatore Romano in 1861 could undermine.17 Both Pius IX and Leo XIII placed a very special trust (“una fiducia tutta particolare”) in the Jesuits responsible for the magazine, and they reciprocated by returning that trust with a loyalty that was both absolute and deferential (“con una fedelta assolute e deferente”).18
The birth of Civilta coincided with the restoration of the ghetto under Pius IX, but in its early years the magazine did not devote any particular attention to the “Jewish problem.”19 In 1869 Pius IX praised and blessed Gougenot des Mosseau’s book Le Juif, let Judaism des peuples chrétiens et le judaisation, which described the Taldmud as “a savage code in which the precepts of hate and rapaciousness are mixed up with the magic doctrines of the caballah, a book which professes the greatest idolatry imaginable.”20
Pope Pius IX died on February 7, 1878, just as the wave of anti-Jewish sentiment was beginning to break over all of Europe, beginning in France. One of the causes of that wave of anti-Jewish sentiment (or one of the manifestations of it) was the blood libel trials which sprang up in places like Hungary and later in Russia. The authors hold Civilta as somehow responsible for this phenomenon by the very fact that they reported on it. Taradel and Raggi make it clear that from their point of view anyone who took the blood libel accusations seriously was guilty of anti-Semitism.
A similar view was expressed by Cardinal Vaughn and Lord Russell when they wrote to the head of the Holy Office in 1900 asking him to prohibit Catholics from mentioning the blood libel. The biting response of the Holy Office makes it clear that this request was tantamount to forbidding Catholics from talking about the O.J. Simpson trial because the blood libel was part of the legal history of countries like Poland and Bohemia and the Holy Office had no power to expunge those cases from the legal record. “Given all of this, the Holy See cannot give the declaration which has been requested, for even if it satisfied a few deluded Englishmen, it would give rise to protests and scandals elsewhere.”21 Taradal and Raggi claim that “the triumph of the Civilta Cattolica line could not have been more complete. . . . The resolution of the Holy Office, under this point of view should come as no surprise: it is inconceivable that it would condemn publicly all of the blood libel accusations which had been promoted by the secretary of state and Leo XIII himself.”22
The authors’ indignation rings hollow today. In the eleven years which have lapsed since the publication of La Segregazione amichevole, we have seen the publication of Peter Schaeffer’s book on Jesus and the Talmud, as well as the publication (subsequently withdrawn under Jewish pressure) of Pasqua di Sangue, a book substantiating the authenticity of the blood libel accusations written by Elio Toaff, the son of the former chief rabbi in Rome. In light of publications like this, Civilta Cattolica seems more relevant to our age than the indignation of the defenders of the Enlightenment, defenders who deny legal facts on a priori grounds.
Civilta Cattolica posited a chain of premises linked in logical fashion. The principles of the French Revolution have had a number of negative effects, the most pernicious of which was the emancipation of the Jews, which permitted them to do harm to the people who so recklessly granted them equal rights. That is largely because the Judaism of the past and the Judaism of the present are two completely different things.23 Judaism as it exists now is satanic in its hatred of Christ and the Church. Taradel and Raggi fault Civilta Cattolica for representing Judaism as the “demonic antitype of Christianity. . . . If the foundation of Christianity is love of neighbor, the foundation of Judaism can only be hatred elevated to a supreme religious precept.”24 The indignation on the part of the authors is palpable but misplaced. Since the publication of La Segregazione amichevole, a rabbi published an article in the America neoconservative journal First Things, explaining how hatred was a Jewish virtue.
Civilta Cattolica’s concern with the Jewish question reached its culmination during the reign of Pope Leo XIII. In 1890, one year after the hundredth anniversary of the French Revolution, Father Raffaele Ballerini wrote anonymously a three part series on the Jewish question. That situation had changed under the reign of Pope Leo XIII. Behind the French Revolution, Pius IX saw Freemasonry; now behind Freemasonry, Leo XIII saw the Jews. In a sense the situation had to change because by the 1880s all of Europe had become obsessed with the Jewish question. If Civilta was created to deal with current political issues, it had no choice but to deal with the Jewish question.
Pope Leo XIII
As we have already indicated, Leo XIII saw this series as an antidote to the anti-Semitic fanaticism which was appearing in the Catholic Observer in Milan. Oblivious to their own explanation of Leo XIII’s anti-anti-Semitism, Taradel and Raggi go on to claim that the 1890 Civilta articles on the Jewish Question, “do not constitute, as is commonly thought, the moment of initiation of the anti-Semitic campaign but rather the point of its arrival.”25 According to the Jewish view of history, the Church was infected with anti-Semitism from the moment of its inception. But after 1900 years of persecuting the Jews, God went up the chimney at Auschwitz, and the Holocaust has replaced the crucifixion as the center of human history. To say that large parts of the Catholic world have been infected by this hermeneutic would not be an exaggeration. In their critique of Civilta Cattolica, Taradel and Raggi even go so far as to say that anyone who felt that Jews were practitioners of predatory finance or supporters of revolution suffers from mental illness: “The obsession with a Jewish bolshevik plot, which has been defined by Norman Cohn as a true collective psychopathology became [at Civilta Cattolica] the key to understanding all of the political events in Europe. . . . The myth of a Jewish conspiracy is the motor as well as the ideological lens though which Civilta Cattolica explained to its readers history as it was unfolding.”26
The myth of a Jewish conspiracy? The idea that the Jews conspired to overthrow the Czar is far from a conspiracy myth. Lenin himself praised the Jews for the role they played in the revolution and then suppressed the speech so that the Whites could not use it as part of their propaganda against the Reds. Pious claims about “the myth of Jewish conspiracy” may be a fundamental tenet of the Enlightenment, but they are no longer intellectually plausible. They have been exploded by Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together (yet to be translated into English) and Erich Haberer’s book on the role Jews played in the revolutionary movement in Russia, and, dare I mention it, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. The big Jews at places like the ADL like to talk about the “canard” of anti-Semitism, but the biggest canard of all is the “The myth of a Jewish conspiracy.”
Sidonia the Shark has nothing but contempt for the ADL and nothing but respect for the series on the Jewish Question which appeared in Civilta Cattolica in 1890 and this month in Culture Wars, because he recognizes in it the ring of truth. That goes a fortiori for the warning we mentioned at the beginning of this article about the abyss now forming under Jewish feet.
“The Jews,” Sidonia asks incredulously, “can kill 500 million unborn babies and then claim that saying that the mass of Jews and their organizations are for abortion is anti-Semitic? That artifice will not play for long after we get through with them. It is not even an issue to be concerned about. If you are a good Christian or a Mosaic Jew, you are evil. The Talmud demands the same treatment for Mosaic Jews as for Christians. That’s comes out in the footnotes to the Civilta piece. They have gotten away with murder. But not for long. The blood libel, whether it’s true or not, is nothing compared to the bloodshed the ADL has caused by promoting abortion. The ADL has the blood of 500 million babies on its hands.”
The Shark paused for a moment as an eel slithered out of a coral cave, and then continued:
“I read most of the books of Father Fahey, and it is there I discovered the most prophetic quotation from the La Civilta Cattolica of 1890 which predicted that as high as the Jews had raised themselves up by their perfidiousness was only to create a greater height to crash from in the 20th century. Surely it happened as predicted in Berlin in 1933.”
The shark grew suddenly pensive:
“I used to read the Communists’ books. One was a giant volume from something like the Fourth International, and in it they said that as this communist watched the German National Socialist soldiers march through the streets of Paris they sang songs of hatred against usury. It could be a good reference for you in your work if you could document and footnote it. Baron Eduard de Rothschild, the dictator of the world, and Guy his son, had to flee from their seat of power. The French Rothschilds were unable to assert the same power after the war, and Guy was a degenerate who was filmed for television eating in his bed with his butler cutting his meat and feeding him with a fork. Here is the new aristocracy reminiscent of Charles Dickens’s hot chocolate scene in the bedroom of the French Marquis in his Tale of Two Cities.”
Sidonia fears that the Civilta Cattolica warning about the abyss that is being hollowed out beneath the Jews is doubly prophetic. It predicted the rise of Hitler 40 years before the fact, and it is predictive of another scourge in the near future. “Goebbels,” Sidonia explains, “said the secret cause of the rise of National Socialism was brought about by the Jewish hatred of the family and their promotion of abortion murder, free love, homosexuality, birth control, etc.”
“As to the Pharisees, when I read the New Testament and the denunciations by Jesus of the Rabbinic Jews it was for the most part what I had seen in contemporary times with my own eyes. What Jesus was saying was that the Jews were rebelling against the Mosaic law and therefore their rebellion preceded his birth. That is where the Jewish Revolutionary spirit emanates from. Thus, for nearly two thousand years the Talmud Jew was denounced in the New Testament for his rebellion against the holy Scriptures, and wailed that his persecution was unfair. But it came from God trying to make them understand that they had rebelled against Him and the Bible with His laws. It was the most amazing eye-opener to me.”
Sidonia is hoping that just as the Karaites, i.e., the Jews who follow the Torah, were exempted from persecution in World War II when they rejected Pharisaism, that another remnant of faithful Jews will be spared in the coming apocalypse. Time will tell. Our publication of the Civilta pieces on the Jewish Question is our way of hoping for a happy outcome to the troubling times ahead.
E. Michael Jones is the editor of Culture Wars.
This article was published in the November 2011 issue of Culture Wars.
Civilta Cattolica on The Jewish Question, an e-book with an extended Introduction by E. Michael Jones. One hundred years after the French Revolution, the editors of Civilta Cattolica, the official voice of the Vatican on political affairs, came to a startling conclusion: any country that turns away from laws based on the teaching of the Catholic Church and God's eternal law will end up being ruled by Jews. These three articles, originally published in 1890, explain in detail why this is so, both for France in 1890 and for America today. The assertion that Jewish political power derives from usury could have been written with Occupy Wall Street in mind. $3.99. Read More/Buy
4 Niall Ferguson, The House of Rothschild: Money’s Prophets, 1798-1848 (New York: Viking, 1998), p. 228.
5 Ferguson, p. 20.
6 Ferguson, p. 77.
7 Disraeli, Coningsby, p. 198.
8 Ruggero Taradel e Barbara Raggi, La Segregazione amichevole: “La Civilta Cattolica” e la questione ebraica 1850-1945 (Roma: Editori Riuniti, 2000), p. xiii. All translations mine: “la strapotenza alla quale il diritto rivoluzionario li ha oggi innalzati viene scavando loro sotto i piedi un abisso, pari nella profundita all’altezza in cui sono assorti. E se scoppia il turbine che essi, in Francia, in Germania, nell’Austria, nella Romania nell’Italia, con questo loro strapotenza, vengono provocando, traboccherranno in un precipizio, che sara per avventura senza essempio.
9 Segregazione, p. xiii: La Civilta Cattolica aveva avvertito “amichevolmente” gli ebrei da un pezzo: colpa loro se non erano scomparsi prima
10 Segregazione, p. Xiv C’e de sperare che l’amara realta che emerge senza dubbi dall’accuratisimo lavoro critico svolto da Barbara Raggi e Ruggero Taradel sia uno stimolo all prosecuzione di tutte le iniziative e i ripensamenti positivi che il mondo cattolico, con i suoi massimi rappresentanti ha messo in atto--purtroppo tardivamente--negli ultimi anni.
11 Segregazione, p. 3 Curci descriveva il giornalismo europeo come figlio della rivoluzione francese, intento a difondere idee blasfeme e anticristiane, imbevute di razionalismo agnostico e ateo.
12 Ibid. “In Alemagna, fu l’avarizia e l’orgogio di un frate laido; in Inghilterra fu la insaziabile libidine di un re tiranno; in Italia dovrebb’ essere l’unita e l’independenz nazionale intese alla maniera dei demogoghi.”
13 Ibid. La revista fu concepita come uno strumento di apostolato intelletuale e i suoi scopi erano essenzialimente apologetici e polemici. Fin dai suoi esordi si distinse sopratutto in una serie di battaglie a tutto campo rivolte sopratutto contro il liberalismo, il laicismo e i principi inspiratori della rivoluzione francese.
14 Segregazione, p. 4.
17 Segregazione, p. 6.
18 Segregazione, p. 7.
19 Segregazione, p. 10.
20 Segregazione, p. 11.
21 Segregazione, p. 40. Stanti tutto cio la Santa Sede non puo dare la chiesta dichiarazione, la quale se contenterebbe i pochi illusi d’Inghiterra, solleverebbe proteste e scandal per tutto altrove.’
22 Segregazione, p. 44. 44 La risoluzione de Santo Uffizio, sotto questo punto da vista, no puo certo stupire: e inimmaginablie che potesse condannare pubblicamente, assieme all’accusa del sangue, la campagna promossa dalla CC con il tacito, ma evidente appoggio dell segretaria di State e dello stess Leone XIII.
23 Segregazione, p. 20.
24 Segregazione, p. 21. il fondamento dell’ebraismo non puo che essere l’odio elevato a supremo precetto religioso.
25 Segregazione, p. 28.
26 Segregazione, p. 52. L’ossessione del complotto ebraico bolscevico definita da Norman Cohn una vera e propria psicopatologia collettiva diventa la chiave di lettura per tutti gli avvenimenti politici europei. . . .
Culture Wars • 206 Marquette Avenue
• South Bend, IN 46617 • Tel: (574) 289-9786 • Fax: (574) 289-1461