Note (added on Nov. 2, 2014) :
E. Michael Jones, like the owner of the Fish-eaters website, is a traditional Catholic of a stronger variety (radical) than most mainstream traditional Catholics.
I don’t subscribe to radical traditionalist dogma, being an eclectic/syncretist Christian myself, although I am very sympathetic to several of the positions that rad trads take.
I posted Jones’ piece, because it gives an analysis of history not found in mainstream accounts.
A further note:
Not having studied the matter at first hand to any great degree, I don’t dispute most of the mainstream version of the Holocaust narrative, although I also don’t think revisionists should be silenced or persecuted. One can admit that Germans suffered enormously from Allied war crimes, without denying that Jews also suffered enormously from German war-crimes. To me, this demythologizes Jewish people from being either the super-heroes…or the super-villains…of Western (and thus, world) history.
E. Michael Jones on the Marranos behind the revolutionary Protestant movements of the 16th century and thereafter:
Once the Jews who were expelled from Spain began to regroup in the newly-Protestant regions of the North, their settlements began to draw Marranos
(Lila: Jewish converts to Christianity, who most often continued to practice their old faith)
like a magnet, and the disaffected Catholics who had once been living double lives as clerics with concubines in places like Saxony and Thuringia now began to make common cause with the Jews who had led double lives as well by converting to Catholicism simply to preserve their wealth.
Revolution, which is to say, a pan-ethnic coordinated attack on the cultural hegemony of the Catholic Church over Europe, emerged as a force in world history when these two groups merged in places like Antwerp in the middle of the 16th century. Revolution was, in other words, a Protestant-Jewish alliance from its inception.
The Jews, as Newman shows so well, promoted every “reform” movement in Europe, from the Hussites to the Anabaptists, as a way of weakening the hegemony of the Catholic Church, reasoning—falsely in the case of Luther—that the enemy of their enemy was their friend.
In places like Antwerp and Amsterdam, the Jews put their wealth as well as their considerable expertise in finance and publishing at the disposal of the libidinous German monks and their princely protectors as their way of waging cultural warfare against the Catholic Church and Spain, its defender…………
..The revolutionary link between Jews and Reformers was theoretical as well as practical.
The “Reformers” for their part could justify their criminal behavior only by cloaking it in the imagery of the Old Testament. Regicide was the most heinous of crimes and viewed with revulsion by all of Christian Europe, and yet Cromwell justified his role in the murder of Charles I ……
Cromwell, according to one commentator, “was making a startling reference to the biblical story of Phineas, who thrust a javelin through a sinfully copulating couple, thus saving the people of Israel from the wrath of God. In the end, only brutal summary justice against the King had served to complete God’s work to save the nation from His wrath and to secure his continuing love.”
By 1649, when Charles I went on trial, the tradition of Judaizing which had been extirpated from Spain had struck deep roots in England. The English judaizers were known as Puritans, and Cromwell as their leader was as versed in using Biblical figures as a rationalization for his crimes as he was in using Jewish spies from Spain and Portugal as agents in his ongoing war with the Catholic powers of Europe.
The Puritans in England could implement the idea of revolution so readily precisely because they were Judaizers, and that is so because revolution was at its root a Jewish idea.
Based on Moses’ deliverance of Israel as described in the book of Exodus, the revolutionary saw a small group of chosen “saints” leading a fallen world to liberation from political oppression.
Revolution was nothing if not a secularization of ideas taken from the Bible, and as history progressed the secularization of the concept would progress as well. But the total secularization of the idea in the 17th century would have made the idea totally useless to the Puritan revolutionaries. Secularization in the 17th century was synonymous with Judaizing.
It meant substituting the Old Testament for the New.
The concept of revolution gained legitimacy in the eyes of the Puritans precisely because of its Jewish roots. Graetz sees the attraction which Jewish ideas held for English Puritans quite clearly.
The Roundheads were not inspired by the example of the suffering Christ, nor were they inspired by the medieval saints who imitated him. They needed the example of the warriors of Israel to inspire them in their equally bellicose campaigns against the Irish and the Scotch, who became liable to extermination because the Puritans saw them as Canaanites. Similarly, the King, who was an unworthy leader, like Phineas, deserved to die at the hands of the righteous, who now acted without any external authority, but, as the Jews had, on direct orders from God……
Graetz puts his finger on the heart of the issue when he identifies Puritan role models as “at once religious and national champions.”
Revolution as practiced by the Puritan Judaizers of England was a reversion to a more primitive, pre-Christian model. There was no separation the two swords of pope and emperor here—or, to use the terms of a later more secular era, no separation of church and state—instead, both pope and emperor were fused into one charismatic revenant of King David.
Israel had become ethnic once again, except that now the real Jews were Englishmen, the visible elect on earth, and England (or New England) was the New Jerusalem.
…….One can almost hear in Milton’s tendentious pleading for the legalization of divorce, the devotees of Planned Parenthood arguing that the logical sequel to America’s conquest of Afghanistan or Iraq should be contraception and abortion. Messianic politics and sexual liberation have gone hand in hand from the beginning, and they still do, now that America is the uncontested new Israel.
Messianic politics lies at the heart of what the Jewish and Puritan revolutionaries of the 16th century had in common, which is to say, both the Puritan and the Jew shared a desire to attain the spiritual goods promised in the Bible by secular means.
Messianic politics was a form of magic, since the attainment of wealth and power by spiritual means had always been the goal of Simon Magus and his followers, and as such it had a powerful appeal to a group of people who were just discovering the natural sciences at the same time that they were full of revulsion at the cross of Christ and the ideal of suffering which it embodied. “It is better,” St. Augustine wrote, summarizing the Catholic alternative to Simon Magus, “to love God and make use of money, than to love money and make use of God.”
The Puritan rejection of the medieval worldview of the Catholic Church (and its Anglican surrogates) was ultimately traceable to the Jewish rejection of the suffering Christ as an unworthy Messiah. “The chief priests,” St. Matthew tells us, “with the scribes and elders mocked him in the same way. ‘He saved others,’ they said, ‘he cannot save himself. He is the king of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him.’”