Wednesday, November 30, 2022

Notre Dame and the Jewish Question, by E. Michael Jones - The Unz Review


“If you let the Jews in, they take over.”

Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, CSC

On November 3, 2022, the University of Notre Dame hosted a debate between College Democrats and College Republicans which suddenly and unexpectedly turned from contentious to nasty when the question of abortion arose. Blake Ziegler, spokesman for the College Democrats, opened the abortion segment of the debate by saying, “I proudly affirm the women’s right to choose.”[1] “For nearly 50 years,” he continued, “our nation recognized this fundamental right. Dobbs will impose significant burdens on women’s health care,” and “force teenage girls to carry their pregnancies to term. That’s the result of their culture wars rhetoric. Dobbs must be overturned.”[2] At another point, Ziegler characterized the Republican position on abortion as: “Tell that teenager in Texas that even thought she was raped by her uncle and is 12 years old, she still has to carry that baby to term.”[3]

Abortion has been a contentious issue at Notre Dame for almost 60 years. This story began in 1962 when then President Theodore Hesburgh sponsored a series of conferences funded by John D. Rockefeller’s Population Council. Those conferences were a closely guarded secret because their purpose was to overturn the teaching of the Catholic Church as a prelude to striking down this country’s laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives, which occurred during the spring of 1965, when the Supreme Court handed down Griswold v. Connecticut.

During the summer of 1965, Father Hesburgh arranged a meeting between JDR 3rd and Pope Paul VI during which Rockefeller, flush from his Supreme Court victory, volunteered to write the pope’s birth control encyclical for him. For some reason the pope declined this honor, setting the stage for Humanae Vitae, which set off a revolution in the Catholic Church when it was promulgated in 1968. Hesburgh had a bad habit of ingratiating himself with the rich and famous and then betraying them when the association threatened his career. He did this to Richard Nixon, and this is what Hesburgh did to Pope Paul VI when he sided with the revolutionaries and betrayed the pope who needed his support in the looming war over human sexuality that came to be known as the sexual revolution. Pope Paul VI was infatuated with Hesburgh to the point of giving him his ring and seeing him as a spiritual heir who, as a cardinal in Rome, could assist the pope in battling the forces then threatening the Church, but the feelings were not mutual. Hesburgh callously threw Montini’s ring into a drawer with his cigar cutter knowing that a Catholic with Rockefeller backing was more powerful than any cardinal in Rome. In 1967, in the wake of the Charles Curran tenure crisis at Catholic University and the bishops’ capitulation, Hesburgh stole Notre Dame University from the Catholic Church, knowing that he had the full support of the Vatican and the pope, whom he would betray one year later.

For the next decade, as more and more Catholic women neutered themselves with contraceptives, it seemed that abortion would be the next domino of Catholic doctrine to fall. That is the thesis of Ralph McInerny’s novel The Priest, which portrayed the moral rot spreading through Notre Dame in graphic, albeit fictional, detail. Widespread Catholic acceptance of abortion seemed inevitable, but it never happened. Thus, Hesburgh’s decision to accept the chairmanship of the Rockefeller Foundation on January 14, 1976 unleashed a storm of indignation by prolife activists across the country. Stung by their criticism, Hesburgh responded in ND’s student newspaper The Observer by claiming that his critics were misinformed about the Rockefeller Foundation’s stand on abortion. “The foundation has nothing to do with abortion,”[4] Hesburgh opined. “In fact, you’ll never find the word ‘abortion’ in the report.” Father Hesburgh concluded his article by opining that his critics should know the facts before they made inflammatory accusations.

In an article published in the same student newspaper on April 20, 1977, the late Professor Charles E. Rice of the Notre Dame Law School proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that the word ‘abortion’ did in fact rear its ugly head in the reports of the Rockefeller Foundation, forcing Rice to conclude that the Rockefeller-funded James Madison Constitutional Law Institute, “which handled the entire appeal for the abortion side in Roe v. Wade,” was “the legal spearhead of the abortion movement” in America. When the National Catholic News Service asked for a clarification after Rice effectively called him a liar, Hesburgh declined further comment.[5]

Despite massive Rockefeller funding for front groups like Catholics for Free Choice, the abortion domino never fell, forcing Notre Dame to accept grudgingly the presence of a Notre Dame Right to Life movement on campus. The university then tried to co-opt that movement by having ND President John Jenkins make a token appearance at the National Right to Life March in Washington. The idea that Jenkins was prolife ended when he gave an honorary doctorate to the notoriously pro-abortion Barack Obama, showing that he was even handed or duplicitous, depending on your point of view.

The carefully worked out modus vivendi on abortion at Notre Dame ended when Roe v Wade got overturned and 140 Jewish organizations announced that abortion was “a fundamental Jewish value.” During the run up to Roe, when Jews like Bernard Nathanson and Lawrence Lader were leading the abortion crusade in New York, the word Jew never got mentioned in the New York Times, which had become an aggressive organ of abortion advocacy. The only religious group identified in the abortion wars was the Catholics, specifically Catholic bishops, who were accused of imposing their views on everyone else.

Unaware that the world had changed, Blake Ziegler took this tack in his response to the abortion question in the debate. Responding to College Republican Shri Thakur’s claim that “Abortion is murder and except in cases to save the mother’s life it should be illegal nationwide,” and that “corporations are paying women to kill their children and come back and be a good cubicle worker in the office,”[6] Ziegler claimed that Republicans wanted “to impose [their] world view on the rest of the country. That’s what Republicans believe forcing their own beliefs, their own religion on other people instead of letting others pursue their life plan.” Ziegler went on to say: “The rhetoric from the Republicans is inherently baked into religion” without understanding that what was true for Christians was a fortiori true for Jews. If Dobbs imposed Christian values on Jews, then Ziegler by his own logic had to admit that Roe imposed Jewish values on Christians for almost 50 years. “It’s inherently baked into people’s previous life values that should come into policymaking. Policymaking is about pragmatism; it’s about adhering to everyone’s interests. It’s not about imposing your own personal or religious views on others. I’m Jewish. I shouldn’t have to list to Christianity to tell me when life begins.”[7]

Taken aback by Ziegler’s sudden injection of the Jewish question into a debate on abortion, Thakur responded by saying:

First of all, I have not invoked religion once during this debate. He’s the one who just brought religion into this debate. You don’t need to be religious to understand the fact that human life begins at conception, and that we should not be killing innocent human beings. And just because his religion—I don’t know about Judaism—just because his religion supports abortion doesn’t mean abortion should be legal. The Aztecs supported child sacrifice. Should we allow that? You cannot play these morally relativist games with people’s lives.[8]

Incapable of understanding the point Thakur just made, Ziegler doubled down and played the Jewish card once again.

“He literally just equated Judaism to Aztec child sacrifice,” Ziegler whined. “That’s what you get with the Republican Party. And I just want to point out how demonstrably offensive that is.”

At this point the student crowd booed Ziegler, proving that they were also anti-Semitic.

Not content to leave it at that, Ziegler followed up with an article in The Observer, which appeared on November 10, 2022, in which he again blamed the “Religious Right” for the booing because they “frequently reference Christian values and religious teachings to support their position against abortion.” Ziegler opined that Supreme Court Justice Alito’s decision was “rooted in some religious traditions’ view of when life begins” without mentioning that his own position is equally religious because 140 Jewish organizations have affirmed that abortion is a fundamental Jewish value. Without once referring to the 140 Jewish organizations, Ziegler deflected the reader’s attention away from the issue at hand to “how some anti-abortion rhetoric is embedded in the blood libel accusation often levied against Jews.” Blood libel had nothing to do with the debate at Notre Dame, but Ziegler dragged it into the discussion because it is an ADL talking point. The same is true of “identifying abortion as ‘child sacrifice.’” At this point my name entered the discussion as an example of “dangerous rhetoric” because “Following the Dobbs decision, writer E. Michael Jones equated child sacrifice to Jews.”

It’s difficult to discern what Ziegler meant to convey in his awkward sentence, other than my name, but that brings up an interesting question: how did Ziegler learn about me? Was it from other Notre Dame students? That seems unlikely. More likely is that he went to the ADL website. If that is the case, did the ADL coach him before he engaged in the debate or wrote his article attacking me? The sentence is meaningless but typical of someone who thinks that ADL talking points are a substitute for rational argument.

When I shared the link to Ziegler’s article in The Observer with an ND alumnus who has a daughter at Notre Dame, I was told that “the memo” to argue abortion as a religious liberty issue for Jews has “even trickled down to hick places like Jefferson City, Missouri,” where sophomores at Notre Dame are encouraged to:

debate bills in the fake house and senate, then pass some and the mock governor signs them. One bill would permit abortion in Missouri. The bill’s sponsor argued that she was Jewish and she did not want the views of Christians forced on her because that was against her religion to be banned from having an abortion. (My sophomore) immediately raised his placard and quoted Exodus, with citation, and read “Thou shalt not kill.” He said that Jews follow the Old Testament but before he could get any words out, the teenage Lt. Governor pointed at him and said he had to sit down because he did not give a “trigger warning” on the word “kill.” You see, there is this rule that if you are going to say something that might cause another to experience some sort of mental anguish, you have to say “Trigger warning – sexual assault” for example. It is so stupid [that it was] beyond comprehension. So, the girl did not get in trouble for failing to say “trigger warning – abortion” when she presented her bill, but (my sophomore) got in trouble for not saying trigger warning before reading directly from the Bible off his phone. This is the world in which we currently live. So sad.

Unless we believe that great minds all run in the same circles, it is impossible to believe that these young Jews haven’t been coached to inject the Jewish question into the abortion issue. By dragging the fact that he is Jewish into the argument, Ziegler was telling the crowd that he had Jewish privilege, which exonerated him from the necessity of being rational or persuasive.

Sensing that the audience had turned against him, Ziegler doubled down again and dragged the Holocaust into the abortion debate. Like Hate Speech which was created by the ADL to derail any discussion of Jewish power, the Holocaust can be brought into any discussion which had not been terminated by the claim “I’m Jewish.” In this instance, Ziegler attempted to derail the prolife appropriation of the Holocaust. Comparisons between the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust and the number of babies who died because of abortion:

are antisemitic because of their underlying effect of distorting the reality of the tragic event. The Holocaust was the systematic extermination of six million European Jews and was the result of Nazi rhetoric meant to dehumanize the Jewish people. Any effort to liken the Holocaust to another event, no matter what it is, diminishes the experiences of Holocaust victims and survivors. It ignores their suffering for political gain through cheap talking points. At the same time, it undermines efforts to emphasize the seriousness of the Holocaust. We should care about the Holocaust because it was the Holocaust, not because some other issue appears similar to it.

By this point in the discussion, it was clear that being against abortion was anti-Semitic because abortion was a “fundamental Jewish value.” Jews didn’t have to explain why the fetus didn’t deserve the protection of the law. All someone like Ziegler had to do to win the argument was declare “I’m Jewish,” and if that didn’t succeed in cowing the opposition, he could go on to invoke the Holocaust. This meant that anyone who disagreed with Ziegler was an anti-Semite because “The language we use to articulate our arguments matters and has serious implications. If we tolerate antisemitic rhetoric, even when it’s not clearly antisemitic, it normalizes those behaviors and spurs prejudiced attitudes towards Jews.”


On November 16, 2022, the debate escalated again when The Observer published a letter to the editor entitled “Hate has no place here” demanding that the College Republicans be punished for opposing abortion, which was now portrayed as a “display of racist, transphobic, and antisemitic rhetoric.” Opposing abortion at what called itself a Catholic university was now portrayed as the promotion of “hateful sentiment on Notre Dame’s campus,” and the woke vigilantes who supported Ziegler were determined to hold “those who perpetrate it accountable.” By that they meant, “we want the Notre Dame administration to formally condemn the dangerous rhetoric promoted by College Republicans and commit to requiring comprehensive anti-bias training for student club officers.” It was difficult to tell whether this “anti-bias training” applied to College Democrats as well or just College Republicans.

Either way, it was clear that the debate was “not an isolated incident of hate speech and political extremism.” Au contraire, it represents a veritable “explosion of antidemocratic and hateful sentiments at Notre Dame.” The wave of hate speech which inundated the previously peaceful campus included an article in The Rover, the orthodox alternative to The Observer, which opined that “selling [Gay] Pride-related products at the bookstore was “tantamount to heresy.” As if that weren’t bad enough, “some students were overheard ridiculing . . . our first ever PrideFest last year,” which in case you haven’t heard about it, was “a major milestone for Notre Dame’s LGBTQ+ students.” Didn’t those students know that “remarks like these are disheartening”?

The list of atrocities goes on: “On top of that, the Young Americans for Freedom put up a sign in the Duncan Student Center last year that read ‘Lia Thomas is not a woman,’” which not only “isn’t emblematic of the Notre Dame family that we have touted and embraced,” it also led up to the most recent offense against common decency, as Notre Dame understands that term, which occurred when “Blake Ziegler called out an antisemitic comment made to him during the debate.” The fact that the audience booed Ziegler was “disgusting and highly offensive” especially since it was leveled against someone “who was simply holding someone accountable for insulting his religion.” According to the bio at the end of his Observer article:

Blake Ziegler is a senior at Notre Dame studying political science, philosophy and constitutional studies. He enjoys writing about Judaism, the good life, pressing political issues and more. Outside of The Observer, Blake serves as president of the Jewish Club and a teaching assistant for God and the Good Life.

Ziegler’s bio raises several interesting questions. If he “enjoys writing about Judaism,” why is he studying at what calls itself a Catholic university? Why didn’t he apply to Brandeis or a Jewish university like Harvard or any of the other Ivy League institutions which have been taken over by Jews? As Ron Unz, who is Jewish, has pointed out, America’s meritocracy succumbed to ethnic political pressure over the course of the 20th century. Ivy League admissions policies changed as the result of “covert ethnic tribal warfare” during the 1920s when the WASP elite tried in vain to keep the Jews out of their universities. In the end, “raw political power and the balance of contending forces rather than any idealistic considerations” determined who got into Harvard as “Jewish organizations and their allies mobilized their political and media resources to pressure the universities into increasing their ethnic enrollment by modifying the weight assigned to various academic and non-academic factors, raising the importance of the former over the latter.”[9]

If Ziegler’s Jewish forebears ensured that he had access to prestigious Ivy League institutions with significant Jewish enrollment, why did he end up at a third tier, soi disant Catholic institution like Notre Dame? Ziegler’s writing and debating skills show that he didn’t learn how to frame an argument or write a persuasive sentence during his four years at Notre Dame. In fact, after spending four years at Notre Dame, Ziegler has become a one-man refutation of the myth of Jewish intelligence. He is incapable of understanding that the inexorable implication of his claim that Hobbs imposed the Christian religion on Jews is that Roe v. Wade imposed the Jewish religion on Christians. If his Observer article is any indication of the education he received at Notre Dame, his parents should demand their money back. Given the Catholic position on abortion, given the fact that being anti-abortion now means being anti-Semitic, why is Blake Ziegler a Notre Dame student? Is it simply to push the goyim around whenever he’s about to lose an argument by stating “I’m Jewish,” which is something he could not do if he were at Brandeis or Harvard or any other Jewish institution? Did Ziegler’s SAT scores condemn him to attend a third-tier institution like Notre Dame? Or is something bigger afoot here? Is it possible that Ziegler was recruited to go to Notre Dame to take over the university which loudly proclaims its Catholic identity?

Those inclined to dismiss this idea as a preposterous conspiracy theory would do well to read Ron Radosh’s memoir Commies, which describes how he was recruited by the overwhelmingly Jewish Communist Party to take over the University of Wisconsin in the 1950s. In September 1955, Radosh left his native New York and travelled to Madison, Wisconsin, where he enrolled in the history program of that state’s university. His purpose was not learning but subversion. The Communist Youth League gave him a “ready-made community” in Madison, and Radosh began “burrowing from within.” In Commies, Radosh describes his purpose as “classically Leninist,” which involved his efforts “to gain influence in, and if possible take over other existing student groups.” Radosh and his communist friends infiltrated “the NAACP, the Young Democrats, the Students for Democratic action (youth arm of the fiercely anti-Communist ADA), the Film Society, the Student Council, the Student League for Industrial Democracy (a social-democratic group)” and turned them into institutions “to overthrow our capitalist democracy” and replace it with “a socialist revolution modeled on the USSR” (my emphasis). Radosh and his friends were evidently successful in subverting these organizations, because he assures us that “The old Commie tactic of ‘burrowing from within’ really did work.”[10]

Did Hesburgh have the Jewish takeover of the University of Wisconsin in mind when he told Ralph McInerny that “if you let the Jews in, they take over”? Or did experience closer to home lead him to make this claim? As some indication that the same Jewish takeover was happening at Notre Dame, I was invited by the conservative Catholic Brownson Society to give a lecture on the Czech general Jan Ziska. The moderator of this outspokenly Catholic club was Elliott Barkey, a Jewish professor who also happened to be a rabbi. As some indication that he took his role as moderator seriously, Barkey showed up for my talk. After listening to me describe Ziska’s military genius and the role which the Jews in Prague played in Bohemia’s Hussite rebellion, Barkey remained silent during the entire Q & A which followed the talk. Assuming that silence meant assent in this instance proved false. As everyone was leaving the seminar room, Barkey collared Chris Brophy, head of the club then and now a Dominican priest studying at Notre Dame, dragged him back into the room, slammed the door so that I couldn’t hear what was happening, and then called me an anti-Semite and upbraided Brophy for inviting me. Barkey, of course, could have called me an anti-Semite to my face during the Q & A following my talk, but this doesn’t fit in with the standard Jewish modus operandi, which involves character assassination behind closed doors.

That incident occurred roughly 20 years ago when I was in the middle of writing The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. During the intervening period, the modus operandi of Jewish subversion and control has remained the same even if the dramatis personae have changed, because subversion from within is an essential part of the Jewish revolutionary spirit and its 2,000 year long war against the Catholic Church. To paraphrase Ron Radosh, the old Jewish tactic of “burrowing from within” “really worked.”[11] In fact, it’s still working.

Infiltration, subversion and blackmail are part of the Jewish modus operandi in taking over institutions which they consider hostile to their interests. At around the same time that the debate took place at Notre Dame, a report in MintPressNews revealed that “hundreds of former military intelligence agents from “the notorious Israeli spying organization” Unit 8200 have acquired positions of influence in several big tech corporations, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon.” Google “employs at a minimum, 99 former Unit 8200 agents and Microsoft retains the services of 166 such veterans.”[12] Google played a major role in promoting gay marriage and abortion in Ireland. Unit 8200 agents remained invisible because Israeli military law “requires them to conceal their affiliation with this special unit.”[13]

What is true of the Irish is also true for the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame. During Ziegler’s years at Notre Dame, the Student Council adopted the definition of anti-Semitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which defined the term as “any perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” saddling the university with a subjective formula based on Jewish “perception” which allowed students like Ziegler to win any debate by announcing that he was Jewish and that he had a “certain perception” that those who disagreed with him were anti-Semites.[14] The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism was nothing less than a formula for total control of discourse at Notre Dame as well as a license to punish any student who expressed support for Catholic principle which Jews didn’t like. The Church’s position on abortion was a good example of a punishable offense on campus, as Ziegler’s supporters pointed out in their letter to the editor.

Rather than speculating any further, I submitted the following list of questions to Mr. Ziegler:

  1. You mentioned my name in your recent article in The Observer. How did you find out about me?
  2. Did you play a role in the Student Council’s adoption of the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism? If so, what was that role?
  3. Are you now receiving financial aid from the Anti-Defamation League or any other Jewish organization? Can you tell me how much you have received and from which organization?
  4. Have you ever attended seminars sponsored by the ADL or any other Jewish organization? If so, can you list the topics covered at these meetings?
  5. Have you had any discussions about Notre Dame with the ADL or any other Jewish organization? Can you share with me the content of those discussions?
  6. Have you had any discussions about E. Michael Jones with the ADL or any other Jewish organization?

I’m still waiting for Mr. Ziegler’s response.

The story of how Ziegler played the Jewish card to attack College Republicans came out during a meeting of the Notre Dame chapter of the Nicodemus Society, which meets E. Michael Jones at night out of fear of the Jews. How, one freshman in attendance wondered, did the Catholic position on abortion become “hateful sentiment” at what calls itself a Catholic University?

The long answer to that question can be found in the series of articles on the Jewish Question in Europe which appeared in Civilta Cattolica, the official journal of the Vatican, during the fall of 1890. Their verdict on Catholic countries like France is equally applicable to quondam Catholic institutions like Notre Dame. Any institution which turns away from Catholic principle will end up being ruled by Jews:

France sets an example of this. She has just celebrated the first centenary of that revolution which separated her from God, the Church, and her kings. But how did she celebrate this solemnity? France prostrated herself in the dust of the Masonic temple of Solomon, humiliated under the feet of the Talmudic synagogue, as a slave of a swarm of foreign vultures who have already drained three-fifths of her ancestors’ patrimony from her. And thus, the revolution of 1789 has yielded her the glorious profit of passing from the noble submission to her most Christian kings over to the ignoble servitude of the kings of Mammon.[15]

The same thing could be said about Notre Dame following the Land o’ Lakes’ statement which proclaimed that university’s independence from the Catholic Church in 1967. If Catholic universities, “having been removed from the Church of Christ, won’t return to Her, they will wait in vain for their liberation from the iron yoke of the Jews”[16] because “modern Hebrews constitute the scourge of divine justice, and that the whole sweetness of liberalism will result in their being lured into the embrace of the voracious octopus of Judaism.”[17]

The “embrace of the voracious octopus of Judaism” invariably involves moral subversion and blackmail. Over the course of the 1980s a homosexual cabal took over Moreau Seminary, and then the Holy Cross order, and then the university they ran. As a result of that takeover, anyone who had the list of Holy Cross priests who were homosexuals could blackmail his way up the greasy pole of academic rank to an endowed chair. Mark Jordan, who arrived at Notre Dame as a married Thomist, soon discovered the inner sodomite, which helped him compile the list, but when he tried to go for an endowed chair, the administration turned him down, forcing him to decamp for Emery and then Harvard, where he now teaches gay whatever. Hesburgh’s heir apparent, the Rev. James Tunstead Burtchaell, CSC eventually got outed as a homosexual by Jordan, but only because he strayed from the reservation by writing Rachel Weeping, a book which was against abortion.

By the time he became its chairman, Father Richard McBrien was one of the few heterosexuals in the theology department. He was, as we used to say, living in sin with a woman, but immune from reprisal because the had the same list of homosexual Holy Cross priests that Mark Jordan had. McBrien’s girlfriend got fired from her job as DRE at Sacred Heart Parish on the Notre Dame campus, but McBrien’s list saved him from a similar fate, allowing him to fulminate in the privacy of his office to anyone who cared to listen that the “faggots are taking over Notre Dame.”

The faggots eventually took over Notre Dame in spite of McBrien’s defense of the theory and practice of heterosexuality, but in doing so they played into the hands of the Jews, as Civilta Cattolica had predicted. Hesburgh had an inkling that this was going to happen when he told Ralph McInerny that “if you let the Jews in, they take over,” but he let them in anyway because he wanted money from the big foundations.

During the first decade of the 21st century, homosexual students were recruited to study at Notre Dame as a way of disrupting what was left of the Catholic character of the university, according to the Rev. Jeffrey Langan, an Opus Dei priest now serving as a chaplain to students at Harvard and MIT. “When I was a professor at ND,” Langan recalls, “I met several students who confided to me that they were recruited by homosexual organizations to come to ND to be student activists. They were fed info by these homosexual groups to say and act in conformity with the national agenda. If the homosexual groups were doing this in 2005, I’m forced to conclude that the ADL and other Jewish organizations along with students like Zeigler, could certainly be acting in this way now. If fact, if someone who knows Zeigler presses him, I’m sure he would admit it or brag about it.”

In the wake of the midterm elections in Pennsylvania, I explained how a Jewish Katholikenfresser like Josh Shapiro could get elected governor in a state where the Catholic vote determined every election. The explanation was simple. When Catholic women had abortions and refused to repent, they became Jews because abortion is not only “a fundamental Jewish value,” it is also the Jewish sacrament of initiation which gets Catholic women to vote like Jews. The same is true of sodomy, the other Jewish sacrament, and the effect it has on celibate members of the clergy. So, pace, Fr. Hesburgh. You let the Jews in, and they are only doing what comes naturally to their distorted natures. They are proselytizing for their religion by promoting sodomy and abortion among a crowd of conversos who are Catholic in name only because they have rebelled against the Church’s teaching on sexuality at your instruction.





[4] E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi, p. 554.

[5] E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi, p. 554-5.





[10] This paragraph originally appeared in the first edition of my book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, pp. 826-7.

[11] This paragraph originally appeared in the first edition of my book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, pp. 826-7.




[15] La Civilta Cattolica: The Jewish Question in Europe (South Bend, IN: Fidelity Press, 2020) p. 55.

[16] La Civilta Cattolica: The Jewish Question in Europe (South Bend, IN: Fidelity Press, 2020) p. 55

[17] La Civilta Cattolica: The Jewish Question in Europe (South Bend, IN: Fidelity Press, 2020) p. 56.