E. Michael Jones

[Anonymous No.16748526]

Where should I start?

[Anonymous No.16748533]

The Gospel of John

[Anonymous No.16748542]

>>16748526
I hear people type EMJ as an introverted entp, but then I hear others say he's an intj.

What do you guys think?

[Anonymous No.16748557]

>>16748526
I listened to him on the TekWars podcast, been reading his book Libido Dominandi Sexual Liberation and Political Control

I think its pretty accessible to a lay man like myself that doesn't have /lit tier knowledge and reading habits. He seems to have a slant towards defense of religion which I am sure he has good reasons for he just doesn't illustrate them in this book. I am only 100 pages in, maybe he explains this more later or did in another book. If you read Bronze Age Mindset this book couples well with it.

[Anonymous No.16748580]

>>16748542
I am entp, from one podcast I listened to he seems more like an intj .He speaks well but doesn't seek to entertain and argue which I think entp's do. He didn't seem to want to argue for the sake of argument. He is very well read, entps like to use intuition more and can gloss over details. He is very detailed oriented.

[Anonymous No.16748610]

Something odd about this guy. Lots of extremely long books. And that face? Seems based and Godpilled though.

[Anonymous No.16748621]

>>16748557
Libido Dominandi is based as hell and completely irrefutable

[Anonymous No.16748644]

E Micheal Jones is a gay man

[Anonymous No.16748774]

>>16748621
Ya for the most part it makes sense, its mostly history. His take on the Enlightenment affects on morality seem to be missing something... From what I gather its like children finding out their is no Santa , they figure why behave well at all anymore, so they murder their parents. I'm being hyperbolic of course but my point being it seemed like euro civilizations didn't know how to cope with new knowledge and were led astray by bad actors using this new knowledge to dismantle all the traditional morality. He goes hard on Marquis de Sade which was really interesting to see that this is the basis of the whole of modern leftism sexual revolution. His whole point is Newtonian physics led to a materialistic and causality description of life and thus no freedom/freewill. We aren't really responsible for our actions. I may be mixed up with Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris debate about morality.

I feel like he is making the argument that these scientific endeavors describing the nature of our universe, ultimately are destructive to a moral society.

[Anonymous No.16748786]

>>16748621
Libido Dominandiis 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 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’sHumanum Genusoperates 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 ofDas 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.

[Anonymous No.16748791]

>>16748786
An 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.

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 herSexual 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.16748798]

>>16748786
It is Sade who Jones tries to shoehorn in most often. He suggests that the de-mastication of the Princess de Lamballe at the hands of an angry mob was in part due to the dissemination of Sade’s work. Bunk!—would Jones suggest that the sodomizing of Col. Qaddafi at the hands of Muslims was influenced by Eva Ensler? Even in his day, Sade was a literary and intellectual mediocrity. Chesterton makes the point that Nietzcheans have existed all throughout history; the only difference between those Nietzscheans and Nietzsche himself is that only moderns were so foolish as to take the man seriously. The same with Sade. He was a talentless buffoon with a rapport to the dark undercurrents of human nature; nothing he says is particularly interesting, but for the fact that Sade was able to get away with saying it was. And yet the Marquis de Sade, who for all his inadequacy as a thinker and writer, is, as Ms. Paglia says, one of the most influential figures of the past 200 years. To understand why this particular pervert was able to gain a following is a worthwhile task. Trying to understand the pervert himself is not. And anyway, the ideas proposed by Sade—that the populace must promote sexual license in order to remain revolutionary—was not actually tried until the 20th Century—but more on that below.

Paglia is interested in the intellectual undercurrents behind the sexual revolution in a way Jones is not. Even if Paglia’s assessments are wrong, she at least attempts to give a unifying idea—an overarching story rather than a bunch of vignettes. Freud once suggested his method of psychoanalysis was used to exploit his clients (Jones, in his weak style, uses the same quote countless times); when discussing Margaret Sanger, he states that her opinions about birth controlresemblethe statement by Freud. This is nothing but a weak literary comparison between two people whose thoughts were greatly different. What could be the jumping-off point to a sociologically-complex theory is merely lame editorializing, pattern spotting, and name dropping.

Perhaps Paglia’s absence is a bugaboo of mine. Worse is Dr. Jones’s elision of Sorokin’s work. Sorokin, a reactionary a sociologist at Harvard, charted the decay of sexual morality in the West and elsewhere and accurately described the relationship between decaying sexual morality and the decay of society as a whole. His work is all but forgotten now—Mary Eberstadt is responsible for making me aware of his books—but it’s hard to think of another academic who could provide so much grist to Jones’s intellectual mill.

[Anonymous No.16748803]

>>16748786
But upon closer reflection, it becomes clear why Sorokin is not given a prominent role in this work—much of Sorokin’s analysis is so similar to Jones’s, and so much better documented and argued, that Jones can’t help suffer by comparison. For example, Sorokin actually delves into the state of marriage laws at the beginning of the French Revolution and elsewhere. From the perspective of a scholar, Jones’s elision of this topic is unforgivable. Marriage laws provide an excellent barometer of a society’s opinions about sex and the family. But again, Jones’s scant bibliography leaves his general theory with nothing but interconnected anecdotes as support.

Bad writing, poor scholarship. But how does Jones’s thesis as a whole stand up? Not all that well. Jones, in his salutary hatred for the Enlightenment, cannot draw a distinction between the Behaviorist who was truly a product of Enlightenment ideology, and Sadism, which was not.

Take the Bolshevik Revolution, the Enlightenment’s crowning achievement. In the early 20s, the Bolsheviks used sexual liberation as a cudgel against the ruling elite, and the Soviets liberalized marriage laws, decriminalized homosexuality, and in general made the nation a hotbed of sexual decadence (Jones dedicates a whole chapter to this). But as Sorokin notes (as does Jones—a credit to his honesty though not his ability to follow through with a thought), by the time Stalin came to power, sexual liberation had been condemned by the ruling Communists, with sexual immorality being seen as harmful to the nascent socialist state. In other words, insofar as sexuality had played a role in the initial overthrow of the Romanovs, the powers of sex had been curtailed by the time the Communists were solidifying their power. Most good Marxists will claim that Stalin’s plans were a betrayal of the Old Master’s conception of socialism, and that by the time of Stalin’s reforms in the 20s and 30s, the “revolution” was over. But this is self-serving; Lenin and the NEP were far more conservative, insofar that it slowed the progress of state ownership to the benefit of wealthy landowners and peasants, than Stalin’s massive land redistribution and industrialization. The revolution (tainted or not) continued into the 20s and 30s. But in readopting marriage norms and recriminalizing the perverse, by the time of Stalin’s purges,the sexual revolution in the USSR had ended.

[Anonymous No.16748808]

>>16748786
Stalin’s return to sexual conservatism saved the Soviet Union. Witness its experience in the 30s and 40s—no nation has ever been subjected to such incessant turmoil, upheaval, and slaughter. And yet the population and economic statistics in the 50s and 60s were healthy. Why was this? Because Soviet women took it upon themselves to bear and raise children. For all the drastic changes which occurred following the revolution, the women never lost sight of their sexual significance to their families and—yes—to the state. It was this commitment to sexual normalcy that saved the Soviet Union. Amazingly, it was not until the imposition of capitalism that Russian birthrates plummeted to suicidal levels.

That was Russia, but the same story played out in revolutionary France. The libertine atmosphere of the early Revolution died out quickly. By the time Robespierre rose to power, sexual liberation was not a philosophy of the ruling government. English liberals may still have held onto pipe dreams of open marriages and orgies, but the revolutionary government certainly did not. Robespierre inveighed against atheists and wantons as fervently than a pope; go to nearly any of his speeches and try to find that does not put great emphasis on public virtue. Nowhere are Sade’s perversions evident in the Terror government or its successors; truly, even the liberal madmen who composed the French government were sane enough to lock up Sade. Virtue, not sexual vice, was what the revolutionary leaders wanted from their subjects.

Was the Russian revolution an outgrowth of the French Revolution and Enlightenment? Assuredly so. But the unifying thread was a belief in the prefectability of man. Sexual liberation was used as a tool of the revolution, but not as a tool of the government. Jones seems to suggest that liberal/Enlightenment government innately desires to use its subjects sexual desires as part of its ruling philosophy. But the facts just don’t back this up. Jones’s thinking in this regard is fatally muddled.

[Anonymous No.16748818]

>>16748786
To put it simply, Jones is not able to draw a distinction between Malthus, who studied the sexual habits of a population in order to better the material prosperity of its members, and Sade, the anarchist. Malthus is a man of the Enlightenment; Sade is a character from human prehistory. The behaviorists and eugenicists were sex rationalists like Sanger, Watson, and the Rockefellers may have had their sexual failures (Jones doles out stories of these rather too readily), but Freud, Reich, and Kinsey were clearly of another breed—modern Sadists. These two programs are not the same. The Eugenicists and birth controllers had serious, broad political programs in line with the liberal state; the Sadists did not.

Sadism is not a ruling philosophy. It is innately revolutionary, but has no power to govern. Part of its attraction to the New Left is in this revolutionary character. The lament of the leftists—the true leftist, who has revolution in his blood even when he has nothing to revolt against—is that beautiful insurgencies must inevitably become ruling parties. Thus the Trotskyite calls for “eternal revolution,” desiring to keep the springs of leftism flowing. This is impossible, of course; the closest a ruling regime ever came to this was in Mao’s disastrous Cultural Revolution. Regardless, the Trotskyite knew that the key retaining Bolshevism from turning into Stalinism was this “eternal revolution.” Sade's position comes close to this: that “the revolutionary state must promote sexual license if it is to remain revolutionary and retain its hold on power.” (p. 57). Of course, this is contradictory—a state that is revolutionary is one that is by definition not holding onto its power. Sadism is the fruit of a madman; but to put Sadists in power is a death wish.

This is the fascinating question: How did the rationalistic sexual regime of the first sexual revolutionaries transform into the wholly Sadist regime regnant in all levels of American culture? How has the Sadist impulse, which is eternally anarchic and revolutionary, come to be tolerated by the ruling class?

[Anonymous No.16748823]

>>16748786
ones gives us little towards answering this question. Unable to differentiate the sexual rationalists from the Sadists, he gives us little as to why we are mired in our current state of insanity. Indira Gandhi and the Chinese Communists promoted birth control; this doesn’t mean they promoted homosexuality and other ghastly perversions. Yes, they treated their citizens like rabbits, but from a Benthamite perspective, they could make an honest claim that they were benefiting the welfare of their citizenry. The means may have been oppressive, but the ends were rational and utilitarian. Malthus and Sanger would approve of everything but the skin pigments.

Compare this to modern Western Europe and North America. The “heights” of sexual gratification are wholly separated from the generative act—masturbation, anal sex, oral sex, and the like—and so births fall far below replacement rates. Unsexed demons are granted the civil right to expose themselves next to children, sexually deviant men given the right to undress amongst women, and the devious sodomite is allowed to corrupt every institution and poison every tradition: Sodomites in the Church rape children; sodomites in the County Attorney’s office prosecute the Church—change the institution, repeat.

The American ruling class is not subject to the worst depredations of this increasing perversion—the proliferation of prostitutes and surrogate parenthood among the lower classes shows how the sexual slavery of the poor will proceed—and yet the ruling class sends its children to schools that teach the same filth. The elder-day Rockefellers forced their sexual oppression on the sons of the poor; the modern-day Rockefellers are content to turn their sons into daughters and their daughters into whores. It is not as if the lower classes were ruled by a Behaviorist ruling class anymore; Sadism runs all the way through.

[Anonymous No.16748826]

>>16748786
One cannot understand the modern world without having a theory of suicide. Why are we slowly and intractably killing ourselves—letting our children be mutilated, our women defiled, every institution corrupted? Malcolm Muggeridge called this the “great liberal death wish;” no closed conspiracy of Illuminati or Jew, but an open adoption of self-hatred. The poison of the Enlightenment regimented and etiolated all man’s pleasures of life, from religion to art to childrearing; enslaved him to the state. The materialist is beggared in trying to describe the effects of these changes; the spiritual wounds are captured best in our rising suicide rates; more than this in our television and pornography consumption. Of course, the Enlightenment could not help but ruin sex as well. The unitive component of sex is destroyed by latex—man is so fragile compared to women, who require the complete corruption of their reproductive organs! Sex is no longer perilous. And the one death-defying (le petit morte,), heroic act decent men could perform with regularity has been turned to a rote messiness, closer to a bowel movement than a transcendental act.

This is another contradictory truth Jones cannot grasp: The problem of the modern sexual regime is that peopledo not enjoy sex enough! The regime imposes great suppression on its subjects; men and women are only allowed to enjoy sex so much. It would actually be an improvement if men were allowed to follow their libidos away from latex; if they were allowed to guide their fat, masculine girlfriends away from the pill. In the West, there is no oppressive regime as in China, no forced sterilizations as in India—but of course, this would require turning those girlfriends into wives… And meanwhile Western women despise the elements of their womanhood not conducive to male pleasure. They shave their pubic hair, mutilate their pudenda, despise the effects of childbirth, and contort their maternal impulses towards serving the state—witness the army of elementary teachers, social workers, youth ministers, medical caretakers: motherhood grafted onto the technostate. If women were to assert the rights they have had since Eve, our regime would break down. Why don’t they?

Libido Dominandishould be a much better work. My anticipation of it was great; I yearned for a manifesto to stand like a beacon among the ocean of dross and squalor of the modern day. What I got was a poorly written, poorly researched, poorly argued, overpriced, oversized disappointment. Some of the stories are valuable—from the number of footnotes, Reich’s work seems more essential than Jones’s—yet the book as a whole is not worth the effort. E Michael Jones is a crank. There are nuggets hidden in these 600 pages which are useful in combating the modern regime of sexual anarchy, but I wanted a cannon.

[Anonymous No.16748838]

>>16748786
>>16748791
>>16748798
>>16748803
>>16748808
>>16748818
>>16748823
>>16748826
ain't no one gonna read all that shit nigga

[Anonymous No.16748857]

>>16748838
>allegedly read Jones mammoth of a tome libido dominandi
>can't read a few pages reviewing it

[Anonymous No.16748863]

>>16748526
EMJ is quite possibly the most important Catholic alive.

[Anonymous No.16748867]

>>16748863
My mom is pretty important to me

[Anonymous No.16749029]

>>16748786
I thought it was kinda of a mess too, but figured it was cause I got a hacked version, or I was just dumb and or bad reading comprehension. I had an intuition something was off.

[Anonymous No.16749034]

>>16748867
Wholesome.

[Anonymous No.16749042]

>>16748838
I just read it all, and glad I had some place to come and read a review of it. Cant talk to anyone I know about it because who the fuck reads.

[Anonymous No.16749085]

>>16748526
He's just a racist jordan peterson, absolute retard

[Anonymous No.16749188]

>>16749085
leftoid moment

[Anonymous No.16749245]

>>16749085
Despite being ridiculously antisemitic, he actually gets a lot of hate for not being racist. He's a Catholic so he views history through the lens of the Church as opposed to one racial group against another

[Anonymous No.16749403]

Every single time.