Goy Guide to World History

By Doctor E. Michael Jones
Part I
Part II


  1. Thank you so much.
    I wish there was a quality audio book of Dr. Jones’ new book, Barren Metal. I cannot read big books anymore. I always like to own the paper book but books of this kind never seem to be made into a quality audio (not robot sounding) book.
    Quoting E. Michael Jones…
    “The triumph of Bolshevism in the revolution of 1917 increased the fear and
    the animus against the Jews once again. And once again it was the most
    visible Jews, which is to say the ethnic, religious Jews who bore the brunt of
    that animus when the reaction came. “The Trotskys make the revolution, but
    the Bronsteins pay for it,” is how one Jew formulated the phenomenon.”
    Many ordinary Jews we encounter in our lives are just as manipulated and lied to and used as the rest of us are. Almost every Jewish person I have encountered have been outstandingly generous, and I notice, at least in the USA, that you will be paid higher wages if you work for a Jew. They will pay you very well.
    I still do not understand if or how the ordinnary Jewish person who attends synagogue is steeped in the Talmud. If you ask this average ordinary Jew about the Talmud they are taught, they seem like they do even know what the Talmud is.
    Dr. Jones just refers to “the Jews” in the universal form, which is correct and permissible. We can say ‘the Jews killed Jesus’, but of course we know that not every single Jew at the time of Christ was actively working to have Christ crucified. But still referring to “the Jews” in the universal form is permissible. Of course, the Trotskyites, the Bosheviks of our day capitialize upon that to further their “anti-semitism” tool and production.
    Benjamin Disraieli, a Jewish man, and high in the government of England round WWI time or a little after, I think. He wrote a book, Coningsby, in which Sidonia was the chief protagonist and was a thinly veiled Nathan Rothschild. So this Jewish author wrote a book exposing the Jewish banker system that owned Europe and England at the time. Now you may ask, why would a Jewish man do this. It is a deep former of manipulation and misdirection. You will see many times these Jews of the revolutionary spirit seeming to point the finger at their own people. And they attack and kill their own people. They mercilessly use and manipulate their own people.
    If is very deep and evil. I like so much the way Dr. Jones has explained this evil as a spirit, a revolutionary spirit that comes upon a person. It is not about the person’s DNA. And this spirit can not only come upon a person, it can leave a person. I think that is most consistent with what we see in the New Testament words of Jesus and authors of the epistles.

  2. Very interesting video. The whole notion of “anti-Semitism” is fraught with problems. Are the Jews a race, a religion, or a tribe? Some would say all three. But “Semitism” is a racial category, so the concept of anti-Semitism implies that dislike of Jews is based on race. But many who are called anti-Semites object to the teachings of the Talmud, and/or the teachings of the Old Testament. So their dislike of Judaism is not racial as such. If I understand his position correctly, Dr David Duke seems to trace the roots of Jewish secular radicalism to religious Jewishness, ie. Judaism – including orthodox and ultra orthodox Judaism. Gilad Atzmon on the other hand – if I understand HIM correctly – says the source of much of the hatred of Jews is neither secular Zionism nor religious Judaism, but secular Jewish tribal supremacism – which he says afflicts non-Zionist Jews, and even leftist anti-Zionist Jews, as much as it does their religious Jewish, and Zionist counterparts. Furthermore many who self-identify as Jews are militant atheists. For instance the British writer and comedian David Baddiel calls himself a “Jewish fundamentalist atheist” – without apparently seeing this formulation as in any way self-contradictory. Many, though not all, atheist Jews are also strong supporters of Israel, even though the justification for Jewish ownership of that patch of land in the Middle East is based on the Old Testament, and is therefore, by definition, religious. It seems to me that the label “anti-Semitism” confuses several different phenomena (probably deliberately). You have biologically based racial hatred of Jews, which Dr Jones, Fr. Denis Fahey and many other alleged Catholic anti-semites have always condemned. Then you have religious based dislike of the Jews, which in a supposedly deeply secular age should logically be as “valid” or even praiseworthy as dislike of Christianity or Islam – but is certainly not regarded as such by the supposedly secular western establishment. Then you have objections to Zionism, which is increasingly called “anti-Semitism”, even though it’s really opposition to a political nationalist (or ultra-nationalist) programme, rather than to a race. And then you have opposition to Jewish secular supremacism – which again can only be called racism if one believes that criticism of the political values or cultural tendencies of certain tribal or ethnic groups is inherently racist – in which case the anti-Irish rants of Julie Burchill and other British Zionists are racism, and the frequent white liberal diatribes against white South Africans, Russians, white American southerners, and so on are also racism. And of course that’s without getting into the explicitly racially based nature of the Israeli state itself.
    Not long ago Netanayahu publicly stated that if African asylum seekers were not promptly removed from Israel the country risked losing its Jewish identity. Imagine the outcry if Merkel warned that if Turks were not banished from Germany the country would lose its white Christian identity. Or if the Spanish Prime Minister made a similar statement regarding Spain’s Latin Roman Catholic identity, being under threat from Moroccan immigrants.

  3. Nice insights, Northsider, but to me you leave out, or possibly get wrong, certain important ideas.
    First of all you say…
    “But “Semitism” is a racial category, so the concept of anti-Semitism implies that dislike of Jews is based on race.”
    I would argue with that. Look semite in Wiki. It is a linquistic grouping. OK? Look what the bible, OT and NT, has to say about “race.” It is about people groups who fanned out from the Tower of Babel because God wanted it that way. Natural one people group will settle in one geographic area and they will intermarry and develop distinct biological characteristics. But really, the bible says, God says, we are all of “one blood.”
    The Catholic Church has always taught, or at least that is what I understand, that it is morally wrong to discriminate against another human being because of their biological characteristics, their DNA if you will. Some call that “biological determinism.” That is a sin and it can be a mortal sin. Period. Jesus says racism of any kind of any color skin person against another color of skin person is WRONG. It could get you to Hell. But we human beings are supposed go study and look deeply into God’s word, Old and New Testaments as well as sacred tradition and the writings of the Church fathers. Second Thessalonians tells us that clearly, I think it is.
    OK, I won’t hit on each thing I think you might have wrong, but will keep this short.
    You said.
    “It seems to me that the label “anti-Semitism” confuses several different phenomena (probably deliberately). You have biologically based racial hatred of Jews, which Dr Jones, Fr. Denis Fahey and many other alleged Catholic anti-semites have always condemned.”
    “the label “anti-Semitism” confuses several different phenomena (probably deliberately).”
    Look, there is such a thing as REAL “anti-semitism”. It is when you discriminate, in thought, word or deed, against another human being because of some biological/DNA characteristic or self-identified ethnicity,
    And then there is FALSE “anti-semitism”. I acknowledge that you stated the confusion about what is or is not “anti-semitism” deliberately confused. Yes, that is what I meant when I said it is a created tool that is used to send us down the wrong road. It is what I meant when explained about Benjamin Disraeli. The ADL and AIPAC and the American Enterprise Institute, those guys’ stock and trade is promoting “anti-semitism.”
    I can see what a lot of the alternative commentators just latch on the term “Zionist” or “anti-Zionist.” I mean that gets the big big confusion-infusion word, Jew, out of the mix. That can be very handy in trying to lay your ideas. But it can also be very wrong, because in completely avoiding the word “Jew”, as Dr. Jones does not do, you move away from Truth.
    The important message Dr. Jones delivered, I think, is that over the years, our whole mindset, our whole vocabulary, has been molded and changed so that we cannot even have a truth-seeking open discourse about all of this. What we have had instead, is the evil Hegelian “dialog to consensus” scam. So from that perspective, even all the commentators like Atzman and Duke are caught up in the untruthful commentary/”dialog”.
    What is so wonderful about the visible Church that Jesus Christ founded upon this present Earth is that Truth and Reason go together. They are not contradictory, as the Great Enlightenment thinkers would have us believe. A Catholic does not have to, and ought not to, check their brains at the door.

  4. Dachieslady: I don’t think your objection to my objection to the term “anti-Semitism” holds water. My Collins dictionary defines “Semite” as:
    “a member of the group of Caucosoid peoples who speak a Semitic language, including the Jews and Arabs as well as the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians and Babylonians.”
    In any case, after objecting to my description of “Semite” as a racial term, you go on to say:
    “Look there is such a thing as REAL anti-Semitism, it is when you discriminate in word thought or deed based on some biological DNA characteristic or self-identified ethnic identity.”
    So which is it? Is “Semitism” based on “some biological DNA characteristic”, or is it based on language? Anti-Semitism, as the term is commonly used today, clearly denotes race rather than religion or language, since it’s applied to hatred or discrimination (real and alleged) against many folk who don’t practice religious Judaism and don’t speak a Semitic language. But, interestingly it’s very rarely applied to hatred or discrimination against Arabs, etc. By the way I don’t myself think discriminating against folk on the basis of their DNA is necessarily wicked – and more to point neither do many of those who use the term “discrimination” as a bogey word – witness the silence of many such folk about Israel’s blatant and completely unapologetic racial discrimination.
    I would say the rights and wrongs of racial discrimination very much depend on what form the discrimination takes. If I a run a tech firm and I want a computer scientist, I might justifiably opt to hire someone of Korean stock rather than of another less mathematically inclined race. If I manage a Rugby team I might be more inclined to sign a Maori over a member of a less physically robust nation. Nor do I think there’s anything un-Christian about any nation or race – be they black, brown, white or yellow – wishing to preserve their unique racial and cultural integrity. And, by the way, nor did any pre-conciliar pope – contrary to what you seem to imply.

  5. Northsider,
    I am not going to play the word game. I am seeking truth and trying get some truthful insights out there as best I can. I think my ideas a hold a whole lot of water. I am going to assume the best in you and that you also are a truth seeker and that you are getting your ideas out there as best you can. I realize this “forum” is not meant so much for there to be discussion among the different posters of comments to this article.
    However, and I know feelings don’t count and that it is TRUTH that counts, I feel that you have misrepresented my position in many ways. You tip your hat to me by saying what I “seem to imply.” I think you are trying to force a false choice on me and that are trying to twist and misrepresent my words and trying to manipulate me. I FEEL not so good about that.
    When you are talking about how God “confused the languages” of those people who built the Tower of Babel, we are talking linquistics, languages.
    You can talk about your reference source, the dictionary you use and the word Caucasoid.
    But I think Christians need to be circumspect about the world’s “science”, including the “social sciences”, and their classifications and their “science.” Satan has been at work a long time in this world and he has pretty much got the “science” market cornered.
    Let me give this little bit of insight looking at
    “In studies of linguistics and ethnology, the term Semitic (from the Biblical “Shem”, Hebrew: שם‎) was first used to refer to a family of languages native to West Asia (the Middle East).”
    And later in the article…
    “In historical race classifications, the Semitic peoples are considered to be of Caucasoid type,”
    “Caucasian race (also Caucasoid[1] or Europid[2]) is a concept that has historically been used to describe the physical or biological type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia.[3] The term was used in biological anthropology for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone.[4”
    And by the way, I do not trust Wiki or most modern dictionaries as far as objective truth conveyance is concerned.
    You said
    “Nor do I think there’s anything un-Christian about any nation or race – be they black, brown, white or yellow – wishing to preserve their unique racial and cultural integrity.”
    Well, I sure did NOT say there say there was anything “un-Christian” about people wishing to preserve their unique and racial cultural integrity. (Straw man?) I think that God wanted that too. I think when he scattered the people groups, he really was wanted there to be individual people groups and even individual sovereign nation states.
    It certainly looks like when you destroy the cultural integrity of a people, then you get crime and wars and big ideas of empire and evil is off the races. It sure looks that way to me. OK, but Jesus there is something so so much more important than preserving our “cultural identity and integrity.” It is preserving our souls so we can get through this valley of tears, this evil world system, and get to Heaven. So then we are talking “religion”, i.e., souls and their eternal resting place.
    And oh boy, when you “prove” that people of one color of skin tend to have lower IQs, well by golly, you have a really nice big tool to “manage” a very large group of people.
    Jesus tells us His Kingdom is not of this world, even though He also teaches us that His Kingdom is related in some ways to what is happening now in our world. Dr. Jones often uses the term “messianic” to describe how the Jews do their manipulations, manipulations of the culture, focused on man, man now on this present earth, and that being all there is.
    That’s NOT all there is! God bless us each and every one in the Name of the One Who is Truth.

  6. Dachieslady: I don’t think I was playing word games. My original point was, and still is, that anti-Semitism in its common modern usage is a vague term that (probably deliberately) conflates several different phenomena: biological racism, religious opposition to Judaism, political and nationalist opposition to Zionism, and political opposition to secular Jewish tribalism. For example, many left liberals, both Jewish and non-Jewish, insist that since communists in Hollywood tended to be Jewish, the anti-communist “witch-hunts” directed at 1950s Hollywood were therefore by definition “anti-Semitic” . This, in my view, is akin to arguing that because most Lutherans tend be of Nordic ancestry, criticism of Lutheranism is therefore anti-Scandinavian.
    I’m sorry you feel I misrepresented you (some concrete examples of this would be helpful), but I took your statement about “discrimination” (which I quoted in my reply to you) to indicate a belief on your part that discrimination is an intrinsically bad thing, whereas, as I said, I believe the rightness or wrongness of discrimination depends on the context. Life would be unliveable if we didn’t all discriminate all the time, and those who use “anti-discrimination” as a political slogan often have ulterior motives in doing so. I never mentioned IQ by the way.
    I don’t believe IQ tests are necessarily scientific, since there are many forms of intelligence, but I do believe different races have different aptitudes – and often different temperaments as well, which, far from being a bad thing, surely adds to life’s rich tapestry. It’s those who seek to homogenize the world through enforced mass global immigration who are the true enemies of diversity and tolerance in my view. I do find it very odd that Israel, alone among western nations, is permitted by liberal opinion to be unapologetically ethnocentric and religiously and racially exclusivist in its immigration policies (and that’s without getting onto the subject of the forcible mass expulsion of Palestinians from their homes to found this state in the first place). If, as we are constantly told, Israel is the only western style democracy in the middle-east, shouldn’t it start behaving like every other western democracy has been compelled to in recent years – and open its doors to immigrants from all over the world?

  7. I am uncertain but this should be consider..

    Nick DeanJanuary 25, 2015 at 11:21 PM
    Jones is fundamentally dishonest about race and nation issues. For example he re-defines common terms so that White Catholics are one of the three major ‘ethnicities’ of the historic USA, with Jews and – get this – Black and White Protestants being the others. More here: http://www.vdare.com/posts/sam-francis-on-cspan-maybe-not
    Being fundamentally wrong and even dishonest about the fundamental issues is not good, and there are better antisemites out there who more correctly see biological conflicts behind Jewish aggression against the West, rather than Jones’s idea that they are revolt against Christ.
    It’s a trivial matter to disprove his thesis by pointing out that what he calls the ‘Jewish Revolutionary Spirit’ was an observed Jewish characteristic pre-Christ, for example.

    From here below. I tend to think about this and had this feeling before.

  8. Since this article is mainly about Dr. E. Michael Jones’ ideas, I thought I would post something that makes me know in my heart that he is not preaching and teaching the true doctrine of Christ and His Church.
    Dr. Barrett and Dr. Jones were a few months ago in Tehran attending a conference and both are supporting of the Islamic peoples in the Middle East. Supposedly Dr. Jones is the “conservative Catholic” and Dr. Barrett is the liberal adhereent to Islam religion. They are two peas in a pod and adhere first to one world death and slavery system for all.
    TRUTH JIHAD: E. Michael Jones: Pope’s new vision threatens NWO
    By Kevin Barrett on July 1, 2015
    Saving the environment from bankster technocracy
    I was really disgusted when I heard Dr. Jones praise “Pope” Francis’ encyclical about the environment, Laudite Di.
    I have exchanged one email with Dr. Jones where I asked him his opinion about the evil of a one world government. His reply to me was extremely vague and almost unintelligible. It is clear to me that Dr. Jones is accepting of the idea of the goodness of a central world. rulership. From my reading of the scriptures, Old and New Testaments, God wants there to be individual nation states with sovereignty. From what I understand of St. Augustine’s Just War Theory, there are very defined limits to what is a just war, and it’s what we ain’t had for the last couple of centuries.
    In a one world government, all nation states’ sovereignty will be totally elmininated. Also all world religions, including all the false religions as well as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, will be eliminated. The new one world religion will be pantheistic and Luciferian in nature.
    I have studied 9-11 and I have communicated with Dr. David Ray Griffin, indirectly through the RINF forum, and Dr. Griffin is also accepting and supportive of the goodness of a central world government.
    And Francis is also supportive of the Satanic United Nations and a “new world order.” Francis will go to the U.N. and speak to them about his wonderful plan for truly evil kind of “saving the environment.”
    Here are three articles, from a site I appreciate but do not fully accept in all its ways.
    Francis’ New Encyclical: Radical Environmentalism
    Published on Jun 19, 2015
    great embedded video showing exact anti-Christ language in this encyclical
    Bro. Michael Dimond
    First, it’s interesting to note that one of the main individuals chosen by Antipope Francis to present his new “encyclical” on the environment was an atheist named Hans Schellnhuber. Schellnhuber has said that the world is overpopulated by at least 6 billion people. He’s a promoter of world government and an earth constitution that would hold power over every government and nation.
    Now I will very quickly review Antipope Francis’ new “encyclical”. The document is made up of 246 paragraphs and a “prayer”.
    18: “Although change is part of the working of complex systems, the speed with which human activity has developed contrasts with the naturally slow pace of biological evolution.”
    In paragraph number 18, Francis promotes the myth of evolution. He refers to “biological evolution” as if it’s true. You can see my new video, Amazing Evidence for God. It covers the scientific evidence that refutes evolution.
    63: “Respect must also be shown for the various cultural riches of different peoples, their art and poetry, their interior life and spirituality. If we are truly concerned to develop an ecology capable of remedying the damage we have done, no branch of the sciences and no form of wisdom can be left out, and that includes religion and the language particular to it.”
    In number 63, Antipope Francis speaks of the so-called “riches” and “wisdom” in non-Catholic “spirituality” and “religion”.
    134: “Although no conclusive proof exists that GM cereals may be harmful to human beings, and in some regions their use has brought about economic growth which has helped to resolve problems…”
    In number 134, he promotes dangerous genetically modified foods and praises their so-called economic benefits.
    170: “Furthermore, since the effects of climate change will be felt for a long time to come, even if stringent measures are taken now, some countries with scarce resources will require assistance in adapting to the effects already being produced, which affect their economies. In this context, there is a need for common and differentiated responsibilities. As the bishops of Bolivia have stated, ‘the countries which have benefited from a high degree of industrialization, at the cost of enormous emissions of greenhouse gases, have a greater responsibility for providing a solution to the problems they have caused’”.
    In number 170, Francis promotes the myth of climate change. He says countries have a common responsibility to take action against “climate change”.
    173: “Enforceable international agreements are urgently needed, since local authorities are not always capable of effective intervention… Global regulatory norms are needed to impose obligations and prevent unacceptable actions…”
    In number 173, Francis says enforceable international agreements to protect the earth are urgently needed. He also says that global regulatory norms are needed to impose obligations and prevent unacceptable actions. Radical environmentalism has been used by socialists over the last fifty years to wipe out smaller companies. Francis’ public support for this radical agenda will almost guarantee that people throughout the world will suffer and lose more money and freedoms as a consequence of unreasonable and unnecessary regulations.
    179: “… pressure on governments to develop more rigorous regulations, procedures and controls.”
    In number 179, he calls for putting pressure on governments to develop more rigorous regulations and controls to protect the environment.
    211: “… avoiding the use of plastic and paper, reducing water consumption… using public transport or car-pooling…”
    In number 211, Francis says that people should avoid the use of plastic and paper and reduce water consumption. Notice that he doesn’t say people should reduce their use of plastic and paper. He speaks of avoiding it. He calls for people to use public transportation or car-pooling. This is outrageous. He is promoting a globalist socialist agenda.
    217: “So what they all need is an ‘ecological conversion’…”
    218: “… a healthy relationship with creation is one dimension of overall personal conversion, which entails the recognition of our errors, sins, faults and failures, and leads to heartfelt repentance and desire to change. The Australian bishops spoke of the importance of such conversion for achieving reconciliation with creation…”
    In numbers 217 and 218, Antipope Francis speaks of a personal conversion with creation. The only kind of conversion is a true spiritual conversion to the Catholic faith. Francis refers to creation as if it’s divine. No Catholic would ever speak of an “ecological conversion”. He’s a heretic, promoting Pantheistic nonsense. Francis is promoting earth worship and has actually done this many times so far during his reign as antipope. Here’s just one example:
    Francis’ November 20, 2014 address at the offices of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN: “… the Earth never forgives. Protect our sister the Earth, our Mother Earth, so that she does not respond with destruction.”
    Francis says that the Earth never forgives and that we must be careful because the Earth might respond with destruction.
    Francis appears to be saying that the earth will judge us, in addition to God. In fact, he seems to indicate that we will have to answer to “creation”. This is earth worship. He’s an apostate.
    Not mentioned above, but I believe this encyclical also suggests that a world carbon tax, a Tobin tax, would be a good thing, that is, suggests that the “global warming” theory is correct. It is not.
    Those who want a one world government are the Rothschild Luciferians ruled by those who say they are Jews but are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan.

Leave a Reply to dachsieladyCancel reply