“My ruminations on the role race played in Sam [Francis]’s writings set off an explosion which still has debris falling around me.”
…by Jonas E. Alexis, VT Editor
It has been said that E. Michael Jones is a “one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.” If you are familiar with his work, then you can see why this statement is quite interesting.
Throughout his writings, Jones has always challenged readers to think through metaphysical issues seriously. No philosophical or intellectual project, he argues, is possible without moral law. “The intellectual life is a function of the moral life of the thinker,” he writes.
“In order to apprehend truth, which is the goal of the intellectual life, one must live a moral life. One can produce an intellectual product, but to the extent that one prescinds from living the moral life, that product will be more a function of internal desire—wish fulfillment, if you will than external reality. This is true of any intellectual field and any deeply held desire. In the intellectual life, one either conforms desire to truth or truth to desire.”
Jones has also taken the metaphysical principles upon which our culture is based and showed that they are existentially unlivable. Because of these issues, some of his detractors have called him “a flame-throwing author” who has no “decorum.”
After one heated debate with a well-known individual on a very important issue, Jones told me that “talking to [that man] was like talking to an ATM machine.” Why? Because the man did not want to follow the logic of his own metaphysical principle and realize that it was historically and intellectually vacuous.
Many racialists despise Jones because he does not subscribe to their ideology. Back in 2007, the National Press Club invited him to speak and reflect on Sam Francis’ death, and sure enough, Jones brought the whole house down. “Everybody in the room got the look of horror on their face,” he said. He put his intellectual back against the wall and began to knock people out by exploring the ideology of being white.
Being white, Jones wrote later, is an ideology that basically keeps people like Jared Taylor of the American Renaissance enslaved and which allows organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center to get the upper hand in the ideological war. Peter Brimelow of Vdare.com was furious about what Jones had articulated. Jones recounted:
“My ruminations on the role race played in Sam [Francis]’s writings set off an explosion which still has debris falling around me. Most of the howling came from Peter Brimelow, editor of the vdare website and author of Alien Nation: Common Sense about America’s Immigration Disaster.”
Brimelow said then of the event:
“CSpan was there, but VDARE.COM readers probably won’t get to watch the conference because of an extraordinary performance by E. Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars and a prize specimen even by the standards of my lifelong study of characters on the American Right.
“Jones denounced Elizabethan England, Puritans, capitalism, Protestants, ‘revolutionary Jews’ (but not all Jews, he was quite nuanced) and, for good measure, the idea that race matters or that America was ever a nation. I like Catholic bigots as much as anyone else, but this had nothing to do with anything Sam Francis ever wrote – except where it actually contradicted his views. Sam felt bitter that he never had the recognition he deserved while he was alive. Jones ensured that he won’t get it now that he’s dead.”
“It is a rare and disedifying sight to see a grown man so consumed by fear, but here was Peter Brimelow absolutely petrified. And what was he afraid of? That someone might have photographed him standing next to E. Michael Jones! In the immediate aftermath of the conference, Mr. Brimelow professed to be appalled by my talk, which is his right. The really funny part came later in the same communication when he announced that “I can’t be associated with anything in which that speech is featured [or] . . . to be in any photographs or material of any kind in which Jones is present.” (I had to edit his original text because fear evidently rendered his syntax incoherent.)
“Now that is serious fear. Unfortunately, it was a bit too late to do anything about it. On page 2 of a brochure handed out by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation on the day of the conference, there we are—Peter Brimelow and I—cheek by jowl, pictures and all, right next to each other. It’s not quite the usual press club deal with the two of us arm in arm the one receiving a plaque from the other, but you got the impression that Peter Brimelow felt this was career-ending material, and there wasn’t a damn thing that Peter Brimelow could do about it. Hence, the terror.
“That impression was strengthened when Peter Brimelow’s lawyer contacted conference organizer Fran Griffin on the Tuesday following the talk. In one of those chilling missives that only lawyers know how to write, Fran Griffin, who is a woman by the way, (Why do people like Peter Brimelow beat up on women for things they did not say?) was informed that she must respect Peter Brimelow’s “right of publicity and exclude his speech and any reference to his conference participation from any publication that includes Dr. Jones’s speech.” (As some indication of the sort of association which Mr. Brimelow does not fear, his v-dare site has links to the Zionist fanatic Daniel Pipes.)”
“Fran Griffin’s response was suffused with a common sense notably absent from the hysterical response of Peter Brimelow and his pit bull lawyer: ‘If Peter Brimelow is so worried about Jones, he should take the advice I gave him last Tuesday: ignore Jones, don’t mention Jones, don’t complain about Jones, pretend Jones doesn’t exist. This is the most sensible thing he could have done. If he is worried about Jones, why is he linking himself with him? Why is he giving his readers worldwide a chance to Google him by mentioning him and outlining his complaints against him (see the transcript from V-dare below)? This makes no sense. Has Peter ever spoken at a symposium before where he disagreed with a speaker? Or does he always agree 100% with every speaker at every forum he attends?’”
“She then brought up the fact that I might be offended by Brimelow’s tactless joke about burning crosses and the Ku Klux Klan. So let me go on record at this point and say, that Peter Brimelow need have no fear that my lawyer is going to contact him for the offense of being in the same room with me or cracking tactless jokes that the overwhelming majority of American citizens would find offensive. If, however, a photo of the two of us comes into my possession, he can take it off my hands by leaving $10,000 in unmarked bills at the foot of the Washington Monument at a time to be mutually agreed upon.”
Jones’ talk indeed created a firestorm of controversy because the racialists, like those who believe that Jewish behavior is genetic, didn’t want to be challenged. They love to be comfortable; they love to compliment each other; they love to pretentiously use “science” in order to advance a morally repugnant idea; they do not want to hear that their ideology is historically and intellectually incoherent. They are so blind that they cannot see that the Powers That Be can use them for ideological purposes.
For example, take Ann Coulter, who actually praised Peter Brimelow in the acknowledgments of her book Adios, America! Coulter keeps talking about immigration and all that hoopla but she brazenly supports the total disaster in Iraq even after scholars of various stripes completely abandoned the lies and fabrications that were used to perpetuate the war in the first place. Even Neocon Jonah Goldberg declared that the Iraq war was “a worthy mistake,” an illogical statement that shows that Goldberg was still living in a fantasy world.
But Coulter could not even concede the idea that the war was a mistake. In fact, she wrote one book after another railing against those who criticized the war. In 2005 Coulter was running around like a marionette saying things like this:
“Bush uttered the indisputably true fact that British intelligence believed Saddam Hussein had tried to acquire uranium from Africa.”
“Liberals are now pretending that their position all along was that Saddam had secretly disarmed in the last few years without telling anyone.”
Even after one scholarly study after another was being published meticulously documenting how the Neoconservatives and the Bush administration deliberately manipulated the evidence, Coulter was again saying crazy things in 2013 such as “The magnificently successful Iraq War has been rewritten as a failure” by the so-called Left. And then this:
“Contrary to liberals’ bizarro-world alternative history, Americans didn’t turn against Bush over the Iraq War. We had won, executed a dictator, presided over democratic elections, and killed loads of al Qaeda fighters.”
When it was widely reported that soldiers were committing sodomy at Abu Ghraib, Coulter declared: “I suffered more just listening to the endless repetition of those Abu Ghraib stories than the actual inmates ever did.”
Coulter proves to be an agent of the Powers That Be when she said that “the CIA’s taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did….Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare…He wept he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by ‘nationalizing’ the oil as well, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.”
She had to distort the entire history of the 1953 coup in Iran in order to come up with crazy statements like this. Coulter was advocating perpetual wars in the Middle East, which we all know by now have destroyed nations and families, but at the same time, she is adamant about Muslims coming to the United States!
Coulter does know better. In fact, she got so tired of the Republican Party kissing Israel’s boots that she declared two years ago: “How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?” She had more interesting things to say: “How to get applause from GOP donors: 1) Pledge to start a war 2) Talk about job creators 3) Denounce abortion 4) Cite Reagan 5) Cite Israel…. How about Huckabee, Rubio, Kasich, etc talk about Israel’s sturdy and effective border fence?“Cruz, Huckabee Rubio all mentioned ISRAEL in their response to: ‘What will AMERICA look like after you are president.’”
Coulter basically had to beg for mercy in order to be accepted by the Neocon Klan again. She had to declare over and over that she was “pro-Semitic.”
I say all this because people like Coulter are under the spell of a wicked ideology, and any wicked ideology leads to an internal contradiction, moral perversity, and intellectual dishonesty. Jones seems to see the same dishonesty in organizations like the American Renaissance. This is a short version of his view.
E. Michael Jones: John Sharpe is being demonized by the character assassins at the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-Semite because he attended an American Renaissance conference. Yet, if we log on to the SPLC website and type American Renaissance into their search engine, we find that the SPLC has good things to say about that racist organization.
In fact, a quick search of the SPLC website informs us that AR president Jared Taylor is “an opponent of anti-Semitism.” Shawn Mercer, the man in charge of the American Renaissance’s web discussion group, we are told, “deletes most postings excoriating the Jews.”
This only confirms what we have learned from other sources. In an obit on Sam Francis which appeared in the American Conservative, we were told that Jared Taylor wanted to do for white nationalism what William F. Buckley did for conservatism. And what is that? Well, to subvert it in the interests of the Jews. One of the entries at the SPLC site claims that “It is well known that the American Renaissance does not allow anti-Semitism; it is uptown, 100% clean WN [white nationalism]. Call it the first step if you like, but it is a very important first step, and Jared Taylor has had success.”
Success in what? The dirty secret of “uptown” racism is that it offers cover to revolutionaries by claiming that Jews are white—hence Sam’s question, hence the uproar my exploration of that question caused among the “uptown” race crowd. As I said in my talk, the real armature of the culture wars is ethnic, not racial. The American Renaissance is exactly what John Sharpe said it was, although not quite in the way that he intended. The American Renaissance is the white man’s version of the NAACP, which is to say, one more organization that manipulates the race issue in the interests of the revolutionary Jews.
The main purpose of the American Renaissance is to convince deracinated Protestants that Jews are white, and, therefore, no threat to their interests. In obscuring the problem by playing the race card, the American Renaissance engages in cultural mystification every bit as much as the NAACP and the Black Panthers, two Jewish-run operations, did before them. In obscuring the real nature of the culture wars, white nationalism becomes a form of political control and a worthy successor to the Jewish-led black operation known as conservatism. No wonder the race crowd was upset with my talk.
The race crowd, it turns out, was more upset by my talk than the Jews. Even though I identified the revolutionary Jew as our enemy, I made it clear that insofar as he follows Logos, the Jew is not our enemy. If the Jew accepts the Higher Logos known as Catholic Christianity, he is not only not our enemy, he is one of us.
Throughout history, Jews have rejected the rejection of Logos, and when they did one of the first things they proposed was burning the Talmud. When Joseph Pfefferkorn converted to Catholicism in 1507, he gave expression to his new-found zeal for the faith by wanting to burn the Talmud, and the Cologne Dominicans supported him in his desire.
Nothing much has changed since then. The chattering class both then (i.e., Erasmus and the humanists) and now was distinguished not so much by their love for the Jews as by their skepticism about the efficacy of baptism to change Jewish DNA, as if that were the issue. Both then and now, the Jews who followed Logos and the Jewish converts to the higher Logos saw that racism deprived the Jew of both his reason and his humanity. He was nothing more than a function of his wicked DNA, which baptism could not change and which Logos could not touch.
So what I said in my talk about the Jewish subversion of the civil rights movement and the Jewish attempt to turn the Negro into the revolutionary vanguard in the United States is a fortiori true of white racism. The SPLC supports “uptown” racism of the American Renaissance variety, because the SPLC, like the NAACP before it, is an essentially Jewish organization. Supporting “uptown” racism absolves the revolutionary Jew of any responsibility in the culture wars by giving them the cover of being “white,” and once they are certified as white, they are certified as “good” because of their DNA. How anyone can believe this mumbo jumbo is beyond me. If you want a more detailed explanation, I suggest that you contact Jared Taylor.
So, the answer to the question Sam Francis posed and which began my talk, “Are Jews white?” is yes. Jews are white in the eyes of the American Renaissance, and as a result the SPLC, which is a Jewish organization, which is ostensibly against racism, supports them in their efforts to redefine Jews out of the cultural equation. Once race becomes the all-important issue, Jews disappear from the radar screen because, well, because they are not black.
John Sharpe, on the other hand, who is being attacked because he is Catholic and upholds the traditional Catholic position on the Jews are demonized as an anti-Semite because of his tenuous association with a group, American Renaissance, which the SPLC goes out of its way to certify as not anti-Semitic.
Is that clear? No? If it isn’t, it’s because guilt by association is fundamentally irrational. It is the hallmark of a group of people who derive their identity from hatred of Logos. Insofar as we embrace the Logos, we are absolved from these fears…The more we embrace the light, the less we will be kept in the dark by the deliberate manipulation of racial doctrines whose purpose is to keep us all divided, confused, and full of fear.
First published in July 2017.
 E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2012), 15.
 Michael W. Cuneo, The Smoke of Satan: Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 40.
 E. Michael Jones, “Guilt by Association,” Culture Wars, May 2007. The entire article can be accessed online for free.
 Jonah Goldberg, “Iraq Was a Worthy Mistake,” LA Times, October 19, 2006.
 Coulter should know that the war sent a six-trillion-dollar bill to the American people. Ernesto Londono, “Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion,” Washington Post, March 28, 2013; Bob Dreyfuss, The $6 Trillion Wars,” The Nation, March 29, 2013; “Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study,” Huffington Post, May 14, 2013; Mark Thompson, “The $5 Trillion War on Terror,” Time, June 29, 2011; “Iraq war cost: $6 trillion. What else could have been done?,” LA Times, March 18, 2013.
 Ann Coulter, How to Talk to Liberal (If You Must) (New York: Random House, 2005), 9.
 Ibid., 16.
 Ann Coulter, Never Trust a Liberal Over 3-Especially a Republican (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2013), 3.
 Ibid., 16-17.
 Ann Coulter, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans (New York: Crown Forum, 2007).
 Coulter, Never Trust a Liberal, 164.
 For a study of what truly took place, see for example Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2003 and 2008); Ervand Abrahamian, The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the Roots of Modern U.S.-Iranian Relations (New York: The New Press, 2015).
 “Ann Coulter Accuses Republican Candidates of Pandering to ‘F—ing Jews,’” Haaretz, September 17, 2015.
 Alexis: This is so true. This was probably one reason why Jewish astrophysicist Michael Hart supported the American Renaissance. Listen to this: “While white separatism is often associated with anti-Semitism, Hart, who is a Jew, says Jews would have little to fear in a white separatist state since by an large white Americans have treated Jews fairly and would continue to do so in an ethnically based state in which whites are the majority.”
During an American Renaissance conference, Hart was even proposing that the United States be divided into four states: “a black state, a white state, an Hispanic state, and an integrated/mixed-race state.” Carol M. Swain and Russ Nieli, eds., Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 185.
Hart got a short but heated conflict with David Duke himself when Duke mentioned that “There is a power in the world that dominates our media, influences our government and that has led to the internal destruction of our will and our spirit.” Duke was obviously referring to the Zionist power. Shortly after Duke made the statement, Hart “rose from his seat, strode toward Duke, spit out a curse — ‘You f…ing Nazi, you’ve disgraced this meeting’ — and exited.” Jonathan Tilove, “White Nationalist Conference Ponders Whether Jews and Nazis Can Get Along,” Jewish Daily Forward, March 3, 2006.
The Jewish Daily Forward recounted: “As it happens, only a few minutes earlier Hart, a mainstay of American Renaissance conferences, had been trying to reassure Herschel Elias, a first-time attendee from suburban Philadelphia, that he should not let his observation that the meeting was ‘infiltrated by Nazis and Holocaust deniers’ ruin his impression of American Renaissance. ‘The speakers aren’t Nazis,’ Hart assured him. ‘Jared isn’t a Nazi.’”
Do you see what’s going on? Jones was right about Jared Taylor. This is again from the Jewish Daily Forward: “From the start, he has been trying to de-Nazify the movement and draw the white nationalist circle wider to include Jews of European descent.” Take it from Taylor himself: “Ultimately, for all the things I care about to happen, Jews must be part of the movement.” Listen to the Jewish Daily Forward on how the American Renaissance was blessed:
“Four of the 10 speakers were Jewish at the first conference in 1994 in Atlanta, including New York writer Lawrence Auster and City College philosophy professor Michael Levin. The after-dinner speaker that year was Rabbi Mayer Schiller, a teacher at Yeshiva University High School for Boys who believes in racial separatism. Schiller brought a cadre of yeshiva students with him. Kosher dinners were provided.”
Taylor himself meant it when he said: “I don’t think that Jews are by any means our enemy as a group. We have many Jewish friends in this room right here. They have been part of the work of the American Renaissance right from the beginning. I think our eyes should be opened, and I think we should judge individuals one by one.”
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.