Anti-Semitism, hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group.Encyclopedia Britannica
….the Jews are the people that have rejected logos, and because of that, they became revolutionaries, and the book [Jones’s book] is basically about two thousand years of revolutionary activity. All the way up to neoconservatism, and so on, and so forth.E. Michael Jones
After my “Note on Antisemitism” from last week, a mad twitter-storm erupted in which I was accused of being a “Fraud,” a shill,” a “conscious deceiver,” a “Jew,” a “Judaizer,” and a “traitor.” All this for pointing out the absurdities and false claims of antisemitism. When I cited scholarly books on the Protocols forgery, my assailants insisted the Protocols were authentic, though not as important as the “scholarly” writings of E. Michael Jones.
For several days running the anti-Jewish obsession of my Twitter critics was on full display — along with their intellectual dishonesty. I was even accused of “intimidating gentiles.” My response was simple: “How do you think Jewish people feel when they come across your posts?” Does the antisemite collective imagine that blaming the Jews for the world’s ills is regarded as harmless by a people who were herded into camps and murdered after this same rhetoric became state policy under Hitler? Or are we supposed to forget history?
I was then accused of employing a classic “communist smear.” Here was an ideological collective dedicated to the proposition that communism was a Jewish conspiracy financed by predatory Jewish capitalism. How was it a “smear” to call these people antisemitic? With a straight face, in the midst of blaming the Jews for all the world’s ills, they angrily denied their antisemitism. “Antisemitism is racism,” they said, “and we are not racists.” In this way self-misunderstanding was turned into self-parody.
Possessing no capacity for original thought, as ideological parrots, they had redefined antisemitism in a way suggested by E. Michael Jones. As he explained in one interview, his opposition to Jews is religious, not racial. Hiding behind an immanentized Catholic theology, in which sacred and transcendent symbols are turned toward antisemitic ends, Jones sets aside Christian teachings of forgiveness and love, quoting Holy Scripture to prove that the Jews are the enemies of mankind; that they are the inventors gay marriage, abortion, and feminism. Jones has warned his listeners, “If you turn away from the Catholic Church, you will end up a slave — a slave to the Jews either through their pornography or their usury.”
Here is antisemitism, as raw as it gets. After the October 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting that left eleven dead, Jones warned the Jews, “You have undermined the moral order and now don’t be surprised if people start acting out their aggression towards you. And don’t blame me.”
Only an egregious jackass would deny Jones’s antisemitism. Jones has been working tirelessly, with all the weapons of his scholarship, to demonize Jews. Despite his Catholic coloring, he is not spiritual at all. His rhetoric is the same blood libel that is found in the Protocols forgery, the same belief that animated the anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic fanaticism of Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler.
In my discourse, I offended the antisemite collective, most of all, by calling attention to their ideology’s likeness to Hitlerism. By denying their ideology was racist, they were drawing a line between their theory of history and Hitler’s. After all, they claim to be religious Catholics, not Aryan Supremacists. But the idea that the Jews are behind capitalism and Bolshevism, behind all the degenerative ills of modern society, is practically the same as Hitler’s idea. In fact, when my Twitter critics underscored Karl Marx’s Jewish ethnicity, and I countered with the fact that Marx was raised as a Christian, they dismissed Marx’s religious upbringing as irrelevant. All that mattered was his Jewish blood — not the “niceties” of Jones’s spurious theological perversions. What, exactly, was Jewish about Marx — except his blood?
Naturally, the antisemite collective — berating me as a “Jew” and a “traitor” — became nervous once Hitler’s name was conjured. Everyone knows that antisemitism has a homicidal aspect, which, under the Third Reich, resulted in a massacre of exceptional brutality. I was asked if I believed in the figure of six million Jews exterminated by the Nazis. I deigned reply for fear of falling down their revisionist rabbit hole. By nature, the antisemite privately nurtures the hope that Hitler will be exonerated, and the reason is not far to find. On the one hand, the antisemite sees the Jewish question as the ultimate question. On the other hand he recognizes that the “final solution” of this question damns his ideology as a kind of psychopathy. How to escape the consequences of this damnation?
Here is what all the fuss is about, behind the scenes, on the fringes of the fragmented nationalist right. A revival of antisemitism is in prospect. There are aspects of mass society and mass psychology that predispose some people to Jew hatred. Besides this, Hitler’s charisma is not fully spent. The German dictator has become a cult figure and a symbol to an angry minority. This is a small part of today’s reaction against globalism — a part that craves wary watching. Is Europe going to turn to liberal nationalism or antisemitic nationalism? Here is a question for the future.
My arguments against antisemitism are said, by the antisemites, to be insincere and born out of ignorance. Our real enemy, they say, has a Jewish face. But I have studied the antisemitic sources. I have found them untruthful, unreliable, malicious; in brief, antisemitism is an enemy of liberty. The best example of this comes from E. Michael Jones himself, after he traveled to Iran, and said in all seriousness that Iran was “the leader of the free world.”
It is the veneer of Christianity in Jones’s “scholarship” that deserves special attention. Christianity is a complicated religion, with many cross-currents. It includes a legacy of war and persecution between Christian sects. Jones’s approach to theology would reignite these conflicts at a time when all Christians face the threat of militant Islam and communism. Jones would have us divide by faith when the new religion that threatens mankind is opposed to all faith. Jones postures as a Catholic, but his dogmatic reading of history is without an authentic spiritual point of reference. It should be obvious that the gifts of the Spirit do not include obsessive Jew-hatred. Jones emphasizes that the Jews killed Christ and rejected the “Logos.” But in his narrow worldview, all Protestants are also “Judaizers” and therefore “Christ killers.” Where does that bring us? Are we going to refight the Thirty Years War?
In his book, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History, Jones quotes passages in the New Testament supposedly proving that the Jews are the children of Satan. Should such scriptures be read literally? I should think the scriptures carry a deeper spiritual message, requiring an understanding of symbolical and metaphoric allusions — in respect of the soul and transcendence. Jones weaponizes those allusions to persuade his reader that the eradication of Jewish influence would allow the manifestation of God’s intended order on earth. This proposition bears a striking likeness to totalitarian Utopianism. Thus, as Eric Voegelin would say, Jones is a gnostic whose claim to knowledge centers on allegations of Jewish villainy. In doing this he has politicized the scriptures by way of antisemitism — all in a quest to “immanentize the gnostic eschaton.” In other words, he proposes antisemitism as a path to salvation. But this salvation is political and cultural, not spiritual. He seeks salvation in the world — through anti-Jewish agitation — eschewing the transcendent altogether.
There is no salvation for man through politics. The imminent world is not perfectible. We are not going to establish permanent peace, eliminate poverty, disease or death. The world is full of ills. The grand solutions for those ills, attempted in the twentieth century, included imperialism, antisemitism and socialism. Jones favors the antisemitic solution while pointedly divorcing himself from Hitler’s Aryan racialism. Yet Jones’s indictment of the Jews very closely resembles Hitler’s. The Jews, says Jones, are behind predatory capitalism and Bolshevism. The Jews, said Hitler, are behind Western finance capital and Bolshevism. This formula failed to make the world a better place when it was tried from 1933-45. It will fail if anyone dares try it again.