We Are All Jews Now

This post is a reworking of a portion a letter I recently wrote to a friend whom I alienated during the series of events described in “Reframing the Game.”  I figure the breakdown of ideas I shared in the letter can further clarify my views to the readership of Dethrone Mammon in addition to repairing the damaged relationship with my friend.

As a further exploration of the Judeo-American world described in this blog’s introductory remarks, I hereby move to incorporate the germane idea that We Are All Jews Now.

If I’m not mistaken, it’s an idea I had actually thought up myself before hearing it expressed in an interview with Dr. E. Michael Jones, who himself was citing the thesis of Jewish author Yuri Slezkine’s book The Jewish Century. As I convey in “Reframing the Game,” Dr. Jones’ work has a tendency to line up with ideas I’ve had for a while, but unlike my previous efforts detailed in the article, Jones’ presentation is formal, scholarly, and supported by myriad literary and historical data. The relatively mainstream Catholic journalist Michael Voris has even featured him on one of his shows. To my readers I recommend checking out the Doctor’s books or subscribing to his magazine Culture Wars. From the Princeton University Press website’s description of The Jewish Century:

This masterwork of interpretative history begins with a bold declaration: The Modern Age is the Jewish Age—and we are all, to varying degrees, Jews. The assertion is, of course, metaphorical. But it underscores Yuri Slezkine’s provocative thesis. Not only have Jews adapted better than many other groups to living in the modern world, they have become the premiere symbol and standard of modern life everywhere.

This basically goes back to the frame Frs. Michael Crowdy and Kenneth Novak provide in their article “The Mystery of the Jewish People in History” from The Angelus magazine, an SSPX publication:

In the world as it is, there can be only two truly basic modes, two poles of attraction: the Christian and the Jewish. Only two religions: Christian and Jewish. All that is not of Christ and for Christ is done in favour of Judaism. It follows from that, that the de-Christianizing of the world runs parallel to its Judaizing [emphasis mine].

As St. Thomas Aquinas explains,

There are two mystical bodies in this world: The Mystical Body of Christ and the mystical body of the Devil or of the Antichrist. To one or another every man belongs. The Mystical Body of Christ is the Holy Church, His pure and faithful Spouse. The mystical body of the Devil is the ensemble of impious men. Like an adulterous wet nurse, it nourishes this ensemble. The Devil is its head, and the evil persons are its members. “The body of the Devil,” says St. Gregory, “is composed by all the impious men.” Just as Christ, in Himself and through His disciples, always seeks to cut off the members of the Devil and incorporate them to Himself … so also does the Devil. By his efforts and those of his cohorts, the Devil aims to amputate the members of Christ to unite them to the sordid members of his prostitute [emphasis mine].

The mystical body of the Devil can be framed as “Jewish” for the same reason that post-Christian Jews are referred to by Christ as “the synagogue of Satan” in St. John’s Apocalypse, which is to say, Judaism’s status is uniquely diabolical among false religions, which is covered in detail in “Mystery.” On the human level, the ultimate war in the universe is between the Catholics and the Jews (or at least so-called Jews; more on that shortly). Whereas I don’t mean to suggest that the Church has vanished from the face of the earth by saying that We Are All Jews Now, the modern world that is by no mere coincidence so well-suited to Jewish proclivities has affected the thinking and behavior of us all to a terrific extent.

Accordingly, notwithstanding its Hebrew origins, Catholicism cannot be unqualifiedly framed as “Jewish” apart from the suggestion that the Church is really on the side of its own worst enemies. The seeming popularity of this frame among modern Catholics conveys Dr. Jones’ thesis that the Church has internalized the commands of its oppressors in the post-WWII era, an academic discussion of which is beyond the scope of this post (in short, We Are All Jews Now).

Granted, the context of the quoted selection from the Apocalypse moreover says that the so-called Jews are not actually Jews (Apocalypse 2-3), but in common parlance a Jew is someone who is defined by his rejection of Christ and of Christianity, which is a frame that also appears in the Bible in St. John’s Gospel and elsewhere. As such, we need to be careful about what that word means before we start throwing it around. Even Holy Writ uses it in diametrically opposed ways, kind of like how both Christ and Satan are symbolized by the lion. The qualifier of ancient Judaism helps to alleviate this confusion, given that Catholicism is an organic development and the fulfillment thereof.

The common parlance mentioned is the reason for my impression that the title of Dr. Taylor Marshall’s book The Crucified Rabbi seems deliberately geared to be misleading. He ought to know that his word choice brings to mind images of a post-Christian Jewish Christ—i.e., an anti-Christian Christ—hanging on a cross, marked by accessories like a yarmulke or payot, which are developments unique to post-Christian Judaism. In fact, Marshall’s title reminds me of Jewish painter Marc Chagall’s piece the White Crucifixion, which sacrilegiously conflates the redemptive suffering of our sinless Lord on the Cross with the historical suffering of the sinful Jewish people, the latter of which has by my reading been in many cases a divinely ordained chastisement. One might be unsurprised to hear that said painting is apparently the favorite of Francis I. Once again, We Are All Jews Now.

One might here bring up the fact that Jesus is called Rabbi in the Bible. Whereas in the common parlance a rabbi is someone whose livelihood entails being at war with the truth of the Gospel, the literal meaning of the word is teacher or master, which of course applies to Jesus. Again, carefulness is required. I take issue with Marshall’s insensitivity to or calculated desire to profit from a situation where We Are All Jews Now. This is not to mention his unjustified framing of sedevacantism as a heresy when Fr. Brian Harrison, who has made a heroic effort to reconcile the highly contentious Dignitatis humanae with previous Church teaching, has said that convinced sedevacantists are not even formally schismatic. I haven’t yet read Marshall’s book, though I suspect that he doesn’t go to great lengths to denounce the synagogue of Satan for what it is.

To reiterate my position on the “elder brother” thing mentioned in “Reframing the Game,” post-Christian Jews can’t be called our elder brothers in the faith of Abraham because they are not in the faith of Abraham. Again, this is for the biblical reason that “if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29). Christianity is the faith of Abraham. Though accidentally different from the religion of the Old Testament Jews, Christianity, i.e., Catholicism, is substantially the same. Post-Christian Judaism, on the other hand, is a substantial departure from the Old Testament faith. Recklessly asserting that the synagogue of Satan constitutes the flock of Christ’s elder brethren in the same faith is unsound for obvious reasons. This Culture Wars article gives the okay to referring to post-Christian Jews as our elder brothers, but only in the ironic sense that Esau is the elder brother of Jacob; that is, in a sense that excludes their being in the faith of Abraham.

To further tie this back to Holy Scripture, the passage from Romans dealing with the Jews is an interesting one that I’ve thought about a good deal. My question is how to apply that to when We Are All Jews Now. For example, did Donald Trump’s daughter transform from a wild shoot into a natural branch that has broken off the tree when she converted to Judaism? Assuming that my aunt is correct in surmising that our family has Jewish heritage and not merely jumping to conclusions inspired by her American “philo-Semitism,” am I a grafted wild shoot to the extent that I have Gentile DNA and a natural branch to the extent that I have Ashkenazi DNA? Aren’t Ashkenazi Jews a European admixture anyway? At this point, isn’t it fairly safe to assume that most people have at least some Jewish ancestors? Whatever happened to the Jews who accepted Christ that St. Paul writes to in his Epistle to the Hebrews? Are they a part of the Jewish nation defined by its explicit rejection of Christ? Etc. My point with all this is that I feel like that passage is falsely taken to mean we should give the so-called Jews a break despite their wanton criminality discussed in depth by Dr. E. Michael Jones. Obviously we need to encourage their conversion to the true faith, but I’m not about to sear my conscience by acquiescing to the rhetorical boundaries they have set up in order to make that happen. Enough “dialogue.” If we are going to fight, then let us fight.

Advertisements

Reframing the Game

pope-gregory-i-1-sized

We dedicate this entry to Pope St. Gregory the Great, patron of musicians and singers.

Hello again, readers.

The week and a half since my last post has been pretty encouraging for me. I got to meet with a voice therapist who further assuaged my concerns about the throat issue I’ve been dealing with. Turns out it’s nothing that should stop me from singing, and in fact might even be a simple case of globus hystericus, now more commonly known as globus pharyngeus but originally named after the hysterical disposition of those diagnosed—meaning I may just need to chill out. Dethroning Mammon can make a guy pretty anxiety-prone, but the certainty of our victory means there’s really nothing for us to worry about.

I ended up recording a demo of a new Too Much Gold song called “Reframe” which deals with the change in approach I’ve had to make in the ongoing culture war after going down an erroneous path back in 2014. Dethrone Mammon is one aspect of said change, another being a vocal style different from the aggressive rock singing I used to do with Archive Nights. “Reframe” features a first attempt at this new style which I anticipate will develop with further training and performing. I’m still occasionally tempted to revert back to my old ways, but with the way my throat is I can’t do it anymore without hurting myself, and was likely hurting myself even back when it was my norm.

This entry derives its namesake from the lyrics of “Reframe” and will accordingly focus on issues relevant to the mentioned adjustment in cultural warfare tactics.

At this juncture I want to bring up the work of Dr. E. Michael Jones, which has benefited me enormously in my efforts to turn from my former erroneous path. Although I didn’t really delve into Dr. Jones’ work until the latter part of 2015, I realize now that I had previously had some indirect exposure to it via other, less credible sources, namely The End of Zion‘s article “The Holocaust Hoax and the Jewish Promotion of Perversity” and David Duke’s exposé on the sexual revolution citing Nathan Abrams’ article on Jewish involvement in the American pornography industry. Whereas End‘s article features Jones’ discussion of the military use of pornography in Israeli-occupied Palestine, Jones actually describes Abrams’ article as a rewriting of his own written the previous year. It is salient to note that Nathan Abrams is in fact Jewish, so taking him at his word that Jews are highly involved in the pornography industry can only dubiously warrant the inevitable accusations of anti-Semitism that follow such an intellectual decision. This is, of course, unless Abrams is himself an anti-Semite, in which case one wonders whether Jewish Quarterly is an anti-Semitic publication.

For those unfamiliar with blogs like The End of Zion or people like David Duke, the difference between an approach like theirs—which I had confusedly imbibed to a dangerous degree before—and that of Dr. Jones to many of the same general issues, e.g., the corruption of Western sexual morality at the hands of the Jews, is that Dr. Jones comes at them from an authentically Catholic perspective. Had I known more people like Dr. Jones exist upon my discovery of said general issues back in 2013 with my viewing of Br. Nathanael’s video on why Jews push gay marriage, I may not have felt compelled to resort to non-Catholic sources in my search for understanding. It should be said that whereas Br. Nathanael is a Russian Orthodox Christian and thus offers a perspective rather close to what I was looking for, his relatively shallow analysis, eccentric demeanor, ultimately schismatic status, and lack of a viable following led me to sources that go so far as to call Br. Nathanael’s reliability into question as per his Jewish ethnic background.

There are two major points to address here. One is the failure of modern Catholics to understand their own religion’s teaching on the Jews and Judaism, largely a result of failures on the part of the clergy following the Second Vatican Council, and the other is the extent to which race realism has a place in the conversation.

On the first point, it must be said that a seeming majority of Catholics in the modern West and even throughout the globe have uncritically bought John Paul II’s saying that—contrary to what St. John Chrysostom and countless others in Catholic Church history have had to say—the Jews are Catholics’ “‘elder brothers’ in the faith of Abraham.”

For someone uneducated in matters of Christian orthodoxy the statement may sound plausible enough, but for the the rest of us it can’t possibly be true. This is for the biblical reason that “if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29); which is to say, Christianity is the faith of Abraham. Though accidentally different from the religion of the Old Testament Jews, Christianity, i.e., Catholicism, is substantially the same. Indeed, Jesus Christ did “not come to destroy [the law or the prophets of the Old Testament], but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). Today’s so-called Jews, who according to other parts of the Bible are not even worthy of being called such, are defined by their rejection of the claims of Catholicism and thus their rejection of the faith of Abraham. As such, they cannot be construed as being “in the faith of Abraham,” much less as being the “elder brothers” of those who are.

This widespread misconception among modern Catholics along with the Second Vatican Council’s explicit condemnation of anti-Semitism, which the document containing said condemnation leaves undefined, rubbed me in a seriously wrong way as I made my way towards conversion to Catholicism from the nebulous, anarchistic religious views I had developed as a university student. Basically, what I was looking for from Catholicism seemed to have been abandoned by the modern Church in favor of liberal ideas more like what I sought to leave behind. I had learned in a soul-crushingly painful way that the Jews were historically adversarial to the Church and were known for subverting the morals of Christian countries, but the Church seemed to have let down its guard, inviting evil into its own bosom at the peril of the faithful. If anti-Semitism meant, as it is often framed to mean, any perspective on the Jews that makes Jews uncomfortable, isn’t simple adherence to Catholicism an anti-Semitic act? In this light, how could the true Church ever condemn anti-Semitism? Wary that I might otherwise become ensnared in a diabolical and sodomitical conspiracy, I was eventually convinced by what is known as the sedevacantist position, the general thesis of which is that the Seat of Peter is vacant and has been since the time of Vatican II.

My attempts to avoid trouble by way of sedevacantism were to be frustrated, however. I was baptized by a sedevacantist priest in the spring of 2014, but found next to no solidarity at the church I began frequenting. Not helping my case was my carrying over the habit of cannabis use from my pre-Christian days, which I had recently taken up again as a means to relieve the anxiety I felt at having to go my faith journey alone. (I eventually sought a conditional baptism over concern that my original baptism may have been invalidated on account of cannabis intoxication, but that is a story for another time.) It wasn’t long after I started going to the sedevacantist chapel that the priest there betrayed his ignorance on the Jews by alluding reverently to a rabbi who is purported to have had the name of the Messiah revealed to him. I had seen the video he was talking about before, and when I rewatched it upon his reminding me of it, I was alarmed to hear the ingratiating tone of the Protestant narrator towards all things Jewish, i.e., anti-Catholic. Why should a Catholic priest be impressed by the claims of a heretical “Judeo-Christian” source, especially when they involve private revelation to a Talmudic Jew concerning the name of the Messiah which the Church has already known for 2000 years? To top it off, I also found out that Fr. Anthony Cekada and Bp. Daniel Dolan—two of the most prominent sedevacantist clerical figures who are largely responsible for the popularization of sedevacantism—are alleged to have been involved in a sodomitical relationship with each other, a claim which to my knowledge neither of them has yet publicly denied as would seem appropriate in the case of their innocence.

The utter lack of camaraderie I found among Catholics and even among sedevacantists whom I reasoned would be more likely to get where I was coming from compelled me to search elsewhere for mutual understanding: namely, the internet. This turned out to be a futile endeavor as just about the only people I found as eager to “spread the truth” about the Jews as I was were fascists, National Socialists, or sympathizers, many of whom were not very interested in Catholicism if at all. Like I said, I ended up imbibing their ideas to a dangerous degree, romanticizing the Third Reich with memes and my own arcane interpretation of history that was lost on just about everyone but me.

I eventually backed off on that enterprise, but the damage was done. By that point I had lost my band, seriously injured myself in an accident spurred by the mental unclarity following an internet flame war, and alienated almost everyone I had been previously been close to. That was when I started to rethink things in a very critical way.

Whereas my response to being accused of anti-Semitism or Nazism was to spitefully imbibe actual anti-Semitism and Nazism so as to prove to my opponents that I was not afraid of them, E. Michael Jones offered a different analysis.

Yes, it is the Jews who are largely to blame for the social ills of the modern world and the state of crisis in the Catholic Church, says Jones. But is that anti-Semitic to observe? No, because anti-Semitism is a biologically deterministic view in contradiction with free will which is invoked to justify solutions to the threat the Jews pose that exclude conversion to the true faith. With that, the Vatican II document condemning anti-Semitism was vindicated, which in turn led me to be more open to a non-sedevacantist perspective on the state of the Church. Though I still wonder about the truth value of the sedevacantist thesis, I no longer consider myself a sedevacantist and no longer generally view non-sedevacantist Catholics as helplessly mired in or willfully contributing to a Satanic conspiracy against Catholic orthodoxy.

To touch briefly on the second point I mention, the extent to which race realism has a place in the conversation, I do want to remark that I think Dr. Jones perhaps underestimates the importance of the racial question in his eagerness to deflect any charges of anti-Semitism. Does not the Bible speak of ancestral sin? Is it anti-Catholic to affirm what biology tells us, that we are predisposed to the same sins as our forefathers, as in the case of alcoholism? In this light, there may well be an obscure genetic component to what Jones terms “the Jewish revolutionary spirit,” especially considering that body and soul are held to be one by Catholic teaching. Does this mean that one originating from the ethnic community genetically shaped by 2000 years of Christ-denial, namely the Jews, is incapable of becoming a saint? By no means. It just means that they might be subject to the same general temptations as their natural predecessors, which they must overcome with Christ’s help. This vindicates the racialist assessment of the general situation to some extent, but of course the spiritual takes precedence over the physical, which does not seem to register with the mentioned fascists and their ilk.

That’s enough for now. I’ve only scratched the surface of these and related issues here and have done so in a less organized and focused manner than I would like, but I expect my analysis and style to improve as I continue to write more. For those who made it this far, thanks for reading.

 

 

Introductory remarks

stblaise

We dedicate this entry to St. Blaise, martyr, one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers, and patron of throat illnesses.

Greetings, and welcome to Dethrone Mammon.

My name is Ryan Gasaway, and I’ve started this blog as a first step in expanding my writing career. Since graduating from Vanderbilt University as a Mathematics and Philosophy double major in the spring of 2013, I’ve spent a lot of time posting on social media, particularly Twitter and Tumblr. Whereas I’ve learned a lot through my digital adventures with those services, I’ve realized more and more how a more traditional writing format can benefit me in the pursuit of my intellectual and artistic goals.

I’m foremost a musician, but after my old band broke up in late 2014 I was discouraged by the prospect of making a living making music—as John Lennon is reported to have observed, “show business is an extension of the Jewish [i.e., Talmudic, i.e., anti-Catholic] religion.” Around Thanksgiving of 2015, however, I found myself infused with a surge of energy compelling me to get back into it. I had been dealing with an indisposition of the throat that has since gotten a lot better, but I’m still waiting for it to get back to 100% before I really start singing again. It’s also kept me from working as much in my capacity as a mathematics and science tutor, so I figured writing would be a good way to pass the time that I’m not spending writing songs or practicing guitar while it heals, in addition to being a potential source of income.

On that note, I bring the reader’s attention to Charles Coulombe’s assessment of the spiritual state of affairs in the Puritan’s Empire from which I write:

One of the most exciting and positive notes of our history … is that the American continents have provided a place wherein native and European, African, and Asian cultures have mingled, and from which a vital spirit emerged. In those areas evangelized properly, the results have been extraordinary. Two models have been offered for this mingling: the Catholic, wherein the constituent elements retain their integrity while enriching one another, and the Americanist, wherein the ultimate result is intended to create a conformity based upon the lowest common denominator: money [bold mine].

As is plain to any present American resident, the Americanist scheme has proven indisputably victorious over the Catholic over the centuries in which said mingling has taken place. Such an attitude is in fact enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” In his article on the previously mentioned John Lennon, Br. Nathanael Kapner elucidates this point succinctly: “Competing ideologies must give way to one player in town: ‘Democracy,’ where power is awarded to the highest bidder.”

Superimpose this situation with the general Americanization of the planet, also covered in Kapner’s article, and we have a dilemma John Lennon ironically failed to anticipate with his pithy, maudlin ballad “Imagine”: namely, the conformity of increasingly intermingling countries to the Americanist model wherein the same avaricious unitarians he obliquely accuses of controlling the entertainment industry politically dominate a world with “no religion.”

That’s where Dethrone Mammon comes in. Although it’s easy to despair in the face of such a seemingly insurmountable political climate, my experience in the metapolitical deep end qualifies me to take down the beast that’s been bred in my own backyard. Although Americanism and its beneficiaries appear to be winning the struggle for world domination at the moment, there’s only one King of history, and he doesn’t take lightly to the egregious offenses against his sovereignty that an international, cryptic imposition of devotion to his adversary Mammon necessarily entail, especially when the members of the imposing party for the most part ought to know better. I make service to said King the utmost priority in my life, which puts me at a distinct and obvious metaphysical advantage over fools who think money is that from which authentic power is derived.

All this gets me thinking qualifiedly hopefully about Donald Trump, whose presidential campaign has rocked the American voting public over the last year. A brief perusal of the opening pages of his book Think Big and Kick Ass has me convinced that the Donald is by no means not a Mammon devotee, but that doesn’t stop me from hoping and praying for his repentance, especially not in light of the manly vitality he’s demonstrated in bucking the effeminate bipartisan establishment of mainstream American politics. In an amusing twist of fate, Trump’s lifelong devotion to Mammon has now afforded him the opportunity to do something virtuous with the wealth he’s accrued, which is to say, the man has so much money that he’s practically transcended money.

As per Sheldon Adelson’s calling the Republican frontrunner a “charming” candidate, however, I’m wary that the Trump Train may in fact amount to yet another false polarization staged by those same avaricious unitarians largely responsible for the impending wrath of the King of history. For this reason, Dethrone Mammon takes the approach of harnessing the Donald rather than merely riding out the wave of sensationalism his rise has spurred; the latter course of action may well end in disaster. Unlike certain other political figures who have seen an increase in popularity in these increasingly Weimarian days, Donald Trump is still alive. He still has a chance.