E Michael Jones' books

[Anonymous No.13972848]

Has anyone read any of his books?

I was interested in Barren Metals but it's $70 off of his site

[Anonymous No.13972852]

>>13972848
B-ok. There are some of his books.
I read only OP, it's okay. I don't like how he writes but it's well documented and an interesting read

[Anonymous No.13972880]

I'm subbed to his culture wars magazine and it's fucking class. Not read any of his books yet but I think I'm gonna pick up OPs pic related and slaughter of cities later on this year.
Also, waiting for his new book on Logos.

[Anonymous No.13972888]

Good intro to the JQ for christcucks but gets a lot wrong because christcuck.

[Anonymous No.13972903]

>>13972888
>tips fedora

[Anonymous No.13972941]

>>13972848
This nigger is literally a Hack. Also, christian puritans and tradcaths are pure poison.

[Anonymous No.13973014]

>>13972941
Looks like you've been insulted by the truth.

[Anonymous No.13973021]

>>13973014
ok

[Anonymous No.13973028]

>>13973021
Show us your argument against this man.

[Anonymous No.13973030]

>>13973028
Not him but literally everything he says is made up and he presents it in the most autistic way possible.

[Anonymous No.13973035]

>>13973030
>an argumentative reply

[Anonymous No.13973038]

it's trash hahahaha one of the worst book I've ever read. Amateur level writing, he sets up everything with personal anecdotes, goes off on tangents etc... Trash.

[Anonymous No.13973043]

and it's pure protestant moralizing, irrelevant really. Could've been written from an other perspective, intellectual this time, but no.

[Anonymous No.13973047]

>>13972888
>>13972941
>>13973021
>>13973030
>>13973038
>>13973043
Glow in the dark.

[Anonymous No.13973049]

>>13973047
If anything, it's Jones who has alphabet soup written all over himself. He's like a catholic Brother Nathanael.

[Anonymous No.13973052]

>>13973043
>protestant moralizing
How do I know you've never read this book?
Emj is a Catholic.

[Anonymous No.13973056]

>>13973049
Oh, really? And what is his endgame? Promoting traditional Catholic morality is definitely subversive.

[Anonymous No.13973061]

Absolute shit book

[Anonymous No.13973067]

>>13973061
>7 posters, 17 replies
Didn't know /lit/ was on the CIA list.

[Anonymous No.13973068]

>>13973067
what? that was my first reply to the thread

[Anonymous No.13973074]

>>13973049
the book is literally about the elite redirecting the will of the common man away from their high level politics.

[Anonymous No.13973078]

>>13973068
Pics of copy of your book with timestamp.

[Anonymous No.13973098]

>>13973078
Based defender of Internet discourse

[Anonymous No.13973481]

>>13972941

[Anonymous No.13973488]

>>13972848
Libido Dominandi is the first draft of a great work. As it is, it is a failure, suffering from shoddy writing, poor research, and a wandering and inconsistent thesis. What should be an erudite and compelling polemic against the the sexual revolution—Western culture’s death knell—is an inconsistent and often unreadable mess.

A bird’s-eye view of Jones’s thesis—that our inability to control our sexual drive has been used for the purpose of political suppression—is beyond reproach. Of course, Catholic leaders have been saying the same thing for years. Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus operates as a rough outline of the book, beginning with Augustine’s distinctions between the City of Man and the City of God, and going on to condemn freemasonry. Who know if Jones himself was actually aware of his debt?

Regardless, Jones is not exactly marking new ground here. For this book to be worthwhile, it must function as a polemic which inspires the vanguard, and provides grist for later scholars. Dr. Jones’s work does neither. I was hoping for a traditionalist version of Das Kapital, but instead got a book that was barely worth finishing, let alone carrying into the trenches.

First and foremost, his writing is very, very poor. The overall structure of the book—jumping from year to year, place to place, vignette to vignette—makes it hard to follow intellectual rather than a thematic elements. Given the fact that the book’s thesis is nebulous and has a tendency to change as Jones goes along (more on that below), reading the book is a major slog.

A inquiring reader can jump to any given page to witness Jones’s lame writing. More shocking is his plain sloppiness and failure to edit himself. Just one of many many examples: On page 88, the author quotes Abbe Barruel, ending with “for men may be turned into any thing by him who knows how to take advantage of their ruling passion.” ONE PARAGRAPH LATER Jones uses the SAME EXACT QUOTE, except he finishes with the word “passions”—not “passion.” In other words, Jones repeats the exact same argument by using the same quote in succeeding paragraphs—and cannot even get the quoted material right! To call this a first draft is too kind—it is a first draft seemingly written the night before it was due! This is simply unforgivable.

[Anonymous No.13973494]

>>13973481
I'm right-wing and straight and I can't stand altar lickers. Go suck priest cock somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.13973496]

>>13973488
What about the research? A good bibliography may still be helpful even if the prose is abhorrent. But the bibliography of this 600-page behemoth is surprisingly spare, and utilizes discouragingly few primary sources. And from the get-go, I couldn’t help notice two noticeable absences from Jones’s bibliography: Camille Paglia and Pitrim Sorokin.

Paglia is an atheist and a feminist, but like Aldous Huxley before her, she understands conservatism better than most conservatives. Paglia knows the power of sex, and her Sexual Personae, for all its flaws, is one of the most compelling studies of sex ever created, and in Jones’s case could provide an undergirding to the larger theoretical construct. That Jones does not avail himself of Paglia’s work is a sign of weakness; it is here that Jones’s literary inadequacies overlap with his inadequate scholarship.

Let’s start here: Jones has habit of noting tacit connections between his characters rather than connecting the intellectual undercurrents which united them. This method moves along more like a conspiracy theory or a six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon game than scholarship. For example, in the early chapters, Jones repeatedly tries to unite the Marquis de Sade, William Godwin, Abbe Barruel. It really does not work; Jones is forced to use lame narrative devices such as speculating what Mary Wollstonecraft must have been thinking while she trudged through the blood-drenched Paris streets; speculations over how affected Percy and Mary Shelley were by Sade; huge leaps of faith over the effect the good priest Barruel had on later sex perverts. With regards to the English liberals, it is clear that Jones simply does not respect their work enough to learn it and refute it—Paglia's work would serve him well here. More than this, the idea that later sex-mongers were inspired by the Jesuit reactionary Barruel’s is largely speculation; even if it were true, who cares? There are countless secret societies; the question is why the secret societies promoting sexual perversion ended up so popular. Instead of adequately defining the relevant intellectual undercurrents, Jones is reliant on his vignettes and weak editorializing.

[Anonymous No.13973502]

>>13973488
>>13973496
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1906990944

[Anonymous No.13973519]

>>13973488
Given that hitler's actions made germany be sodomized by foreign countries to this day that might be right.

[Anonymous No.13973540]

>>13973496
The guy didn't mention what a lesbian feminist thinks of sex in his book - dismissed.
Very interesting review.

[Anonymous No.13973899]

>>13973540
>this guy mentioned a female - dismissed

Wow the based mind of a discord tradcath

[Anonymous No.13973916]

>>13973899
Female=feminist lesbian in this day and age.

[Anonymous No.13973982]

>>13973916
Crrrrriiiiiinge

[Anonymous No.13974050]

>>13973982
Dilaaaaaate