E. Michael Jones and Judaism

[Polak]

Okay, well that isn’t the polar opposite then.

There are examples of anti-semitism given in there that I would agree with, but some I don’t, so I can’t wholly accept that definition.

Of course there is the other question of whether anti-semitism is even the correct term to use in the case of Jews, and what the definition of a semite is, but that’s another debate.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

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.

No, it isn’t the same thing, but even saying that there is a heavy Jewish hand behind a lot of evils in the world is both untrue and anti-Semitic. Why are we discussing Jewish people being behind evil things in the world at all?

I also don’t understand why we keep talking about Jews rejecting the Logos. I know it’s one of Jones’s ideas. But the fact is that about 70 percent of people on this planet right now are not Christians and therefore could be said to have rejected the Logos. Are they also behind evil things? A lot of Christians are also behind evil things.

Seriously, I don’t know why you’re wasting your time on Jones’s crackpot theories, let alone defending them. The guy is an anti-Semite. He is an intelligent man who has sadly squandered his talents on every anti-Semitic canard in the book, conspiracy theories, and falsifications of history. I don’t know what motivates him. Perhaps he is just a hateful person, perhaps he’s somewhat unhinged, perhaps a bit of both.

 

[Polak]

I mention the rejection of the logos because we are discussing EMJ and it’s something he often talks about.

The reason we are talking about Jews rejecting the Logos in particular, is because in this context, Jews rejecting the Logos is far more significant than other people rejecting it, because as the chosen people, they had the power to bring about a lot of positive change in the world, and in rejecting the Logos, are now (according to EMJ’s theory) using this power to do evil instead.

 

[ImQuiet]

are now (according to EMJ’s theory) using this power to do evil instead.

And as we have mentioned, that’s a common trope in anti-semitism. The most common, I’d argue, but that’s based on my experience alone, and I haven’t met too many anti-semites.

Of course there is the other question of whether anti-semitism is even the correct term to use in the case of Jews and what the definition of a semite is, but that’s another debate.

Edit: Text formatting broke.
This here is why this conversation is likely destined to just endlessly repeat itself. This is what I was talking about when I said that you reject the conventional definition of anti-semitism and replace it with your own.
Maybe you could argue an esoteric point or two about what constitutes anti-semitism, but you’re reworking several key concepts of the original definition, one that to my and I’m assuming other’s ears does sound like several justifications that the alt-right, notably Nazis, uses in its treatment of Jews.

 

[billsherman]

as the chosen people, they had the power to bring about a lot of positive change in the world, and in rejecting the Logos, are now (according to EMJ’s theory) using this power to do evil instead.

And that is antisemitism! That view has been explicitly condemned by the Church: “The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.”

You ought to read and study: Nostra Aetate ( Nostra aetate )

 

[gracepoole]

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.

This is sad. You’re doing incredible linguistic gymnastics to justify bigotry, and you rationalize all of this by claiming that “people” just won’t let you complain about Jews. Abortion isn’t legal in our country because Jews rejected Christ. Gay marriage isn’t legal in our country because Jews rejected Christ. Jews don’t control the World Bank or Hollywood. And Nazis did use the same kind of tropes to justify their oppression and murder of Jews. These are facts. Perhaps that’s unpleasant if you disagree with any of them. They’re facts nonetheless.

 

[Polak]

I think we’ve reached the point in the discussion where everyone is just repeating themselves, nobody wants to budge, so it isn’t likely to get us anywhere. I think we should just agree to disagree, because this discussion is getting dangerously close to somebody calling an alt-right Nazi or something, and I won’t have that.

 

[billsherman]

I think we should just agree to disagree

Nobody should agree with antisemitism. The Church commands us to reject it.

You wrote something which the Church has condemned as antisemitism:

as the chosen people, they had the power to bring about a lot of positive change in the world, and in rejecting the Logos, are now (according to EMJ’s theory) using this power to do evil instead.

You may leave the thread, but we will not agree to disagree. You should apologize for your hurtful words, and remove them.

 

[Polak]

Erm, no.

10 characters

 

[gracepoole]

You may leave the thread, but we will not agree to disagree. You should apologize for your hurtful words, and remove them.

At this point I’d be satisfied if some actual education took place.

 

[Polak]

I don’t apologise when I have nothing to apologise for.

 

[gracepoole]

But I would think you’d be open to further reading/viewing on any reasonable subject, yes?

 

[Polak]

Of course Grace, feel free to provide any interesting reading material on the subject, from preferably unbiased sources if possible.

 

[billsherman]

I don’t apologise when I have nothing to apologise for.

Do you not think this is worth apologizing for:

as the chosen people, they had the power to bring about a lot of positive change in the world, and in rejecting the Logos, are now (according to EMJ’s theory) using this power to do evil instead.

Because it’s a pretty awful thing to condemn a whole group of people based on theology. Which, by the way, directly violates “Nostra Aetate.”

 

[gracepoole]

Unbiased like E Michael Jones?

 

[Peaceable]

It’s not a double standard. It’s definitional. Referring to people negatively in the collective can be part and parcel of persecution. Referring to people positively in the collective typically isn’t. You seem to be unaware of the possibility that people can be referred to in the collective in either positive or negative ways, and that not all collective references are the same.

 

[ImQuiet]

, because this discussion is getting dangerously close to somebody calling an alt-right Nazi or something, and I won’t have that.

Then stop affirming their viewpoints.

 

[Polak]

I am giving you E Michael Jones’ argument. I am not saying I agree with his analogy. I am however going to defend him against the much too easily thrown about charge of of anti-semitism.

gracepoole:

Unbiased like E Michael Jones?

What makes you think that he is biased? Do you think there was an event in his life involving Jews that has caused him to believe what he believes?

Peaceable:

It’s not a double standard. It’s definitional. Referring to people negatively in the collective can be part and parcel of persecution. Referring to people positively in the collective typically isn’t.

So because saying something negative could lead to persecution, we should never say it? Do you realise how little criticism would be allowed if you applied that rule? I mentioned this example before, but I’ll repeat it for you. Using your logic, the media should not report any stories about priests sexually abusing children, because it could lead to the persecution of priests.

ImQuiet:

Then stop affirming their viewpoints.

You know another viewpoint many of these alt-right people have? They are against abortion. They are against gay marriage too. Many of them are Catholic. I suppose we should stop being Catholic and believing in these things now, as they are just like theirs, right?

 

[ImQuiet]

I am however going to defend him against the much too easily thrown about charge of of anti-semitism.

A charge that only doesn’t make sense when you throw out the parts of antisemitism you don’t like.

What makes you think that he is biased?

I’d imagine it’d be his antisemitic statements.

Using your logic, the media should not report any stories about priests sexually abusing children, because it could lead to the persecution of priests.

But the criticisms that Jones is providing aren’t based in reality. Jews don’t control the banks.

You know another viewpoint many of these alt-right people have? They are against abortion. They are against gay marriage too. Many of them are Catholic. I suppose we should stop being Catholic and believing in these things now, as they are just like theirs, right?

No, we shouldn’t echo the racist and baseless accusations frequently leveled at the Jews by the alt-right. It’s not based in fact, but rather in hate and ignorance.
Your slippery slope doesn’t work here. Nice try though.

 

[Polak]

A charge that only doesn’t make sense when you throw out the parts of antisemitism you don’t like.

You almost make the definition of anti-semitism sound like the Pope. You seem to believe it’s infallible, and once defined (even though it’s a working definition), we must adhere to it.

I’d imagine it’d be his antisemitic statements.

anti-semitic in your opinion.

Your slippery slope doesn’t work here. Nice try though.

What slippery slope? You accused me of having viewpoints like people on the alt-right. I pointed out how that’s a poor argument, because you do too.