E. Michael Jones and Judaism

[do_justly_love_mercy]

Abortion isn’t legal in our country because Jews rejected Christ. Gay marriage isn’t legal in our country because Jews rejected Christ.

By “our country” I assume you mean the United States. Apologies if you are not from the US. If I have followed correctly, @Polak is from Poland and living in the UK. Again, apologies if I am wrong. Of course, both abortion and gay marriage are illegal in Poland. In the UK, the man principally responsible for the partial decriminalization of abortion was David Steel, a Presbyterian (indeed, his father was Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and Steel himself was Lord High Commissioner to the Assembly). The man principally responsible for introducing gay marriage in the UK was David Cameron, an Anglican. In general, the person most closely associated with the liberalization of many aspects of life in the UK was Roy Jenkins, an atheist, though culturally Protestant (I think specifically Anglican, though I may be wrong about that). For balance, one of the two architects of the legislation that partially decriminalized male homosexuality in England and Wales was Leo Abse, a Jew. The other was the 8th earl of Arran, who I assume must have been Anglican, as he was Irish nobility and related to a bishop of Oxford.

 

[billsherman]

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.

Then you should unequivocally condemn his belief as you articulated it. I don’t want to think you hold an antisemitic view when you don’t.

If you do agree with him, however, then you ought to apologize and reform your beliefs.

The idea you ascribed to him is deeply antisemitic, and has been condemned by the Church. He has been properly condemned for it, you should join the chorus, so that there is no debate about where you stand.

 

[Polak]

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.”

I have read Nostra Aetate and E. Michael Jones never says the Jews are cursed or rejected by God. This would assume they cannot be redeemed.

In fact he even talks about reading and agreeing with the document (why wouldn’t he, as a Catholic?) and points out something else it says.

The Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ

This very act (pressing for the killing of Christ) is where he derives his theory, that because of the rejection of the Logos Jews decided to rebel against God rather than accepting him as their Lord and saviour and now push all kinds of vices, rather than spreading good around the world. He basically says this is the natural aftermath of rejecting the Logos. Saying ‘the Jews’ does sound like a generalisation, but he doesn’t shy away from it because he believes that if you can generalise in saying ‘Jews are smart’ then you can also generalise in saying ‘Jews killed Christ’. It’s quite obvious that this doesn’t mean if you are a Jew today you are responsible for the death of Christ, but in his view, it might explain why many Jews today push such issues as abortion and gay marriage.

Yes the Catholic church is against anti-semitism, and E. Michael Jones agrees with that, because he isn’t an anti-semite.

By the way, just curious, does Vatican II and the Nostra Aetate document void anything Popes before it have said? I ask this because Jones has on numerous occasions pointed out quotes by previous Popes that didn’t say a lot different to what he has said.

And another question. Have you heard of Patrick Coffin? He worked at Catholic Answers for almost 8 years and has had E. Michael Jones on his podcast several times. Is he an anti-semite too, or does he support an anti-semite? If so then what does that say about Catholic Answers?

 

[Gab123]

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

This is true. The question then is why have the Jews been rejected so much throughout history. In the Old Testament, the People of Israel were either thriving with blessings, or suffering at the hands of their enemies.

 

[billsherman]

This very act (pressing for the killing of Christ) is where he derives his theory, that because of the rejection of the Logos Jews decided to rebel against God rather than accepting him as their Lord and saviour and now push all kinds of vices, rather than spreading good around the world. He basically says this is the natural aftermath of rejecting the Logos.

That is antisemitism.

It is a clear condemnation of Jewish people because of theological reasons, which is precisely the point Nostra Aetate is making.

It is hard to be more antisemitic than by stating that Jews spread evil because they rejected Jesus.

You MUST condemn this view. As a Catholic you actually have no choice but to condemn it.

 

[Polak]

What if a non Jew rejected Jesus and then spread evil, and a priest said it wasn’t a surprise that somebody who rejected Jesus is spreading evil, would that bother you as much?

Also you didn’t respond to some of my points, such as what you have to say about previous popes, such as St. Pius V, who stated the following.

The Jewish people fell from the heights because of their faithlessness and condemned their Redeemer to a shameful death.

I’m not even quoting the most controversial stuff here.

Also stop telling me what I must and must not condemn.

 

[billsherman]

What if a non Jew rejected Jesus and then spread evil, and a priest said it wasn’t a surprise that somebody who rejected Jesus is spreading evil, would that bother you as much?

It would absolutely bother me. Spreading evil, holding evil thought, doing evil things, etc. is completely unrelated to one’s acceptance or rejection of Jesus. Plenty of Christians have spread plenty of evil. Sometimes even in the name of Christianity itself.

Also you didn’t respond to some of my points, such as what you have to say about previous popes, such as St. Pius V, who stated the following.

Any and all Catholics who held such views are now, and have always been, wrong. Nostra Aetate is not optional. All Catholics are bound to it.

Claiming that Jewish people spread evil because they rejected Jesus is antisemitism now, 2,000 years ago, 50 years ago, and it will be antisemitic in 200 years.

Also stop telling me what I must and must not condemn.

No. As a Catholic, you are obligated to condemn any idea that condemns Jews because they rejected Jesus. Again, Nostra Aetate isn’t optional. You should read it. It’s like five pages long.

 

[lagerald24]

Spreading evil, holding evil thought, doing evil things, etc. is completely unrelated to one’s acceptance or rejection of Jesus.

Well, maybe not completely, but yeah.

 

[Polak]

So basically you are picking and choosing popes you deem to be good and popes you deem to be bad. Do you think St. Pope Pius V was an anti-semite?

Fact of the matter is, if you do indeed think that previous things popes and the Catholic church have said were incorrect, how do you know what they have said now is correct? What makes you so sure they were wrong then but are correct now? Who are you to make this judgement? Unless of course you accept the teaching of popes and the Catholic church hundreds of years ago as much as you accept more recent teachings, and if so, then you’ll admit quite a few of the pre Vatican II teachings weren’t that complimentary about Jews. Would you like me to quote you more Pius V?

Nostra Aetate isn’t optional. You should read it. It’s like five pages long.

I have read it.

Spreading evil, holding evil thought, doing evil things, etc. is completely unrelated to one’s acceptance or rejection of Jesus.

What an unusual idea for a Christian to have.

 

[billsherman]

So basically you are picking and choosing popes you deem to be good and popes you deem to be bad.

No I’m not. I’m saying that antisemitism is always, and always was, bad. I’m honestly not sure why that’s a problem.

Do you think St. Pope Pius V was an anti-semite?

I don’t know. I do know that many Catholics have been, and are, antisemitic. I also know that you are passionately defending antisemitic beliefs in this thread.

Fact of the matter is, if you do indeed think that previous things popes and the Catholic church have said were incorrect, how do you know what they have said now is correct?

Every Catholic has a simple answer to this: the condemnation of antisemitism comes from a Council of the Church, and was properly promulgated by the Pope. Therefore it is proper. Did any Council rule that the Jewish people spread evil because they rejected Jesus?

What an unusual idea for a Christian to have.

You think Christians can’t spread evil? If so, I think we’ve stumbled upon the problem. You see Christians as good, and Jews as evil. Is that correct?

 

[Polak]

I don’t know. I do know that many Catholics have been, and are, antisemitic. I also know that you are passionately defending antisemitic beliefs in this thread.

You have proven with that statement just how little you do know.

You think Christians can’t spread evil?

A Christian can but it is very unusual for a Christian (like yourself) to suggest that closeness to Christ makes no difference to how you behave in life. While a believer in God can do bad things and a non believer can do good (obviously), I would say a non believer has more chance of doing wrong, because he has created such a distance between himself and God, due to his disbelief.

Don’t forget that it doesn’t have to be obvious evil, like stealing or killing people. It can be less obvious evil (at least less obvious to many non believers) such as supporting/accepting abortion or extra marital affairs as a norm and convincing others to believe the same. In this case, a non believer is much more likely to ‘spread this evil’ than someone who believes in and follows Christ.

You see Christians as good, and Jews as evil. Is that correct?

I’m not going to dignify such an idiotic question with an answer. What other question do you have? Perhaps if I believe the Holocaust happened? Or if Hitler was good? Get a grip.

How about you answer some of my questions instead of trying to prove I am something I am not. Is Patrick Coffin, who worked at Catholic Answers for almost 8 years, an anti-semite for inviting E. Michael Jones on his podcast several times?

 

[billsherman]

billsherman:

I don’t know. I do know that many Catholics have been, and are, antisemitic. I also know that you are passionately defending antisemitic beliefs in this thread.

You have proven with that statement just how little you do know.

Are you, or are you not, defending Jones’ belief that Jewish people spread evil in the world because they rejected Jesus? You obviously are. That belief is obviously antisemitic by the Church’s standards. I’m not sure what else the problem is.

While a believer in God can do bad things and a non believer can do good (obviously), I would say a non believer has more chance of doing wrong, because he has created such a distance between himself and God, due to his disbelief.

It doesn’t work that way. If that were the case the Church’s various abuse scandals wouldn’t have happened, wouldn’t have been covered up, and wouldn’t be waved away by some.

Jails are full of Christians. Accepting Jesus has nothing to do with a person’s chances of doing good in this world. Just look at Jones and his antisemitism for example.

How about you answer some of my questions instead of trying to prove I am something I am not.

Which questions.

Is Patrick Coffin, who worked at Catholic Answers for almost 8 years, an anti-semite for inviting E. Michael Jones on his podcast several times?

I’m unfamiliar with the gentleman.

 

[Polak]

Are you, or are you not, defending Jones’ belief that Jewish people spread evil in the world because they rejected Jesus? You obviously are. That belief is obviously antisemitic by the Church’s standards. I’m not sure what else the problem is.

I am saying I do not think E. Michael Jones is an anti-semite, or I was, before you somehow tried to turn it into a thread about me.

The argument he is making is that when Christ was on earth, he was rejected by his own people, the Jews. If I understand it correctly, he explains that the Jews originally had a godly spirit in them, as the chosen people, to do good, until they rejected Christ and in this way, rebelled against the Logos (God). Since then, they have become revolutionaries against God (through choice). He calls this the Jewish revolutionary spirit. He doesn’t say anything that is condemned in Nostra Aetate. He doesn’t say Jews are cursed by God and he doesn’t blame any Jew now for killing Christ. He’s a Catholic intellectual with a theory that is definitely controversial, but unlike you, I’m not going to jump to call him an anti-semite, even if I do not agree with the theory.

Accepting Jesus has nothing to do with a person’s chances of doing good in this world

You have a right to think this, but to me, it’s shocking that you do.

I’m unfamiliar with the gentleman.

Well how convenient for you. Let’s go back to Pius V then. You didn’t want to say if he was or wasn’t an anti-semite. So you think it’s possible, despite him being beatified, that he was an anti-semite. St. Anti-Semite. Let me ask a slightly different question then. Do you think Pius V made anti-semitic statements?

By the way, are you aware that there are quite a few Jews who believe parts of the New Testament to be anti-semitic? Some have even suggested bibles ought to be reprinted with notes on the pages where this so called anti-semitism exists, to warn readers of the anti-semitism on those pages.

If you like, I can quote some of those passages from the Bible for you here. Perhaps you will agree that they too are anti-semitic?

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

It’s pretty depressing reading this on the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe.

I am struggling to understand where you are coming from. It’s not clear whether (1) you are actually an anti-Semite, but you are cleverly hiding behind various smokescreens, (2) you are not an anti-Semite, but you don’t understand the issues enough to see that you are skating on very thin ice, or (3) you don’t really have an opinion on anti-Semitism, and you are simply interested in explaining Jones’s views.

What I am struggling to understand is the relationship between a relatively small number of Jews rejecting the Logos in communities around the Mediterranean about 1,900 years ago and all the bad things that Jones accuses Jews of being responsible for over the past hundred years or so. Do you think that what everybody’s ancestors did 1,900 years ago has some kind of effect on what they’re doing in the present day, or is this peculiar to Jews?

Also, since we are talking about “the Jews”, let’s be clear what Jones means. He doesn’t actually mean “the Jews”, but European Jewry and the European Jewish diaspora, especially in the United States. Overwhelmingly, he is talking about Ashkenazi Jews. He is not, for example, talking about Kaifeng Jews. Has Jones been able to identify any bad things that Kaifeng Jews are responsible for? I assume not. Which rather goes to show that this is not some complicated theological argument, but simple anti-Semitism. If it’s all to do with abstract theological concepts, let’s focus the argument on Kaifeng Jews. But we won’t, because we all know that Jones and his disciples don’t really have a problem with Kaifeng Jews. What they have a problem with is European Jews and their American descendants who have prospered in law, medicine, academia, entertainment, media, and finance.

What Jones and his kind really cannot bear is that Jews have been successful. They were one of the smallest and most visible minorities in Europe, but they were disproportionately successful as doctors, dentists, lawyers, university professors, writers, composers, musicians, artists, publishers, and, above all, as bankers and businessmen. Unlike gypsies, for example, Jews assimilated, they became rich, they were elevated to the ranks of the nobility, they were at the forefront of new developments in economics, psychoanalysis, and the arts. For that they had to be punished, first with quotas in the universities and the professions, and eventually with the worst atrocities in human history. It was convenient to blame the Jews for the defeat of Germany and Austria-Hungary in the First World War and their subsequent economic collapse, and it is convenient to blame Jews for any misfortunes that America and Americans suffer today.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

A few quotations from Jones’s articles for The Unz Review:

The Plot against America is a Jewish fantasy, which is interesting first of all for what it tells us about Roth personally but also because of what it tells us about the ethnic group which has accepted his paranoid Jewish fantasy as something to be taken seriously by people other than psychiatrists and cultural pathologists.

Over the course of 2019 the Jews lost control of the narrative in America. When Jews lose control they get upset, because, in a world without logos, the only order is the order they impose on the rest of us, a group known as the goyim, whom, Jews believe, have a natural tendency toward anti-Semitism. When the Jew loses control, he thinks the world is out to get him, and when he thinks the world is out to get him, his thoughts turn to murder. As a result, we are now being subjected to one paranoid Jewish fantasy after another advocating murder as the solution to what they perceive as the problem of anti-Semitism.

Mort Zuckerman turned The Atlantic into a mouthpiece of Jewish oligarchic interests when he purchased what was once the flagship of Boston’s WASP establishment a few years back, and The Atlantic, true to its new masters, was determined eliminate the salvation of souls from public consideration by issuing a demand to “Close the Churches” and telling the nation’s rulers that “State and local shutdown orders shouldn’t exempt religious gatherings, and those communities should comply.”

Joker’s Jewish director Todd Phillips has a similar problem when it comes to Scorcese’s material, something that the reviewers found puzzling. [Why is it relevant that Phillips is Jewish?]

When I articulated the traditional religious position that the Jews by killing Christ had rejected Logos and by rejecting Logos they became revolutionaries, the white boys all ran screaming from the room, their eyes full of fear of the Jews.

“Christian” is one of a group of 20-something anthropology students who talk a lot about sex and take a lot of dope, but his behavior isn’t remotely Christian, not even in the hypocritical sense so beloved by Jewish movie directors.

The fact that many if not most Jews espouse a far-left ideology is undeniable …

 

[billsherman]

A few quotations from Jones’s articles for The Unz Review :

Wow. Those quotes are stunning examples of antisemitism.

He can’t be defended.

 

[Polak]

Well your post puts forward a much more interesting argument than sherman’s, who just yells anti-semitism in almost every sentence.

Actually one of the problems I have with E. Michael Jones’ theory, which I never said I agreed with, I was merely trying to explain it and also defend him from having labels put on him for holding a view, something I think happens far too often to people in order to shut down discussion, was that there are many Orthodox religious Jews who don’t push this vice he speaks of. They in fact have similar views on morality to Christians, and are against the same things Christians are against. They certainly do no promote things like gay marriage and abortion. Going by his theory, they too have rejected the Logos because they didn’t accept Christ, but this hasn’t caused them to promote evil. The main difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’ is Jesus. It’s a big difference yes, but from a moral standpoint, as I said, we are very similar.

 

[Gab123]

[Jones] makes bigoted comments like these: “If it weren’t for Jews, we would not have abortion in this country.

Just for the record, on the issue of abortion, Jewish organizations are the first ones to affirm their role in spearheading the abortion movement. For example, in 1980, seven years after the Roe vs Wade decision that legalized abortion, the Central Conference of American Rabbis explained that Six years before the Roe vs Wade case, they urged for the legalization of abortion:

Quote:
In 1967 the Conference stated: “We strongly urge the broad liberalization of abortion laws in various states, and call upon our members to work toward this end.”
The Conference reaffirms this position with the following comments:
A. Jewish legal literature permits therapeutic abortion.
B. The decision concerning any abortion must be made by the woman and not by the state or any other external agency.
C. We oppose all constitutional amendments and legislation which would abridge or circumscribe this right.
D. We call upon our rabbis and upon the Union of American Hebrew Congregations to Strengthen their support of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights on national, state and local levels.

In contrast, the American Catholic hierarchy had always been articulating opposition to abortion, and gave the right-to-life movement institutional support and legitimacy, providing resources people, money, and a sense of commitment against abortion. The Catholic hierarchy’s reaction to Roe v. Wade was immediate and condemnatory, forming pro-life activities and campaigned against legal access to abortion.

I think the term antisemitism is so overdone, overused , overexposed, and misused that it’s become annoying. The dumbest thing I heard once was that Jesus was an antisemite, and that the New Testamenr is antisemitic and the root cause of the Holocaust. I recommend the book the Holocaust industry by Prof. Norman Finkelstein to realize how people have been conditioned to be quiet in fear of being labeled an antisemite; much like the fear people have of being called homophobic for not approving gay pride parades or gay marriage…

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

Okay, so I believe that you are not personally anti-Semitic, but it sounds like you are still having a hard time recognizing anti-Semitism when you see it. If you cannot see that Jones is an anti-Semite, I don’t know what will ever convince you.

E.g.:

When the Jew loses control, he thinks the world is out to get him, and when he thinks the world is out to get him, his thoughts turn to murder.

Surely anybody would be able to see that that is deeply anti-Semitic.

Turning to the argument that what Jones is really talking about are secularized Jews in the West, you could actually make pretty much the same arguments about just about any religious group. For example, take the example of historically Catholic countries such as Ireland and Spain. Or historically Lutheran countries such as Denmark and Sweden. Or historically Anglican countries such as England and New Zealand. And so on…

In England, you could talk about how “the Anglicans” control the royal family, Parliament, the civil service, the armed forces, the police, the judiciary, the universities, public schools and grammar schools, the BBC, etc. Then you could invent a theory about how rejecting the papacy in the 16th century led to legal abortion, same-sex marriage, easy divorce, widely available pornography, the Nazi annexation of Czechoslovakia and the Soviet annexation of eastern Poland, the invasion of Iraq, etc. Or you could blame the UK’s obesity epidemic on “the Quakers”, since most of the UK’s confectionery manufacturers were at one time owned by Quakers.

In the case of the United States, rather than talking about “the Jews”, you could just talk about “middle-class Americans in New England and on the West Coast” or even just “Americans”. For every Jew you identify in entertainment, the media, finance, academia, etc., you would be able to identify a Catholic, an Episcopalian, a Methodist, even a Southern Baptist.

So, the people who have been identified as “the Jews” turn out not to be religious, and they also do not promote the interests of Judaism or Zionism. They are just regular secular folk who have done well at school and reached positions of influence in society. They may in a vague sense identify as Jews in the same way that many Americans identify as Italians, Irish, Poles, Germans, etc., and hence often as Catholics (or as Scandinavian Lutherans from Minnesota etc.)

 

[Peaceable]

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.

The sad reality of why “antisemitism” is commonly used is because it is sadly common.

By the way the Catholic league and the anti defamation league deem this writer’s views anti-Semitic.

Interesting that you don’t explain why this is not anti-Semitic and merely assert it is not. Possibly because there is no valid argument here?

Catholicism would not be possible without Judaism. God himself chose to be born into a Jewish family. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were Jews. Thus it can be argued that Jews were at the root of all that is good in the world.