Give EMJ some time and I believe he will hone this theory until it's bullet proof.
The E. Michael Jones thread
- Thread starter Super_Fire
- Start date
Yes, I don't think many Americans understand how awkward this term "white" is an a European context. At best, it's a synonym for the European American ethnicity, at worst it's used as identity politics to "unite" all Americans and Europeans under one umbrella. But such "white nationalists" do not seem to understand that traditional Europeans do not genereally even like Americans, and certainly don't wan't to buy into their political visions. Especially their clinical race fetichism of Europeans and European culture.
It is no coincidence that this E. Michael Jones guy is not a white nationalist, being a Catholic. Racialist sentiments always seem to arise from puritanical, protestant and socialist mentalities (by people of primarily Germanic stock). I believe this is the case with the rise of Hitler, who was mostly supported in Protestant areas and opposed by Catholic ones. In Sweden, the socialists were known for their eugenics and racial biology. Taking into account such spiritual and religious factors show that ethnicity is more complex than race. A Polish Catholic and a German Lutheran are indeed two very different creatures. Western Europe is currently an appalling amalgamation of liberalism, Protestantism and Americanism.
Especially in a country like Poland. If you ask a Pole about his race he will say he's Slavic, no one will automatically describe himself as white. Only the most rabid Jews would sometimes use it but it's just another proof that the term 'white' is a Jewish creation.
I find the argument fascinating that because race is perceived differently in a completely different context it's supposedly a "category of the mind". It's not like poles don't acknowledge that they are different from Blacks, is it? Blacks in Germany tend to flock together I noticed, despite them being from completely different tribes, which conforms to the idea that there is some racial grounding to social preference. The IQ difference I guess is the most tangible thing, but there's plenty of evidence that most people will instinctively prefer social contacts more genetically similar to themselves than others, which, ironically, is itself a heritable trait, though also dependent on contextual factors. Thats why race becomes very important once you are dealing with groups of people instead of individuals. If a black guy is alone in a white society, his tribal instincts are not going to manifest, simply because they can't, same thing if it's the other way around. they do manifest in groups of people which is the whole crux of political debates.
I saw Ryan Dawson comment on the debate and he too used these weird talmudic dialectics to make it seem as if racial differences were just constructed, even going as far as to say that some white guy winning a race recently proved that differences in physical ability are just a category of the mind, too. I think theres something about Western thinking at this point which just can't allow for racial differences to exist in a Christian framework.
My guess is that the Roman church has introduced a lot a lot of abstract thinking stuff into their worldview through Thomism, and now they cannot keep your abstract thinking apart from your spiritual discernment. EMJ also once got angry about people mentioning high IQ in Jews because, since Jews do destructive stuff, they obviously cannot be intelligent. It's a weird kind of scholastic reductionism taking place in his mind, and I think it's characteristic for Western thinking. Also becomes pretty clear when you read Logos Rising.
oh, and EMJ DOES believe that alcoholism is heritable, so that aspect of psychometrics apparently is not a Jewish conspiracy.
Last edited:
Of course, because the term white is foreign, it comes from somewhere else and someone else's context (America). It might be used in Europe by chic academic types who use some sort of international ideological vocabulary. In Western Europe, there are white nationalists too, who have swallowed American style identity politics, but that just shows their minds have long ago abandoned any thinking that might not come from America.
Race is a descriptive, scientific term. If you build a normative identity on such an objective, zoological parameter it will be ideological and fundamentalist in nature. Identity should be based on more subjective and specific concepts, such as being a "Polish Catholic", rather than generic scientific abstractions superimposing themselves on personal contexts. Merging politics with science will create political machines, like the Third Reich, modern democracies or white nationalist utopias.
Last edited:
I’m not talking about “building an identity” on it, which I agree is not the correct course of action. I am talking about the stupidity of having every lever of power turned against you for being white while the people being attacked keep insisting that white isn’t a thing. It doesn’t matter if it’s a thing to you, it’s a thing to the people who hate you and refusing to understand this simple reality just puts you in a worse position to deal with it. You aren’t going to change their minds with rational discourse or distinctions about categories.
Sometimes there is such a thing as a distinction without a difference.
Totally agree. Hannah Arendt put it this way regarding WWII: "when attacked as a Jew, you have to defend yourself as one", and even though I'm not generally her biggest fan, I think she made a valid point there. The context was that she said that problems always arise when someone tries to deflect from an attack instead of taking on what the other person actually meant to point to, taking European Jews who would talk about anything but the actual JQ when problems of coexistence came up, instead pointing to some other convoluted explanation, like "it's really the bourgeoisie", "the capitalists" or some freudian horsecrap instead of addressing the original age old problem of different races with different faiths cohabitating.
I think you can transfer that to the debate about race we have now in the West, where whites are attacked specifically as Christian Europeans, their skin color being a marker of it. When other races have a specific problem with whites, there is really no point in saying that you're not white because it comes across as weaselly. Just say that you're not going to engage into or bow to the shenanigans of some hateful ingrate immigrants, who are welcome to go to some place where there are no whites and see how well things go for them there. I don't see why one would over-intellectualize a conflict that is based in ethnocentrism and racial opportunism, when all you really have to do is say no to ridiculous demands and accusations. Arabs and Chinese do it the same way and guess what, they have no problem with BLM nonsense.
There is really no point in saying that you're not white because it comes across as weaselly. It "comes across as weaselly" to those who have "internalized the commands of their opressors" as EMJ often says, and are too weaselly to even try it.
There's no over-intellectualizing here because the "intellect" aspect was there from the start. The current "racial question" in the West is very different from the other racial conflicts that have existed since the beginning of humanity in that it involves social engineering and mass propaganda. A very bad use of intellect for sure, but intellect all the same.
If it were "just another racial conflict" as you absurdly claim, people would be free to discuss it.
How naive and disconnected from reality. I don't know where or when you're thinking of "saying no", because you won't be asked, your compliance will be simply demanded, and non-compliance is a mortal sin by today's rules. The only way back to freedom lies in questioning those rules, as EMJ does.
What do "Arabs and Chinese" have in common ? They're not Christian nations. This is yet more evidence that (as EMJ correctly claims) Christianity is the real issue, not "race".
While ultimately that may be true…
Attachments
The fact of the matter is that I've tried the I'm not white comment.
No one cares that my dad's family came here from Scotland and has been here for 200+ years. No one cares that the group is staunchly Presbyterian and had a very unique cultural tradition. No one cares. They see white.
No one cares that my mom's grand parents left Ukraine to escape the Bolsheviks and the Holodomor. No one cares that this group has a very unique cultural identity and Orthodox Tradition. No one cares. They see white.
Putin: white
Orban: White
Trump: white
Bolsonero: white
Merkel: white
Macron: white
None of the above are the same at all.
All are still categorized as White in America.
In Europe they recognize cultural differences. But in America, where Jones is making the argument from, skin color is the indicator, not culture.
The Triple melting pot theory is great in the 20s and 30s, but social engineering had destroyed those cultural seprerations between Irish/polish/Lithuanians ECT when it comes to the national dialogue.
So you can acknowledge the differences in culture, but pretending that you'll be able to convince people they aren't white or that they shouldn't group you in with whites et al is a waste of time.
Its better to ignore those debates. One saw how easily Jared Taylor dismantled the argument.
People in America have been subjected to decades of Jewish programming and that's why all these people see white. They are already brainwashed. The social landscape has been nuked already. What Jones is doing is showing people a photo of it before the nuke hit in hope to make the nuke stop echoing back.
Completely aware of that.
Doesn't change the paradigm however.
Again, my position, having tried to make the I'm not white argument, is that a majority of white/non white people a like do not accept that white doesnt exist.
So either you can choose to not debate them at all or simply state that even though you don't believe it's correct to ignore differences within white culture, there is such a thing according to the public perception at large and argue from there about how there is nothing wrong about having white culture and positing that it is acceptable to have appreciation for the contributions to society that said culture had promoted.
We are all living in a system that is a product of the Magna Carta and the rejection of Aristocratic control (however corrupted it has become over the last couple hundred years) that all comes from a synthesis of Anglo culture with other Westen value sets. We can argue about the correctness of those at times, but we shouldn't ignore that this is the intellectual construction most are entering in when having the debate.
I deeply value Jones and his work on the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, Libido Dominandi, Barren Metal, and others...I've bern a culture wars subscriber for a couple years... I understand his argument, just don't think it's a practical one to make in the context of the American Public.
Completely aware of that.
It’s a frustrating and unfortunate situation to say the least, finding ourselves in this type of trap.
I think a sort of hybrid between both views is necessary to defeat our opponents — to acknowledge that while we are ‘white’ in a sense (insofar as we’re not ‘black’, and that there are some cultural similarities between ‘whites’) but that this is not a defining element of our being. It’s like pin the tail on the donkey. The tail is there, but it has been pinned on us by some (((unsavoury agents))) with nefarious plans.
We don’t want to use the language of our opponents, the people who are seething with hatred towards anything they perceive as white / Eurocentric, colonial, etc. We should reject their definitions and their incorrect framing of the discussion. And point out, as Jones does, that the white identity is ultimately a form of identity theft.
At the same time, that everyone gets to have racial or ethnic pride except for us lowly ‘whites’ is clearly a problem. And I see the appeal of using their dirty tactics against them and doubling down on identity politics rather than being the only ones above it (illustrated by Michael Witcoff’s hilarious meme above). Conservatives often lose the culture war precisely because they take the high road more often. There is a time to fight fire with fire.
The example of the German Lutheran & the Polish Catholic being completely distinct is nuanced, and dependant on context. In a traditional sense, they are both Christian, both European, both enjoy similar cuisine and alcohol consumption, both live in similar climates and are likely to be robust, ‘outdoorsy’ / capable of identifying and felling various trees, farming, tuck their shirts in and comb their hair, enjoy peaceful rural life with no crime or locked doors, etc. Transplanting one into the other’s town or clothes or customs would be much more similar than if one were to be transplanted into the life of an Australian aborigine.
There are of course many differences as well. But if the context is uniting against a foreign enemy like Islam (which has almost zero similarities), their differences would likely shrink.
“I understand his argument, just don't think it's a practical one to make in the context of the American Public.” Because they are too far gone to grasp it? I outlined some similarities between the German and the Pole, and I think EMJ’s argument is a good way of highlighting the differences. We just can’t be naive about it and be the only ones caught standing when the music stops, while everyone else has stolen a (proud racial identity) chair to sit down in.
Someone posted a funny meme in another thread where a black girl is demanding the trad Chad “decolonize this university!” Trad Chad says “ok, I decolonized it” and it goes from a stunning, old European building to a dilapidated mud shack lol.
That should be the ‘be careful what you wish for’ attitude when debating this with insane lefty lunatics. Because if they really get their way and dig down deep enough, they’ll find nothing but ‘white’ at the bedrock of anything truly good and defining about our civilization. I view our willingness to be colour blind as a benevolence of sorts. A chance to transcend and teach, showing others the truth of Christ, which will lead them to naturally abandon their racial obsessions.
My 2 cents.
All good points from various posts here.
It’s a frustrating and unfortunate situation to say the least, finding ourselves in this type of trap.
I think a sort of hybrid between both views is necessary to defeat our opponents — to acknowledge that while we are ‘white’ in a sense (insofar as we’re not ‘black’, and that there are some cultural similarities between ‘whites’) but that this is not a defining element of our being. It’s like pin the tail on the donkey. The tail is there, but it has been pinned on us by some (((unsavoury agents))) with nefarious plans.
We don’t want to use the language of our opponents, the people who are seething with hatred towards anything they perceive as white / Eurocentric, colonial, etc. We should reject their definitions and their incorrect framing of the discussion. And point out, as Jones does, that the white identity is ultimately a form of identity theft.
At the same time, that everyone gets to have racial or ethnic pride except for us lowly ‘whites’ is clearly a problem. And I see the appeal of using their dirty tactics against them and doubling down on identity politics rather than being the only ones above it (illustrated by Michael Witcoff’s hilarious meme above). Conservatives often lose the culture war precisely because they take the high road more often. There is a time to fight fire with fire.
The example of the German Lutheran & the Polish Catholic being completely distinct is nuanced, and dependant on context. In a traditional sense, they are both Christian, both European, both enjoy similar cuisine and alcohol consumption, both live in similar climates and are likely to be robust, ‘outdoorsy’ / capable of identifying and felling various trees, farming, tuck their shirts in and comb their hair, enjoy peaceful rural life with no crime or locked doors, etc. Transplanting one into the other’s town or clothes or customs would be much more similar than if one were to be transplanted into the life of an Australian aborigine.
There are of course many differences as well. But if the context is uniting against a foreign enemy like Islam (which has almost zero similarities), their differences would likely shrink.
“I understand his argument, just don't think it's a practical one to make in the context of the American Public.” Because they are too far gone to grasp it? I outlined some similarities between the German and the Pole, and I think EMJ’s argument is a good way of highlighting the differences. We just can’t be naive about it and be the only ones caught standing when the music stops, while everyone else has stolen a (proud racial identity) chair to sit down in.
Someone posted a funny meme in another thread where a black girl is demanding the trad Chad “decolonize this university!” Trad Chad says “ok, I decolonized it” and it goes from a stunning, old European building to a dilapidated mud shack lol.
That should be the ‘be careful what you wish for’ attitude when debating this with insane lefty lunatics. Because if they really get their way and dig down deep enough, they’ll find nothing but ‘white’ at the bedrock of anything truly good and defining about our civilization. I view our willingness to be colour blind as a benevolence of sorts. A chance to transcend and teach, showing others the truth of Christ, which will lead them to naturally abandon their racial obsessions.
My 2 cents.
Last edited:
Largely true but they made some cool mud buildings too.
Attachments
I absolutely agree with you in terms of the motivation behind the propaganda project being to destroy Christianity. Whites are definitely the proxy target in order to destroy Christianity.
But that doesn't change anything about the mechanisms by which the discrimination works. Whites adopt PC jabber in order to be liked or because they can't stand making people uncomfortable even for a minute, while the brown people pouring into European countries or the Jews have enough chutzpah to make white people incredibly uncomfortable all the time, for their own benefit. The trick is to tell anyone with a complaint to F off instead of constantly trying to "see the other side" because their side is just an outcome of their group interest weighing against yours.
A big problem Europeans have is that they neglect their faith and that they act like little girls towards people who have no trouble bullying them. If they changed their attitude a little towards just being what they now call "racist", meaning developing a certain positive as well as negative ethnocentrism, which should be reigned in by their Christian faith such that it doesn't become too extreme, things would change drastically. And I think that works, because I've seen immigrants drop their victimhood as soon as they see it's not working any more, same with Jews with their antisemitism shtick, as you could see in Nick Fuentes' debate with Halsey. People have always generally liked being able to live in white Christian societies, and if they have to play ball in order to stay, many will.
"The trick is to tell anyone with a complaint to F off instead of constantly trying to "see the other side" because their side is just an outcome of their group interest weighing against yours."
Yes. This leads to the sort of pathological altruism that is destroying the west in the first place.
Look at Germany cheering at the arrival of trains filled to the brim with 3rd world migrants, as their country is rapidly destroyed. They are clearly operating from a deeply wounded place of leftover WW2 guilt, and the Jews want to milk this as long as they can.
"I'm proud to be Asian!" said the Japanese man
"I'm proud to be black!" said the African
"I'm proud to be white!" said the evil racist
Yes. This leads to the sort of pathological altruism that is destroying the west in the first place.
Look at Germany cheering at the arrival of trains filled to the brim with 3rd world migrants, as their country is rapidly destroyed. They are clearly operating from a deeply wounded place of leftover WW2 guilt, and the Jews want to milk this as long as they can.
"I'm proud to be Asian!" said the Japanese man
"I'm proud to be black!" said the African
"I'm proud to be white!" said the evil racist
General Custard
Chicken
Race denialists like E. Michael Jones would have you believe that race is only skin deep and people can change nationalities and cultures like they change underwear. If he weren’t making these statements from a Catholic podium, you would think we were hearing yet another piece of flavor-of-the-week (((talking points))) from any number of the ruling elite’s parrots in the media. But that isn’t. And unfortunately E. Michael Jones is not the only so called Catholic with this opinion. Many tradservative Catholics share this opinion due to decades of anti-racist brainwashing and distorted teachings from the pulpit. Is E. Michael Jones’s strange race denialism really the “Catholic” position, or is it just EMJ’s own pet theory masquerading as Catholicism to the ignorant and ill-informed?
The Rev. James L. Meagher (1848 - 1920), an Irish priest who was made a Doctor of Divinity by Pope Leo XIII, had much to say about racial differences and three tribes that descended from Noah. Fr. Meagher . In his 1906 book “How Christ Said the First Mass”, pp. 94-95, [full text HERE] there is a particular section that contrasts the three branches that came from Noah. He extols the children of Japeth, who he regards as the white peoples of the earth who would accept Christ. The sons of Shem, excluding the line that produced Jesus Christ, he regards as stunted, citing them as stagnant, conservative, and unprogressive. He claims they've hardly improved since the patriarchs because, for whatever reason, they were not blessed with the grace of change.
The children of Ham, however, are regarded as cursed due to Ham's transgression:
The Rev. James L. Meagher (1848 - 1920), an Irish priest who was made a Doctor of Divinity by Pope Leo XIII, had much to say about racial differences and three tribes that descended from Noah. Fr. Meagher . In his 1906 book “How Christ Said the First Mass”, pp. 94-95, [full text HERE] there is a particular section that contrasts the three branches that came from Noah. He extols the children of Japeth, who he regards as the white peoples of the earth who would accept Christ. The sons of Shem, excluding the line that produced Jesus Christ, he regards as stunted, citing them as stagnant, conservative, and unprogressive. He claims they've hardly improved since the patriarchs because, for whatever reason, they were not blessed with the grace of change.
The children of Ham, however, are regarded as cursed due to Ham's transgression:
The Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) received several revelations about the curse of Ham; she said that: Black color is a consequence of Ham's sin (the Jews already taught that, and even Muslims have this tradition); that the descendants of Cain were also black because of their ancestor's curse; the Flood occurred because many pure descendants of Seth mingled with the corrupted race of Cain, and God could not allow the whole corruption of Seth’s posterity since the Incarnation would happen among Seth’s descendants; that the main executioners of Our Lord were black slaves of the Roman, etc. The following vision from Ven. Anne Emmerich’s “The Life of Jesus Christ” is her account of Noah and his children begins with Cain, the son of Adam and Eve. This vision takes place before the Deluge, and we are offered a window into the antediluvian world. It is interesting to note that when Cain is cursed by God for murdering Abel, his skin also turns dark. Since the whole account is rather long, I’ll go ahead and share just the two most relevant quotes here:
Notice NEITHER of these Catholic authors, writing in the 19th and early 20th centuries, are American. They are both European— one an Irish priest, the other a German nun — yet they still somehow refer to the white and black “races”. So much for EMJ’s “I’m not a white guy I’m German-Irish” shtick. So much too for his absurd claim that the “white race” is an artificial American “construct”, or that Europeans don’t see themselves as being white or belonging to the same race!
In “Who Shall Ascend” Reverend Fr. James F. Wathen, O.S.J. writes:
In “Who Shall Ascend” Reverend Fr. James F. Wathen, O.S.J. writes:
He goes on...
So, what is the truth on the matter of race? Is it compatible with Catholic teaching or is it just bigotry? Is biological determinism (or some similar form of it) true, or is race just the color of your skin which covers a completely blank body, mind, and soul with no genetic predispositions? I believe the answer is quite simple. Without the intervention of God, via the Holy Ghost, cultures/races/nations are predisposed to the immoral inclinations of their genetics and/or ingrained cultural beliefs. I guess you could say that biological determinism does exist, but if one converts to the true faith in Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost guides the person away from the bad inclinations of their genetic determinism and harnesses the good aspects of it. Evidence of this is demonstrated by the changes in followers of Christ who repent from their sins—sins being the inclination of their genetic determinism inherited from Adam passed down. Is not original sin a kind of genetic determinism after all? However, when a person repents from sin, they don’t change entirely. They still maintain aspects of their personality and behavior before they repented. They still retain their unique character and the moral or neutral attributes of their genetic inclinations.
Throughout the Bible and the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, nationalism is upheld as moral and virtuous. The Bible in no way promotes any inkling of multi-ethnic societies. The idea of Catholicism being universal relates to the application of salvation (to everyone, or universal). Many like E. Michael Jones twist this into meaning some kind of “Holy” melting pot mechanism. Indeed, the nation is a larger version of the family, which was instituted by God himself. The family is spiritually and racially cohesive, ideally. The propagation of nationhood and even ingroup cohesion is largely found in books of the Bible like Ecclesiasticus and Proverbs. (see Ecclesiasticus Chapter 13:14-19). If race and nations are extensions or amplifications of the family, then wouldn’t the inverse of racial polygamy (race mixing) be marital polygamy? Is it just a coincidence that the multiethnic superstate under Nimrod was destroyed by God, as it tended towards tyrannical rule in opposition to God? Indeed, just as God brought wrath upon Shinar for its multiethnic, one worldism, so now He brings wrath upon the world, which is pursuing the very same ill-fated goal of a one world (communistic) order via the mixing of the races and the feeding of immoral traits of genetic determinism, especially among the Third World, Islamists, and Jews.
Last edited:
I've found Steve Sailer's definition of "extended family, partly inbred" to be very helpful. Race is relative, literally and figuratively. Concentric circles. We are related to some groups of people - identifiable in population genetics - more so than others.
( https://vdare.com/articles/the-race-faq )
In sum, a racial group is an extended family that has a higher than random level of coherence and continuity due to some degree of endogamy. Viewed as concentric circles, it is extended family partly inbred. An ethnic group is a population united by some cultural characteristics that are typically passed down within genetic families but that don’t have to be, such as language and religion.
Race is a biological reality and also somewhat limited. "Jewish DNA" exists, for example, in the sense that Ashkenazi and other groups self-isolated for extended periods of time, evolving some measure of genetic marker. HOWEVER: EMJ's definition of "Logos / anti-Logos" has FAR MORE explanatory power as a useful definition. For a Jewish perspective, I highly recommend Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People, which discusses various mass conversions (anti-Logos in theological construct) all across the ancient world, including a once mighty kingdom in Yemen.
( https://vdare.com/articles/the-race-faq )
In sum, a racial group is an extended family that has a higher than random level of coherence and continuity due to some degree of endogamy. Viewed as concentric circles, it is extended family partly inbred. An ethnic group is a population united by some cultural characteristics that are typically passed down within genetic families but that don’t have to be, such as language and religion.
Race is a biological reality and also somewhat limited. "Jewish DNA" exists, for example, in the sense that Ashkenazi and other groups self-isolated for extended periods of time, evolving some measure of genetic marker. HOWEVER: EMJ's definition of "Logos / anti-Logos" has FAR MORE explanatory power as a useful definition. For a Jewish perspective, I highly recommend Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People, which discusses various mass conversions (anti-Logos in theological construct) all across the ancient world, including a once mighty kingdom in Yemen.