[Pride male]

(05-23-2018 12:39 AM)Super_Fire Wrote:  

Logos is the ancient Greek concept, via Heraclitus and Anaxagoras, of a rational order to the universe, put simply.

The translation of "Word" is far too simplistic, which is why the beginning of John has always been so mystifying. "In the beginning was the Word." What the heck is that supposed to mean?

John wrote his Gospel in Greek though, so anyone who could have read it would have been educated and would have understand when he wrote, "In the beginning was Logos..."

In other words:

"In the beginning was the rational order of the universe, and the the rational order of the universe was with God, and the the rational order of the universe was God."

Jesus is thus the Logos incarnate. With that understanding, the New Testament makes more sense. Faith isn't believing that there's a God somewhere in the sky. Faith is believing that the universe was designed on the foundation of a rational order, and it's your job to understand that and uphold it.

Think of that and then read again something like this quote from Jesus in John:

"Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

Light, and the truth, here are the understanding that the universe is meant work a certain, rational way. Those who turn against it we know well. They are the subversives, the deviants, the despotic, and worse. The opposite are those who follow the way of how things were meant to be. We know in the pit of our stomachs what that way is.

Re: The Catholic Church, Jones was raised Catholic. Per his view, and history, the Reformation was a looting operation of Church property by rapacious robber barons, with theological justifications sermonized after the fact. In addition, it was an excuse for the newly dubbed 'Protestants' to engage in usury, just as the Jews in Europe were but the Church prohibited. Since its inception, the Church stood opposed to usury, divorce, birth control, etc. The Reformation opened the floodgates for divorce, usury, female clergy, gay clergy, and more. Not that the Catholic Church is without its problems. But pre-1965 it held the conservative line, and even had modus vivendi for dealing with Jewish cultural influence, something the Protestants are opposed to thanks to the origins of the Reformation itself as a Judaising breakaway. Now they'r even trying to legislate "Anti-Semitism" as being illegal is SC. They also make up all the pro-Israel dopes such as Evangelicals. Meanwhile in Israel, they think Christians are a bunch of stupid goyim.

Just saw Goy's Guide to History. I guess he has some good points, but overall I think he's a weirdo, if you ask me.

[Super_Fire]

Well, don't shoot the messenger here. I'd say the Goy Guide has more than a few good points though.

At any rate, the point is that Jordanetics isn't going to cut it. And we can't ignore the Muslim or Jewish worlds in the grand scheme of things, because they're both very good at being tribal and organized, and are looking to take over (the latter more likely to accomplish said goal).

And the only group in world history that has even actually stood up to them is the Catholic Church. I know it's a bitter pill for a lot of Protestants to swallow, but Protestantism is not the path forward. And no Americans or Western Europeans really believe in the Orthodox Church, it's just too alien.

And of course there's the re-emphasis on Logos, and especially the Gospel of St. John. Here is where you find the ultimate bedrock for both and understanding and argument that the universe has been set in motion by a rational force. That can extend to anything that one might otherwise have difficulty articulating as to why you feel is unnatural, especially in the SJW age and all its perversity.

[debeguiled]

Jones is an old school character. You used to see tons of guys like this in academia. Tweedy, idiosyncratic, smart as a whip, and completely comfortable with themselves.

They are a dying breed, these guys, enjoy the last few before they are extinct.

Vox Day is a weirdo, and there will be plenty more where he came from.

[Kid Twist]

(05-24-2018 10:10 PM)Super_Fire Wrote:  

And no Americans or Western Europeans really believe in the Orthodox Church, it's just too alien.

More have, and it's ironic that you use the words "really" and "believe" regarding the thousands of protestant denominations or the post Vatican 2 collapse of Roman Catholicism both in Europe and America.

Having said that, there is a reason why the Desert Fathers said that in the future it'll be accounted a miracle (like the legit ones they did in their days) if people were to just believe.

You think it's easy for modern people to give up their food and comforts? In our lifetime we'll see just how easy that is (not), and yes that include, you and me. That's when we'll see who truly cares about the "Church" --- which will still be present, here or there. Most will apostasize, if they haven't already.

[Super_Fire]

Debeguiled, yes; guys like Jones especially make sense in the context of being old Rust Belt Catholics. If you know Pennsylvania then you’ll know Jonesian characters. How many really, really smart guys do we know who we would consider normal?

Kid Twist, yes, but honestly I get the feeling the Orthodox things is a passing fad (cue the: “When you’ve lived and lost like Frank has” limo driver from This Is Spinal Tap).

Better then follow that than Protestantism or Darwinian atheism though.

I’m glad to see the meltdown of Jordan Peterson in this sense because, if you believe Vox Day, he’s not a Christian and this I tho k this will push people toward the church who were on the path to a cleverly masked path of moral relativism cloaked in self-improvement advice.

My primary concern now is for there to be a third Vatican Council that would go back on Vatican II, and much of the nonsense of Bergoglio. Perhaps I’m just dreaming or perhaps that’s what the Orthdoxy is fulfilling.

[Kid Twist]

Ever seen the discussions of Peterson with Pageau? Peterson is an interesting guy, multifaceted, and I don't think easily categorize-able in the ways we are attempting right now. Which I think is a good thing.

It isn't obvious to you that by saying "I hope they go back on Vatican II" and your reference (obviously I'm not catholic but also call Jorge that) to the roman pontiff in such a manner ... points toward just how problematic RC is? I'm not trying to vilify it necessarily, but it has changed with the times, and that's not what the church does. It being schismatic has always been historic fact, it's just patently obvious at this point. I'm quite certain you are smart and know history, too. This should be an easy one for you. Living it out of course, is a different thing entirely. But you have to be honest first about the basics, right?

[Super_Fire]

True enough, I’m under no rose-tinted illusions that it was perfect in the past. It’s a maleable, human thing and can thus change, though. And in my not so humble opinion, is still the best overall denomination. It’s just disappointing to see it capitulate from 1965 onward. American Catholicism also seems especially toothless compared to its counterparts abroad (though they have their own folk religion issues), possibly owing to Protestant influences and it’s understandable propensity for avoiding the Talmudic issue.

That’s life though. Certainly doesn’t derail any faith in God though, not for me.

[Pride male]

^Why is Catholicism the best denomination? Anglican priests at least are allowed to marry.

[Super_Fire]

(05-26-2018 05:38 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

^Why is Catholicism the best denomination? Anglican priests at least are allowed to marry.

The Anglican Church also seems to ordain women as priests and bishops (though not all among its adherents agree with this). I'm mixed on the idea of letting priests marry. On the one hand it should cut down on any potential abuse, on the other hand I think it does distract from their work.

Regarding Protestantism, the biggest problem is sola fide, or "faith alone" doctrine. To quote a little wiki here:

"The doctrine of sola fide asserts God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith alone, excluding all "works".

Lutheran and Reformed churches have held to sola-fide justification in opposition to Roman Catholicism especially, but also in opposition to significant aspects of Eastern Orthodoxy. These Protestant churches exclude all human works (except the works of Jesus Christ, which form the basis of justification) from the legal verdict (or pardon) of justification. According to Martin Luther, justification by faith alone is the article on which the Church stands or falls. Thus, "faith alone" is foundational to Lutheranism and Reformed Christianity, and as a formula distinguishes it from other Christian denominations."

Omitting the works from the equation leads to a situation in which, obviously, one need not necessarily do any good, but just believe in Jesus and all will be well. Big stumbling block for me.

Then there's sola scriptura, which again is not enough considering the scriptures don't cover all aspects on life. Sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible. What's more, it discounts the human condition. There's a reason we have Supreme Courts and ongoing judgments in society today after the writing of the Constitution, for example.

The Reformation as a political movement with a theological justification written up after the fact is another one. We can debate about whether its looting of the monasteries was terrible, or a repeat of what the Church did to stored-up pagan wealth and labor. Two wrongs don't make a right, though.

Not saying the Church is perfect. However, in theory it better upholds traditional, conservative values in its teachings than the Protestant denominations, and it does not teach that Calvinism's (i.e. modern capitalism's/mercantilism's) state-sponsored-usury-based economics are acceptable. It also does not fall into the trap that the Baptists and Evangelicals do with worshiping the Jews as "God's chosen people," when the latter want nothing to do with Christians and generally consider them useful idiots at best. There's a reason the Jews especially dislike the Catholic Church. I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember when The Passion came out in theaters, but there's a reason that moment incensed them to the point that Larry David pissed on Christ's image on Curb Your Enthusiasm.

[N°6]

It was good that you got a reply from Jones, Super Fire.

The usury question is not clear cut. The early American puritans had banned usury in their settlements and Savonarola who was burned at the stake in Florence protested the encroachment of the money power into the Roman Church. Usury was often disguised as free will gifts to the money lender.

[Super_Fire]

(05-28-2018 02:33 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

It was good that you got a reply from Jones, Super Fire.

The usury question is not clear cut. The early American puritans had banned usury in their settlements and Savonarola who was burned at the stake in Florence protested the encroachment of the money power into the Roman Church. Usury was often disguised as free will gifts to the money lender.

It's still a mortal sin, but yes it's a sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't situation in which the usurious side will be able to amass far more wealth than the labor-based economy will. And will then use said wealth to stamp out opposing ideas and opening the gates for its own system; see, Britain/Israel/USA vs. Germany in WWI and WWII.

It's just too tempting a sin for people to not want to engage in, lest they be left in the dust. But it's effects are far-reaching because, and I'll quote here:

"...the Jews, a diasporic people, treated gentiles as aliens and that is why they extracted usury from them. When capitalism internalized this Jewish practice it made each individual an alien to the other, destroying social cohesion."

https://www.traditionalright.com/barren-...ok-review/

[debeguiled]

(05-27-2018 08:49 PM)Super_Fire Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 05:38 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

^Why is Catholicism the best denomination? Anglican priests at least are allowed to marry.

The Anglican Church also seems to ordain women as priests and bishops (though not all among its adherents agree with this). I'm mixed on the idea of letting priests marry. On the one hand it should cut down on any potential abuse, on the other hand I think it does distract from their work.

Regarding Protestantism, the biggest problem is sola fide, or "faith alone" doctrine. To quote a little wiki here:

"The doctrine of sola fide asserts God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith alone, excluding all "works".

Lutheran and Reformed churches have held to sola-fide justification in opposition to Roman Catholicism especially, but also in opposition to significant aspects of Eastern Orthodoxy. These Protestant churches exclude all human works (except the works of Jesus Christ, which form the basis of justification) from the legal verdict (or pardon) of justification. According to Martin Luther, justification by faith alone is the article on which the Church stands or falls. Thus, "faith alone" is foundational to Lutheranism and Reformed Christianity, and as a formula distinguishes it from other Christian denominations."

Omitting the works from the equation leads to a situation in which, obviously, one need not necessarily do any good, but just believe in Jesus and all will be well. Big stumbling block for me.

Then there's sola scriptura, which again is not enough considering the scriptures don't cover all aspects on life. Sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible. What's more, it discounts the human condition. There's a reason we have Supreme Courts and ongoing judgments in society today after the writing of the Constitution, for example.

The Reformation as a political movement with a theological justification written up after the fact is another one. We can debate about whether its looting of the monasteries was terrible, or a repeat of what the Church did to stored-up pagan wealth and labor. Two wrongs don't make a right, though.

Not saying the Church is perfect. However, in theory it better upholds traditional, conservative values in its teachings than the Protestant denominations, and it does not teach that Calvinism's (i.e. modern capitalism's/mercantilism's) state-sponsored-usury-based economics are acceptable. It also does not fall into the trap that the Baptists and Evangelicals do with worshiping the Jews as "God's chosen people," when the latter want nothing to do with Christians and generally consider them useful idiots at best. There's a reason the Jews especially dislike the Catholic Church. I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember when The Passion came out in theaters, but there's a reason that moment incensed them to the point that Larry David pissed on Christ's image on Curb Your Enthusiasm.

How can you be sola fide if there are verses in your sola scriptura in praise of works?

From the Protestant/Evangelical preachers I have heard live, and I have heard literally hundreds if not thousands, their big justification for jettisoning works is this verse:

Quote:

Eph 2:9: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

What they completely fail to acknowledge is the most important word in the sentence:

Lest.

Used as a conjunction lest means for fear that.

If you were to remove content and diagram this sentence it would be roughly:

[This] [For fear that] [that]

Or, I am telling you that it is not of works because I am afraid you will become boastful.

This verse is not a standalone objective statement about the faith/works paradox.

It is an injunction against pride.

This seems to be pretty obvious.

So why the hell don't the 900 million Protestants out there seem to know this?

[godfather dust]

I was Pentecostal for a while. It was fun acting crazy in church and I got a lot out of it (my faith is stronger to this day from my time there) but I left because it was a somewhat cult like environment and I felt like I was about to "lose the plot (one of the few British phrases I like.)

I would say Pentecostal is an entirely new movement (started in the early 20th century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azusa_Street_Revival)

Anyway, long story short it's not "faith only."

Catholics and Orthodox are not the only ones who reject that, I would argue many Pentecostal churches do as well (though it is a flawed movement. No more than Catholicism though, with it's third world level of corruption.)

[FilipSRB]

An Orthodox view about grace vs works for those interested:

Quote:

At a recent, post-liturgical coffee hour, a catechumen raised a question that has troubled many people who were brought up in a Protestant environment and at some point found themselves drawn to Orthodoxy. “If we are saved by grace, and not by works,” he asked, “why does the Orthodox Church put so much stress on ascetic practice? Why should it be necessary, or even useful, to fast as we do, to make countless prostrations during Great Lent, to stand for hours through long services, and even to give so much money to the Church?” (He was preparing to enter a parish in the Southern Diocese, where tithing is usually considered an important part of personal spiritual discipline.) Then he added, “Aren’t all these things works? And what happens if I don’t do them? Am I cast out of the Kingdom and basically condemned to hell?”

The discussion went on for some time, until the coffee ran out and most people went home. He stayed, though, and continued his questioning with the priest, who later admitted he had the feeling that on some level this catechumen was getting the better of him.

Finally the man pulled out a pocket Bible and opened to Colossians 3. Selecting a few verses to make his point, he read: “Why do you submit to regulations, ‘Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’ (referring to things that all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgences of the flesh.”

“Why, then,” he asked, “do the Orthodox submit to such regulations: ‘Do not eat (this or that),’ or ‘Do this, that, and the other thing,’ in order to be a ‘good Christian’? Isn’t it enough to ‘love God and my neighbor as myself’?”

It was a good question. While there’s a perfectly reasonable and satisfactory answer to his objection, it seems worthwhile for all of us to think about these things, in an effort to understand just why ascetic practice and spiritual discipline in general are so important in Christian life.

Our rebellion against God and his will touches every aspect of our existence. “Sin” or “sinfulness” is not just an accumulation of specific acts of disobedience or willfulness that in some way violate the commandments. It is more than the sum total of our individual sins. Those sins are symptomatic of something broader and deeper that virtually defines us, that characterizes our every act and attitude. Sin is a state of being that permeates all aspects of our life, conscious and unconscious, physical as well as spiritual. In fact, the distinction we usually make between what is physical and what is spiritual is artificial and misleading. The human person can only be understood holistically. Our bodily gestures affect our psycho-spiritual disposition, just as our spiritual state can affect our body. Nothing attests to this fact more eloquently than the Orthodox service of Holy Unction, with its emphasis on the forgiveness of sins as integral to the quest for healing.

This point brings us back to the question of ascetic discipline and the place of “works” in our salvation. First of all, it is important to recognize that the apostle Paul is speaking to the Colossians about performing religious rituals prescribed either by the Torah, Hebrew law, or by pagan forms of worship. The admonition, “Don’t handle, taste or touch,” has to do with various religious practices that were considered by many as necessary to enter into the sacred realm of divinity. Repeatedly (especially in his letters to the Romans and Galatians), Paul insists that our salvation is accomplished wholly and uniquely by Christ: by his voluntary death on the Cross, by which he descended into the realm of death (Sheol), in order to defeat the powers of death and corruption. This is a work of pure grace that only God can accomplish. And this is why it is so essential to recognize and accept the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is truly the incarnate, eternal Son of God. Our salvation is made possible precisely by the “work” of the Holy Trinity, a work no created being can accomplish.

So we, as Orthodox Christians, affirm as clearly and unambiguously as any Lutheran, for example, that “salvation is by grace” and not by our works. Unlike medieval Catholicism, Orthodoxy does not hold that a person can build up a “treasury of merits” that will count in our favor at the Judgment Seat of Christ. What will matter then is our having surrendered our sin to God through confession, and our gestures of love (Mt. 25), together with the unshakable conviction that “Jesus Christ is Lord,” and the unique Way to eternal life.

Orthodoxy does recognize, however, the importance of our “cooperation” with God, what we term “synergy.” “Salvation,” as we usually understand the word, is only the beginning of a pilgrimage that leads us through this life, through our physical death, and into life beyond. Salvation, accomplished by the death and resurrection of Christ, means freedom from the consequences of our sinfulness: separation from the holiness and love of the God who desires only that we be saved and enter into eternal and joyful communion with himself. If we were not continually tempted to fall back into sin, there would be no need for such a “synergy.” Then we could declare, with absolute confidence, “once saved, always saved!” Temptation and spiritual struggle, however, mark every day of our life. And the way we face and, by the grace of God, overcome those forces (demonic powers), is precisely through the “spiritual warfare,” the ascetic struggle that enables us to confront those forces day by day and overcome their destructive influence.

This is why, in the same letter to the Colossians, the apostle can declare: “I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, the Church” (1:24). We may not suffer as Paul did, risking our very life for the gospel, enduring torture, hardship, hunger and rejection by one’s own people. Nevertheless, our small efforts, of fasting, prostrations, intense participation in long liturgical services—like almsgiving and other acts of love offered to those in need—enable us also to share in Christ’s own sufferings, which he will endure in us and for us until he comes again in glory. That participation is essential; yet it is not the means by which we are saved.

The final word, as so often, comes from our Lord himself. Condemning the Pharisees for their hypocritical observance of empty ritual, he accuses them of performing small religious acts while “neglecting the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.” And he concludes, “These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others” (Mt 23:23). Those “others” include precisely the sorts of ascetic practices Orthodox tradition calls us and invites us to assume—not to achieve salvation, but to bring heart, soul, mind and body into harmony with the ineffable gift of salvation that Christ has already offered to us.

[Pride male]

Would the industrial revolution have happened at the height of the Catholic church's power?

[Super_Fire]

(05-31-2018 11:12 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

Would the industrial revolution have happened at the height of the Catholic church's power?

When the height of the Catholic Church's power was is a point of debate. It could have been 1100, it could have been the turn of the 20th century. In 1934, Catholics in the US beat Hollywood Jews and forced them to enact the production code. We even had a Catholic President in JFK. Certainly it's been hamstrung since 1965.

Is the question then: would Catholic economics have allowed for the Industrial Revolution?

Who knows, but not likely in the way we saw it, though I'm guessing that's your argument. I'm not a trained economist, but I'll say that Catholic economics differ from Protestant/Jewish mercantilism in that the former bases the value of its economy on labor, and the latter on capital, which really means state-sponsored usury and treating its labor like trash. Even Tolkien could have told you that (that's what LOTR was about, in part). As Adam Smith pointed out, the destruction of the monasteries took away the social safety net of the poor, and before long the serfdom were ushered into the factories, paid diddly, and treated as disposable, all for the benefit of their robber baron rulers.

What is the argument then? That laissez-faire Austrian School economics are better? Total free market means caps on income are for cheap laborers, not for CEOS. Modern capitalism (not economic development) and industrialization also unintentionally led to the rise of communism, which Pope Leo XIII outlines in 1891 in his Rerum novarum.

My question is: would easing into industrialization under Catholic economics have produced such a violent reaction in the form of internecine Jewish warfare between the capitalist and communist schools of thought?


Postscript: Even in America, the Taylorism model of consolidation was taken out of the factories and the square was circled by putting it into the education system. That's why we're having such a healthy discussion in the responsible education thread, because the American education system became whig-Darwinian. Take the kids out of their local, community-based education, shove everyone into the standardized education system, rake the geniuses out of the rubbish, as Thomas Jefferson put it, to see if they're suitable for indoctrination into the club of "natural aristocracy." So we're still suffering the deleterious effects of English-style industrialization in more ways than one.

[Labienus]

E. Michael Jones with JF. Great talk.

[911]

E. Michael Jones, Culture Warrior (short trippy video with EMJ nuggets):

This is from a new channel called Atom 88, he also made a Roosh highlight video, that got sandboxed:

[ilostabet]

Dr. Jones playing a song about neo-cohens. It's funny cause it's true.

Lyrics:

Oh, my name is Irving Kristol
And my son his name is Bill
In my youth I followed Trotsky
And in truth I follow him still

But to call yourself a Bolshevik
Would fill the world with dread
So please don't call me a commie
Call me a neocon instead

Yes, we are the neoconservatives
We rule the world says I
And that dumb goy we call Georgie Boy
Doesn't understand how or why

Oh, we're marching into Syria
The fun has just begun
Comrade Trotsky would be proud to be
Known as a neocon

To Keep the goyim pacified
While watching their TV
We let them watch dumb Irishmen
Like Sean O'Hannity

Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews
They can lick our boots and sigh
But to run the New World Order
No dumb Irish need apply

David Frum can excommunicate
The paleos from National Review
For to be a neoconservative
Means to be one of a chosen few

Oh, we're marching into Syria
The fun has just begun
Comrade Trotsky would be proud to be
Known as a neocon

Hammurabi's tablets got busted
During the looting in Iraq
But we're marching into Syria
Behind George Bush's back

They've got weapons of mass destruction
And they got 'em from Saddam Hussein
they've got weapons of mass destruction
Oh, repeat once more the refrain

They've got weapons of mass destruction
Oh, believe me, oh, believe
If you want to know just where they are
They're hidden in Tel Aviv

Oh, we're marching into Syria
The fun has just begun
Comrade Trotsky would be proud to be
Known as a neocon

[NoMoreTO]

(05-31-2018 11:12 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

Would the industrial revolution have happened at the height of the Catholic church's power?

Was the industrial revolution a good thing?

[911]

(04-02-2019 02:33 PM)NoMoreTO Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 11:12 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

Would the industrial revolution have happened at the height of the Catholic church's power?

Was the industrial revolution a good thing?

The industrial revolution really started in Europe over a thousand years ago with the network of thousands of Benedictine monasteries that converted western Europeans from hunter gatherers into advanced craftsmen and modern farmers, with water-powered mills, advanced craftsmanship and rationalized production processes.

The industrial revolution was a very good thing, most of its downfalls stem from poor regulation (like child labor and slave wages in the 19th century or current day 3rd world) and the usury financial system that underlined it. Paternalistic industrial groups like Ford or VW have provided for a healthy economy, a strong middle class and a healthy society. They still do today in countries like S. Korea or Japan.

It's their corruption through Wall Street/globalist rule that have created industrial decline, for example with LBOs and other financial tools have undermined productive industries for short term returns on capital at the expense of the long term health of the middle class.

This is a relatively recent phenomenon (1970s), that coincides with the application of a toxic social agenda of modern feminism and aggressive internal migration and foreign mass immigration, resulting in the dislocation of well-established urban cultural communities and the migration to the more alienating environment of the suburbs.

[Polniy_Sostav]

Goy's guide of world history was one of the best ; if not the best ; that I have ever seen in my entire life.
E Michael Jones deserves at least a street at his name.

[911]

Second that, Polniy.

EMJ recently reuploaded it, this is much better quality copy than the previous one, worth downloading as it won't be posted that much longer:

[debeguiled]

Do you guys think Jones really believes that Jesus was mostly Logos, or is this a strategic argument to get people back to discussing things instead of shutting each other down?

[rotekz]

Matthew Drake has released an Illustrated Philosophy video for a clip of E. Michael Jones talking to Owen Benjamin about the Jew taboo.