The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewE. Michael Jones Archive
The Disputation of St. Louis
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“Therefore, Jew,Though justice be thy plea, consider this That in the course of justice none of us Should see salvation.”


Edmund Mazza begins The Scholastics and the Jews: Coexistence, Conversion, and the Medieval Origins of Tolerance by citing what he calls Jeremy Cohen’s “classic work,” The Friars and the Jews, in which Cohen argues that “the Dominicans and Franciscans developed, refined, and sought to implement a new Christian ideology with regard to the Jews, one that allotted the Jews no legitimate right to exist in European society.”[1]Mazza, Edmund. The Scholastics and the Jews: Coexistence, Conversion, and the Medieval Origins of Tolerance. Angelico Press, 2017. Kindle file, loc. 221. That “new Christian ideology” involved “an organized and aggressive mission to the Jews.” And what was involved in this form of aggression? Raymond of Penaforte, then general of the Dominican order, “committed himself to making contemporary Jews believing Christians.”[2]Mazza, loc. 225. Mazza, Edmund. The Scholastics and the Jews: Coexistence, Conversion, and the Medieval Origins of Tolerance. Angelico Press, 2017. Kindle file. Working for the conversion of the Jews as a way of bringing about their eternal salvation qualifies in Cohen’s mind as “stirring up hatred against Jews.”[3]Mazza, loc. 231. Full of rage at the very idea of conversion, Cohen concludes his diatribe against Raymond of Penaforte by claiming that “This Jew-hater was later made a saint.”[4]Mazza, loc. 231.

Nothing demonstrates the fact that Jews have a negative identity based solely on the rejection of Logos better than Cohen’s claim equating conversion with extinction. Cohen’s book appeared in 1982. We now have decades of Jewish literature affirming the fact that in the Jewish mind there is no difference between Raymond of Penaforte and Adolf Hitler. According to the all but unanimous verdict of recent Jewish scholarship, both men sought the extinction of the Jewish people. The fact that Mazza refers to Cohen’s screed as “serious historical allegations” is all that you need to know about the outdated, irenic tone of The Scholastics and the Jews.

Thirty five years after the publication of The Friars and the Jews, Mazza tries to rescue the reputation of the Catholic Mendicants of the Middle Ages by making the case that it was Tertullian and not John Locke who was the father of religious liberty. The term “’religious liberty,’” he tells us, “was not invented by French philosophes of the eighteenth century, nor by Protestant reformers in the sixteenth century, but by the early Church Father Tertullian in the second century, namely in his Apology for the Christians written in AD 197.”[5]Mazza, loc. 1040. Although many people have championed the idea after Tertullian, no one in “the thousand-year history of Greece and Rome” ever made a “plea for individual liberty grounded in reason/natural law” before Tertullian, who:

recognized that human liberty is rooted in human nature and Nature’s God, to be used in accordance with His eternal Law, which Nature obeys blindly, but which man—whose nature is fashioned in the image and likeness of God—may rationally choose to obey. That is to say: Liberty is not the right to do whatever you want; it is the freedom to do what you ought. And conversely then, “sin” is defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law,” to use the words of that infamous-sinner-turned-saint, Augustine of Hippo.[6]Mazza, loc. 1062.

The medieval Scholastics used philosophy rather than force to convert the Jews because they knew that Christ was the Logos Incarnate and that all men were by definition rational creatures who responded instinctively to reasoned argument. This was true of all who followed in Tertullian’s footsteps in their dealing with the Jews:

For all Justin Martyr’s extensive use of the Hebrew Prophets to persuade Trypho into the Christian fold, the catalyst for Justin’s conversation with him was Greek philosophy. Christ is the “Logos,” which is Greek for “Reason/ Truth.” This is how Justin put it in both his 1st Apology and 2nd Apology and he makes a similar argument here in his Dialogue: the argument for the unity of Truth. “Logos” was sent down among men: to the Greeks in the form of philosophy, to the Jews in the form of type and of prophecy. . . . and he exhorted them to become acquainted with the God who was to them unknown, by means of the investigation of reason, saying, “That it is neither easy to find the Father and Maker of all, nor, having found Him, is it safe to declare Him to all.” But these things our Christ did through His own power.[7]Mazza, loc. 971-997.

The fact that Jews were free to reject Logos and make that rejection the core of their identity led inexorably to the idea of tolerance, because the Church was adamant, even if temporal leaders were not, in insisting that baptism should not be coerced. Toleration flowed just as inexorably from the understanding that Jews were the enemies of Christian societies. Raymond of Penaforte’s co-religionist and fellow Dominican Thomas Aquinas made this point clear when he claimed that “the Jews sin in their rites” and when he called them “our enemies.”[8]Mazza, loc. 4082. This proves that “one did not have to like the Jews to be tolerant.” Quite to the contrary,

one had to dislike them to be tolerant, for tolerance only applied to evil. Tolerance was not an imperative of love but a restraint on one’s hatred. It is thanks to this restraint however, that Jews, in the Thomistic concept, were permitted to live their own lives within the bounds of a Christian society.[9]Mazza, loc. 4083.

This idea has disappeared from the Catholic understanding of tolerance, and, therefore, it has also disappeared from the understanding of the world at large, which believes that “there is no such thing as an absolute truth,” which as Mazza points out, “is actually to proclaim one.”[10]Mazza, loc. 387. As a result, “the Church is roundly condemned as intolerant for the very reason that it holds to Truth.[11]Mazza, loc. 387.

Throughout his book, Mazza focuses on Jewish grievance rather than Jewish malfeasance, explaining that “soon after the arrival of the Black Death in 1349, the Jewish communities of Spain found themselves scapegoats for the plague, which killed as much as a third of the population in some cities.”[12]Mazza, loc. 4657. Similarly, “By the 1430s, one third to one half of the Jewish population of the peninsula had converted to Catholicism. By 1492, the remnant that had refused was expelled from the country—a fact equally worthy of a moment of observed silence.”[13]Mazza, loc. 4661. In neither instance was the Church involved in persecuting Jews, but was the government wrong in expelling them, as 190 countries had done and would continue to do? Did Jewish misbehavior have any bearing on the violence which recurred periodically throughout European history? Thomas Aquinas urged “fraternal correction” in dealing with the Jews, but only “in so far as it is necessary for that end, but not so as we have to correct our erring brother at all places and times.”[14]Mazza, loc. 5086. “When preaching leads to people pelting Jews with stones and when censoring blasphemies leads to vendettas against prominent Jewish leaders, it is time to forego fraternal admonition.”[15]Mazza, loc. 5097.

Once again Mazza seems to accept the Jewish narrative of eternal victimhood at face value, even when he exonerates the Church by blaming the peasants for the violence. But he never asks why the peasants were pelting the Jews with stones. Did usury play a role in this anger? Were they forced to take the law into their own hands because the prince, who could borrow at a lower interest rate, refused to enforce the extant laws against usury because he personally benefited from the Jews’ presence in his realm? St. John Capistran referred to this situation as stemming from “the privileges of the Jews,” a term which Mazza never mentions in his book. Instead, the Dominicans are criticized as “sorely lacking in the fraternal love of their saintly founders.”[16]Mazza, loc. 5765-6.

The Church has always defended the Jew’s right to worship according to his outmoded religion. Tolerance involved understanding that that worship was objectively wrong, not, as Cardinal Keeler would later affirm, a vehicle for salvation. The name for that defense was “Sicut Iudeis non. . . ,” a formula invented by Pope Gregory the Great when the Catholic Church had to take responsibility for defending the social order in Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire. St. Bernard of Clairvaux articulated that same doctrine 600 years later when he wrote that “Whoever touches a Jew so as to lay hands on his life, does something as sinful as if he laid hands on Jesus himself.”[17]Mazza, loc. 3672. Mazza describes “Sicut Iudeis non . . .” as the prime expression of the Church’s tolerance:

Substantially the work of that tremendously influential Latin Doctor of the West, Pope St Gregory the Great, Sicut Iudaeis was first re-issued by Pope Calixtus II (1119–1124); it would subsequently be reissued six times over the next hundred years. It not only mandated non-interference with Jews, but threatened sanction against those who molest them: Just as the Jews ought not to be allowed to do more in their synagogues than the law permits, so too they should suffer no reduction in the privileges that have been previously granted them.[18]Mazza, loc. 3442

Mazza emphasizes the fact that, according to Sicut Iudeis non . . . “no Christian shall presume to harm them, kill them, take their money, or alter the privileges they have become accustomed to in that region”[19]Mazza, loc. 3452. but he de-emphasizes the Jewish side of the bargain. After stating that the regent was obliged “to place under the protection of this decree only those who have not presumed to plot in the subversion of the Christian faith,”[20]Mazza, loc. 3457. Mazza gives virtually no evidence of how frequently the Jews violated the terms of the agreement which was meant to protect them, after giving all of the Jewish evidence of how they suffered at the hands of those who retaliated against their abuse.[21]Cf. Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, pp. 191-7.

Mazza complicates his argument for tolerance unnecessarily by seeing in the Jews “a sacramental principle,”[22]Mazza, loc. 3683. when in fact Sicut Iudeis non was a principle guaranteeing social order in a world fraught with various forms of violence from both above and below. Mazza rightly censures the Jews who hold the Church as solely responsible for that violence, arguing that “the incidence of intolerance toward the Jews [which] was on the rise during the later Middle Ages. . . may well have been due to the erosion of ecclesiastical influence over secular government rather than the result of pressure brought to bear on temporal authorities by the Church.”[23]Mazza, loc. 3687

On the other hand, Mazza’s claim that Thomas Jefferson was simply Thomas Aquinas in 18th century garb, or that Tertullian was the Catholic John Locke, or that Gregory IX’s statement that Jews are “created by the Creator of all mankind” and are “therefore not to be destroyed” is virtually the same as saying that “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and among these are life” or that “A medieval and ecclesial sacramentality is, therefore, a significant factor in the formation of the Western notion of tolerance”[24]Mazza, loc. 3710. is doubtful at best and symptomatic of the aspirational nature of this book. To turn Tertullian into Locke, Mazza tries his best to fit the clearly medieval thought of the Church’s most famous Dominican into modern categories, which Aquinas could not have accepted:

Thomistic tolerance is the same as that which we have already encountered in Sicut Judaeis and Raymond’s Summa. Jews are not to be forced against their will to convert, because true faith requires the free acceptance of the will. Freedom of conscience, therefore, in the contemporary sense, owes no small debt to centuries of Catholic insistence on this point.[25]Mazza, loc. 4043.

Freedom of conscience “in the contemporary sense” is, unfortunately not compatible with the same term in the medieval sense, because the latter is based on moral relativism, and the former is not. Unfortunately, “those who dominate the field today no longer subscribe to the objective notions of truth and love which medieval people did.”[26]Mazza, loc. 5876. Absence of truth means the absence of tolerance because “the concept of tolerantia” was develop “as a way of getting along with the untrue.”[27]Mazza, loc. 5920. If there is no true or false, how “do we condemn anti-Semitic acts in any age, medieval or modern? At bottom, is our modern morality based on subjective sentiment and solidarity any more ‘true’ than the nihilism of the Nazi and Communist regimes, which liquidated millions of Jews and Christians?”[28]Mazza, loc. 5931.

Mazza makes this point repeatedly himself, but drops it whenever he wants to make Aquinas fit for polite company. Conspicuous by its absence from Mazza’s book is Thomas Aquinas’s letter to Margaret of Brabant, which was most probably “written in 1271, not to the ‘Duchess of Brabant’ (as many historians, and even the Leonine editors thought), but rather to Margaret, Countess of Flanders, who had a great interest in the Dominican Order, and likely knew Thomas directly.”[29] In his letter, Aquinas is responding to Margaret’s inquiry about “whether it is allowable for you at some time and in what way to make an exaction upon the Jews.” As in the case of King Louis IX, who expelled Jews from France not because they were Jews but because they were usurers, Aquinas approves of confiscating their property as an “exaction,” because “the Jews of your land seem to have nothing except what they acquired through the depravity of usury.” No one has a right to keep ill-gotten gains, whether acquired by theft or by usury. Restitution is a moral duty in both instances. If the people who have been wronged by usury are no longer available to receive what has been unjustly taken from them, then the state has right to put that money to good use by distributing it to the poor via the Church’s charitable institutions:

since the Jews may not licitly keep those things which they have extorted from others through usury, the consequence is also that if you receive these things from them neither may you licitly keep them, unless perhaps they be things that the Jews had extorted from you or from your ancestors hitherto. If, however, they have things which they extorted from others, these things, once demanded from them, you should restore to those to whom the Jews were bound to restore them. Thus, if certain persons are discovered from whom the Jews extorted usury, it should be restored to them. Otherwise, these usurious monies should be set aside for pious uses according to the council of the diocesan bishop and of other upright men, or even for the common utility of your land if a necessity looms and usefulness calls for it; nor even would it be illicit if you should require such usurious money from the Jews anew, preserving the custom of your predecessors, with this intention that the monies be expended for pious purposes.

So much for those wronged by the Jews. As for those who committed the wrong, it would be better if princes “compelled Jews to work for their own living, as they do in parts of Italy, than that, living without occupation they grow rich by usury, and thus their rulers be defrauded of revenue.” There is nothing racial about Aquinas’s advice to the Duchess because “what has been said about the Jews is also to be understood about Cahors, and anyone else depending upon the depravity of usury.”

Aquinas concludes his letter to the Duchess by telling her that she would be within her rights as ruler to compel the Jews of her province “to wear a sign distinguishing them from Christians” because “this is also mandated to them by their own law, namely that they make for themselves fringes on the four corners of their cloaks, through which they are distinguished from others.”

Mazza’s omission of Aquinas’s letter to Margaret, a text which is central to his argument, leads the reader to believe that he is embarrassed by what Aquinas had to say because it would provide grist for Cohen’s mill and his claim that the Dominicans were religious bigots. Mazza seems equally troubled by Canon 68 of the Fourth Lateran Council, which also demanded that the Jews wear distinctively Jewish clothing. Mazza lamely claims that the Jewish umbrage at the badge is refuted by “the facts of the matter,” which show that Lateran IV’s legislation never actually called for a “badge,” and neither do they necessarily impute “shame.”

Pope Innocent III, however, wrote in 1215 that “Jews should be ordered to wear ‘clothing by which they might be distinguished from Christians’” but that “they should not be forced to do so if this would incur danger to their lives.”[30]Mazza, loc. 3136. After defending Innocent III, Mazza then apologizes for the “detrimental role” which “Christian theology” displayed toward Jews, citing “the teachings of Lateran IV, of Innocent III, and Gregory IX that Jews may not hold temporal office over Christians nor give ‘invitation’ for intimacies with them by lack of distinguishing dress,”[31]Mazza, loc 3199. claiming that “the anti-Judaistic tradition originally found in the Fathers and reappearing in the medieval canons seems first and foremost to be the fruit of a misapplication of the Catholic sacramental principle.”[32]Mazza, loc. 3202..

Badges are no longer an issue because we no longer have sumptuary laws, but what about the reason behind the badge? Is covert Jewish influence leading to political and moral corruption no longer a relevant issue? What about Irving Kristol distributing Bradley Foundation money as covert support for Catholic neoconservatism, the war in Iraq, the attacks on Pat Buchanan and America First Catholics in the 1990s? Wouldn’t it have been helpful if Michael Novak had been forced to admit that he was, first and foremost, an employee of the American Enterprise Institute, a front for Jewish vulture capitalism, rather than a Catholic, when he wrote The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism?

Closer to our day, what about George Soros funding candidates running for political office? What about Kim Gardner and Kim Foxx? Two black prosecutors who took Soros money? John Kass was attacked for saying in his column in the Chicago Tribune that Foxx, who refused to prosecute Jussie Smollett because of racial considerations, was the recipient of Soros money. Let’s be honest about the hidden Jewish hand behind the destruction of our political system by proposing the modern equivalent of the Jewish badge. This would require public figures like Kim Gardner to wear NASCAR-style uniforms identifying them as recipients of Jewish money. The same applies to conservative shills like Robert Sirico of the Action Institute and Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk, who should be required to wear badges identifying them as Kochsuckers.

Video Link

Why did the Church insist that Jews wear distinctive clothing? Much as it must grieve Mazza to admit this, it was because Jews could not be trusted to be honest in their dealings with Christians. Raymond Llull is one of Mazza’s heroes, but it was he who admonished Christian leaders to “protect [Christians] from criminals, and from robbers, and from arsonists and from Jews and heathens, and from heretics, from perjurers and from illegal violence.” It was Llull who said that the only time a Jew talks to a Christian is to undermine his faith or corrupt his morals. According to Llull, the only reason “a Jew wants to make conversation with [a Christian]” is “so that you might become weaker and weaker in your belief.”[33]E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, p. 122. Hence the need for distinctive clothing, because Christians need to be on guard against a group of people who traditionally warred on Christendom “by way of deception,” which happens to be the motto of the Mossad.

Is it right to assume good will on the part of the Jews? Armed with source material like this, Mazza spends his entire book trying to ingratiate himself with bigots like Cohen, ignoring the caveat of Louis Bouyer who claimed that Christians today “tend to assume that our non-Christian antagonists are in complete good faith and to be respected a priori, indeed that their ignorance [of the truth of Christianity] must be invincible [sincere],” while “it seems undeniable” that the prevailing assumption of medieval Church authorities was quite otherwise.[34]Mazza, loc. 3087. Were the medieval Christians wrong to regard Jews as their enemies? Mazza seeks to exculpate the Mendicants by claiming that they “inherited these prejudiced views” but “did not invent them,”[35]Mazza, loc. 3103. when the real issue is whether they held them sincerely or not. Mazza sees the fact “that certain theologians and preachers practiced and encouraged a medieval ‘toleration’ simultaneously as they absorbed, even reinforced, prejudiced notions of ‘the Other’” as paradoxical, but in doing so, he avoids a bigger issue, namely, do Jews believe in tolerance?

Well, yes, when they have no political or cultural power, they urge toleration of things like pornography because they know it will lead to the moral corruption of the majority population, which will then allow them to seize power at a later date. Alan Dershowitz is the prime example of Jewish “tolerance” of this sort. Leo Pfeffer, the lawyer for the American Jewish Committee, is another example.

As further indication of Jewish tolerance, David Duke recently got banned from Twitter for saying that the Jews control the internet. Duke was accused of being a conspiracy theorist and an anti-Semite for making a claim which Jewish organizations like the SPLC and the ADL rushed to substantiate in an article which appeared in the Washington Post:

“While this is a step in the right direction, Twitter, and other social media companies and message boards, still have a lot of work to do to clean up their platforms and stop the spread of hateful ideologies and propaganda,” Keegan Hankes, interim research director at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said in a statement. “David Duke is just a start, but there are still many others. We have seen how social media is a powerful tool used to accelerate the spread of hate and how most tech companies do very little to limit the spread until it’s too late.” “Social platforms should be a place where all users can be free of the hate & harassment that Duke and his ilk regularly promote,” tweeted Anti-Defamation League Chief Executive Jonathan Greenblatt.[36]

So David Duke was right after all. Jews do control the internet, and they will affirm the truth of that statement by punishing anyone who affirms the truth of that statement.

The two main examples of Jews gaining political power in the 20th century are Bolshevism and Zionism. What happens when Jews get political power? They use that political power to engage in the ruthless oppression of their enemies with no regard to any Logos or toleration whatsoever. The same Jews who upbraid the Church for the Inquisition are the first to defend the murders perpetrated by the Cheka, if they are left-wing Jews, or the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Palestine, if they are of the Likudnik persuasion.

Why does Mazza assume that he has to apologize to Jews for Christian intolerance when the Jews are willing to defend the behavior of “tolerant” Jewish terrorists like David ben Gurion, Menachem Begin, Vladimir Jabotinsky or Lev Trotsky? The testimony of human history from Tacitus to David Duke is unanimous in seeing the Jews as the most intolerant people on the face of the earth. Ask Jeremy Corbyn about Jewish tolerance. Ask anyone who has been banned from YouTube or Facebook. Which group of intolerant people is leading the campaign against “hate speech” in our day?

Do Jews believe in tolerance? Not when they have the upper hand. Israel and the Soviet Union are, again, two cases in point, where the illusion of official toleration was a fig leaf covering the demolition of churches and the persecution of Christians.

Locke may have been instrumental in the creation of the United States of America, but the tolerance he preached was no match for Jewish subversion. The civil rights movement, which was based on the idea of tolerance, was the crowning achievement of the Black/Jewish alliance which began with the lynching of Leo Frank. Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” in spite of the Thomistic underpinning which Michael Harrington provided for it, led inexorably to the now infamous “mystery clause” in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, one of the most fatuous statements in a history of American jurisprudence which included gems like “three generations of imbeciles is enough” from Buck v. Bell. Mazza correctly notes that Justice Kennedy’s claim that “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,”[37]Mazza, loc. 1081. means in effect that “there is no objective human nature, no objective natural or eternal law to which all men must conform, no rational grounds for recognizing Almighty God’s sovereignty over the universe,”[38]Mazza, loc. 1084. which means that there is no basis for tolerance under the new revolutionary dispensation which became apparent during the summer of 2020. Revolutionaries do not believe in tolerance.

Just to bring the reader up to date on the article I wrote in the July/August issue of Culture Wars, Umar Lee tried to rally the anti-statue forces on July 12 by claiming that a mob of white supremacists were going to assault an interfaith coalition of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish women who were needed to provide a show of force to support the flagging anti-statue campaign. Lee’s supporters were conspicuous by their absence on July 12 and overwhelmed in number by the Catholics who arrived en masse to pray the Rosary to retain the statue. My article got posted on the internet at around the time that Umar’s tweet went out and seems to have had some effect in either discouraging the revolutionaries or encouraging the Catholics. I say this because within hours of when his defeat became apparent, Lee, who before July 12 didn’t know me from Adam, challenged me to a debate. That debate took place on Monday, July 27, and you can view it on my Bitchute channel. Here is my opening statement:

Pedestals never stay empty. The pedestal which held the bust of Stalin in Prague is a good example. Stalin’s statue was removed; but a statue of Michael Jackson took its place, at least for a while.

Something similar happened in South Bend, Indiana, where a statue of the 10 commandments once stood in front of the court house, until it was removed to a parking lot. Finally, it disappeared altogether. But since pedestals never stay empty, it was replaced by a statue of Martin Luther King and Theodore Hesburgh singing “We Shall Overcome.” What this means is that the civil rights movement replaced the 10 Commandments as the basis of social order in South Bend. Actually, it was the opposite of the civil rights movement because we now live in a country where the color of your skin is more important than the content of your character.

Which brings us to St. Louis, the statue and the city. Moved by the wave of revolutionary iconoclasm which has swept the country in recent months, Umar Lee mounted a campaign to have the statue of Louis IX removed from its present location in front of the Art Museum in Forest Park. Lee claims to be a Muslim, but he got the idea of removing the statue, not in the wake of the George Floyd demonstrations, but years earlier when a group of Jewish students from Washington University held a vigil at the statue.

Unlike the victims of most acts of the current wave of iconoclasm sweeping America, Louis IX was not a general in the Confederate Army, nor did he own slaves, nor did he oppress native Americans. He was king of France in the 13th century and lived at a time when Europeans had no idea that America existed.

So the case against Louis IX has nothing to do with race….

[…] This is just a short excerpt of the full article in the October Issue of Culture Wars Magazine.
Please Click to purchase and download a copy to continue reading.


[1] Mazza, Edmund. The Scholastics and the Jews: Coexistence, Conversion, and the Medieval Origins of Tolerance. Angelico Press, 2017. Kindle file, loc. 221.

[2] Mazza, loc. 225. Mazza, Edmund. The Scholastics and the Jews: Coexistence, Conversion, and the Medieval Origins of Tolerance. Angelico Press, 2017. Kindle file.

[3] Mazza, loc. 231.

[4] Mazza, loc. 231.

[5] Mazza, loc. 1040.

[6] Mazza, loc. 1062.

[7] Mazza, loc. 971-997.

[8] Mazza, loc. 4082.

[9] Mazza, loc. 4083.

[10] Mazza, loc. 387.

[11] Mazza, loc. 387.

[12] Mazza, loc. 4657.

[13] Mazza, loc. 4661.

[14] Mazza, loc. 5086.

[15] Mazza, loc. 5097.

[16] Mazza, loc. 5765-6.

[17] Mazza, loc. 3672.

[18] Mazza, loc. 3442

[19] Mazza, loc. 3452.

[20] Mazza, loc. 3457.

[21] Cf. Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, pp. 191-7.

[22] Mazza, loc. 3683.

[23] Mazza, loc. 3687

[24] Mazza, loc. 3710.

[25] Mazza, loc. 4043.

[26] Mazza, loc. 5876.

[27] Mazza, loc. 5920.

[28] Mazza, loc. 5931.


[30] Mazza, loc. 3136.

[31] Mazza, loc 3199.

[32] Mazza, loc. 3202..

[33] E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, p. 122.

[34] Mazza, loc. 3087.

[35] Mazza, loc. 3103.


[37] Mazza, loc. 1081.

[38] Mazza, loc. 1084.






[44] Mazza, loc. 3272-7.

[45] Mazza, loc. 3435.

[46] Mazza, loc. 3437.

[47] Il fit brûler le Talmud, mais l’historien israélite René Groos explique dans « Les Juifs en France avant la Révolution « p. 275 in « Revue Universelle « 15/10/1923 :

« Sa seule intention était de détruire ce livre (Talmud) misérable, qu’il regardait comme l’obstacle principal à la fusion des Juifs avec les sujets chrétiens de son royaume, et de supprimer ainsi cet élément hétérogène, dont la dissidence s’accusait de plus en plus dans l’État et devenait un danger pour l’unité nationale. Les Juifs étaient demeurés réfractaires à toute tentative d’assimilation et tendant, au contraire, à former un véritable État dans l’État, Saint Louis dut bien s’incliner devant l’évidence du fait et reconnaitre à ce peuple exotique, sa qualité d’étranger qu’il voulait conserver. C’est pour marquer d’un signe extérieur cet isolement volontaire où les Juifs se plaçaient obstinément qu’il les obligea, par l’ordonnance de 1269, à porter la rouelle, non pas (il y faut insister, car ce sujet a fait verser des flots d’encre) pour les humilier, mais bien pour les distinguer, pour les empêcher de dissimuler, quand ils croiraient avoir intérêt à le faire, leur qualité d’étrangers. «




[51] Video Link


[53] Mazza, loc. 5745-6.

[54] Mazza, loc. 4454.

(Republished from Culture Wars by permission of author or representative)
Hide 2 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Rational says:


    Interesting article, Sir. But that was then, this is now. NOW, we know things that they did not know back then.

    Conversion to Christianity is a waste of time and effort. And not logical.


    So the way to save Judaists from Judaism is to educate them that Judaism is a gutter religion, a criminal cult, whose members even promote cannibalism, a fact proven here:



    And that Moses never existed either:

    Time to forget about Jesus and Moses. It is time to tear up the Torah. White Judaists and white Christians must unite and fight their common enemy—the 3rd world alien invasion.

    • Replies: @René Fries
  2. @Rational

    Time to forget about Jesus and Moses

    — about Moses, yes. “In der Bibelwissenschaft besteht ein Konsens darüber, dass es Abraham i nicht gegeben hat // in the Bible science there is a consensus that Abraham never existed”, in: Der frühe Islam, K-H Ohlig et al, Verlag Hans Schiler, Berlin 2007, p. 310, and “(…) konstitutive religiöse Neuanfänge und Zäsuren werden oft mit Erzählungen über ihre Begründer verbunden, seien sie gänzlich fiktiv wie bei Laotse, den biblischen Patriarchen oder Mose, oder (usw.) // constitutive religious new beginnings and caesura often are linked to stories about their founders, be they entirely fictive as with Laotse, the biblical Patriarchs or Moses (etc)”, ibid. p. 346

    — about Jesus: no. Plinius, Tacitus, Suetonius, Flavius Josephus and Thallus (Julius Africanus) do mention him independently of one another. That he certainly is not identical with the figure one reads about in the NT, does not mean he didn’t exist (in the same vein, Gautama Siddharta, according to the above named prof. Ohlig, really did exist but nearly everything that is told about him, is pure fiction). A useful link to “the historical Jesus”:

    — and last but not least: I am in possession of the 8 books (5473 pages richly illustrated) hitherto published by Verlag Hans Schiler, Berlin in a series called “Inârah” ( On p. 851 sq in “Die Entstehung einer Weltreligion IV” one can read that “the Koran had at least thirty authors, at most one hundred, but most probably around fifty.” Here it must be emphasized that the author makes use of a MATHEMATICAL discipline, the so-called Code Theory that “(…) enables the functioning of computers, the Internet, image compression for digital pictures, multi-channel TV-reception, and many other indispensable technologies of the modern world. (…) In conducting my research for my thesis, I used the branch of code theory that applies to written texts. It is called Analysis of Text Data (ATD). […] The name of Muhammad was introduced in the Koran by a single author, distinct from the other authors who contributed to the Koran. Muhammad was mentioned for the first time 60 years after his (so-called, RF) death, but only one artifact before the ninth century states that he was a prophet, although not superior to all others but rather on a par with Jesus. He is usually described as the founding prophet of Islam, superior to all others, not earlier than 200 years after his (so-called, RF) death.”
    It is impossible, hence, to make use of “computers, the Internet, image compression for digital pictures, multi-channel TV-reception” and at the same time, believe that a “prophet Muhammad” did exist.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All E. Michael Jones Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?