There seems no reason to question E. Michael Jones’ sincerity. By current standards, he is brave, courteous, and he is willing to debate anyone. Few commentators have such a comprehensive understanding of the threats posed by Jewish supremacism, and fewer still discuss the issues in such an articulate and engaging way.
The problem arises with his understanding of identity as a means of resisting and eventually reforming Jewish-dominated power structures. To begin with, identity is a slippery concept. Identity can be imposed externally or constructed from within, and it can be based on immutable human traits, ideology, behavior, and any number of other factors. Identity can also be fleeting. Catholics can become atheists and vice versa. It should also be noted that people need not be schizophrenic to simultaneously hold multiple, and even conflicting identities.
It might be easier to simply discard the notion of identity when discussing solutions to Jewish supremacism. This would be a bad idea for the following reason. Jews have steadily increased their international dominance precisely because they identify as Jews. Jewish identity cannot be defined according to language spoken, religious practices observed, or even physical characteristics. Yet Jews create networks and collaborate based largely on identity. It follows that any movement that is to successfully counter Jewish power will need to develop its own identity or form some sort of coalition of existing identities. Given Jewish skillfulness at infiltration and divide-and-conquer strategies, one or two unified identities may achieve greater success in resisting Jewish power than a smattering of well-informed interest groups.
Jones argues that Catholicism is the only identity suited to this endeavor. His arguments in favor of Catholicism and against White identity are that 1) Whiteness is an artificially constructed identity; 2) individuals must decide upon whether they identify as White or Catholic because they can’t be both; 3) Catholicism affords critics of Jewish behavior a layer of protection against Jewish persecution.
Jones argues that Whiteness was imposed as an identity upon European indentured servants who provided labor in the Virginia colonies. The term ‘White’ was assigned to the European workers as a divide-and-conquer tactic, giving them a relatively higher status than the African slaves next to whom they toiled. Although this initial White identity may have been artificial, it has little bearing on current day Americans and, for example, Australians whose ancestors came from Europe.
Jones describes himself as bi-racial, meaning that he is German and Irish. This description may have resonated with denizens of American White ethnic neighborhoods prior to the ethnic cleansing of those neighborhoods in the 1960s. At present, however, most Americans who appear White have ancestors whose origins lie in disparate parts of Europe. It is therefore natural that, if they identify themselves according to race, they might say that they’re White rather than providing a (possibly inaccurate) list of the regions from which their ancestors came. This, incidentally, applies both to Whites who are proud of having European heritage and those who are ashamed of it. Perhaps if America were a White only country, no one would identify as White. If it were White only but still dominated by a tiny Jewish minority, its citizens might identify as gentiles. We have no way of knowing. What is important is that Whiteness is not a ‘category of the mind’ as Jones would have us believe. It is a category of reality simply because White people know who they are and can recognize each other—and because it is rooted in the evolutionary trajectory of the European peoples. To the extent that it is important, non-Whites can also recognize us as White, usually not as Irish or German or Italian, but as White. It is therefore irrelevant whether Whiteness is only 500 years old—as Jones asserts—or more than 20,000 years old.
There is little doubt that language and culture play an important role in identity, but languages, cultural practices, and cultural perspectives can be learned. Jones may describe himself as half German, but he acquired his knowledge of the German language and culture because he lived in Germany as an adult. He was not born German, but he was born White.
Jones claims that White identity is a trap set by Jewish interests and that Americans (and presumably other Whites) who identify as White are internalizing the commands of their oppressors. On this point, he is partially correct. Among some White nationalists, there is a tendency to view all non-Whites with disdain or hostility. Naturally, this might hamper universal efforts to combat Jewish supremacism. Whites are not the only adversely affected group. Arguably, meaningful change will not happen without the type of multi-cultural coalition that is incompatible with ardent White identitarianism.
But at some point, the issue of whether Whites are internalizing the commands of their oppressors becomes irrelevant. Prior to arriving on American shores, Blacks would have identified themselves as Fulani or Mandingo or any number of other ethnicities. None of these identities would have been useful to the American Black Power Movement of the 1960s, however. People can argue about the movement’s propriety, but there can be little doubt that it resulted in an increase in Black power. In the long run, Whites may have no choice but to identify as White, particularly in areas where they are outnumbered by hostile non-Whites and have no option to relocate. If, on the other hand, White identity can be normalized sooner rather than later, Jewish efforts at ethnic cleansing will become less successful and most Whites can look forward to a more secure future.
Before the Modern Period, most Western people’s identity was fixed at birth. These identities encompassed religion, sex, locale, language, vocation, social status, and so on. Urbanization and its concomitant social and geographic mobility have left a vacuum and people in industrialized countries, if they even contemplate identity, construct their own identities. In part due in part to Jewish denigration of Whiteness, many White Americans manufacture for themselves frivolous identities determined by their sexual practices, or the brand of motorcycle they favor, or the music they listen to. Jones argues that Catholic identity affords some protection against persecution by Jews. Certainly, in the past the Church often effectively prohibited predatory Jewish practices like usury. But with the rise of the nation-state and globalism, the Church has neither the power nor the will to dismantle Jewish power networks. If every White American were to convert to Catholicism tomorrow, there would still be a staggering amount of consciousness raising to do. A direct development of White identity based on recognition of collective White interests, and a shared understanding of how these interests are threatened, seems the most effective approach.
This is not to say that the Catholic Church and other churches have no role to play. Networks of White advocacy should build strength and legitimacy in all institutions. Jones’ assertion, however, that Catholicism is incompatible with White identity makes little sense. Scholars universally accept that people hold multiple and often conflicting identities. The issue of whether Catholic Church doctrine discourages White identity can be left to the Magisterium, but surely White identitarians won’t be excommunicated based on thought crime.
Many Whites now recognize and resent the ethnic cleansing, wealth extraction, denigration in academia and the popular culture, perversion of history, and other assaults their people have been subjected to. They also understand the source of these assaults. Jones may be correct that the Catholic Church provides protection. Moving forward, however, we shouldn’t need protection when we point out lying, cheating and stealing. It has yet to happen, but the time must come when the perpetrators are shamed for their behavior rather than truthtellers shamed for antisemitism.
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
“It might be easier to simply discard the notion of identity when discussing solutions to Jewish supremacism.”
Bingo. I am sitting here pointing to my nose. Identity is an inherently essentialist concept. It exacerbates conflicts rather than resolving them.
What the civilized world has is cultural rights. No America has ever heard of that because of furious state censorship. The US ran away from the ICESCR but it sits on the treaty body, ECOSOC, and tries to insinuates its divide et impera identity politics shit. But your cultural rights are codified in the UDHR as state obligations in state and federal common law. In any case you have to get your cultural rights as a condition of state sovereignty, no matter what your bullshit government thinks.
First on the list is nondiscrimination. That’s where Judaism fails as a state and reverts to barbarism as a culture. All those special Jewy victim rights they get and you don’t get, that’s not on. That’s why Judaism is apartheid for bignosed assholes.
Look into it, it’s everything you need.
E. Michael Jones critiques Jewish supremacy from the position of Christian supremacy. Two wings of the same imperial bird: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/from-jq-to-jp.
After reading James W. Smith’s article “E. Michael Jones on Identity” I surprised to learn that I was “born white.” Now I admit that I was very young at the time, and so Mr. Smith may know more about my early years than I do.
So let’s broaden this discussion to include the famous John Ford film The Searchers, which about fears of miscegenation and whether whiteness is based on nomos or phusei, custom or nature. After showing Ethan, the John Wayne character, a number of feral white girls who had been rescued from Indian captivity, the soldier says: “It’s hard to believe they’re white,” to which Ethan responds “They ain’t white anymore,” framing the identity issue at the heart of the film and book. Is “whiteness” biological? If so, how is it possible to lose it? Or is it cultural, based on language, which can be forgotten, as Debbie, the captive child seems to have done?
A close reading of the relevant texts indicates that “whiteness” is something sexual, like virginity, which once lost can never be regained. “Whiteness” became an identity marker shortly after English settlers arrived in the new world because the Puritan settlers were Judaizers who used the Old Testament stories of Joshua and Amalek to demonize both the Indian natives and the slaves from Africa. The idea that phenotype could become a criterion of church membership could only arise in a state church whose population lived on an island and were in rebellion against the Catholic Church because of its universality.
It may have been presumptuous of me to assert that Dr. Jones was ‘born White’ without his approval. The point I intended to make is that our identity is the product of how we view ourselves and ALSO how we are viewed by others. To abstract this dispute, let’s take a time machine and transport baby Dr. Jones and his family to San Domingo circa 1804. When the revolutionaries come for the Jones family, intending to slaughter them for being white, the family protests, “We aren’t White! We’re German! We’re Irish! We’re Catholic!” The leader of the mob replies, “You look white, but we’ll give you a DNA test just to be sure…”
As thought provoking as The Searchers may have been, I’m not sure that I want to put the narrative in the hands of a fictional character created more than fifty years ago and set in the late 19th century. He (Ethan) viewed whiteness as a way of behaving. I suspect few people now or then define whiteness in such a way. I’d venture to say that more people would define whiteness as membership in one of many human populations. This membership is inescapable and comes with behavioral tendencies. Some White children suffer horrendous abuse that affects their behavior. There may be something in the genetic makeup of other Whites which causes their behavior to diverge from that of their peers. Such people, however, are still White, Ethan’s viewpoint notwithstanding.
Let’s use an analogy I’ve heard used by Matt Walsh. The car is a category of reality. People’s definition of car may differ, but we all know a car when we see one. So, cars usually have four wheels, but some cars have only three. Cars were created to transport people, but some cars don’t function. Some cars are hybrids, so people may argue about whether they’re looking at a car or an SUV. Despite the big gray area, the car is still a category of reality.
Whiteness is as robust as other identities including Blackness and Catholicism, and the internal and external pressures to take Whiteness as an identity may be greater than the pull of becoming a faithful Catholic. As mentioned, however, the two need not be mutually exclusive.
The Catholic Church is heretical and apostate. The recently selected new pope (Leo XIV) is as counterfeit as his predecessor (Bergoglio). Dr. Jones doesn’t discuss the condition of the Catholic “Church”. I find this disturbing.
https://rense.com/general98/LEO-XIV.php
It’s an international pedophile ring masquerading as a religion.
The trouble with your critique is that in practice it tends to invite a superior adjudicating force to aid those whose “cultural rights” are allegedly being ignored or violated. We all know what that means in today’s context–the globalists (also a Jewish-inspired movement) take over the job of policing the world for infractions.
The US has led the “rest of the West” in this enterprise ever since 1945–and Wilson’s earlier “war to end war” slogan shows it was already percolating in the fevered minds of US elites eager to join with and later replace the British empire as this universal peace-keeper. Let’s not forget the British propaganda leading to the Crimean War, the British volte face on slavery–from aiding it to enforcing abolition, etc.
The urge to appeal to an outside or higher authority is a constant in human affairs. It has led to catastrophic results in many instances.
This thread is a perfect illustration of the dynamics of identity politics. In six comments we get to the steady state:
Mackerelsnappers!
Kikes!
Mackerelsnappers!
Kikes!
Whereas with world-standard rights, you mackerelsnappers and kikes got your cultural rights and you can relax until one of them gets derogated – or if you’re feeling ambitious you can endeavor to fulfill those rights for everyone. No more invidious seething, if you can conceive of such a thing.
E. Michael Jones telling us all ‘religion, not race’ is no different from Communists telling us ‘class, not race’ … meanwhile, our race is getting genocided away.
7, interesting, Inspector general. Nowadays, with People-Centered Human Rights, you don’t need authorities infiltrated by blood-dripping Genocide Jews. You the people interpret and exercise your rights yourself. Cutting-edge international NGOs like the Black Alliance for Peace do this now. You’re not petitioning an authority, you go over the head of your failed state to the world.
I grew up in a place in Australia where most people derived from the British Isles, Ireland and Germany. If you were Greek and came to my primary school, you were exotic. You ate strange food and probably spoke a strange language at home. I didn’t imagine that we were both “white”. We could be friends, but we weren’t the same. That’s how it was.
I don’t think we need to copy the Jews and their extreme in-group preference. Especially when their national project has revealed to the world all their worst traits. Their genocidal tendencies are on full display, and they seem unable to stop themselves. Surely they are hurtling towards utter disaster, as even Trump tires of their atrocities.
Thanks for the comment.
I hope there can be a middle ground between the model of extreme Jewish ethnocentrism and the complete rejection of white identity. I haven’t taken a survey but I’d guess there are many who have some sense of White identity but take a live and let live attitude toward other groups except when they perceive a threat (for example, they may favor a restrictive immigration policy that protects their culture while, at the same time, recognizing that there are already well-behaved non-Whites in their midst with whom they can interact courteously and maintain friendships).
As for the descendants of the Greek immigrants, I’d guess everyone considers them White? Or at least distinguishes them from some of the recent immigrants in Melbourne and elsewhere who’ve been causing mayhem in the past couple of years?
E. Michael Jones: “Is “whiteness” biological? If so, how is it possible to lose it? ”
These sorts of question reveal that Jones is either a liar or a dullard. In taxonomy, race is a biological category, just like species or genus is a biological category. If Jones doesn’t know this, he’s a dullard. If he does know it, he’s a liar who’s pretending he doesn’t.
Of course, the biological category of race incorporates behavioral characteristics too. For example, among honeybees, Apis mellifera mellifera, the ordinary honeybee so useful to our agriculture is distinguished from Apis mellifera scutellata, the so-called killer bee, which is much more aggressive. Similarly, among canids, the domestic dog is considered by some taxonomists to be a race of wolf, but the behavior of the former is, of course, quite different. In both of these cases in fact, it’s behavior that’s the most prominent characteristic that distinguishes the one from the other, though there are other differences too. Zoologists have distinguished two or more races in most mammalian species. There is no reason to suppose that man is any different.
Jones however would probably want to argue that if a determination of race is primarily based on behavior, then that supports his Christian point of view that race is an illusion, at least in humans, since humans can to a degree ape one another’s behavior, as in the case of the kidnapped child in the movie he refers to, who is behaviorally an Indian. But behavior isn’t the only index. There are a host of other phenotypic correlates with race in humans — average brain size, average IQ, bone structure, rates of twinning, and so on.
Here’s a useful primer on the subject from Phillipe Rushton:
https://philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Is-Race-a-Valid-Taxonomic-Construct-2002-by-John-Philippe-Rushton.pdf
Maybe Jones will read it and someday be able to construct a better argument. But I doubt it.
Doesn’t address the nuance of EMJ’s argument that, in being identified as white – by skin color – the Jew becomes invisible. While it’s likely true in the majority of cases, as evidenced by the capitulation of US supremacy to Jewish power, the author is right about how difficult it will be to find and execute a workable solution that rediscovers #AmericaFirst.
I like EMJ but he has a bad habit of practicing Tactical Nominalism (“Categories of the Mind”) when he gets caught between a Motte and a Bailey.
For example, he says Catholics are a real identity group while asserting White people are not on the same ontological level of realness; White identity becomes a “social construct” while Catholicism is spared such a classification. This is arbitrary on EMJ’s part and it shows how he deems what is real and what is nominal.
I find this borderline sophistic for someone who holds The Truth/God/Logos in the highest regard.
“White” is NOT a racial category! It is slang, a colloquialism.
America was started as a Masonic country where Masonry is about rebuilding the Tower of Babel; Freemasonry is founded upon the ideology of Jewish Messianism. The phrase “Free white” in our early legal history is about Race-mixing the European nations together! “White” is a genocidal term. E. Michael Jones is German-Irish—Not “White”. Our skins are white but that is NOT our ethnicity. Irish are Celts while Germans are Germanic–very different characteristics.
E. Michael Jones when he avers race, outs himself as a Gnostic. He is attacking Nature. He is a heretic and an apostate for when he adopted the “race is nothing” and that being Catholic supercedes one’s racial identity and duties–he has actually adopted Jewish Messianism!!! He is a heretic by being a Gnostic and apostate by adopting the race-mixing ideology of the Jews.
These articles address Jewish Messianism and the errors of Michael Jones
The Tower of Babel, The Philosophy of Race and the Genocidal Ideology of Jewish Messianism
https://www.academia.edu/14904951/
Communism is the Full Platform of Jewish Messianism
https://www.academia.edu/125262484/
He doesn’t need to construct a better argument. He makes his enemies look ridiculous every time he debates one of them. His enemies need to stop babbling about the differences in bone structure between the races.
I doubt that E. Michael is a messianic Jew. I mean, he made the messianic Jew Michael Brown look like an idiot.
Mahamigamagarinowokelol: “He doesn’t need to construct a better argument. He makes his enemies look ridiculous every time he debates one of them. His enemies need to stop babbling about the differences in bone structure between the races. ”
Such differences are well-documented and their existence experimentally confirmed.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28712877/
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/there-any-difference-between-bones-people-different-races
https://time.com/archive/6934445/bone-marrow-transplants-when-race-is-an-issue/
Maybe “Mahamigamagarinowokelol”, you should read the links first before you spout nonsense!!!
You confuse Christian messianism for Jews with Jewish Messianism…or you have NEVER heard like many people that there is a thing called “Jewish Messianism”.
Furthermore, your reading comprehension sucks. I inferred that Jewish Messianism is about rebuilding the Tower of Babel and I mentioned “race-mixing”—how you take that to mean Christian Messianism for Jews–I don’t know. Read the Links to educated yourself–then speak.
Tereza,
Good job on the work that you are doing.
For your WWII project I recommend a book that I am currently reading.
Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny by R H S Stolfi 2011
If you have problems finding a pdf let me know. Archive.org should have a free pdf.
This book has the details that are omitted in the official narratives concerning Hitler’s personality.
This is a must read for your project.
Keep up the excellent work.
Thanks, socratesjr. I assume you’re talking about Adolf Schicklgruber, the actor whose leading role was as ‘Adolf Hitler’ at the behest of the Rothschild who raped his grandmother. I’m doing an episode later today about his purpose in erasing Gottfried Feder, whose iconic mustache he copied and whose economic miracle he undermined:
Gottfried Feder is the threat that Rothschild-agent Schicklgruber, aka Hitler, was sent to neuter. Feder’s party was the German Workers Party (DAP), to which Hitler added National Socialist (NSDAP). Feder wrote the 25 Points and defeated an attempt by Goebbels to amend it and evict Feder from the meeting. It’s all been rewritten to make him the servant of Hitler, but take one look at this guy’s face and tell me who you’d trust–Hitler or him?
Nazi is no abbreviation of NSDAP, but is certainly related to AshkeNazi or Nasi, the Hebrew word for prince.
Feder is the architect of the brilliant economic reforms that defeated the Rothschild cartel. In 1931, it says that Hitler steered the party away from Feder’s views because it threatened the ‘major industrialists’ particularly Hjalmar Schacht:
“Schacht wrote in the ‘Magic of Money’ that “National Socialist agitation under the leadership of Gottfried Feder” aimed to curtail “private banking” and “the entire currency system.” He further explained that the goal of Feder and his pupils was to destroy their entire “banking and monetary economy” and concludes that he “had to try to steer Hitler away from these destruction conceptions.”
And he did, Schacht becoming Hitler’s President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics. Feder was made a mere Secretary. He continued to write The Fight against High Finance, Die Juden, and The New City.
His concept of the ‘agricultural city’ is no more than 20,000 people divided into nine autonomous units, each surrounded by agricultural land. “Unlike other garden city theorists, he believed that urban areas could be reformed by subdividing the existing built environment into self-sufficient neighborhoods.”
Wikipedia also states: “his concept of decentralized factories was successfully opposed by both generals and Junkers. Generals objected because it interfered with rearmament, and Junkers because it would prevent their exploiting their estates for the international market. When Hjalmar Schacht took office as Minister of Economics on 2 August 1934, one of his first actions was to fire Feder from his State Secretary post.”
The Nazi party was always a Zionist covert operation. Would the Stolfi book add to my knowledge on this?
Tereza,
Before addressing your question I would like to pay my respects to James Smith for bringing up the very important topic of identity with respect to the concerns of the TUR readership. I refer you to my May 30, 2025 comment concerning Bardon Kaldian’s focus on identity.
As a student in the Course In Miracles you can appreciate my position that reinforcing identity is not the way to go to liberate oneself from the Cult’s masterful manipulation of identity consciousness. To the point, we need to liberate ourselves from the identity program and expand our state of awareness. Short of a miracle, the human species is moving too slow in that direction and we are dependent upon enlightened leaders to disengage from the Cult’s web.
Concerning your reply: My acknowledgement of your good work was about your video on your WWII project and had nothing to do with the specifics of your reply. However, your position on Hitler and the Nazi party could benefit from reading Stolfi’s book which is a combination of history and psychoanalysis which fills in gaps and rectifies the distortions of the vilifying conventional wisdom.
Concerning the bigger picture: I recommend the the book, The Trail Of The Serpent 1936 which can be found on archive.org.
As you have discovered, the Judaic agenda is only the most recent attempt for perverting and controlling human consciousness. I recommend that you review the video of professor David Jacobs which I posted March 14, 2025.
Also of interest is an exchange dated January 31, 1981 from the Ra Material. I mention this in my May 28, 2025 comment.
Considering the wide and deep perspective of information available on this very troubling topic, any efforts short of a transformation of human consciousness will fail to liberate the human race from this threatening “foreign” agenda.
Concerning further contact and exchange of information: If I subscribe to your site, will I be able to send you pdf documents? Would this be the best way to follow up with sharing information?
Hi, socrates jr. Sorry for the late response, this had a lot to absorb. Yes, you can hit ‘reply’ when my Substack is mailed to you and it will come back directly to me. If they’re pdf docs available on the web, the best way is posting them in the comments because there are many people following these threads and some who come later and read the comments. You can also link to your comments, although I’m not sure how to do that for Unz. Substack’s comment format is the best I’ve seen for productive conversations. My recent one on this topic is here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/gottfried-feder.