E. Michael Jones and Judaism

[RogueSemicolon]

the main idea centres around Christ being the logos, and the Jews rejecting the logos on earth, and pretty much ever since then being in a revolution against God by pushing or heavily supporting anti-God things like gay marriage, abortion etc.

I don’t think he ever suggests that if you are Jewish you are by DNA part of the problem, but he does believe there is a heavy Jewish hand behind a lot of the evils of the world, stemming from their rejection of Christ 2000 years ago.

In Nostra aetate, the Catholic Church repudiates the idea that the Jews, as a people, rejected Jesus and therefore are any more responsible for the death of Jesus as anyone else in history who has sinned:

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

It’s an especially grave and pernicious error to insinuate or proclaim that the source of revolution and evil against God since the times of Jesus begins with and is perpetuated by the Jews. For millennia, the Jews have been oppressed, persecuted, and discriminated against for all sorts of alleged evils, which has lead to their deaths by the millions through countless pogroms, most prominently through the Holocaust, and innumerable other terrible incidents perpetrated against individuals. It is not a fact the Jews are guilty of whatever evils that afflicts society, nor is it simply a mistake; it is false, unjust, and reckless in the extreme and is sure to continue to imperil their lives as the lies circulate. Assigning blame to a people diverts the blame from ourselves to others and forestalls any genuine attempt to redress the evil that torments us all but for which we all are, in part, responsible for.

 

[po18guy]

OK. Thanks. Personally, never heard of him. Too busy with well-known non-controversial speakers and authors.

 

[Polak]

That’s literally antisemitism. Like, textbook antisemitism.

Really? Can you point me to this textbook please? As far as I am aware the definition of it seems to keep changing and encompassing more and more behaviours.

 

[gracepoole]

No, please share a definition of antisemitism that does NOT involve this belief.

 

[ImQuiet]

Really? Can you point me to this textbook please? As far as I am aware the definition of it seems to keep changing and encompassing more and more behaviours.

From my post.

That’s essentially the reasoning the Nazis used when persecuting the Jews IIRC (someone correct me if I’m wrong about that).

Alternatively, you can check out Wikipedia’s entries on economic antisemitism and political antisemitism, which encompasses what Michael Jones has expressed.

 

[Polak]

No, please share a definition of antisemitism that does NOT involve this belief.

Definitions of anti-semitism are put together by people, and as far as I’m concerned, we have the free will and right to disagree with them.

If believing a lot of Jews have had a heavy hand in promoting certain vices is anti-semitism, then we’re essentially reaching a point where you can’t suggest any group were responsible for anything, because it’s an offensive thing to say.

You can’t say a lot of western white people were responsible for the shipping in of black slaves. You can’t say the German Nazi party, supported by quite a large number of the German people, were largely responsible for the deaths of millions of people in Poland and the destruction of Warsaw. You can’t say any of that because one of them is anti-white and the other, anti-German.

Only it isn’t. It’s stating what you believe to be a fact. Just like stating the previous things I mentioned doesn’t mean you dislike white people or dislike Germans. If you believe Jews are responsible (or the most responsible group) for pushing gay marriage or abortion, you have a right to say that. It isn’t the same as disliking Jews, or meeting any Jewish person on a street, pointing at them and saying ‘hey, it’s because of you gay marriage has been legalised in so many countries’.

Now we can debate if for instance, somebody’s view that Jews are largely responsible for gay marriage, is correct, although as E. Michael Jones has pointed out, this is a statement that has been made and boasted about by (some) Jews themselves, and praised, yet when he says it, it’s considered reprehensible. What you shouldn’t do is immediately call somebody an anti-semite for saying it. That isn’t to say there aren’t anti-semites who also believe this (hence why it might be seen by some as ‘textbook antisemitism’) but that doesn’t make the statement itself anti-semitic. It’s a view, often based on research when a professor or intellectual says it. It’s up to you to then look into that research yourself and challenge them if you disagree with it, not immediately shout ‘anti-semitism’.

 

[gracepoole]

So you don’t plan to provide a definition that doesn’t include Jews being held responsible for the evils of the world due to their rejection of Christ?

 

[Polak]

I’m not sure why you want me to do that, but okay. I did a quick search. The short, apparently ‘international definition of antisemitism’ that I have found states the following.

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

This doesn’t say anything about them being responsible for the evils of the world due to rejecting Christ.

I then looked down the page to see examples of antisemitism in public life. Again, no example about them being responsible for the evil of the world because they rejected Christ.

Does that satisfy you?

 

[Polak]

So you don’t plan to provide a definition

We’ve discussed this before Grace. I have told you I don’t fully agree with the ‘working definition’ of anti-semitism, and pointed you to specific parts of it I didn’t agree with. That’s why if someone says something that falls under the definition of anti-semitism, I don’t always think it’s necessarily anti-semitism, because the definition of anti-semitism itself is, in my view, far from perfect.

I’ll give a couple of examples of areas I disagree with the definition, again.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.

It talks about classic anti-semitism and in brackets, mentions ‘claims of Jews killing Christ’. So claiming Jews killed Christ is anti-semitism according to this definition. Now I know the post Vatican II Catholic church talks about not putting blame on Jews for this now, but in terms of back then and what specific group of people demanded he be killed, it was Jews. There were also Jews who did not want him killed (such as his disciples) but the ones who did, were definitely Jews, not any other group, and it even says later in the Bible about the disciples hiding out of fear of the Jews. So they’re trying to make it anti-semitic to state what we, or let’s say, many Christians, would consider a Biblical fact.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

And another one here. It doesn’t say accusing as a whole, it says accusing Jewish citizens, so I assume it could also refer to accusing even one Jewish citizen of being more loyal to Israel than the nation they are living in. Why is this anti-semitism? It might simply be a fact for some Jewish citizens.

There are also other parts of the working definition I can agree with, but these are two I can’t, so I can’t agree with the working definition as a whole.

 

[gracepoole]

I’m not sure why you want me to do that, but okay. I did a quick search. The short, apparently ‘international definition of antisemitism’ that I have found states the following.

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

Great! So you’re using the IHRA definition, which also includes the following:

• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Jones’ belief that 1) Jews as a “race” were responsible for the death of Christ, and 2) this led to all of the evils in our society is classic antisemitism.

 

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

So you don’t plan to provide a definition

We’ve discussed this before Grace. I have told you I don’t fully agree with the ‘working definition’ of anti-semitism, and pointed you to specific parts of it I didn’t agree with. That’s why if someone says something that falls under the definition of anti-semitism, I don’t always think it’s necessarily anti-semitism, because the definition of anti-semitism itself is, in my view, far from perfect.

I’ll give a couple of examples of areas I disagree with the definition, again.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.

It talks about classic anti-semitism and in brackets, mentions ‘claims of Jews killing Christ’. So claiming Jews killed Christ is anti-semitism according to this definition. Now I know the post Vatican II Catholic church talks about not putting blame on Jews for this now, but in terms of back then and what specific group of people demanded he be killed, it was Jews. There were also Jews who did not want him killed (such as his disciples) but the ones who did, were definitely Jews, not any other group, and it even says later in the Bible about the disciples hiding out of fear of the Jews. So they’re trying to make it anti-semitic to state what we, or let’s say, many Christians, would consider a Biblical fact.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

And another one here. It doesn’t say accusing as a whole, it says accusing Jewish citizens, so I assume it could also refer to accusing even one Jewish citizen of being more loyal to Israel than the nation they are living in. Why is this anti-semitism? It might simply be a fact for some Jewish citizens.

There are also other parts of the working definition I can agree with, but these are two I can’t, so I can’t agree with the working definition as a whole.

Please: read and learn about antisemitism. I can suggest multiple texts, online courses, etc. that will meaningfully expand your view.

 

[Polak]

Jones’ belief that 1) Jews as a “race” were responsible for the death of Christ, and 2) this led to all of the evils in our society is classic antisemitism.

I’m afraid you’re quite wrong on both counts. Feel free to show me a video clip or piece of text to prove either.

 

[gracepoole]

Prove what? That he makes those claims? That’s been demonstrated in this thread several times. That it’s antisemitism? Again, it’s been demonstrated in this thread several times. Respectfully (and sadly), you deny basic truths about antisemitism so I have no hope of “proving” anything to you.

 

[Polak]

Prove what? That he makes those claims? That’s been demonstrated in this thread several times. That it’s antisemitism? Again, it’s been demonstrated in this thread several times. Respectfully (and sadly), you deny basic truths about antisemitism so I have no hope of “proving” anything to you.

What are you talking about Grace? There hasn’t been any proof. Help me out and show me.

1. He has specifically stated many times in interviews that just being Jewish doesn’t make you part of the problem by default.
2. You’re suggesting Jones believes there is no evil in the world that Jews are not responsible for in some way. If you’re going to make such an absurd statement, it is on you to back it up.

 

[ImQuiet]

You’re suggesting Jones believes there is no evil in the world that Jews are not responsible for in some way. If you’re going to make such an absurd statement, it is on you to back it up.

I don’t think he ever suggests that if you are Jewish you are by DNA part of the problem, but he does believe there is a heavy Jewish hand behind a lot of the evils of the world, stemming from their rejection of Christ 2000 years ago.

Kinda shot yourself in the foot there buddy.
Again, I’d like to point out that you’re using reasoning that sounds eerily similar to what the Nazis used in justifying the crackdown on and eventual extermination of Jews in defending Jones’ stance here.
I suppose you are free to disagree with the conventional definition of antisemitism, but you should be aware of what groups you’re making your bed with in doing so.

 

[Peaceable]

Let me give you an example. And instead of Jews let’s use the word Americans.

Suppose there’s a ship in Europe with a group of people who are American in it. Supposed the ship is sinking. If someone said “Hurry, let’s get those Americans!”, this would not be perceived as persecutory or a threat. The meaning would be clear in the context that they were trying to rescue the Americans on the ship.

Now consider a group of Americans in a hostile war situation, where the country is fighting the United States. If someone from the hostile side in this context said “let’s get those Americans!” the Americans would be foolish to expect they’re going to be saved by the hostile enemy, although the literal combination of words is exactly the same. They would be right to anticipate being attacked.

So simply because you have a certain configuration of identical words, it doesn’t mean, in the context, that the intent or effects or morality of what’s being conveyed is the same.

In the first case, Jewish people themselves referring to dominating Hollywood, they are not talking about this as a negative (though sometimes people use persecutory tropes and “reclaim them“ to undo the damage of persecution). When Brando talks about this, he recapitulates negative/derogatory language used to persecute others. From the Jewish leaders comments, though, it’s unclear whether he was aware of doing this or not. However when it was made clear to him presumably, he appeared to regret what he said.

 

[Polak]

Kinda shot yourself in the foot there buddy.

No I didn’t. You are are not reading what I wrote, at least not properly.

Jews being behind evil in the world isn’t the same as there being a heavy Jewish hand behind a lot of evils of the world.

It would clearly be absurd to believe Jews are responsible for evil in the world period. For crying out loud there was evil in the world before Christ, so before the Jews ‘rejected the logos’, as E. Michael Jones suggests. To suggest that evil essentially came about because of Jewish people, is obviously nonsensical, and nobody is saying that.

Can you also stop bringing in the Nazis please? It’s a dirty tactic aiming to shut down the argument. You are essentially trying to frighten people away from the discussion by claiming they have views similar to the Nazis. As has been mentioned, the Nazis used certain beliefs about Jews to exterminate them. Hitler was a deranged human being who used it as an excuse to murder. It would be like if somebody went on a killing spree of people who have had abortions, and then when a Christian argues that abortion is wrong and those who have abortions are killing babies, they are accused of having the same views as this killer and treading dangerous territory. Sadly there are people who will do terrible things in the name of whatever view/ideology/religion. If somebody kills a priest, Christians could blame the media for covering stories on pedophile priests, because they fuelled the killer with negative ideas.

By the way, one of the arguments E. Michael Jones makes, is that people don’t like it when he talks about Jews, generally, but yet it seems you can talk about Jews when you have something nice to say about them. It’s only when you have something negative that you can’t generalise. I actually find this to be the case not only with Jews, but with ethnicities and religions etc. It seems you can’t group people together if you have a criticism, but you can if you want to say something nice. In fact @Peaceable, you even point this out above. Bit of a double standard. Why can’t you be critical? Why is it okay for a person to say, Jews run Hollywood and they’ve done a great job with that, but not okay to say, Jews run Hollywood and they have done a very bad job, promoting evil things?

Anyway I’ll leave it at that, to avoid any more accusations.

 

[ImQuiet]

Can you also stop bringing in the Nazis please? It’s a dirty tactic aiming to shut down the argument. You are essentially trying to frighten people away from the discussion by claiming they have views similar to the Nazis.

No, I’d argue that,for once, a comparison to Nazis is relevant here. Because the reasoning you are presenting behind Jones’ claims is the same reasoning the Nazis used, and that other alt-right groups have used that aren’t explicitly defined as Nazis.
I’m not shutting down the argument so much as that I’m saying in presenting this alternate definition of antisemitism, one that is rather unconventional, you are reaffirming views held by alt-right movements, notably Nazis and Neo-Nazis.
The definition others in this thread have given for antisemitism is backed up by several experts on the subject,and based on what they say, the definition you’ve provided is almost the polar opposite of antisemitism.
Since we appear to disagree on what antisemitism entails I’m not really sure where this conversation can go except in circles.

 

[Polak]

The definition others in this thread have given for antisemitism is backed up by several experts on the subject,and based on what they say, the definition you’ve provided is almost the polar opposite of antisemitism.

Okay now you’ve confused me.

The definition I provided was the official IHRA international definition. How can it be ‘almost the polar opposite of antisemitism’?

I simply stated there are examples of antisemitism given in that definition I disagree with.

 

[ImQuiet]

I simply stated there are examples of antisemitism given in that definition I disagree with

That’s what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear.