“Too Reflexively Ornery”:  E. Michael Jones and “Culture Wars,” Part 2 of 2

Jones often responds to Letters to the Editor, and the September 2017 issue was no exception, with Jones volunteering that “It is clear that the Jews are orchestrating Muslim migration to destroy European Christian culture.” Yes, Jones has read Kevin MacDonald and is familiar with this and other Culture of Critique theses.

In this issue, Jones concludes his thoughts on Meyer Lansky and ballet, but the topic now becomes homosexuality. Jones notes that even in 1970, “anywhere from 95 to 99 percent of APA [American Psychiatric Association] members believed that homosexuality was pathological.” Well, guess what: by 1973 a cabal of Jews succeeded in removing homosexuality from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fully in line with his thesis about the revolutionary Jewish spirit, Jones here discusses a “small cabal of revolutionaries,” a “small band of very bright men and women,” who “swindled” the APA into accepting their degenerate definition of homosexuality. In research that few others could achieve, Jones exposes a wide range of actors, from psychiatrists, “liberal-minded easterners,” gay activists, a gay grandfather and his granddaughter.” Jones then asks what this diverse group of activists had in common: “The answer is that they were all Jews.” And the granddaughter who wrote about this failed to mention this fact “because she is Jewish, too.”

This is quintessential E. Michael Jones.

The October issue introduces us to a valuable YouTube site that covers the thesis of Jones’ book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. CalledThe Goy Guide to World History,” it may provide access to Jones’ own revolutionary thought for those who are less than fond of reading.

This issue also gives us the cover essay, “The Rise and Fall of the New Atheism,” in which Jones critiques the arguments of the atheist “Gang of Four” that made big headlines in the beginning of this new century. The four are Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. The topic under discussion certainly deserves a review of its own, so I will ignore it here after adding a few observations.

For instance, did readers know that Christopher Hitchens’ mother died an unnatural death? Jones claims that the mother committed adultery and was subsequently murdered by her lover, who then took his own life, but after a Google search I found a YouTube video where Hitchens himself claims both parties had voluntarily taken drugs, washed down with alcohol, to end their lives.

More importantly, in this essay Jones questions the theory of Darwinian evolution:

Anyone who pleads the case for the existence of God must now go before the court which goes by the name of “Science,” in front of a judge whose legal theory is determined by Darwin’s view of evolution. Atheism became the state religion of the Anglophone world, because Darwin, the prophet of the God who does not exist, “enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world.”

Again, the essay in the October issue deserves its own review, but what really causes me to slight it here is a long response Jones wrote in the Letters to the Editor section, where he proffers his read on the events in Charlottesville last summer. One Zoltan Radvansky wrote to express his exasperation at Whites’ inaction to the Muslim invasion of Europe, White genocide in South Africa, etc., and he blames the Jews:

Finally, even the “nicest” Jews never, and I mean never condemn the main pillars of Zionist policies: multiculturalism, feminism, supporting uncontrolled migration, usury, diversity and mindless tolerance, Jewish-controlled prostitution, drug commerce and gambling, profit maximization, gay/lesbian marriage, globalization, brainwashing our youth with the media owned by their compatriots, promoting atheism and materialism among us, colonization, continuous warfare abroad, the militarization of police forces, communism, the genocide of whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa just to name a few, all of which are geared towards exterminating us as a race and as diverse nations and cultures.

Jones responded, “If recent events in Charlottesville provided nothing else, they showed the futility of mounting a racial response to the crisis we are now facing.” This street-wise Philadelphia boy correctly understands how “that city’s Jewish mayor and Black deputy mayor in an ADL-managed, Soros-funded resurrection of the Black-Jewish alliance” set the trap by allowing Whites to legally gather for a protest, then had police herd these non-violent Whites “into the arms of the illegal Antifa demonstrators.” Jones argues that the SPLC and ADL already had a media barrage prepared, and the protesting Whites were naive to have appeared in Charlottesville at all.

While that last part is debatable, I think Jones is right on the money when he claims that the above parties had planned to use this demonstration to create a moral panic which then justified the introduction of Internet censorship. Jones then makes a stunning connection to Adolf Hitler to support Jones’ belief that “Ethnos Needs Logos.” (This theme is taken from Jones’ e-book Ethnos Needs Logos: Why I Spent Three Days in Guadalajara Trying to Persuade David Duke to Become a Catholic. Yet more proof that only E. Michael Jones could come up with a title like that.)

To make a long story short, Jones writes in this response that “Hitler was forced by the logic of history to concede that Christianity, not blood, created the German nation.” Jones concludes, “Logos ‘exalts and maintains’ ethnos. It doesn’t destroy it.” I suspect we will hear far more on this theme from Jones in the future, for as it becomes apparent even to “normies” that the game plan is to destroy the White race, a reaction far greater than the current growth of the Alt Right is in store.

Toward that end, I think Jones is going to have to move closer to accepting the concept of race. If he is using “ethnos” as a proxy for “race,” perhaps sites like TOO can encourage him to give more weight to race, though I can understand his reluctance, given that his son married a Hispanic woman, which Jones discussed in the October 2005 issue under “My Big Fat Hispanic Wedding: Spanish, WASP, Jewish and Catholic California.” Still, as the science behind race realism has shown, race can clearly be shown to be a physical concept, with modern genetics greatly enhancing our understanding. It is difficult to see how an ideology based on a universalistic logos can be used to motivate Whites against the non-White invasion of the West. Thus, I have a strong hunch that Jones’ best contributions could come by working on a combination like “race and Logos.”

I thought the February issue, “Catholic/Jewish Dialogue: Fifteen Years of Giving the Church the Finger,” would take the cake for most creative/outrageous cover story, but I think Jones topped it with the November 2017 issue, which features a photo of lesbian Roxane Gay.

And what title does he give about the woman in the photo?  “The Fat Lady Sings: Feminism, Obesity, and Catholic Education.” Priceless!

Roxane Gay

Jones early on in this cover essay addresses a group of Catholic university presidents, writing, “Of that group no one weighed in heavier than Patricia Maguire, president of Trinity Washington University. No one epitomized the bloated state of Catholic higher education better than Maguire because Maguire is  —  I want to be as tactful as possible here  —  morbidly obese. Her struggle to reach the podium after leaving her seat 15 feet away was painful to watch.”

Jones is acid in his consideration of feminism and obesity, writing of the former that “Feminism is another word for the social engineering of women into sexual robots, docile consumers, and wage slaves. Because this is an enormous task, the social engineers who control the regime must delegate this task to subcontractors, and no subcontractor has proved more docile and supine in carrying out the commands of their superiors than Catholic educators in general and the administrators of feminist Catholic higher education in particular.”

Further, Jones writes, “Feminism makes women stupid.” He then cites a British feminist who recently claimed that “the current world-wide obesity crisis was fueled by feminism.” In other words, “Cooking skills can get lost that quickly, and when they do dire circumstances follow. The ‘unintended consequence’ of women’s liberation was obesity.”

Next, Jones decides to get really provocative, tying all of this to the subject of lesbianism. The National Institute of Health, it turns out, had claimed that “75 percent of all lesbians were obese,” and, obligingly, Jones provides the perfect photo:

Having written the book Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation & Political Control ( 2000), Jones knows a thing or two about appetites, so he quickly zeroes in on the answer: “Lesbianism is either an extreme form of feminism or its hidden grammar, but the hidden grammar of both lesbianism and feminism is: Say yes to appetite. That is why feminism is a form of political control, and that is why lesbians are fat.”

How fat, one may wonder. Roxane Gay, who wrote about her life in the book Hunger, once weighed in at an astonishing 577 pounds, but now, Jones surmises, “has slimmed down to a relatively svelte 350 pounds.” Why do we even know about this obese Black lesbian, anyway? Jones tells us it is because “This the the sort of narrative that makes the hearts of Jewish feminists in places like the newsroom at National Public Radio skip a beat, which may be why Terry Gross ended up interviewing Gay on her show Fresh Air.” Jones knows his stuff.

Finally, we come to last December’s issue, which, not surprisingly, has a big photo of Harvey Weinstein and Kate Winslet on the cover. Does anyone want to venture a guess for the title? The first, more interesting, part is “Who Shtupped the Shiksa?” I wrote about this scandal in two parts (here and here), and Jones’ account is similar to my own, so I don’t feel the need to summarize it now. One new aspect that Jones adds, however, has to do with the contention that a problem in Hollywood that is larger than sexual harassment is pedophilia. Perhaps an account of that will emerge eventually from Dr. Jones’ pen.

So there we have one year of this amazing writing. I believe I have made the case here and in previous essays that Jones’ writing is well worth our time, for it is unlike other writing due to its diverse topics and the acrobatic connections made between and among them.

I say go back and try to get as much material from Jones’ Fidelity Press as you can. Subscribe to Culture Wars, which is inexpensive in its PDF format or as a hardcopy. At the website, you can easily find handy e-Books of past cover stories. Some of my favorite titles are:

I have written four essays on E. Michael Jones’ work because I’m convinced he is a modern American intellectual treasure. In large part this is because he has the courage and insight to write on the Jewish Question, the preeminent issue of our day. People read The Occidental Observer because they understand this. So I hope our readers will also become avid readers of Dr. Jones as well. What he has to say is worthy of our attention.

 

Read this article:

“Too Reflexively Ornery”:  E. Michael Jones and “Culture Wars,” Part 2 of 2

Related Post

March 7, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Occidental Observer |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."