From the November, 1997 issue of Culture Wars magazine

The Grays Ferry story, it seems, is not turning out according to plan. This story, if you'll remember, was conceived in a certain way, as the Annette Williams story:

"She was dozing in her bedroom about 1:30 a.m." wrote Michael Matza of the Philadelphia Inquirer, "when a commotion snapped her awake. Squinting through the window of her Grays Ferry rowhouse," Matza continues causing the alert reader to wonder what he was doing in her bedroom at that hour of the night, "Annette Williams, a black housekeeper, saw a pile of white men atop her son, Raheem, pounding the 17-year-old in the middle of the street. She tore downstairs in her nightgown. It was cold, she was barefoot, and mayhem was erupting, she said."

Just why 20 to 50 white guys would want to wake this lady up in the middle of the night and beat her up, never got explained, because this story never needed to be explained. Racism is the generic, all-purpose explanation in situations like these, and racism is always something whites do to blacks.

But then the story changed. In mid-August, a number of incidents occurred which cast doubt on the fact that this was, as we were told, the Annette Williams story. By mid-August it was looking a lot more like the Raheem and Warren Williams story, which is probably what it was all along. On August 6, Raheem Williams was found with his hands around the throat of a 68-year-old white man by the name of James Johnson. Raheem was reacting to an alleged racial slur directed at his sister Tyisha. Johnson was charged with racial intimidation, harassment and assault. Then a day or two later Warren Williams was arrested for indecent exposure, after exposing himself to a white woman in the neighborhood, not far from where the original "Annette Williams" incident took place.

As if in tacit acknowledgment of the fact that this was no longer the "Annette Williams story" as portrayed in the press, Mayor Ed Rendell in collaboration with the head of the NAACP offered to move the dysfunctional Williams family out of Grays Ferry into a racially unmixed neighborhood, where their behavior would only affect other blacks. The move got thwarted by community activist Charles Reeves, who seemed to have a vested interest in fostering racial tension in the neighborhood. Then on September 9, Annette Williams announced that she was not moving after all. Predictably Charles Reeves applauded Williams' decision. "She hasn't committed no crime," said the head of the Grays Ferry West Community Group. "She was a victim." And so Annette Williams now cast in the role of a latter day Rosa Parks will continue to inhabit her Section 8 house and her children, imbued with the ethos of the civil rights movement will most probably continue to tangle with their white neighbors.

But even in recounting the latest wrinkle in the story, the Inquirer is changing its tune. Now the Annette Willliams story is most definitely no longer the Annette Williams story. Now we no longer have Mr. Matza in Ms. Williams bedroom; now the story reads, "In February, Williams accused a white mob of attacking her 18-year-old son, Raheem Williams and her nephew Warren Williams." So it turns out that this was the Raheem and Warren Williams story after all. Events forced the Inquirer to back down on its initial assertion, which was that a black woman was assaulted by 20 to 50 white guys for no particular reason at all other than a generic case of white racism.

While no one can deny that there is racial tension in Grays Ferry, the meaning of the various incidents is always something that gets manufactured with a particular end in mind, one based on certain philosophical and political premises. The creation of meaning is something that the regime does in order to remain the regime, but the regime is not simply the occupants of certain political offices. In fact, the regime can often be at odds with a particular office holder. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that every institution is the lengthened shadow of one man, and Louis XIV once said "L'etat c'est moi," but in general the regime is larger than any one individual. It is often at odds with the government and individual politicians. It is a philosophy in practice, a system of assigning meanings and controls. In the Soviet Union, it included the educational system, the media and the newspapers. Pravda is the Russian word for truth, but for the rest of the world it became a term that meant the mouthpiece of the regime. The same could be said about the Philadelphia Inquirer. It is the mouthpiece of the regime in Philadelphia, and as such it is in the business of manufacturing meanings.

I learned about the relationship between the Inquirer and the regime on a first hand basis in 1995 when I held a press conference on the Schuylkill Expressway announcing the publication of John Cardinal Krol and the Cultural Revolution. In the background was the East Falls Housing Project, which I called a monument to a failed regime. I was denied permission to have the press conference on the housing project grounds by the Philadelphia Housing Authority, which also informed me that they were going to blow up the buildings in the near future. When the Inquirer article came out after the conference, the headline was "Author Blindsided by Reality." The director, who was at the press conference site sitting in a car, informed the Inquirer that the PHA had no plans to blow up the builldings. From my point of view, leaving a 13 story high rise building with an occupancy rate of 0 percent still standing was a much better monument than one that was not there at all. I mentioned the demolition because I had been told that it was going to happen. Then the Inquirer said I was lying; then, of course, a few weeks later the PHA blew up the building, without any apologies to the hapless author from Indiana.

So, the author was blindsided sure enough, but not by reality since the projects were in fact blown up a few months later, and both the Inquirer and the PHA knew they were going to be blown up, and as I said at the time, the building, which was 100 percent vacant was more of a monument if left standing. The author was blindsided by the Inquirer and the PHA working together to create a story, a story whose meaning was congenial to the regime, a story which covered up one of the regime's major failures, the high rise project as a solution to the city's race problem.

The Inquirer, as the regime's prime manufacturer of meaning, is still trying to give its spin on the race issue. In an August 14 editorial the paper praised the city's "expanded swimming, sports and summer-camp programs [which] had kept more kids off street corners."

Twelve days later, Acel Moore weighed in with an expanded endorsement of the notion that basketball was the answer to the turmoil in Grays Ferry. Specifically, Moore mentioned the interracial basketball camp run by Sonny Hill, "the city's basketball icon," which "was designed to teach the children teamwork, fair play and racial tolerance," which some may consider "overused sports metaphors," but which, according to Moore, "appear to be working."

Why children playing basketball? Because, according to Moore, "children haven not yet closed their minds, and if there is any hope of finding a lasting resolution to the hatred and bigroty that exist in Grays Ferry the children must be reached."

Many of you may remember this sort of thinking as the rationale behind Head Start and a host of other social engineering programs begotten during the heyday of liberal optimism on race during the '60s. Moore ignores the fact that the children reached by those programs are all adults now, of the age of Annette Williams and have children of their own, but hope in the Rousseauvian engineering of children as the salvation for a corrupt social order springs eternal even in those who think that Jean-Jacques Rousseau is a deep sea diver.

"For many adults," Moore continues, and even some older adolescents, a change in attitude is a virtual impossibility. This is particularly true of white adults [!], as evidenced by the failure of the organizers to attract an equal number of white and black children to attend the camp.

The liberal regime's meaning machine is beginning to overheat here. Did Mr. Moore really say that white adults find it virtually impossible to change their attitudes? Isn't this is what is known on the street of Grays Ferry as a racial slur? Lest we think that Moore's computer jammed up on him and forced him into a series of typographical errors, he goes on to expand the point in greater detail: "White parents had greater difficulty in overcoming their fears and misperceptions of the other side than black parents did What has to happen now is that white parents and leaders must talk among themselves about the good aspects of what happened at the camp."

 Got that, white parents? Moore's column calls up images of reeducation camps in Cambodia, with white parents squatting on a dirt floor with loudspeakers blaring away in the background about the benefits of interracial basketball camps. For the socially challenged, we can sum up Moore's message: White parents are the problem; we need to separate them from their children in order to break the cycle of white racism. Even after the course of events forced the Inquirer to back down from their initial reading of the incident as the "Annette Williams Story," the ideology which created that story in the first place goes on churning out meanings unimpeded by any contact with reality. Give the white parents credit here; most are smart enough to recognized that basketball is just another word for social engineering practiced on their kids. "Integration," according to Moore,

has failed not because backs haven't tried. it has failed not because black people have stayed in the ghetto. It has failed because wherever black people have moved, with rare exceptions, whites have fled. Property values have declined because whites and white-run institutions have left or made them decline.

We have all heard this explanation a million times before. It is the regime's official explanation for why cities like Philadelphia look like downtown Sarajevo, put forth in the regime's organ for the benefit of the regime and its supporters. It is about as accurate as saying that the PHA has no intention of blowing up the East Falls Projects. Beyond that, the official race explanation is one of the regime's main legitimizing devices and the main justification for social engineering experiments like busing and an enormously expensive, enormously ineffective public school system that not only can't teach its students how to read, it can't even prevent them from bringing guns to school.

I'm saying now not only that the white flight/white racism story isn't trueóhistory has proved thatóI'm saying this story is a deliberately manufactured lie similar to the assertion that the PHA had no intention of blowing up the East Falls Projects, manufactured to cover up something much more sinister, namely, the American version of ethnic cleansing. Integration is another word for ethnic cleansing. Race, as Lenin recognized when he invited Claude McKay to the Third Interntional in Moscow in 1922, was always the best vehicle for overturning the social order in America. In the hands of the liberal elite after World War II, racial politics combined with the sexual revolution was seen as the ultimate solution to what Paul Blanshard and his friends were calling the "Catholic Problem." Since Catholic political power was concentrated in ethnic neighborhoods in the big cities of the north, the ethnic cleansing of those neighborhoods in the name of racial "integration" meant the dispersal of Catholic ethnics throughout the suburbs and the end of Catholics as a significant political forceóthe goal of all ethnic cleansing whether here or in Bosnia. Segregation is a word that first got used by people like Paul Blanshard with regard to religion and not race; segregated schools in the parlance of the liberal elite referred not to race but religion. The first "integration" problem, according to Professor John T. McGreevy of Harvard University's department of history, was the problem posed by Catholic separatism:

Pervasive Catholic separatismóon philosophical matters and in schools, hospitalls and social organizationsóposed an "integration" problem. How would Catholics become democrats? To respond as A Smith did, that Catholics would always remain loyal citizens, missed the pooiint. Democracy was a culture, not a set of propositions. Catholics obviously lived among Americans, but were they of them? These concerns had begun to animate leading liberal intellectuals in the yeas duruing and following World War I, as suggested by John Dewey's wartime investigation of Philadelphia's Polish community. Dewey regretfully concuded that the Polish American community lay in thrall to antidemocratic interests. Priest presided over political meetings; parishes sent delegates to national covnetions.

 Paul Blanshard, then a graduate student at Columbia University, briefly worked as part of Dewey's team, and Paul's brother Brand, alter a prominent Yale University philosopher, stayed for the entire summer. Brand Blanshard's final report was less circumspect than Dewey's overview. "The test of any institution or society," he wrote, "is . . . the extent to which it enables and encourages every member of it to enjoy complete freedom of growth." Polish Catholicism failed. "It is a world which is simply not our world, a world in which indepedent criticism and disinterested science is and must remain unknown, a world which still abounds with the primitive concepts and fancies of the middle ages." The church's influence presented a "many-sided and in some ways impossible barrier to the real democratization of the communities it controls." (Journal of American History, June 1997, pp. 105-6).

During the fiscal year 1962-63, the American Friends Service Committee spent $97,137, much of it supplied by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, to "bring about more democratic living patterns" by having white front men buy up houses in all-white ethnic neighborhoods and then turn them over to blacks, causing in most instances financial panic and mass exodus. The practice is generally known as blockbusting, and is hugely profitable to real estate speculators, but the Quakers saw it as having a deeper purpose. "Diversified neighborhoods," the AFSC wrote in its 1961 pamphlet Homes and Community,

...have "built-in" lessons in democracy. Lessons in the dignity of the individual and respect for his contributions to society. Such communities build citizens more secure in their knowledge of democracy and better able to share its responsibilities.

The Rockefeller-funded "Integrated Housing Program" was, in other words, the practical solution to the problems "Polish Catholicism" posed to democracy in the Philadelphia-based study that Dewey and Blanshard did in Bridesburg during World War I. "Diversified neighborhoods" is just the American term for ethnic cleansing. State Senator Martin Mullen discovered this first hand, when his neighborhood in Most Blessed Sacrament Parish in Southwest Philadelphia got ethnically cleansed over the period from 1966 to 1976. In 1964 Mullen was the liberal regime's public enemy number one for the role he played in funding the government's entrance into the distribution of contraceptives.

The last time I spoke here, I talked about how contraceptives caused drive-by shootings, how over the summer of 1965, the regime decided that the contraceptive, not providing jobs for black fathers, was to be the solution to this country's welfare problem and how as a result of this sort of ideological gasoline poured on a social fire, black illegitimacy soared from 20 to over 70 percent. Professor McGreevy's article covers the period from 1928 to 1960, but it is clear that the "Catholic Problem" did not go away with the election of John F. Kennedy to the presidency. In fact, it only began there in earnest. The demographic surge among Catholics that would come to be known as the baby boom was causing people with an eye for demographics, like the Rockefellers, much concern. In fact, the demographic handwriting was on the wall; the United States was on its way to becoming a Catholic country. But the Enlightenment counterattack was waiting in the wings. Ethnic cleansing can eliminate the political power of people in a particular place by moving them some place else, but it will not provide a long term solution to demographic increase, because as the oppressed group increases, it will also take over the areas it moves into. The long-term solution to the "Catholic problem" had to blunt their demographic power. The long-term solution to the Catholic problem was the contraceptive.

The contraceptive solved the "Catholic problem" in two ways: First of all, it blunted the demographic surge that the Malthusian liberal Protestant establishment found so alarming. Catholic voters had elected John F. Kennedy in 1960. In Philadelphia at Independence Hall on July 4, 1962, a Catholic president, a Catholic governor of Pennsylvania, and a Catholic mayor of Philadelphia all bowed their heads in prayer as Archbishop Krol invoked God's blessing on what many people still considered a Protestant country. Before long, Catholics were going to elect a president more amenable to the Church than John Kennedy, perhaps someone who had not gone to Harvard and, therefore, less determined to follow their interests. The second way the contraceptive solved the "Catholic problem" was by dividing the Church into liberal and conservative factions depending on where a particular person stood on contraception. Catholic academe, following the Notre Dame inspired Land o' Lakes statement of 1967 followed the lure of funding and fell completely into the hands of the regime that wanted to weaken the Church by promoting the contraceptive.

As Leo Pfeffer makes clear in his memoirs, the contraceptive was also seen as the long-term solution to the race problem as well. The irony of Grays Ferry, of course, is that the two prime victims of Eugenic Liberal Regime, namely, Blacks and Catholics, are at each others throats. But a little reflection will show that this is a common technique of domination, mastered by the British in places like India, and so it should not be surprising that the Anglophile establishment in this country would adopt the same tactics. I am not saying here that Bishop Robert L. DeWitt, Episcopalian bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, was urging black youth to stick up white bars. The system doesn't work that way. Bishop DeWitt, however, was a major promoter of government involvement in contraception, and as I have already shown, contraceptives cause not only drive by shootings but bar stick ups too, and these things have a destabilizing effect on Catholic neighborhoods, on any neighborhood for that matter. Bishop DeWitt was also the creator of Muhammed Kenyatta, who provided the ideological muscle for turmoil in the neighborhoods of Southwest Philadelphia in much the same way that Charles Reeves is doing in Grays Ferry today.

Right around the time that Raheem and Warren Williams were taken into custody in August, there was another racial incident, one which probably prompted Mr. Moore to write his column. Shantel Sexton, a 24 year old single mother was standing at the corner of Hollywood and Dikinson when her son Jarkeer Lassiter ran into a white woman on the sidewalk. What follows is a matter of dispute. Ms. Sexton says the woman uttered a racial slur. One bystander says the woman only said, "Hon, are you okay?" Whatever happened within minutes 100 people took to the streets of this racially-charged neighborhood shouting and jostling until dispersed by the police.

More important than who did what and to whom is the comment of Ms. Sexton and how it fits in with the regime's overall explanation of things.

"You can't even walk through the streets," Ms. Sexton said, "I just lost a child who died of liver disease. I'm a single mother . I don't have no mother. I don't have no father. I'm stressed. It's hard and then you have to go through this."

Is interracial basketball going to help this woman? Is racism the source of her problem? Or is there something else going on here? Is something more sinister involved here that basketball camps? I think there is.

What we're talking about is the regime's plan for ruling Philadelphia; what we're talking about is the American version of ethnic cleansing; the removal of a particular ethnic group from a particular place for political reasons. This plan was not orchestrated by the Blacks, who were the most part victims of another sort of ethnic cleansing themselves. According to Nicholas Lemann's book on black migration to Chicago, The Promised Land, the black peasantry had become unnecessary for the production of cotton at some time around World War II because of the development of more effective agricultural technology. Huge numbers of rural black farm workers were removed from the South for economic reasons and lured to the big cities of the north for political reasons. In the case of Philadelphia, it was to keep the Democrats in power in a city, which up until 1948 had been ruled by Republicans. Blacks were lured North by jobs during the two world wars and increasingly lucrative welfare benefits after World War II. The initial solution of where to put them was the Gropius- inspired living machines of the sort that got blown up recently in East Falls. When the high-rise projects proved a failure, there was only one other place to go, and that was the low-cost row homes occupied by the Catholic ethnics. So the same sort of thing that happend in Srebenica happened here first. People were moved from one place to another for political reasons. Unfortunately, the Catholics in Grays Ferry didn't take the hint, hence, the ongoing conflict there.

Because they were more economically vulnerable than the whites, because many of them were on welfare, the Blacks were further targeted as the recipients of eugenic experimentation in addition to ethnic cleansing beginning in the mid-'60 when the welfare department of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania began disseminating first information on contraceptives and then the contraceptives themselves as a way of keeping the welfare roles down. Ironically, again, it was Irish ethnic Catholics like Martin Mullen, who were the only ones to protest this race-based eugenic cleansing against the blacks. For his pains, Mullen was branded a racist.

Shantel Sexton was born in 1973, which means that her mother could have aborted her legally, but she didn't and in this fact we see in microcosm pretty much the outcome of the eugenic solution. Which is to say, it didn't work. The upper classes in Philadelphia adopted first the contraceptive and then abortion as an integral part of their married lives at some time during the '20s. What followed almost immediately thereafter was a concern about "differential fertility" or about the people who had not adopted their reproductive habits. By the '50s John D. Rockefeller had adopted the standard of his class and had begun his crusade for decriminalization and eventual government subsidy of the contraceptive as a way of evening up the demographic odds. On the local level we had Rockefelller's contemporary, Senator Joe Clark, whose second wife, Noell was head of the local Planned Parenthood affiliate, advocating the same two-pronged policy for the two major groups in this country which had not yet adopted the mores of the WASP establishment, namely, Blacks and Catholics.

Franjo Tudjman, now president of Croatia, wrote a book on nationalism in 1981 in which he claimed that all empires are simply a front behind which the dominant ethnic group exercises hegemony over the less powerful groups. So, Yugoslavia was based on Serbian oppression of the Croats in the name of socialist brotherhood. Similarly, in America the liberal regime was based on the WASP establishment's (actually the proponents of the Whig Enlightenment) domination of the rising Catholic power after World War II. Just as the Serbs made common cause with the Montenegrens against the Croats, so the WASP overclass allied itself with Black underclass (or at least their leaders) in the ethnic cleansing of the essentially Catholic cities.

I have described the local players in both the Krol biography and the Grays Ferry article in Culture Wars. Representing the WASP establishment was Bishop Robert L. DeWitt, Anglican bishop of Pennsylvania and Richmond Miller, head of the Quakers, created Muhammed Kenyatta by giving him money and attention for actions that would have landed a white guy in jail. No matter how militant a black leader gets, there is one thing which he will never oppose and that is the Eugenic policies of his white promoters. Witness Jesse Jackson's volte face on abortion. Robert Gray Sr.'s Bright Hope Baptist Church has the distinction of being home to the first Planned Parenthood clinic in the neighborhood. During the '60s Bishop O'Boyle of Washington warned that all government sponsored contraception was coercive, but he was laughed off by liberal Catholics at the time, many of whom also happened to be receiving Rockefeller money to support the Eugenic assault on blacks and Catholics.

What the liberal regime proposed was an alliance between WASPs and Blacks in a common front against Catholic ethnics, particularly in large cities. Stephen Mumford, a proponent of abortion and population control so fervent he embarasses his less honest colleagues, has written a book which claims to uncover a huge Vatican conspiracy which caused the death of SSM 200, (National Security Study Memorandum 200), the Kissinger policy on population control as the basis of our foreign policy. "The Vatican" according to Mumford,

...determined that if it were to survive intact it must become much more active in U.S. politics at the national level. Vatican control of politics in large Catholic cities is well known and undisputed. Only by being highly organized and active poliically on all levels of government could the atican overcome the rapid increase in political will and momentum in demand for population growth control that had recently developed.

I recommend Mumford's book to discouraged prolifers everywhere. Catholics disgusted by the weakness of their leaders can take hope from this book as well. Mumford's view is so dogmatically in favor of population control that the only possible explanation for any opposition is the behind the scenes machinations of the Vatican. So Julian Simon, who is not a Catholic as far as I know and who once was in fact a population controller, wrote a book called The Ultimate Resource, which many of you know and which shows conclusively that population is a blessing and not a threat. It was published by Princeton University Press; therefore. . . But I'll let Mr. Mumford make the connections himself:

"I could not believe that Princeton Univsity Press had published this book. How could Simon have possibly placed this book with this publisher? This was a very serious setback for the population growth control movement. Princeton University had put its prestige behind this intellectually dishonest treatment of the issue of population growth. At this point it became clear to me that there had to be corruption involved in the publication of the Science article and of the book as well. To corrupt these institutions took a lot of influence . Who has the determination to corrupt this way? The institution with the most to gain by publication of these fantasies was the Vatican. Is it capable of such corruption? Certainly , if the stakes are high enough, the hisotry of the institution suggests that they would stop at nothing."

So, there you have it, friends. Princeton University Press is taking orders from the Vatican.

To bolster his argument, Mumford cites another thinker of like persuasion, who said, "The Roman Catholic Church, it needs to be remembered, is quite literally an Un-American institution. . . not democratic . .. [and] sharply at odds with those that inform the laws of American secular society. And its principal policies are established by the Vatican in Rome."

And who wrote that statement? Paul Blanshard? Hugo Black, the supreme court justice so influenced by Blanshard? Some anonymous nativist in days gone by? No, as a matter of fact, the author was the editorial page editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, David R. Boldt, who wrote those words in 1990.

And the occasion for that outburst? It was abortion. Do you feel the circle closing here? It turns out that the editorial positions of the Inquirer are motivated by either support for the sexual revolution or animus against the Catholic Church, options which turn out to be two side of the same coin. And what had the bishops done to earn the ire of Mr. Boldt? They had warned Catholic politicians that abortion was a serious issue and that their morals were not something to be checked at the door of this country's legislative assemblies.

The reaction to Boldt's editorial was vigorous, including a letter signed by Bishop McHugh of Camden, New Jersey and Cardinal Bevilacqua of Philadelphia which began by citing the height of the windows of Philadelphia's Cathedral as being determined by the distance a grown man could throw a brick, a precaution dictated by the nativist riots in Philadelphia during the 1840's.

The more things change, the more they remain the same. With the fall of communism, liberalism found itself looking around for a raison d'etre and it found it in the ethnic prejudices that had informed its dominant class since the inception of the country. In Boldt we have an uncanny substantiation of the position of Franjo Tudjman. Liberalism in the American empire, like communism in Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, was just a cover for ethnic hegemony, and as in Croatia and Northern Ireland, Catholcism was an ethnic designation in America. It was the one group which stubbornly refused to be absorbed by the liberal regime, and so it had to be punished and brought into line by a kind of what we would have to call ethnic intimidation.

While the reaction of the Catholics must have been discomfiting to Mr. Boldt, it was nothing compared to the reaction to an editorial he wrote six months later. On December 12, 1990, the Inquirer ran an editorial entitled, "Poverty and Norplant: Can Contraception Reduce the Underclass?" prompted by the recent FDA appproval of Norplant, a subcutaneous, long-term contraceptive, and a black research organization which reported that "nearly half the nation's black children are living in poverty and that the younger the child the more likely he or she is to be living with a single mother on welfare."

Being a clever guy, David Boldt put two and two together, and came up with the eugenic solution to the race issue that his class had been urging since the days of Margaret Sanger and the birth control league: Give these negroes Norplant. Then, as if shocked by his own ideas, Boldt draws back for a moment or two of anguished reflection:

As we read those two stories we asked ourselves: Dare we mention them in the same breath? To do so might be considered deplorably insensitive, perhaps raising the spectre of eugenics. But it would be worse to avoid drawing thelogical conclusion that foolproof contraception would be invaluable in breaking the cycle of inner city poverty one of America's greatest challenges.

As if revived by his bout of agonizing, Boldt plunged boldly onward to his eugenic conclusion, asking, "So why not make a major effort to reduce the number of children, of any race, born into such circumstances?" Why not, indeed? What the hell? If there were no people in Philadelphia, the streets would be safe. Or as Frank Rizzo once put it, "The streets of Philadelphia are safe. It's the people on the streets that you have to watch out for."

Like Br'er Rabbit and the tar baby, the more Boldt punches his topic the more he gets stuck in it. "No one should be compelled to use Norplant," Boldt writes, but before we can heave a sigh of relief, he adds that "there could be incentives to do so. What if welfare mothers were offered an increased benefit for agreeing to use this new same long term contraceptive? Remember, these women already have one or more children [which is maximum amount his class allows] . And they can change their minds and become fertile again [if they can find a doctor to take the sticks out]. (This is not Indira Ghandi offering portable radios to woman who agree to be sterilized. At the very minimum , Norplant will probably cost $600 to $100.)

All right, the subject makes us uncomfortable too. But we're made even more uncomfortable by the impoverishment of black Americans and its effect on the nation's future. Think about it.

Thinking about it is just what many people did, as the irate letters pouring into the Inquirer over the next few weeks indicated. In fact, the letters indicated that the Inquirers readers had thought about the implications of prescribing Norplant as a solution to Black poverty a lot more than David Boldt had. Embarrassment had spread in fact to Inquirer staff. Columnist Steve Lopez weighed in four days later by comparing David Boldt to David Duke. Responding to the headline, "Can contraception reduce the underclass?," Lopez responds "Not as quick as just shooting them." and then goes on to questioning

"what the Inquirer has come up with this time in its developing vision of an Ozzie and Harriet America."

My question is why draw Ozzie and Harriet into this? Boldt was simply being honest about a tradition that stretched back to Margaret Sanger and beyond. The only reason that we had the Griswold v. Connecticut is because the government wanted to give birth control to blacks on welfare, and it could not very well distributed something illegal. Thus, spake Leo Pfeffer, a legal architect of the cultural revolution and certainly someone in a position to know. Like Stephen Mumford, David Boldt was simply saying what everyone knew but no one was allowed to say. For this impropriety he was promptly crucified and thereafter banished to the sports page.

David Boldt, who in spite of his misgivings, seems to have been taken by surprise by the reaction to his views, was really only articulating the philosophy of the Inquirer, which was another way of saying the ideology of the regime which was based on a two-pronged attack on its demographic enemies. The regime was based on ethnic cleansing for the Catholics and eugenic elimination of the Blacks. As Franjo Tudjman could have told us, the American empire, or the regime, was simply a front for WASP hegemony, but the major weakness was demographic. Hence, the absolute need for contraception and abortion. The regime, through organs like the Inquirer continues to portray the contraceptive as a form of liberation, but it we look more closely at seminal documents like Stephen Mumford's beloved NSSM 200, a different picture emerges.

Henry Kissinger proposed population control for places like India and Nigeria for a very simple reason; population is strength and in the long run, demographic superiority wins out in the end. It is a lesson the English learned the hard way. Once upon a time, there were Englishmen in places like Jamaica, Nigeria and India. Now the Jamaicans, Nigerians and Indians are in England. Demographics is a lot like osmosis; populations flow from higher concentrations to lower concentrations and borders are permeable membranes. The liberal regime didn't begin that way when Richardson Dilworth and Joe Clark took over Philadelphia, but it certainly ended that way with Joe Clark being the Senator from Planned Parenthood, attacking the Catholic ethnic Frank Rizzo in a public rift that signaled the end of the old democrat new deal alliance and the beginning of the new democrat party that is with us today.

The nonnegotiable principle of the Liberal Regime is sexual liberation. This is not because it brings about liberation, any more than the contraceptive does. The liberal regime promotes sexual liberation because sexual liberation is a form of political control. This is the essence of NSSM 200; it is also why Rockefeller was so ardent in promoting the contraceptive as the solution to both the Catholic and the Negro Problem. Contraception was the only way that a demographically enfeebled but culturally still powerful class could even up the odds. And even up the odds it did, by destroying the Catholic political base in the cities by the use of ethnic cleansing which destroyed the cities as well.

Sexual passion as a form of political control is not a new idea. The Cultural Revolution was the Enlightentment's attack on the Catholic Church as a way of disconnecting this country's laws from their moral underpinnings. The concern about the separation of Church and state evinced by thinkers like Pfeffer and Blanshard shows itself upon closer examination to be a fear that the Catholic schools might prosper, and that specter inspires fear among the secular humanists because of the sexual consequences they see resulting from it. James Hitchcock cites the case of Paul Blanshard, who intellectual influence on Chief Just Hugo Black was decisive, as an illustrative example of the same thing that Pfeffer is talking about:

Although his anti-Catholic attacks were always cast in term of true Americanism and cancer for separation of Church and state, Blanshard reveals in his autobiography , Personal and Controversial, that he was an "utterly typical example of the sexual revolution of the 1920s" and that he was first stirred to write about the Catholc Church when he chanced upon a book about Catholic sexual morality.

Why would people like Paul Blanshard and Leo Pfeffer want to weaken the United States by promoting birth control and then abortion at home when or foreign policy does the same thing to weaken potential rivals abroad? the answer is very simple. Contraception was a way of solving what Paul Blanshard would call "the Catholic Problem." it was a way of robbing Catholics of their political power ,and it succeeded in two ways. First it stopped the demographic surge among Catholics that was driving the baby boom and was turning the nation into what would become a Catholic country in a very short space of time. And secondly it divided the Catholics intellectually and politically according to where they stood on Humanae Vitae. When Leo Pfeffer was growing up in New York, there were only Catholics: now there were liberal and conservative Catholics, and as a result the Catholic vote was divided and weakened. Divide and empire, said the Romans . Divide and conqueur was an old strategy and it succeeded here brilliantly.

So sexual liberation is the real goal of the Enlightened, but this form of liberation is not as simple as it seems on first glance. Everyone has desires; everyone wants to realize them oftentimes even when they are wrong. Doing what you want is the essence of freedom, at least according to one school of thought, John Stuart Mill says so in his book on that topic. But there is another older school which has a subtler point of view. Eve, to give just one example, did what she wanted but found that that act determined all of her future freedom in a decidedly negative way. St. Paul talks about the "slavery of sin," a slavery which flows from doing what you want, when what you want is not congruent with the moral law. Freedom of this sort, in other words, is a form of bondage. And so taking that to its logical conclusion we would have to add that sexual liberation is a form of control, and over the years it got refined into a form of political control as well.

Given this fact it should come as no surprise that the Enlightenment's major proponent of sexual liberation should also be the first to describe sex as a form of political control. The latter possibility was always implicit in the former; it only takes a little thought to derive the one from the other. The role which the Marquis de Sade played in the French Revolution is well known. It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that he caused it, if it refers to its first major event, the storming of the Bastille. The Marquis de Sade was a prisoner in the Bastille in the summer of 1789, held there at the request of his mother-in-law who felt this sort of custody was in his own best interests as well as the best interests of her daughter and other French women. De Sade spent his time in prison writing pornographic novels and growing fat from the food he paid to have brought in. Beginning in July he fashioned a primitive megaphone out of pieces of paper and incited the mob outside the prison to storm it and liberate him and the six other people there. Thus did the revolution begin.

De Sade, having achieved his own liberation by inciting the mob to passion, continued in this revolutionary vein by writing pornographic novels on the outside, which could now be sold openly in France because the revolutionary regime was now in power. Copies of Justine became the revolutionary equivalent to the gospels and were circulated like underground hieratic texts throughout the 19th century. Byron, as I mentioned, owned a copy of Justine, something which figured in the writing of Frankenstein. Of course, the passions which the Marquis de Sade aroused had a life of their own and by 1795 the revolution was threatening to drown in its own blood. As a result the Divine Marquis was prompted to write a tract called Yet Another Effort, Frenchmen, If You Would Become Republicans, which eventually got inserted into Philosophy in the Bedroom, another of his pornographic novels. Written in the immediate aftermath of the terror, which almost cost the Marquis himself his life, when apparently the republican citizenry was having second thoughts about the revolution, Yet Another Effort, Frenchmen, If You Would Become Republicans is an attempt to bolster their efforts to persevere in revolution by providing a lesson in revolutionary morals. Don't worry about a little mayhem, he tells his fellow revolutionaries. At another point he tells his readers that the freest people are the people most comfortable with murder.

"The Republic," De Sade's term for the revolution,

...being permanently menaced from the outside by despots surrounding it, the means to its preservation cannot be imagined as by moral means [his emphasis], for the republic will preserve itself only by war, and nothing is less moral than war. I ask how one will be able to demonstrate that in a state rendered immoral by its obligations, it is essential that the individual be moral? I will go further: it is a very good thing that he is not. The Greek lawgivers perfectly appreciated the captital necessity of corrupting the member citizens in order that, their moral dissolution coming into conflict with the establishment and its values, there would result the insurrection that is always indispensable to a political system of perfect happiness which, like the republican government, must necessarily excite the hatred and envy of all its foreign neighbors." (Marquis de Sade, Justine, Philosophy in the Bedroom, & Other Writings [New York: Grove Press, 1965], p. 315)

The Marquis de Sade gives here an explanation of revolution perfectly consonant with the classical explanation of the same thing. Revolution arrives when individual passion is so widespread that it gets out of hand and the social order collapses. The only difference between the Marquis de Sade and the classical tradition is that Sade applauds what the latter deplores. "Insurrection," he continues,

...thought these sage legislators, is not at all a moral condition; however, it has got to be a republic's permanent condition. Hence it would be no less absurd than dangerous to require that those who are to insure the perputual immoral subversion of the established order themselves be moral beings, for the state of a moral man is one of tranquility and peace, the state of an immoral man is one of perpetual unrest that pushes him to, and identifies him with, the necessary insurrection in which the republican must always keep the government of which he is a member (p. 315).

Again the Marquis de Sade is uncannily congruent with classical and Christian thought in everything but the values he attaches to the alternatives he proposes. Because, as he says, "the state of the moral man is one of tranquility and peace" morals must be banned insofar as possible from the revolutionary republic. The connection with our revolutionary republic is just as obvious. Because the moral man keeps his desires within the bounds of reason, he is not easily moved. He is also not as avid a consumer as the immoral man and therefore of less use to a consumerist society, which fosters "perpetual unrest" but tries to channel that unrest in ways congenial to market forces.

The potential for both control and insurrection, however, undergo a quantum change when sexuality is deregulated and allowed to act as an stimulant for "perpetual unrest." In fact since the revolutionary regime is based on the subversion of morals it can only exist by exploiting sexuality in this fashion. What it proposes to the unruly mob as freedom, however, is really only a form of political control. The Marquis de Sade makes this perfectly clear:

Lycurgus and Solon, fully convinced that immodesty's results are to keep the citizen in the immoral [again, his emphasis] state indispensable to the mechanics of republican government, obliged girls to exhibit themselves naked at the theater.

The only difference between what the Marquis de Sade claims the Greeks proposed and what is happening now is technological. In ancient Greece, the girls were real but you had to go to the theater to see them. In Cyberspace they are electronic images, but because of that they are also ubiquitous and therefore especially effective as a means of control because they are more difficult to escape. Lust, the divine Marquis makes clear, is essential to a revolutionary government because among other things it becomes the definition of freedom and as a result captures the citizenry in a state of "perpetual unrest" wherein reason is extinguished by passion. Once man loses his reason he is reduced to the state of an animal, and as a result more easily led. Lust is the force which keeps the revolutionary regime in power. It is, in the Marquis de Sade's words, "not to be stifled or legislated against" rather the revolutionary regime should:

"...arrange for the means whereby passion may be satisfied in peace. We must hence undertake to introduce order into this sphere of affairs, and to establish all the security necessary to that, when need sends the citizen near the object of lust, he can give himself over to doing with them all that his passions demand, without ever being hampered by anything, for there is no moment in the life of man when lierity in its whole amplitude is so important to him" (p. 316).

The Greeks, according to de Sade, "sensed the need of immorality in republican matters" (p. 316n), a prescription which finds its fulfillment today in pornography on Internet. There are then only two forms of government: the traditional, which begets tranquility and peace by fostering morals, and the revolutionary, which foments "perpetual unrest" by inciting its citizens to immoral behavior by parading women naked in the theaters or, as in our age, lionizing pornographers and insuring that each home will have access to pornography. The Marquis de Sade is also quick to draw the political implications of this exploitation of lust and the concomitant redefinition of liberty that entails. If it wants to maintain its power, the revolutionary regime must permit a free flight and rein to those tyrannical desires which, despite himself, torment man ceaselessly: content with having been able to exercise his small dominion in the middle of the harem of sultanas and youths whose submission your good offices and his money procure for him, he will go away appeased and with nothing but fond feelings for a government which so obligingly affords him every means of satisfying his concupiscence" (p. 317).

The revolutionary regime, in other words, can only maintain its power by fostering lust. Conversely, those regimes, like ours, which foster lust may do so in the name of freedom, but their real goal is political control. Pornography is not some sort of unfortunate by product of the revolutionary system that must be tolerated if we all want to enjoy freedom, the argument of The People vs. Larry Flynt. Pornography is the essence of a revolutionary political regime because it is only by managing the passion of its citizens that it maintains its control over them. The myth that there are no controllers and no control is one of the central myths of whiggish history. The Liberal Regime has its myths and its gods, but their gods are like the gods of the communists, they are the gods that failed. In closing I'd like to mention a myth from a God that hasn't failed. It's a story from the bible, the story about a man named Samson.

 Samson, if you'll remember, was an extremely powerful man, and as the leader of the armies of Israel he was invincible. But he had a secret, the secret source of his strength, and wasn't allowed to tell anyone that secret. He had a weakness too, and the source of his weakness was his sexual desires. The Philistines knew this and so they decided on a military strategy that would take advantage of this weakness. They sent Delilah to seduce him, and as a part of that seduction, she was to learn the source of his strength.

 Now before I go any farther, let me bring out some similarities between Catholics in America and Israel in Egypt. Like Israel, Catholics were strangers in a strange land, a land known for its anti-Catholic bigotry. Then, like the Israelites in Egypt, the Catholics began to thrive and as part of that thriving began to have many children. Think for a moment of the 40s and Hollywood, Going My Way, and The Song of Bernadette. And once Israel began to thrive, Pharoah became concerned because Pharaoh begin a good demographer could read the handwriting on the wall and saw that the Catholics were on their way to taking over Egypt if the baby boom continued.

So the Philistines came up with a plan . They they knew they could not conquer Israel in open democratic battle because Israel's numbers were too great, but they knew that they could seduce Israel's leaders. Samson, like John F. Kennedy, had a weakness for pretty women, so the Philistines sent Dellajh to him to find out his secret, and he was so taken by Delilah's charms that he told her his secret and lost his strength, and as a result Israel fell into political bondage.

"Ask for this great deliverer now," John Milton wrote in Samson Agonistes, "And find him...

Eyeless in Gaza at the Mill with slaves

Himself in bonds under Philistian yoke.

Who was our Samson? There are lots of candidates. Was he the the handsome Catholic president, the first Catholic ever to assume that office, who had a weakness for women and as a result sold his people into bondage? Or was it the handsome president of Notre Dame who sold out his people for Pharoahs aid to higher education? Or was it Dr. Martin Luther King, who like John F. Kennedy had a weakness for women and so couldn't withstand the pressure to choose the contraceptive over the Moynihan Report as the way out of black poverty during the fateful summer of 1965?

As I said, take your pick. You can come up with your own candidate for Samson, I'm sure. Beyond doubt, however, is that we Catholics are America's Israel and we are now like the Israelites of old at the mill with slaves under Philistian yoke.

The time has come to cast off that yoke. The time has come to do what Samson did. Repent. Repudiate the seductions that have ensnared us. Repudiate the sexual addictions that Pharaoh thought up to bring Israel into bondage. The contraceptive, pornography, the whole of sexual liberation, which is Pharoah's form of political control.

The time has come to cast off that yoke. The time has come to give up our sexual addictions because sexual liberation is the main instrument that Pharoah uses to keep Catholics in bondage in this country . It is time that the government get out of the contraception business. The contraceptive is the instrument whereby the liberal regime maintains its hegemony over a cowed and subjected citizenry.

When Pharaoh Rockefeller says he is going to set us free from the moral law, we know now that he is only planning to lead Israel into a more sophisticated form of bondage and political control. We know that story now and we understand it now too and we don't believe it anymore. The dream of sexual liberation is dead. It was an illusion created by Pharaoh to drive Catholic Israel into bondage.

We see through your illusions now, Pharaoh. We renounce you and all of your empty promises.

And so we say to the Catholic quislings, the secret recipients of 30 pieces of silver from the Pharaoh Rockefellers and their media lackeys: get behind me Satan. We know your game now. We know that the freedom you proposed is nothing but the bondage of sin, and we don't wanít to live in that bondage any more. We know too much now.

Get behind me, Pharoah.

We don't want to live like slaves in your Egypt anymore. We donít want your Internet porn. We don't want your condoms or your lesbian sitcom propaganda or your germ-filled day-care centers, or your minimum wage jobs for our wives, or your government funded blasphemy. We are tired of your contempt. We are tired of your lust-driven impiety.

Get behind me, Pharaoh.

We are now like Samson, sadder but wiser, and we know now that the beginning of wisdom is repentance and acceptance of the truth, because the truth is going to set us free. And though we look blind and weak and pathetic now, looks can be deceiving. There are still a lot of us out there, in fact a lot more than there were in the '60s when Pharoah launched his eugenic war against Catholicism/Israel.

We may look weak and pathetic, but looks can be deceiving just as they were with Samson. He looked weak too. He looked so weak that he had to lean up against those pillars, but when the Philistines tried to mock his weakness and his religion just one more time, the pillars began to shake, and before the Philistines knew what was happening to them, Samson brought the whole temple down on the heads of the Philistines who had seduced him.

Do you feel the pillars shaking? The beginning of the end of the regime is when the truth starts to get out and their meaning machine can't come up with answers anymore. We don't need your basketball camps, Pharaoh. We know too much now. It wasn't racism that destroyed Philadelphia, it was the contraceptive. We know too much now to be cowed by your myths. Integration is the word you use. We prefer the term ethnic cleansing. When you say freedom, Pharaoh, we know you mean bondage. When you say sexual liberation, Pharaoh, we know you mean political control. When you say helping the underclass, Pharaoh, we know you mean eugenic sterilization because your own newspaper told us so.

Do you feel the pillars shaking? Do you feel the freedom that comes from knowing the truth, the truth no one is allowed to speak. All of us here today, all of us who are part of the Philadelphia diaspora caused by the liberal regime are like Samson hugging the pillars of the temple of Dagon, the Philistine god of human sacrifice. We are weak; we are vilified; we are hated whenever we speak the truth. We are "eyeless in Gaza, at the mill with slaves, under Philistian yoke."

But as St. Paul says: When I am weak I am strong. Israel is in bondage because its leaders have been seduced, but Samson didn't die in bondage, and we won't either if we accept the truth and repent. Because if we repent, we get our strength back, just as Samson did, and if Israel gets its strength back, nobody in this country is powerful enough to stop us.

So, watch out, Paul Blanshard. The Catholic problem is back. Samson has his hands on the pillars. The temple is beginning to shake.

The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing by E. Michael Jones. Focusing on Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Chicago, Dr. Jones shows that Government sponsored "renewal" of American cities was not a program that failed by going sadly awry, but instead was a planned destruction of the ethnic neighborhoods that made up the human, residential heart of the cities. $40 + S&H, Hardback. Read Reviews Order