Did C-Span’s Book TV show up?
They present many, many books now with these weekend shows so there was no reason for them not to be there unless they had their arm twisted.

Alas, how we miss Sam.

E. Michael Jones’s talk is available on line: http://www.culturewars.com/2007/Francis.htm

Too bad. Sam was a great guy who despised and made fun of geeks like Jones.

That said, Sam’s main writings were on race and Shots Fired has very few of his pieces on race.

I also miss Sam a great deal.  I bought Shots Fired at the recent John Randolph Club meeting and look forward to sitting down with it once this semester is over.  It is too bad about E. Michael Jones’ speech. It would have been much better had he brought his son along with his fiddle to play some Scotch-Irish music.  The kid is superb and this would have been more in keeping with Sam’s views, I suspect.

Follow Porfirio Rubirosa?  Even capping Gottfried on the neocons can’t be that bad.  “A purported eleven inch cafe au lait sinker thick as a man’s wrist” was how Truman Capote (who is no doubt accurate, but assuredly did not have first hand knowledge) described the Domican lothario’s virility.  Rubirosa tiene una cosa, indeed.

RIP, Sam Francis. You are not forgotten.

Semper fi,
Chris in Sedona

What exactly is wrong with what Jones said? And why is anything he said contrary to Sam Francis’s views? It seems that for once someone was brave enough to say some truths and dared to mention theology. I can see why some of the less intelligent “racial” thinkers at the conference didn’t like it - but that probably has more to do with anti-Catholic bigotry than anything else. And despite all the fuss no-one has actually shown anything wrong with the speech. The reaction is hardly a shining example of intelligent discourse - something I thought that Francis valued!

I read E.M. Jones speech and it actually makes a lot of sense. I see people, including Brimelow, complaining about Jones speech but they did not explain what is wrong with it, not even try to challenge it. Plus, it does relate to Sam Francis because he converted before his death. Francis fought all his life to avoid the destruction of his country, that is what Jones said and is also fighting for.

Taki,

You were watching triangulation at work! After Jones’ speech, Kevin
MacDonald enters center stage as a middle-of-the-roader. We need both
of them.

Some things just have to be said! They can be presented in different
ways, but the important thing is that they’re said.

Dan

I don’t think that MacDonald is “middle-of-the-road” compared to Jones. That is like adding oranges and potatoes. They focus on different domains. Jones works more on the theological field; while McDonald, Brimelow, Sailer, and other work on the biologial-ethnical field. 

So hinting that Jones is too “extreme” compared with McDonald is just wrong. In fact Brimelow attacks Jones precisely for not mentioning race as the main issue. Jones is not a racist or anti-semitic in the sense these words are loosely applied today to white supremacist and nazi types. He just does not focus on race. Read his speech and find it yourself.

Jerem Wilkinson asks what’s wrong with Jones’ speech.  Well, I read it too (Thanks, JGB, for the link)and here’s my take.

It’s not a bad speech, nor one that should prevent the conference being aired by C-span. Jones has an interesting view of the motivations behind Jewish support for radical movements in Christian societies.  His delineation of a fundamental distinction between Northern and Southern views of “whiteness” has some validity, though only - I would assert - before the 1960’s, and the rise of the modern civil rights movement.  In fact it was George Wallace(whose key role was pointed out by Sam Francis), more than anyone else, who taught northern ethnics that they too - Irish, Italian, Polish, whatever - were first and foremost American white people, as much as Yankee WASPs or Southern Anglo-celts. 

And this fact, the transcending of their ethnicity, was a product of another transcending force: American history, and the scorned but effective operation of the “melting pot.” These were indeed meltable ethnics, unlike blacks, hispanics and asians.

This is what’s really wrong with Jones’ speech. His Logos, his (what looks like)rigid Catholic particularism trumps 300 years of inter-marriage between the various white ethnic groups, and the assimilation of these groups into the British Protestant cultural patterns that Peter Brimelow and Lawrence Auster(an ethnic Jew, btw) have both written about so well.  Jones denies this.  He says that we are merely, “...a nation of nations...we have no common past...we have no racial identity...”

That’s bunk.  That’s what the multi-culturalists and the neocons want us to believe. That’s what they preach to us 24/7 in every mainstream media outlet, be it newspaper, magazine, TV or movie. That’s why they have been so busy re-writing American history for the past 40 years.

And that’s why Jones’ speech is wrong.

Beau Martin,
Your point is not that accurate. Jones does not deny the melting pot, moreover he thinks it’s a good thing. What he is doing is a distinction stating that there was not just one melting pot but three. One melting pot for Protestants, another for Catholics, and another for Jews.  Watching the USA today he cannot be but right. He, and other, has developed this concept early on in his writings (e.g. The Slaughter of Cities) and he mentions it in his Francis speech passing by.

H.A., don’t think so.  Jones denies utterly the concept of a melting pot which melds various types of European immigrants into a common American identity over several generations. This is contrary to observable facts about America’s white population in 2007. Today the descendents of Polish immigrants marry WASPs, descendents of Italian immigrants marry Scotch-Irish; Catholics marry Southern Baptists, Methodists marry Greek-Orthodox and Jews marry into all these groups.  Granted, there are large pockets of exclusive Cathollics, Protestants, and Jews, but neither Jones nor you can deny the reality of what I have just described. (As a historical aside, I would mention that this melding, assimilative process was largely made possible by the severe limitation in immigration imposed in the early 1920’s which lasted until the late 1960’s, a “digestive” breathing space of over two generations.)

And where in his speech does Jones say his version, the triple melting pot, is a good thing?  On the contrary, he clearly states it has made us a nation like Yugoslavia (not exactly a desirable comparison), where ethnic groups wage eternal war and ethnic cleansing against each other.  In what way does Jones think that’s a good thing?

However, my chief objection to Jones is his flat denial that Americans have a common history and his assertion that the white majority has no common ethnic identity. Here, he sounds just like Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol, or George Will, a devotee of the “proposition nation” shibboleth.  How ironic that a man like Jones, who indeed has some intriguing ideas, should sound at the end of his speech like a water carrier for our enemies, the people who wish to destroy us.

But he does.

Beau Martin,
In this short speech Jones does not talk a lot about the triple melting point. In his previous works he does and he describes the triple melting point more as a fact than anything else, and definetly not as something bad. Just a historical fact.
Regarding your point about Jews marrying Catholics, Catholics marrying Protestants and Protestants marrying Jews, yes, that is true, but usually one of the parts must yield and accept the other’s religion. Now, and always, there are 3 major groups defined by religion: Catholics, Protestants, and Jews. If your theory were right all groups would have melted togheter into a new single religion, but this is not true. Again, Jones does not argue against Jews, or anyone, as an ethnic or racial group apart. His apporach is theological/spiritual/religious.
In fact one could wonder about a quadruple melting pot with the Muslim immigration and high reproduction rate these days. In Yugoslavia Muslims are as white as white Croats and white Serbs, but they constitute a different group.
Furthermore, Jones is totally opposed to the neocons.

My comments are based exclusively on Jones’ speech and the ideas he expresses therein.  Some, not all, of his ideas seem flawed to me and I explained, to the best of my ability, why.

I have no theory of a melting pot creating a “new single religion.” Only simplistic models, created by the more arrogant type of sociology grad student, would presume such an absurdity. But from a historical standpoint, I do see a melting pot creating a common American white identity - transcending to some degree sectarian differences - in much the same way that some other nation-states, like France, Germany, England(and to a lesser extent, Britain), have forged a common national identity from seperate tribes and regions.

I appreciate that Jones does not agree against Jews from a genetic basis, and as I stated before, he presents an interesting argument and analysis in many respects. I would not dismiss him the way Peter Brimelow did at VDARE a week or so ago.

The Muslim religion, more than any other except perhaps Judaism, does seem to trump racial identity, as you point out.  All the more reason to ban completely ANY Muslim immigration into the United States, and to remove those already here who are not already citizens.

I read that article by Mr. Jones which I thought very good but I noticed a discrepancy where he makes a difference between “race” and “ethnicity”.  Well, “Ethnicity” comes from the Greek meaning “race”.  Sir Brenton who translated the Septuagint into English translated “ethnos” into “race”.  So, I am confused on where and how this distinction arose and what is the difference or maybe not a difference between ethnicity and race.

Can someone enlighten me?

W.L.W., at the risk of confusing you (and me) further…

In modern popular usage, at least, race has usually (not always) been thought of as a broader category than ethnicity. Thus, you read descriptions of Slavs, or Celts, or Teutons as ethnic groups belonging to the larger white race. Or Chinese, Japanese and Vietnamese as members of the yellow race.  Note that the last three are also nationalities. But China has many ethnicities among its 1.3 billion people. So what about Poles, Irish and Germans? Nationalities or ethnicities? Kinda both, at least most of the time. Before WWII there were large numbers of ethnic Germans(aka, Teutons)living in Poland, and large numbers of ethnic Poles (aka Slavs) living in Germany.  But then there were other German Slavs called Wends and Sorbs. Related to the Poles linguistically, probably genetically, but they weren’t Polish. What about those? Confusing, ain’t it?

19th century writers, and even 20th century ones like Winston Churchill, often referred to people of “English race” or “Italian race” or even “American race.” Thanks guys. 

In our even more sloppy discourse of the post-civil rights era, dominated by our fear of calling things what they are lest we offend someone, ethnic group and race have become interchangeable. When I hear a WASP high school student report that he has come from a basketball game where the opposing team was “of a different ethnicity” I can safely assume he means blacks, not Italians or Poles.  Modern, sensitive people seem to find that “ethnicity” rolls off the tongue more trippingly than “race.” Probably because they have been taught that, while “race” does not exist (anymore), you can still get away with saying “ethnicity” (for the time being) without being denounced by the righteous as a racist.

Jones says he and Sam Francis are members of two different ethnic groups. His basis for this distinction seems to be geography (Jones, northern, Francis, southern) and religion (Jones is Catholic, Francis was a lapsed, agnostic Protestant until he apparently converted to Catholicism on his deathbed).  So if Francis had moved to Chicago and converted to Popery in health, I suppose he and Jones would be in the same, not different, ethnicities.

Now that I’m more confused than you were when you asked your question, I’ll stop.

Well, I hate to make scientific distinctions of “Northern” and “Southern” into ethnicity based on the American Experience.  America is a false construct and language built on the American construct will be false.  America is a plastic, made up country and so the things it does is plastic, and made up.

Shouldn’t our language derive from the Natural Organic Temporal Order?  A German Classicist Karl Otfried Muller in 1839 titles his research on just one segment of the Hellenes, “The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race”.  Hellenes are divided into numerous supgroups, Ionians and Dorians and Acheans.  He uses the word “Race”.  We have American Indians describe themselves as “Nation” and “Tribe”.

I don’t think there is such a thing as a “White” race--I mean God in the bible didn’t divide men by color but by language.  Shouldn’t we use his defintions and organizational standard?  For example, you have the Dorian Race which is part of the Hellenic Race which is part of the Indo-European Race---Right? Or should we say for example, Dorian Tribe, part of the Hellenic Nation, which is part of the Indo-European Race?

In our language of Race, we have NO standard, and communication on this subject is becoming increasingly muddled.---Not very scientific nor Western Thought.

Muddled?  Yep.  But that’s what this website’s all about, right?  Reducing the amount of muddle in our thinking about the world around us. BTW, looks like you’ve got a bit of a contradiction between basing our language of race on the Natural Organic Temporal Order (wow, what IS that, anyway?), and the Bible, which is supposed to be non-temporal (at least, that’s what my Sunday School teacher used to say).

And another thing, WLW.  You say America is a plastic, made up country, a false construct.  Huh?  Or, so what?  If that’s true then so is every other country in the world.  Greece, Japan, Spain, Britain, you name it.

Tell that to my ancestors, the pioneers, settlers, frontiersmen (and women), Revolutionary War and Confederate soldiers, Texas Rangers, cowboys, and generally hard-fisted, stiff-necked malcontents who conquered and made the USA.

They’d probably just laugh at you.  Or then again, you might have a minie ball flying your way.

And it wouldn’t be plastic.

To Mr. Martin, who do you think created the “Temporal Order”?  God did.  As the Jews are to the Bible and were the carriers of the Divine Oracles, The Greeks are to the Temporal Order.  It is the Greeks who investigated and learned from the Temporal Order.  If the Temporal Order and the Bible come from the same source, i.e. the Logos, then there should be NO contradiction, should there?  There is NONE between the Bible and the Temporal Order.

I feel your patriotism for America as I was one once, put America is a man-made invention and outside the Temporal Order.  If it stayed a British colony, things would not be so bad, but now it is a basket case.  Karl Rove called America a “Nation of diversity”.  Look up the word “nation” and you see that Karl Rove spoke an oxymoron. America is an Oxymoron.

While I found some of Mr. Jones’s views on the “triple melting pot” a bit off from reality, his remarks about Jewish involvement in revolutionary movements against the West (and in fact whites) are for the most part accurate. They were in fact less inflammatory than they rightfully could have been. It would be disingenuous to state otherwise. People need to stop giving certain groups a free pass. This goes for Jews as well as everyone else. The only way problems will be solved is to talk about them openly. Who is stifling open conversation?

Well I’m Catholic and I had no idea I was at war with the Protestants.
All I know is that my kids are subject to state discrimination because they’re white. Not because they’re Catholic, Protestant, lower class, upper class or whatever.
Affirmative action (among other things) targets them specifically because they’re white and only because they’re white.
If Protestants targetted my kids - for whatever reason - then I’d have a problem with Protestants and I would take this idea of a war seriously.
Except, they’re not.
Jones’ piece was good but obsolete. Maybe there was a war way back when, but I can’t detect any sign of it today. All I see is every group around me has a right to assert their group interests and to lobby for more minority privileges against my kids.
Except me. I can’t because I’m white - I suppose I’m too morally inferior or something. So my kids keep getting the shaft because nobody represents or lobbies for their group interests - not allowed.
And no, Catholic groups don’t represent my kid’s group interests, not any more - to the extent they ever have.
In fact, I’m sorry to report, Catholic groups are in the forefront supporting amnesty. This means they want the number of people benefitting from discrimination against my kids to multiply and the burden to become crushing.
I’m white long before I’m Catholic. Why? Because I side with my children.

------------

Bob’s Riddle
“All anti-white racists agree that it’s ok for whites to become minorities in their own countries. All anti-white racists also agree that a Japanese person who wants to become a minority in his own country is either a traitor or clinically insane. Therefore, what is an anti-white racist?”
Answer: http://mantra7777.blogspot.com