The Real History

During the 1930s, many colleges and universities did not want to hire Jews mainly because of the fact that Jewish intellectuals usually associated themselves with subversive movements, particularly Communism.[36] In fact, the Neoconservative movement loosely began in the 1930s in New York, and spread its ideological orbit in the 40s and 50s.[37]

Historians usually refer to the founders of this movement as the “New York Intellectuals,” who, as Alexander Bloom puts it, “were young, Jewish, urban intellectuals whose radical politics became bound up with an assimilationism begun when their parents left Europe.”[38] People like Hannah Arendt, William Barrett, Daniel Bell, Saul Bellow, Elliot Cohen, Midge Decter, Leslie Fiedler, Nathan Glazer, Clement Greenberg, Paul Goodman, Richard Hofstadter, Sidney Hook, Irving Howe, Alfred Kazin, Irving Kristol, Seymour Martin Lipset, Mary McCarthy, Dwight Macdonald, William Phillips, Norman Podhoretz, Philip Rahv, Harold Rosenberg, Isaac Rosenfeld, Delmore Schwartz, Susan Sontag, Harvey Swados, Diana Trilling, Lionel Trilling, Robert Warshow, were all part of this movement.[39]

These New York Jews witnessed the downfall of Communism in Russia and in Eastern Europe,[40] so while rejecting the communistic ideals that had driven their parents out of Europe, they also did not wish to associate themselves with the classical conservatism that had dominated American policy for centuries. Instead, they began to seek a new approach, one that was radical and highly strategic:

Neoconservatism. With this new approach—not liberal or conservative in the classical sense—the largely Jewish individuals who formed the New York intellectuals sought to completely reshape the face of America.[41]

This point is not controversial among scholars at all. In fact, former Neoconservative luminary Francis Fukuyama of Stanford (formerly of Johns Hopkins) compares the Neoconservative movement to Leninism. Neoconservatism, says Fukuyama, is the reincarnation to some extent of both Leninism and Bolshevism.[42] Fukuyama’s observation makes sense when even Irving Kristol, who founded the movement, proudly admitted that the “honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the [Trotskyist] Young People’s Socialist League (Fourth International).”[43]

In short, the Neoconservative movement was a metaphysical revolt against Logos in the political sphere in America in particular. It was and still is part of the Jewish revolutionary spirit that E. Michael Jones eloquently discussed in his book. It is also safe to say that “the Jewish revolutionary spirit” has played a central role in the “de-Christianization” of America. If this seems farfetched, then listen to Jewish historian Murry Friedman in his book The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy: “Jewish groups had come to play a critical role in the ‘de-Christianization’ of American culture.”[44]

These people, Friedman continues, “had successfully challenged Bible reading in the public schools and any form of state aid to parochial schools. So dominant had the ‘separatist’ view become that even a nonsectarian prayer prepared by the New York Regents Board in 1962 was ruled by the Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale to be a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.”[45]

Jewish historian Benjamin Ginsberg added, “Religious symbols and forms of expression that Jews find threatening have been almost completely eliminated from schools and other public institutions. Suits brought by the ACLU, an organization whose leadership and membership are predominantly Jewish, secured federal court decisions banning officially sanctioned prayer in the public schools and crèches and other religious displays in parks and public buildings.”[46]

Jewish professor Stephen M. Feldman of the University of Wyoming says something very similar in his study Please Don’t Wish Me a Merry Christmas: A Critical History of the Separation of Church and State.[47] Jewish writer J. J. Goldberg noted: “Jews were overwhelmingly against permitting public-school prayer or allowing religious symbols—any religious symbols—on government property. Other Americans were strongly in favor of both.”[48]

The de-Christianization aspect reached full steam after the world wars. Jewish historian Howard Sachar declares that it was a “postwar danger” for Jews.[49] Goldberg likewise states that “Jewish advocacy in the postwar era worked hard to expand the church-state separation.”[50]

Goldberg goes further to say that there is a general consensus among liberal Jews to dominate “immigration and refugee policy, civil rights and affirmative action, abortion rights, church-state separation issues, and much more.”[51] Virtually every aspect of American life has been bugged by the Jewish revolutionary spirit. Marshall cannot just use evasive terms like “secularism” to describe this phenomenon at all. It just doesn’t add up.

Jewish “Secularism” Took Over Academe

Contrary to what Marshall indicates in Infiltration, it wasn’t Liberalism or Secularism that waged a frontal war against the Church in the first century; things have come and gone, but the people who opposed the Church over the centuries have remained the same,[52] and this is an issue Jones meticulously and historically underscores in his Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. Even Rodney Stark acknowledges in The Rise of Christianity that the Jews “survived to confront the church in later, more fully documented eras…It is also known that at some point a curse against Christians (Nazarenes) was inserted into the Jewish Eighteen Benedictions—presumably as a method to prevent Jewish Christians from acting as presenters in the synagogue.”[53]

The same spirit got morphed into different subversive movements over the centuries. If Marshall again did pick up a copy of Rabbi Louis Newman’s Jewish Influence in Christian Reform Movements,[54] he probably would have discovered that the issue had and still has very little to do with “Secularism.” And who has been called “the father of the secular humanist movement”[55] in America? It is none other than the late Paul Kurtz, a Jewish professor of philosophy at State University of New York and author of books such as The Humanist Manifesto, In Defense of Secular Humanism, and A Secular Humanist Declaration.

Irving Kristol was proud to say that secular humanism had been “good for the Jews,” giving them an “unparalleled degree of comfort and security.”[56] “Jews are at heart secular humanists, he wrote, which may be ‘why American Jews are so vigilant about removing all the signs and symbols of traditional religions from ‘the public square,’ so insistent that religion be merely a ‘private affair,’ so determined that separation of church and state be interpreted to mean the separation of all institutions from any signs of a connection with traditional religions.’”[57]

So when Jews took over academe, they turned it to “secularism” by propounding things like separation of church and state, which is pure fiction. In fact, Jewish intellectuals at the time knew very well that the universities could be used to spark a revival of Jewish revolutionary activity. For example, Irving Howe would talk about how students would change completely after taking philosophy classes with Jewish professor Morris Cohen, who, “like a fencing master facing multiple foes…challenged students to his left and to his right, slashing their premises, destroying their defenses…You went to a Cohen class in order to be ripped open and cut down.”[58]

It was Cohen who taught Howe that an intellectual life can be used as “a form of combat.”[59] Jewish historian Howard M. Sachar calls this chapter in American history “The insurrection of the intellectuals.”[60] University campuses, therefore, were bound to create revolutionary cells.

For that very reason, many universities were hesitant to hire Jewish professors. Raised in a Stalinist family, Ronald Radosh for example tells in his memoir that many Jews like himself were sent from New York to Wisconsin to take over the university,[61] which in turn would reignite Jewish revolutionary programs. Radosh himself talked about “my baptism into the world of Jewish radicalism, a world so small and insular that it existed inside a political and social ghetto.”[62]

Radosh believes that though the radical world from which the Jewish intellectual movement sprung is no longer with us, its spirit is still vibrating, “well captured by the late Irving Howe in his classic book The World of our Fathers.”[63] In other words, “the world of our fathers” is a world in which Jewish radicals would become the doorkeepers of America, from controlling American foreign policy to reshaping the American culture in their own image. This has been documented by scholars and historians of various stripes.[64] Jared Kushner is the culmination of Jewish power in academe. Even journalist Vicky Ward has recently written:

Around the time that Jared was applying to colleges, Charlie [Kushner, his father] pledged $2.5 million to Harvard and made additional promises to Princeton and Cornell. He also got New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg, who was an investor in at least one of his projects and to whom Kushner Companies had donated more than two hundred thousand dollars, to make a call to Senator Ted Kennedy, who, in turn, phoned Harvard’s dean of admission. When Jared was accepted at Harvard, his high school teachers were aghast, alternating, according to a student, between disbelief and disgust. A classmate of Jared’s, who had been in the class’s first track and who had been rejected by Harvard, cried when she heard he got in. It was unheard of for anyone in the third track at Frisch Academy to be admitted to any Ivy League school, let alone Harvard. ‘His GPA did not warrant it, his SAT scores did not warrant it,’ one school official told the author Daniel Golden.65

Ward got the source from Daniel Golden’s 2007 book The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges–and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates. “Admissions policies channel the children of the privileged into premier colleges,” writes Golden, “paving their way into leadership positions in business and government.”[66] It is common knowledge in admissions parlance that “so many spaces at elite universities are reserved for well-connected students that ‘the poor schmuck who has to get in on his own has to walk on water.’”[67] Golden continues to say:

It’s considered crass for wealthy parents to approach college officials directly with a financial proposal while their child is applying. “Everyone in my position was offered bribes,” said Mary Ann Schwalbe, former associate dean for admissions at Harvard. Parents would come in for their child’s interview, she said, and then ask to speak to her privately. “They would say, ‘Not only will I give Harvard $1 million, but I’ll give you and your husband a house or a cruise,’” Mrs. Schwalbe recalled, laughing. “I’d come home and Douglas [her husband] would say, ‘Do it!’”[68]

Communism and Modernism

Marshall argues over and over that Communism and Modernism are two powerful enemies that sought to eradicate the Church. What he doesn’t document is that Communism was a largely Jewish phenomenon which also gave birth to the Bolshevik Revolution,[69] the very subversive movement whose ideology ended up liquidating more than sixty million.[70] Not even Winston Churchill, who was a thorough Zionist pawn and ethnic cleanser,[71] could deny this fact.[72] When Communism and Socialism produced “the god that failed,” the spirit left that movement and settled in America with the Neoconservative movement, which is Talmudic in its political and ideological orientation. Jewish writer Sidney Blumenthal has said exactly that. The fabric of the Neoconservative movement, he wrote in The Rise of the Counter-Establishment: From Conservative Ideology to Political Power, found its political and intellectual ideology “in the disputatious heritage of the Talmud.”[73]

This subversive movement gave us the war in Iraq, which was based on categorical lies and fabrications. This war eventually gave America a six-trillion-dollar debt.[74] The same war made former soldiers disillusioned as well.[75]

So the Bolshevik/Communist Revolution didn’t stop in Soviet Russia. The same revolutionary ideology moved to China under the name of Maoism, and from 1958 to 1962, at least forty-five million people got exterminated.[76] In short, Communism and its ideological brainchild produced perpetual wars in the Middle East and massive deaths in virtually the entire world.[77] For Marshall to talk about Communism without even remotely pointing out where the diabolical movement originated is simply disingenuous. It’s like writing an entire book on the cell without even mentioning the nucleus.

“For over a century,” writes Marshall, “the organizers of Freemasonry, Liberalism, and Modernism infiltrated the Catholic Church in order to change her doctrine, her liturgy, and her mission from something supernatural to something secular.”[78] Perhaps Marshall should pick up a copy of E. Michael Jones’ The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History and discover how Freemasonry even during the French Revolution was an essentially Jewish phenomenon which sought to bring down Christendom and the social order.[79] Isaac M. Wise, who was called “the foremost rabbi in America” by the time of his death in 1900, wrote in 1866 that “Masonry is a Jewish institution, whose history, degrees, charges, passwords and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end.”[80]

The Smoke of Satan

Marshall writes:

Although smoke is nearly always a sign of holiness, sacrifice, and worship, in the book of Revelation, we find a handful of exceptions. We repeatedly observe how Satan mimics God, just as the Egyptian magicians copycatted the miracles of Moses. For example, Revelation presents a perverted satanic trinity of the devil, an antichrist king, and a false prophet. In place of a Holy and Virginal Church wedded to Christ, Satan establishes the Whore of Babylon riding the antichrist. In like manner, we observe sacred incense smoke in the eighth chapter of Revelation, and then immediately we read of the demonic smoke of Satan in the ninth chapter…[81]

Marshall fails to tell us again that the book of Revelation which he refers to also says something about some of the activities of the antichrist. How can Marshall skip those essential passages? Obviously Marshall doesn’t want to come out and declare that Rabbinic Judaism is essentially the synagogue of Satan. Its rejection of Christ is metaphysical and categorical because it is done deliberately—in the face of, rather than in spite of, evidence to the contrary. As E. Michael Jones points out, the real-life consequence of that theological rejection is revolution and subversive ideology.[82]

Moreover, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ becomes a paradigm shift in history and even theology. This brings us to a fundamental principle which Jones has cogently articulated in the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: attacking Christ, the Sustainer of all things, invariably leads to attacking the logical, moral, political, social, and even sexual order.

In that sense, Jewish revolutionaries are essentially antichrists. St. John tells us: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also” (1 John 2:22-23). “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:2-3).

The plot thickens. For Marshall to summon liberalism as the enemy of the Church without even making reference to the clear description of the antichrist is not serious scholarship at all. Marshall could have saved himself some trouble by picking up a copy of Peter Schafer’s Jesus in the Talmud. The theological premise of the Talmud is meant to deconstruct Christ and thereby reduce the Christian message to a pile of rubbish. To say that Jesus was not born of a virgin, was the son of a whore, and practiced sorcery and even black magic is the worst kind of blasphemy ever uttered against Christ. Schafer points out that this language was deliberate.[83]

This was one reason why the Christian writers of the early Church had to challenge that theological system because it is the antithesis of what the gospel represents. The early church approached this subject on a theological ground—it was one of the main reasons that Justin Martyr wrote Dialogue with Trypho, a literary work which deals with a conversation between Justin and Trypho, a Jew. Justin Martyr argues that although Christianity is under the umbrella of the New Covenant, it is not under a new God. The same God who gave the Ten Commandments has also shown His love to humanity through His Son Jesus. Moreover, without Jesus, one cannot be God’s people.

For Justin Martyr, the root of the issue is always theological. After Justin argues that Trypho cannot be part of God’s people by rejecting Christ, Trypho replies, “What is this you say? That none of us shall inherit anything on the holy mountain of God?” Justin responds:

I do not say so; but those who have persecuted and do persecute Christ, if they do not repent, shall not inherit anything on the holy mountain. But the Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and have repented of the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who are descended from Jacob, even though they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts. Assuredly they shall receive the holy inheritance of God.[84]

Justin Martyr nailed it, and St. Augustine and others made it clear that the whole panorama of human history is essentially divided into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Logos and the kingdom of anti-Logos. The New Testament makes it very clear that the antagonists of Christ are those who metaphysically reject his teachings, and the books of Acts makes it clear that the main antagonists were invariably Jews.

Paul lamented that those people “have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost” (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16). As St. Paul begins to explain the work of the law and the work of Christ in his epistles, the Jews’ special relationship progressively becomes mute (Romans 2:28-29; Galatians 3:28-29). And by the time the book of Revelation was written, Rabbinic Judaism theologically and exegetically became the synagogue of Satan, the spiritual and diabolical cell from which all subversive activity springs—from the first century and all the way to the twenty-first.

In that sense, the French Revolution was the offspring of Freemasonry, which was heavily based on Jewish mysticism. If you doubt this, then listen to Rabbi Geoffrey W. Dennis in his Encyclopedia of Jewish Myth, Magic and Mysticism:

Virtually every form of Western mysticism and spiritualism known today draws upon Jewish myth and occult teachings—magic, prayer, angelology, alchemy, numerology, astral projection, dream interpretation, astrology, amulets, divination, altered states of consciousness, alternative, and rituals of power—all have roots in the Jewish occult. But for millennia, many of these core teachings have been unavailable to the general public, concealed by barriers of language and by the protective principles governing the teaching of Kabbalah, which has both nurtured and guarded such knowledge.[85]

The revolutionary spirit which “Jewish myth” created has never died out, and over the centuries has jumped around from place to place and movement to movement and has even taken different forms and variations. It manifested itself briefly in fourteenth-century Spain where usury ended up oppressing the peasants and provoking anti-Jewish reactions in the region. It sent shockwaves across much of Europe during the Hussite rebellion in the fifteenth century.[86]

The revolutionary spirit reached its pinnacle during the Peasant Revolt in the sixteenth century when judaizing Christians ended up smearing excrement on crucifixes and vandalizing and destroying churches and monasteries. From 1221 until 1796, the Statute of Kalisz provided the background for exclusively Jewish courts in Poland, free of society’s rules and, in the process, exempted Jews from punishment for engaging in slavery. This eventually led again to usurious activity, which drove the peasants into abject poverty and led to anti-Jewish reactions,[87] although some scholars state that the peasants’ charges were based on false grounds.[88] This itself is based on false historical grounds, and even the father of modern Jewish historiography, Heinrich Graetz, admitted that by immersing themselves in the study of the Talmud, Polish Jews found a sophisticated way to cheat the Gentiles.[89] This has been pointed out by other historians of various stripes.[90]

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the revolutionary spirit produced false Jewish messiahs such as Shabbatai Zevi (1626-1676), who spearheaded the Sabbatean movement, and later produced staunch disciples and lesser known messiahs such as Barukhia Russo, Miguel Cardoso, Mordecai Mokia, Lobele Prossnitz, and Jacob Joseph Frank, compounding disaster on disaster.[91] The revolutionary spirit swept Europe in the nineteenth century with the rise of Marxism and Communism, which were the ideological brainchild of Karl Marx and Moses Hess.[92]

In the nineteenth century, the revolutionary spirit showed itself in much of Europe and sections in America in the sex industry, which was largely a Jewish enterprise—an enterprise which gave rise to Hitler’s negative conception of the Jews.[93] The spirit also had a great influence on the slavery business in the nineteenth century and beyond—a business which again was largely Jewish and which is now laid at the feet of helpless Europeans.[94] In the twentieth century, the revolutionary spirit got morphed in the psychoanalytic movement with Sigmund Freud as the founder,[95] who brought “the plague” (Freud’s own words) to America in 1909.[96]

This gradually branched off into the obscenity scene in the 1920s and all the way to the 1940s in New York and other parts of the United States.[97] Freud ended up redefining sexuality and pornography and was indirectly a key figure in the sexual revolution. Wilhelm Reich took Freud’s ideology and spread it across the board, and for that he was eventually kicked out of Germany.

Finally, the revolutionary spirit reached a crescendo when Jewish revolutionary Jerry Rubin took it to the masses, particularly to blacks like Eldridge Cleaver, who wrote the introduction of Rubin’s DO IT!: Scenarios of the Revolution. Rubin declared in the book:

The Revolution declared war on Original Sin, the dictatorship of parents over their kids, Christian morality, capitalism and super masculinity trips… Our tactic is to send niggers and longhair scum invading white middle-class homes, fucking on the living room floor, crashing on the chandeliers, spewing sperm on the Jesus pictures, breaking the furniture, and smashing Sunday school napalm-blood Amerika forever.[98]

So shouldn’t we all hold people like Rubin responsible for the disasters they have created? If the answer is yes, then what about the disasters the same people have created across the religious and political spectrum? And what about people who are consciously or unconsciously avoiding to address the serious issues? More importantly, shouldn’t these people be ashamed of themselves when Jewish scholars themselves are bragging about those issues?

For example, Yuri Slezkine declares at the very beginning of The Jewish Century: “The modern age is the Jewish Age, and the twentieth century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.” Slezkine has more interesting things to say. “Modernization,” he continues, “is about everyone becoming Jewish.”[99] Similar sentiments have been echoed by other Jewish scholars and writers such as Benjamin Ginsberg, J. J. Goldberg, Nathan Abrams, Josh Lambert, etc.[100]

If Marshall happened to say the same thing in Infiltration, he would be condemned as a vicious anti-Semite by Jewish groups virtually across the world. He obviously knows that. In that sense, one can say that Marshall is living in fear. Catholics have been crippled by this kind of dishonesty or cowardice for decades. Some have ended up leaving the ministry and ended up attacking the New Testament for being “anti-Semitic.” For example, ex-priest James Carroll has already made it clear that the New Testament itself is anti-Semitic. This has been a pattern all the way to the twenty-first century.[101] In 2012 Greg Smith—a Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa—released a stunning article in the New York Times essentially saying that Goldman Sachs executives want to screw their customers and the U.S. economy. They just care about how much money their customers are going to bring them. If you cannot do exactly that, then they are going to dump you like trash. Smith asked, “What are three quick ways to become a leader?” He then provided a litany of answers:

a) Execute on the firm’s ‘axes,’ which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients—some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t—to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.

Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.[102]

Has Goldman Sachs changed over the years for good? No. In an article entitled “Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: ‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model?’,” we are told that Goldman Sachs does not want patients to be cured because it is not good for business! If you are dying of cancer and aspiring to get well, Goldman Sachs would simply ask: How much money would your cancer bring to the company? If curing you will turn out to be bad for business, then you might as well continue to suffer. Listen to this:

The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies, analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday. While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.

Richter cited Gilead Sciences’ treatments for hepatitis C, which achieved cure rates of more than 90 percent. The company’s U.S. sales for these hepatitis C treatments peaked at $12.5 billion in 2015, but have been falling ever since. Goldman estimates the U.S. sales for these treatments will be less than $4 billion this year, according to a table in the report.[103]

No matter how you cut it, this is simply diabolical. Plain and simple. We are living in a world in which companies like Goldman Sachs have sacked the pharmaceutical industry and are obviously selling sickness.[104]

Should the government allow those companies to destroy lives? Would it be anti-Semitic to say that those people should not be in position of power? Wouldn’t such position save multiple lives? And if John Connelly disagrees, then we would like him to provide a better solution. The Church, for hundreds of years, did provide a modus vivendi known as Sicut Judaeis-non, which states that no one has the right to harm the Jews, and the Jews have no right to destroy the Christian culture. It’s that simple.

If Connelly has a better solution, then let him flesh it out because when anti-Semitism was rampant throughout Europe, Jews went to the Church to get protection. Jewish historian Israel Abrahams made it clear in his 1896 work Jewish Life in the Middle Ages that it “was a tradition with the popes of Rome to protect the Jews who were near at hand.”[105] What was that tradition based on? Sicut Judaeis-non.

Finally, it must be emphasized again that the Jewish question is neither racial nor biological. It is theological. In fact, the protagonists and antagonists in the Gospels were all Jews! This element is largely missing in the debate. As E. Michael Jones points out in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, the word anti-Semitism didn’t exist until 1871. The nation of Israel itself proves that the issue is not “racial” but theological:

In 1962 Shmuel Oswald Rufeisen, known as ‘Brother Daniel,’ petitioned the High Court of Justice (the Supreme Court) to instruct the state [of Israel] to recognize him as a Jew by nationality. Rufeisen was born to a Jewish family in Poland in 1922, and as a teenager joined a Zionist youth movement. He fought as a partisan against the Nazi occupation and saved the lives of many Jews. At some point he hid in a monastery, where he converted to Christianity. After the war he studied for the priesthood, and in order to go to Israel he became a Carmelite monk.

In 1958 he went to Israel because he wished to take part in the Jewish destiny and still saw himself as a Zionist. Having given up his Polish citizenship, he applied to become an Israeli citizen on the basis of the Law of Return, arguing that although he was a Catholic by religion, he was still a Jew by ‘nationality.’ When his application was rejected by the Ministry of the Interior, he petitioned the High Court of Justice. By a four-to-one decision, the court rejected his petition to be given Israeli citizenship on the basis of the Law of Return. He was, however, granted an Israeli identity card, which stated, ‘Nationality: Not clear.’[106]

Israeli historian Shlomo Sand of Tel Aviv University, who provides serious historical depth to the almost two-thousand-year-old conflict, comments: “Ultimately, Brother Daniel’s betrayal of Judaism by joining the religion of the Nazarene overcame the deterministic biological imaginary. It was categorically decided that there was no Jewish nationality without its religious shell. Ethnocentric Zionism needed the Halakhic precepts as its principal criteria, and the secular judges understood this national-historical necessity very well.”[107] But that is not the end of the story:

In 1968 Major Binyamin Shalit petitioned the High Court of Justice to order the minister of the interior to register his two sons as Jews. Unlike Brother Daniel, the mother of these boys was not a born Jew but a Scottish gentile. Shalit, a well-regarded officer in Israel’s victorious army, argued that his sons were growing up as Jews and wished to be considered full citizens in the state of the Jewish people. By what seemed a miracle, five of the nine judges who heard the petition decided that the boys were Jewish by nationality, if not by religion. But this exceptional decision shook the entire political structure.[108]

The plot thickens: Israeli officials and geneticists, according to Sand, cannot use DNA to prove that they are descendants of Moses,109 and the Church has been saying this for thousands of years. In addition, Jews do not have bad DNA in their systems. If the central issue revolves around DNA, as racialists David Duke and Kevin MacDonald erroneously perpetuate, then there is no way to hold Jews accountable for breaking the moral law. As E. Michael Jones tried to explain to both MacDonald and Lasha Darkmoon back in 2010, MacDonald’s claim that

‘My moral sense certainly does not come from Catholicism but is intimately tied up with evolutionary thinking’ is preposterous. It is impossible to derive the moral order from biology much less evolution…From an evolutionary point of view, KMac should be a philosemite. Haven’t the Jews won out in the struggle for existence in the United States, and therefore, the world? His evolution undermines his morality and vice versa. DNA is also part of God’s Logos, but biological mechanisms, while they determine how fish spawn, do not tell us how to act. Intellect and will do that for us. Confusing the biology which runs the brain with the mind which needs the brain as its necessary condition is part of the unfortunate legacy of Darwinism, and something which keeps Miss Darkmoon and Professor MacDonald from reaching their full potential as thinkers.[110]

If DNA is the basis upon which Jews act, then what about Christ and His disciples? What about Solomon Michael Alexander, Hermann Cohen, Baptista Giovanni Jonas, Leopold Cohn, Theodore Ratisbonne, Michael Polanyi, Israel Shahak, Israel Shamir, Mortimer Adler, Gilad Atzmon, Roi Tov, and other Jews who embrace Logos in one way or another? How did these people get rid of their bad behavior?

No one has been able to answer that central question. In fact, I raised that same issue in my interaction with David Duke years ago, but no solid answer was provided.[111]

Finally, if Jewish behavior is genetic, why would people be upset when Jews act in a bad way? Don’t we all know that what happens genetically happens automatically?

To sum up, Taylor Marshall’s Infiltration cannot be taken seriously because it deliberately avoids the metaphysical issues and the very people who have stood against the Church for centuries.

I did make an attempt to contact Marshall before I started writing a review of his book. In order to get in touch with him, a person has to go to his Facebook page, “like it,” and then post a question or comment. Here’s what I said on the last day of June: “Hi Dr. Marshall: Are you familiar with the work of Dr. E. Michael Jones? I am planning to review your new book in the Culture Wars magazine.” To this very day, I don’t know if Marshall received the comment or not because I was planning to send him a copy of this current review before I published it.

We need Catholic writers and scholars who have some moral and intellectual courage to say uncomfortable but true things. We all should take our hats off to E. Michael Jones because he has been a light when all lights seem to go out. He certainly has gained the respect of his contemporaries.

Other Articles in the November Magazine: