Tag Archives: E. Michael Jones

Opus Dei & Gearoid O’Colmain

ICAReviews introduced me to Gearoid O’Colmain, who seems to be a French Irishman, or perhaps an Irish Frenchman, who is at least quasi-Marxist, economically leftist, but critical of much of the “left” and especially anti-natalist ideologies like feminism and homophilia, what he calls “bourgeois sexuality.” (This isn’t unique, of course, it’s standard orthodox Communism.) He’s also not afraid to openly criticize Judaism-qua-Judaism and Jews-qua-Jews, almost unheard of on the left, who essentially believe that Jews are demi-gods.

Too good to be true? Of course. Even though O’Colmain is sympathetic toward even right wing nationalism, and doesn’t seem to be anti-white, and is pro-working class, he’s a typical Opus Dei E. Michael Jones type. He does want a New World Order, just one run from the Vatican. In other words, one of these quasi-Catholic LARPers.

http://www.gearoidocolmain.org/occupation-reflections-recent-trip-iran/

We’ll get a global government, whether we like it or not:

Nonetheless, I believe we will have a global super-state in time whether we like it or not. Multipolarity has not brought global peace, nor did the multipolar order of 1913 prevent the first world war.

So, the only solution is to kiss the Pope’s ring:

Only a return to traditional Roman Catholicism could offer the prospect of overcoming the challenges of multicultural Europe. For the basis of European civilisation is constituted, as Alain Soral has wisely noted, by the Greek logos and the Roman caritas which are united in Christianity. Today logos has been buried in liberal and atheistic irrationalism and pseudoscience, while we have lost all sense of the beauty and necessity of Christian compassion or charity.

And “return” (/eyeroll) to the romantic days of medieval Europe:

The Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church was intended by God to be the guide of humanity, a link between heaven and earth guiding all men to their salvation. It was meant to be a one-world government under God. Since the Enlightenment ( a revolt against reason rather than for it) godless elites have striven for the creation of a universal republic, a Promethean dream of humanist supremacy, a universal Anti-Church- a world government under Satan.

Because “humanism” … “humanist supremacy” … is … “Satanic.”

These dorky pseudo-Catholics always want to “return” to the pre-Reformation days, precisely because the history before the printing press is rather spotty so they can project all their romantic notions on it. There’s a hilarious comment on, of all places, that cesspool of Google-Zionist-Globalism, YCombinator’s Hacker News, suggesting that medieval knights weren’t profit-seeking warlords, even though they could have been, but held to some gentlemanly code of chivalry. This is absurd, hasn’t anyone read the actual source materials of the Crusades? Yes, of course, the Crusades were a defensive measure against Muslim imperialism against Europe, and yes, the Catholic chuch did a credible job of federating Europeans to fight off the threat. But just read the source materials. The first-hand account of the Crusades I read, likely the very first primary source, in fact, written by an actual participant, spent the first half detailing the multiple-dozens of European cities the Crusaders would attack, then demand a “market” (I’ll always remember that is the word the translation used.) The entire first half was, “then we camped around this city, and the people surrendered, then came out with the best ‘market’ we had had in weeks. Then we attacked another city, they put up a fight, but we won, and they gave us an even better ‘market’.”

“Market” of course meant the people in the city had to open their gates, then give their food, tools, and weapons (and likely daughters as well) to the invading army – those knights who “weren’t warlords” – otherwise they would get murdered. The Crusaders spent the first half of their journey attacking Europeans until they sacked the recently Greek city of … Constantinople … which was almost certainly the actual goal, before (supposedly, likely mythologically) finishing up in “Jerusalem” – really, a little village called Al-Quds.

Yes, they stopped the Muslim advance – thank Jew-sus – but the only reason these quasi-Catholics have such a hard on for that time period is precisely because the history we have is so vague, and so distorted, they can project their romantic fantasies on that time. That’s why we called it “the Dark Ages” after all. (The only thing comparable is the romanticism we project onto the Greco-Roman culture, which is similarly shrouded in primitive, essentially pre-historiography. Or, for that matter, ignorant Protestant Bible-thumpers romanticizing mythological Old Testament tales about “Israel.”)

But then the Printing Press happened, literacy appeared, and the ugly – and not nearly as romantic – history came into focus. Sorry, Catholic Europe was not at all some sort of utopia. These people reject Voltaire precisely because he had their number. The Catholic Empire was a step in the right direction, but what came after was superior in every way.

I hate to be forced to channel the “New Atheists” of the 1990s (I’m not an atheist) but they are making me: grow up. The Church is a human institution, an outgrowth of the Roman Empire’s war against the Middle East and its imperial assimilation of Oriental cultures. “God” had nothing to do with it. The Pope was never anything more than a bureaucrat – interesting, because he was an example of “soft power” over “hard power.” Interesting, because the Church had an effect on our genetics (monogamy, outbreeding, etc., pace Kevin MacDonald.)

Again, the reason these neo-reactionary quasi-Catholics romanticize this time period is precisely because they know so little about it – we know so little about it. And the reason the post-Reformation period seems so ugly to them is because, for the first time, we have a continuous, written record about the reality – and it’s just not nearly as romantic – reality never is.

I’d have so much more respect for these quasi-Catholics if they at least gave us a reasonable interpretation of the social organization that the Church promoted. You get a little bit of this from Jones, etc., not much, but a little. For instance, the economic aspects of the monastaries, the distributionism economic system, the attempts to federate the monarchies (which you can be assured the Vatican hated, as they wanted Empire, not federation, but soft power can only do so much.)

But come on, it’s 2018. “A link between heaven and earth guiding all men to their salvation. It was meant to be a one-world government under God?” These are supposed to be the alternative to Protestant Bible-thumping? It’s all mystical woo-woo, meaningless verbiage.

I posit that it’s completely empty precisely because they can’t actually make it relevant. They have all the pieces, the instincts are certainly there (natalism, compassion for the poor, federalism, etc.) But they can’t actually bridge the gap from superstition to reality, in fact, it’s precisely the superstition (and their romance of the history) that they are defending – they are NOT actually defending the decent instincts the superstitions were created to explain. Nor are they even really defending the institution (that would be a good angle, IMO.) It’s the “mystery” and the “romance” that they are defending.

Why? Because they can’t accept reality – specifically, the reality of death, I guess. I heard these religion fanatics say this all the time, if there is no “God” then human life is meaningless. Says who? You literally can find no meaning in life without resort to a “god” based on ancient superstitions – and it’s always your particular version of “god” that is the only one?

You see the smart, educated types like E. Michael Jones trying to bridge this gap with his talk of “logos” – that’s how Jones avoids sounding like a superstitious peasant. The superstitious can talk about “God” … the Sky-Father … while the more philosophical types can discuss “logos,” “natural law,” “rationality” and the “order of the universe.” But really, for E. Michael Jones, the only “natural law” that he cares about is how anal sex is gross (I agree, but it’s hardly something to create an entire metaphysics around now is it? That is what animates Jones.) The critique of usury is great, very important, very much needed, but when will they get on with it? Jones actually punts on the economic specifics, he even says, “hey the Pope just said ‘ask your priest’ because we can’t figure out all these fancy financial instruments!”

Gotta give it to the Muslims – they take anti-usury seriously and have actually created serious economic systems without usury – even the Jew bankers have had to create “halal finance” to launder all their oil money.

But also – race? Jones – and I assume O’Colmain – really believe that race doesn’t matter, that genetics don’t matter, that evolution is one of those “godless humanist” plots, and every retarded fetus with a genetic mis-development has a “soul” that must be saved. Africa would be just as technologically advanced as Europe if they just adopted Augustinian Catholic “logos” or whatever.

This is why I can’t be a “right winger” – they are liars, mystifiers, and con artists. Jones is too smart to actually believe any of this stuff – and so is O’Colmain. But they need the, er, “less cognitively evolved” on their side so they can keep up the Universalism and not be “racist.”

They want an Empire.

Isn’t anyone else ready to MOVE ON?

Surprise, Surprise: Dyke Nuns Hate Little Boys

(((Curtis Yarvin))) may be a Jew, but his neo-reactionary movement attracted Catholics. In their attempt to demonize Whites, Protestants, Americans, the Enlightenment, and modernity, they have instead introduced a whole new generation to the reason we threw off the yoke of the Catholic church in the first place.

The “Catholic church abuse scandal” is really just the victims of the Catholic church growing up, and now that the Catholic church has lost its institutional power, and now that sexuality is understood biologically and scientifically, the shame conditioning that the Catholic church used for centuries to enslave Europeans doesn’t work anymore.

It’s obvious how homosexuals came to dominate the “celibate” Catholic institution.

Consider: one of the primary complaints about Muslim “refugees” and “immigrants” in the West in how they treat women. One only needs to look at their own culture to understand how different they are than us. For a Muslim boy, when he sees a girl his sexual attraction is coming from her. She is doing something that causes him to feel arousal, and since she is the actor, she is the seducer, it’s ok for him to rape her. He was just standing there, minding his own business, and this girl walked by, acting sexy, therefore she’s a whore. The only way a girl can not be a whore is to cover her entire body because if he can’t see her, she cannot seduce him.

So take a typical scenario in Ireland or America in the 1950s. A boy grows up, begins puberty, but unlike his peers, has no interest in girls at all. The idea of marrying a girl, having sex, and starting a family is off-putting to him. Since the Catholic church tells him that “lust” is a grave sin, and he himself is apparently free of this “lust,” he realizes that he is actually “more spiritual” than his peers. His uncouth, sexually obsessed peers who are obsessed with the girls now reaching puberty, are just not as “spiritual” as he is.

So, he joins the priesthood. He is assigned to work in a boy’s school.

There, all of a sudden these boys start acting sexy, or more specifically, acting gay. It’s not the priest’s own desires coming to the surface, it’s the boys who are acting gay, or acting seductively or acting sinfully. If one of the boys seduces him the priest merely goes to confession, eats a cracker, and all is forgiven.

Lesbians are of course different than gay men. So a girl begins puberty, but unlike her peers, these boys are not interesting at all. In fact, they are quite scary and even disgusting. While her girlsfriends are all crushing on various boys, she’s actually turned off by the whole affair. She can’t understand why her close friendships with her girlfriends are all being interrupted by their growing awareness of boys.

She must just be “more spiritual” than her peers. She is, in a sense, on a “higher spiritual plane.” Unlike the “earthly” desires of her girlfriends, she’s only interested in the “pure” and “spiritual” things.

So, she becomes a nun, and is assigned to a orphanage. There, she has to take care of these disgusting, rowdy, violent, and gross boys, with their little penises popping underneath their pants all the time. It’s up to her, a “truly spiritual” woman without these “desires of the flesh” to whip these boys into line. She, in fact, quite enjoys it when these boys feel shame for their disgusting “lust,” their “sin.” It’s actually quite a power trip, watching these proud boys become ashamed of themselves. For the ones that are defiant, beatings work well. As the “Good Book” says, spare the rod, spoil the child.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christinekenneally/orphanage-death-catholic-abuse-nuns-st-josephs

It was a late summer afternoon, Sally Dale recalled, when the boy was thrown through the fourth-floor window.

“He kind of hit, and— ” she placed both hands palm-down before her. Her right hand slapped down on the left, rebounded up a little, then landed again.

For just a moment, the room was still. “Bounced?” one of the many lawyers present asked. “Well, I guess you’d call it — it was a bounce,” she replied. “And then he laid still.”

Sally, who was speaking under oath, tried to explain it. She started again. “The first thing I saw was looking up, hearing the crash of the window, and then him going down, but my eyes were still glued—.” She pointed up at where the broken window would have been and then she pointed at her own face and drew circles around it. “That habit thing, whatever it is, that they wear, stuck out like a sore thumb.”

Children are amazing in the sense they will believe pretty much anything you tell them. After all, you’re an adult and children are evolved to mimic older humans. The central image of your religion is a man being tortured and the central story is of a man being murdered for the sins of the world so it’s the “sinful” child’s fault.

Sister took hold of Sally’s ear, turned her around, and walked her back to the other side of the yard. The nun told her she had a vivid imagination. We are going to have to do something about you, child.

Like sociopaths, eventually these predatory homosexuals begin to recognize each other and that’s when they start working together:

A 1998 UK government inquiry, citing “exceptional depravity” at four homes run by the Christian Brothers order in Australia, heard that a boy was the object of a competition between the brothers to see who could rape him 100 times. The inquiries focused primarily on sexual abuse, not physical abuse or murder, but taken together, the reports showed almost limitless harm that was the result not just of individual cruelty but of systemic abuse.

The Roman Empire, eventually Christianized, swept through Europe, enslaving the “heathens” and creating these institutions. At the forefront were these “celibates” that did not have normal sexuality. They were, perhaps, even the first victims of Catholic sexual repression. Unable to accept that they were the perverts, that they were the reprobates, that they were the sinners, they projected that onto others, even children.

Since these children and “heathens” did not feel ashamed of their naked bodies and their natural sexuality, that just proved how the “celibate” Catholics were of a “higher spirituality” and it was their duty to beat – and rape – the devil out of these Europeans.

From the proto-Protestants like the Lollards and the Hussites, to the Reformation itself, eventually Europeans rebelled against these evil, psychopathic Catholics, rejected the “celibate” homosexual priests, the “celibate” lesbian priestesses, and demanded that Church institutions be led by normal, married men and women.

The first mistake that Americans made was to adopt the African custom of slavery, a mistake that harms America to this day. The second mistake Americans made was to import millions of Catholics, mostly in the 1800s, and surprise, surprise, along with them came Jews. It was only a matter of time until they joined up with each other to attempt to re-enslave the real Americans, the posterity of the Protestant Founding Fathers.

Hence, (((Curtis Yarvin’s))) “neo-reactionary” movement and the sick Catholics that follow him.

Riffing On Usury

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

Some of the earliest known condemnations of usury come from the Vedic texts of India. Similar condemnations are found in religious texts from Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (the term is riba in Arabic and ribbit in Hebrew). At times, many nations from ancient Greece to ancient Rome have outlawed loans with any interest. Though the Roman Empire eventually allowed loans with carefully restricted interest rates, the Catholic Church in medieval Europe banned the charging of interest at any rate (as well as charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change).

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/07/24/putting-shylock-to-shame-the-moneylender-portrayed-as-hero/

@John Walton

Usury, in essence, is making money from having money, by lending to people who are naïve or have suffered reversals. The lender, like the capitalist, takes some risk and has some overhead, but to the extent one can separate the lender/investor’s contribution of useful expertise from the effect of merely having money at his disposal, to that extent one may raise the issues of undeserved profit and exploitation. Savings and loan associations and mutual insurance companies are collectives where the profit returns to the members. In recent decades many of these companies were taken public by greedy investors who became members and were often in league with management, who invoked spurious reasoning to justify the transition, which works to the detriment of the majority of depositors or policy-holders. The before/after contrast illustrates my idea of profit beyond what is appropriate or necessary. It was not unusual for ‘professional depositors’ to open as many as two hundred accounts around the country to qualify for participation in stock offerings that were (nearly) sure things, but not seen as such by the small fry, some of whom, in any case, could not afford to risk savings even on a sure thing. Peter Lynch has written about this process, which is likely not as profitable for investors today as back when few people understood it.

@John Walton

I agree with your second point but not your first. Defenders of capitalism may cite libertarian premises like yours, in which case they need to explain why people coming newly into the world have a duty to respect the claims of people who amassed land before they were born. Other defenders point to capitalism’s superior productivity, which is a way of appealing to an ethical norm, namely that we should prefer capitalism because it produces a greater level of material well-being for the average person. But most of us distinguish between more and less deserved well-being. We think a doctor deserves his wealth more than a pornographer or an idle rich person who sits back and lets a hired manager invest for him. Libertarians think free exchanges between adults should be beyond the scope of ethical assessment but I don’t see why. Their own view is itself an ethical position. Why is it wrong to interfere with any voluntary exchange? We don’t hesitate where children are parties (nor do we hesitate to regulate drugs and dangerous products), but some adults are as naïve and vulnerable as children, and these are targeted by the archetypal usurer. Nor does looking out for such people automatically ‘infantilize’ the society and lead to communism. At least, I don’t see that it must.

@Hipster Racist

An excellent comment and it’s great to see someone else pointing out the differences between credit unions and mutual companies with collective ownership and private banks. In the former, the owners of the enterprise are the customers, while in the later, an outside group is the owner while the customers are a different group.

The lender, like the capitalist, takes some risk

This isn’t particularly true in the modern financial system and in practice it has never been true in the transactions people decried as “usury.” When a speculator lent money on a shipping excursion the speculator may well have suffered losses when the ship went down. The usurers that people complained about often had the backing of the state to “make them whole” – the borrowers who could not repay the compound interest and fees were often then enslaved. The distinction between “usury” and “investment” is something the Church, despite a heroic effort, never really got right for all sorts of reasons, a primary one being the Church didn’t particular care about the practical effects, they were more interested in their incoherent ideology and their own political power.

E. Michael Jones, a valuable cultural critic, despite being an anti-white fanatic, has at the least tried to come to grips with this in the modern world and tries to retrofit Catholic anti-usury ideas as not being specifically about interest rates, or compounding, but instead a power balance.

I suggest one might try to understand the concept of “barren metal” not with confused analogies of biological reproduction but instead understand “usury” as what we now refer to as “economic rent.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent

The Jews were allowed to benefit from “economic rent” on money. There is no economic reason why this should be so:

In classical economics, economic rent is any payment made (including imputed value) or benefit received for non-produced inputs such as location (land) and for assets formed by creating official privilege over natural opportunities (e.g., patents). In neoclassical economics, economic rent also includes income gained by beneficiaries of other contrived exclusivity, such as labor guilds and unofficial corruption.

The Church, in practice, gave the Jews a monopoly on certain kinds of finance, which greatly hurt Europeans. Whether or not the Church even understood what it was doing, or if they were in fact “in league” with the Jews is open to historical interpretation, and frankly the Church doesn’t come out looking good either way.

It seem obvious that neither the Church, not libertarian ideologues, have any idea nor any motivation to do something about the modern problems of usury/economic rent, but fortunately, it looks like White/European technology will once again save the day. We are already seeing a revolution in our understanding of economics and money.

Here’s my prediction: both Catholic and libertarian ideologues will go out of their way to squash the revolution in economics as both ideologies are once again trumped by European ingenuity.

But expect both to type countless words online to try to maintain some sort of relevance.

@John Walton

Thanks for the compliment and thanks for pointing out that the objection to usury is at bottom an objection to (excessive?) rents. The ‘barren metal’ objection seems wrong, in that money is a proxy for non-barren capital goods. But I wonder if another ‘biological’ objection might have some validity. I am ignorant of the literature but I would guess that if the money supply doesn’t change then the usurers as a group own a larger and larger portion of the wealth over time, provided they can keep their own consumption costs below the usurious profits. But I suppose the entrepreneurial borrowers as a class will charge their customers, including the usurers, enough so that the entrepreneurs come out ahead. So, who loses? I guess the non-entrepreneurial ‘defensive’ borrowers lose and drift into destitution. Interesting. What is this ‘new economics’ you refer to? You have piqued my curiosity!

@Hipster Racist

We do not need to ignore our traditional moral instinct that “usury” is wrong, nor do we have to rely on medieval misunderstandings of monetary systems to explain why it’s always been considered wrong.

For the last 20 years or so, “Islamic banking” has been a regular topic in the financial literature as Western banks seek to incorporate all that oil money into the system.

Sharia prohibits riba, or usury, defined as interest paid on all loans of money (although some Muslims dispute whether there is a consensus that interest is equivalent to riba).

Here we see the same argument over whether riba/usury is any sort of interest on money or something else. Consider the alternatives in Islamic banking:

Some of the modes of Islamic banking/finance include Mudarabah (Profit and loss sharing), Wadiah (safekeeping), Musharaka (joint venture), Murabahah (cost plus), and Ijar (leasing).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance

Notice that Islamic banking accepts various financial transactions when the interests of the borrow and lender are the same, when the risks are aligned the same way.

If a lender stands to gain more from a default than a repaid loan, that is an obvious conflict of interest – in that situation the lender wants the borrower to default, presumably in order to claim the collateral.

If the money supply doesn’t change then the usurers as a group own a larger and larger portion of the wealth over time

Yes, if in the historical case, Jews as a class have a monopoly on finance, then in the aggregate Jews will wind up with Christian wealth. Actually figuring out the absolute quantity of money is difficult and practically impossible in a decentralized system. In practical terms, whatever class controls the money can always hold back supply of money to force defaults, and this appears to have happened.

Like pornography, it’s likely that many have simply thrown up their hands and said “I know usury when I see it.” “Usury” has traditionally been considered a sin, a moral crime, an evil. Libertarians will try to simply punt on the moral issues and demand you define usury by a specific number, so they can say, “well if 10% is usury, is 5% ok?” “If 0% is the only acceptable interest rate then there will be no lending at all.” By making it a math problem they are ignoring whatever moral instinct that has existed throughout history in many cultures that declares “usury” – however defined – as morally wrong.

“Money,” as in currency, what is used instead of simple barter, is a “social construct” and various forms of money have proved practical in various cases because it’s a decentralized way to coordinate trade. With modern communication technology, “the internet” etc., decentralized coordination can provide alternative to coordinating trade.

Of course there is the crypto-currencies like Bitcoin, but even that relies on traditional ideas of money. There are already thought experiments about decentralized money creation, why give banks a monopoly on money creation? Why can’t money be created and destroyed as needed by individuals?

The path forward for money and banking is not to prevent people from creating money out of thin air but to allow everyone to create money out of thin air.

https://hackernoon.com/beyond-bitcoin-truly-decentralized-banking-d7793edc7d99

Counter Currents once published a great article about various non-libertarian ideas of money and other aspects of the economy.

https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/12/money-for-nothing-3/

I’m suggesting that there is a reason why “usury” has always been considered a sin and that “usury” may be best defined as something other than simple compound interest.

Another good work to read on the topic is “Debt: The First 5000 Years.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years