E. Michael Jones on Jews and Usury
Edmund Connelly, Ph. D.
PART 1
I find it charming when I read or hear of current Alt Right writers who tell us they "came to the Jewish Question three years ago” or “Five years ago I was a flaming liberal,” which implies that they had no idea there was a Jewish Question.
Don’t get me wrong—I’m pleased when anyone at any time finally realizes there is a Jewish Question. I believe it is the central issue of our times and I welcome all the company we can get.
In contrast, I discovered the Jewish Question on my own before I had even graduated from college in the mid-1980s. For me, it was simply a process of observation. While for over two decades after that I fought conventional wisdom on the topic and had to struggle mightily to realize that most Jewish writers had little interest in the “truth” regarding real Jews and their behavior, I gradually grasped some hard-earned insights into the situation, which I try to share here on TOO and in the print journal TOQ.
Today I aim to praise one of the four modern American scholars who have had a major influence on my thinking when it comes to Jews. These men are Albert Lindemann (Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews), John Murray Cuddihy (The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle With Modernity), our own Kevin MacDonald (Cultural Insurrections), and Catholic firebrand E. Michael Jones (The Revolutionary Jew).
Today’s column discusses E. Michael Jones and his vast writing on Jews. I’ve written about Jones at least twice, first here on TOO in late 2008 and later in a book review in The Occidental Quarterly, the book in question being his magisterial The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History, a book which absolutely should be on serious people's shelves along with CofC.
To introduce possible new TOO readers to Dr. Jones, I'll crib from my intro to the 2008 TOO entry:
Anyone who has followed the writing career of Catholic iconoclast E. Michael Jones will likely agree that his writings on Jews over the last half decade have been little short of incendiary. Thus the Internet site Fringe Watch claims that Jones "represents one of the foremost proponents of "religious" anti-Semitism in Catholic circles." Jones' major vehicle for airing his views on Jews is his magazine Culture Wars, which in recent years has run cover stories such as "Judaizing: Then and Now,"; "The Converso Problem: Then and Now," "Shylock Comes to Notre Dame," and "Too Many Yarmulkes: Abortion and the Ethnic Double Standard." He then packaged these arguments into The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (2008).
The ADL also gives Jones a rousing endorsement, writing on their site that
Michael Jones is an anti-Semitic Catholic writer who promotes the view that Jews are dedicated to propagating and perpetrating attacks on the Catholic Church and moral standards, social stability, and political order throughout the world. He portrays the Jewish religion as inherently treacherous and belligerent towards Christianity. He describes Jews as "outlaws and subversives [who use] religion as a cover for social revolution," and claims that Judaism possesses "a particularly malignant spirit." . . .
He also blames Jews for Bolshevism, Freemasonry, and an alleged contemporary "Jewish takeover of American culture." Jones reaches for tenuous connections to paint "the Jews" as inherently wicked and prone to colluding openly or secretly to threaten other populations around them.
Jones, however, makes an extremely impressive case for his assertions — in his lectures, in his Culture Wars articles and most certainly in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. So, as usual, I'll dismiss the ADL's claims as wrong.
Born and raised in Philadelphia, Jones went to work in the art world, where he found a plethora of Jewish art dealers. After earning a Ph.D., he was hired as a tenure-track professor at St. Mary's College, a women's university associated with Notre Dame. After a year of supporting the Church's official position on abortion, Jones was let go from his job.
This threw Jones into a career of independent publishing, which has resulted in Fidelity Magazine in the first year of Ronald Reagan's presidency. After fifteen years, this magazine became the current Culture Wars magazine, which appears monthly, both electronically and in print. Independent publishing seems well suited for Jones, for he has written prodigiously over the years, in his magazine and also in numerous books about American culture, descriptions of which can be found on the Culture Wars site or on Amazon.com.
I have found Jones to be a welcome maverick when it comes to discussing key issues in American life. In fact, his tendency toward controversy—along with linking surprising areas of culture—reminds me a lot of writer Camille Paglia. Because Paglia does not touch on Jewish issues, however, Jones" work, in my view, rises far above hers since Jewish power and behavior are the 800-pound gorilla in the life of America. There are ample reasons to avoid this topic, of course, for Jews and Jewish groups have a terrifying array of ways to punish those who notice Jews in the wrong way, but Jones, backed by his deep faith, is fearless in this regard, for which we should all be thankful.
Before discussing Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict between Labor and Usury (2014), I would ask readers to click on the links above for my previous writing on Jones and read them in private as background to discussion of the current book. While The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit (JRS) is an indispensable tool in understanding what is happening in the epic battle between Jews and others, Barren Metal acts more as a footnote to the former, as odd as this may sound. I say odd because JRS weighs in at exactly 1200 pages while Barren Metal reaches an astonishing 1456 pages.
The subtitle contains the word capitalism because it is as pertinent now as it has been for the last several hundred years (and more). Many of us sense that all is not well when it comes to the confusing topic of economic structures—and the sense that many people are getting cheated to greater or lesser degrees thanks to the way capitalism is being applied. Also, as we see from the subtitle of the book, usury is central to the problems in capitalism because usury is the fulcrum on which capitalism turns (in Jones’ opinion).
Notice that Jones does not include the word ‘Jews’ in the title of the book. I suppose that is fair because much of the book deals with non-Jewish Europeans who played critical roles in their respective economies at various times in history. Still, there is no escaping the fact that Jews are central to the argument of the book, particularly from Chapter 64, “Napoleon Emancipates the Jews,” onward. From there the pronounced Jewish role crescendos to the point that, were the book divided in two and the second book to begin with Chapter 64, the subtitle would have to change to “Jews, Capitalism, and Usury.”
In the second decade of the 21st century, would anyone be surprised by such a title?
Another reason the lack of the word “Jews” in the title should not mislead readers is obvious: JRS was all about Jews. Further, any reader of his monthly magazine Culture Wars will know full well that Jones addresses Jews and Jewish behavior constantly, honestly, intelligently, morally, insistently, humorously, caustically, and, finally, religiously (in both senses of the word). In short, the writings (and podcasting) of Dr. Jones are now inseparable from Jews.
Here’s the message I took away from Barren Metal: “Banking is magic that works” (p. 128). I think that’s a fascinating insight, phrased in a sublime way. It really speaks to where we are today in the world, with central banks—including the Federal Reserve—exercising so much power over most of the globe. And if you’re wondering what Jews have to do with banking and usury, Barren Metal is the book for you.
A competing phrase for summing up Barren Metal could be “Capitalism is state-sponsored usury.” This is hardly a new idea, since German writer Werner Sombart explored the concept in depth in Jews and Modern Capitalism (1911). Jones describes Sombart’s idea thus: “capitalism is the philosophical and political sanctification of usury. Because money-lending, according to Sombart, is ‘one of the most important roots of capitalism,’ capitalism ‘derived its most important characteristics from money-lending’” (20).
Having looked at many instances of usury in the Western world, Jones argues that “usury … is the fundamental economic fact in the liberal state, and all political arrangements must deal with the unbridgeable chasm it creates. The creditor, who is on the positive side of usury, will prosper; the debtor who is on the negative side of the usurious equation, will sink into unrepayable debt and penury” (909).
This problem was one of the greatest reasons for the rise of modern anti-Semitism in Europe over a century ago, which Jones unpacks. He points to Wilhelm Marr, “the patriarch of anti-Semitism” (interestingly, three of his four wives were Jewesses), whose racial animus toward Jews may have masked an economic cause, which was usury. Marr wrote:
The burning question of our day in our Parliaments . . . is usury. . . . The political correctness of our Judified society helps it to sail by the reef which is the usury question, and as a result, poor folk from every class become the victims of the Usurers and their corrupt German assistants, who are only too happy to earn 20 to 30 percent per month off of the misery of the poor. . . . In the meantime the cancer of usury continues to eat away at the social fabric, and the animosity against the Jews grows by the hour . . . so that an explosion can no longer be avoided. (1165)
In the chapter “Andrew Jackson and the Monster Bank,” Jones argues that “Jackson’s repeated use of the word ‘monster’ is the key which unlocks the door to understanding his stake in this fight. A monster is something unnatural. Usury is monstrous because it is contra naturam. The bank war of the 1830s arose because neither Andrew Jackson nor his opponent Nicholas Biddle could articulate the real issue which had plagued the American System from its inception in the mind of Alexander Hamilton, namely, usury” (930).
For Jones, this is the crux of the problem.Once the state admits the liceity of usurious contracts, state-sponsored usury insures that everyone, including the state itself, eventually gets saddled with unrepayable debt. With liquidity gone, the state allows the usurers (and the elected representatives they have put in office) to loot labor to pay off the usury burden. That means layoffs, reduced pay, outsourcing, pension fund looting , and all of the other methods that have created the anger and frustration behind the protests in Zuccotti Park [i.e., Occupy Wall Street]. . . . This looting is, of course, to no avail because no force on earth can keep up with compound interest, which is the heart of usury. (19–20)
Needless to say, such a system is in direct contrast with the Catholic Church's ban on usury, and much of the first half of Barren Metal discusses this ban and the ongoing attempts in Europe to circumvent or repeal the ban. From the fall of Rome, this Catholic ban on usury was enforced because the Church treated economics "as if God mattered." According to this doctrine, God gave men faith and reason to pursue success in this life, but as the Middle Ages gave way to succeeding eras, God began to matter less and less, and Jews moved in to fill the void. Jones' lengthy description of this epic transformation is fascinating, allowing Jones to once again show the incredible breadth of his knowledge.
The flip side of this unhealthy usurious equation is one that abides by the moral law and puts labor above other economic systems, for "there is only one use that will turn credit into wealth, and that is the application of labor." Human labor, Jones maintains, "is the only thing that can create value out of money, capital, or God's creation," an argument that allows Jones to justify the title of the book: Barren Metal. For this reason, Jones refers to Dante's claim that sodomy and usury were equally evil: sodomites make sterile what should be fertile, while usurers make fertile what should be sterile—gold, money. Lambs may in time reproduce but gold coins should not; labor is required to create wealth. As Jones shows, Jews consistently use their wealth to create more wealth through the labor of others.
The many chapters covering the period between the French Revolution and Bismarck's consolidation of German states strike me as a superb overview of the role economics played in that era. In particular, the way Jones describes the period's belief in alchemy was important to me. We may forget that alchemy held a privileged position in Europe far longer than we now believe. Sir Isaac Newton, for one, was an alchemist. In fact, "From the time of Roger Bacon to the Medicis to John Dee . . . to George Soros in the present, alchemy has exerted its unique attraction over the mind of many who are interested in getting out from under the necessity of labor as the road to wealth" (855). Jones' familiarity with the literature and music of the time beautifully ties together the belief in alchemy and the leading concerns of the day, as seen, for example, in Goethe's Faust. (Jones is fluent in German and quotes from Faust without providing translations.)
Jones later links the Goethe chapter with one on Wagner, whose Das Rheingold, Jones believes, is Wagner's "post mortem on the Revolution of 1848." More than that, however, is Jones' belief that Das Rheingold is "the profoundest meditation to date on the metaphysical roots of capitalism." I read this chapter when it appeared in Culture Wars and I read it twice in Barren Metal, but it is so good that I want to read it again.
In this long chapter, Jones parses The Ring Cycle to argue that "Wagner captures the world's bewilderment at how the gold standard actually worked by constantly referring to the ring's magical power" (1069). Repeating a theme about banking as magic, Jones shows how through holding gold, banks can again and again lend out the "money," which earns interest, while keeping the gold in the bank all along. This was shown in Goetterdaemmerung, where Alberich keeps the gold. "Alberich can get it all back again, just as the Bank of England knows that it can draw all of the gold that went out in loans back from India and America by the simple manipulation of interest rates. Usury, in other words, ensures that the gold will end up back in Alberich's hands just as inexorably as it ensures that it will end up back in the vaults of the Bank of England" (1071).
PART 2.
In my view, the climax of Barren Metal comes toward the end in the chapter on the Vatican-approved, Jesuit-run periodical Civiltà Cattolica that in 1890 forthrightly addressed the Jewish Question. Far more than modern America, the European financial scandals of the era were directly and openly linked to Jews, as Jones notes. In 1882, for example, the Union Generale bank collapsed and Jews were explicitly blamed for it. Its former head, for one, fumed that the Jewish financial power of the day was "not content with the billions which had come into its coffers for fifty years . . . not content with the monopoly which it exercises on nine-tenths at least of all Europe's financial affairs." This power, the man claimed, had "set out to destroy the Union Generale."
Famed writer Emile Zola also published a novel at the time in which a fictional young Catholic banker seethed at Jewish deceit. The character, Zola writes,
is overwhelmed with an "inextinguishable hatred" for that accursed race which no longer has its own country, no longer has its own prince, which lives parasitically in the home of nations, feigning to obey the law but in reality only obeying its own God of theft, of blood, of anger . . . fulfilling everywhere its mission of ferocious conquest, to lie in wait for its prey, suck the blood out of everyone, [and] grow fat on the life of others." (1169)
(See my column "Culture of Deceit" for more on such European scandals of the day.)
The Catholic periodical Civiltà Cattolica traced Jewish influence back to the French Revolution, employing Abbe Augustin Barruel's Memoirs Illustrating the History of Freemasonry in its description of Jewish financial power. The argument, in short, is that the French Revolution allowed the emancipation of the Jews, who were then able to foist their immoral ways (according to Christian mores) onto European society, and "the main way that the Jews achieved their hegemony over Christian societies was through 'their insatiable appetite for enriching themselves via usury'" (1178). The verdict? "The source of Jewish power is usury."
From this central fact rolled well-known consequences:
Once having acquired absolute civil liberty and equality in every sphere with Christians and the nations, the dam which previously had held back the Hebrews was opened for them, and in a short time, like a devastating torrent, they penetrated and cunningly took over everything: gold, trade, the stock market, the highest appointments in political administrations, in the army, and in diplomacy; public education, the press, everything fell into their hands or into the hands of those who were inevitably depending upon them. (1179)
With control of gold came control of Christian society, particularly through the public press and academia, since “journalism and public education are like the two wings that carry the Israelite dragon, so that it might corrupt and plunder all over Europe.”
How little things have changed in our own day.
In the same chapter as Civiltà Cattolica, Jones discusses how the writings of one German, Father Georg Ratzinger, informed discussions in the Vatican-approved periodical. As the name suggests, Fr. Ratzinger was indeed related to Joseph Ratzinger (his great-nephew), who became Pope Benedict XVI. The elder Ratzinger pointed directly to Jewish usury as the bane of Christian culture, which, when left unchecked, resulted in the enslavement of the surrounding non-Jews. Previously, traditional Christianity forbade usury, meaning that the popes thus "deprived [Jews] of their ability to occupy the choke points in the culture."
Further restrictions kept Jews under control:
Jews were not allowed to employ Christian servants in their houses . . . Jews who defamed Christ or Christians were punished. . . . Jews couldn't live wherever they pleased, but were confined to specific districts. It was also forbidden to sell houses or real estate to Jews, or to rent to them, as was living under the same roof with Jews. Similarly, Jews were forbidden to hire Christian nursemaids, servants or day laborers." (1184-5)
Ratzinger insisted it was foolish to abandon these tried and true Christian practices because Jews learned from their Talmud that "cheating the goyim was a virtue." Linking free trade, capitalism and Jewish methods of conducting business, Ratzinger concluded that it was "to be expected that the Jews, who with centuries of practice became skilled in the deceptions of economic warfare and acquired the arts of exploitation to perfection, would take center stage under the regime of free competition" (1187). It was not knowledge or ability, in Ratzinger's opinion, that "makes the Jew rich and admired in society" but, rather, "deception and exploitation of others."
In a charge that finds immediate resonance in our time, Jones includes a quote from Civiltà Cattolica about "the voracious octopus of Judaism." Compare that with Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi's brilliant quote about Goldman Sachs following the 2008 sub-prime meltdown: "The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." George Ratzinger and countless other Europeans of the latter half of the nineteenth century felt the same way, as evidenced by their writings, and we owe Dr. Jones a debt for bringing this to our attention.
Ratzinger did not think that only Jews were blameworthy in these cultural and economic wars, for at a time "when Jews stand by even their own criminal element, we see Christian politicians and legislators betraying their own Christian faith on a daily basis and vying with each other to see who has the privilege of harnessing himself to the triumphal car of the Jews. In Parliament," Ratzinger wrote, "no Jew need defend another Jew when their Christian lackeys do that for them."
Another fascinating topic Jones covers concerns the relationship between landed English gentry and Jewish moneylenders. "Stated in its simplest terms, the Jewish Problem involved the inverse relationship between debt and political sovereignty" (1079). This antagonism toward growing Jewish power was common among the British aristocracy as well as politicians. For example, in 1891 Labour Leader, a socialist newspaper, denounced the money-lending Rothschild family as a
blood-sucking crew [which] has been the main cause of untold mischief and misery in Europe during the present century, and has piled up prodigious wealth chiefly through fomenting wars between the States which ought never to have quarreled. Wherever there is trouble in Europe, wherever rumors of war circulate and men's minds are distraught with fear of change and calamity, you may be sure that a hook-nosed Rothschild is at his games somewhere near the region of the disturbance. (1081)
An example of this which fell into the clutches of Jewish moneylenders was the extended Churchill family. Randolph, born in 1849, grew up in an era in which "spectacular bankruptcies" would plague aristocrats for much of the century. Much of this suffering was brought on by shameless profligacy among landed aristocrats, and Jones offers the Churchills as an exemplar of the blight. "In every generation, among his [Winston's] relatives, there were too many debts, too much gambling, too much drinking." Informed opinion was that "there was an above-average amount of infidelity, divorce, erratic behavior, sexual scandal, social ostracism, and court disfavor." Randolph—and in turn Winston—were very much in this mold and fell straight into the hands of Jewish moneylenders, with profound consequences for Britain and all of Christendom when Winston became an influential politician advocating war with Germany.
As far back as 1874, the Churchill family was forced to sell wide swaths of land along with livestock to Baron Rothschild in order to settle a serious debt. Randolph, who had grown up amidst rich Jews with opulent tastes, made the mistake of thinking that he could indulge such a lifestyle without the necessary funds to back it. What he didn't understand was that "he was on the wrong side of compound interest and they [his Jewish friends] on the right side."
What followed was predictable. Randolph eventually contracted syphilis and lost large sums of money while gambling in Monte Carlo. In this instance, a Rothschild came to his rescue—but at a price. "The Jews who were supporting Randolph's syphilitic fantasies and the extravagant lifestyle that went along with it . . . [were] willing to write off 70,000 pounds in bad debt because [Natty Rothschild] needed a friend in high places who would share Cabinet secrets that could be turned into hard financial gains" (1087). In time, "the British Empire would become an essentially Jewish enterprise over the course of the 19th century." By the end of the century, Jones concludes, "The British Empire had become one huge, Jewish usury machine, administered by impecunious, extravagant, perennially indebted, morally depraved agents like Randolph Churchill." Far worse was to come.
Winston Churchill inherited a mountain of debt when his father died, so, in Jones' words, "the only tangible asset inherited was Randolph's relationship with the Rothschilds and other wealthy Jewish financiers." Not an auspicious beginning. Not surprisingly, when writing about his late father, Winston left out mention of the Rothschilds completely. He also fell into the orbit of wealthy Jew Sir Ernest Cassel, followed by Sir Henry Strakosch, who "took responsibility for all [Winston's] debts." This occurred by 1938; could it have affected Churchill's decisions vis-a-vis Germany during the ensuing years? One wonders. Of course, such discussions of Jewish influence over the lives of powerful gentiles such as Winston Churchill are rarely present in modern discourse, so it is to Jones' credit that he discusses it intelligently and in depth.
At this point, Jones still has over one hundred and fifty pages of text to go, but it amounts to passing footnotes to what has come before. The founding of the Federal Reserve gets a chapter, the Depression gets a few pages, World War II is mostly ignored, Keynes makes an appearance and so on.
Readers of Jones' monthly Culture Wars will know that Jones has diligently covered Jewish economic (and moral) misbehavior over the last century, but Barren Metal glosses over it, though we're fed some nice quips. For instance, Jones writes that "The Jewish usurers' Utopia which Milton Friedman promoted under the name of Chicago School economics was the mirror image of Communism, another Jewish Utopia, because both claimed that if their programs were implemented heaven on earth would follow." Friedman's advocacy of transferring public works projects into private hands “was another looting operation.” Properly read, this translates to “another Jewish looting operation.
Jones addresses a similar looting operation which we know as the leveraged buyouts of the 1980s, where Jewish actors such as Michael Milken and Henry Kravis patted themselves on the back while presumably mumbling that “[Jewish] greed is good.” Scholar Benjamin Ginsberg alluded to this theft when he wrote that “It apparently did not go unnoticed in executive suites across the country that virtually all the takeover specialists and their financial backers were Jews.” Read James B. Stewart’s excellent account of this “transfer of wealth” in his Den of Thieves.
Speaking of “virtually all,” how many readers remember Yale Law School professor Amy Chua’s 2003 book World on Fire? There she wrote about the attempt to implement free markets in Russia: “Instead of dispersing ownership and creating functioning markets, these reforms had allowed a small group of greedy industrialists and bankers to plunder Russia, turning themselves almost overnight into the billionaire-owners of Russia’s crown jewels while the country spiraled into chaos and lawlessness.” Here’s where the “virtually all” comes in: Chua correctly noted that “six out of the seven of Russia’s wealthiest” oligarchs were Jewish. When her Jewish husband heard about this, naturally he had to ask, “Just six? So who’s the seventh guy?” Jones would never miss such a point either, which is why he wrote of the period that “the looting of Russia was a Jewish operation from start to finish.”
Moving ahead to the Crash of 2008, where Goldman Sachs was described as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.” situating this within the framework of his usury thesis, Jones writes how “the Jewish bankers at places like Goldman Sachs” practiced usury with no restraint once fellow Jews such as Greenspan, Summers and Rubin succeeded in removing the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act.
Using a play on German words, Jones writes that this is “the trajectory Capitalism always takes when moral considerations are removed from economic exchange. Usury (Wucher) like cancer (Wucherung) always ends up destroying itself by destroying the economic host which supports it.”
Why don’t we Americans know more about this largely Jewish campaign to usurp our labor and wealth, a cancerous process which is ongoing? Perhaps we can use a phrase Jones employs when chastising fellow Catholics such as Michael Novak and Robert Sirico for supporting what Jones sees as anti-Catholic capitalist policies. Jones writes that such people are employed to “produce economic fairy tales for the goyim to keep them in ignorance of what is really going on.” Likely Jones would approve of my extending this charge to cover all of the Jewish behavior he so assiduously describes in Barren Metal. In my view, Jews use their (usurious) ill-gotten gains to get journalists, academics, filmmakers and many others to constantly “produce fairy tales for the goyim.”
I’ve covered this in depth in my writing for The Occidental Quarterly and specifically in writing about the orchestrated campaign in Hollywood to divert attention from Jewish economic misbehavior onto their innocent non-Jewish counterparts. Over a number of years I've described a remarkable celluloid pattern of deceit, beginning in early 2012 with my review of “How They Lie to Us: the Film Margin Call,” followed by The Wolf of Wall Street (see the book review here), Other People’s Money, The Richard Gere Film Arbitrage, The Big Short: Film and Book, and finally “Money Monster.”
We are talking here about a list of the biggest (non-Jewish) names in Hollywood: George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon, Tim Roth, Jeremy Irons, Kevin Spacey, Danny DeVito, Gregory Peck, Ryan Gosling, Christian Bale and Steve Carell. And these names were employed in a campaign to convince the goyim that Wall Street miscreants were Gentiles. If someone ever makes a DVD of clips from these films, it could be pasted inside the back cover of Barren Metal to give a modern version of what Jones is writing about.
Conclusion: Capitalism and Catholicism are Irreconcilable
Jones, a Catholic traditionalist, is no fan of capitalism. In the great conflict between capitalism and Catholicism, Jones accepts the view of those who believe that “there is an unbridgeable gulf between the Catholic and the capitalist conception of life.” In fact, Jones concludes his book with this short paragraph:
Capitalism and Catholicism, far from being compatible, are antithetical. Capitalism is state-sponsored usury; Catholicism, the traditional foe of usury, believes in the priority of labor. There is no way to resolve this dichotomy. One system must prevail over the other.
At this point in history, does it seem even remotely possible that Catholicism, long rooted in Europe but a fading memory there now, can somehow triumph over capitalism? To most rational observers, the possibility seems laughable, but then again, at the end of The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, Jones concluded that “judging from appearances, the conversion of the Jews did not seem imminent. The Jews had never been more powerful; the Church was weak. But appearances can be deceiving. . . . Reversal was in the air.”
Any signs of the Jewish stranglehold over our money, economies and cultures being reversed? If so, please let us know.
Final Thoughts
I have long thought that if someone could somehow reconcile E. Michael Jones’ Catholic interpretation of The Jewish Question with the social science perspective offered by Kevin MacDonald, a thrilling new synthesis might be achieved. MacDonald very much believes in the salience of race, but Jones’ views are militantly aracial, by which I mean he is insistent that race is not a factor in the struggle between Jewry and the rest of humanity. Rather, in his view, it is a religious story in which God plays the leading role and the Catholic Church is the agent of God’s work on Earth. Jews are, to Jones . . . well, read the opening of The Gospel of St. John, where Jesus says, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do.”
I’ll be honest: I’m hugely disappointed that E. Michael Jones refuses to see race as an issue. It’s pretty obvious that the organized Jewish community and vast numbers of influential Jews are entirely on board with importing millions of non-Whites, a program that is aimed at destroying the power of White people. It’s a race war, and people who don’t play it will surely lose.
Prior to WWII, it could be argued, Jews were more parasitical and seemed content to keep their host alive. After the war, this seems to have changed into a war to eliminate Whites, which is being done through promotion of replacement-level non-White immigration, feminism, multiculturalism, homosexuality and stirring low-IQ non-Whites to commit low-intensity murder of Whites at the street level. All the while, Jews have been in the forefront of discouraging and attacking White attempts at kindling White identity and group action. At this late date, how can Jones deny the racial nexus of this war? Is he convinced that God has plans for the White race one way or the other and we should simply trust in Him? If so, I humbly wish God would show us some favor during our time of need.
Still, it remains edifying to think that Jones' theological account can so well mirror and add to evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald's scientific (racial) discussion of a Jewish "group evolutionary strategy." Whichever version you accept as "getting to the root of the matter," either will oblige you to take seriously the effect Jews and their movements have had on the modern world. And that story is far from over.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/02/04/e-michael-jones-on-jews-and-usury-part-1/
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/02/04/e-michael-jones-on-jews-and-usury-part-2/