AmericanPapist Comments
The SPLC is among the worst of the worst pro-abortion organizations. Aggressive, litigation-happy, well-funded, Bolshevistic in their determination.
No pro-abortion speaker/honoree at a Catholic college was ever cancelled this fast after a protest from a mere pro-life organization.
BTW: I've known E. Michael Jones for decades. I haven't read every word he ever wrote, but I've read tons of his stuff, and never encountered any anti-Semitism.
Fr. Joe:
Don't be disingenous. Jones isdeeply anti-semitic, and everyone knows it.
Tom, don't give that crank any more publicity.
Jones is an Anti-Semite of the Henry Ford variety, and quite proud of it. He enjoys tracing the Jewish roots of various figures, as if that is a bad thing. And when you see having Jewish blood in you as a bad thing...that's Anti-Semitism, defined.
I stand by my statement: I've read a lot of E. Michael Jones's writing, and have never seen any anti-Semitism. He must have limited all his anti-Semitic outbursts to the stuff I haven't seen.
Ellen: I take offense at the request not to be disingenuous. It suggests that I am disingenuous.
I do not know these speakers but if they are truly anti-Semitic, they should be cancelled. The "Catholic" University should not tolerate hate.
This incident puts to rest the lie that a Catholic University must provide a forum for those who reject Church teaching (on racism, contraception, abortion, etc.)
But, let us remember this incident when an pro-abortion speaker is "accidentally" invited to lecture at The "Catholic" University.
Hopefully, the cancellation will be as swift and send as dramatic a message!
I do have to say that there is a very small minority among the "Traditionalist Catholics" that is anti-semetic. CUA may be aware of this small fraction of traditionalists and with the liberation of the Tridentine Mass and a growing increase of conservative and traditionalists priests, they may be being a tad too careful these days. In regards to IHS Press and E. Michael Jones, I couldn't tell you if they are anti-semetic. I read Jones magazine a couple of times back in 1997 at Boston College and never read it again. I haven't seen what IHS has published since March of 2005.
On the other hand, I am aware of the SPLC's reputation and they are a bit Marxist in their orientation. Their goal isn't so much to end racism but to establish power for themselves so they can dictate policy. Their preoccupation with the KKK, a backward group of ex-convicts, amuses me. But whatever. Whites will be a minority in this country in 20 years and it doesn't bother me at all. Let them have it.
Concerning Michael:
I've met Michael before, and had coffee and breakfast with him on several occasions (mostly at La Peep and SB Chocolate Company in downtown SB).
During one of those meetings we discussed issues related to Catholic-Jewish relations. I've also read a small portion of his work. Not only did I find no antisemitism or racism, but he clearly rejected both antisemitism and racism.
As for being a 'radical traditionalist' and rejecting Vatican II-- that's a hard claim to make, especially since he is a daily communicant at Novus Ordo masses in South Bend. How do I know? I see him at those masses and hear him as a lector.
Whatever.
And Try this.
Yes, Jones is anti-Semitic. He believes in a Jewish conspiracy, etc., etc.
The problem this thread is going to run into is the fact that the FOJ (Friends of Jones) will rush in, as anti-Semites always do, to say that being against the Jewish conspiracy and wanting people to be aware of it is not anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism is hating Jews. We love Jews! They will say....
Oh, and please note that that first link includes a condemnation of Jones' anti-Semitism from The Catholic League.
See Jones's next statement: "If salvation comes from the Jews who prepared the way for Christ and accepted him when he came, what comes from the Jews who rejected Christ? The answer is clear: what comes from this group is the opposite of salvation, namely, the work of Satan culminating in the arrival of the Antichrist." Jones's conclusion just does not follow from his premises. Again, Jones is attempting to pass off dispensationalism as Catholic doctrine. Jones has the gall to add, "The answer is not only clear; there is no other possible answer to this question."
Jones claims that through much of Christian history, "What happened was precisely the Jewish participation in iniquity which their pertinacious and ongoing rejection of Christ made a necessity." He adds that "the logic is inescapable." Clearly, logic is not Jones's strong suit. Is Jones asserting that there can be no righteous non-Christians? No, he is saying something even more ridiculous: that there is something inherent in the Jewish people that makes them unique instruments of evil. If that is not anti-Semitism, then nothing is. He even outrageously blames the Jews themselves for the Holocaust and pogroms: "Messianic politics has been a recipe for disaster… and the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews was a reaction to Jewish Messianism (in the form of Bolshevism) every bit as much as the Chmielnicki pogroms flowed from the excesses of the Jewish tax farmers in the Ukraine."
Jones takes on the tone of a conspiracy theorist, noting "the Jewish/Bolshevist takeover of Russia and large segments of Eastern Europe, which in turn set up the mechanism of reaction against that reign of terror, namely, National Socialism under Hitler. That in turn led to the creation of the state of Israel, and the rise to power of the Jewish media elites in the United States, which in turn led, after over 50 years of antagonizing Islam to 9/11 and the current spate of never-ending wars in the Middle East." In keeping with the dispensationalist tendency to interpret prophecy in terms of current events, Jones comments, "So it looks more and more like Armageddon every day now. The outline of human history seems to be taking on a more and more biblical configuration with each passing day…." In the context of "Paul Wolfowitz's plan to march through the middle east; George Bush's recent over the top messianic speeches in England, or Ariel Sharon showing up at the Temple Mount and inaugurating the intifada," Jones concludes, "The contemporary Synagogue of Satan, whether in America or Israel, now poses the greatest threat to world peace."
The Catholic League condemns Jones's anti-Semitism and repudiates his efforts to justify it in the name of Cath
Sorry about that italics mistake.
To be clear: I have no dog in this fight. I have no affiliation with CUA, have only met Michael a few times, and the other person involved not at all. I know little about the SPLC, and have never interacted with them in any way.
A fuller response:
Reading through the SPLC info-- if one of my theology students turned this into me, I would give that student an F.
The writer condemns supporters of 'shadowy conspiracies', while at the same time accusing those same folks as being part of a shadowy conspiracy.
The writer condemns identifying individuals of a certain religious or political persuasion as representative of an entire group, and then goes on to paint individuals of a certain religious or political persuasion as representative of an entire group.
I nearly choked on the hypocrisy, contradiction, and double-speak.
In SPLC's 2/12 blogpost, the writing on 'radical traditionalist Catholics" is described as 'a major investigation of this theology.'
That statement does violence to the English language. It is neither major, nor investigative, nor does it deal with theology. The writer clearly knows almost nothing about Vatican II or Catholic theology.
In short-- a Mack truck could be driven through the holes in SPLC's writing and research.
Considering all of the above, some VERY serious questions arise. Answering them fairly and objectively is in the interest of all involved:
1) Where is the clear and undeniable evidence that supports the accusations? If Jones and Sharpe hold the alleged views, it should be easy to provide the written evidence.
2) What theological resources does SPLC have access to? It appears that individuals with no theological background and limited theological knowledge are claiming to have significant expertise on theological matters.
3) What sort of special influence does SPLC have with CUA?
and
4) How was this special influence obtained? Having a lecture series canceled 90 minutes after a phone call is made without any evidence being presented publicly... AFTER the lecture series has begun... is simply astounding. Multi-million dollar donors do not have this sort of influence. Bishops and Cardinals do not have this sort of influence. I can barely register for classes in 90 minutes. This influence is extraordinary and astounding.
5) Finally, what about academic freedom and allowing two men to defend their names and reputation? It seems that CUA has condemned these men in the public square without allowing them to defend themselves in the public square. This seems to be a major justice issue. Christian Charity obliges us to presume the best about all people, until evidence and experience suggests otherwise. Treating Jones and Sharpe in this manner appears to be very un-Christian.
I'm glad to respond to any objections or questions related to my opinion on these matters.
-LCB
First, let me say that I am very suspicious of Jones, even though that suspicion is based entirely on hearsay. My only comments are:
1. Anti-semitism is a serious sin, and therefore a serious charge. The evidence should be clear before an accusation is made;
2. The right to defend oneself from an accusation is a fundamental moral right;
3. It is quite possible that the CUA felt that the evidence was sufficient to cancel the engagement given the risk of scandal or confusion of the faithful, and that the opportunity to further develop evidence was impractical forcing a prudential decision;
4. The truth of 3 does not negate the truth of 2 such that CUA should certainly contact Jones and offer him another opportunity subject to his willingness and ability to negate the charge;
5. If Jones is guilty of the charge, the CUA and the Church generally should refrain from giving him any forum that could suggest an impramtur, and he should be corrected explicitily; and
6. If Jones has been unjustly accused, his accusers should be corrected explicitly.
I remember Mr. Jones review of Salvation is from the Jews (which is an excellent book) and found it quite over the top and certainly appeared to have anti-Semitic overtones and quite an overreaction to what was in the book.
I found this to be pretty ironic
"In March last year, Mr. Sharpe, a lieutenant commander in the Navy, was reassigned from his job as public affairs officer for the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson on the grounds he was participating in "supremist causes," according to the U.S. Fleet Forces Command."
The irony is that the carrier is named after Carl Vinson who signed the Southern Manifesto which opposed racial segregation. I always thought it was quite a shame to name a carrier after this man. I would be curious to know what "supremist causes" they meant and why he would only be reassigned form them.
So there might be some weight to these charges, but it is interesting that when John Kerry was scheduled to speak there last year and multiple Catholic organizations complained about it that his lecture was never canceled officially other than they saying later that there was a "scheduling conflict." If only CUA would act so promptly for any speaker that repudiates parts of the Catholic faith.
I think Fr. D pointed out a good lesson here:
"This incident puts to rest the lie that a Catholic University must provide a forum for those who reject Church teaching (on racism, contraception, abortion, etc)."
I filed that one away - it will come in handy I'm sure.
Who says that the power of major donors is not involved? One can't know that without knowing who the big donors to CUA are. One thing is certain--some haters of the Catholic Church have given millions to Catholic bishops and Catholic institutions, precisely in order to "buy" them and make them less Catholic. Cardinal Cushing winked at the notorious Dr. John Rock, in vitro abortionist and developer of The Pill. Hesburgh's Notre Dame, once it began receiving Ford and Rockefeller money in the 'fifties, became a hotbed of support for The Pill, and later, abortion. Archbishop Wuerl winks at Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and hundreds of other pro-abortion Catholics' ostentatious, sacrilegious Communions. These people, with federal money at their disposal, have turned Catholic Charities and most bishops into addicts, with all the moral fortitude of addicts.
Follow the careers of the signers of the Land o' Lakes Statement, almost all Catholic college presidents, and you will find highly skilled fundraisers, who knew that their most valuable commodity was the Catholic Faith, and sold it for a pretty penny to those who wanted to take it off the market.
If nothing else, I would like to point out that this situation is characteristic of how CUA handles controversial issues and figures, which is to say, not very well. While I have to say that CUA has correctly denied the privilege to speak to others in the past, I would also cite those self-same instances as some of the worst cases of charity in practical and prudential decision-making. For example, the pro-choice actor, Stanley Tucci, was denied the ability to speak on campus in 2004 only a day or two before he was scheduled to do so. The excuse for the sudden and late reaction, if I remember correctly, was that the administration had no idea that he was vehemently pro-choice until someone in the President's office GOOGLED the guy only a few days before the event. The only reason that CUA did not respond to the issue of John Kerry speaking on Campus is that the Kerry people themselves preempted any response CUA admin. may have given. I am absolutely sure that the administration would not have let him on campus, and perhaps would have been correct to do so. However, I am also fairly secure in believing that it would have happened while Senator Kerry was walking up to the mic, which is unconscionably rude and imprudent.
Part of the problem, and I can vouch for this given personal experience, is that CUA admin. is still uncertain about how to play the poker hands they are dealt because they don't know how to interpret their own rule book. CUA has been continuously revising its policy on outside speakers for almost 5 years now with no resolution, given disagreement between faculty and Administration. This forces the admin. into the position of not having a de jure way of dealing with speakers and thus forces them to respond ad hoc to every supposed controversy.
Whether Mr. Jones hates Jews or not, the direct problem with this situation is not him, it is the consistent lack of a competent way of dealing with controversy at our nation's Pontifical University. This would only be a blip on the RADAR if CUA actually had a book (Of their own making, not the Bible or the Code of Canon Law, you merry pranksters!) by which they did anything. Alright, sorry for the rant.
"Who says that the power of major donors is not involved?"
This is a pertinent question. This isn't a cool thing to say, but my family is a major benefactor mainly within our diocese, but we also kick in to other archdioceses. Though we don't inject ourselves in matters of controversy surrounding places we give, there have been many instances where an administrator or even the ordinary has called up asking if a decision one way or the other will affect our continued giving. So if a big enough donor made a threat, it's not hard to believe that the CUA administration jumped to action. Taking action in a span of 90 minutes was a bit brash, I think. Sit and think before making a decision.
If the correct action to take depended upon a final determination of whether or not either of two men was a notorious anti-semite, then CUA should not be faulted for deciding not to host the series. But the prudential error here was that they apparently decided to take the SPLC as a confidant and trusted advisor. And even if the SPLC does do some good (even NOW might occasionally do some good), it only take a few minutes to determine that they are not impartial, and that they understand nothing about Catholic relationship with Jews and Judaism. In a situation of a ticking clock and imperfect information, the University was wrong to rely upon the SPLC.
John Reilly used to write for Culture Wars magazine, and quit when he discovered that he disagreed with their editorial stance. An account is given here.
I used to sponser the SPLC for about 4 years or so. They take credit for successfully sueing the KKK in many landmark cases. (Two that come to mind are a church bombing in Alabama in the 60's when I think 4 girls were killed, and a case where a man was dragged to his death.) I thought this was admirable work.
I stopped sponsoring them when (1) they sued the Alabama judge that wanted a monument to the 10 commandments in his courthouse, and (2) their "Teaching Tolerance" materials included advocating homosexual activity.
I could see their point on the 10 commandments case that they saw it as violating the "esatblishment" clause, but I was still uncomfortable with it, given the Christian history of the USA. The second point really drove me away. Along with many books and teaching materials that recognized cultural diversity was a few like "Daddy's Best Friend" and the like that I couldn't in good conscience support.
I should say here that I take the Catholic point of view that homosexual persons are not to be condemned, but homosexual acts are sinful, and ACTS are not the same as PERSONS.
They had one case where they reported (in their quarterly "Intelligence Report" publication) on a Catholic Church being vandalized as a hate crime. I liked that they recognized that Catholics can be victims of 'hate crimes'. But, when "hate laws" are used against the Catholic Church, I have a strong suspicion they will be on the non-Catholic side of the courtroom.
Michael Jone is a journalist and and loves to discuss and write about history and current society from counter-cultural perspectives.
I subscribed to Fidelity for many years. He is not anti-Semitic. He is no Traditionalist either. He has some hard criticisms of SSPX and sedevacantists in particular. He is an orthodox Catholic. I think American Papist would enjoy reading his articles. One may not agree at all with him, but they are thought- provoking. I have saved some articles by him, because at a time (1980's) when no one was asking the critical questions about events and actions of the Church and in society, he did! This persecution by CUA and the SPLC just shows that he is doing something right.
(By the way, the SPLC was always involved in going after racists and segregationists. 'Witch hunts' describe their outrageous and exaggerated charges that they brought against people and schools.)
Jones has written articles as well as others in his magazine about the role some Jews played in Soviet totalitarianism. It is a fact. I have a memoir of a German evangelical, Georg Hildebrandt,( "Why are you still Alive") who, along with his entire village in the Ukraine, was shipped off to Siberia or killed on the way there in 1929 by Stalins' orders. His and their crime? They were Germans whose ancestors had settled in the Ukraine 200 years before. He mentions meeting and speaking with many Jews in his travels from one Gulag to the next until his release in 1952. The Soviet State Security, the MGB, Hidebrandt reports, had a lot of Jews in it, especially higher up. So what? Is it anti-Semitic to mention this? Does being anti-Semitic mean that criticizing the actions and deeds of any Jew in history is racist?
I know of many prominent Catholics who advocate criminal and murderous actions. Am I being anti-Catholic to critize them?
The CUA owes Jones an apology and compensation. Jones likes to seek truth. You may not agree with his arguments, but he does like to think and write candidly. What is the crime in that?
GW,
I agree with your discomfort with the SPLC. While they have done some worthy and important things, their principles are basically policy preferences. The Ten Commandments example is a case in point. It is the SLPC and its fellow liberal advocacy groups that worked to convince the Supreme Court that any governmental expressions of support for religious things is an "establishment" of religion, which is an amusingly dubious understanding of the word.
"I think Fr. D pointed out a good lesson here:
"This incident puts to rest the lie that a Catholic University must provide a forum for those who reject Church teaching (on racism, contraception, abortion, etc)."
I filed that one away - it will come in handy I'm sure.
AmericanPapist | Homepage | 02.14.08 - 1:16 pm | # "
This. In the grand scheme of things, canceling some speakers isn't a biggy. The precedent, however...
One of the "proofs" that Fr. Coughlin was an "anti-Semite" was his "wild," "vicious," "outrageous" charge that Jacob Schiff, a banker with Kuhn-Loeb on Wall Street, helped finance Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution. Coughlin cited a White Paper produced by British Intelligence, relayed to him from a source in Ireland. This was in 1938.
Look up Jacob Schiff on Wikipedia, and his financing of the Bolshevik revolution is in the very first paragraph of his biography! It's mentioned as a completely uncontroversial, completely verified fact about Schiff--in fact, what he's chiefly remembered for.
Cardinal Spellman and Cardinal Pacelli were directly involved in silencing Coughlin. Coughlin saw what was coming. He could name all the pinkos in the American hierarchy, who mentored the leftist bunch who gave us the preposterous, useless Peace Pastoral and other such baloney in the 1980s. As well as Call to Action, The Campaign for Human Development, the leftist USCC, etc., etc. All the while finding no time or testosterone to do anything about the pro-abortion Communicants.
His great-grandson is the husband of Karenna Gore Schiff--not surprising, since the Gore family fortune is based on their relationship with Lenin's and Stalin's business partner, Armand Hammer--in other words, the Gore wealth comes from decades of profiting from the Bolshevik revolution.
Actually, the REAL controversy is over the term "supercessionism." Jones, following Church teaching, says that the Church is the New Covenant.
Morrie Dees' SPLC is viciously anti-Catholic and its Americanism is debatable, to say the least.
I'm always astounded by folks who claim "anti-Semitism" is identical to reciting facts of history, too.
Anti-Semitism is a serios sin. So is calumny/detraction.. I'm afraid I see the latter being practiced by some of the posters above.
"Mark" cites a number of articles against Jones - but never once reproduces any article by Jones. William Donahue calls Jones a "dispensationalist" - an utterly ludicrous claim that could be refuted in seconds by a quick search of Jones's writings. He also grossly misrepresents what Jones has written. Fringewatcher called Jones a "Holocaust denier" until I wrote a complaint and suggested that this was an actionable libel. They hastily removed the slur - but gave a very good idea of their standards of accuracy. As to "Jewish conspiracy" - depends what you mean - but if the term is meant to cover Jones it must also cover some of the leading Jewish historians - Yuri Slezkine, Albert Lindemann, Rabbi Israel Newman etc. etc. etc. (all greatly respected Jews).
As to Jones tracing "blood lines" - evidence that 1) he does this and 2) that if he does he assigns any moral importance to it. Given that he has consitently condemned racial thinking - even at great cost to himself - makes me think that you really ought to be more careful about what you write - as I said before calumny is a serious sin.
As to the TBR - yes - I have problems with the magazine - so does Jones. He agreed to an interview with them PRECISELY to condemn racism as regards Jews (read his acount in "Guilt by Association" at the CW website). And, of course, "Mark" I suspect that you haven't ACTUALLY READ the interview.
I do hope that you and "Ellen" will desist from disgusting smears in future.
Thomas - I suggest that you contact Jones directly and make up your own mind re. his views. After you've done that perhaps you might consider removing the smears in the comments section of your site.
Fr. Joe,
Coughlin was an anti-semite, no doubt. Anyone who, after conducting the research, asserts otherwise is either delusional or also an anti-semite. Gheesh, just do a little homework, will ya? This was the fellow who enthusiastically printed the "Protocals of the Elders of Zion" in his paper, "Social Justice" for crying out loud. Or do you think "Protocals" is the real deal?
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been printed in the Congressional Record. Proving what?
I have listened to the very radio addresses which have been cited time and time again as "proof" of Coughlin's anti-Semitism, and there isn't a particle of anti-Semitism in them. I am referring specifically to a series of addresses in late 1938.
Every time it's been confidently asserted to me that Coughlin was an anti-Semite, and I've had access to Coughlin's own words, the supposed anti-Semitism has proved to be as substantial as a soap bubble or a smoke ring.
I haven't read enough of Coughlin to call him an anti-Semite.
However, he was clearly sympathetic with the 3rd Reich.
And he was a jerk.
LCB:
Another smear. Coughlin spoke against Hitler as early as anyone. What got Coughlin in trouble is that he spoke out against Stalin, and other Communists also, at a time when the Executive Branch was riddled with Communists. Coughlin broke with Roosevelt when he saw a check, authorized by Roosevelt, from the U.S. Treasury, for $11 Million, made out to the Communist Party of Mexico. He asked Roosevelt how he could give support to Stalin, citing Communist doctrine, and Roosevelt's answer was: "Oh, you don't think he really believes that stuff, do you?"
Roosevelt was a man without a thought, certainly without a conviction, and he thought the rest of the human race was as empty-souled as he was.
Coughlin was among the most insightful and courageous priests in American history.
Fr. Joe -- sorry, but any priest who serializes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in his newsletter (as Coughlin did in Social Justice
Fr. Joe -- sorry, but any priest who serializes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in his newsletter (as Coughlin did in Social Justice, circa. 1938) is an anti-semite in my book. As Coughlin himself wrote:
Whether the "Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion" have any foundation in truth . . . whether these are genuine matters not. It does matter that a definite plan does exist to destroy civilization and to subdue the children of men to the invisible master whose withering mind motivates the conspiracy against Christianity!"
Coughlin also informed his listeners that Hitler and his colleagues should be viewed "as a defense mechanism against the incursions of Communism."
Cardinal Spellman and Cardinal Pacelli were directly involved in silencing Coughlin. ...He could name all the pinkos in the American hierarchy, who mentored the leftist bunch...
Fr. Joe, just to be clear: Did I read that incorredtly, or was it said that Cardinal Spellman and Cardinal Pacelli were "pinkos?"
If it was not said, then on harm done. But if it was said, I must give my 100% disrespect to such a preposterous libel.
meant: "No harm done."
Well I'm in a different situation from most of you, b/c I not only knew (past tense) Mike Jones, I also wrote (very past tense) for his first magazine, Fidelity.
Fidelity was not anti-semitic in the slightest. Neither was Culture Wars in its first few years of publication.
Imagine my surprise, then, when I visited CW online after a long absence and found there an article by Jones blaming the pornography industry on Jews. This article has since been removed from public web access, wisely.
I thought perhaps it was a one-time aberration -- but other article titles on the website revealed a similar obsession. Many of these, too, no longer appear on the site.
Unlike some in this thread, I did not think Jones's review of Schoenman's book was over the top: only that it expressed unnecessary reservations.
However, unlike others in this thread, I do not wait for mouthfoaming Jew-hatred or direct genocidal advocacy before recognizing anti-semitism.
The E. Michael Jones of today (not of twenty years ago, and perhaps not of ten years from now) is either (a) anti-semitic, or else (b) strangely fond of lending credibility to anti-semitic themes and being lionized in anti-semitic/German-nationalist circles like the Barnes Review. One or the other. (I would add that in my view, drawing a sharp distinction between (a) and (b) is itself a little bit squirrelly -- but that's just my view.)
As I say, I used to write for Jones. If I don't speak out when the subject comes up, I may be suspected of sharing his views. Long ago, I did, but his views have (as far as appears) changed dramatically.
(For the record -- there are speakers more rebarbative to Catholicism than Jones who speak on Catholic college campuses all the time, and that's a scandal; and the SPLC is very much to the cultural left and should not be taken at face value. This does not mean that Jones should speak at CUA, or that the SPLC is always wrong.)
Use of labels to silence should be beneath those who seek the truth. The use of the term anti-Semite is justification for silencing like Mike Jones. What is the truth? Do the Jews as, a religion and culture; reject Jesus Christ as God and Savior or not? The Jewish rejection of Christ is no ordinary rejection from those who and are believed by many others to be Gods' chosen people. This is obvious; remember how Ann Coulter was savaged for suggesting that Catholics want Jews to be saved in Christ. Coulter should have said Catholics want all of humanity to be Christian. Her Jewish interviewer took extreme umbrage to what has always been a Christian mandate. Did Jesus not tell his disciples to spread to Gospel to all Nations? Or is there an exception clause for the Jewish Nation? Something’s afoot for two thousand years is more strident now than ever.
Jones merely points this and always vehemently rejects racism, Jewish or otherwise. Jones states what Christianity has always stated, as did Jesus, John, and Paul. We are now told to reject great thinkers like Chesterton because of the anti-Semite calumny. Just yell anti-Semite and no more consideration need be given, you become a nonperson. Try to find any one of E. Michael Jones books in any Borders or a Barnes and Noble Bookstore across this nation. You won't find one. You will find countless blaspheming screeds from the likes Harold Bloom filling half the shelves in the Christian section.
It is not the Jewish race, a dubious idea since most Jews look more European than Semitic, but the idea of a 'chosen people' who confidently reject Christ as merely a human Jewish heretic that is so wrong and destructive. Jews claim that Jesus died never to rise again rightly so since our Lord and his lying followers deceived the goyim into a false religion. Its Strange how the Jews expected the goyim to ever find God since they held them in such contempt. The truth is that the Jews are not a race but a culture and false religion who await a worldly Messiah who will rule the world with a special place for Jews, while the rest of humanity must fall in line to obey the Noahide laws, as the chosen people are now Bahaman over lower castes bringing a worldly kingdom to the unwashed masses. Come off the Cross and we will follow you was said to Jesus. The Jews still await a worldly conqueror.
If this is not so, why have the Jews never gone out to all the Nations to spread the truth? No they have always stood apart, to remind the rest of their superiority with a never ending chutzpah, and incredulously expect no resentment in return. In World War II fifty million humans died not six million. Where the Jewish lives more precious than the other forty four million? Does the label anti-Semite mean that the Jews are above all criticism? Did the Cross die at Auschwitz?
You can savage Christianity with impunity but criticize anything Jewish and you no longer exist. Now other groups us
I can certainly understand why the spewer of the above would want to be anonymous.
Wagner is mistaken. The CW site never removed the article he refers to. Nor does he do anything to refute anything in the article - an article cited and approved of by the Jewish Quarterly. The rest is guilt-by-association without evidence. On this basis does Wagner fling a smear at Jones - not very Catholic.
Commenting by HaloScan
