E. Michael Jones on Identity

There seems no reason to question E. Michael Jones’ sincerity. By current standards, he is brave, courteous, and he is willing to debate anyone. Few commentators have such a comprehensive understanding of the threats posed by Jewish supremacism, and fewer still discuss the issues in such an articulate and engaging way.

The problem arises with his understanding of identity as a means of resisting and eventually reforming Jewish-dominated power structures. To begin with, identity is a slippery concept. Identity can be imposed externally or constructed from within, and it can be based on immutable human traits, ideology, behavior, and any number of other factors. Identity can also be fleeting. Catholics can become atheists and vice versa. It should also be noted that people need not be schizophrenic to simultaneously hold multiple, and even conflicting identities.

It might be easier to simply discard the notion of identity when discussing solutions to Jewish supremacism. This would be a bad idea for the following reason. Jews have steadily increased their international dominance precisely because they identify as Jews. Jewish identity cannot be defined according to language spoken, religious practices observed, or even physical characteristics. Yet Jews create networks and collaborate based largely on identity. It follows that any movement that is to successfully counter Jewish power will need to develop its own identity or form some sort of coalition of existing identities. Given Jewish skillfulness at infiltration and divide-and-conquer strategies, one or two unified identities may achieve greater success in resisting Jewish power than a smattering of well-informed interest groups.

Jones argues that Catholicism is the only identity suited to this endeavor. His arguments in favor of Catholicism and against White identity are that 1) Whiteness is an artificially constructed identity; 2) individuals must decide upon whether they identify as White or Catholic because they can’t be both; 3) Catholicism affords critics of Jewish behavior a layer of protection against Jewish persecution.

Jones argues that Whiteness was imposed as an identity upon European indentured servants who provided labor in the Virginia colonies. The term ‘White’ was assigned to the European workers as a divide-and-conquer tactic, giving them a relatively higher status than the African slaves next to whom they toiled. Although this initial White identity may have been artificial, it has little bearing on current day Americans and, for example, Australians whose ancestors came from Europe.

Jones describes himself as bi-racial, meaning that he is German and Irish. This description may have resonated with denizens of American White ethnic neighborhoods prior to the ethnic cleansing of those neighborhoods in the 1960s. At present, however, most Americans who appear White have ancestors whose origins lie in disparate parts of Europe. It is therefore natural that, if they identify themselves according to race, they might say that they’re White rather than providing a (possibly inaccurate) list of the regions from which their ancestors came. This, incidentally, applies both to Whites who are proud of having European heritage and those who are ashamed of it. Perhaps if America were a White only country, no one would identify as White. If it were White only but still dominated by a tiny Jewish minority, its citizens might identify as gentiles. We have no way of knowing. What is important is that Whiteness is not a ‘category of the mind’ as Jones would have us believe. It is a category of reality simply because White people know who they are and can recognize each other—and because it is rooted in the evolutionary trajectory of the European peoples. To the extent that it is important, non-Whites can also recognize us as White, usually not as Irish or German or Italian, but as White. It is therefore irrelevant whether Whiteness is only 500 years old—as Jones asserts—or more than 20,000 years old.

There is little doubt that language and culture play an important role in identity, but languages, cultural practices, and cultural perspectives can be learned. Jones may describe himself as half German, but he acquired his knowledge of the German language and culture because he lived in Germany as an adult. He was not born German, but he was born White.

Jones claims that White identity is a trap set by Jewish interests and that Americans (and presumably other Whites) who identify as White are internalizing the commands of their oppressors. On this point, he is partially correct. Among some White nationalists, there is a tendency to view all non-Whites with disdain or hostility. Naturally, this might hamper universal efforts to combat Jewish supremacism. Whites are not the only adversely affected group. Arguably, meaningful change will not happen without the type of multi-cultural coalition that is incompatible with ardent White identitarianism.

But at some point, the issue of whether Whites are internalizing the commands of their oppressors becomes irrelevant. Prior to arriving on American shores, Blacks would have identified themselves as Fulani or Mandingo or any number of other ethnicities. None of these identities would have been useful to the American Black Power Movement of the 1960s, however. People can argue about the movement’s propriety, but there can be little doubt that it resulted in an increase in Black power. In the long run, Whites may have no choice but to identify as White, particularly in areas where they are outnumbered by hostile non-Whites and have no option to relocate. If, on the other hand, White identity can be normalized sooner rather than later, Jewish efforts at ethnic cleansing will become less successful and most Whites can look forward to a more secure future.

Before the Modern Period, most Western people’s identity was fixed at birth. These identities encompassed religion, sex, locale, language, vocation, social status, and so on. Urbanization and its concomitant social and geographic mobility have left a vacuum and people in industrialized countries, if they even contemplate identity, construct their own identities. In part due in part to Jewish denigration of Whiteness, many White Americans manufacture for themselves frivolous identities determined by their sexual practices, or the brand of motorcycle they favor, or the music they listen to. Jones argues that Catholic identity affords some protection against persecution by Jews. Certainly, in the past the Church often effectively prohibited predatory Jewish practices like usury. But with the rise of the nation-state and globalism, the Church has neither the power nor the will to dismantle Jewish power networks. If every White American were to convert to Catholicism tomorrow, there would still be a staggering amount of consciousness raising to do. A direct development of White identity based on recognition of collective White interests, and a shared understanding of how these interests are threatened, seems the most effective approach.

This is not to say that the Catholic Church and other churches have no role to play. Networks of White advocacy should build strength and legitimacy in all institutions. Jones’ assertion, however, that Catholicism is incompatible with White identity makes little sense. Scholars universally accept that people hold multiple and often conflicting identities. The issue of whether Catholic Church doctrine discourages White identity can be left to the Magisterium, but surely White identitarians won’t be excommunicated based on thought crime.

Many Whites now recognize and resent the ethnic cleansing, wealth extraction, denigration in academia and the popular culture, perversion of history, and other assaults their people have been subjected to. They also understand the source of these assaults. Jones may be correct that the Catholic Church provides protection. Moving forward, however, we shouldn’t need protection when we point out lying, cheating and stealing. It has yet to happen, but the time must come when the perpetrators are shamed for their behavior rather than truthtellers shamed for antisemitism.