VI. The Talmud Unveiled
Both Jews and Muslims, 'People of the Book', wrote extensively, and for the purposes of an investigation of Judaism, which Jewish books should we use? For centuries, those opposed to Judaism have relied upon the Talmud. Perhaps they are drawn to it because of the enormous secrecy that surrounds it. Eckart's Moses- is the record of a conversation between Dietrich Eckart and his good friend Hitler, and in it Hitler exclaims:
"They [the Jews] are incessantly boasting, too, that their religion is such a masterful creation that it stands alone in the world. Then bring the Talmud forward! It contains the Jewish religion in its purest form — theology, dogmatics, morality, everything together in the same place. Why do they hold back the magnificent book so nervously, if indeed 'the millennia have given the breath of its existence' to it? As born benefactors of mankind they should have long since made it accessible to the general populace. Instead, it still hasn't been completely translated, even today. And who in the devil has read what there is of it? One would think they are afraid some medieval church is still waiting to burn it for heresy.
Written in the centuries after Christ's death, the Talmud forms a massive commentary on the Old Testament that is longer than the Old Testament itself and it comes with strict instructions warning its readers not to reveal its secrets to non-Jews; insensitive as they were, the authors must have understood that non-Jews would object to the Talmud's inanities, obscenities, and blasphemies, the last of these being directed at Christianity, the religion against which according to Guyénot the Talmud was conceived as a riposte:
For the Jews, the door became more and more narrow as the doctors of the Church, seized with dogmatic hubris, turned Jesus into God. Jews were asked to relinquish whatever common sense they had to convert to the Christian creed. To this must be added the Judeophobia of the Great Church under imperial protection. The Talmud was the Jews’ response to the appropriation by Christians of their heritage. It transformed rabbinic Judaism into a fundamentally anti-Christian religion. Christianity and Talmudism were both born from the ashes of the old biblical religion after the crises of the first two centuries CE, which saw the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 and the expulsion of its Jewish population in 135. Both reached their discernible outlines only in the fourth century, and both pretended to reform ancient Judaism, but in opposite directions and in vicious competition: Talmudism, emerging from the Pharisaical current, exacerbated the purificationist, ritualistic, legalistic, and separatist tendencies; while Christianity opposed it and, under the inspiration of Paul, rejected circumcision and the Mosaic law as a whole... The great Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner goes so far as to write that “Judaism as we know it was born in the encounter with triumphant Christianity.”137 Rabbinic orthodoxy, which became the new cement holding the Jewish community together, hardened in the rejection of Christianity and its growing influence. At the beginning of the second century, a ritual prayer was introduced into synagogues to curse the mînim or “sectaries,” a term referring particularly to Christians. [Guyénot, ibid]
For centuries, Jewish publicists have defended the Talmud and argued that anti-Semites have misrepresented it. And indeed, one can easily get the Talmud wrong seeing that it uses a coded language that only the experienced can decipher, and what European wants to spend years, decades, needed to attain that mastery? Fortunately now and then a defector from the ranks of Judaism will step forth and spill the beans.
The “Jewish question” became complicated in Europe when the Talmud became known to Christians. Written in Hebrew, it had been carefully concealed from public view, actually containing the statement: “The goyim who seek to discover the secrets of the Law of Israel commit a crime that calls for the death penalty” (Sanhedrin 59a). It was in 1236 that Nicolas Donin, a converted Jew who became a Dominican monk, gained an audience with Pope Gregory IX to convince him of the blasphemous character of the Talmud, which presents Christ as the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier and a prostitute (Sanhedrin 106a), capable of miracles only by sorcery, and not risen but “sent to hell, where he was punished by being boiled in excrement” (Gittin 56b).162 A disputatio (debate on the public square lasting sometimes several months) was organized in Paris in the presence of Blanche of Castile, between Donin and Rabbi Yehiel, during which the latter failed to convince his audience that the Talmud was talking about another Jesus and another Mary. Following these exchanges, Gregory IX publicly condemned the Talmud as “the first cause that keeps the Jews stubborn in their perfidy.” In 1242, more than 10,000 volumes were burned. Judaism stopped being perceived as the religion of the Old Testament, and began to be viewed as a threat to public order, since the Talmud preaches violence and deception against Christians. [ibid]
We understand the appeal to the Western intellectual of an investigation of the Talmud, especially to the intellectual of a Romantic bent; a secret book with a sinister reputation, written by Near Eastern authors and filled with foul doctrines and perhaps magic spells, it reminds one of H.P. Lovecraft's Necronomicon, the volume of black magic written by the "Mad Arab" Abdul Alhazred. But obstacles are strewn in the path of the intellectual who wishes to sally forth and joust against Jews on this plain, and these are threefold: 1) the obscure language of the Talmud, 2) the unavailability of the Talmud in English, and 3) the Talmud's sheer length. In contrast, the knowledge of the Jews that we draw from the Old Testament is much easier to assimilate, and authorities such as Guyénot rule that the Old Testament takes precedence over the Talmud:
Whether Jewishness is defined as religious or ethnic, its roots are in the Bible. Therefore, its essence must be sought there. Whether he has read it or not, whether he judges it historical or mythical, every Jew ultimately bases his Jewishness on the Bible—or whatever he knows about the Bible. This venerable corpus—which includes the five “Books of Moses” (the Pentateuch, or Torah), the Historical Books, and the Prophets—constitutes the unshakable foundation of both Jewish religion and Jewish identity. (The Talmud is only a commentary on the Bible, and does not fundamentally alter its core ideology). From a religious viewpoint, the Bible preserves the memory and the essence of the Covenant with God that the believer internalizes. From an ethnic viewpoint, the Bible is the foundational collective memory of the Jewish people, and the pattern by which Jews interpret their whole subsequent history (the Dispersion, the Holocaust, the rebirth of Israel, and so on). Any nation is a narration, and what makes the Jewish nation special is ultimately what makes the biblical narration special. The Bible has always been the “portable fatherland” of the Diaspora Jews, as Heinrich Heine once put it. But it also became and has remained the heart of Israel, whose founders did not give it any other Constitution. [ibid]
The reverse of the Talmud, the Old Testament is transparent and brazenly so; it is shorter; and it is available to anyone. These advantages recommend the Old Testament, which is open-source material. In the introduction to his translation of Eckart's Moses-, William Pierce writes admiringly:
Although the last forty years have unfortunately provided us with considerably more experience of Jewish- Bolshevist activities, Eckart did quite well with the materials available to him in 1923. Of particular interest is his use of the Old Testament, as a history of the Jews, to throw light onto more recent Jewish activities.
VII. Muslim Apologetics
Like the Koran, the Old Testament tells a story, and like the Koran, the Old Testament comes to a sudden halt. The reader badly wants to know what happens after Ezra and Nehemiah, but he is left hanging because the authors did not finish. After the Old Testament, Bible history is succeeded by Jewish history, which is long, complex, and for wont of a better word, secular: it is devoid of Yahweh and devoid of the supernatural. After studying it, if the bored reader does want excitement and mystery once again, he is forced to return to the Old Testament and re-read it perhaps from the start. In this he treads the same path as the pop culture fan who continually re-reads Tolkein's Lord of the Rings or re-watches George Lucas' Star Wars trilogy in order to regain the sense of excitement, discovery, and mystery that he experienced when he first encountered these works.
The Koran and the Old Testament, being collections of stories that are set in a distant past and possessing more than a touch of the otherworldly, could be written up as fantasy novels, but any such novels would differ from others in the genre insofar as that in the Koran and the Old Testament there are no heroes; there is no Frodo Baggins, no Luke Skywalker; the protagonists of the Old Testament and the Koran are villains, and contemporary audiences would see that in an instant if honest and accurate Hollywood adaptations were filmed.
Amusingly enough, Christians write apologetics even to this day attempting to square the circle and justify the lying, betraying, thieving, raping, and slaughtering in the Old Testament. This signifies that their moral sense has deserted them; the acts of immorality, great and small, in the Old Testament stand in opposition to the Christian virtues and flagrantly so. Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason (1794) shows himself to be more of a Christian than today's American Evangelicals:
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.
The task of explaining away and covering up this malice, cruelty, and wickedness falls to the philo-Semite and anyone else who wants to persuade us that the 'Word of a demon' is the 'Word of God'. We can expect Jewish publicists to attempt this difficult feat, and early on a Jewish publicist did so: the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus wrote perhaps the first book - Antiquities of the Jews (c. 93 AD) - that extols the wisdom and splendour of the Jews to a non-Jewish readership, and in it he relates stories from the Old Testament and of course distorts and lies about them. This sort of obfuscating does not surprise when it is attempted by a Jewish publicist - we have had plenty of experience of it in the past two thousand years - but it does surprise when it is attempted by a Muslim; to our amazement, we learn that the 'Jew-hating' founder of Islam himself once strove for political reasons to put the antics of the Jews in the Old Testament in a good light.
In Exodus, Moses commits his first murder. He kills an Egyptian who struck a Jew; he then conceals the body much like a serial killer who is experienced in doing so:
Exodus 2:12, “And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.”
After that, Moses is forced to leave town, because his act of murder has angered not only of the Egyptians but the Jews living in Egypt who are worried that Moses' crime will bring the wrath of the Egyptians down upon the heads of the Jews. Writing of the incident many centuries later, Muhammad defends Moses' conduct, and Muhammad's apologetics cast a light on the internal politics of the newly formed cult of Islam and its relations with Jewry.
Muhammad changed Moses first degree murder to manslaughter by making it unintentional. Furthermore, he told us that Moses was very repentant and asked God for forgiveness. And, of course, God forgave him. Which story about Moses is better? Shouldn’t the Hebrews be very grateful to Muhammad? For a while, he was their best ally. Muslims consider Moses, Jacob, David, Solomon, Ezra, etc. as heroic agents from God. Hence, the ancestors of the Jews are heroes to the Muslims. Why would they hate each other?
Let me explain. When Muhammad migrated to Medina, he had close contact with its sizeable Jewish community. Muhammad respected the Jews, and his early teachings appeared to borrow from Jewish tradition. When they refused to recognize him as a prophet, he began to distance himself from them and began to minimize or eliminate the Jewish influence on Islam. Muhammad was frustrated with the Jews. As soon as he was strong enough, he expelled two Jewish tribes from Medina and murdered all the members of a third Jewish tribe. He also began to utter inflammatory statements about Jews in the Quran. This was the start of animosity between Muslims and Jews. We have to thank Muhammad for the nonstop hate between the Muslims and the Jews. [Khamis, ibid]
VIII. Christian apologetics
Since October 7, many Americans in the movement have professed themselves to be baffled by the intensity of anti-Arab and pro-Israel feeling on the American Right, especially the Christian Right. And indeed, one has to ask if Americans, especially American Christians, have taken leave of their senses. Have the more intelligent of them ever in their lives actually read the Old Testament? If they had done so, perhaps they would have understood that Netanyahu's pronouncement of Hamas and by extension the Palestinians as 'Amalek' is to be considered to be a Jewish and rabbinical fatwah, that is, a religious death sentence; for the Amalekites were a race who were thoroughly exterminated by Jews who followed Yahweh's orders.
As is typical, the story of the Amalek wipeout has an unusual sequel. The perpetrator of the crime, Saul, displeased Yahweh for three reasons: Saul kept the Amalekite livestock for himself and his men; he performed holocausts in the incorrect manner; and he spared Agag the king of the Amalekites. It should be noted that Agag bought himself only a temporary reprieve. Because Saul displeased Yahweh, Samuel stripped Saul of office and then hacked Agag to death with a sword: 'And Samuel cut Agag to pieces before the LORD at Gilgal” (1 Samuel 15:33)'. Ever since the murder of the Amalekites and Agag, Jews have applied the names 'Agag' and 'Amalekite' to anyone who they considered to be an enemy of the Jews and wanted to be destroyed and destroyed utterly.
Many non-Jewish scholars when confronted by this awfulness take one of two courses of action: they either practice apologetics like Muhammad, sometimes with comical results, or they bowlderise.
As an example of the latter, let us examine this Biblical tale of butchery by sharp implements:
In Moses’s time, when the kings of Heshbon and Bashan wanted to prevent the Hebrews from entering their territory, the Hebrews “captured all his towns and laid all these towns under the curse of destruction: men, women and children, we left no survivors except the livestock which we took as our booty, and the spoils of the captured towns” (Deuteronomy 2:34–35).
That is nothing compared to what King David did to the people of Rabba, after having sacked their town and “carried off great quantities of booty”: “And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem” (2 Samuel 12:31). The episode is repeated in 1 Chronicles 20:3: “And he brought forth the people that were therein, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon.” [Guyénot, ibid]
This seems straightforward enough. But in modern times, the story is retconned ('retrospectively configured'); the inhabitants of Rabba and Ammon are not hacked to death and their corpses cut into pieces, but they ae turned into brickmakers and construction workers:
I have quoted here from the King James Revised Version. Significantly, this episode has been fraudulently retranslated after 1946. We now read in the Revised Standard Version: “And he brought forth the people who were in it, and set them to labor with saws and iron picks and iron axes, and made them toil at the brickkilns.” And in the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible: “And he expelled its inhabitants, setting them to work with saws, iron picks and iron axes, employing them at brickmaking.” This new rendering makes the story politically correct, but highly improbable, since iron tools were never needed to make bricks—certainly not axes, picks and saws—but made deadly weapons that no victor in his right mind would distribute to the men he had just vanquished. [ibid]
This suggests that the Old Testament, the open-source material that Eckart and Hitler made use of, may be altered beyond recognition by the bowlderisers of the future; fortunately, they cannot destroy or re-translate all the old copies in circulation. But one has to wonder at the mentality the people who seek to soften the image we have of the Bible Jews. Yes, the Christians among them mistakenly identify the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New; but that alone does not explain their conduct, and besides which, a large number of American conservatives who favour Israel in the current war, who applaud the destruction of Gaza and the deaths of Palestinians, who condone Netanyahu's 'Amalek' ritual curse, do not claim to be Christian.
IX. The Future of Jews in America
From the Talmud we can draw the surprising conclusion that in the Jewish and Talmudic scheme of things, Hitler, the National Socialists, and the Germans do no matter. The Talmud did not prophesy, of course, that the Germans would be the ones to throw the six million Jews into the giant ovens as part of a holocaust, for Germany as a nation did not exist at the time of the writing, and the Jewish authors hardly knew the precursors of the Germans, namely the Visigoths and other Germanic tribes. All the Talmud stipulates is that the Gentiles, any Gentiles, will be the ones to immolate the six million; these Gentiles could be Arabs, Chinese, Indians, Byzantines, Persians... For the fulfillment of the prophecy, anyone would do; what mattered is that it would be done and that the Jewish death toll would amount to exactly six million. Guyénot writes that at the 1911 Zionist Congress Max Nordau, 'A speaker with incomparable prophetic talent' declared that 'the European governments were preparing the “complete annihilation for six million [Jewish] people”'.
Many articles have been published since October 7 by those in the movement who have sought to orient themselves in the present chaos, and the authors of these aim to grasp precisely what it is that their ideological opponents, the Jews, are about. I think that Guyénot has performed the task by explaining that the Jews are the Old Testament, and that in turn the Old Testament can be summed up as: fire-paganism, the mass slaughter of non-Jews by Jews, and circumcision.
One has to ask what it is that the American conservative receives in exchange for his associating with such barbarity and backwardness. Even before October 7, I scratched my head wondering what it is that an American gains from favouring Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict; the rhetoric of the Anti-Defamation League, for example, is unpleasant, harsh, and hectoring, and the Jews who head the ADL - Jews such as Jonathan Greenblatt, who looks like a bit player from a Lon Chaney or Basil Karloff horror movie - promise no rewards. In contrast, liberalism, if we are to take one example of an ideology that is a rival to Judaism, is fundamentally benevolent; Yockey acerbically notes that liberalism 'Wants every day to be a birthday, Life to be a long party'. Unfortunately for the American conservative, Zionism does not deliver to him birthday parties, and he gets little to nothing in return for his allegiance to Israel.
Perhaps the American conservative in his disordered mind links Israel and Zionism with 'conservative values', this being the code word for the old America, the white America, the America that existed and flourished before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Hart Celler Act of 1965. Today even some Jews feel nostalgia for that era, even though prominent Jews at the time did everything in their power to bring the Civil Rights Act and Hart Celler about. For that reason, I find the linking of 'conservative values' and Zionism to be incongruous; the pairing of the two is contradictory, in the same way that the concept of 'Judeo-Christian values' is an oxymoron.
But we must distinguish here because we are dealing with real life. White nationalists allege that everything that American Jews produced in the 20th century, especially in the field of entertainment and popular culture, is corrupt and corrupting. But this is not the case when we look at the popular culture even of the late 20th century. The Jewish writer Stan Lee, often in collaboration with Jewish artist Jack Kirby - both WWII veterans - gave us the Marvel superheroes the Fantastic Four, Spiderman, the Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, the X-Men, and the Avengers. In what offends modern sensibilities, the Marvel stories published in the 1960s are set in a Manhattan that is whiter and more segregationist than South Africa at the time of Apartheid, and the race of the heroes and heroines is unquestionably Nordic. Furthermore, the men are masculine and assertive, the women are feminine and wilting. The Jews who produced the Marvel epics affirmed the 'conservative values' of the time; they did not subvert them. Some white nationalist polemicists have attempted to draw comparisons between Superman, who was created by the Jews Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, and Moses; but these white nationalists have never read a Superman story in their lives; if they were to do so, they would see from the stories - most of them drawn by Curt Swan, a Minnesotan of Swedish descent - that the public-spirited, fair-minded, and gentle Superman is the antithesis of Moses. But American white nationalists tend to be misanthropes who dismiss American popular culture, and they care little that Superman's companions Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, and Perry White are Nordic American types as are Superman's parents Jor-El and Lar-El (is the 'El' surname taken from the Semitic pre-Jewish and pre-Yahweh god El?); all that matters is sniffing out the Jew.
This should not be taken as a defence of everything done by American Jews in the entertainment medium. Siegel and Shuster, Kirby and Lee, produced their greatest work at a time when America was predominantly white and 'conservative'; Jews, being chameleons, change their colour in order to blend in with their environment; any Jewish writer in the 1950s and 1960s who proposed for a TV series, comic book, or movie a heroic protagonist who was a lesbian butch overweight negress with shaven sides of the head and tattoos and piercings would have been fired on the spot, and this suggests that in the main that is Americans themselves and not only the Jews who brought about the degradation of popular culture that the American conservatives so despise.
But then, the non-whites living in America are as much to blame for producing the 'wokeness' that took root in the 2010s as much as the Americans, and the 'woke', 'social justice' phenomenon has put American Jewry in a bind. By all rights, American Jews ought to support 'wokeness'; they are the Sons of the Covenant ('the Sons of the Cut', i.e., the circumcised) who are bound to Yahweh and as such they are a people who 'Dwell alone' and are 'Not to be reckoned among the nations' (Numbers 23:9); and from this it follows that they ought to separate themselves from their host population in America; and seeing that the majority of that population has been historically white, they ought to oppose themselves to that white majority, especially to the majority that is made up of the racial type that has been for most of America's history predominately Nordic; and the corollary is that they ought to see American non-whites as (in social justice speak) allies. But the divide between American Jewry and the non-white and immigrant population in America, most of which dislikes Israel, has been broadened after the advent of the Arab Israeli conflict and further still after October 7, and a schism now exists between non-Jews (whether they be white or non-white) and Jews, who see themselves as being a poor, persecuted, frightened, and powerless minority who happen to be aliens living in America, which is as Jewish ideologists never cease telling us a 'nation of immigrants'.
The accentuating of divisions does not bode well for American 'soft power', because the world likes America more if the divisions between Americans and anti-Americans living in America are kept in the background. The non-American world - and this includes Russia and China - thinks the better of America if America stays true to the American ideal, that is, the mythical and absurd America, the America of dreams, the America portrayed in Hergé's Tintin in America (1932), a European fairy-tale in which the intrepid Belgian reporter Tintin travels to America and experiences hair-raising adventures that see him encountering Chicago gangsters and Blackfeet Indians in quick succession. In case one thinks I am exaggerating the appeal of American myth to non-Americans, I note that even the Russians, who these days profess to despise America and the 'Anglo-Saxons', adore the American daytime soap Santa Barbara (1984-1993) and continue to remember it fondly thirty years after its cancellation. No doubt white nationalists who investigate this frivolous concoction will find Jews here there and everywhere in its making, but the important point is that in it Jews and Jewishness feature little, because the Russians regard it as being quintessentially American.
X. Vaporwave, superficiality, and American conservatism
To repeat, white nationalists seem to take a puritan view of American pop culture; they view it as warped and perverted, corrupting and dangerous; but most in the West find it fascinating, and I am one of them. I could easily imagine myself playing all day the 24/7 Vaporwave music channel that features old American commercials from thirty to forty years ago on an endless loop and allowing it to bathe me in its healing rays for the reason being that it connects me to a glorious past. 'The surrounding subculture [of Vaporwave] is sometimes associated with an ambiguous or satirical take on consumer capitalism and pop culture, and tends to be characterized by a nostalgic or surrealist engagement with the popular entertainment, technology and advertising of previous decades'. The white nationalist may deride this 'surrounding subculture' as decadent, depraved, and 'Jewish', but a closer inspection reveals that this brand of American pop culture lacks all the qualities that characterise the Jewishness of the Old Testament: where is the anger, the malice, the jealousy, the alienation from all of humanity, and above all, the terrible seriousness? Vaporwave values have been excised after October 7 and in the aftermath Bible values have come to the forefront.
When confronting the endless 'anti-Nazi' 'anti-Hamas Nazi' propaganda we see in the conservative media these days, we may ask the American conservatives who are presently raving like maniacs: what is 'Semitism' exactly, who are the 'Semites', and why is being 'anti-Semitic' the worst thing in the world? The response of the conservative is: do not ask questions; kill and kill in the name of the 'Lord your God'. Needless to say, levity and a lack of seriousness have become unfashionable. The frivolous man, the ironic man, the shallow man, the postmodern man, the man of the End of History, has been dragged kicking and screaming out of his pop culture bubble. Vaporwave reruns of 1980s and 1990s American TV shows have been interrupted by regular breaking news reports on the worsening situation in Israel and Palestine. All in all, the sharp change in tone resembles that in the rupture that occurred in America and the West after the terrorist attacks of September 11; 9/11 marked the end of the nineties, which was a decade of great prosperity and vacuity, and it signaled that America had entered a new era, one which according to cultural commentators saw the death of postmodern irony and the birth of a new sincerity. It is pertinent that Vaporwave is only interested in pop culture before 9/11: 'Generally, artists limit the chronology of their source material between Japan's economic flourishing in the 1980s and the September 11 attacks or dot-com bubble burst of 2001 (some albums, including Floral Shoppe, depict the intact Twin Towers on their covers)'.
The difference between then and now is that in the 2000s, there were white people in politics. Now in 2023 the cities have the Anglosphere have become battle zones or rather stages for political street theatre, and the play is a two-man show, one character being the Jew, the other, the Muslim. We are told daily by the American conservative press that the interests of Jews and Israel are to be held as paramount, and the countervailing voices on the Left tell us that the interests of the Gazans, Palestinians, and Muslims must be considered. But nowhere appear the white man's interests; the white man is conspicuous by his absence; at the most, he serves as a mediator between Jews and Muslims.
Appropriately enough, hundreds of thousands of Muslims and their followers marched through London on Remembrance (or Armistice, or Veteran's) Day, a sacred day in the West that celebrates the defeat, destruction, and unconditional surrender of Germany in WWI. From the London march, we can see the truth of Yockey's contention that by working to destroy the Germans in WWI and WWII, the British were working to destroy themselves.
As to which nation forced the surrender of the Germans on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, it is America; the British and to a lesser extent the French like to take all the credit, but a close analysis of the military history reveals that it was the Americans on the Western Front in WWI who defeated the Germans; they bear the responsibility for the defeat of 'Germandom', 'Prussianism', 'Prussian militarism' as they called it at the time (two decades afterwards they would call it 'Nazism').
Their antipathy towards all things German, all things 'Nazi', is well-known; but it is only now after October 7 that their devotion to all things Jewish, Zionist, and Old Testament, has become equally as well-known or at the least unavoidable.
But can one understand it? The answer is no, because in order to understand Americans, we must empathise with them and the word empathy means feel into, vibrate in sympathy with; and knowing what we know of the Bible and the Talmud, it, we find it near impossible to feel as Americans do about the Jewish people, Zionism, and Israel. The American devotion to Israel casts a light on deficiencies in the American character, deficiencies that had already become apparent in the one year and six months before October 7, which is when we saw how Americans on the Right reacted to the second Russian invasion of Ukraine in the 21st century.
After the outbreak of the 2022 War, we in the West if we are honest are compelled to acknowledge oft with great regret the sad truth that the Russian is, to paraphrase General Patton, a son of a bitch: he is a mendicant, a drunkard, a liar, and he loves to steal, torture, rape, and kill. And geopolitically speaking he is a malicious, highly aggressive, rapacious, and expansionist animal. A study of Russian history and indeed the rhetoric of the present-day Russian state itself reveals that in all probability that were Ukraine were to fall then Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldova, would be next; Ukraine serves as a buffer between Russia and Europe, which is one of the reasons why the Germans in WWII fought as long as possible there before being ejected; the Germans reasoned quite rightly that it was far better to defend on Ukrainian soil than European; the more you fight Russia in Ukraine, the less you fight Russia in Europe. The European understands this but the American does not. We must ask what sort of person would wish the Russians on the Germans, Austrians, and Hungarians and the answer is: the American, who welcomed the Russian incursions of 1914 and 1945, two years in which Russia invaded Germany, Austria and Hungary. Being 'Nazi', the Germans in both wars fought to the last bullet and the last man; the German attitude, the attitude of 'Kapitulierin, nein!', is the antithesis of the American; in February 2022, the American paleocons and dissident Rightists to their eternal shame wanted Ukraine to surrender and surrender unconditionally. But the distinctions 'Left', 'Right', 'Paleocon', 'Dissident Right' matter little and are fast vanishing, and even racial distinctions are breaking down. The 'conservative' negress Candace Owens is pouring scorn on Ukraine and its resistance to Russian imperialism, which is the imperialism of Russkiy Mir that stays constant whether Russia be Tsarist or Leninist or Putinist.
I perceive in the American character a tendency towards unity and sameness when it comes to the Russian question. Against this interlocuters may object; they will point to the Biden regime's donating billions in aid to Kiev in its fight against Moscow. But in WWII, America gave 13 million tonnes of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union in its war against Europe, and it was this - and the building of the far-reaching logistical network composed of American and Commonwealth jeeps, trucks, and rolling stock - that turned the war on the Eastern Front in favour of the Russians; and yet only a few years after the end of the war, America began to bestow its bountiful aid not on Russia but on Russia's opponents. Why?
Supplying the answer, Yockey writes of Hobbes' Law of Protection and Obedience. To explain the Law I will resort to a crude analogy, which is as follows. A mafioso takes control of a neighbourhood and promises the small businesses in that neighbourhood something called 'protection'; what that means is that he will extort and simultaneously 'protect' from rival mafiosos; all these shop-owners need do is obey. Yockey illustrates the principle at work by painting a vivid portrait of occupied Germany and Berlin that were partitioned between the Russians and the Americans in the late 1940s, a dangerous time in which it was feared that a new World War would break out on German soil. The American now find himself in the same position as the American then. In order to hang on to its ill-gotten gains, the America of either 1953 or 2023 must be prepared to fight Russia even though deep down it does not want to - a reluctance discussed in Yockey's last published essay 'The World in Flames' (1960).
The two most important wars so far of the 2020s, the Russo-Ukrainian War of 2022 and the Israel-Palestinian War of 2023, have taught us two lessons. From the Russo-Ukrainian War, the European has learned that the American is not his friend, and from the Israeli-Palestinian, he has learned that he is not wanted, not wanted at all, and that - to add insult to injury - he is not to be accounted for politically. This is something that is largely his own fault: he has chosen to absent himself, vacate the premises, exit the stage.
XI. Escaping into Americanism
For those of us in the West who find Zionism, Judaism, American conservatism, and Old Testament values unacceptable, an avenue of escape does present itself. It lies in America's mythic past; in order to remove yourself from the present America, you only need to move to the America of the past, which is the America of pop culture myth. Immerse yourself - for example - in episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, a splendid series that was broadcast over thirty years ago. I have recently been watching nineties-era episodes on YouTube of an American ABC daytime soap and I have been enjoying the show's warmth and humanity. At the end of every episode, we hear the show's theme, which has a saxophone line that is soaring and sensual, and then we hear the announcer's voice - and it is always a pleasant, warm, and welcoming voice - cutting in and informing us of the contents of the upcoming broadcast of Good Morning America; all at once, we are thrown back in time to an America in which media and entertainment sought to give you a sensation of comfort, familiarity, and enjoyment, in which media and entertainment treated you as a friend and not an enemy. The impression is enhanced when we delve back further to forty years ago. Recently I had the good fortune to see the Christmas episode of an NBC daytime soap from 1985. In it, a handsome blue-eyed smiling young priest delivers a church service to a congregation that is all white; perhaps the grooming of the participants leaves something to be desired - the men wear mullets, the women impossibly big hair - but that being by the by the setting makes you feel at home. Do not listen to the white nationalists who disparage like the authors of the Talmud Christ and Christianity; do not listen to the white nationalists who belittle Christmas; do not listen to the white nationalists who attempt to tear down the American pop culture of the past. They take a jaundiced view of America, and something that I have discovered in recent years is that American white nationalists do not like Americans all that much.
When it is good, American pop culture - and usually the pop culture of the past is good - may serve to convince you to be an advocate of a 100% Americanism, and perhaps this is what the American white nationalist is afraid of.
In addition, the American pop culture of the past performs the useful function, useful in the time of Covidianism, of instructing us how to live. When the first lockdowns were enforced in early 2020, an emotional pall like a thundercloud about to burst seemed to settle over the city I lived in and the rest of the country. It was then that I started to think negatively of modern life in cities, the suburbs, and even the regional and rural areas; after getting my thoughts in order, I came to the conclusion that I found modern life a deeply alienating experience; and further, I began to suspect that such feelings of emotional distance in me and others predated the reign of the Covidians; it could be that these feelings were intrinsic to life in the West. Throughout the 2010s, politics took up all my attention, and I did not notice the strangeness - the philosopher Heidegger calls it unheimlichkeit, which means un-homeliness, unfamiliarity - of modern city living; I thrust it from my mind; but Covidianism, lockdowns, shutdowns, forced me to remove myself mentally from my fellows, who overnight seemed to have been driven mad by Covidian indoctrination. Cities had become deserted because the vast majority had been locked down and ordered to stay at home by the government and the 'health professionals', and this naturally enough made me feel as though I dwelt in a strange and alien world. My feeling of a vast distance was increased whenever I walked to a grocery store wearing my mask (if I did not wear a mask, I would have been arrested); in the street, I would encounter most of the time only non-whites, and we would not greet one another or even make eye contact; it felt as though I were living in a giant open-air POW camp, the population of which was composed of the alien races we see locked up in an intergalactic prison depicted in a Star Trek episode; in short, I had become Captain Kirk. This was the darkest and most disorienting period in Australian history, and when confronted with bizarre behaviour that persists even today - I can still see people in the supermarket wearing masks - one must ask oneself, what is normal and what is human? How do I regain this normality and humanity, how do I feel like myself again - and indeed, what is myself? By watching TV dramas that depict rituals and events of the past - in America, these are TV dramas that put forward to us Thanksgiving, school dances, weddings, Christmas, everything denied to us by the Covidians - we reconnect with the essence of what it is to be human.
In the first years of the decade, the political establishment - and that includes not only the politicians but the journalists, the police, the 'health professionals' - behaved in a manner that was quite inhuman, reptilian even. The masses, the 'normies', followed them unquestioningly. Had the 'normies', in the first months of 2020, withdrawn their consent and refused to wear masks, refused shut down their businesses, refused to confine themselves to their homes, refused to stand one and a half meters from one another in the supermarket, refused to 'check in' with a QR code when entering every building, then the Covidian regime would have collapsed. But the 'normies', as we know, went along with it each and every step of the way. They even agreed to being injected with a potentially lethal substance in order to enjoy the privileges of attending their place of employment in person, shopping at a shoe store, and drinking at a bar.
What does this have to do with the Bible and the Middle East? The word 'reptilian' denotes someone who is cold-blooded, strange, devoid of any human instincts, cruel, predatory, merciless; it applies to the Covidians and also to the Jews of the Old Testament; the fabulist David Icke, with his talk of 'reptilian elites', has been accused of anti-Semitism - 'reptilian' is a code-word for 'Jew', his detractors allege. Icke seemed to have been inspired by Robert E. Howard's Serpent Men, 'An ancient pre-human race who had founded Valusia but were almost extinct, rule from the shadows, using their Snake Cult religion and ability to disguise themselves with magic'. This shape-shifting race worships a serpent-god called Set who of course takes his name from the ancient Egyptian god of chaos, darkness, famine, and war. Guyénot writes that the ancient Egyptians, confused by the hostility of the Jews towards them, identified Yahweh with Set.
By associating Jews with such strange, non-human, magical, sinister beings, the conspiracy theorist forms a certain mental image of the Jew, one that is half-real, half-fantasy, and one that is the opposite of the mental image of the American that is impressed on us by popular culture; in contrast to the Old Testament Jew, the American is warm, friendly, avuncular, open, familiar, talkative, polite, hospitable, honest, fair-dealing, and plain-spoken. One of the greatest mysteries of the past one hundred years is how the American, who diverges so much from the Bible Jew, felt such an extraordinary attraction to his antithesis. Lizard-Men, Israel, burnt offerings, race-hatred, volcano gods: all of these are distinctly un-American.
To repeat, Israel is not 'The West', 'civilisation', and the West and civilisation are endangered neither by Hamas and nor by Palestinian immigrants - immigrants who for the reasons we all know by now are regarded as objectionable whereas Indian, Chinese, and African immigrants are not.
We are free to shut our ears to the lizard men, who speak with a forked tongue, and we can enjoy life, and white privilege, and Christmas; we can, like this Ukrainian fellow, put our feet up:
