Red Pills for Babies, Revisited


E. Michael Jones is a Catholic public intellectual. He’s written a lot of books, and publishes a magazine called “Culture Wars,” which you can subscribe to and get in the mail, like in Ye Olden Times.

I agree with most of the things he says, and I think he’s probably the last true intellectual. His book “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” is probably the single easiest book to recommend to someone who says they want a book to help them understand the Jewish issue.

As it stands now, my biggest disagreement with him is probably about the Pope. I’m not exactly clear on what his position is, exactly, but I do disagree with it.

Before this current situation with the Pope going full-anal, my biggest disagreement with him would have been on the issue of race. For whatever reason, he is totally on-board with the idea that “race does not exist,” calling the idea of race “a category of the mind.”

I wouldn’t ever debate him on the topic. He debated Jared Taylor on the topic, and actually won because Taylor claimed “Jews are white.”

I will always side with someone who says “race doesn’t exist” over someone who says “Jews are fellow whites.”

Jones is old and has his views. It would be absurd to try to change them. Further, he is against immigration, which is the number one political issue surrounding race. Based on his book “The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing,” I think he is also against desegregation.

I will debate people who attempt to rationalize Jones’ post-modern view of race as a “social construct” with the standard right-wing views on race as a reality.

During one of these debates on a Gaming Forum, a reader attempting to defend this “race doesn’t exist” ideology.

It was in response to this post from Jones:

This idea that ethnolinguistic identity overrides the genetic reality of race is a common theme Jones focuses on. He regularly makes these sorts of posts in order to agitate people.

The reader defending this position asked:

How’d it go for the “white people” who organized as “white” in Charlottesville?

Here’s my response:

How’d it go for whites who organized as “Catholics” at Toledo?

It’s a stupid question on a whole lot of different levels, not least being that no one is trying to reenact Charlottesville or thinks it was a good idea.

I’m sick of this conversation. EMJ is not esoteric about his view. It’s the same view promoted by Jewish university professors: “race doesn’t exist.” He’s even cited the Flynn Effect to explain nigger retardation. You are just saying he’s saying something different than what he’s actually saying. There isn’t really a conversation to be had here, unless you want do go over race realism redpills for babies from 2011. EMJ believes exactly what he says he believes. I am the same, so I understand it very well.

I have said: I respect EMJ more than really anyone else who’s current alive (although that probably isn’t saying much), but I don’t agree with this race position. It’s not really a difficult position to hold. I don’t feel conflicted or feel that I need to bring his view in line with mine, either by convincing him or through mental gymnastics. I’ve been wanting to have a conversation with him for years and years, and always said that I just wouldn’t mention the race thing.

What I will say: he effectively won the debate with Jared Taylor by getting Jared Taylor to say Jews were “white” and therefore proving that Taylor’s use of the term is totally meaningless beyond academic interest. It cannot be used politically, that is. I was happy to see Taylor calling out “antisemitism” the other day.

I thought about writing about it, then didn’t. But EMJ is processing this issue differently. I understand why he wants it to be this way, I understand everything he’s said on the issue, because again, he speaks very straightforwardly. He’s not some Zizek figure or a Frenchman, musing in riddles about confounding abstractions.

As for the term “white,” I can even agree that it is unfortunate and dehumanizing on some level. We used to be “Christendom.” But when we were “Christendom,” it described not only a religion, but genetics. So, it actually meant what “white” means now. The “best” term for white people is “historical Christendom.” But that’s not in use, and what we are doing is trying to describe a thing, so we are using a word – “white” – which may be unfortunate, but everyone understands its meaning.

So, if we take the thing, “he’s not white, he’s Irish,” and say “he’s not a member of historical Christendom, he’s Irish,” it no longer makes sense. Clearly. Ireland is a part of “historical Christendom.”

These personal and collective identity issues surrounding “ethnolinguistic categories” are important, but those are much more a “category of the mind” than “white.” “White” is an absolute genetic reality. “Irish” is too, but it’s also much more transitory.

I wrote my Irish identity articles and I stand by them and according to Jones’ philosophy, I should not be able to do this. I did not grow up in an Irish enclave. I didn’t grow up with anything more than a very small hint of “Irishness.” I certainly didn’t speak “Irish” (which is Jones’ big thing, the language). And that was the whole revelation: that these genes are different than those of the English or the Germans, and this accounts for my character traits. I even pointed out that these traits are much less prominent in my father, who is half Irish, than my grandfather, who was purely Irish.

So, just to clarify: Jones is not only denying our concept of “whiteness,” he is also denying our concept of ethnic identity.

My perspective is very clear, and it is informed by having been in God only knows how many different countries: genetics are real.

If we’re really going back to baby’s first red pill, then let’s do it:

I am genetically unique, the person who is genetically closest to me, because I don’t have a twin, is my full-blooded brother, then my extended family, then the Irish (if I had actually been born in Ireland, then there would be a county here), then “whites,” then Caucasoids, and then finally all humans. It’s concentric circles, with the individual as a point in the middle and all human beings as the outermost ring.

This isn’t complicated.

Everyone is fully entitled to their own views on these issues, as they are with any issues, but the EMJ view of race is not compatible with the Anglin view of race. Again, I don’t think it’s a problem, because I agree with him on most other issues, and when I’ve examined his views on this issue it seems to be a kind of “quirk” that doesn’t need to be explained any further.

The Problem, Intellectually and Practically

The problem with denying race is that you have to deny hereditary traits, which just becomes confusing. I think we all understand that if two intelligent people have a child, that child, excluding some genetic defect or environmental factor (such as malnutrition or poisoning of the mother during pregnancy), is likely to be intelligent. It’s possible he won’t be, because there could be recessive genes linked to low intelligence that come out in the child, but the way genetics work, it’s more likely than not that he will be intelligent. It’s also most likely that negative traits will be carried. Personality traits are carried. The “race doesn’t exist” argument goes something along the lines of “two intelligent people are going to teach their kid to be smart,” but there are literally dozens of different ways this is disproved, including through stranger adoption studies (which are probably the simplest and therefore most compelling – if we are really, seriously doing baby’s first red pill, which is apparently what is going on here).

If traits are passed from parents to children, then groups of people who are breeding together because they live in the same geographic area are going to have certain shared traits among the group. This is something that was understood long before genetic science was a thing. “Good breeding” was talked about among the aristocracy of Europe in the Middle Ages, and this concept was discussed by the ancients. It’s intuitively understood, because it is blatantly obvious. Children look like their parents. They have similar traits to their parents. This applies to groups. I’m not going to try to find the citations right now, because this sort of shit gets removed from Wikipedia, but you can find any of the noted ancient historians talking about the racial character of groups.

Christian race-denialism comes from the idea that we all have souls, and are all equal before God, and on earth, that because we are all equal before God, we deserve equal treatment by the state (that’s why Lady Justice wears a blindfold). We all deserve equal respect and equal dignity and so on. I agree with all of this, in the ultimate, cosmic sense, but I also believe that as a practical reality, the differences in the races means that we should be geographically separated. And we always were before, so I don’t really see any reason to change this.

What I have said with regards to EMJ’s race positions is that they don’t really have an application, because he doesn’t support immigration. As far as I can tell, the issue of immigration, and the black problem in America, are the only places where the race issue becomes political.

Further, it is, on its face, without any scientific studies, evident that individuals are different from one another, in terms of their appearance and their mental faculties. I mean, you know retards exist, right? I see nothing Christian about denying human diversity. God made us all, and we are all unique. The groups, too, are unique. My family is unique. The Irish are unique, as are white people.

It’s very simple. I don’t hate black people. Believe it or not, the readership of this website is incredibly diverse. I love all my readers. They are all my brothers in Christ, even if they do happen to be niggers. I don’t even hate the Jews themselves, although there is a separate issue with them, which makes them unique from all other races, and that is that they committed deicide, and they did not repent. Anyone who says “I am a Jew” is saying “I am proud of the murder of Jesus Christ.” That is what the entire religion is based around. Once their temple was destroyed, that was the only thing they had left.

I believe that more or less my position is the same as EMJ’s with regards to the Jews, in that they carry this curse. However, I can also agree with Hitler and Rosenberg, because I believe in heredity. So, my view is that Judaism is a cult, which breeds with itself, and that throughout history, any individual Jew could have chosen to repent of the murder of Christ, and many did. They made the decision to leave the cult, they married Christian women, and became part of the European gene pool. However, the current crop of Jews have interbred for 2,000 years, which means that we have the genetic product of 2,000 years’ worth of people who took pride in the murder of Christ, and therefore, they are genetically different, and these genetic traits they have are overwhelmingly negative. I still believe that a Jew can repent. However, I think that with each successive generation of Jew that decided not to repent, the likelihood of repentance was reduced, because they carried with them stronger hereditary Jewish character traits. I suspect that EMJ would take special issue with that last sentence, but I believe it, and I think that we can see it – the assimilation project of the Jews did not lead to conversions, instead it led to a worse and much more destructive form of Judaism, which is what we now called “liberalism” or “leftism.” Through these generations of not only rejection of Christ but taking pride in His murder, the Jews have refined these traits and become something that is barely even human anymore.

I just want to say clearly: I believe that Jews are human and do have souls and can repent. I just don’t think they will. But, for the Jews reading this, I will say: Jesus loves you. The door is always open and the light’s on in the hall.

But, I will add, because I have to add this: Jews have faked conversion repeatedly throughout history, so I’m probably not going to trust any Jew, even if he does get baptized. Repentance is not something that can be proved.

I know that people like EMJ and want to line their views up with his. This is just natural, to want to get everyone to agree on everything. I do not have that need, personally, but I understand it in others.