[Super_Fire]

I figured I'd start this thread because a) I can't find that one was previously made and b) because lately it seems we've been having discussions about globalism, cultural Marxism, the Jews, and Jesus/God in disparate topics, but this could be a good place to tie them all together.

The reason being, because I believe E. Michael Jones is the only more-or-less known person out there articulating all these issues without holding back. Now, some of you might not agree with Jones because he's Catholic, but hear him out.

Simply put: he primarily deals with the Christian/Catholic vs. Jewish conflict of the past 2,000 years, and all its permutations (economic, cultural, philosophical, theological). For those who would poo-poo the Catholic Church, keep in mind that for hundreds of years it was the main, in some cases only, force pushing back against Jewish economic and cultural subversion. In recent years, starting in 1965, the Catholic Church has publicly denounced that, but speaking from personal experience I can tell you that many Roman-Catholics personally oppose Judaism. Mel Gibson is not the exception to the rule.

Over the course of his writing and talks, Jones also touches on Protestantism as a political move to steal church property and engage in usury and other Judaic practices (with a theological justification written up after the fact), sexual liberation as a form of control, the homosexual as the rebel against the natural order, and more.

Ultimately, he always comes back to Logos, the natural order of the universe, as passed down from Heraclitus and Anaxagoras to the Gospel of St. John and Jesus Christ. In rejecting Christ as the Messiah, and instead choosing the zealot Barabbas, the Pharisees/Jews chose the way of the revolutionary and have continued to play that role from Calvary to Trump.

Anyway, some essential watching:

[Super_Fire]

And some more essential videos:

[Syberpunk]

Great idea for a thread.

I was first introduced to him when I was searching for information on the apparitions in Medugorje (great sun holidays too), our family are Roman Catholic (though I'm more lapsed than anything now for other reasons as well) used to go on holiday a few times and I'm not going to lie I completely believed tne story of the young teenagers and their parents vs the local communist authorities in the former Yugoslavia (now that part is Bosnia) (I was a teenager too, so it was very compelling and exciting too, that this crazy beyond another world events were happening to a group of 6 children from 8 to 16 starting in 1981, still ongoing they say).

All this suffering for them and their families (being taken away in the middle of the night without any notice of returning), they'd be insane to go put themselves through on purpose?

Right?

RIGHT?


Man the truth was crushing after you find out how wealthy these kids eventually become (OF COURSE YOU DON'T HEAR THIS WHEN YOU ARE OVER THERE), E.Jones points out the heresies in contrast to other apparitions are they putting up the longest con in modern history? It would seem crushingly yes (even aside all the salty tears warm statues in the locality) and all they people they duped (myself included) But then again after Hillary's attempt for power in 2016, their actions seem more plausible that people like that exist and you couldn't fathom they would do it for their whole lives, but they do and it doesn't bother them in the slightest. Who the hell put them up to it? Were they so poor, they got desperate cracked a scheme to be paid for life and just kept it going, was it too big to pull back from without everyone asking for their heads?

It's so weird to think that this little niche I was in religious apparitions and discovered has THIS guy now speaking on wide range of other things red pill as well, that we're having a talk about it on a pick up forum of all places, the world is so small and bizarre.

These American evangelical types would be considered hardcore in my country (Ireland), but unlike the church here in Ireland they actually double check the doctrine vs what's supposedly happening rather than saying well "we don't know what God intends", in a who cares "Mad stuff altogether but doing no harm in the end" attitude.

[TheWastelander]

His columns and essays are often better than his videos.

This one in particular, called Harry Potter and the Culture of Narcissism, is a real gem:

http://www.culturewars.com/2002/potter.html

[Super_Fire]

Oh yes, the "I'm secretly special but misunderstood, if only I could get away from these dullards and be with the other geniuses and practice magic." It shows up a lot in children's literature these days, predictably. Don't think someone is deserving of you? They're just a "muggle".

[911]

It's the whole genre of teen entertainment, not just Potter: the vampire theme, the zombie theme (zombies=muggle), superhero films and TV shows like "The Gifted".

Lots to say on EMJ, I'm a huge fan of his, will try to cover some highlights later on.

[N°6]

You will learn a lot from EMJ's videos and essays even if you don't agree with his background (Roman Catholic Social Conservatism) or his conclusions.

I agree with Michael Hoffman's essay on usury though. He is another RC social conservative but he admits that it wasn't the Reformation which broke the dam against the ancient and international forces of usury but Italian aristocratic popes which had divided loyalties with the banks. After all, Martin Luther was branded "anti-Semitic" because of his views on usury and the Talmud.

Even though I am Protestant (churchless owing to its feminisation and abortion), I can see that historical conservatism in the West against corroding forces was mostly Roman Catholic. Protestantism was too "broad-church", "individualistic" to offer any resistance and which later became financialised cuckservatism.

[Aurini]

From his Harry Potter essay:

Quote:

Law is also magic, at least constitutional law in the United States. The Supreme Court believes that “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and the mystery of human life."

That, my friends, comes from the 1992 Planned Parenthood vs Casey decision. People think Roe V Wade is the significant case - it isn't, it was nothing but a placeholder. It was the 1992 decision that damned American justice.

Ed: Just realized that he says that immediately after quoting it.

[Super_Fire]

New interview, this time Jones touches on his idea of rebuilding new communities in the Benedictine tradition; in any case, creating communities of like-minded red pill people to have families and not be pushed out, as well as the need to have geographical proximity, and not being isolated.

Sometimes I wonder how a Rooshville community would work out; probably pretty well, but it's take getting organized and people willing to sacrifice and move close together:[/align]

[puckerman]

I had never heard of him. I found his whole approach very interesting. Having been raised Catholic, his analysis of the church was interesting.

He seemed bias against Jews at times. But it wasn't an emotional and irrational dislike. It seemed very well considered and thought out.

His rejection of Darwin was ridiculous. There is simply too much evidence for his Darwin's theories.

[Super_Fire]

(01-31-2018 10:45 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

I had never heard of him. I found his whole approach very interesting. Having been raised Catholic, his analysis of the church was interesting.

He seemed bias against Jews at times. But it wasn't an emotional and irrational dislike. It seemed very well considered and thought out.

His rejection of Darwin was ridiculous. There is simply too much evidence for his Darwin's theories.

I think in terms of evolution he's still touching on the "Why?" aspect; that is, why did it happen?

Evolutionists will say "natural selection" but Jones brings up a good point about the biological development of the eye. The eye is a very, very complex organ. Why would a creature develop one? If no creature ever had one, did two just give birth to one with an eye? I've read the science on how the eye developed, but no scientist can actually explain why. Even Darwin can't, saying:

"...if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Why are there numerous gradations to begin with? Natural selection wouldn't create an eye out of nowhere, it would only favor the sighted over the blind. Again, why would a creature's natural biology slowly create an eye for it? The copout answer is, "Well, it's a genetic mutation." Sorry, not buying that one.

Like the Big Bang, science cannot answer these questions now, and possibly never will. It can only answer the "How."

[puckerman]

The fundamental question is: How can consciousness come before existence? Existence can exist without consciousness. How can consciousness create existence?

There are many mysteries with regard to development. Biologists also can't figure out where the octopus comes from.

There are a lots of big questions. I don't just automatically every aspect of evolution. I also don't automatically reject it either. I also don't think that Darwin is part of a grand conspiracy, as many evolutionists do.

[Super_Fire]

(02-01-2018 09:09 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

The fundamental question is: How can consciousness come before existence? Existence can exist without consciousness. How can consciousness create existence?

Yes, we'll probably never know why this God is eternal, the alpha and omega.

How can consciousness create existence?

"In the beginning was the Logos (the rational order of the Universe), and Logos was with God, and Logos was God."

What we call God is the rational, conscious order of the Universe. The creation of the Universe is a manifestation of this rational order. That's what the the Big Bangers shy away from saying.

[Super_Fire]

Just in case anyone still actually wants to continue the Jordan Peterson-Jewish debate:

Jones is also asked about the issue again in his latest interview:

Cliffs: JP is asked about Solzhenitsyn's "200 Years Together" by an audience member, and if the Jews are trying to seek revenge on Russia and Europe for their treatment (hence the Bolshevik Revolution, the Holodomor Genocide,etc) says he's never read the book, then says "I can't do it" in reference to answering the question.

And it's no wonder, given David Brooks and other highly influential Jews are singing JP's praises these days.

But where JP messes up isn't in avoiding the issue, it's in using the crypto-racial argument that Jews just have higher IQs and so anyone who criticizes them is jealous of their intelligence and wealth. No mention of their attempts over the past 2,000 years to constantly subvert their host nations' cultures, it's all purely academic. Nothing about usury, about anti-Christian sentiments, or about veiled anti-white racism.

So Jones waves the banner for people who are calling out Jewish "progressive" politics. Once you've stood up straight, cleaned up your room, and graduated from JP, and wondered what the Marxists, the Bolsheviks, the post-modernists, the Frankfurt School, the neo-Marxists, the feminists, and the Ayn Rands, Michel Foucaults and Jacues Derridas had in common, well this is the next logical step.

[nomadbrah]

(02-01-2018 02:23 AM)Super_Fire Wrote:  

(01-31-2018 10:45 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

I had never heard of him. I found his whole approach very interesting. Having been raised Catholic, his analysis of the church was interesting.

He seemed bias against Jews at times. But it wasn't an emotional and irrational dislike. It seemed very well considered and thought out.

His rejection of Darwin was ridiculous. There is simply too much evidence for his Darwin's theories.

I think in terms of evolution he's still touching on the "Why?" aspect; that is, why did it happen?

Evolutionists will say "natural selection" but Jones brings up a good point about the biological development of the eye. The eye is a very, very complex organ. Why would a creature develop one? If no creature ever had one, did two just give birth to one with an eye? I've read the science on how the eye developed, but no scientist can actually explain why. Even Darwin can't, saying:

"...if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Why are there numerous gradations to begin with? Natural selection wouldn't create an eye out of nowhere, it would only favor the sighted over the blind. Again, why would a creature's natural biology slowly create an eye for it? The copout answer is, "Well, it's a genetic mutation." Sorry, not buying that one.

Like the Big Bang, science cannot answer these questions now, and possibly never will. It can only answer the "How."

Doesn't seem that unlikely to me. You would have some kind of primitive, very primitive animal, which had some sort of light sensitive cells, which could be useful for distinguishing night and day. Then some creature would have a more developed light sensitive cell and so on. We already know one animal which has these, the octopus and chameleons for that matter. I don't know if that works with the animal eye, but it doesn't seem far fetched. Even some primitive sort of photoreceptive cells would be a great evolutionary benefit in the kingdom of the blind.

[Super_Fire]

Right, but how and why do they develop?

The atheist's answer is "natural selection."

Natural selection only selects for pre-existing features. For example, only the smartest gorillas or tallest chimps get to breed. Hence all their offspring are tall/smart, and so on.

But an eye is something else. Again, I'm not questioning the notion that animals evolve. We can observe it right now with ring species that are separated from a main population and change over time to adapt to their surroundings.

What I'm saying is that there is a rational order/logos to the universe that makes these things possible. It's not simply chaos.

[Kid Twist]

The other problem is inherently that we don't experience many, if any, positive mutations in our scientific understanding. If we do observe them it's on the order of 99-1 or 95-5 against. And these positive mutations over time had to be INCREDIBLY positive when you think about just the body alone, let alone the brain.

[Super_Fire]

Yes, life, and consciousness, will find a way despite the minuscule odds.

A system wired to work a certain way will work a certain way, no matter how many tries it takes. The universe and all matter in it is designed to work a certain way. We can look upon it and realize this, through much pain and gnashing of teeth, thanks to consciousness. This consciousness, this life of ours, is the furthest-most advanced extension of God.

That's why the eye, and the mind, are such incredible things. And so is our self-awareness. And for those we should be grateful, but more importantly, use to ensure that the rational order of things is kept in place. Because humans will turn their back on their divine origin over and over. Unlike an animal that is pre-programmed to behave a certain way, we have to find our way.

[Labienus]

(05-21-2018 09:40 PM)Super_Fire Wrote:  

Right, but how and why do they develop?

The atheist's answer is "natural selection."

Natural selection only selects for pre-existing features. For example, only the smartest gorillas or tallest chimps get to breed. Hence all their offspring are tall/smart, and so on.

But an eye is something else. Again, I'm not questioning the notion that animals evolve. We can observe it right now with ring species that are separated from a main population and change over time to adapt to their surroundings.

What I'm saying is that there is a rational order/logos to the universe that makes these things possible. It's not simply chaos.

Agreed. Evolution is observable but that are things that we cannot explain. The biggest issue for me is that if creatures evolved from very basic cells, how did we get the first cell? Scientists don't know how we got the first cell and you cannot have cells created ab nihilo; there must be a cause. Hence, I do believe in evolution but I think that evolution and God are not incompatible at all.

[Piankhi]

I dunno. E. Michael Jones sounds a bit crazy to me. Tends to romanticize the Catholic church too much. And what the fuck is a logos?

[N°6]

Logos is the Word. The first chapter of John says that in the Word is God.

[Super_Fire]

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.

[N°6]

Michael Hoffman, another RC social conservative wrote “Usury in Christendom: the Mortal Sin which was and now is not”.

He found that contrary to popular belief, it wasn’t the early Protestants who allowed the power of usurious coin into society, it was the Roman See.

Martin Luther’s writings on usury and Judaism after he learned to read the Talmud in Hebrew is now so well known in popular culture, he’d be arrested for Hate Speech™ if he were alive today.

Here’s an interesting work about the Church of England’s relationship with usury.

https://alor.org/Library/Swabey%20Rev.%2...ngland.pdf

[Super_Fire]

I'm looking into Michael Hoffman now and watching his videos.

Martin Luther is an interesting case; he was working hard to convert the Jews and felt bad for their plight. After dealing with them and learning about the Talmud he was repulsed and wrote the treatise 'On the Jews and their Lies' which was basically Ford's 'The International Jew' in 1543 and on steroids. I don't think even Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' is as harsh as Luther was.

Luther was not a Judaiser, but he was still a useful pawn for the robber barons to get a slice of that huge pie of wealth that the Church had.

[Super_Fire]

(05-23-2018 01:40 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

Michael Hoffman, another RC social conservative wrote “Usury in Christendom: the Mortal Sin which was and now is not”.

He found that contrary to popular belief, it wasn’t the early Protestants who allowed the power of usurious coin into society, it was the Roman See.

N°6, I looked more into Hoffman's claim and decided I'd ask E. Michael Jones about it on a lark; lo and behold, he responded to my e-mail not long after, saying:

"It's not true. Vix pervenit reaffirmed the traditional teaching on usury in 1745. It remains the definitive magisterial teaching on the issue to this day.
Because of the increasing complexity of financial transactions, Pope Benedict XIV referred questions to the private forum, but the teaching remains unchanged."

I suppose a debate could be in order.