@Ultraviolet. Okay. Where to begin? First, thank you for your generous response and taking the time and effort to reply to most points. Hopefully you will have more motivation to go to the Root of the rot before your next response.

"It's an official teaching of the Catholic Church. Your rot is picking which parts of the Catholic Church's teachings you choose to follow -and which you will casually ignore."

-Actually, many teachings of Vat. II depart radically from Church Teaching, therefore it must be rejected. Paul VI declared it to be a "pastoral" not a dogmatic Council, whatever that is supposed to mean. We are here getting into many other subjects than our original one, but it seems we must. I'm not going to dissect the Council as many, many much more qualified people have already done, but I do want to touch upon what Vigano has said, in the hopes that it may spark you to look deeper into the issue. Conservative and Neo-Conservative Catholics just need to come to terms with what most Traditionalists have already discovered, though they differ on the issue of Sedevacantism, which Vigano has not publicly espoused as of yet, nor by my referencing him am I implying that he currently holds that theological position.

You can't dismiss all the aberrations, heresies and errors that have flowed out of the Council as simply misapplication of its true meaning. The Council itself was fundamentally and intrinsically flawed, and does not represent the Magisterium, but a false counterfeit.

I hate to quote at length, but this will hit upon your other claims in your recent post. As Vigano has correctly observed, (June 9 2020, From Vatican II onward, a parallel church was built, reprinted in The Remnant, June 30,2020) [all of my own comments are in ( ) followed by my initials-A.M.]:

[Reviewing Bp. Schneider's recent critique of Vat. 2 in LifeSite News, June 1] "The merit of His Excellency's essay lies in its grasp of the causal link between the principles enunciated or implied by Vatican II and their logical consequent effect in the doctrinal, moral, liturgical and disciplinary deviations that have arisen and progressively developed to the present day. The monstrum generated in modernist circles could have at first been misleading, but it has grown and strengthened, so that today it shows itself for what it really is in its subversive and rebellious nature. The creature that was conceived at that time is always the same, and it would be naive to think that its perverse nature could change. Attempts to correct the conciliar excesses--invoking the hermeneutic of continuity--have proven unsuccessful: Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret [Drive nature out with a pitchfork; she will come right back] (Horace, Epist. I,10,24). The Abu Dhabi Declaration--and Bishop Schneider rightly observes, its first symptoms in the pantheon of Assisi (where JPII committed public acts of heresy/apostasy-A.M.)--'was conceived in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council' as Bergoglio proudly confirms.
" This 'spirit of the Council' is the license of legitimacy that the innovators use to oppose their critics, without realizing that it is precisely confessing that legacy that confirms not only the erroneousness of the present declarations but also the heretical matrix that supposedly justifies them. On closer inspection, never in the history of the Church has a Council presented itself as such a historic event that it was different from any other council: there was never talk of a 'spirit of the Council of Nicea' or the 'spirit of the Council of Ferrara-Florence,' even less the 'spirit of the Council of Trent,' just as we never had a 'post-conciliar' era after Lateran IV or Vatican I.
"The reason is obvious: those Councils were all, indiscriminately, the expression in unison of the voice of Holy Mother Church, and for this very reason the voice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Significantly, those who maintain the novelty of Vatican II also adhere to the heretical doctrine that places the God of the Old Testament in opposition to the God of the New Testament, as if there could be contradiction between the Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. Evidently this opposition that is almost gnostic or cabalistic (uh oh, is he now being anti-Semitic here? A.M.) is functional to the legitimization of a new subject that is voluntarily different and opposed to the Catholic Church.
"....There comes a moment in our life when, through the disposition of Providence, we are faced with a decisive choice for the Church and for our eternal salvation. I speak of the choice between understanding the error into which practically all of us have fallen, almost always without evil intentions, and wanting to continue to look the other way or justify ourselves....[F]rom the moment it was theorized in the conciliar commissions, ecumenism was configured in a way that was in direct opposition to the doctrine previously expressed by the Magisterium.
"We have thought that certain excesses were only an exaggeration of those who allowed themselves to be swept up in thew enthusiasm for novelty; we sincerely believed that seeing John Paul II surrounded by charmers-healers, buddhist monks, imams, rabbis (watch it Vigano, -might be called an anti-Semite-A.M.), protestant pastors and other heretics gave proof of the Church's ability to summon people together in order to ask God for peace, while authoritative example of this action initiated a deviant succession of pantheons that were more or less official, even to the point of seeing Bishops carrying the unclean idol of the pachamama on their shoulders, sacrilegiously concealed under the pretext of being a representation of sacred motherhood.
"....We know well that, invoking the saying in Scripture Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat [The letter brings death but the spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6)], the progressives and modernists astutely knew how to hide equivocal expressions in the conciliar texts, which at the time appeared harmless to most but that today are revealed in their subversive value. It is the method employed in the use of the phrase subsistit in: saying a half-truth not so much as not to offend the interlocutor (assuming that is licit to silence the truth of God out of respect for His creature), but with the intention of being able to able to use the half-error that would be instantly dispelled if the entire truth were proclaimed. Thus 'Ecclesia Christi subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica' does not specify the identity of the two, but the subsistence of one in the other and, for consistency, also in other churches: here is the opening to interconfessional celebrations, ecumenical prayers, and the inevitable end of any need for the Church in the order of salvation, in her unicity, and in her missionary nature.
"....What the world wants, at the instigation of Masonry and its infernal tentacles, is to create a universal religion that is humanitarian and ecumenical, from which the jealous God whom we adore is banished. And if this is what the world wants, any step in the same direction by the Church is an unfortunate choice which will turn against those who believe that they can jeer at God. The hopes of the Tower of Babel cannot be brought back to life by a globalist plan that has as its goal the cancellation of the Catholic Church, in order to replace it with a confederation of idolaters and heretics united by environmentalism and universal brotherhood. There can be no brotherhood except in Christ, and only in Christ: qui non est mecum, contra me est.
"It is disconcerting that few people are aware of this race towards the abyss, and that few realize the responsibility of the highest levels of the Church in supporting these anti-Christian ideologies, as if the Church's leaders want to guarantee that they have a place and a role on the bandwagon of aligned thought. And it is surprising that people persist in not wanting to investigate the root causes of the present crisis, limiting themselves to deploring the present excesses as if they were not the logical and inevitable consequence of a plan orchestrated decades ago. If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humane. If we have a liturgy that is Protestantized (yes, the 'Novus Bogus'-A.M.) and at times even paganized, we owe it to the revolutionary action of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and to the post-conciliar reforms. If the Abu Dhabi Declaration was signed, we owe it to Nostra Aetate."
"....The Council was used to legitimize the most aberrant doctrinal deviations, the most daring liturgical innovations, and the most unscrupulous abuses, all while Authority remained silent. This Council was so exalted that it was presented as the only legitimate reference for Catholics, clergy and bishops, obscuring and connoting with a sense of contempt the doctrine that the Church had always authoritatively taught, and prohibiting the perennial liturgy (an act that since Trent incurs automatic excommunication, anathema on any pastor, which includes John XXIII Paul VI-A.M.) -that for millennia had nourished the faith of an uninterrupted line of faithful, martyrs and saints. Among other things, this Council has proven to be the only one that has caused so many interpretive problems and so many contradictions with respect to the preceding Magisterium, while there is not one other council--from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican I--that does not harmonize perfectly with the entire Magisterium or that needs so much interpretation.

"....[O]n March 13, 2013, the mask fell from the conspirators...finally succeeded in promoting a Cardinal who embodied their ideals, their way of revolutionizing the Church, of making doctrine malleable, morals adaptable, liturgy adulterable, and discipline disposable. And all this was considered, by the protagonists of the conspiracy themselves, the logical consequence and obvious application of Vatican II, which according to them had been weakened by the critiques expressed by Benedict XVI. The greatest affront of that Pontificate was liberally permitting the celebration of the venerated Tridentine Liturgy, the legitimacy of which was finally recognized, disproving fifty years of illegitimate ostracization. It is no accident that Bergoglio's supporters are the same people who saw the Council as the first event of a new church, prior to which there was an old religion with an old liturgy.

"It was no accident: what these men affirm with impunity, scandalizing moderates, is what Catholics also believe, namely: that despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onward a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal religion that was first theorized by Masonry. Expressions like new humanism, universal fraternity, dignity of man, are the watchwords of philanthropic humanitarianism which denies the true God, of horizontal solidarity of vague spiritualist inspiration and of ecumenical irenism that the Church universally condemns.
"....If we do not recognize that the roots of these deviations are found in the principles laid down by the Council, it will be impossible to find a cure: if our diagnosis persists, against all the evidence, in excluding the initial pathology, we cannot prescribe a suitable therapy.
"This operation of intellectual honesty requires a great humility, first of all in recognizing that for decades we have been led into error, in good faith, by people who, established in authority, have not known how to watch over and guard the flock of Christ: some for the sake of living quietly, some because of having too many commitments, some out of convenience, and finally some in bad faith or even malicious intent....

"Just as I honestly and serenely obeyed questionable orders sixty years ago, believing that they represented the loving voice of the Church, so today with equal serenity and honesty I recognize that I have been deceived. Being coherent today by persevering in error would represent a wretched choice and would make me an accomplice in this fraud. Claiming a clarity of judgment from the beginning would not be honest: we all knew that the Council would be more or less a revolution, but we could not have imagined that it would prove to be so devastating, even for the work of those who should have prevented it. And if up until Benedict XVI we could still imagine that the coup d'etat of Vatican II (which Cardinal Suenens called 'the 1789 of the Church') had experienced a slowdown, in these last few years even the most ingenuous among us have understood that silence for fear of causing a schism, the effort to repair papal documents (how does an infallible Magisterium, a pope protected by infallibility in faith and morals teach heresy, error anyway? Hmmmm.....Either Church Teaching on infallibility is wrong....or....They were invalid popes---Conservative Catholics have to destroy Church teaching by contorting it beyond recognition in order to hold that the popes since Vatican II are valid---A.M.) in a Catholic sense in order to remedy their intended ambiguity, the appeals and dubia made to Francis that remained eloquently unanswered, are all a confirmation of the situation of the most serious apostasy to which the highest levels of the Hierarchy are exposed....

----------------
-Now, @Ultraviolet, Back to your accusations, we'll return to the lengthy citation in bit:

"The Church began with Christ and Christ did not teach His followers to be racists nor did He teach them to be anti-Semites. Neither did the rest of the New Testament".

-Agreed, 110%. You have constructed a strawman and can keep attacking him all day long. You have yet to define what is anti-Semitism, what, or who, is a Jew, and how opposing Jewish interests and revolution against Christ and His Church is racist, nor have you presented one shred of evidence that EMJ is a racist, a bigot, an anti-Semite. Have you tried to ever read Church documents prior to Vatican II regarding the Jews? Start with Lateran IV, let me know if you think the Church was anti-Semitic. In the Gospel of John, the use of the word "Jew" doesn't become pejorative until Chapter 8. The Jews are then defined in the negative, as those who have rejected Christ. Mind you, those who accepted Christ at this time were all Jews, but now they are known as Christians. In Christ there is no longer Jew nor Greek....etc. John relates how the early followers had to hide for fear of the Jews? Isn't he a Jew? You see, by the time we get to John Chapter 8, Jew no longer refers to a race, but a people who hold a theological position, namely, the rejection of Jesus Christ. You are going to have a very difficult time with the Church's relationship with the Jews through history if you fail to understand this distinction. EMJ's book, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit exposes anti-Semitism, and helps one better grasp the Church's relationship with the Jews throughout history, and the present state we are in today. I really encourage you to read it. I can understand how abrasive and shocking some things may sound to your ears that have been trained since birth to have an enormous blind spot to anything that doesn't praise the Jews...it's not your fault...it is by orchestrated design. But I am confident that once you begin to read his book, you will see that all your animosity and visceral reactions towards him have been very misguided, whatever good intentions may have existed.

"The Church defines heresy in Canon Law 751 and refusing to accept The Church's teachings is part of that definition -which is what you're doing with Nostra Aetate."

-Nostra Aetate is not Church teaching, the Church cannot err in her teaching authority. N.A. is a document of an illegitimate "Council." I suggest you ponder Vigano's words concerning it, and then do some research on your own on why someone would oppose Vatican II. Not hard to do, May I suggest start with John Vennari, several good talks he left behind? Or Romero Amerio's monumental tome on the subject, Iota Unum?

"You're throwing around "religious condemnation" that carries a very clear meaning in Catholicism, of which you are obviously entirely unaware, even when it directly applies to you..
Likewise apostasy, also covered in Canon Law 751, which denotes a total repudiation of the Christian faith. Even our current pontiff, regardless of his (I suspect) numerous doctrinal errors, has not done so."

-Really!? Are you kidding me? Have you been on a lunar kibbutz or in some hole at Camp X-Ray these past several years? How is what Bergoglio teaches the Catholic Faith? How is Abu Dhabi not apostasy? How does proclaiming that "I believe in God, not in a Catholic God. There is no Catholic God" (interview La Repubblica, Sept 24, 2013) not apostasy? Gimme a break, we could do this all day long....

How does an infallible Magisterium, a pope protected by infallibility in faith and morals teach heresy, error? Hmmmm.....Either Church Teaching on infallibility is wrong....or....They were invalid popes. You see, although Vigano hasn't arrived here yet, to my knowledge, Sedevacantism is the only way to preserve Church teaching on the Papacy. The religion of Vatican II is opposed to Eternal Rome, the Catholic Faith. Those espousing the Vatican II religion mostly have no clue that they have fallen into schism with the Faith, and are plunging headlong into Apostasy.

You say that the pope can have numerous doctrinal errors? That is heresy my friend. You must obey the pope. Pope Pius IX, (inter multiplices, 1853, #7) laid out what your response should be to your Pope:

"Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion. Therefore, because of your special faith in the Church and special piety toward the same Chair of Peter, We exhort you to direct your constant efforts so that the faithful people of France may avoid the crafty deceptions and errors of these plotters and develop a more filial affection and obedience to this Apostolic See. Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees. Here, however, We are hardly able to restrain Ourselves from telling you of the grief We experienced when, among other things, a recently published book reached Us; it was written in French with the title Sur la situation presente de l’Eglise Gallicane relativement au droit coutumier. Its author is totally opposed to all We so fervently commend, and so We have sent the book to Our Congregation of the Index to be disapproved and condemned."

So you are in disobedience, and you are teaching heresy by your position on Bergoglio. If a pope is teaching error, which this Bergoglio does almost daily (and I hope you will spare me the redundant task of citing ample examples as even this GTV site reports on often), then he must not be pope. It's pretty simple, and those who complicate it do so with grave violence to the teaching authority of the Church. The Conciliar church is, as Vigano has well stated, a parallel church. It is leading souls into apostasy, creating a religion that is no longer Catholic. It is an anti-Church opposed to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

"Simply put, you don't know what you're talking about and it shows."

-Dear person, you need to re-evaluate what you think you know. It's ok. I had to also. The truth shall set you free.

"Ah! I see I have a fan who retains what I say and where I say it. I'm flattered!
Indeed, I spoke of the dangers of publicly criticizing someone of Archbishop Vigano's intellectual stature. I pointed out that if they bother to reply they're going to "they're going squash the writer flat."

-I'm not sure that I am reading this above statement correctly, it appears to be a mistype. I am assuming you mean Vigano would crush them flat, and not that 'they're going squash [sic] the writer flat."

"...which is precisely what I'm doing at this moment by correcting your misuse of Catholic terminology that simply doesn't apply. :D"

-This statement of yours tempts me to retract my initial thanksgiving for your generous responses, as it seems to reveal a strong motivation of prideful accomplishment behind them.

"Your quote shows Archbishop Vigano is criticizing 'the apostasy of Abu Dhabi.' He's claiming that pantheism and neo-modernism germinated from Nostra Aetate. Perhaps it did. That's a fancy way of saying people have misinterpreted its doctrines into error."

-No, you are misrepresenting what he said. You are applying the same erroneous method that you and other Conservative Catholics use when viewing Vatican II. As I have clearly demonstrated at the beginning of this reply, he is not simply saying "people have misinterpreted its doctrines into error," but that the document, like the Council that produced it, is intrinsically erroneous. Any attempt to interpret Vigano in any other way is simply a result that, "simply put, you don't know what you're talking about and it shows," or you are practicing dishonesty just to make your point. I'll choose the former explanation. In either case, you are alone in understanding him this way, no one else is confused as to what he is clearly stating.

"and? E. Michael Jones has misinterpreted the New Testament into error in a like manner."

-No he doesn't. Surely you are familiar with the dictum: What can be freely asserted can be freely denied. Proof, Accuser, proof.

"One does not blame the document when others choose to misinterpret it, even deliberately, for their own ends."

-This Conservative claim is demolished. You need to let go before it drowns you. The problem is not with its interpretation, the problems are inherent to it.

"...which brings us to Archbishop Vigano
He is criticizing what has been misinterpreted FROM The Church's teachings in Nostra Aetate.
You're trying, for obvious reasons, to conflate an agenda-driven misinterpretaton of Nostra Aetatae with the original document."

-The only misrepresentation here is you of Vigano, as should be OBVIOUS by now. You conflated his very CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS statement on NA to fit your agenda-driven argument to try to rescue a heretical document and the spurious Council that produced it. This is why I quoted at length, because I knew that you would do to Vigano what you have done to NA and Vat II.

"This way, you seek to discredit the original Church Proclamation. I can understand why... it flatly repudiates E. Michael Jones' discrimination and Jew-hating -including your own."

Slander, Calumny. Again, you have yet to produce ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE of EMJ's supposed "jew-hating." Your reckless use of weaponized words like "anti-Semitism," "discrimination," reveal that you are informed more by demagoguery than actual facts and understanding. Again, NA is not a proclamation of the Church, but of an anti-Church, a parallel church and, as Vigano stated "despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onward, a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal religion that was first theorized by Masonry."

THAT is the religion born of Vatican II, and that is the Religion you are espousing, though I believe unwittingly. Your arguments hinge on believing V2 was a valid, authoritative Council. Take that away and you have nothing. Again, you would come unglued if you were to familiarize yourself with the Church's positions on the Jews through the ages. EMJ can help you wade through it and realize that the Church never promoted anti-Semitism in Her Teachings, and all the actions taken against the Jews were to protect them and the Church from Jewish subversion. Again, just start with Lateran IV and get back with me....there's plenty more where that came from.

"Since you're quoting Archbishop Vigano, please quote him directly where he supports 'the discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion' condemned by Nostra Aetate."

-Once again, you create a strawman. You still have yet to show ANY EVIDENCE that EMJ is a race hater or anti-Semite. And as far as religious discrimination.....uh, yeah, we better discriminate. Religious Liberty is not a Catholic teaching. It was condemned as a modernist error by several Popes, but I wouldn't expect you to know that or to agree with it, since your religion is different than mine, yours being the Conciliar Religion born out of Vatican II. It's ok, I was there too, but sooner or later your desire to be a member of the One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church will lead you out of that parallel church and into Holy Mother Church. The way to do that is to first reject the errors of Vatican II. For Popes condemning the error of religious liberty, you can start with Pius VI, Quod aliquantulum, Letter of March 10, 1791 to the French Bishops of the National Assembly; Pius VII, Post tam diuturnitas, Apostolic Letter to the Bishop of Troyes, France, Condemning the "Freedom of Cults and of Conscience," granted by the Constitution of 1814 (Louis XVIII); Gregory XVI, Mira vos, Encyclical of August 15, 1832; Pius IX, Quanta cura, Encyclical of December 8, 1864, Reiterating the Condemnation of His Predecessor; Pius IX, Syllabus, 77-79; Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, Encyclical of November 1, 1885 On the Christian Constitution of States..............among others.

"Nostra Aetate teaches discriminating against race and religion is wrong".

-Moot.

"You present quotes that imply Archbishop Vigano repudiates Nostra Aetate and its teachings.
Therefore Archbishop Vigano must repudiate the Nostra Aetate teaching that religious and racial discrimination are wrong, i.e. he supports religious and racial discrimination."

-Moot.

"Feel free to quote Archbishop Vigano directly ANYWHERE he does so -especially in regards to Jews which is E. Michael Jones' obsession -and yours.."

-You still fail to demonstrate EMJ is what you accuse him to be, so how I can address a fiction?

"Put up or shut up. Quote him, or your argument fails".

-Irrelevant. You are the Accuser of your brothers here, You must prove your case. So far all we get are accusations and arguments against strawmen.

"Piux [sic] XI notes 'a terrible discontinuity,' true. Does he mention which points, specifically? Feel free to quote him where he does."

-That was Vigano, but I believe Pope Pius IX's Mortalium Animos, Encyclical on Religious Unity should suffice for our purposes here:
Quote:
2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians."

The entire Encyclical should be read, very short, will take you only 5 minutes. The above quotes are just to give you an introduction to much more that follows, little of which Nostra Aetate is in harmony with. May this little exercise help exorcise your faith of Conciliar error.

"What you're trying to apply is a fallacy of composition".

-No, the part must be understood in its whole, which is context, something you are refusing to afford poor Mr. Jones with your calumnies. Read his book, you will not be sorry.

"Also worth noting Pius XI said the discontinuity should be amended. Did he list racial or religious discrimination as one of those points to be amended? Yes or no."

-Again, moot. We are bound to religious discrimination. Perhaps you need to take a closer look. Vatican II is a departure from the faith. I have provided ample sources for you to research. And again, and perhaps this is my fault in original citation though I read over it and don't see any mistake in presentation, it was Vigano, not Pope Pius XI that said the discontinuity should be amended. Note the part that you left out, the prerequisite of any amendment, namely the discontinuity with previous Magisterial teaching "must be acknowledged." I point you back again to the many documents I have named in this response to you.

"My personal life has no bearing on the points you've raised or errors you've made. You should confine yourself to addressing the subjects discussed instead of speculating on irrelevancies."

-I'll give you that. I guess a more fair approach would simply be why are you so bent on defaming EMJ, on robbing him of his good name? You are attacking a good man whose contribution in this matter is beautiful, something I really believe you would see if you would just read what he has to say, to put it in context and see. It is a solution, a remedy for anti-Semitism, a strong argument against racism. You are the Accuser here, so you have to demonstrate how he is a racist or jew-hater. Spoiler alert: you won't be able to.

"Actually, I can type really, really, really fast.
You're making a conclusion about the amount of time I spend on GTV based on the time it takes for YOU to read and reply.
That's a false premise. Happily, I'm not constrained by your intellectual limitatios or your technical skillset. ;-)"

-I retract. It's not hard to type out a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations and calumny. Any unscrupulous person can pump out a rather prolific amount of such hate-speech without backing any of it up with evidence of any kind.

"Frankly, I'm not really interested in your literary criticism. I've seen this tactic before".

-As when you often jump upon your targets for a misspelling or grammatical error (so far you haven't done that to me, but I've seen you do it to others)? You strain the gnat while swallowing the camel. The length of your posts are not a problem when you are not filling them with unscrupulous and unsubstantiated accusations against people like EMJ.

"If I don't reply to a point, you'll POUNCE on that one point as proof my entire position is in error since I didn't address it."

-Okay. I can understand that, and I am certain you are speaking from having experienced that a great bit. I don't recall doing that, but I would certainly retain the obligation to re-iterate a point if I think it was lost on someone.

"If I do reply to every point, then I'm 'wordy and unnecessarily lengthy'."

-The key word here is "unnecessarily." If all you are going to do is keep throwing accusations of racism and anti-Semitism around without demonstrating it, then yeah, even one syllable is unnecessarily lengthy and wordy, let alone several paragraphs.

"Yet you can spend hours shovelling down the manure E. Michael Jones feeds you. page after page without ever complaining about his wordiness or his length".

-It may be manure to you, but fertilizer for many others. But it's clear that in regards to EMJ at least, you don't know anti-Semitism from shinola. I'm not argue any longer with someone who just hurls accusations against someone he clearly doesn't understand and even more clearly doesn't want to understand. That's bigotry and prejudice. And its incurable until the afflicted person desires to be cured.

"This is the "you haven't tried it so you can't judge" argument every degenerate uses to justify their illness. It presupposes a person must consume filth in order to recognize it as filth.
A Catholic does not need to read every satanic blasphemous book in order to recognize they are satanic and blasphemous."

-You have no idea what you are talking about in regards to EMJ, and you are all the more impoverished because of it. It's really unfortunate, you would abandon your EMJ-hating ideas if you really looked into what he is saying.

"Now you're misusing debating terminology the same way you misused Catholic legalism".

-No, I was dead on, but for one point, which I will explain in a moment.

"Cherry picking implies choosing examples that do NOT reflect the group as a whole. For that to be true YOU must show, overwhelmingly, Jones -isn't- an anti-Semite."

-Again, YOU are the Accuser, the burden of proof lies on YOU. My proof is his entire book, which I suggest you read.

"In fact, your accusation of "cherry picking" already carries a concession. You're acknowledging the quotes from Jones that I have presented DO show he's an anti-Semite".

-Ahh, that's the point of failure I wanted to get to. You actually have provided NO EVIDENCE whatsoever, so I was wrong to even argue from the point as if you had. But perhaps it is good that I did, because you now go on to claim that you have provided quotes from EMJ in our discussion, and I don't believe you have at all. Will you please refresh my memory as to what quotes you provided and where in our discussion that I can find them? Otherwise you have just lied, and I would hope that isn't the case. I'll give you a chance to show me that you actually did quote him at some point in our discussion.

"By accusing me (falsely) of 'cherry picking' you're arguing they don't represent his writing, even if those examples DO show anti-Semitism."

-Again, where, when, did you EVER quote him? I don't believe you did, so it is correct to point out that accusing you of cherry picking would be false, but with the irony of being a more charitable allowance (responding as if you ever presented evidence of your accusations against EMJ) than perhaps you deserved. If you can produce a quote, I certainly hope it's not the only one that you have produced up to this point, what with all your insults and accusations against EMJ.

"For that to be true YOU must show, overwhelmingly, Jones -isn't- an anti-Semite".

-Again, moot. The burden of proof is on the Accuser of his brethren. You have yet to do so. In defense of EMJ, I submit exhibit A: The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History, 2008, 7th Printing, 2019, Fidelity Press, South Bend, Indiana.

"Yes, do that".

-Done, been there, done that, and you refuse to look at the evidence, having prejudice against the defendant.

"Quote all the many passages where E. Michael Jones praises the Jewish people and Judaism."

-Firstly, Judaism is not praiseworthy, it is, by its nature an anti-Christ religion, one that rejects Jesus Christ and therefore leads people on a path to Hell, because outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation, and baptism is necessary for salvation. Church Teaching 101. Secondly, you still don't know what a Jew is, or how EMJ is using the term, and you don't even realize how you are boxing a phantom, and nothing is going to knock you out of that stupid ring until you actually give EMJ a chance to defend himself against your accusations. But you won't do that. You've already shown how you are prepared to rationalize your prejudice against him and his work, and you willfully choose to remain obstinate in your calumnies and ignorance. You know not of that which you speak against, and I've wasted too much time on this already. My only hope in trying to be a bit more thorough in my reply to you was that you might actually begin to reconsider some of your positions on various misunderstandings you have. I'm not entirely confident that I could even make a dent in something impossibly stubborn. But who knows?