The E. Michael Jones thread

But no theocracy, please. There may be legitimate roles in the “scheme of things” for a few countries with state religions—for those who choose to live there.
My country (the U.S.A.) is not a theocracy and I intend that it never will become one. Not an Islamic theocracy; not a Jewish theocracy; and not a Catholic or Protestant or Mormon theocracy. The America I love is one where I can be a Christian because I sincerely and of my own free will choose to follow Christ, not because Christianity is compulsory or “strongly encouraged” or an informal requirement for making the “right” business or social contacts.
(I suspect that Jesus prefers followers who actually “mean it”, without ulterior motive.)

Happy Independence Day to my fellow Americans.

An "Independence" that was financed by the likes of Haym Salomon (look it up).

But by all means, please go on believing that the separation of Church and State was to grant you freedom and free will, and by no means to enable the financiers to subvert and create the mess the United States is in, right now.
 

Athanasius

Pelican
Yes. EMJ Explains that when a Jew converts, they become a Christian. This would be a minority but of course they are brothers in Christ. When we speak of Jews, we speak of the vast majority.

This guy has preconceived notions and is not reading and comprehending well, erecting straw men along the way. The Bible itself speaks of "the Jews" in the same vein as we are here-- e.g. "for fear of the Jews" -- John 7:13. It doesn't mean every single Jew, then or today. It means the majority of Jews who have rejected Christ.

I'll have to do more research in what 911 says about dispensationalism, whose roads seem to lead back to Joseph Canfield, but regardless of founding motivations it's just plain historical fact that no one taught dispensationalism's view of Israel or the end times before the 19th century (I incorrectly mentioned Campbellites in an earlier post, who were the forbears of the Church of Christ denom, and meant to say JN Darby and the brethren).

I count dispensationalists who accept the gospel as erring brothers in Christ, but encourage them to course correct away from it.
 

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Even if we go back 40 years, most countries had a State Religion. France & Spain were Catholic, in Scotland - the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) is still officially recognized as the state religion. Obviously, these countries are not USA. Having a State Religion does not mean that you crack skulls of everyone who is in the minority, at least not in the Christian example. A level of freedom is provided with the understanding that the laws of the country are inherently Christian, and the non Christian is somewhat of an 'outsider'. The cultural ethos of the country is Christian, and laws are made to match Gods law so things like abortion, sex education are not allowed.

The countries that have a state religion are also the ones which are the most hostile to Christianity these days. The Scandinavian countries have all had state churches and were explicit about promoting Christian culture. The flags all have flags featuring a cross which is explicitly supposed to be a nod to their Lutheran heritages. These countries have also had laws designed to uplift Christianity. In Sweden, there is (or at least was) a law that the king had to be a Lutheran and that a certain percentage of their parliament needed to be members of the state church. Well we see how that much that has helped keep Christianity alive there with that region of the world being the most atheistic.

There's something similar going on in England where they also have a state church that's still in control of a lot of the institutions of the country. Bishops are allowed to sit in the House of Lords, Oxford and Cambridge are still officially affiliated with the Church of England, and many of the top schools in the country are still officially Anglican or affiliated with one of the dissenter denominations. And like the Nordic countries, we see a lot of resentment towards Christianity. I've noticed that a lot of militant atheists I come across online are English a lot of times and a lot of the most famous atheists in the world like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (who both grew up going to Anglican schools and receiving religious education in those institutions) are English.

Given the trends in multiple parts of the West, it can't be claimed that having a state sponsored religion does much good in inspiring true belief among it's citizens. To give another example with a non-Western culture, I've met a number of Egyptian immigrants over the years. Something I noticed is that the ones who are from Muslim backgrounds are pretty loose in their religious practices or in quite a few cases, completely non-religious. The ones that I met that were Coptic on the other hand, tended to be pretty fervent about their beliefs. The explanation for this is that Coptic Christianity has been a minority religion in Egypt ever since the Muslim conquest. There is a cost to remaining one which means only those who are true believers are going to remain within the faith. The people who were lukewarm already fell away and took the easy path which is to be a Muslim in a Muslim controlled country. The effects of this is a lot of nominal Muslims. If Christianity on the other hand was the enforced religion of the state, you would see lots of nominal Christians - which is exactly what you see now in the West.

A few years ago I remember there was a social science study getting mentioned a lot which claimed that a big reason reason why the US is more religious than the rest of the West is because it never had a state church which meant the churches couldn't be complacent like the state sponsored churches in the countries that had a state religion. It reminds me of the argument you hear against welfare: when you have the government taking care of all your needs it makes you complacent and discourages you from having to work towards your daily bread. I'm not sure how true this is, but I don't think it can be denied that churches in the US tend to be more vibrant about evangelizing and going forth to engage the public.
 
I learned that E. Michael Jones' books just recently got banned from Amazon. To be honest, I was surprised that they lasted on that website as long as they did. They're still available for sale from Fidelity Press though.
I am reading Logos Rising now. Funny I can't find any 'hate' in it.. I am half way through. Meanwhile "White Fragility" screeds are promoted on Amazon's home page. The hypocrisy is mind numbing.

But, you know what? Good. The mask is off. Buy directly from Fidelity press- no more money to globalists who hate us. Yes his book is expensive but the information is priceless. I don't agree with everything in it so far - but you know what, that's what people used to do, read things, digest them, weigh the facts, decide for yourself. That's the last thing globalists want.

Next, they will go after the people who print his books.

Not a peep in the media about the principles of a free press and free speech. The globalists don't believe either.
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
E. Michael Jones in my assessment met his match today with an extremely well prepped Catholic interviewer. It'd be my assessment that he got taken to school more than a few times.

The interviewer was able to put some pointed questions to him which I think show some gaps in Jones' synopsis of issues with the Catholic Church right now. EMJ was solid as always, and what I respect most about him is that he loves the spirited debate and doesn't shy away from it, he respects it. It's an excellent back and forth, perhaps the best interview of EMJ I have seen in a while. Alot of TLM people talk about these issues, while I love EMJ on a political historical basis, he has always been able to gloss over certain topics. In EMJs' defense, there were a ton of other topics where the back and forth was just fantastic, they find agreement and explore issues.

(1) Errors of St. Pope John Paul II
The interviewer pushed EMJ into a corner in citing various forms of heresy and weakness shown by JP2.
- The interviewer asks EMJ about the effects of JP2 putting buddha on a tabernacle, EMJs' response "well its isolated", and the interviewer immediately pulls out another example of JP2 petitioned St. John the Baptist to protect Islam JP2 blesses islam
"May Saint John Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan, and all who participated in this celebration, a memorable celebration. I’m very grateful to all of you. "

A friend of mine had a very good take:
This guy put EMJ on his back foot. Made him stutter and mumble, "Well you can spin that any way you want." I was shocked at the weakness of that reply. EMJ was taken off guard by that interviewer being as prepared as EMJ usually is. EMJ was the one "spinning" for his hero JP2 by saying Assisi was a "one-off". It was NOT a one-off.

JP2 also went on record supporting African voodoo. JP2's ecumenism was manifestly heretical....I don't think EMJ will ever move his opinions, and I respect that about him. EMJ is accustomed to being a "maverick" living outside the sphere of acceptance by the masses. He won't be lured by the promise of ecelebrity. He could care less.

This problem of having too much affection for JP2 has come up in other Catholic chat groups I am involved in. It is a cause of much division in the current world of Catholicism. Catholics who are convinced of the errors of V2 are inevitably forced to criticize JP2 whether they want to or not. Then the "disciples" of JP2 get their feathers ruffled and go on emotional defenses of their "saint". EMJ did mildly criticize JP2 in that interview when he said that JP2 was "too close" to America. But the emotional attachment of EMJ to JP2 is clearly still there.

(2) Catholic Monarchy in the USA
EMJ holds an opinion that Monarchy isn't suitable to the USA, that the ideal governance is some form of Constitutionalism run by the Catholic Church. In my Opinion EMJ held his ground pretty well here but the interviewers points were extremely prescient.

The interviewer makes the point that the king is a symbol of the father in the family, and that when the king was thrown out, every fathers' hands were tied. There is a good back and forth on this topic.

(3) New Mass vs. Latin Mass
EMJ maintains that the Latin Mass (?) or SSPX has a tendancy for schismatic belief. The interviewer does an excellent job questioning who is truly out of line in terms of dogma, teaching. There is an interesting back and forth between what EMJ describes as "poor teaching, poor catechisis" vs. the interviewers take that the teaching is subverted, or a result of Vatican 2.

(4) Vatican 2 Documents
They go into a couple of troublesome vatican 2 documents, should these documents be rescinded as having error? Should there be steps to actively clarify them? EMJ says they should sort of be left in the dust bin as we move forward and interpreted in light of historical teaching. To me the interviewers' arguments are very compelling

(5) Pope Francis heretical teaching
Amoris Laetitia is a document Pope Francis put out essentially saying that communion can be taken by common law couples / remarried couples. The Catholic Church has been very strict on this as dogma related to the 6th commandment throughout time. EMJ argues that it is vague, and this is true. But the interviewer counters that a Bishop in Argentina is now allowing this, and that Pope Francis told him he was interpreting it the only correct way. EMJ says it isn't his job to deem if the Pope is a heretic, but the counter argument goes straight to the Bible in that we are to "know them by their fruits"

(6) Opus Dei Funding
The interviewer flat out asks EMJ if he is funded by Opus Dei. This part was just fun. EMJ says no, but the interviewer says "well they are a secret society so..."

 
Last edited:
Is there another website where I can buy Logos Rising and Libido Domandi in the UK without having to pay $70 for shipping? I don't mind paying $48 for the book itself, but to more than double the price with shipping is a bit much.
 

((()))

Sparrow
Is there another website where I can buy Logos Rising and Libido Domandi in the UK without having to pay $70 for shipping? I don't mind paying $48 for the book itself, but to more than double the price with shipping is a bit much.

Been wondering the same. I sent an email to Fidelity Press and they said that those prices were the lowest available..
 

Athanasius

Pelican
E. Michael Jones in my assessment met his match today with an extremely well prepped Catholic interviewer. It'd be my assessment that he got taken to school more than a few times.

The interviewer was able to put some pointed questions to him which I think show some gaps in Jones' synopsis of issues with the Catholic Church right now. EMJ was solid as always, and what I respect most about him is that he loves the spirited debate and doesn't shy away from it, he respects it. It's an excellent back and forth, perhaps the best interview of EMJ I have seen in a while. Alot of TLM people talk about these issues, while I love EMJ on a political historical basis, he has always been able to gloss over certain topics. In EMJs' defense, there were a ton of other topics where the back and forth was just fantastic, they find agreement and explore issues.

(1) Errors of St. Pope John Paul II
The interviewer pushed EMJ into a corner in citing various forms of heresy and weakness shown by JP2.
- The interviewer asks EMJ about the effects of JP2 putting buddha on a tabernacle, EMJs' response "well its isolated", and the interviewer immediately pulls out another example of JP2 petitioned St. John the Baptist to protect Islam JP2 blesses islam


A friend of mine had a very good take:


(2) Catholic Monarchy in the USA
EMJ holds an opinion that Monarchy isn't suitable to the USA, that the ideal governance is some form of Constitutionalism run by the Catholic Church. In my Opinion EMJ held his ground pretty well here but the interviewers points were extremely prescient.

The interviewer makes the point that the king is a symbol of the father in the family, and that when the king was thrown out, every fathers' hands were tied. There is a good back and forth on this topic.

(3) New Mass vs. Latin Mass
EMJ maintains that the Latin Mass (?) or SSPX has a tendancy for schismatic belief. The interviewer does an excellent job questioning who is truly out of line in terms of dogma, teaching. There is an interesting back and forth between what EMJ describes as "poor teaching, poor catechisis" vs. the interviewers take that the teaching is subverted, or a result of Vatican 2.

(4) Vatican 2 Documents
They go into a couple of troublesome vatican 2 documents, should these documents be rescinded as having error? Should there be steps to actively clarify them? EMJ says they should sort of be left in the dust bin as we move forward and interpreted in light of historical teaching. To me the interviewers' arguments are very compelling

(5) Pope Francis heretical teaching
Amoris Laetitia is a document Pope Francis put out essentially saying that communion can be taken by common law couples / remarried couples. The Catholic Church has been very strict on this as dogma related to the 6th commandment throughout time. EMJ argues that it is vague, and this is true. But the interviewer counters that a Bishop in Argentina is now allowing this, and that Pope Francis told him he was interpreting it the only correct way. EMJ says it isn't his job to deem if the Pope is a heretic, but the counter argument goes straight to the Bible in that we are to "know them by their fruits"

(6) Opus Dei Funding
The interviewer flat out asks EMJ if he is funded by Opus Dei. This part was just fun. EMJ says no, but the interviewer says "well they are a secret society so..."


I've wanted to see EMJ have a discussion about the Reformation with a Protestant historian (w/a PhD), maybe with a James White or a Michael Kruger. It would be an interesting and, I think, useful conversation (if one exists, enlighten me). I see him as more of an idea guy than a precise historian, and he definitely has his biases and hobby-horses. He's thought-provoking, though, and really the kind of guy who should be on TV instead of the plastic stiffs who make it unwatchable. Libido Dominandi was a very interesting book.
 

Athanasius

Pelican
Would you like to elaborate on this (or perhaps somebody else has elsewhere) ?

Many things... For one, dismissing Calvin as a revolutionary who ran a police state in Geneva. The town council was the civil magistrate. He was the town pastor. The relationship was often uneasy and at one point he wanted to resign but was refused.

There are a lot of Catholics who read here, and the point isn't to start theological discussion, but if you actually read Calvin you'll see that his focus was on Bible exposition and systematic theology (more Bible exposition). I get that Catholics aren't big fans of Calvinism, but it's not a fair analysis to cast Calvin as a Judaizing revolutionary running a police state. It's dismissing a formidable intellect, much like I would be if I called Jones a "reactionary crank." Similarly, Jones's views on Luther are not balanced, although, to be fair, Luther was a hothead.

That the Puritans were Judaizers... They saw themselves as eliminating the Judaizing of Rome on the Gospel. It's long been a question of what obligation we have to follow the OT law. The landing place for classic Protestants is that the ceremonial and judicial laws are gone, but the moral law as expressed in the Ten Commandments, remains (including for many the Sabbath) and should guide us into good works. Calvin called this the "Third use of the law." That's a short and inadequate summary.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
That the Puritans were Judaizers... They saw themselves as eliminating the Judaizing of Rome on the Gospel.

How did Rome "judaize the Gospel" according to them ?

It's long been a question of what obligation we have to follow the OT law.

For Judaizers, that is. For Catholics the essentials of the issue have long been settled in the very first council of the Church, the Jerusalem Council, as narrated in the NT.

Many things... For one, dismissing Calvin as a revolutionary who ran a police state in Geneva. The town council was the civil magistrate. He was the town pastor. The relationship was often uneasy and at one point he wanted to resign but was refused.

Perhaps it was not always that uneasy ; would you deny the factuality of the claims below :

David Anders said:
Calvin's first request to the city council was to impose a common confession of faith (written by him) and to force all citizens to affirm it.

Calvin’s most important contribution to Geneva was the establishment of the Consistory – a sort of ecclesiastical court- to judge the moral and theological purity of his parishioners. He also persuaded the council to enforce a set of “Ecclesiastical Ordinances” that defined the authority of the Church, stated the religious obligations of the laity, and imposed an official liturgy. Church attendance was mandatory. Contradicting the ministers was outlawed as blasphemy. Calvin’s Institutes would eventually be declared official doctrine.

Calvin’s lifelong goal was to gain the right to excommunicate “unworthy” Church members. The city council finally granted this power in 1555 when French immigration and local scandal tipped the electorate in his favor. Calvin wielded it frequently. According to historian William Monter, one in fifteen citizens was summoned before the Consistory between 1559 and 1569, and up to one in twenty five was actually excommunicated. Calvin used this power to enforce his single vision of Christianity and to punish dissent.

Calvin (...) a formidable intellect

Do you have evidence for such a claim ? I would argue that the Calvinist gigantic intellectual project (of a unified Protestant doctrine and Church) was a formidable failure, though not for lack of trials :

David Anders said:
Outside of Geneva, without the force of the state to impose one version, Calvinism itself splintered into factions. In her book "Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism", historian Janice Knight details how the process unfolded very early in American Calvinism.

Since the eighteenth century, Calvinism has devolved more and more into a narrow set of questions about the nature of salvation. Indeed, in most people’s minds the word Calvinism implies only the doctrine of predestination. Calvin himself has become mainly a shadowy symbol, a myth that Evangelicals call upon only to support a spurious claim to historical continuity.
 
Last edited:

get2choppaaa

Pelican

EMJ taking down the "Muslim" Umar Lee at St. Louis. Quite hilarious as this Muslim is a Caucasian who is going on about White Supremacists. If you look up the guy's history you'll realize he is a product of inter-racial relationship abuse by his mother post death of his father. So its pretty clear the anti-white self loathing is a result of Stockholm Syndrome.... It is literally one of the most embarrassing debates I have ever seen. ADL talking point after ADL talking point. He rejects the teachings of both Islam and Christianity.
 
Top