And why the fuck should anyone pay attention to some crusty old Catholic fanatic's insane ramblings?

Yes, of course it's a faulty way of looking at things. My point is that this oppressed/oppressor heuristic is a subversive mechanism that has been imposed upon us as a result of the post-WWII revolution in academia. And it is imposed upon us to such an extent that if substantial and relevant criticisms of groups typically associated with the 'oppressed' in this dynamic are brought forward, juridical censure is not really needed. You'll be kicked out of the academy and circles of polite discourse just as quickly as if what you were saying were against the law.

Because they're not insane. He's a man of erudition.

Your ramblings are insane, though.

I looked him up. His Wikipedia page is scant on details (not a good sign for an "erudite" of any caliber), but does mention this:

So erudite that a university kicked him out for being a fringe lunatic. Hmmm....

Yep totally a sane, rational man~

So sane that he's too fringe for... Bill fucking Donahue? lolol

Ah, but then I checked his website (nice domain name btw), where he peddles some of his articles in PDF (for a modest fee), and I found one where he conflates homosexuality with pedophilia and has charming passages from his totally sane, erudite, rational mind:

Not lesbians and masturbation! The HORROR


Yep, I'm the insane one. Not the guy who wrote, in some incredibly unhinged and meandering rant about Harry Potter, the following gems:

Yes, truly, my feeble mind is probably too insane to grasp the brilliance of this brilliant scholar.

Amazing how you can find stuff like that from almost everyone who goes the "Jews secretly run and destroy the world" way. Like David Icke. Rothschild Zionists run the world, and also, artificial sweeteners cause your brain to turn into a liquid. Like oh, okay, that Jewish world conspiracy bit sounds interesting but unfortunately it seems like you're completely retarded (possibly had sweetener in your coffee.)

Well, I didn't do a Google search. I read three of his books, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, Barren Metal, and Monsters from the Id, and one ebook, the one about Michael Voris that you quoted. Voris is a Catholic who runs a traditionalist news site, who criticized homosexuality and turned out to be one. Anyway, Jones is not a NY Times book review kind of scholar. He's more in line with historians like WT Walsh, so yeah he's going to have a religious perspective. But who else today is writing 1400 page books about the Anabaptist Rebellion, John Dee and Christian Kabbalah, or the conflict within Jewry going on during the German enlightenment? I mean, I'm flipping through his Jewish Revolutionary Spirit right now, reading his chapter on the Revolution of 1848, and it's absolutely fantastic stuff! And his footnotes are as long as one of his chapters. But reading him means reading someone who comes from a certain perspective. But that's where you go for stuff like this. Anybody who writes about pogroms against the Jews in, say, Poland, and conveniently leaves out their obtaining private farms through compounding loans and redirecting grain production to vodka instead of subsistence, thereby causing famine, is also not neutral. You want to believe all of that happened for no reason and anyone who says different is a crank...be my guest, I suppose. It's fucking dumb, though. You should read WT Walsh, you should read E. Michael Jones, and you should read Jews like Yuri Slezkine while you're at it, and dispense with this silly idea that there's such a thing as neutrality.

He was removed from a Catholic college for being against abortion. That led him to question the Sexual Revolution that he felt had taken over the college. He also wrote a book called Libido Dominandi. He provides an interesting example of sexual revolution as political control in the Israelis who took over Ramallah during the Intifada and broadcasted pornography on all the television stations they'd taken over to this population of young Palestinians. He asks, is pornography freedom? Were the Israelis doing this to spread freedom to the Palestinians? Or were they doing this to bring them to heel? How does that lesson apply to us? ...Believe me, if people had such an easy time dismissing him, you would have found a lot more to smear him with on your little Google hunt.

Ah, the chapter on the Jewry.

The whole book's about Jewry, actually.

...and we're done here. https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files ... -Jones.pdf

Off-topic, but the last bit with putting the Vanguard News Network next to far-left was really awkward, the ADL certainly isn't much for writing skills.

Really hard-hitting article until it randomly started conflating homophobia with racism and anti-Semitism and far-right with far-left. Still a really hard-hitting article if you ignore the random confusion, but being randomly confused was just unneccessary to its point.

LOL and there it is! You actually cited the ADL.

The fact that anyone takes the ADL seriously today is staggering, considering they began as a campaign to whitewash the crimes of a convicted child-murderer.

Also, this blurb is a lie. Jones has never justified any acts of violence against Jews. He promotes a Catholic teaching called Sicut Judaeis Non, which expressly forbids that. The quote about the modern world having a Jewish imprint is taken directly from a Jewish author named Yuri Slezkine! He points out the Jewish influence in the Protestant Reformation through the printing of Bibles the Catholic Church had censured, if I remember correctly. He does not say the Reformation was 'orchestrated' by Jews. He also does not say that of the French Revolution, though he goes into detail about the Knights of Jubilation as the proto-Masonic outfit that inspired it. And the Chmielnicki pogroms were a reaction to Jewish tax farming. That's not a justification, but pretty much every historian who has written about it has to deal with that fact in some respect. Reading further, it's true that he regards being anti-Jewish as a kind of Christian obligation, but he also regards the scriptures themselves as anti-Jewish, and not antisemitic. One is a religious category, the other a racial one. The Gospel of John IS anti-Jewish, so he's not wrong. I mean, having read Jones' work, I could go on, but what's the point? It's just a smear piece, and full of distortions, misquotations, and outright lies.

Oh, and...we're done here. LOL

I have this feeling that you all are Gentiles, because you go further in protesting Jewish blamelessness than the Jews themselves (minus the ADL, of course). I mean, even if you read TabletMag or the Forward, you don't see this idea of perpetual Jewish innocence.