malemp
321.2K
01:00:42
(Archive) Libido Dominandi: Lust, Power, & Control. E Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars magazine, is interviewed on his book Libido Dominandi and its sequel Monsters from the Id. (2007)More
(Archive) Libido Dominandi: Lust, Power, & Control.
E Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars magazine, is interviewed on his book Libido Dominandi and its sequel Monsters from the Id. (2007)
Ultraviolet
"It is clear that you have no interest in understanding, no interest in arriving at the truth in this matter." @AngelusMaria
The truth in this matter is E. Michael Jones is a bigot, an anti-Semite, and a failed academic. (more on this last point in juuuust a wee bit.)
Your kind invariably fall back on referring to your beliefs as "the truth" even when they've been shown to be in error.
"You …More
"It is clear that you have no interest in understanding, no interest in arriving at the truth in this matter." @AngelusMaria

The truth in this matter is E. Michael Jones is a bigot, an anti-Semite, and a failed academic. (more on this last point in juuuust a wee bit.)

Your kind invariably fall back on referring to your beliefs as "the truth" even when they've been shown to be in error.

"You consistently misrepresent and choose to ignore the evidence."

I have spent umpteen thousand words going point by point over your "evidence" and refuting both it and your reasoning.

At this point it's fair to say you can take that claim and shove it as far up as it will go.

"You have no interest in truth, only in arguing."

You conflate "truth" with your opinion, as bigots invariably do when they're wrong.

All your kind ever do under these circumstances is go back to making an unsubstantiated claim of factual and moral validity.

It's argumentum ad nauseam, made all the more ridiculous since you present it after your supporting examples and reasoning have been shown to be (respectively) false and fallacious.

I will never change your opinion, I know that.

Your beliefs are untouched by facts or reasoning. No surprises there. You've made a religion out of your false-prophet Jones the way the Muslims did with Mohammed.

I could show a dozen times over where the Quran is historically wrong. It won't change a Muslim's belief that everything Mohammed wrote came directly from Allah through Gibreel.

You are no different except in the errors you've adopted as a religion, one that is in direct opposition with the teachings of The Church today.

While I'll never convert you, I can prevent you from converting others into your foul, heretical parody of the Catholic faith. GTV has a vast readership, hence the time I've spent.

Your claim about my interest is wrong for two other reasons. First, arguing is a means to an end. I don't have an interest in arguing. I have an interest in winning, in beating my opponent and knowing they know it. Kinda like what's happening right... about.. now. :D

I have an interest in this.. Very, very much! :D

Second, I do have an interest in the truth for two additional and complementary reasons. Practically speaking, it's the single best way of making sure I will win.. Bigotry is based on deliberate willful error. It is you who ignore what contradicts your malicious fantasies, your endlessly reflected confirmation-bias. You're no different than a horse wearing blinders, with E. Michael Jones riding on your back, spurring your flanks, whispering in your ears, "jewz, jewz, jewz.." until you're as crazy as he is. The whole world is outside those bigot-blinders and you will never, ever see it.

It is you who misrepresent the truth, you and Jones both. ...and that is why it is you who have lost. Your kind always lose because your position is based on falsehood. Mine is based on truth.

The other reason I favour the truth points back to my original interest. It's good sportsmanship. Tricking an opponent with a falsehood is cheating. Even if you fail to catch it, I would still know and that takes all the joy out of winning. My pride may be a sin, but does produce a powerful conscience.

It is you bigots who cheat and lie. For you and yours, the ends justify the means. You're on a mission, you want ot make converts to your ideology. Your beliefs are foul and un-Christian, so it's understandable why your methods for promoting them are as well.

That simply isn't good enough for me. My pride (and by extension, my conscience) forbids stooping to your level.

~Nemo pervenit qui non legitime certaverit.~ ;-)

Incidentally, I took your advice and began reading Jones' book, "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit". You said (somewhere lost now in acres of text) something to the effect of "give the man a chance to speak for himself".

So I did.

Mind you, I didn't have to. I'd beaten you, I could have just popped open a can of Fanta and sat on my laurels. But I didn't. I was curious what inspired such passion that would motivate you to this extent. You've surpassed the dedication of Islamic scholars in defending their beliefs. You've even eclipsed Star Trek fanboys and I mean the kind who grew up reading Starlog magazine.. I wasn't exaggerating. I've never seen anybody react the way you have here about anything, anywhere.

What my curiosity shows, dear heart, is I DO have an interest in the truth. I read the Quran and the Hadiths for the same reason. Heck, I even sat through Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS) just to see what the fuss was about.

...and so I started reading "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit".

Very early on, Mr. Jones writes this:

"When the Jews rejected Christ, they rejected Logos, and when they rejected Logos, which includes within itself the principles of social order, they became revolutionaries." (p. 15)

That is a direct, annotated, quote and forms the central premise of his (publicly stated) world-view.

..and it is factually, historically wrong.

Jews in the Roman Empire were already "revolutionaries" long before a few of them in Jerusalem rejected Christ. The Jews were "revolutionaries" before Christ was even born. The Jews in Judea had already attempted a revolt against Rome once before in 4 BC. It was suppressed by Publius Quinctilius Varus.

(from wiki)
--The Jewish historian Josephus mentions the swift action of Varus against a messianic revolt in Judaea after the death of the Roman client king, Herod the Great, in 4 BC. After occupying Jerusalem, he crucified 2000 Jewish rebels and may have thus been one of the prime objects of popular anti-Roman sentiment in Judaea (Josephus, who made every effort to reconcile the Jewish people to Roman rule, felt it necessary to point out how lenient this judicial massacre had been). Indeed, at precisely this moment the Jews, nearly en masse, began a full-scale boycott of Roman pottery (Red Slip Ware). Thus, the archaeological record seems to verify mass popular protest against Rome because of Varus' cruelty.--

(From the online Encylopedia Britannica)
--When Judaea rebelled on the death of Herod I the Great (4 bc), Varus marched an army against the insurgents, crushed them, and reestablished direct Roman government.--

Therefore a "Jewish revolutionary spirit" as Mr. Jones titled his book categorically did not occur as a result of rejecting Christ. Jews did not become revolutionaries when they rejected Christ, they already were evolutionaries before Christ. They were revolutionaries who simply wanted Rome off their backs..

History shows that revolutionary spirit clearly predates both the Nativity and the Annunciation. That is a fact. Irrefutable, amply supported by history.That is the truth.

Therefore it is impossible for the so-called "revolutionary spirit" to result from the Jewish leaders at Jerusalem rejecting Christ because it was already present BEFORE Christ. That "Jewish revolutionary spirit" had resulted in one failed revolt against Rome's "principles of social order" already.

Likewise, the very existence of the Roman Empire shows those same "principles of social order" existed before Christ/ Logos. Again, Jones is wrong.

E. Michael Jones' central claim that Jews became revolutionaries when they rejected Christ has thus been disproven.

Yes, I DO have an interest in the truth... enough of an interest to start checking your author's claims against Roman history. So far, history isn't supporting Mr. Jones, that is to say Mr. Jones' claims are not true.

Let's continue, shall we? I'm not done with Mr. Jones. Not just yet. ;-)

If I could sit through your epic posts re-printing page after page from Jones' book, you can do me the courtesy of reading one infinitely shorter reply which is predominantly my own.

"Jews may have become revolutionaries at the foot of the cross, but the full implications of their decision didn't become apparent until 30 years later..." (p. 16)

It so happens, the Jews were not unique in their desire to be free of Rome. If rebelling against Rome is proof Jews became "revolutionaries" as Jones tries to argue, history shows many other peoples were "revolutionaries" as well with an identical "revolutionary spirit".

The Falisci and Fregellae revolts in 241 and 125 BC (respectively) are proof of an "Italian revolutionary spirit". The Bellovaci and Aquitanian revolts in 46, 44, 38 BC proves there's a "Gallic revolutionary spirit." The Thebaid revolt in 30 BC shows an "Egyptian revolutionary spirit". Even the Bulgarians can lay claim to a "revolutionary spirit" thanks to the Vologases Revolt in 13 BC.

Special mention must also be made of the "German revolutionary spirit" shown in the successful revolt of the Frisii in 28 AD. (all cited here on Wiki)

Depending on how closely one correlates the dates, Christ hadn't even started His ministry yet when the German "reovlutionaries" rejected Rome's "principles of social order" and gave the Empire a stinging defeat.

Never mind Jones smug reference to the destruction of the Jewish Temple "30 years later", the "full implications" of the Jews previous revolt were already the backdrop for Pilate's fateful conversation with Christ. Much of their interchange recorded in the Gospels underscores Pilate's concern he was confronting yet another Jewish "revolutionary."

As military governor of Judea, it's a near-certainty he was familiar with the prior revolt under an earlier administrative predecessor. Given the excellence of Roman roads and Roman military communications, it's possible Pilate may have known about the Frisiian revolt and their subsequent victory.

In short, "the revolutionary spirit" Jones describes is common to all people who are under foreign dominion. There's nothing unique about the "revolutionary spirit" possessed by Jews.There is nothing unique about their rejection of "the principals of social order" created by Rome's tyranny and the Pax Romana bred "revolutionaries" nearly everywhere it was implemented.

The Jews were nothing unique. If anything, the Frisii were better "revolutionaries" than the Jews and not a single man among them ever rejected Christ much less even knew of His existence.

More importantly, the rejection of Christ by a small handful of Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalm had absolutely nothing to do with creating a "revolutionary spirit". That spirit was already present: it was present in the Jews, in the Bellovaci, in the Aquitanians, in the Thebans, in the Volgases and in the Frisii.

They were ALL "revolutionaries", they were ALL rejecting Rome's "principles of social order", and they were ALL doing so before Christ's death and in nearly every case (the Frisii, excepted) long before His birth as well..Very likely, the Frisii were joyfully celebrating their independence before Christ even began His Ministry.

History directly contradicts Mr. Jones' historical claim and the argument he derives from it.

Simply put, E. Michael Jones is wrong.. That is truth.