I wrote an article exposing E. Michael Jones, friends! You can find it here: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/04/20/the-logos-of-e-michael-jones/.
This beyond doubt proves that E. Michael Jones has some very strange and ridiculous beliefs to say the least.
You can also find a copy at Duschene's Euro Canadian: https://www.eurocanadian.ca/2020/04/the-logos-of-e-michael-jones.html#disqus_thread
I'd paste highlights but the article is just too big.
Hope you all enjoy!
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): EDF9A63D891ECB954D992AB568B34716-337716.png (329.8 KB, 927x1200, 1587691632.png)
File (): 68EDF21A1999D7B1E1D6ADFE212BD246-2070849.png (2.0 MB, 4410x3000, 1587693554.png)
>>266616
>E. Michael Jones has some very strange and ridiculous beliefs to say the least
I agree partially and depends of the agenda being pushed. He can't be underestimated and has mostly very compelling arguments.
I'll read the article tonight.
Thanks OP.
>E. Michael Jones has some very strange and ridiculous beliefs to say the least
I agree partially and depends of the agenda being pushed. He can't be underestimated and has mostly very compelling arguments.
I'll read the article tonight.
Thanks OP.
File (): CF99FCACE1040B1204B8078CAA0DF790-925236.png (903.6 KB, 1280x1024, 1587705676.png)
>>266616
Pasta from the article:
>Summary
>In light of this information, we should be careful about how we approach and interpret the work of Jones. While some important ideas may be gleaned from it, it is largely incongruent with the more robust worldviews based on science. We should also be cautious of Jones and his intentions, given that he is clearly opposed to what we believe and appears to be consequently trying to convert us to his Catholicism.
>we should be careful about how we approach and interpret the work of Jones
Absolutely. To take in count; he is a magnet because speaks openly about the Jewish problem while mass redpilling the normies, that's priceless.
>it is largely incongruent with the more robust worldviews based on science
I think is congruent with beliefs based in faith.
>We should also be cautious of Jones and his intentions, given that he is clearly opposed to what we believe and appears to be consequently trying to convert us to his Catholicism
His intentions are open, to embrace God and refuse the Devil. His teachings naming the Jew are top notch.
Also I believe it's a symbiotic relationship, he teaches us about many obscure details about the Jews while we give him an important audience.
Both camps would like to convert the other, and Jones hasn't demonstrate bad faith toward us, so let his ideas flow. Let the corrupted to redeem themselves, let them pray even if the Vatican is a Satan's temple.
And by the way, discovering the Jewish subversion and masonic satanism inside the Church will open the eyes of many.
Pasta from the article:
>Summary
>In light of this information, we should be careful about how we approach and interpret the work of Jones. While some important ideas may be gleaned from it, it is largely incongruent with the more robust worldviews based on science. We should also be cautious of Jones and his intentions, given that he is clearly opposed to what we believe and appears to be consequently trying to convert us to his Catholicism.
>we should be careful about how we approach and interpret the work of Jones
Absolutely. To take in count; he is a magnet because speaks openly about the Jewish problem while mass redpilling the normies, that's priceless.
>it is largely incongruent with the more robust worldviews based on science
I think is congruent with beliefs based in faith.
>We should also be cautious of Jones and his intentions, given that he is clearly opposed to what we believe and appears to be consequently trying to convert us to his Catholicism
His intentions are open, to embrace God and refuse the Devil. His teachings naming the Jew are top notch.
Also I believe it's a symbiotic relationship, he teaches us about many obscure details about the Jews while we give him an important audience.
Both camps would like to convert the other, and Jones hasn't demonstrate bad faith toward us, so let his ideas flow. Let the corrupted to redeem themselves, let them pray even if the Vatican is a Satan's temple.
And by the way, discovering the Jewish subversion and masonic satanism inside the Church will open the eyes of many.
File (): 91E8DAD3130668D1DD3E5D28A7B8F5A1-68550.png (66.9 KB, 717x371, 1587707642.png)
File (): BE8DCF7F591232970AF3DEE4EAB0FBE9-119543.png (116.7 KB, 501x600, 158771010.png)
>>266616
>E. Michael Jewnes
A video just posted.
Here Jones counter signals White Nationalism, and still his preaching is arousing thousand of minds and waking them up to the kike menace.
OP, you are short sighted, naming the Jew is far more important. In other words, allow a bit of mild subversion (religion) in order to wake the normies up. If Jones strays too far from White interests, just let him alone. In his own way he is carrying the /pol/'s message to the masses.
>E. MICHAEL JONES: 'NAZISM WAS ITSELF A FALSE IDENTITY!'
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1n38Evq067q4/
>E. Michael Jewnes
A video just posted.
Here Jones counter signals White Nationalism, and still his preaching is arousing thousand of minds and waking them up to the kike menace.
OP, you are short sighted, naming the Jew is far more important. In other words, allow a bit of mild subversion (religion) in order to wake the normies up. If Jones strays too far from White interests, just let him alone. In his own way he is carrying the /pol/'s message to the masses.
>E. MICHAEL JONES: 'NAZISM WAS ITSELF A FALSE IDENTITY!'
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1n38Evq067q4/
File (): 5B724EC9335C453A50EEA9F2B7C46443-307830.gif (300.6 KB, 480x384, 158771717.gif)
>self-advertising
Meh, at least it's good to know authors on the sites I read actually come here.
Yes, E. Michael Jones does have some odd and wrong-headed beliefs. A better thing to consider would be whether there's any philosopher or activist who isn't wrong on some key point. I largely agree with the points you raise but you hardly actually talk about the "Logos" of E. Michael Jones which is far more than just race denialism; the article carries the implication, "hahaha, look at how ridiculous his beliefs are, why do people take him seriously?" A better title would have been "Deficiencies in Ethnic Theory of E. Michael Jones" because that would be specific enough for such a short article.
It's reasonable to say "don't turn to Jones for all the answers" because of course you shouldn't believe that any human being has all the answers. A person may be as based as can be but he's likely to mess up somewhere. What's good about academic dialogue is that if a follower accepts the bad with the good of a particular thinker then you can point him to someone who refutes the bad. Unfortunately you're unlikely to convince the thinker himself because the more intelligent an academic is the more stubbornly he sticks to his theory. This is why you have to build a "portfolio of thought" which splices together the strengths and rejects the weaknesses. Among most people of the "Dissident Right" this is implicitly accepted but it can be difficult for sticklers of factual correctness.
Another thing to consider is that just as "based" people vary in their ideas and modes of thought "almost based"–that is, potential recruits who could be redpilled–people approach the same problems from wildly different angles. Libertarians, union-members sick of immigration, and Catholic traditionalists, for example, are all ripe for the picking but need different approaches, references and tactics to be redpilled. As they gain understanding of more and more issues there will be greater conformity with the rest of the "Dissident Right" but one mustn't pretend that there will be universal agreement. Unlike with the OG National Socialist movement (which explicitly emphasized unity of thought and posited itself as an answer to everything) we are scattered and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Until we're in power this isn't a major problem: when that happens then Jones' way of thinking may make us vulnerable to Conversos, but not before.
Also I don't know how scientifically valid the "left brain vs. right brain" theory is but there does seem to indicate a division among thinkers. "Left brains" on the Dissident Right tend to look at race and IQ a lot more as well as economics, and they tend to use "facts and logic" to convince others. "Right brains" tend to care strongly about ideals, religion, culture, and convincing others through motivation and appeal. Jones is very much a "right brain" while Dutton is a "left brain." Hitler of course was a "right brain" and you can see this of course in NatSoc ideology.
Meh, at least it's good to know authors on the sites I read actually come here.
Yes, E. Michael Jones does have some odd and wrong-headed beliefs. A better thing to consider would be whether there's any philosopher or activist who isn't wrong on some key point. I largely agree with the points you raise but you hardly actually talk about the "Logos" of E. Michael Jones which is far more than just race denialism; the article carries the implication, "hahaha, look at how ridiculous his beliefs are, why do people take him seriously?" A better title would have been "Deficiencies in Ethnic Theory of E. Michael Jones" because that would be specific enough for such a short article.
It's reasonable to say "don't turn to Jones for all the answers" because of course you shouldn't believe that any human being has all the answers. A person may be as based as can be but he's likely to mess up somewhere. What's good about academic dialogue is that if a follower accepts the bad with the good of a particular thinker then you can point him to someone who refutes the bad. Unfortunately you're unlikely to convince the thinker himself because the more intelligent an academic is the more stubbornly he sticks to his theory. This is why you have to build a "portfolio of thought" which splices together the strengths and rejects the weaknesses. Among most people of the "Dissident Right" this is implicitly accepted but it can be difficult for sticklers of factual correctness.
Another thing to consider is that just as "based" people vary in their ideas and modes of thought "almost based"–that is, potential recruits who could be redpilled–people approach the same problems from wildly different angles. Libertarians, union-members sick of immigration, and Catholic traditionalists, for example, are all ripe for the picking but need different approaches, references and tactics to be redpilled. As they gain understanding of more and more issues there will be greater conformity with the rest of the "Dissident Right" but one mustn't pretend that there will be universal agreement. Unlike with the OG National Socialist movement (which explicitly emphasized unity of thought and posited itself as an answer to everything) we are scattered and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Until we're in power this isn't a major problem: when that happens then Jones' way of thinking may make us vulnerable to Conversos, but not before.
Also I don't know how scientifically valid the "left brain vs. right brain" theory is but there does seem to indicate a division among thinkers. "Left brains" on the Dissident Right tend to look at race and IQ a lot more as well as economics, and they tend to use "facts and logic" to convince others. "Right brains" tend to care strongly about ideals, religion, culture, and convincing others through motivation and appeal. Jones is very much a "right brain" while Dutton is a "left brain." Hitler of course was a "right brain" and you can see this of course in NatSoc ideology.
>>266630
Don't get me wrong, Jones has value. You just have to be discerning.
>>266623
>I think is congruent with beliefs based in faith.
I don't. It isn't congruent with the Catholicism you would have found 200 years ago nor is it congruent with reality.
>Without Catholicism Yoorope would be 60 IQ shitskins.
Really?
Don't get me wrong, Jones has value. You just have to be discerning.
>>266623
>I think is congruent with beliefs based in faith.
I don't. It isn't congruent with the Catholicism you would have found 200 years ago nor is it congruent with reality.
>Without Catholicism Yoorope would be 60 IQ shitskins.
Really?
>>266630
>"Logos" of E. Michael Jones which is far more than just race denialism; the article carries the implication, "hahaha, look at how ridiculous his beliefs are, why do people take him seriously?" A better title would have been "Deficiencies in Ethnic Theory of E. Michael Jones" because that would be specific enough for such a short article.
Correct. But algorithms care about keywords and I want to shake things up. What is the man's favourite word? What is the word appears in his new book?
>It's reasonable to say "don't turn to Jones for all the answers" because of course you shouldn't believe that any human being has all the answers. A person may be as based as can be but he's likely to mess up somewhere. What's good about academic dialogue is that if a follower accepts the bad with the good of a particular thinker then you can point him to someone who refutes the bad. Unfortunately you're unlikely to convince the thinker himself because the more intelligent an academic is the more stubbornly he sticks to his theory. This is why you have to build a "portfolio of thought" which splices together the strengths and rejects the weaknesses. Among most people of the "Dissident Right" this is implicitly accepted but it can be difficult for sticklers of factual correctness.
Of course, you understand this. But the article is to shake things up, and get to the NPCs who think that Jones is some kind of super trad realist.
Thanks for reading, friend.
>"Logos" of E. Michael Jones which is far more than just race denialism; the article carries the implication, "hahaha, look at how ridiculous his beliefs are, why do people take him seriously?" A better title would have been "Deficiencies in Ethnic Theory of E. Michael Jones" because that would be specific enough for such a short article.
Correct. But algorithms care about keywords and I want to shake things up. What is the man's favourite word? What is the word appears in his new book?
>It's reasonable to say "don't turn to Jones for all the answers" because of course you shouldn't believe that any human being has all the answers. A person may be as based as can be but he's likely to mess up somewhere. What's good about academic dialogue is that if a follower accepts the bad with the good of a particular thinker then you can point him to someone who refutes the bad. Unfortunately you're unlikely to convince the thinker himself because the more intelligent an academic is the more stubbornly he sticks to his theory. This is why you have to build a "portfolio of thought" which splices together the strengths and rejects the weaknesses. Among most people of the "Dissident Right" this is implicitly accepted but it can be difficult for sticklers of factual correctness.
Of course, you understand this. But the article is to shake things up, and get to the NPCs who think that Jones is some kind of super trad realist.
Thanks for reading, friend.
>>266625
>OP, you are short sighted, naming the Jew is far more important.
No, I'm not. Not everything is about the Jew. You've missed the point of the post. Thanks for your time though :).
>In his own way he is carrying the /pol/'s message to the masses.
Which is:
>Jews are a cultural group who due to moral failings want to undermine the catholic church
No? Thought /pol/ was natsoc -- not liberal Novus Ordo Catholic!
>OP, you are short sighted, naming the Jew is far more important.
No, I'm not. Not everything is about the Jew. You've missed the point of the post. Thanks for your time though :).
>In his own way he is carrying the /pol/'s message to the masses.
Which is:
>Jews are a cultural group who due to moral failings want to undermine the catholic church
No? Thought /pol/ was natsoc -- not liberal Novus Ordo Catholic!
File (): 2EA3375104F17BAAF535699187FDFCC1-232306.png (226.9 KB, 600x600, 1587760881.png)
>>266637
>Jews are a cultural group who due to moral failings want to undermine the catholic church
Not only the Catholic Church, but the whole West.
Look it this way, even if Jones is acting as a gatekeeper, his discourse naming the adversary is taking forward to the NatSoc cause.
If your motives to criticize Jones are that he is trying to convert Whites to Catholicism, allow him to try, personally I believe his success will be small. Consider the following, the western youth is heavily tainted with Judaism which translates in terminal moral and social atheistic decay, by giving the guys a frame of reference (religion) about how to navigate life is welcomed. Even better, most guys listening to Jones are already redpilled, so they have a very good chance to separate the wheat from the chaff.
>not liberal Novus Ordo Catholic
It won't happen. Most Christian churches are rotten and the doctrine subverted. In the case of the Catholic Church, the Pope himself is doing his best to demolish what's left and to make room to an (((unified global religion))).
So, relax. You're are making a tempest in a teapot IMHO.
>Jews are a cultural group who due to moral failings want to undermine the catholic church
Not only the Catholic Church, but the whole West.
Look it this way, even if Jones is acting as a gatekeeper, his discourse naming the adversary is taking forward to the NatSoc cause.
If your motives to criticize Jones are that he is trying to convert Whites to Catholicism, allow him to try, personally I believe his success will be small. Consider the following, the western youth is heavily tainted with Judaism which translates in terminal moral and social atheistic decay, by giving the guys a frame of reference (religion) about how to navigate life is welcomed. Even better, most guys listening to Jones are already redpilled, so they have a very good chance to separate the wheat from the chaff.
>not liberal Novus Ordo Catholic
It won't happen. Most Christian churches are rotten and the doctrine subverted. In the case of the Catholic Church, the Pope himself is doing his best to demolish what's left and to make room to an (((unified global religion))).
So, relax. You're are making a tempest in a teapot IMHO.
>>266635
>>Without Catholicism Yoorope would be 60 IQ shitskins.
>Really?
That was said by Jones, and I totally disagree with him.
>>Without Catholicism Yoorope would be 60 IQ shitskins.
>Really?
That was said by Jones, and I totally disagree with him.
File (): E8919E463F818EFAA44CA596D84FCF2A-11985.png (11.7 KB, 251x201, 1587765761.png)
>>266665
>but the whole West.[Catholicised area!]
Because they (Jews) lack LOWGOSS (Christian teaching/understanding). And converted non-religious Jews are not Jews at according to Jones. Fundamentally different to /pol/'s general message, but I'll grant that it could act as entry level material -- thus it has some value.
>If your motives to criticize Jones are that he is trying to convert Whites to Catholicism, allow him to try, personally I believe his success will be small.
>So, relax. You're are making a tempest in a teapot IMHO
No, the purpose is simply to show how ridiculous that part of his worldview is and make some people re-think his position/status in the dissident right. I'm also Australian, don't forget that.
>but the whole West.[Catholicised area!]
Because they (Jews) lack LOWGOSS (Christian teaching/understanding). And converted non-religious Jews are not Jews at according to Jones. Fundamentally different to /pol/'s general message, but I'll grant that it could act as entry level material -- thus it has some value.
>If your motives to criticize Jones are that he is trying to convert Whites to Catholicism, allow him to try, personally I believe his success will be small.
>So, relax. You're are making a tempest in a teapot IMHO
No, the purpose is simply to show how ridiculous that part of his worldview is and make some people re-think his position/status in the dissident right. I'm also Australian, don't forget that.
>>266635
>I think is congruent with beliefs based in faith.
Correct.
>I don't. It isn't congruent with the Catholicism you would have found 200 years ago nor is it congruent with reality.
False. if you say that:
>it is largely incongruent with the more robust worldviews based on science
Then you obviously don't understand that "robust (((worldviews))) based on science" are also political and are dominated by kikes. I'm surprised you missed that. The Thomistic (reason and common sense) philosophy of the Catholic church (especially 200 years ago) would have outright banned any jewish experimentation with gender bending, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism
I think you could do with some reading of G.K. Chesterton's work.
>I think is congruent with beliefs based in faith.
Correct.
>I don't. It isn't congruent with the Catholicism you would have found 200 years ago nor is it congruent with reality.
False. if you say that:
>it is largely incongruent with the more robust worldviews based on science
Then you obviously don't understand that "robust (((worldviews))) based on science" are also political and are dominated by kikes. I'm surprised you missed that. The Thomistic (reason and common sense) philosophy of the Catholic church (especially 200 years ago) would have outright banned any jewish experimentation with gender bending, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism
I think you could do with some reading of G.K. Chesterton's work.
>>266616
>I wrote an article exposing E. Michael Jones
Exposing Dr. Jones for for what?
>This beyond doubt proves that E. Michael Jones has some very strange and ridiculous beliefs to say the least.
TL:DR, Please elaborate.
>I wrote an article exposing E. Michael Jones
Exposing Dr. Jones for for what?
>This beyond doubt proves that E. Michael Jones has some very strange and ridiculous beliefs to say the least.
TL:DR, Please elaborate.
>>266754
>Please elaborate
I'm not OP but it's about Jones' views on race which are at odds with common sense. For example, for Jones Whites don't exist and classifies Europeans by nation ethnicity, which has a shocking outcome when applied loosely, a negro born in Poland should be Polish because according to Jones such negro shares language and culture.
So, this line of thought fits perfectly with the kike miscegenation plan for White Genocide.
>Please elaborate
I'm not OP but it's about Jones' views on race which are at odds with common sense. For example, for Jones Whites don't exist and classifies Europeans by nation ethnicity, which has a shocking outcome when applied loosely, a negro born in Poland should be Polish because according to Jones such negro shares language and culture.
So, this line of thought fits perfectly with the kike miscegenation plan for White Genocide.
File (): B5F6A333925242E62BA114996F297709-30135.jpg (29.4 KB, 474x627, 1587857333.jpg)
>>266616
Not sure why anybody would want to trash Dr. Jones...Perhaps they're jelly of his $ucce$$e$ lately?
Anyone who openly names the jew [without fear] is ok in my book.
...Unlike some on the so-called dissident right like greg-the-grinder-johnson, who seems to think that jews are his friends. ffs, smh.
OTOH, I can understand greg's concern. After all, it was the jews who enabled the rights of faggots like him in the first place.
Not sure why anybody would want to trash Dr. Jones...Perhaps they're jelly of his $ucce$$e$ lately?
Anyone who openly names the jew [without fear] is ok in my book.
...Unlike some on the so-called dissident right like greg-the-grinder-johnson, who seems to think that jews are his friends. ffs, smh.
OTOH, I can understand greg's concern. After all, it was the jews who enabled the rights of faggots like him in the first place.
You have to give Jones the benefit of the doubt, and accept his old timer boomer labels like "the German race", "The Italian race", "The Anglo race" etc. He's still a gate opener for white identity even if he doesnt believe it himself.
To say "Jews are a fundamentally evil race that must be dealt with" is an uneffective principle, thats why its better for Jones to say "Jews can be saved if they embrace logos".
To say "Jews are a fundamentally evil race that must be dealt with" is an uneffective principle, thats why its better for Jones to say "Jews can be saved if they embrace logos".
File (): 6C595C9C6913D2A9CCB608008BACDE3A-84580.png (82.6 KB, 526x425, 1588044388.png)
>>266754
>Exposing Dr. Jones for for what?
Take a stab in the dark.
>>266732
>False. if you say that:
>>it is largely incongruent with the more robust worldviews based on science
Kmac's editing (wording), not mine. Sorry.
>Then you obviously don't understand that "robust (((worldviews))) based on science" are also political and are dominated by kikes. I'm surprised you missed that.
Surprised you don't know that magazines/zines/journals edit documents (change wording etc.). Not really, actually.
>I think you could do with some reading of G.K. Chesterton's work.
Already familiar, thanks mate.
>Exposing Dr. Jones for for what?
Take a stab in the dark.
>>266732
>False. if you say that:
>>it is largely incongruent with the more robust worldviews based on science
Kmac's editing (wording), not mine. Sorry.
>Then you obviously don't understand that "robust (((worldviews))) based on science" are also political and are dominated by kikes. I'm surprised you missed that.
Surprised you don't know that magazines/zines/journals edit documents (change wording etc.). Not really, actually.
>I think you could do with some reading of G.K. Chesterton's work.
Already familiar, thanks mate.
18 replies | 10 files | 11 UUIDs | Archived