我第一次见到萨姆·弗朗西斯是在芝加哥约翰·兰道夫俱乐部的一次会议上。他和汤姆·弗莱明坐在一张桌子旁。两个人都比我大两岁。两者都给我的印象是，我是一名新生，试图坐在学校食堂的少年午餐桌上。

我最后一次见到萨姆·弗朗西斯是在华盛顿的一次会议上。萨姆是英国国民阵线领导人约翰·廷德尔演讲的主持人。廷德尔先生试图让我们对成为白人充满热情，因此他开始了对伊丽莎白时代英格兰的辉煌的总结。由于在伊丽莎白时代的英格兰，天主教神父（例如埃德蒙·坎皮恩，SJ）可能会因为做弥撒的罪名被绞死，然后被抽出并分尸，然后将他们的内脏扔进滚烫的油中，所以我对这种做法不太着迷。廷德尔先生为我们画的图画。事实上，如果他的目的是让我们大家聚集在一起，那么他的演讲就会产生完全相反的效果。既然坎皮恩神父、伯利勋爵和他的追随者沃尔辛厄姆都是白人，那么这个事实到底有什么意义呢？

我的朋友格里·布鲁恩一定也有同样的想法，因为廷德尔先生演讲结束后，格里问他“爱尔兰人是不是白人”。这个问题惹恼了廷德尔先生，他脸上露出厌恶的表情，说道：“当然，爱尔兰人是白人。我的母亲是爱尔兰人。”

这时，萨姆·弗朗西斯介入了讨论，他转向廷德尔先生问道：“犹太人是白人吗？”廷德尔先生被这个问题吓了一跳。停顿了很长一段时间后，他转向萨姆说：“我得再给你答复这个问题。”因此，今天我想通过尝试回答萨姆·弗朗西斯（Sam Francis）悬而未决的问题来纪念他：“犹太人是白人吗？”

但在给出这个答案之前，我需要谈谈文化战争。

萨姆和我都是 60 年代文化战争的受害者。我们俩的职业生涯都是从学者开始的，但我们都因违反政治正确的准则而被解雇。在这一点上，我比萨姆更有资历。 1980 年，我因反对堕胎而被一所天主教大学助理教授解雇。山姆被解雇了 华盛顿时报 许多年后。我们的共同点不是某种种族身份——我们的迫害者和我们一样是白人——而是这样一个事实：在我们这一代文化战争的开战中，我们两个族群都被宣布为邪恶，即文化战争。以及六十年代的性革命。萨姆是南方白人，这个群体自民权运动（甚至内战）开始以来就一直受到攻击。我是来自北方大城市之一的天主教徒。尽管北方针对天主教民族的战争是二战后的一场运动（以从 60 年代的城市更新到 50 年代的公交车等多种名义发动），但它实际上早于民权运动的攻击比南方好很多年。

为了证明这两个运动之间的联系不仅仅是我的思想，我指出了 40 多年前的 1966 年夏天，马丁·路德·金 (Martin Luther King) 抵达芝加哥。 1966 年初秋，这场战争被认为是一场种族斗争，但这并不是这场文化战争的真正目的。马丁·路德·金的人民一踏上芝加哥就注意到了这一点。

“在南方，”南方基督教领袖会议工作人员多萝西·蒂尔曼说，“你要么是黑人，要么是白人。你不是爱尔兰人、波兰人或者所有这些。” SCLC 试图做的是将他们认为必须结束南方融合的道德使命转移到北方城市，那里的种族隔离仅通过脆弱的类比而存在。决定在芝加哥等城市居住的因素是种族，而不是肤色。在北方，“白色”是一个完全负面的称呼，源自“黑色”，指的是来自南方的新移民的肤色。据我所知，北方城市中没有一个有一个叫“白镇”的街区，但芝加哥确实有一个犹太城、一个希腊城和一个中国城。底特律有自己的希腊城和极地城。辛辛那提有“莱茵河畔”，费城有日耳曼敦和自己的唐人街，以及每个人都知道的少数民族社区，即使该少数民族的名称并未包含在名称中。所以，住在费城的每个人都知道布里德斯堡是波兰人，南费城是意大利人，而当我在那里长大时，费城东北部是犹太人。如果说芝加哥的种族在 40 年代和 50 年代的住房社会工程斗争中变成了“白人”，那只是因为他们将自己定义为威胁的消极面，他们认为黑人群体涌入并占领了威胁他们的社区，不是因为他们自己的任何种族身份。

在文化战争中，将我这样的人与萨姆·弗朗西斯这样的人联系起来的唯一因素是我们在敌人心中占据的心理空间。 1960 世纪 XNUMX 年代最令人畏惧的文化斗士之一是一位名叫利奥·普费弗 (Leo Pfeffer) 的犹太人。在他的书中 新保守主义革命：犹太知识分子与公共政策的形成默里·弗里德曼 (Murray Friedman) 称普费弗是一位“在美国最高法院为美国最高法院提供咨询、策划和辩论的教会与国家案件比美国历史上任何人都多”的律师。 1947 年 普费弗

立即订购

向美国最高法院提交了两起历史性案件的案情摘要：埃弗森诉教育委员会案，质疑新泽西州一项允许使用州资金将学童送往宗教学校的法律；麦科勒姆诉教育委员会案，涉及伊利诺伊州的一项放时计划，该计划允许学校设施在正常上课时间用于宗教教育。

这就是普费弗在文化战争中对他的对手所说的话。 1975 年自由天主教杂志上发表的回忆录 公益 普费弗在题为《‘天主教’天主教问题》的文章中写道，“每当我觉得我的女儿不应该拥有她想要的东西时，她就威胁要嫁给一位来自阿拉巴马州的天主教军官。” “事情的真相，”普费弗继续说道，“我不喜欢天主教会，就像我不喜欢军队和南方一样，出于几乎相同的原因。首先它代表的是我所反对的，也是我所反对的。 。 。我所代表的是什么。”

萨姆和我在文化战争期间受到攻击，不是因为我们是“白人”，也不是因为我们属于同一种族群体，而是因为我们的敌人认为我们属于两个不同的群体，而这两个群体都是他们所厌恶的。

This leads me to my first conclusion about the Culture Wars. The Culture Wars weren’t racial; they were ethnic. Sam and I were both white, but we belonged to two different ethnic groups because ethnicity in America is based on religion. According to the sociological theory known as the triple melting pot, country of origin ceases to be an indication of ethnic identity after three generations in America. At that point, it is replaced by religion, which becomes the source of ethnic identity in America. So the triple melting pot, as of the 1950s when Will Herberg wrote his book 新教徒，天主教徒，犹太人, refers to Protestants, Catholics and Jews. America far from being some unified nation inhabited by generic Americans turns out to be a lot like the former Yugoslavia, a country made up of three ethnic groups based on three religions each engaged in a form of long-standing covert warfare against each other, one which often, as I attempted to show in my book 屠杀城市, involves ethnic cleansing.

My second conclusion flows from the first. The culture wars are simply not understandable in racial terms. The different sides in the culture wars may have used race as a pretext, but the identity of the antagonists was ethnic not racial in the sense commonly portrayed in the media. In applying the ethnic calculus to this period of history, we discover that the blacks, even if they were the most visible player in the civil rights phase of the culture wars of the ‘60s, were ultimately the pawn of other groups, which were just as white as the groups they attacked.

在他的书 致命的拥抱, Benjamin Ginsburg confirms our suspicion that the racial conflicts of the ‘60s weren’t really racial at all by showing that virtually every major civil rights organization, including or one might say especially, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was in some sense of the word controlled by Jews:

犹太人是民权运动的主要资助者和战略家。 在肯尼迪时代和约翰逊时代，犹太人以及民权运动与政府之间的主要联络人。 通过全国犹太人社区关系咨询委员会组织的犹太人团体长期以来与黑人紧密合作，努力消除1950年代及以后的住房和就业歧视。

Jewish contributions provided a substantial share of the funding for such civil rights groups as the NAACP and CORE. Jewish attorneys were at the forefront of the legal offensive against the American apartheid system. Stanley Levinson, a longtime official and fund-raiser for the American Jewish Congress, became Martin Luther King’s chief aid and advisor, having previously served as a major fund-raiser for Bayard Rustin. Harry Wachtel was a major legal advisor and fundriaser for the SCLC. Levinson and Wachtel were often called King’s twin Jewish lawyers. Jack Greenberg, head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund was the most important single civil rights lawyer in the United States. Jews comprised a large segment – perhaps one-third of the whites who participated in civil rights marches and protests in the South during the 1960s.

美国首屈一指的种族理论家凯文·麦克唐纳（Kevin MacDonald）在《犹太黑人联盟》（Jewish-Black Alliance）上发表的一篇文章中说的与金斯伯格（Ginsberg）差不多。 种族与美国前景, the book Sam was editing before he died:

“The record,” MacDonald writes, “shows quite clearly that Jewish organizations as well as a great number of individual Jews contributed enormously to the success of the movement to increase the power of blacks and alter the racial hierarchy of the United States. (p. 221).

“Jews,” he continues, “have played a prominent role in organizing blacks beginning with the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909. The NAACP was founded by wealthy German Jews, non-Jewish whites and blacks led by W.E. B. Dubois. The Jewish role was predominant:

By mid-decade, the NAACP had something of the aspect of an adjunct of B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee, with the brothers Joel and Arthur Spingarn serving as board chairman and chief legal counsel, respectively; Herbert Lehman on the exectuive commitee; Lillian Wald and Walter Sachs on the board (althought not simultaneously); and Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg as financial angels. By 1920, Herbert Seligman was director of public relations and Martha Greuning served as his assistant. . . . Small wonder that a bewildered Marcus Garvey stormed out of NAACP headquarters in 1917 muttering that it was a white organization.

换句话说，NAACP是一个犹太组织，动员美国黑人与种族歧视目标相抵触。 本杰明·金斯伯格（Benjamin Ginsberg）坦率地讨论了犹太黑人联盟的条款：

立即订购

By speaking on behalf of blacks as well as Jews . . . Jewish groups were able to present themselves as fighting for the abstract and quintessential American principles of fair play and equal justice rather than the selfish interests of Jews alone. This would not be the last time that Jewish organizations found that helping blacks could serve their own interests as well. . . . Gains achieved on behalf of one, Jewish organizations reasoned, would serve the interests of both, while allowing Jews to project an image of unselfish pursuit of the public good. . . . For Jews . . . gains achieved on behalf of blacks in terms of equality of opportunity also promised to serve their own interest in eliminating discrimination.

It turns out that there was more to this alliance than simply fighting discrimination, by allying themselves with the blacks, the Jews found that they could covertly attack the people they perceived as their main political enemies and weaken if not destroy their political influence. I’m talking again about the ethnic groups to which Sam and I belonged. Ginsberg goes on to say that “Jews . . . had been suspicious of conservative Southerners at least since the 1920 Leo Frank case and were only too happy to help reduce their influence in American politics.” Having succeeded in the South, the WASP-Jewish coalition behind the civil rights movement decided to deal with its enemies in the North, namely the Catholic ethnics. “Liberals,” Ginsberg continues, “seized the opportunity to attack and weaken their political rivals in the North as well. Liberals charged the Northern Democratic party’s coalition of machine politicians and labor leaders [即, the Catholics] with racism, worked to deny them representation at Democratic national conventions and sought to cut off their access to federal patronage.”

Richard Daley, mayor of Chicago, was the quintessential Catholic machine politician, and as such he became the target of the Jewish-WASP alliance when Martin Luther King arrived in Chicago a little over 40 years ago in the summer of 1966. Why did Martin Luther King go to Chicago, the site of the worst debacle of his public career? He went to Chicago because 1) the Quakers invited him 2) because Nelson Rockefeller gave him $25,000 if he would take his campaign to the North and 3) because, as Ginsberg puts it, “Stanley Levinson, a longtime official and fund-raiser for the American Jewish Congress, became Martin Luther King’s chief aid and advisor.”

The Jews, as the ethnic constellation around Martin Luther King shows, could not have done this damage alone. They were part of an alliance that included the Northeastern WASP establishment and the main-line Protestant denominations, which saw the civil rights movement as their great crusade. That alliance, according to Ginsberg, began in the years before World War II, when the Jews and the Anglophile WASP establishment united against America First and got America into the war on the side of England. It went into a brief period of remission after the War, but Senator Joe McCarthy’s attacks on the WASP establishment got it going again just in time for the civil rights movement and the sexual revolution, when Jews and WASPs united to get the government into the birth control business as a way of controlling the fertility of their unsuspecting Negro allies.

The Negro-Jewish alliance fell apart years ago. The definitive moment was the Ocean Hill-Brownsville School Board battle of 1967 when Negro activists aided by the Ford Foundation took over that school board and promptly fired all of its Jewish teachers and principals.

The Jewish-WASP alliance lasted longer, but it too is now showing signs that it is breaking up in a messy and acrimonious divorce. As evidence for the break-up I would cite the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, the Walt-Mearsheimer report on the Israeli Lobby, and Jimmy Carter’s book calling Israel an Apartheid state. As evidence of the acrimony, I would cite David Horowitz’s critique of Carter’s book which begins with the headline “Jimmy Carter: Jew hater . . .” and then goes on to get really intemperate. The tattered remnant of the WASP ruling class now clearly views Israel and their neoconservative supporters in America as a Frankenstein of their own making. Neoconservatism, like the civil rights movement, was a black operation which got out of control, because as Liddell-Hart points out in his book 策略, all black operations ultimately get out of control. The WASP ruling class now looks upon the neocons as the latter day version of Osama bin Laden, except that the Israelis have a lot more at their disposal than stinger missiles.

The same thing is true of Sam Francis’s career as a writer. It wasn’t the Negro that destroyed Sam Francis. In fact, if you look at the end of his career from a racial perspective, it becomes completely incomprehensible. The next to last time I saw Sam Francis, he told me the story of how he got fired at the 华盛顿时报. Sam didn’t look good. He was obviously suffering from the heart disease that would kill him. Gone was the swagger, but gone with it was, at least in my mind, the suspicion of me as the Yankee upstart freshman at the junior lunch table. Sam was a man of principle who showed courage in his writings and suffered at the hands of those who hated both his ethnicity and his integrity. When I spoke with him this time, he had been fired from his job as a columnist at the 华盛顿时报. In fact, that was the topic of our conversation.

Sam mentioned a memo he had seen, actually a fatwa, issued by the Anti-Defamation League demanding that someone do something to stop his writing. The man who stepped forward to pull the trigger in that act of targeted character assassination was William F. Buckley, the godfather of modern conservatism, and a Catholic.

立即订购

Once again the dynamic of this sortie in the culture wars was ethnic/religious. Buckley volunteered to go on a mission of the sort which had characterized his entire tenure as the editor of 国家评论. He was going to be the Goyische front man (or trigger man) for the Jewish interests that had supported him since the inception of that magazine in 1955. In case you’re interested in the details, I recommend again Murray Friedman’s book 新保守主义革命, especially the section on the role people like Martin Liebman, and Frank Meyer and William (Willi) S. Schlamm, and other “forgotten Jewish godfathers” played in the creation of 国家评论. In return for the favor, Buckley acted as their Goyische hit man, rubbing out whomever they found convenient. Buckley, it should be noted, didn’t just treat Southern Protestants this way. By the time he got around to rubbing out Sam Francis, he had already knifed fellow Catholics like Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran in the back.

Sam was well aware of what Bill Buckley and 国家评论 had done to the conservative movement. In 射击被解雇了, he argued that the serious right would have to go back beyond Burke and the 18th Century to understand what had happened. Only then could conservatism “work toward its own liberation . . . from the ideological paradigms that have dominated the conservative mind since the 1950s and to formulate a new paradigm that can more correctly identify who is a real enemy and who is a real friend of the core of the American nation and the Civilization of European man that our nation represents” (p. 276).

Sam is right. If what’s left of the WASP establishment or the paleoconservatives or other men of good will want to do something effective in the culture wars, they will have to understand just who the enemy is in this battle. But in order to understand that, they will have to go back well beyond the ‘60s to understand what is going on. In order to answer that question we have to go back well beyond the 18th century, in fact 1800 years beyond it, back to the opening shot in the culture wars. This battle began 2000 years ago, at the foot of the cross, when Annas and Caiphas, the Jewish high priests said to Jesus Christ, “If you come down from the cross, we will accept you as our Messiah.” Needless to say, Jesus did not come down from the cross, and because he didn’t the Jews rejected Him, chose Barabbas, and became revolutionaries, condemned to seek heaven on earth by following one false Messiah after another from Simon bar Kokhbar, to Shabbetai Zevi, to Alex Portnoy, to Paul Wolfowitz.

Sam has also written that “The distinguishing feature of 20th century revolutionary behavior and thought has proved to be . . . precisely its racial character.” But his own demise in the Culture Wars belies that statement.

So, as Sam would say, who is the real enemy? To answer that question, let’s return again to Professor MacDonald’s analysis of the NAACP, the premier organization in both chronology and size of “the Jewish-black alliance.” That alliance “essentially involved wealthy German Jews aiding black organizations financially and though their organizations abilities.” That meant Jewish organizers like Joel Spingarn, who “was chairman of the NAACP from 1914 to 1934,” but the NAACP could not have survived without the support of wealthy Jews like Jacob Schiff, the man who bankrolled the Bolsheviks.

The real enemy, it turns out, both here and in Russia, was the revolutionary Jew.

He is not our enemy because of some occult racial inheritance. The revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he has rejected Logos. This means that Jews to the extent that they accept, honor and revere Logos, are not our enemies. There are Jews who accept Logos fully by sincerely accepting baptism, and there are Jews who accept it in some lesser capacity by their docility to the truth. We all know Jews like this, and they should not be excluded from our fellowship, especially since many of them have suffered at the hands of “the Jews” themselves.

As the Gospel of St. John makes clear, the Jews became “the Jews” the minute they rejected Christ. As such, their only identity is negative. The minute they rejected Logos, which means reason, order, speech, and word, they became revolutionaries, determined enemies not only of Christ and the Christian social order, but any order in any society not of their own revolutionary making. Thirty years after rejecting Christ, the revolutionary Jew rose in rebellion against Rome. Seventy years later they united under Simon bar Kokhbar, one of their many messiahs, and tried the same thing again. Having failed to destroy Rome they attempted to destroy the Europe which St. Benedict created out of the ruins of the Roman Empire and to replace it with one of their many deadly Utopias. What do Jerusalem under Simon bar Kokhbar, the Soviet Union under Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamanev, and Radek, the short lived Soviet Republics of Bavaria under Kurt Eisner and Eugene Levine and Hungary under Bela Kun, the racial Apartheid state known as Israel under terrorists like Menachem Begin or Itzhak Shamir, or the neocon never-never land known as a free and democratic Iraq have in common? Death is what they have in common. Lots of people have to die to bring about the revolutionary Jew’s version of heaven on earth.

The West which we seek to preserve is based on docility to Logos, the order of the universe which makes discourse possible. The essence of the Jewish Messianic politics which seeks to create heaven on earth is rejection of Logos, not sacred (or wicked) DNA. The essence of the Jewish rejection of Logos is known as the Talmud, which is anti-Logos in every sense of the word, from hatred of Christ all the way down to rejection of the practical logos that is known as morality. We saw a recent example of Talmudic thought this summer during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon when Charles Krauthammer and the Jewish rabbinic council attacked the Just War theory–in particular its ban on killing noncombatants and the principle of proportionality–as a “Christian” idea and, therefore, one which Jews did not have to follow. The principles of the Just War Theory are another word for civilized behavior. Those who refuse to be bound by them are barbarians and deserved to be treated as such. No country can implement Talmudic thought–as our country has—and not suffer the consequences that rejection of Logos necessarily brings with it.

In France in 1890, in wake of the one hundredth anniversary celebration of the French Revolution, the Jesuits who wrote for 卡塔利卡民用 explained how widespread rejection of Logos, in the form of the French Revolution, led to bondage, in particular bondage to Jews. The same thing is true of our country in the wake of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. We swallowed the bait of sexual liberation and ended up enslaved by our enemies. Lest anyone misunderstand me, I am saying that the Jews are our enemy insofar as we are partisans of Logos. They are the enemy of Logos, because their religion is based on hatred of Logos.

Lytton Strachey and his friends once referred to the subversive movement we call Bloomsbury as the “higher sodomy.” Taking a page from his book, I will refer to Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular as the “higher Logos.” Those of us who follow the higher Logos know, however, that the only proper response we can make to our enemies is to love them, and the clearest manifestation of that love is our desire to bring them to the Truth, otherwise known as the Logos. We should work for their conversion to the Higher Logos.

At this point, it should be obvious that I am not just talking about Jews as the enemies of Logos. I am also talking about Christians who want to live and act like Jews. The Puritans spring immediately to mind along with the poisonous Judaizing influence they have had on America from the moment of its birth. But I am also thinking of the character assassins and apologists for usury, pornography and other Jewish forms of social control, those who feed at the trough of institutions like the Bradley Foundation – their name is Legion – and earn their money by poisoning the public mind.

The same forces which used the NAACP to turn the Negro into the revolutionary vanguard in the United States, the same forces which subverted the idea of conservatism, are still at work today. As Nelson Algren once said, every movement begins as a cause, becomes a business, and ends up being a racket. This is nowhere more true than in the civil rights movement, where the NAACP made the transition from cause to business, and the name of the racket is the Southern Poverty Law Center. In case you haven’t noticed, the SPLC has declared war on Catholics. Traditional Catholicism is now featured as harboring 100,000 anti-Semites. I have been listed as one of the most prominent of those 100,000, even though I am not now nor have I ever been a traditionalist. Another man on the list is Lt. Commander John Sharpe, who has just been suspended from his job as public relations officer on the USS Carl Vinson pending an investigation into his involvement in “supremacist” organizations.

Why has John Sharpe, an Annapolis graduate and career officer in the Navy, incurred the wrath of the SPLC? Was it because he plotted to blow up a Church in the South? Was it because he was lowering in the bushes in Mississippi with a rifle waiting to shoot civil rights marchers? Was it because he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan? Was it because he believes in racial supremacy? Was it because he urged people to harm Jews? No, John Sharpe was singled out for persecution because he was a Catholic and because he decided that he didn’t want to go along with all of the Catholic prostitutes—Father Sirico of the Acton Institute springs immediately to mind– who were claiming that free market laissez faire capitalism was completely compatible with what the popes had to say in encyclicals like rerum Novarum 和 纪元. John Sharpe made the mistake of re-publishing distributist classics by writers like G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, and for that his patriotism has been called into question by the United States Navy, which has accepted as worthy of something other than contempt the smears and slanders of the SPLC.

但是，不仅仅是分配问题使John陷入了SPLC的麻烦。 这也是他对伊拉克战争的两次袭击， 新conconed 和 再次新, to which I contributed. The slanderers at the SPLC referred to the 新conconed volumes as containing “several articles by racists and anti-Semites.” If the idiots at the Navy who collaborated in the SPLC smear of John Sharpe’s name had taken the time to look at the book the SPLC cited they might have found notorious anti-Semites like Noam Chomsky, Paul Gottfried, and Jeff Steinberg among its contributors. Why would a Jew hater include Jews among the contributors to his book? Probably because he is not what the SPLC says he is. The article in the 海军时报 攻击约翰·夏普是基于SPLC付费角色刺客团的腿部工作，它为有关军事情报的老矛盾故事提供了新的依据。

立即订购

最后，当斯卡利亚神父进入他的病房并问他是否想要教堂的圣礼时，山姆·弗朗西斯选择了高级徽标，当我们进入文化的下一个阶段时，我们可以通过选择徽标的原因来尊敬他。战争。 萨姆·弗朗西斯（Sam Francis）死后改信天主教，以及对约翰·夏普（John Sharpe）的迫害，都标志着文化战争的转变。 我可以提供的最好的迹象是，南部贫困法律中心发起的攻势表明，文化战争的主要战线现在是犹太人和天主教徒之间的对抗。 启蒙运动终于死了。 不再有准共济运动，我们每个人都可以超越他所属的任何派别，加入被称为“保守主义”或自由主义或任何事物的洛奇。 我认为，无论我们的宗教或种族背景如何，我们都应该为这一发展感到高兴，因为在这种对抗中：1）教会既有历史，又有一套信仰，可以永久地安葬反犹太主义并摧毁它。作为政治压迫的工具； 2）因为无论他们想通过关注边缘人群来对袭击进行精打细算，犹太人都招募了相当多的人，他们最终将对袭击做出反应。 现在匈牙利的情况就是一个例子。

最后，我们应该感到高兴，因为攻击明确定义了参与条款，所有条款都是属灵性质的。 革命的犹太人是我们的敌人，因为他是拒绝徽标的人，而不是因为他的DNA。 我们不是反犹太人，因为我们反对革命犹太人的阴谋。 不，因此我们是真正的基督徒，正如从圣彼得起的教会所宣称的那样。 像圣彼得和圣保罗一样，我们在犹太人的手中受苦，“把主耶稣杀死的人，以及先知也受了苦难。 现在，他们一直在逼迫我们，以无法取悦上帝的方式行事，使他们成为整个人类的敌人”（帖撒罗尼迦前书1:15）。

We are now engaged in a battle which has ebbed and flowed over the centuries, but the sides in this battle have not changed. What has changed are the odds. The Jews have never been stronger; the Catholics have never been weaker, but the outcome of spiritual battles–and the battle for the soul of the West, as Tolkien knew, is a spiritual battle–no matter what the odds, is rarely predictable. If St. Paul, representing the Christian position, has to say, “When I am weak, I am strong.” Then the revolutionary Jew, representing the opposite position has to say, “When I am strong, I am weak.” We are outgunned on every front in the culture wars, but that is no reason for despair, if we follow the Logos that St. Paul followed, because he was outgunned by the Jews too, outgunned but not undone, saying, “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down but not destroyed.”

因此，正如西奥登（Theoden）所说：“我们最终来到了我们时代的伟大战斗，在这场战斗中，许多事情都会过去。 但至少不再需要隐藏。” 也没有，我们可以添加任何隐藏的地方。 我们中的许多人（即使不是大多数人）今天也在这里，因为我们的职业已经被革命的犹太人和他的哥特式前线领导者所摧毁。 犹太人通过我们的计算机监视我们。 他们指责天主教徒出卖我们，将我们开除，阻止我们讲话。 我们背对着墙。 但是在攻击约翰·夏普时，SPLC创造了德莱福斯事件的美国天主教版本。 他们已经澄清了这个问题。 通过与他们的诽谤相处，海军对其进行了审判。 发挥普罗维登斯所赐给我们的扑克牌是我们的责任。 我们从来没有变得更弱小，我们的敌人也从未变得更强壮，但这并不是绝望的原因，因为正如埃隆德所说，“这种追求可能是由弱者和强者一样充满希望的。” 那为什么呢？ 因为“这是移动世界轮子的行为过程：小手去做它们，这是因为他们必须这样做，而大人们的眼光却在其他地方。” （I，p。283）。

At this point, if we were all French or Austrian or English or Russian, I would utter a stirring call for the return of the Bourbons or the Habsburgs or the Stuarts or the Romanovs to the throne. But since we’re all Americans, I can’t do that. We have no common past. We have no royal family waiting in the wings. We have no established religion which can act as a source of order and identity. We have no racial identity. We have no common DNA. I am almost tempted to say that we have no we. We are a nation of nations, and that is all we have ever been.

All we have is various ethnic traditions and communities—Sam Francis’s South, my ethnic neighborhoods—united by the frail bonds of Logos as perceived by a human soul so beset by human passion. Even if our souls are weak, however, Logos is not. Logos is the glue that holds the universe together, and so it is strong enough to unite us as Americans whether it be the higher Logos which acknowledges Christ as Lord of the universe or the lower Logos which honors him by seeing this order in the works creation or in the moral law. We are the party of Logos, and it is only as such that we can think of surviving much less prevailing over our enemies.

感谢。