E. Michael Jones is no stranger to controversy. He is a prolific writer and has written numerous scholarly studies, including Monsters from the Id, The Slaughter of Cities, Living Machines, Degenerate Moderns, and more recently his 1400-page study Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury.
I first read Jones’ Dionysos Rising back in 2003. It was really hard to put down. Then the following year I picked up Libido Dominandi, which is a history of psychological warfare in the West, starting with the French Revolution. In my estimation, Jones is one of the best writers out there who has never failed to deliver. Lucian, a noted Assyrian who wrote his work in Greek in the second century, said:
“If you are going to write history you must sacrifice to truth alone, ignoring everything else…Well, my historian should be like that: fearless…friend of free speech and the truth, determined…to call figs figs and a tub a tub, indulging neither hatred nor friendship, sparing nobody, not showing pity or shame or difference…kindly to everyone up to the point of not allowing one side more than it deserves…”
Pick up any of Jones’ books and you would probably agree with me that he fits that description. Here we will be briefly discussing issues such as biological determinism.
Alexis: At the end of The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History, you state that “Anti-Semitism is a relatively recent word. It was popularized in 1870 by a German named Wilhelm Marr.” You also have an extensive chapter on Marr in Barren Metal. Historian Albert S. Lindemann of the University of California writes that
“In the final decade of his life, in the 1890s, he broke with the anti-Semitic movement of the day, describing the anti-Semites as worse than the Jews and requesting pardon of the Jews for what he had earlier written. He declared that it was in reality problems of industrialization and modernization that had provoked him, not the Jews as such.”
Whether Marr’s apology was sincere is hard to examine. But it seems to be that wherever his tract is in circulation, it is seldom, if ever mentioned, that Marr apologized for it toward the end of his life.
Marr’s cardinal error was not that he was not a good observer. In fact, he observed quite accurately that the Jewish network abhorred “real work” and had the inclination to, in the words of Albert S. Lindemann, “exploit the labor of others.” This is not a stereotype, and you have documented that Alexander Solzhenitsyn found the same thing in Russia.
But Marr, as an atheist, deliberately ignored the moral dimension, which you would say is rooted and grounded in Logos. It is like examining Muslims or Christians without a serious examination of their religions or what their founders actually taught and practiced—a highly implausible, dubious, and daunting task.
Many modern writers, who seem to have little knowledge of the relationship between mind and matter and who seem to blend those two together as if they were the same, are making the same mistake.
If serious scholars are going to examine the issue accurately, they ought not to dismiss the moral dimension. One highly respected scholar, who has actually examined this issue from a secular perspective, told me that “the theological perspective is not my cup of tea.”
In other words, he did not want to know. But I found out that he constantly writes about “the theological perspective.” Again, for people who haven’t read your massive work, what’s your take on Marr, and why do modern observers want to stay away from some of the fundamental questions?
Jones: The short answer to your question is that an examination of Marr would lead us to an accurate definition of anti-Semitism, which is the last thing the Jews want at the moment, because the minute the term gets defined it loses its effectiveness as a form of oligarchic political control.
Marr was a disillusioned ’48er who retained that revolution’s animus toward religion. He saw first hand how the Jews had fomented and then betrayed the revolution in Hamburg and wanted to hold the Jews accountable for that betrayal, yet at the same time he wanted to move away from the traditional religious critique of Jewish behavior, and so he made the fatal decision to explain Jewish behavior by the theories of biological determinism which were fashionable in the late 19th century.
This would have fatal consequences when Hitler adopted these same racial/biological theories of Jewish behavior as promulgated by Marr and American racial theorists like Madison Grant.
So, if the word is to have any meaning at all, anti-Semitism is a form of racial and/or biological determinism which is completely incompatible with the Christian understanding of free will and the critique of Jewish behavior I propose in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.
The Christian position is based on the choices the Jews made at the time of Christ, when they called for his death, and the ratification of those choices that have been made by every subsequent generation of Jews. St. Paul articulated this position in I Thessalonians 2 when he described the Jews as the people who killed Christ and enemies of the entire human race.
Needless to say, this has nothing to do with biological determinism. It has to do with the opposite, namely, free will and the fact that the Jews of Christ’s time freely chose to call for the death of their Messiah and that Jews in subsequent generations have ratified that decision by their pertinacious attack on Logos.
Christ was the Logos incarnate; by calling for Christ’s death the Jews declared war on the Logos which is the order of the universe, which made them revolutionaries, which is what they have been ever since. Their rebellion against the order of the universe is expressed primarily in two forms: revolution and usury, which is contra naturam.
And so throughout history we see an alliance between the revolutionary Jews and Jewish usurers, a symbiosis symbolized by paradigmatic relationships like the one between Trotsky and Jacob Schiff, or Heinrich Heine and James Rothschild, or Martin Luther King and Stanley Levison, or closer to our day, Lloyd Blankfein and the homosexuals. I cover the revolutionary angle in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and the financial angle in Barren Metal, but we’re really talking about two sides to the same Jewish coin.
So to get back to your original question, let’s define the term anti-Semitism. An anti-Semite, as the late Joe Sobran used to point out, used to be someone who didn’t like Jews. Now an anti-Semite is someone Jews don’t like. To refine that definition a bit further, an anti-Semite is a goy who criticizes Jews. There is no objective content to this term.
As proof of that assertion, I point out that when Vice President Biden announced that Jews were behind gay marriage, he was not accused of anti-Semitism. When I point out the same thing, I am denounced as an anti-Semite because my assertion does not imply approval. It is seen as criticism and therefore not permissible.
The same is true of the Jewish role in pornography. When I claim that Jews control pornography, I am denounced as an anti-Semite. When Professor Nathan Abrams says the same thing, based largely on my research, his article gets published in the Jewish Quarterly and presumably earns him a raise in his teaching job.
My point is that this double standard has become intolerable, and we need to be able to treat Jewish behavior with the same critical eye that we devote to the behavior of any other group in society.
 E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 1063.
 E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 1161-1168.
 Albert S. Lindemann, Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 127.
 Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, 128.
 Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 571-577.
 See Colin McGinn, The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds in a Material World (New York: Basic Books, 2000).