Since various people have shown up in the comboxes

Since various people have shown up in the comboxes April 26, 2012

…attempting to play the “Gosh!  Who even knows *what* anti-semitism even *is* anyway!” game, I have expanded my post on Voris’ attempt to mainstream E. Michael Jones toxic kookery with some documentation of what I am talking about.  Other comboxers are also now chiming in with their own documentation as well. To wit:

In light of Voris’ supposed reputation for getting to the bottom of things and showing us all the *real* truth, he is remarkably un-curious in regard to accusations of anti-Semitism against Jones.  All he did was ask whether Jones is anti-Semitic and then took his word for it and accepted Jones’ limited and self-serving definition of anti-Semitism.    Dennis O’Donovan did basically the same thing in regard to Jones when interviewing Brammer.   Here are some facts that seem to have completely eluded the normally hard-hitting, probing Voris:

For instance, Jones has promoted his personal theories about why Jews are a societal problem to a fellow named “Brother” Nathanael Kapner. The name of the interview was “Jewish Control of the Catholic Mind.”

Here’s a question and point that I think would have been substantive and legit, especially for supposedly hard-hitting journalist like Voris:

“Dr. Jones, do you think it was appropriate for you to publicly promote your theories of Jewish depravity to people like Brother Nathanael Kapner and his audience? Kapner believes Jews were behind 9-11. President McKinley was murdered by Jews. President Wilson was blackmailed into WWI by Jews. There’s a piece on his website explaining how the Jews ‘prompted’ the Holocaust and a whole section of articles on ‘the Jewification of America.’ He recently wrote, ‘I now PRESENT MYSELF, Brother Nathanael Kapner, to STOP THIS RUINATION by the Christ-Hating, Constitution-Hating, Freedom Hating Jew, in a major public way.’”

And this is what Brother Kapner had to say about Jones afterward:

“It was great working for the first time with E. Michael Jones. He and I really hit it off…Michael is a bit more optimistic than I regarding a change in our society from Jewish control. I really don’t see it changing, in fact, I see it getting worse. The Jews with their militarists, just pulled off another false flag, another ‘terrorist’ hoax, with the panty bomber. The boy got on the plane in Amsterdam without a passport. The Haskells’ testimony was blacked out by the Jew-owned media and Chertoff (I was the FIRST to break this news) is a consultant for Full Body Scanners and will make TONS of bucks from the false flag hoax. Americans, dumbed downed Americans, swallowed this hoax, hook – line – and sinker. The passive masses will now let the Jews take their clothes off in front of them and make millions from naked Americans at airports. AND – MORE FALSE FLAGS ARE COMING for the Dumbed Downed Americans who BELIEVE what the Jews tell them!”

Can you see why this sort of thing might naturally raise eye-brows, Dr. Jones?

Might it also naturally raise questions that White Supremacist groups have promoted your writings about Jews?

One could also ask Jones about his collaboration with and support of Robert Sungenis. Google Sungenis and Jews. Add in E. Michael Jones after. You’ll find plenty of material there.

Jones helped Sungenis to spread calumny against his bishop in Culture Wars magazine. Then he published an article defending Sungenis called “Fear of the Jews in Harrisburg.”

  • Jones also did an interview with a racist named Peter Schaenk in which he again promoted his theories of Jewish depravity. Here’s a warm note from Schaenk to his white supremacist friends at National Vanguard about his interviews:


    Here’s a comment from “Bill Blass” to Schaenk about the interview with E. Michael Jones:

    “Even though he is not a ‘White Nationalist’ he obviously has some Traditionalist sympathy for ethnic states in the Western/Christian tradition. I wish he would have addressed the issue of how Traditionalist Christians, Nationalist Conservatives, and White Nationalists might work together and tolerate each other’s differences in order to pursue our substantial common interests. Good job, and let’s try to get Jones on again!”

    Below are some comments made by Schaenk:

    “I believe there is a White Genocide being carried out by non-Whites on behalf of the New World Order, or more aptly described… The Jew World Order.”

    “The only reason people conduct background checks is to excavate for Mud. Mud slinging, the old Jew tactic…Attack the person, not the message.”

    “It was RIGHT for Alex Linder and [White supremacist] VNN to demonstrate in Knoxville, Tennessee, in order to bring attention to the savage butchering of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian. In both of these cases, only the so-called “White Supremacist” came to the aid of these victims to do the RIGHT thing…Should I run away from these groups because they believe in the racial superiority of the White race? Is that such a crime against humanity to believe your race is superior to others?”

    “Today, the White race has no choice but to allow non-Whites into their businesses, private clubs, schools and neighborhoods. The net result of this has been rampant crime in once peaceful neighborhoods, the destruction of “Main Street USA”, an ever expanding Police State and soaring taxes.”

    “These theories [about government mind control] are designed to keep people paralyzed and distracted while the Jew World Order continues it’s take over of the West. They have created political movements with the same agenda, to promote chaos and disorder in society.”

    Peter Schaenk

    Then there was “Roy”, who after listening to the interview with E. Michael Jones thought the interview was actually with the notorious anti-Semite Michael Hoffman, rather than Jones, at least until he was corrected by “Maurice”.

    Jones also said this in the interview: “The bigger question is whether we’ve all become Jews by internalizing their rules of discourse.”

    “Their rules of discourse?” As if Jews are all the same? Chuck Schumer and David Horowitz are about as diametrically opposed as two people could be. But they’re both Jews. And what of the Orthodox Jews? Are they covered by the same broad strokes? He speaks of “the Jews” in this broad-brush way on many other occasions. Does that suggest bigotry?

    I think it’s interesting that Schaenk begins the interview segment with Jones by juxtaposing a section of Hitler’s Mein Kampf with Jones’ book. Has Jones ever raised an objection to that? Has he ever repudiated it? If not, why not?

    Then there was this exchange:

    Schaenk: “What is the Jewish relation to Atheism?”

    Jones: “[The Jews] will promote it! Weaken the dominant culture in cultures that are religiously based.”

    Isn’t stereotyping and broad-bushing like this more evidence of bigotry? What of all the religious Jews? The Orthodox? The Chasidim? Why are all “the Jews” are thrown into one bad lump by Jones?

  • This is serious stuff.  That Voris and Brammer are attempting to mainstream this wicked dreck should be opposed by any Catholic who takes the faith seriously.  Interested in “trapping and exposing lies and falsehoods”, Mr. Voris?  Physician, heal thyself.

    "The Church says it is inadmissible, not intrinsically immoral. It did, however, develop doctrine to ..."

    I don’t buy all of this, ..."
    "It would depend on the law. Since we have sort of jumped the gun and ..."

    I don’t buy all of this, ..."
    "I agree that it is not heresy. My fear about prudential judgment lies in the ..."

    I don’t buy all of this, ..."
    "In that case I don’t see that he can be accused of heresy here. On ..."

    I don’t buy all of this, ..."

    Browse Our Archives

    Follow Us!

    What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
    • Dale Price

      I prefer the more direct “Jew-hater” to “anti-Semite.”

      One whole question to Jones on the elephant in the room, eh? Reminds me of the MSM pattycake whenever reporters interview liberal Catholics whenever the Vatican “cracks down.” One theoretically challenging question, posed in the passive voice, and presented with “contractual obligation” enthusiasm. Oh, and no follow-ups.

      After curling up with Jones, I wonder if Voris is ever going to question where all those fleas are coming from.

      • Deacon Greg Kandra

        Voris, who dwells in a bubble where “lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed,” might want to take out his pencil and take Jones for a spin — but somehow, I don’t think that will happen.

        Voris was clearly delighted and charmed by this character. Has he ever giggled so much on the air?

      • Kirt Higdon

        I agree with Dale Price. Anti-semite is an inexact euphemism to begin with and it has been further weakened by overuse and misuse. Jew-hater is to the point.

      • Pete Davis

        I’m not so sure every anti-Semite is a Jew hater. I’ve met a lot of Archie Bunkers in my life. Toward the end of his life, my grandfather was a lovable bigot who called his closest friend the N-word.
        FWIW, a quick internet search has revealed that Henry Mackow (a jew) has no problem with either EM Jones or Br. Nathanael.
        Disagreements, yes. But there is no hatred.
        Let’s keep it that way here. In the end, we all have a lot more in common than we think.

        • Mark Shea

          Given that, as the Catholic League points out, Jones manages to say the Jews are to blame for the Holocaust, I’d call that Jew hatred.

        • Mark Shea

          Um, even a cursory look at Henry Mackow’s site shows that he is nutty as a jaybird. You might as well say that since many kapos were Jews then Jews were fine with death camps and enjoyed their work there. Get serious.

          • Pete Davis

            Now that you put it that way, that’s a pretty good point.

            Why do Michael Hoffman and Jones hate each other? Is it just competition?

            • Mark Shea

              Hoffman’s a Trad. Jones isn’t. But people who place hatred of some group of people and paranoid conspiracy theories at the center of their life’s work don’t tend to Play Well with Others.

              • Pete Davis

                I’ve heard Hoffman say that “to Catholics he’s too protestant and to protestants he’s too Catholic.” When asked if he’s a Jew, he says : “I don’t know” He also mocks Monarchy, claims the Vatican was the sole publisher of the Talmud and wonders if he even believes in God. He doesn’t go to any church.
                A lose nut? Yes. A trad? No.

                Jones on the other hand kept Williamson at his house in S. Bend for 4 months and paid for his passage out of Argentina.

                This is weird

                • Mark Shea

                  Yes. A trad. He goes to an SSPX church in Idaho.

          • Hezekiah Garrett

            Squirrel poop is nutty, Mark, Jaybirds are naked.

    • Ed Pie

      “President Wilson was blackmailed into WWII by Jews. ”

      Wow. If that were true, I would be much more alarmed than at the idea that FDR let Pearl Harbor happen to get us to go for war.

      • Ed – it did say WWI not WWII.

        • Mark Shea

          I corrected it.

          • Ed Pie

            It was more interesting than any of the other accusations the other way. Oh well.

    • I did some reflection on the definition of anti-Semitism during my polemics with Sungenis, and this is what I came up with:

      To begin to properly define anti-Semitism, let us look to the definition most commonly found in dictionaries: prejudice against Jews. And prejudice is best understood according to its etymology: to pre-judge. The anti-Semite will form hostile judgments about Jews prior to any dispassionate consideration of rational evidence. His treatment of Jews and Jewish issues will be, to put it mildly, heavily biased and tendentious. So will be his exegesis of texts by and about Jews. He will have an irrational predisposition to see the worst in Jews, and to see Jews in the worst. He will suspect his enemies to be secret Jews, even in the absence of evidence. He will habitually, uncritically swallow any spurious claim which disparages Jews (any stick good enough to beat the Jews with), and seek to undermine any statement which praises them. Lastly, when the issue is the Jews his faculty of reasoning will be manifestly impaired. The foregoing commentary may be crystallized into the following definition: anti-Semitism is the habit of will whereby one violates justice and charity with respect to Jews.

      • Mark Shea

        I think that’s a pretty sound definition. Leaves room for sane criticism (for example, of Israeli treatment of Arab Christians as in the recent 60 Minutes piece–done, by the way, by a Jewish reporter), but without falling into the crazy pitfalls of “seeing the worst in jews, and seeing Jews in the worst” (apt phrasing). Yes, anti-semitism is a habit of will whereby on violates Justice and charity to Jews. Nicely done! The scylla and charybdis that must be navigated here are the kneejerk accusations of “anti-semitism” for *any* critical remark about a Jew or Israel, and the nuttery that looks for Jews tunneling under our houses and plotting evil everywhere and at all times. Jews are people, prone to the same virtues and failings as anybody else. All explaining conspiracy theories of everything are emblematic of an inflamed and diseased intellect.

      • Rosemarie


        I agree, excellent definition. It also avoids the error that praying for the conversion of Jews is inherently antisemitic. Praying for their salvation out of charity for them as human beings is not antisemitic, even if some of them take offense at it. We want all humankind to be saved by Christ, and Jews are certainly part of the human race.

    • As I recall, in the hour-long interview that Marc Brammer gave to last fall, he talked about a new organization that he was going to start: the “Institute for New Media.”

      I just Googled that organization’s name, along with Brammer’s name, and could not find a site for the organization. Could it be that his “Institute for New Media” blew up on its launch pad?


      • Mark Shea

        I think the attempt to mainstream Jones is part of the ramp-up to this. They’ve only just begun. Note the attempt to keep this off the Church’s radar by calling it “Roman forum” instead of something with “Catholic” in the name.

    • This is EXACTLY the sort of thing that I fear will spark a violent backlash against the whole Church.

      • Mark Shea

        Only if it becomes popular–which is exactly what Voris is attempting to do. Thankfully, both Jones and Voris are important only to a small internet hothouse of conservatives with no sense of discernment (Maciel, Euteneuer, Corapi, and now this train wreck: you’d think they’d learn before anointing yet another Folk Hero to adore and excuse). But the point is: Voris’ influence is growing and he means to make Jones’ influence grow too. Look at the people in this very combox making excuses for this filth.

        So yeah: be concerned and oppose this. But don’t worry about angry backlashes just yet. There is not a bishop on planet earth who would back these demagogues, and certainly none in the American Church. There is a reason they have to try to do this off the radar. It’s up to *laity* to reject this slime and see to it that they do not get rewarded for it.

    • From Wikipedia –
      Jones has stated publicly that he considers modern Judaism to be a wicked ideology, but that he condemns criticism of Jews based upon race. In an interview with The Washington Times Jones said that he rejected racism in all of its forms, consistent with Catholic teaching.

      Is that a wrong statement?

      • Of course, Jones is emphatic that there’s nothing biologically wrong with Jews which causes them to be depraved. But “Jews are biologically disposed to depravity” is not the only anti-Semitic proposition in the world.

      • Mark Shea

        So he regards all Jews as the enemies of the human race, but not because of their race. And that makes it All Better how exactly? Froilan, this stuff is poison. And Voris and Brammer are mainstreaming it. Does this not bother you at all?

    • Sardis

      It seems to me that Jones’ theory of Jewish depravity is little more than a thinly veiled attempt to rationalize and intellectualize bigotry against Jews under the guise of quasi-theology.

      Dig beneath the jargon and look a bit more closely at what he says and does and with whom he says and does it. Look at some of the information I posted above.

    • Christopher Sarsfield

      First I do not always agree with Dr. Jones or who he associates with, however this is purely guilt by association. I have never seen you quote Dr. Jones in context on anything that would approach heresy or bigotry. Yet Dr. Jones has written entire books on the Jewish question. You sound like the worst “rad trad” when speaking abut Dr. Jones. “Dr. Jones says things and writes things that are not unorthodox, but I know the secret code and this is what he really means!” How many times have I heard sedevacantists say the same about the Paul VI – too many!
      Second, I do not hold your opinions on the Jewish question or the old covenant to be the standard of orthodoxy. Whenever you write about these issues you always ignore anything the Church said before Vatican II and quote Vatican II as if it were only the thing ever said on the topic. The Holy Father referred to this as the theology of rupture, I believe.
      Next, you imply with your writing that Dr, Jones is not a Catholic in good standing – as if he were not your brother in Christ. I am sure you do not intend this, because you know it is an act of schism to refuse to be in communion with those in communion with the Pope – and Dr. Jones certainly is in communion with the Pope, however this is how you come across.
      Finally, Dr. Jones is willing to speak with anyone, even those he disagrees with. Read the back issues of Fidelity and you will see he has no sympathy for traditional Catholics, Feeneyites or Sedevacantists, Yet he is going to speak at a conference on Social Teaching with Sedevacantists, Siri-Vacantists and Feeneyites. Would I do it? I don’t thinks so, but this is a matter of prudence and NOT orthodoxy, and men of good will can disagree on such matters.
      In the Heart of Jesus and Mary,
      Christopher Sarsfield

      • Mark Shea

        So you agree with Jones saying the Jews are the enemies of the human race:

        True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

        Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

        Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows. – Nostra Aetate

        I said nothing about Jones’ standing with the Church. That’s between him and his bishop (who I pray acts soon to stop this poison).

        Meanwhile, you’re done here. Bye.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          Mark, I despise anti-semitism and anti-semites. Almost converted to Judaism before finding Catholicism (finally understood why He stayed my hand on that!)

          But, this was beneath you. Miles above me, to be sure, but beneath you. Better to ignore and ban him, or give him a thoughtful reply, but to insinuate the man’s in bed with Jewhaters because he’s possibly just got an over developed (and deformed) sense of fair play seems…

          Well I take back what I said earlier, its beneath me too! For shame, Mark!

      • Sardis

        You either misunderstand my point or you misunderstand what guilt by association is, Christopher. Jones has publicly promoted his personal theories as to why the Jewish people are supposedly depraved to anti-Semites and racists. That is something quite different than merely happening to be friends with individuals who are anti-Semites and racists, which would be guilt by association.

        Another problem? Look at the comments received after Jones gave interviews with these extremists. Do you see the kind of effect it had? It encouraged them. It made them feel they had a friend out of their own little racist worlds.

        And indeed, it seems that Jones was very chummy with them. One (Brother Nathanael) gushed about how well they got along and how much they agreed on world-views. I think that’s a problem. I think most people would see that as a problem.

        If I go on programs with David Duke or the KKK and start promoting my personal theories about the moral depravity of blacks and Jews, and then David Duke and the KKK gush about how well we got along and agreed about things, do you see the problem with that?

        And Jones himself did make statements that broad-brushed the Jews in a bigoted way. That’s not to mention what he did in helping his friend Robert Sungenis to publicly spread calumny against his bishop in regard to Jews and what Mark Shea documented above in regard to Jews supposedly being the enemy of the human race.

        • Sardis

          There’s also an essential difference between when E. Michael Jones speaks to “Sedevacantists, Siri-Vacantists and Feeneyites” about the Church’s social teaching and when he speaks to anti-Semitic bigots like those I listed above. When speaking to sedevacantists about the Church’s social teaching, he’s not directly aiding and abetting their sedevacantism. Conversely, when speaking to anti-Semitic bigots, Jones offers them a more sophisticated, more respectable-sounding, quasi-theological rationale to be bigoted against Jews. He hocks his book about Jewish depravity to them. He makes common cause with with these people on their fundamental error – that the Jewish people are a societal plague, uniquely depraved, the particular enemy of God and man. They agree on the main premise while having a friendly disagreement over the details. He basically gives them help to become more persuasive bigots. And as evidenced by the comments made after his appearances, they’re very grateful for his help and comradeship.

    • Esther

      Mark –

      I think the point made by your correspondent is quite important – Voris, determined to uncover the unvarnished “uncurious” regarding Jones. And doesn’t press him.

      Very, very true.

      On another note:

      I thought we were supposed to be fearing sharia and Jihad. Or is the Jews and Zionists?

      I’m so confused!

      Can we just pick one?

      • FrankJ


        According to Sungenis and Company it would seem there is nothing to fear from Moslem Jihadists. Check out his site. The Jewish-controlled media blames Moslems for all these terrible events, but they are really false flag ops pulled off by The Jews themselves.

        Moslem terrorists, or what we all thought were Moslem terrorists, are really just *pasties* for the Jews.

        Al Qaeda Still Being Used as Pasty for Western Criminals

        Pasties, as you know, are a kind of filled pie or coverings for certain part of a woman’s anatomy. >:o) Can any one can fathom the depths of trickery of the Jewish mind?

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          Did you just drag the Pastie into the Blood Libel?

          I bow down to you, sir.

    • Sandra Miesel

      Besides tracking context for these men, look at the tape with a deconstructively beady eye. Note how Jones first establishes his cred as a brave and lonely culture warrior. We don’t hear if any other people protested the scandals that he did. (The WANDERER has a long history of doing so and not just when Jones contributes.) No mention of Bishop Darcy’s public response to Obama at ND or his refusal to take his regular seat on the speaker’s platform at graduation. Darcy is presented as a failure not the good bishop he was. Then past the halfway point, we get this strange take on John Courtney Murray. Merely identifying him as a Jesuit would predispose the audience to view him with suspicion. But to conclude that Pope Benedict’s mind has been corrupted by a CIA Black OP is absurd. Then we get to the real enemy, the JOOOS. The only Jews who rejected Christ for Barabbas were the members of the mob and their Sanhedrin inciters. Why every Jew who doesn’t convert is thereby rendered a rebel agains the Logos, part of a 2000 year revolutionary conspiracy goes beyond absurdity. (So what about Hindus, Buddhists, pagans etc who have never accepted Christianity? Or the Muslim descendants of ancient Christians?) Enlightening followers of Voris & Co. may be as difficult as enlightening followers of Maciel. Any strategy suggestions?

      • Mark Shea

        All I know how to do is offer some disinfectant daylight on this filthy demagoguery. Hopefully, people will see it for what it is.

      • Dov Marsh, LA

        Some excellent points, Ms. Miesel.

        This garbage isn’t even that original. E.g.: the claim that the Jews are “the enemies of the human race” comes from St. Paul (I Thess 2) and not E. Michael Jones? Yet, he acts like he’s the author.

        As for Br. Nathanael, in that link he says he “converted to Orthodoxy because of it’s Hebraic ethos. Jews for Jesus are Baptists with Yarlmukes.” It’s early in that audio link by Davis:

        I’ve tried to wrap my head around that for the past day and now I need a drink!

        DDM, the Lovable Agnostic

        • Andy, Bad Person

          Scratch an atheist (or in this case, agnostic), find a fundamentalist.

          Don’t bring that “Paul was an anti-Semite” crap in here. Paul was talking about the historical fact that the Jews in Jerusalem persecuted his Christian brothers. He would know; he was one of them. He is not using it as an excuse to hate anyone.

          • Dov Marsh, LA

            In any case, it’s not original.
            Brother Nathanael claims to have been one too. Does that give him a license to say the things he said in that audio link? I think not. We don’t disagree as much as you imply.

            DDM, the Lovable Agnostic
            (who’s not so bullheaded he can’t be convinced to change his mind from time to time)

            • Sardis

              What “brother” Nathanael wrote isn’t original, but it can’t fairly be described as originating with St. Paul. At best, it’s a distortion of St. Paul’s thought.

              New American Bible note on 1 Thes. 2:15-16:

              “Paul is speaking of historical opposition on the part of Palestinian Jews in particular and does so only some twenty years after Jesus’ crucifixion. Even so, he quickly proceeds to depict the persecutors typologically, in apocalyptic terms. His remarks give no grounds for anti-Semitism to those willing to understand him, especially in view of Paul’s pride in his own ethnic and religious background (Rom. 9:1-5; 10:1; 11:1-3; Phil 3:4-6).”

              There’s a difference in both essence and magnitude between “brother” Nathanael and St. Paul in regard to the Jewish people. Nathanael covers all Jews with one broad stroke – over both time and place. His website exhibits a complete and obsessive disdain disdain for and repudiation of his Jewish heritage. I see nothing from him that’s even remotely suggestive of the kind of love for the Jewish people that St. Paul exhibited. Criticism, frustration and anger flowing from love are one thing. That’s the kind of criticism family can and does regularly make against family. But Nathanael even refers to himself as a “former Jew.” In contrast, St. Paul still openly identified himself with his people and expressed his unbounded love for them (cf. Rom 9:1-5; 11:1-3), even amidst his frustration and the persecution he suffered from some of his kinsmen. He also openly spoke of them as still dearly loved and chosen by God (cf. Rom 11:28-29). I don’t see anything approaching that on “brother” Nathanael’s website. He actually goes out of his way to argue that Jews are no longer chosen.

    • jeff

      I really like Voris and I am very disturbed by the revelations about the unsavory company he keeps. Something will have to give at some point.

      • jeff

        If Voris is a secret anti-Semite I hope that this, too, is reavealed sooner rather than later. I am no fan of Judaism in its modern form but I found E Mike Jones’ comments creepy.

        • David M. Lewis

          The stuff said in that interview concerning the Jews was indeed creepy. However,
          that which was suggested about Cardinal Bernadin and Archbishop Chaput was refreshing.

          There needs to be an honest airing of this information. It must be affirmed or refuted.

        • Voris did a tape on the Jews in August 2010.

          Here is the link:

          I listened to the tape, and made some notes:

          Voris denounced prejudice against those of the Jewish race as anti-Semitism (0:48-0:59).

          He then distinguished between Jewish race and Jewish religion (1:06-1:17).
          Voris said that with the fall of the Jerusalem Temple in 70AD, “the Jewish faith ceased being what it had been” up until that time (1:23-1:31). He claimed that the major hallmarks of the Jewish religion until 70 AD “had been that they had a Temple, and offered sacrifice. The entire religion was focused on this one singular point” (1:33-1:46). He adds, “they also had a king and land, which helped them form into a religious nation.” (1:46-1:51) As a result of the Roman destruction of the Temple, “the Jews as the religion of the Covenant no longer existed. Gone was the Temple, Temple sacrifice, and the Jewish priesthood. These were the hallmarks, the essential, non-debatable aspects of being a religious Jew.” (1:51-2:07)

          [This is an astounding characterization of the Jewish religion. Pagan religions had temples and priests, and offered sacrifices; what was distinctive about the Jewish religion was their worship of one living, beneficent, all-powerful God, and their total rejection of idolatry. The Davidic monarchy had been overthrown when Babylon occupied Jerusalem in 586 BC, and that monarchy never again held a temporal kingdom. The Jews lost their national independence to Rome in 63BC, more than 130 years before the events of 70 AD. How could a king and a land have been the defining points of Covenant Judaism? One wonders where Voris got his history!]

          Voris added, “What replaced it in history is what has come down to us today: Rabbinical Judaism. This is not the Judaism of the Covenant. It is a man-made religion.” (2:13-2:23)

          Instead, Voris says that “the promise of the Covenant is fulfilled in the Catholic Church. We are the continuation of Israel. There is an unbroken line from Abraham to us.” (2:50-3:01).

          He adds, “only a few former members of the Covenant stayed faithful. The vast majority rejected the Covenant, as is highlighted when their leaders scream out, ‘We have no king but Caesar.’ The Covenant was continued in a few Jews who remained faithful to it by recognizing the Messiah.” (3:26-3:41) Furthermore, “the Covenant was never abandoned by God; it was abandoned by the overwhelming number of people called to it” (3:47-3:52) when they failed to accept Jesus as the Messiah.

          These Jews, according to Voris, “started a man-made religion” (4:14-4:16). Voris concludes that “Rabbinical Judaism – today’s Jewish religion – is to authentic Judaism what Protestantism is to Catholicism. It looks a lot like it sometimes, but at its core, it’s very different.” (4:17-4:28).


          I would count this stuff as a genteel introduction to the world view of E. Michael Jones, etc.


    • Tom Petro

      This video is a bit of an indictment but I’m not ready to render a decision yet. While this stuff
      makes me uncomfortable, I’ve seen people who disagree with both Voris and Jones slander them in the past. Best example was the coverage by the SPLC and bloggers on the astronomy conference they held years ago.

      I have subscribed and will watch more videos with an open eye.

    • Sandra Miesel

      And some of us have been slandered in the pages of Jones’ magazine, myself branded “a Judaizer”, for mentioning on Mark’s blog that I had held a Christian seder at home and baked hamantaschen pastries for my children. The Voris tape about the Jews masks that old key anti-Semitic argument about “Talmudic Judaism” being entirely different from the OT kind. This was a favorite ploy among French Jew-haters and is featured in the works of Fr. Denis Fahey, an influence on Fr. Coughlin. (For the record, I’m a cradle Catholic of Jewish descent, not a convert.)
      Remember, a St. Paul bids us, the Covenant with Abraham precedes the Mosaic Law by centuries. Judaism is practiced by home and personal rituals as well as Temple sacrifice. Jewish communitieshad been worshipping in synagogues for centuries before Christ, even beyond the Greco-Roman world. The majority of Jews in NT times lived outside the Holy Land and didn’t necessarily ever visit the Jerusalem Temple.

      Rodney Stark has gathered evidence that many ancient Jews did convert.

    • Rhonda Rachella

      Dr. Miesel:
      Can that priest be suspended for the sermon above? It is more outrageous than the Voris interview of Jones.
      As for the video, I say: Who cares? It’s just two grumpy men with wigs suggesting all Jews reject Christ. No different than a couple of busy buddy Church ladies gossiping about how cops like donuts.
      Don’t give this any credence by drawing attention to it.

    • Rhonda Rachella

      EM Jones interviewed by a Yugoslavian Holocaust Denier

    • Sandra Miesel

      Although I don’t want to waste time listening to an anti-seder sermon, that’s an extreme position. If the bishop feels like responding, that’s his decision. My former parish held them as an official activity for several years, with our very orthodox old-school pastor presiding. And I must point out that I’m not Dr. Miesel. Just M.S. and M.A.

      • Rhonda Rachella

        I did my own research and confirmed that that video was in fact delivered by an FSSP priest so I don’t know which bishop I could write to. Nevertheless, I’ve learned to take anything sent to me with those initials with a grain of salt.
        It may have been a waste of your time, but it helped me connect the dots.

    • Phil Rodger

      The Battle lines are hard to draw in this conflict. Here is praise for Jones from an unlikely source

      • Mark Shea

        Yes. And Henry Makow is, you know, crazy. Just read the rest of his site. You will be an excellent stooge for Voris and Jones’ sect if you are willing to settle for this one crazy guy as the justification for their Jew-bashing.

    • Earl Price

      I’ve enjoyed this audio clips very much and have been listening to them for the past few days. Jones is obviously a pretty deep thinker.

    • Wow. I usually don’t agree with Mark Shea and I usually do support Michael Voris. But this is pretty damning. Mark is correct for reporting on it. Thank you, Mark.

      I guess now I am going to have my own words shoved down my throat. Oh well.

      • Mark Shea

        Everybody makes mistakes. Don’t be so hard on yourself.

    • Rueben Thompson, Esq.

      I really didn’t know what to think of this guy Voris with the wig until I got to know him through this interview yesterday.

      Quite a different picture. I just subscribed to RCTV

      • Mark Shea

        So you agree that the proposition “Jews are the enemies of the human race” is something we need to hear more about? Yes or no?