(Archive) Libido Dominandi: Lust, Power, & Control. E Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars magazine, is interviewed on his book Libido Dominandi and its sequel Monsters from the Id. (2007)More
(Archive) Libido Dominandi: Lust, Power, & Control.
E Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars magazine, is interviewed on his book Libido Dominandi and its sequel Monsters from the Id. (2007)
E Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars magazine, is interviewed on his book Libido Dominandi and its sequel Monsters from the Id. (2007)
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"Eat that!" -eticacasanova --The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.-- "Declaration On The Relation Of The Church To Non-Christian Religions" Nostra Aetate. Proclamation By His Holiness Pope Paul VI.
Eat that. "Profesor" Fantico. :D When you are done choking on an …More
"Eat that!" -eticacasanova --The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.-- "Declaration On The Relation Of The Church To Non-Christian Religions" Nostra Aetate. Proclamation By His Holiness Pope Paul VI.
Eat that. "Profesor" Fantico. :D When you are done choking on an official declaration of the Catholic Church, send your plate over to your friend E. Michael Jones whose teachings were publicly denounced by his own bishop.
Eat that. "Profesor" Fantico. :D When you are done choking on an official declaration of the Catholic Church, send your plate over to your friend E. Michael Jones whose teachings were publicly denounced by his own bishop.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"People are realizing that it is a Pavlovian control mechanism,"
Unsupported claim. Obvious wish-fulfillment on the author's part.
"If it describes resistance to the out-sized Jewish role in the New World Order, "anti-Semite" could become a badge of honor worn with pride."
It doesn't. Instead, it accurately describes malicious, obsessed jerks which is why they go to such lengths trying to prove …More
"People are realizing that it is a Pavlovian control mechanism,"
Unsupported claim. Obvious wish-fulfillment on the author's part.
"If it describes resistance to the out-sized Jewish role in the New World Order, "anti-Semite" could become a badge of honor worn with pride."
It doesn't. Instead, it accurately describes malicious, obsessed jerks which is why they go to such lengths trying to prove the phrase doesn't apply to them.
"A healthy individual will listen to criticism courteously, acknowledge if it is valid, and mend his ways accordingly. He does not accuse them of harboring an irrational hate."
...except when that so-called "healthy individual" displays evidence of irrational hate.
Then the term applies and there is every reason to use it, if only for others' edification.
"The only explanation for the conventional response is that Jewish leadership knows it is at fault, but that does not deter it. "
Fallacy of the false dilemma.
There are other explanations, like, you know.. Jews don't like being defamed by bigots any more than Catholics do. That was easy.
"Also, in case you still wish to persist in your unwitting agency as a proxy warrior for judaizers..."
Judaizers are Christians who teach it is necessary to adopt Jewish customs and practices, especially those found in the Law of Moses, to be saved...
I am not. The term doesn't apply. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers
This reeks of Jones' "framework", which he's built with an autist's predilection for re-defining the every word in the language whenever he doesn't like the established definition.
"Since the term Jew actually gets used with some frequency, its use is determined by the political advantage of those who use it."
Wrong. Flat out garbage.
Its use is determined by its applicability to who's being addressed. At least that's what rational people do. Does a person have Jewish parents? (racial Jew) Does a person practice Judaism (religous Jew). There's nothing "political" about it that..
This is why E. Michael Jones gets labelled a failed academic and a nut-case. He is.
"but any reference to Jews as the perpetrators of some attack is, again, ipso facto evidence of anti-Semitism"
...invariably because the referenceto "Jews" is nearly always irrelvant to the perpetrator's motivation for the attack.
Your own citations provide numerous examples. "Of Jewish birth" was used to describe refering to a Marxist feminist who's pro-abortion. You focused on her racial origin. when denouncing her political advocacy.
That's what bigots do. That's what racists do. When bigotry and racism are applied to Jews, it's defined as "anti-Semitism" becuase that's what it is.
"Defining the term 'Jew' is a debate that is never ending. "
...only in the minds of bigots trying to re-define the language and thereby the disucssion.
It's tactic that goes something like "Jews are whatever we say they are so your definition of anti-Semitism which carries a negative connotation doesn't apply." Followed by "every attack on Jews as a group wasn't anti-Semitism" either.
"A Saint that you no doubt would accuse of anti-Semitism, along with St. John Capistrano, St. John the Evangelist/Apostle, and an encyclopedia’s worth of Catholic Saints through the centuries"
Some saints may have been anti-Semites. Christ was sinless, saints weren't. John the Evangelist wasn't an anti-Semite. Quote the supposed anti-Semitism in John. I've seen this argument before, Go ahead. You'll fail.
"The Christian then holds then that the Jewish people have a perduring role and are at least in part defined by their refusal of the New Covenant and by their relationship to Abraham and his ‘seed."
Wrong. Witness Christian Jews, Edith Stein again. She was a Jew, killed because of it, and yet at the time she had undoubtedly accepted "the New Covenant" since she was a Catholic nun.
Looks like you're going to have to copy/ post/ five hundred more paragraphs trying to "explain away" her racial heritage and you'll fail as badly as you did rying to "explain away" a single tweet by your great luminous scholar. :D
"The renowned Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner makes a clear distinction between Judaists and Jews, when he says:
...and that's a minority view, as readily evidenced by
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Jew
www.britannica.com/topic/Jew-people
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews
www.pewforum.org/…/sidebar-who-is-…
Neusner may wish to draw an overly narrow distinction between Jew and Judaist, and E. Michael Jones may wish to exploit it for his own foul ends, but it's hardly a position that's been accepted in contempory scholarly literature.
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Judaist
(rare) One who believes and practices Judaism.
Rare. Enough said.
Unsupported claim. Obvious wish-fulfillment on the author's part.
"If it describes resistance to the out-sized Jewish role in the New World Order, "anti-Semite" could become a badge of honor worn with pride."
It doesn't. Instead, it accurately describes malicious, obsessed jerks which is why they go to such lengths trying to prove the phrase doesn't apply to them.
"A healthy individual will listen to criticism courteously, acknowledge if it is valid, and mend his ways accordingly. He does not accuse them of harboring an irrational hate."
...except when that so-called "healthy individual" displays evidence of irrational hate.
Then the term applies and there is every reason to use it, if only for others' edification.
"The only explanation for the conventional response is that Jewish leadership knows it is at fault, but that does not deter it. "
Fallacy of the false dilemma.
There are other explanations, like, you know.. Jews don't like being defamed by bigots any more than Catholics do. That was easy.
"Also, in case you still wish to persist in your unwitting agency as a proxy warrior for judaizers..."
Judaizers are Christians who teach it is necessary to adopt Jewish customs and practices, especially those found in the Law of Moses, to be saved...
I am not. The term doesn't apply. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers
This reeks of Jones' "framework", which he's built with an autist's predilection for re-defining the every word in the language whenever he doesn't like the established definition.
"Since the term Jew actually gets used with some frequency, its use is determined by the political advantage of those who use it."
Wrong. Flat out garbage.
Its use is determined by its applicability to who's being addressed. At least that's what rational people do. Does a person have Jewish parents? (racial Jew) Does a person practice Judaism (religous Jew). There's nothing "political" about it that..
This is why E. Michael Jones gets labelled a failed academic and a nut-case. He is.
"but any reference to Jews as the perpetrators of some attack is, again, ipso facto evidence of anti-Semitism"
...invariably because the referenceto "Jews" is nearly always irrelvant to the perpetrator's motivation for the attack.
Your own citations provide numerous examples. "Of Jewish birth" was used to describe refering to a Marxist feminist who's pro-abortion. You focused on her racial origin. when denouncing her political advocacy.
That's what bigots do. That's what racists do. When bigotry and racism are applied to Jews, it's defined as "anti-Semitism" becuase that's what it is.
"Defining the term 'Jew' is a debate that is never ending. "
...only in the minds of bigots trying to re-define the language and thereby the disucssion.
It's tactic that goes something like "Jews are whatever we say they are so your definition of anti-Semitism which carries a negative connotation doesn't apply." Followed by "every attack on Jews as a group wasn't anti-Semitism" either.
"A Saint that you no doubt would accuse of anti-Semitism, along with St. John Capistrano, St. John the Evangelist/Apostle, and an encyclopedia’s worth of Catholic Saints through the centuries"
Some saints may have been anti-Semites. Christ was sinless, saints weren't. John the Evangelist wasn't an anti-Semite. Quote the supposed anti-Semitism in John. I've seen this argument before, Go ahead. You'll fail.
"The Christian then holds then that the Jewish people have a perduring role and are at least in part defined by their refusal of the New Covenant and by their relationship to Abraham and his ‘seed."
Wrong. Witness Christian Jews, Edith Stein again. She was a Jew, killed because of it, and yet at the time she had undoubtedly accepted "the New Covenant" since she was a Catholic nun.
Looks like you're going to have to copy/ post/ five hundred more paragraphs trying to "explain away" her racial heritage and you'll fail as badly as you did rying to "explain away" a single tweet by your great luminous scholar. :D
"The renowned Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner makes a clear distinction between Judaists and Jews, when he says:
...and that's a minority view, as readily evidenced by
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Jew
www.britannica.com/topic/Jew-people
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews
www.pewforum.org/…/sidebar-who-is-…
Neusner may wish to draw an overly narrow distinction between Jew and Judaist, and E. Michael Jones may wish to exploit it for his own foul ends, but it's hardly a position that's been accepted in contempory scholarly literature.
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Judaist
(rare) One who believes and practices Judaism.
Rare. Enough said.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"EMJ relates that it is of note that in some branches of Judaism ‘converts’ are regarded as having inferior position to cradle Jews..."
...and the same is true for Catholics along with many other faiths.
"While not all Jews practice Judaism, in the iron-clad consensus among contemporary Jews, Jews who practice Christianity cease to be part of the ethnic Jewish community, while those who practice …More
"EMJ relates that it is of note that in some branches of Judaism ‘converts’ are regarded as having inferior position to cradle Jews..."
...and the same is true for Catholics along with many other faiths.
"While not all Jews practice Judaism, in the iron-clad consensus among contemporary Jews, Jews who practice Christianity cease to be part of the ethnic Jewish community, while those who practice Buddhism remain within"
That supposedly "iron-clad consensus" better go talk to these guys.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism
..and these guys...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Christian_movement
All of whom were Jews praying to Christ before Perfesser Neusner was even born.
Within Judaism, this is a complex issue, far beyond the pervue of -one- "renowned Jewish scholar "
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew?
" In rejecting Christ, Judaism took on a negative identity, something that many Jews have realized at one time or another. "
Does EMJ have a citation showing that "many Jews" have realized Judaism took on a negative identity directly caused by rejecting Christ? This another one of his band-wagon fallacies.
Judaism rejected Christ. It pre-existed before Christ and continued to exist after him. Christ did not define Judaism as a religion.
"Talmudic stories mock claims of Jesus’s birth from the Virgin Mary, challenge His claim to be the Messiah and state that He was rightly executed for blasphemy and idolatry, and that He resides in Hell, where His followers will go. "
Typical fixation on "da Joos" Islam also repudiates the divinity of Christ's birth yet, tellingly, EMJ even makes excuses for his fellow Jew-haters. Like so:
"Islam did not reject Christ; Islam failed to understand Christ, as manifested in its rejection of both the Trinity and the Incarnation..." (TJRS p.15)
Let us compare the Quran of Jones according to the Quran of The Prophet. ;-)
He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him." [Surah 112:1-4]
That's a flat-out rejection of Jesus' divinity.
Allah forgiveth not (The sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, Hath strayed far, far away (from the right). (Surah 4:116)
...and again
It is only God who deserves all praise. He has not begotten a son and has no partner in His Kingdom. (Surah 17:111)
EMJ is directly contradicted by the Quran. Mohammed understood the concept of God The Father and God The Son and he found it abhorrent.
Then, naturally, EMJ gets back to business:
"The situation with Jews is completely different."
No it wasn't. They rejected Jesus as the Son of God and so did the Muslims. They're both in error and it's the same error.
But when a Jew makes the same error every other non-Christian religion makes it's "completely different" -because they're Jews.
"And while many Jews may never read such passages there can be little doubt that they arose from the defining rejection of Christ by many Jews of His time,"
...there's plenty of doubt since the earliest Talmud wasn't even compiled until AD 500 in Babylon. That's the entire history of America, doubled.
And yet EMJ will claim such passages "arose from the defining rejection of Christ by many Jews of His time". Not one iota of historical literature in support of his claim. Nothing dating to much less authored by the "many Jews of His time", EMJ just made it up.
Oh yeah, this guy's a winner and then you urge me to read his book when it's filled with this laughable pretense of pseudo-academic scholarship.
...and the same is true for Catholics along with many other faiths.
"While not all Jews practice Judaism, in the iron-clad consensus among contemporary Jews, Jews who practice Christianity cease to be part of the ethnic Jewish community, while those who practice Buddhism remain within"
That supposedly "iron-clad consensus" better go talk to these guys.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism
..and these guys...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Christian_movement
All of whom were Jews praying to Christ before Perfesser Neusner was even born.
Within Judaism, this is a complex issue, far beyond the pervue of -one- "renowned Jewish scholar "
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew?
" In rejecting Christ, Judaism took on a negative identity, something that many Jews have realized at one time or another. "
Does EMJ have a citation showing that "many Jews" have realized Judaism took on a negative identity directly caused by rejecting Christ? This another one of his band-wagon fallacies.
Judaism rejected Christ. It pre-existed before Christ and continued to exist after him. Christ did not define Judaism as a religion.
"Talmudic stories mock claims of Jesus’s birth from the Virgin Mary, challenge His claim to be the Messiah and state that He was rightly executed for blasphemy and idolatry, and that He resides in Hell, where His followers will go. "
Typical fixation on "da Joos" Islam also repudiates the divinity of Christ's birth yet, tellingly, EMJ even makes excuses for his fellow Jew-haters. Like so:
"Islam did not reject Christ; Islam failed to understand Christ, as manifested in its rejection of both the Trinity and the Incarnation..." (TJRS p.15)
Let us compare the Quran of Jones according to the Quran of The Prophet. ;-)
He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him." [Surah 112:1-4]
That's a flat-out rejection of Jesus' divinity.
Allah forgiveth not (The sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, Hath strayed far, far away (from the right). (Surah 4:116)
...and again
It is only God who deserves all praise. He has not begotten a son and has no partner in His Kingdom. (Surah 17:111)
EMJ is directly contradicted by the Quran. Mohammed understood the concept of God The Father and God The Son and he found it abhorrent.
Then, naturally, EMJ gets back to business:
"The situation with Jews is completely different."
No it wasn't. They rejected Jesus as the Son of God and so did the Muslims. They're both in error and it's the same error.
But when a Jew makes the same error every other non-Christian religion makes it's "completely different" -because they're Jews.
"And while many Jews may never read such passages there can be little doubt that they arose from the defining rejection of Christ by many Jews of His time,"
...there's plenty of doubt since the earliest Talmud wasn't even compiled until AD 500 in Babylon. That's the entire history of America, doubled.
And yet EMJ will claim such passages "arose from the defining rejection of Christ by many Jews of His time". Not one iota of historical literature in support of his claim. Nothing dating to much less authored by the "many Jews of His time", EMJ just made it up.
Oh yeah, this guy's a winner and then you urge me to read his book when it's filled with this laughable pretense of pseudo-academic scholarship.
One more comment from Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"Baruch Levy, a correspondent of Marx also brought his Jewish revolutionary spirit to the modern era, when he wrote:"
...and again, because it suits the anti-Semite, one Jew is held up to speak for all Jews. Wow. Up next, Cardinal Marx speaks for all Catholics, amirite?
Like I said, this is a common and mistake anti-Semites make and it's obvious why they choose to make it.
"EMJ provides a detailed …More
"Baruch Levy, a correspondent of Marx also brought his Jewish revolutionary spirit to the modern era, when he wrote:"
...and again, because it suits the anti-Semite, one Jew is held up to speak for all Jews. Wow. Up next, Cardinal Marx speaks for all Catholics, amirite?
Like I said, this is a common and mistake anti-Semites make and it's obvious why they choose to make it.
"EMJ provides a detailed account of the Church and her Popes’ protection of Jews from anti-Semitic attacks and at the same time protecting her Catholic flock from Jewish subversion and exploitation. By providing a scholarly approach to the Jewish role in world history and their relation to the Church, EMJ helps the honest reader to understand and navigate these complex issues."
What is this a book review? :D Unless you're quoting EMJ directly on these points, your claims to what EMJ does or doesn't do are unsupported and clearly coming from a biased, openly infatuated source.
"or those who deny them justice and charity by deflecting honest and needed attention to revolutionary spirit endemic"
LOL... this is how anti-Semites really think. Their pathological obsession with twisting history to blame "The Jews" for every evil is (wait for it) "honest and needed attention"
Gotta love the use of the word "honest".
1.) Holding "the Jews" responsible for individual Jews is not honest.
2.) Quoting only a paltry few self-aggrandizing Jews and pretending they speak for all Jews is not honest.
3.) Doing 1.) and 2.) interchangeably is not honest.
4.) Noting how a Marixst Feminist promoting abortion is still "of Jewish birth" is not honest.
5.) Band-wagon fallacies are not honest.
6.) Misrepresenting the Quran is not honest.
As for the non-Jews who step up and refute such endless falsehoods? Those are the bad guys! :D
Factually discrediting the "honest and needed attention" of obsessed bigots like Jones is not denying anyone anything except the anti-Semites the chance to mislead others..
The man has spent decades of his life with the singular purpose of defaming Jews. That isn't in any way acts of "justice and charity",
That's just sick.
History has plenty of examples of what happens when people like Jones and you focus some "honest and needed attention" on Jews. The body count from Jones' brand of "justice and charity" runs in the millions
...and then you, you twisted Jew-hating lunatic, then claim, "all the actions taken against the Jews were to protect them..."
Pope Pius XI did indeed say "we acknowledge that everyone has the right to defend himself, in other words to take the necessary precautions for his protection against everything that threatens his legitimate interests."
Naturally, anti-Semites never consider the Pope might have been talking about the right of Jews right to do so, even though he was defending Jews when he said it.
No. Not in Jonestown.
The Pope was giving El Jonso the green-light and the thumbs-up to do just the opposite so long as Jones chooses to claim Judaism "threatens his legitimate interests". Then of course, Jonesy has "the right to defend himself".
...and he's just itchin' to do that. So are you. That's what it always comes down to, "Actions taken against the Jews." amirite? Actions... that's how you anti-Semities white-wash genocide.
Seriously, people like Jones are the reason some Dutch Christians quietly told Mr. and Mrs. Frank there was a spare room available. :D
"On the other hand, they aim unceasingly at protecting Christians from the contamination of Jewish Naturalism "
Roy Wood Sellars and John Dewey weren't Jews. But because SOME founderrs of Naturalist philosophy were Jews, the anti-Semite heaps the blame entirely on Jews. It isn't Naturalism anymore, it's Jewish Naturalism.
By now, this is just another example of anti-Semites being anti-Semitic. The problem becomes a "Jewish" problem even when ALL of the founders of the "Jewish" naturalism happen to be non-Jews or agnostics, or outright atheists.
But that's when the Jew-hater steps in with a sly wink and carefully point out, two founding Naturalists are "of Jewish birth" even if you've claimed elsewhere, "we are not dealing with race here."
We sure aren't.
We're dealing with anti-Semitism and the way it applies blame for everything that's racially, ethnically, religiously connected in any way, however tenuously or indirectly, no matter how far removed, to a Jew.
Then you and E. Michael Jones and many other like-minded idiots immediately brand it "Jewish" and start heaping your bent "justice and charity" and "honest and much needed attention" on it to the exclusion of all other causes.
"you prevent them from attaining their highest and ultimate good: Salvation. And THAT, @Ultraviolet, is what makes YOU a rabid and vicious anti-Semite."
---
*slow derisive clapping*
Wow... just wow.
I'm "a rabid and vicious anti-Semite" because I'm defending Jews against your falsehoods.
I'm opposed to the "justice and charity" E. Michael Jones would see inflicted on them.
Your great thinker has built an entire philosophy around a stack of logical fallacies, historical and Scriptural errors.. Like so:
"When the Jews tell Jesus in John 8 that they are the "seed of Abraham," in Greek "sperma Abraam," He changes the term of the argument by replying "If you were Abraham's children, you would do as Abraham did," which is to say follow God's will and accept Jesus as the son of God and Messiah." (p. 15)
...except Abraham lived and died millenia before Jesus was born. A bit difficult for a man to "accept Jesus as the son of God and Messiah" when he was long dead before any Hebrew prophets ever predicted a Messiah would come.
Oh dear. :D
Jones shows what happens when a pedestrian intellect devotes itself to a life-long mania for quoting only sources who agree with him, misrepresting those who don't, while discarding everything to the contrary.
He has an illness, it's an old illness, he isn't the first to come down with it and he's obviously spread it to you. It's a conceptual illness that prompts seemingly intelligent people to seriously suggest, "all the actions taken against the Jews were to protect them..."
Maybe that's your idea of "protection" and Jones' idea of "justice and charity" but Hell will freeze over before I'll ever allow the likes of you to repeat it.
...and again, because it suits the anti-Semite, one Jew is held up to speak for all Jews. Wow. Up next, Cardinal Marx speaks for all Catholics, amirite?
Like I said, this is a common and mistake anti-Semites make and it's obvious why they choose to make it.
"EMJ provides a detailed account of the Church and her Popes’ protection of Jews from anti-Semitic attacks and at the same time protecting her Catholic flock from Jewish subversion and exploitation. By providing a scholarly approach to the Jewish role in world history and their relation to the Church, EMJ helps the honest reader to understand and navigate these complex issues."
What is this a book review? :D Unless you're quoting EMJ directly on these points, your claims to what EMJ does or doesn't do are unsupported and clearly coming from a biased, openly infatuated source.
"or those who deny them justice and charity by deflecting honest and needed attention to revolutionary spirit endemic"
LOL... this is how anti-Semites really think. Their pathological obsession with twisting history to blame "The Jews" for every evil is (wait for it) "honest and needed attention"
Gotta love the use of the word "honest".
1.) Holding "the Jews" responsible for individual Jews is not honest.
2.) Quoting only a paltry few self-aggrandizing Jews and pretending they speak for all Jews is not honest.
3.) Doing 1.) and 2.) interchangeably is not honest.
4.) Noting how a Marixst Feminist promoting abortion is still "of Jewish birth" is not honest.
5.) Band-wagon fallacies are not honest.
6.) Misrepresenting the Quran is not honest.
As for the non-Jews who step up and refute such endless falsehoods? Those are the bad guys! :D
Factually discrediting the "honest and needed attention" of obsessed bigots like Jones is not denying anyone anything except the anti-Semites the chance to mislead others..
The man has spent decades of his life with the singular purpose of defaming Jews. That isn't in any way acts of "justice and charity",
That's just sick.
History has plenty of examples of what happens when people like Jones and you focus some "honest and needed attention" on Jews. The body count from Jones' brand of "justice and charity" runs in the millions
...and then you, you twisted Jew-hating lunatic, then claim, "all the actions taken against the Jews were to protect them..."
Pope Pius XI did indeed say "we acknowledge that everyone has the right to defend himself, in other words to take the necessary precautions for his protection against everything that threatens his legitimate interests."
Naturally, anti-Semites never consider the Pope might have been talking about the right of Jews right to do so, even though he was defending Jews when he said it.
No. Not in Jonestown.
The Pope was giving El Jonso the green-light and the thumbs-up to do just the opposite so long as Jones chooses to claim Judaism "threatens his legitimate interests". Then of course, Jonesy has "the right to defend himself".
...and he's just itchin' to do that. So are you. That's what it always comes down to, "Actions taken against the Jews." amirite? Actions... that's how you anti-Semities white-wash genocide.
Seriously, people like Jones are the reason some Dutch Christians quietly told Mr. and Mrs. Frank there was a spare room available. :D
"On the other hand, they aim unceasingly at protecting Christians from the contamination of Jewish Naturalism "
Roy Wood Sellars and John Dewey weren't Jews. But because SOME founderrs of Naturalist philosophy were Jews, the anti-Semite heaps the blame entirely on Jews. It isn't Naturalism anymore, it's Jewish Naturalism.
By now, this is just another example of anti-Semites being anti-Semitic. The problem becomes a "Jewish" problem even when ALL of the founders of the "Jewish" naturalism happen to be non-Jews or agnostics, or outright atheists.
But that's when the Jew-hater steps in with a sly wink and carefully point out, two founding Naturalists are "of Jewish birth" even if you've claimed elsewhere, "we are not dealing with race here."
We sure aren't.
We're dealing with anti-Semitism and the way it applies blame for everything that's racially, ethnically, religiously connected in any way, however tenuously or indirectly, no matter how far removed, to a Jew.
Then you and E. Michael Jones and many other like-minded idiots immediately brand it "Jewish" and start heaping your bent "justice and charity" and "honest and much needed attention" on it to the exclusion of all other causes.
"you prevent them from attaining their highest and ultimate good: Salvation. And THAT, @Ultraviolet, is what makes YOU a rabid and vicious anti-Semite."
---
*slow derisive clapping*
Wow... just wow.
I'm "a rabid and vicious anti-Semite" because I'm defending Jews against your falsehoods.
I'm opposed to the "justice and charity" E. Michael Jones would see inflicted on them.
Your great thinker has built an entire philosophy around a stack of logical fallacies, historical and Scriptural errors.. Like so:
"When the Jews tell Jesus in John 8 that they are the "seed of Abraham," in Greek "sperma Abraam," He changes the term of the argument by replying "If you were Abraham's children, you would do as Abraham did," which is to say follow God's will and accept Jesus as the son of God and Messiah." (p. 15)
...except Abraham lived and died millenia before Jesus was born. A bit difficult for a man to "accept Jesus as the son of God and Messiah" when he was long dead before any Hebrew prophets ever predicted a Messiah would come.
Oh dear. :D
Jones shows what happens when a pedestrian intellect devotes itself to a life-long mania for quoting only sources who agree with him, misrepresting those who don't, while discarding everything to the contrary.
He has an illness, it's an old illness, he isn't the first to come down with it and he's obviously spread it to you. It's a conceptual illness that prompts seemingly intelligent people to seriously suggest, "all the actions taken against the Jews were to protect them..."
Maybe that's your idea of "protection" and Jones' idea of "justice and charity" but Hell will freeze over before I'll ever allow the likes of you to repeat it.
AngelusMaria
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
I've read through your responses and began my responses, but stopped. It is clear that you have no interest in understanding, no interest in arriving at the truth in this matter. You consistently misrepresent and choose to ignore the evidence. Your prejudice has blinded you to the distinctions necessary to understand the issue and even after distinctions have been made, you resort back to arguing …More
I've read through your responses and began my responses, but stopped. It is clear that you have no interest in understanding, no interest in arriving at the truth in this matter. You consistently misrepresent and choose to ignore the evidence. Your prejudice has blinded you to the distinctions necessary to understand the issue and even after distinctions have been made, you resort back to arguing against positions not held by EMJ. I started a thorough reply days ago, but I see there is no point. You have no interest in truth, only in arguing.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"It is clear that you have no interest in understanding, no interest in arriving at the truth in this matter." @AngelusMaria
The truth in this matter is E. Michael Jones is a bigot, an anti-Semite, and a failed academic. (more on this last point in juuuust a wee bit.)
Your kind invariably fall back on referring to your beliefs as "the truth" even when they've been shown to be in error.
"You …More
"It is clear that you have no interest in understanding, no interest in arriving at the truth in this matter." @AngelusMaria
The truth in this matter is E. Michael Jones is a bigot, an anti-Semite, and a failed academic. (more on this last point in juuuust a wee bit.)
Your kind invariably fall back on referring to your beliefs as "the truth" even when they've been shown to be in error.
"You consistently misrepresent and choose to ignore the evidence."
I have spent umpteen thousand words going point by point over your "evidence" and refuting both it and your reasoning.
At this point it's fair to say you can take that claim and shove it as far up as it will go.
"You have no interest in truth, only in arguing."
You conflate "truth" with your opinion, as bigots invariably do when they're wrong.
All your kind ever do under these circumstances is go back to making an unsubstantiated claim of factual and moral validity.
It's argumentum ad nauseam, made all the more ridiculous since you present it after your supporting examples and reasoning have been shown to be (respectively) false and fallacious.
I will never change your opinion, I know that.
Your beliefs are untouched by facts or reasoning. No surprises there. You've made a religion out of your false-prophet Jones the way the Muslims did with Mohammed.
I could show a dozen times over where the Quran is historically wrong. It won't change a Muslim's belief that everything Mohammed wrote came directly from Allah through Gibreel.
You are no different except in the errors you've adopted as a religion, one that is in direct opposition with the teachings of The Church today.
While I'll never convert you, I can prevent you from converting others into your foul, heretical parody of the Catholic faith. GTV has a vast readership, hence the time I've spent.
Your claim about my interest is wrong for two other reasons. First, arguing is a means to an end. I don't have an interest in arguing. I have an interest in winning, in beating my opponent and knowing they know it. Kinda like what's happening right... about.. now. :D
I have an interest in this.. Very, very much! :D
Second, I do have an interest in the truth for two additional and complementary reasons. Practically speaking, it's the single best way of making sure I will win.. Bigotry is based on deliberate willful error. It is you who ignore what contradicts your malicious fantasies, your endlessly reflected confirmation-bias. You're no different than a horse wearing blinders, with E. Michael Jones riding on your back, spurring your flanks, whispering in your ears, "jewz, jewz, jewz.." until you're as crazy as he is. The whole world is outside those bigot-blinders and you will never, ever see it.
It is you who misrepresent the truth, you and Jones both. ...and that is why it is you who have lost. Your kind always lose because your position is based on falsehood. Mine is based on truth.
The other reason I favour the truth points back to my original interest. It's good sportsmanship. Tricking an opponent with a falsehood is cheating. Even if you fail to catch it, I would still know and that takes all the joy out of winning. My pride may be a sin, but does produce a powerful conscience.
It is you bigots who cheat and lie. For you and yours, the ends justify the means. You're on a mission, you want ot make converts to your ideology. Your beliefs are foul and un-Christian, so it's understandable why your methods for promoting them are as well.
That simply isn't good enough for me. My pride (and by extension, my conscience) forbids stooping to your level.
~Nemo pervenit qui non legitime certaverit.~ ;-)
Incidentally, I took your advice and began reading Jones' book, "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit". You said (somewhere lost now in acres of text) something to the effect of "give the man a chance to speak for himself".
So I did.
Mind you, I didn't have to. I'd beaten you, I could have just popped open a can of Fanta and sat on my laurels. But I didn't. I was curious what inspired such passion that would motivate you to this extent. You've surpassed the dedication of Islamic scholars in defending their beliefs. You've even eclipsed Star Trek fanboys and I mean the kind who grew up reading Starlog magazine.. I wasn't exaggerating. I've never seen anybody react the way you have here about anything, anywhere.
What my curiosity shows, dear heart, is I DO have an interest in the truth. I read the Quran and the Hadiths for the same reason. Heck, I even sat through Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS) just to see what the fuss was about.
...and so I started reading "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit".
Very early on, Mr. Jones writes this:
"When the Jews rejected Christ, they rejected Logos, and when they rejected Logos, which includes within itself the principles of social order, they became revolutionaries." (p. 15)
That is a direct, annotated, quote and forms the central premise of his (publicly stated) world-view.
..and it is factually, historically wrong.
Jews in the Roman Empire were already "revolutionaries" long before a few of them in Jerusalem rejected Christ. The Jews were "revolutionaries" before Christ was even born. The Jews in Judea had already attempted a revolt against Rome once before in 4 BC. It was suppressed by Publius Quinctilius Varus.
(from wiki)
--The Jewish historian Josephus mentions the swift action of Varus against a messianic revolt in Judaea after the death of the Roman client king, Herod the Great, in 4 BC. After occupying Jerusalem, he crucified 2000 Jewish rebels and may have thus been one of the prime objects of popular anti-Roman sentiment in Judaea (Josephus, who made every effort to reconcile the Jewish people to Roman rule, felt it necessary to point out how lenient this judicial massacre had been). Indeed, at precisely this moment the Jews, nearly en masse, began a full-scale boycott of Roman pottery (Red Slip Ware). Thus, the archaeological record seems to verify mass popular protest against Rome because of Varus' cruelty.--
(From the online Encylopedia Britannica)
--When Judaea rebelled on the death of Herod I the Great (4 bc), Varus marched an army against the insurgents, crushed them, and reestablished direct Roman government.--
Therefore a "Jewish revolutionary spirit" as Mr. Jones titled his book categorically did not occur as a result of rejecting Christ. Jews did not become revolutionaries when they rejected Christ, they already were evolutionaries before Christ. They were revolutionaries who simply wanted Rome off their backs..
History shows that revolutionary spirit clearly predates both the Nativity and the Annunciation. That is a fact. Irrefutable, amply supported by history.That is the truth.
Therefore it is impossible for the so-called "revolutionary spirit" to result from the Jewish leaders at Jerusalem rejecting Christ because it was already present BEFORE Christ. That "Jewish revolutionary spirit" had resulted in one failed revolt against Rome's "principles of social order" already.
Likewise, the very existence of the Roman Empire shows those same "principles of social order" existed before Christ/ Logos. Again, Jones is wrong.
E. Michael Jones' central claim that Jews became revolutionaries when they rejected Christ has thus been disproven.
Yes, I DO have an interest in the truth... enough of an interest to start checking your author's claims against Roman history. So far, history isn't supporting Mr. Jones, that is to say Mr. Jones' claims are not true.
Let's continue, shall we? I'm not done with Mr. Jones. Not just yet. ;-)
If I could sit through your epic posts re-printing page after page from Jones' book, you can do me the courtesy of reading one infinitely shorter reply which is predominantly my own.
"Jews may have become revolutionaries at the foot of the cross, but the full implications of their decision didn't become apparent until 30 years later..." (p. 16)
It so happens, the Jews were not unique in their desire to be free of Rome. If rebelling against Rome is proof Jews became "revolutionaries" as Jones tries to argue, history shows many other peoples were "revolutionaries" as well with an identical "revolutionary spirit".
The Falisci and Fregellae revolts in 241 and 125 BC (respectively) are proof of an "Italian revolutionary spirit". The Bellovaci and Aquitanian revolts in 46, 44, 38 BC proves there's a "Gallic revolutionary spirit." The Thebaid revolt in 30 BC shows an "Egyptian revolutionary spirit". Even the Bulgarians can lay claim to a "revolutionary spirit" thanks to the Vologases Revolt in 13 BC.
Special mention must also be made of the "German revolutionary spirit" shown in the successful revolt of the Frisii in 28 AD. (all cited here on Wiki)
Depending on how closely one correlates the dates, Christ hadn't even started His ministry yet when the German "reovlutionaries" rejected Rome's "principles of social order" and gave the Empire a stinging defeat.
Never mind Jones smug reference to the destruction of the Jewish Temple "30 years later", the "full implications" of the Jews previous revolt were already the backdrop for Pilate's fateful conversation with Christ. Much of their interchange recorded in the Gospels underscores Pilate's concern he was confronting yet another Jewish "revolutionary."
As military governor of Judea, it's a near-certainty he was familiar with the prior revolt under an earlier administrative predecessor. Given the excellence of Roman roads and Roman military communications, it's possible Pilate may have known about the Frisiian revolt and their subsequent victory.
In short, "the revolutionary spirit" Jones describes is common to all people who are under foreign dominion. There's nothing unique about the "revolutionary spirit" possessed by Jews.There is nothing unique about their rejection of "the principals of social order" created by Rome's tyranny and the Pax Romana bred "revolutionaries" nearly everywhere it was implemented.
The Jews were nothing unique. If anything, the Frisii were better "revolutionaries" than the Jews and not a single man among them ever rejected Christ much less even knew of His existence.
More importantly, the rejection of Christ by a small handful of Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalm had absolutely nothing to do with creating a "revolutionary spirit". That spirit was already present: it was present in the Jews, in the Bellovaci, in the Aquitanians, in the Thebans, in the Volgases and in the Frisii.
They were ALL "revolutionaries", they were ALL rejecting Rome's "principles of social order", and they were ALL doing so before Christ's death and in nearly every case (the Frisii, excepted) long before His birth as well..Very likely, the Frisii were joyfully celebrating their independence before Christ even began His Ministry.
History directly contradicts Mr. Jones' historical claim and the argument he derives from it.
Simply put, E. Michael Jones is wrong.. That is truth.
The truth in this matter is E. Michael Jones is a bigot, an anti-Semite, and a failed academic. (more on this last point in juuuust a wee bit.)
Your kind invariably fall back on referring to your beliefs as "the truth" even when they've been shown to be in error.
"You consistently misrepresent and choose to ignore the evidence."
I have spent umpteen thousand words going point by point over your "evidence" and refuting both it and your reasoning.
At this point it's fair to say you can take that claim and shove it as far up as it will go.
"You have no interest in truth, only in arguing."
You conflate "truth" with your opinion, as bigots invariably do when they're wrong.
All your kind ever do under these circumstances is go back to making an unsubstantiated claim of factual and moral validity.
It's argumentum ad nauseam, made all the more ridiculous since you present it after your supporting examples and reasoning have been shown to be (respectively) false and fallacious.
I will never change your opinion, I know that.
Your beliefs are untouched by facts or reasoning. No surprises there. You've made a religion out of your false-prophet Jones the way the Muslims did with Mohammed.
I could show a dozen times over where the Quran is historically wrong. It won't change a Muslim's belief that everything Mohammed wrote came directly from Allah through Gibreel.
You are no different except in the errors you've adopted as a religion, one that is in direct opposition with the teachings of The Church today.
While I'll never convert you, I can prevent you from converting others into your foul, heretical parody of the Catholic faith. GTV has a vast readership, hence the time I've spent.
Your claim about my interest is wrong for two other reasons. First, arguing is a means to an end. I don't have an interest in arguing. I have an interest in winning, in beating my opponent and knowing they know it. Kinda like what's happening right... about.. now. :D
I have an interest in this.. Very, very much! :D
Second, I do have an interest in the truth for two additional and complementary reasons. Practically speaking, it's the single best way of making sure I will win.. Bigotry is based on deliberate willful error. It is you who ignore what contradicts your malicious fantasies, your endlessly reflected confirmation-bias. You're no different than a horse wearing blinders, with E. Michael Jones riding on your back, spurring your flanks, whispering in your ears, "jewz, jewz, jewz.." until you're as crazy as he is. The whole world is outside those bigot-blinders and you will never, ever see it.
It is you who misrepresent the truth, you and Jones both. ...and that is why it is you who have lost. Your kind always lose because your position is based on falsehood. Mine is based on truth.
The other reason I favour the truth points back to my original interest. It's good sportsmanship. Tricking an opponent with a falsehood is cheating. Even if you fail to catch it, I would still know and that takes all the joy out of winning. My pride may be a sin, but does produce a powerful conscience.
It is you bigots who cheat and lie. For you and yours, the ends justify the means. You're on a mission, you want ot make converts to your ideology. Your beliefs are foul and un-Christian, so it's understandable why your methods for promoting them are as well.
That simply isn't good enough for me. My pride (and by extension, my conscience) forbids stooping to your level.
~Nemo pervenit qui non legitime certaverit.~ ;-)
Incidentally, I took your advice and began reading Jones' book, "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit". You said (somewhere lost now in acres of text) something to the effect of "give the man a chance to speak for himself".
So I did.
Mind you, I didn't have to. I'd beaten you, I could have just popped open a can of Fanta and sat on my laurels. But I didn't. I was curious what inspired such passion that would motivate you to this extent. You've surpassed the dedication of Islamic scholars in defending their beliefs. You've even eclipsed Star Trek fanboys and I mean the kind who grew up reading Starlog magazine.. I wasn't exaggerating. I've never seen anybody react the way you have here about anything, anywhere.
What my curiosity shows, dear heart, is I DO have an interest in the truth. I read the Quran and the Hadiths for the same reason. Heck, I even sat through Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS) just to see what the fuss was about.
...and so I started reading "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit".
Very early on, Mr. Jones writes this:
"When the Jews rejected Christ, they rejected Logos, and when they rejected Logos, which includes within itself the principles of social order, they became revolutionaries." (p. 15)
That is a direct, annotated, quote and forms the central premise of his (publicly stated) world-view.
..and it is factually, historically wrong.
Jews in the Roman Empire were already "revolutionaries" long before a few of them in Jerusalem rejected Christ. The Jews were "revolutionaries" before Christ was even born. The Jews in Judea had already attempted a revolt against Rome once before in 4 BC. It was suppressed by Publius Quinctilius Varus.
(from wiki)
--The Jewish historian Josephus mentions the swift action of Varus against a messianic revolt in Judaea after the death of the Roman client king, Herod the Great, in 4 BC. After occupying Jerusalem, he crucified 2000 Jewish rebels and may have thus been one of the prime objects of popular anti-Roman sentiment in Judaea (Josephus, who made every effort to reconcile the Jewish people to Roman rule, felt it necessary to point out how lenient this judicial massacre had been). Indeed, at precisely this moment the Jews, nearly en masse, began a full-scale boycott of Roman pottery (Red Slip Ware). Thus, the archaeological record seems to verify mass popular protest against Rome because of Varus' cruelty.--
(From the online Encylopedia Britannica)
--When Judaea rebelled on the death of Herod I the Great (4 bc), Varus marched an army against the insurgents, crushed them, and reestablished direct Roman government.--
Therefore a "Jewish revolutionary spirit" as Mr. Jones titled his book categorically did not occur as a result of rejecting Christ. Jews did not become revolutionaries when they rejected Christ, they already were evolutionaries before Christ. They were revolutionaries who simply wanted Rome off their backs..
History shows that revolutionary spirit clearly predates both the Nativity and the Annunciation. That is a fact. Irrefutable, amply supported by history.That is the truth.
Therefore it is impossible for the so-called "revolutionary spirit" to result from the Jewish leaders at Jerusalem rejecting Christ because it was already present BEFORE Christ. That "Jewish revolutionary spirit" had resulted in one failed revolt against Rome's "principles of social order" already.
Likewise, the very existence of the Roman Empire shows those same "principles of social order" existed before Christ/ Logos. Again, Jones is wrong.
E. Michael Jones' central claim that Jews became revolutionaries when they rejected Christ has thus been disproven.
Yes, I DO have an interest in the truth... enough of an interest to start checking your author's claims against Roman history. So far, history isn't supporting Mr. Jones, that is to say Mr. Jones' claims are not true.
Let's continue, shall we? I'm not done with Mr. Jones. Not just yet. ;-)
If I could sit through your epic posts re-printing page after page from Jones' book, you can do me the courtesy of reading one infinitely shorter reply which is predominantly my own.
"Jews may have become revolutionaries at the foot of the cross, but the full implications of their decision didn't become apparent until 30 years later..." (p. 16)
It so happens, the Jews were not unique in their desire to be free of Rome. If rebelling against Rome is proof Jews became "revolutionaries" as Jones tries to argue, history shows many other peoples were "revolutionaries" as well with an identical "revolutionary spirit".
The Falisci and Fregellae revolts in 241 and 125 BC (respectively) are proof of an "Italian revolutionary spirit". The Bellovaci and Aquitanian revolts in 46, 44, 38 BC proves there's a "Gallic revolutionary spirit." The Thebaid revolt in 30 BC shows an "Egyptian revolutionary spirit". Even the Bulgarians can lay claim to a "revolutionary spirit" thanks to the Vologases Revolt in 13 BC.
Special mention must also be made of the "German revolutionary spirit" shown in the successful revolt of the Frisii in 28 AD. (all cited here on Wiki)
Depending on how closely one correlates the dates, Christ hadn't even started His ministry yet when the German "reovlutionaries" rejected Rome's "principles of social order" and gave the Empire a stinging defeat.
Never mind Jones smug reference to the destruction of the Jewish Temple "30 years later", the "full implications" of the Jews previous revolt were already the backdrop for Pilate's fateful conversation with Christ. Much of their interchange recorded in the Gospels underscores Pilate's concern he was confronting yet another Jewish "revolutionary."
As military governor of Judea, it's a near-certainty he was familiar with the prior revolt under an earlier administrative predecessor. Given the excellence of Roman roads and Roman military communications, it's possible Pilate may have known about the Frisiian revolt and their subsequent victory.
In short, "the revolutionary spirit" Jones describes is common to all people who are under foreign dominion. There's nothing unique about the "revolutionary spirit" possessed by Jews.There is nothing unique about their rejection of "the principals of social order" created by Rome's tyranny and the Pax Romana bred "revolutionaries" nearly everywhere it was implemented.
The Jews were nothing unique. If anything, the Frisii were better "revolutionaries" than the Jews and not a single man among them ever rejected Christ much less even knew of His existence.
More importantly, the rejection of Christ by a small handful of Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalm had absolutely nothing to do with creating a "revolutionary spirit". That spirit was already present: it was present in the Jews, in the Bellovaci, in the Aquitanians, in the Thebans, in the Volgases and in the Frisii.
They were ALL "revolutionaries", they were ALL rejecting Rome's "principles of social order", and they were ALL doing so before Christ's death and in nearly every case (the Frisii, excepted) long before His birth as well..Very likely, the Frisii were joyfully celebrating their independence before Christ even began His Ministry.
History directly contradicts Mr. Jones' historical claim and the argument he derives from it.
Simply put, E. Michael Jones is wrong.. That is truth.