Counter-Currents
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 259
Fróði Midjord on the Jared Taylor vs. E. Michael Jones Debate
Counter-Currents Radio
70 words / 59:33
To listen in a player, click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”
Greg Johnson interviews Fróði Midjord on the upcoming Scandza Forum in Zagreb, Croatia on May 2, 2020, where E. Michael Jones and Jared Taylor will debate on the question of the meaningfulness of the concept of race.
To support the Scandza Forum, click here.
To register, write to [email protected].
27 comments
Agree with his general take on things or not, EMJ has done impressive historical research and has made very perceptive analyses of most of the ills of the modern world (e.g. “sexual liberation is political control”). He also has good takes on inter-ethnic struggles and the use of mass immigration and multiculturalism as weapons of war against majority ethnic/religious populations. This is why he resonates with many on the “dissident right”.
However, he is not – and never will be – any kind of racialist. He’s basically an old-school, Jew-wise, anti-capitalist, anti-degeneracy Catholic. He doesn’t care about race or “muh genes, muh IQ charts” and he will never be persuaded otherwise. Which is why any kind of debate between him and a racialist is pretty much a waste of time, and these discussion generally don’t end well – see for example his engagements with Richard Spencer, Mark Collett, Ed Dutton and others on Youtube. They’re a bit of a trainwreck.
Another factor here is that EMJ is a poor debater. He really only shines when he is writing, delivering speeches or being interviewed by sympathetic hosts. In fact he doesn’t even really bother debating people who try to argue against him – he just repeats his talking points and re-hashes anecdotes or themes from his books, for the thousandth time. He simply won’t engage when pressed on racial matters (except for repeating his points about “whiteness is an empty category”, “1000 years ago my German ancestors used to chase pigs through the forest”, etc).
So – I don’t want to be negative, but I don’t see the point of this debate. And I’m a huge fan of EMJ and have been for years. I’ve learned a huge amount from him and he has influenced the way I see the world enormously. It’s just that I recognise his limitations. And his world view is simply not compatible with the racialist or white nationalist outlook, and never will be, despite some overlap of common themes and interests.
The following video is a good example of a typical EMJ engagement with racial nationalists. Here he gives an excellent speech to the London Forum – he doesn’t debate or discuss, he just delivers his take on things and doesn’t try to humor his audience at all . At several points people in the audience try to interject or heckle but he just ignores them and plows ahead with his talking points. BTW it’s an excellent speech and well-worth watching just for the sake of it (I think the original version has been taken off Youtube):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15WnsnLmlCs
So, I’m really not sure what will be gained by this debate, apart from generating acrimony and bad blood, and reinforcing people in the views they already have. Which is a shame, as people like EMJ and the racialist/white nationalist community all have valuable things to offer in this struggle. We’re just not going to agree or see things the same way all the time, and there’s no changing this.
There’s disagreeing and then there’s denying reallity.
I won’t waste my time on someone who denies reallity on such an obvious and important issue. I just can’t take people like that seriously…
Which, I think, is the reason the Jews don’t go after him. His views, especially about mixing with the Mestizos, are more dangerous to us than to them.
Really? The Jews don’t go after Jones? They’ve been attacking him for years, e.g:
https://www.adl.org/news/article/e-michael-jones
The SPLC have also been complaining about him forever. Some prominent Jew recently wrote to Jones’s local Bishop asking for him to be ex-communicated or some such nonsense. These are just a couple of examples, there are many more.
Good points.
At least it will bring some attention to the SF.
Do you have better suggestions for a debate?
“So, I’m really not sure what will be gained by this debate, apart from generating acrimony and bad blood, and reinforcing people in the views they already have.”
Then what is the point of any debate?
E.M. Jones has a lot of followers on the Right, and a lot of people look up to him as an intellectual, so surely his readers and followers deserve to hear him defend his statements…
A lack of serious debate leads to intellectual corruption – the entire modern world is an example of that.
E.M. Jones has a lot of followers on the Right, and a lot of people look up to him as an intellectual, so surely his readers and followers deserve to hear him defend his statements…
Here is my take: he won’t be able to defend his *take* and this will be made apparent. If then he begins merely to *bellow*, and he does often bellow, he will be seen and understood to be failing.
There is no better person than JT to cleanly and purely make the case: it is crucial to develop an outlook that includes an acute racialist view. It has to be done and it must be done.
The advantage is that his followers will, even if EMJs can’t, have to build a bridge to a view that included racialist perspectives. And then someone, or various people, can add to and build upon what EMJs has done, which is significant.
I second these statements. He is horrible, HORRIBLE, at debating. I was only able to make it through about 20 minutes of his debate with Styx on the pornography question, and while I completely agree with Jones’ take on the situation (pornography being a form of social control) he really did not shine on the debate stage.
I read your comment with interest. Nicely put. Your opinion of EMJ coincides with my own. And yes, EMJ is a very bad debater. But then debate is not his objective. My impression is that he is working furiously to get his ideas out there and broaden his reach as much as possible. Like you, I have been educated by the man in many different areas and respect him. But this follows since I am not closed to the Greco-Christian matrix of concerns.
You question what use such debates may have. Personally, I think they are good and necessary because, in my view, there must take place a reconciliation (if that is the proper word) between the Christian side of our movement and the pagan/atheistic (or perhaps naturalistic) faction. If there is *acrimony* now it must be overcome.
I think it is safe to say that, speaking occidentally, these Greco-Christian traditions are never going to go away and those who not only think in these terms but also have a spiritual life that is not merely *a theory* will not ever be excluded. The issue is to give strength to them and to make them more pointed and acute so as to be able to operate in a defensive mode. To conceive of the struggle as a protective endeavor, but then to become decidedly more aggressive in stRik-Eiking out against those who undermine *our traditions* *our cultures*. How stupid and self-defeating it would be to miss the present opportunity to meet, discuss, and reconcile viewpoints. I am not referring to this up-coming debate, I mean in the larger sense.
There is absolutely nothing guaranteed to us. And mistakes have been committed and are repeated by some who had managed to achieve *the limelight*. (One particular *Poppinjay* comes to mind though I have a great deal of admiration for his discourse.)
“However, he is not – and never will be – any kind of racialist.”
This is true, given his view that recovering a relationship with *logos* represents progress for the human entity: any and all human entities (though I would hope they remain in their own locations do undertake that transformative work). But it is not possible and is impossible to construct a movement solely on the basis of racialism. In any case, I simply cannot see how this could occur. And I believe quite strongly in strengthening my own grasp of and possession of my biological and *historical* self.
Well, I actually believe it possible that a kind of synthesis between the JT *pole* and the EMJ *pole* is in fact what is needed, at least insofar as it pertains to the present circumstances. In fact that is what I am trying to do: hold to the *logos-based* universalism while protecting *my specific domains* (in all possible senses).
We’re just not going to agree or see things the same way all the time, and there’s no changing this.
And what if I responded: “That can’t be so?” I recognize that you included ‘all the time’. But it seems to me that certain accords are completely possible. What worries me is in some of the more *final points* or areas: and these have to do with metaphysical conceptions. I submit that Greco-Christianity offers more sturdy metaphysical platform than anything I have seen so far offered by the pagan/atheist faction. And yet I really appreciated Jonathan Bowden’s talk on Savitri Devi! So, with that said, I see the efforts to recover European traditions as *very important*. To strengthen what is there.
You make many good points – well said!
PS – who’s the “Poppinjay” you mention, just curious….
Richard Spencer (riffing off a video posted on CC some months back). And I do not intend disrespect. I listen still to the Vanguard interviews.
Yes I agree. He is not a good debater. He has denied reality multiple times. He was terrible on Dutton’s show. I had to quit watching after awhile. He doesn’t even address the arguments. He simply denies them. I also agree this will be a waste of time. He is a true believer and I doubt many of his fans will turn. If they haven’t turned on him after watching his latest debates I can’t imagine Mr. Taylor changing them.
There is a guy following Paul Ramsey who loves Mr. Jones and brags about him often. People have confronted him, but he is locked into his belief. He is the example of those that will not change.
Why are we still embracing people who reject reality and believe everything that is written in a shitty book way after our civilization was established? Having religious nuts as the staple of the right was the main reason why leftists won over the US. Only when they started to embrace nonsense like religion(mainly Islam and moderately Hinduism), and reject scientific facts as GENDER they started to lose ground. It is actually incredible how supporting Soviets was less damaging to them than previously mentioned things.
This discussion provided a great analysis of what such people as E. Michael Jones are up to–those race denying traditionalists whose appeal is to religion, especially Catholicism, rather than identity. They reinforce the great barrier to our people’s awakening and to effecting change: the taboo against “racism” and white identity politics. They are everywhere on the internet, and they enjoy huge followings. Destroying their positions , as publicly as possible, should be our main focus in the near future. As Voltaire said, “Crush the infamy!”
E Michael Jones is the kinda dude who appeals to like 0.5% of the US population.
Not that I even per-se disagree with most of his views, broadly speaking.
He’s just not the kind of figure who could ever become popular or resonate with the preferences of the overwhelming majority of even White civilization, in any White country.
E.G., when he debated Styx, he didn’t talk about the negative bio-chemical and neurological effects that pornography has on the brain, which is fairly iron-clad and appeals to any kind of person, from an atheist to a fundamentalist. Instead, he got into the really subjective field of meta-physical analysis that you’d already need to be devout Catholic, and Catholic philosopher at that, to even grasp what he’s going on about. The Golden One does this too when he speaks of porn.
If you closely watch The Caine Mutiny the entire plot tap dances around the issue of a black cooks stealing food while the ship crew slack off. And while the Bogart character is an unpleasant martinet, the story relies on TNB to propel the final conflict between the XO and the Captain. What an apt film that shows us Murkah and what it would become. AWFLs and Cucks ignoring the obvious.
I can’t wait for the fallout from this debate to settle as I suspect a fault line is developing between Christians and nationalists.
On the bright side Frodi can have a beer with Prince Andrew and they can commemorate with each other.
“However, he is not – and never will be – any kind of racialist.”
No one expects Jones to change his mind… The purpose of this debate (and most debates, really) is to clarify a disagreement and give the audience a chance to hear both sides of the issue.
I am surprised that so many of Jones’s fans are upset that I have invited him to voice his own views at my event…
I find it funny when people who started waking up five minutes ago attack guys like Taylor and Jones, both of whom have thoughtcriminals for decades.
The virtues of both far outweigh their shortcomings. And each has spent his working lives driving in the other’s blindspot. For Jones this means race and for Taylor it is Jews.
It’s quite funny to hear a right-winger criticising Catholicism. I’m a Spaniard and the official ‘cult of guilt’ heralded by the lefties here in Spain is how the religion of our forefathers (Catholicism) was intolerant, fanatic, sexist and racist. They are not wrong on that point; the left-wingers consider those phenomena something bad and the right-wingers something not-so-bad, that’s the difference.
There are lot of examples.
In the ‘Valladolid debate’ (1550-1551) that took issue about how the colonization of the Americas was to be made, a catholic priest named Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda defended the Spanish conquest in these terms: <> [Translation: “ With perfect right the Spanish rule over these barbarians of the New World and adjacent islands, which in prudence, ingenuity, virtue and humanity are as inferior to the Spaniards as children to adults and women to men, or blacks to whites ´´]
During that period (XVI century) the Catholic Church in Spain promulgated the so-called ‘Estatutos de Limpieza de Sangre’ [“Statutes of cleanliness of blood´´] laws that prohibited anyone that had non-European ancestry from holding positions of authority inside the Church, those laws were particularly targeted against that middle-eastern tribe specialized in subverting everything, even if they “look huwhite.”
The system of social stratification based on race persisted until the end of the XVIII century in the Spanish dominions in America, all that system accepted by the Catholic authorities. The Catholic Church considered unequalities to be normal and natural, that silly concept of “All men are created equal´´ only emerged in the minds of protestants turned liberals. The (traditional) Catholic doctrine is that all men are children of God, but definetely are not created equal, as in Heaven and Earth there is hierarchy.
“… a catholic priest named Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda defended the Spanish conquest in these terms…”
No one has questioned that Catholics are in favour of eradicating ancient, local cultures in order to spread Catholic, global universalism. In fact, colonialism, imperialism, and universalism are some of the central aspects of Christianity (especially Catholicism) that I object to.
“… laws that prohibited anyone that had non-European ancestry from holding positions of authority inside the Church…”
Every single trad. Catholic I have talked to would accept a black pope. I assume that is true for Jones as well. How about yourself?
“The system of social stratification based on race persisted until the end of the XVIII century in the Spanish dominions in America…”
Social stratification based on race is exactly the kind of thing that I want to avoid. I want separation — I want ethnostates.
“… that silly concept of ‘All men are created equal’ only emerged in the minds of protestants turned liberals…”
It is an objective fact that there was a huge conflict between the Catholic Church and National Socialism, because NS was racist (“myth of the blood,” etc.). And I think we have to assume that the Catholic Church wasn’t ruled by “protestants turned liberals” when the Vatican issued an encyclical against NS Germany in 1937 (decades before Vatican II)…
You’re implying that this disagreement is a figment of my imagination, when the very fact that we are having this debate proves that the disagreement is real. I didn’t force Jones at gunpoint to say that race is a fiction. If you believe that his statements violate true Catholic teachings, you have to take that up with him — I happen to believe that his claims are perfectly in line with Catholicism.
No one has questioned that Catholics are in favour of eradicating ancient, local cultures in order to spread Catholic, global universalism.
If the Catholic Church really had eradicated local cultures, there would be no nation-states in Europe today with different peoples and languages each.
In places like Northern Europe there wasn’t much going on before Catholicism arrived, just tree-worship and communities living in the Iron Age, after that the peoples over there started building cathedrals and creating complex societies.
In fact, colonialism, imperialism, and universalism are some of the central aspects of Christianity (especially Catholicism) that I object to.
Without ‘colonialism, imperialism, and universalism’ there would be no peoples of european ancestry living outside Europe right now. If you impugn that imperialism you’re implicitly negating the right of existence of european peoples outside Europe.
Every single trad. Catholic I have talked to would accept a black pope. I assume that is true for Jones as well. How about yourself?.
There’s no need to add more drama with a ‘black pope’. The doctrinal and institutional situation of the *mainstream* Catholic Church since decades ago is quite a mess, and that’s the real problem. But if you’re concerned about the ‘europeanness’ of the papacy, well, you have an uninterrupted spam of 13 centuries (VIII c. until now) of European-only popes, there is no other public institution so ‘pan-European’ as that.
Social stratification based on race is exactly the kind of thing that I want to avoid. I want separation — I want ethnostates.
I don’t disagree with that; the problem is that in order to regulate the relation between peoples you need some common ground, some shared principles. And that’s why religious universalim may be an antidote to political universalism.
It is an objective fact that there was a huge conflict between the Catholic Church and National Socialism, because NS was racist (“myth of the blood,” etc.). And I think we have to assume that the Catholic Church wasn’t ruled by “protestants turned liberals” when the Vatican issued an encyclical against NS Germany in 1937 (decades before Vatican II)
If you actually read the encyclical ‘Mit brennender Sorge’ it is clear that the issue there is not politics, but religion. The main concerns of that encyclical were two, the first is that the German government didn’t honour the concordat signed in 1933 and secondly he expressed concern about putting earthly things before God, that is, going againts the First Commandment. Pius XI in fact wrote that there was nothing wrong in honouring race, as long it is not elevated to a religion-like cult. Quote: “ Wer die Rasse, oder das Volk, oder den Staat, oder die Staatsform, die Träger der Staatsgewalt oder andere Grundwerte menschlicher Gemeinschaftsgestaltung – die innerhalb der irdischen Ordnung einen wesentlichen und ehrengebietenden Platz behaupten – aus dieser ihrer irdischen Wertskala herauslöst, sie zur höchsten Norm aller, auch der religiösen Werte macht und sie mit Götzenkult vergöttert, der verkehrt und fälscht die gottgeschaffene und gottbefohlene Ordnung der Dinge. Ein solcher ist weit von wahrem Gottesglauben und einer solchem Glauben entsprechenden Lebensauffassung entfernt. ´´
So Pius XI clearly states that the race has an essential and respectful place inside the earthly order ( innerhalb der irdischen Ordnung einen wesentlichen und ehrengebietenden Platz behaupten ) but you cannot hypostasize race into God, simple as that.
You’re implying that this disagreement is a figment of my imagination, when the very fact that we are having this debate proves that the disagreement is real. I didn’t force Jones at gunpoint to say that race is a fiction. If you believe that his statements violate true Catholic teachings, you have to take that up with him — I happen to believe that his claims are perfectly in line with Catholicism.
Putting quotes of mister Jones out of context isn’t the best way to understand his thinking. Mr. Jones has always spoke against the mass immigration that is now happening in Western countries and favoured the renewal of ethnic communities againts capitalist globalization. And I know there’s a lot of incomprehension about how he handles the issue of race, but the message that he is trying to transmit is that race alone isn’t going to save you personally or collectively, you need a solid doctrinal foundation to prosper.
“If the Catholic Church really had eradicated local cultures, there would be no nation-states in Europe today with different peoples and languages each…”
I said they were in favour of doing it, not that they were completely successful in doing it…
“In places like Northern Europe there wasn’t much going on before Catholicism arrived…”
I love how Catholics always revert to ethnomasochism and uninformed, anti-European negative stereotypes, just to prove my point…
“If you impugn that imperialism you’re implicitly negating the right of existence of european peoples outside Europe.”
No, that doesn’t follow at all…
“There’s no need to add more drama with a ‘black pope’…”
You were the one who brought up “laws that prohibited anyone that had non-European ancestry from holding positions of authority inside the Church,” so surely you must think it relevant. Why not just answer the question: Would you accept a black pope? Tbh, your silence speaks louder than words in answer to this question…
“the *mainstream* Catholic Church since decades ago is quite a mess, and that’s the real problem..”
I explicitly said that every traditional (not mainstream) Catholic I have talked to would accept a black pope. In fact, the more traditional and fundamentalist they have been, the more likely they have been to reject the importance of race. I find myself agreeing much more with commonsensical cultural Catholics than with the “true believers,” so I reject your suggestion that this is some sort of modern corruption.
“… in order to regulate the relation between peoples you need some common ground, some shared principles. And that’s why religious universalim may be an antidote to political universalism.”
No. You need to protect your borders and you need as little common ground as possible. When dimwit civnats object to hijab or circumcision among immigrant groups in Europe, they promote assimilation, which means genocide for us. The more different their culture, the more likely we are to separate from them in the end. The most problematic immigrant groups are the ones that have adopted the host’s culture and behaviour. Cosmopolitan religion is a disaster.
“If you actually read the encyclical ‘Mit brennender Sorge’ it is clear that the issue there is not politics, but religion…”
The issue is that the NS world-view (recognizing Darwinian racial interests and racial conflict) and the Catholic world-view were/are incompatible. Yes, race was the first principle of the German state, and that was unacceptable for the Catholic Church…
“Putting quotes of mister Jones out of context isn’t the best way to understand his thinking.”
I was waiting for this silly objection to come up… It is obvious to everyone that this is a promo-video meant to get viewers curious about the debate. Of bloody course Jones’s quotes were taken out of context (as were Jared’s), and I did everything in my power to emphasize that they were taken out of context, because the context couldn’t possibly fit in a 2 min video. Here is the full video: https://youtu.be/5AXQ7dDedsI
At the debate, Dr. Jones will be given a chance to speak uninterrupted for a total of 35 min and provide as much context as he wants.
“Mr. Jones has always spoke against the mass immigration that is now happening in Western countries… And I know there’s a lot of incomprehension about how he handles the issue of race”
No, there is no incomprehension. Let the man speak for himself. For example, he favours mass immigration from Mexico bc they are Catholic: https://twitter.com/BaronStrucker/status/1223965441284018176
“the message that he is trying to transmit is that race alone isn’t going to save you…”
No. He is saying that race is a fiction. That is why we’re having this debate.
“I said they were in favour of doing it, not that they were completely successful in doing it…”
Matthew 28:19 – “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…´´
Note that it is stated nations (plural) and not a single nation. That acknowledges the existence of the plurality of peoples. Contrary to Islam (or some Protestant branches) Catholicism has never established a theocracy, it has always recogniced the duality of secular and religious authorities.
“I love how Catholics always revert to ethnomasochism and uninformed, anti-European negative stereotypes, just to prove my point… ”
It is now considered ethnomasochism to point to the historical evidence? Here’s a quote from Hitler: “While our German ancestors lived in caves and worked with flints the Greeks were building the Parthenon. When asked about our ancestry, we must always point to the Greeks.”
Was Adolf Hitler also an ethnomasochist?
“No, that doesn’t follow at all… ”
Ask the antifa why they are tearing down monuments of Columbus all over America.
“I explicitly said that every traditional (not mainstream) Catholic I have talked to would accept a black pope. In fact, the more traditional and fundamentalist they have been, the more likely they have been to reject the importance of race. I find myself agreeing much more with commonsensical cultural Catholics than with the “true believers,” so I reject your suggestion that this is some sort of modern corruption. ”
You sure have heard Edward Dutton arguing how religiosity is positively correlated with ethnocentrism as the two mental processes are in the same area of the brain, well, he’s completely right. There are many empirical estudies showing how the more religious the person the more ethnocentric he is https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254879920_Religion_and_Ethnocentrism_An_Empirical-theological_Study_of_the_Effects_of_Religous_Attitudes_on_Attitudes_towards_Minorities_among_Catholics_in_the_Netherlands
“No. You need to protect your borders and you need as little common ground as possible. When dimwit civnats object to hijab or circumcision among immigrant groups in Europe, they promote assimilation, which means genocide for us. The more different their culture, the more likely we are to separate from them in the end. The most problematic immigrant groups are the ones that have adopted the host’s culture and behaviour. Cosmopolitan religion is a disaster. ”
I was talking about religion as a form of understanding between peoples, not as a tool of assimilation for immigrants. Anyway, secularization and pluralism is the main weapon used to create a melting pot of forced integration.
“The issue is that the NS world-view (recognizing Darwinian racial interests and racial conflict) and the Catholic world-view were/are incompatible. Yes, race was the first principle of the German state, and that was unacceptable for the Catholic Church… ”
Incompatible? That’s a broad-brush approach. Sure the Catholic Church condemned the idolatric cult of race if it may step over the cult of God, but it never condemned Nationalsocialism or Fascism as such (in contrast Liberalism or Communism were indeed proclaimed as sinful). There was people like Léon Degrelle who was a devout Catholic and fought in the SS and even Hitler himself declared that if he had had a son he would like it to have been like Degrelle.
Nowadays there are people like Vincent Reynouard who is a traditional Catholic and a declared Nationalsocialist and also a prolific revisionist historian (because of that he’s now exiled in order to prevent political persecution).
“No, there is no incomprehension. Let the man speak for himself. For example, he favours mass immigration from Mexico bc they are Catholic: https://twitter.com/BaronStrucker/status/1223965441284018176 ”
In that video he says that he has ‘hopes’ for the newly arrived mexican immigrants considering it as a fait accompli not something that he wants to happen.
In this video (starting min.32:45 https://www.bitchute.com/video/8F9p6Iqg7Uc/ ) Dr. Jones explicitly says that it would be a ‘problem’ to bring mass immigration from Mexico and that it would not solve US declining religious faith. It is prove enough to show how he is NOT in favour of mass migration.
“No. He is saying that race is a fiction. That is why we’re having this debate. ”
Again, putting those statements out of context won’t help. Most listeners of Dr. Jones realize what tactics and semantics mean and going into a debate because a semantic fetish is not very far-sighted.
I can’t be the only one that finds it odd that you’ve twice refused to answer the question as to whether you would recognize a black pope. Fróði asked a simple question, and it’s not as fanciful as you would have us believe. 1 in 8 cardinals are African, and that percentage is only likely to increase. Robert Sarah from Guinea is currently the darling of trad Catholics and has been suggested as papal material by any number of Catholic outlets.
In places like Northern Europe there wasn’t much going on before Catholicism arrived, just tree-worship and communities living in the Iron Age, after that the peoples over there started building cathedrals and creating complex societies.
It seems a bit disingenuous to blame those who were not Christian for not building cathedrals. Why would they? I seem to have lost my copy of this particular civilizational grade card. But as for creating “complex societies,” today’s post-Christian societies are far more complex than anything the Middle Ages produced, yet that’s hardly proof of our superiority. Give me a simple ethnostate sans the complexity and monumental architecture any day.
Debating and arguing are another talents, thinking and expressing own taughts in writing and in monologue are other. I appreciate E. Michael Jones’ logic and knowledge specially in questions of Jewish and Christian religion, the former is rare knowledge nowadays. I have got a lot of new understanding of those hidden facts from him for questions I have not got satisfying answers before. I see Styx was in better position because he represented the mainstream opinion about porn.
Jared Taylor has very harmful degenerate modernist views on morality, especially with regard to sexuality and abortion. Also, he does not understand the Jewish Question, even though he might have more understanding of it now than he used to have in the not so distant past. He does understand the fact or race very well.
E Michael Jones is of much greater importance with regard of the Jewish Question, which ultimately is the most relevant issue that exists. Even if he belittles race, he doesn’t do harm to European nations with his views. He does definately NOT promote mass migration and population replacement.
Also, it is not quite right to state that Jones equates ethnicity with language, though in that conversation with Frødi this is where he put the accent on.
The Universal Church does not deny ethnic and racial difference, but the suitability of the one true faith for all peoples. What was said about “spiritual semites” was never uttered by a pope (Pius XI) but by a private semi-modernist theologian who didn’t make it public (which might render this thing doubtful anyway).
Unfortunately, Jones is not a catholic, since he believes a heretic such as Bergoglio can be pope, which contradicts catholic dogma. Since his thoughts are to a huge degree in the past, he does have a sense for the church though, but he needs to get rid of the idea that the Vatican II apostate sect can possibly be the Catholic Church. It is also absurd to claim Mexicans are catholics, simply because they had some catholic culture in the past and some remains of it today.
Anyway, it is pointless to talk race all day when culture is dead, and having degenerates promoting the survival of the aryans isn’t of any value. When turning to the catholic faith, people will naturally survive as strong entities and live a supreme culture. You don’t have to tell your beloved one how much you love her all day, just act propperly. It’s similar with the survival of nation and race.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access