The Blue Octopus

 

 

I.

 

The people shall hear, and be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina. [Exodus 15:14]

 

In October 2023, Israel invaded Gaza for the third time since the turn of century - the previous two invasions having taken place in 2008 and 2014 - and a year later, we see that the invasion is dragging on, its progress presenting a singular contrast to that of the invasions of 1956 and 1967. In the wars of 1956 and 1967, the Israeli army ejected the Egyptian from Gaza in a matter of days, but in the war that started in 2023, it is unable to eject Hamas, despite Israel's possessing one of the largest and most-well equipped armies in the Middle East and one of the most technologically advanced air forces in the world. I have heard rumours that most of the Israeli army casualties are caused by friendly fire and that Israeli infantry tactics have deteriorated to the level of the Russian. If the rumours are true, then the present war marks a sad descent, for traditionally the Israeli army, unlike the Russian, values the life of the individual soldier. But Israeli military performance in the present Gaza war is in keeping with Israeli military performance all throughout the 21st century, and in hindsight, Israel enjoyed its last victory more than forty years ago, in the opening stages of the Lebanon War of 1982. Granted, the 21st century Arab and Israeli wars caused the deaths of a great many Arab civilians, which was perhaps the Israeli aim - perhaps we should classify Gaza and Lebanon as punitive expeditions - but in all these operations, Israel failed to secure its objectives; the south of Lebanon remained in the hands of Hezbollah, Gaza in the hands of Hamas.

 

The Far Left has rejoiced because of this; Israeli setbacks and defeats represent a blow to 'imperialism'. In keeping with this 'anti-imperialist' struggle, the Far Left makes its outrage over the Gaza 'genocide' known at all times and in all places and it continually expresses its uncompromising solidarity with the Palestinian cause. This bond was on display when I recently passed by a trade union building in one of Australia's largest country towns and saw on the rooftop a Palestinian flag flying alongside the Aboriginal and the Eureka. Palestinian nationalism and Palestinian Islamism appeals 'intersectionally', that is, it appeals to all the disparate groupings, tendencies, lifestyles, factions, associated with the Far Left; it appeals to negroes, homosexuals, and environmentalists. This is illustrated by a recent episode in which a prominent representative of the last group, Greta Thunberg, the 'Swedish doom goblin', underwent travails because of her affiliation with Palestinianism. That story began when Thunberg posted on social media a photograph of herself holding up a 'Stand with Gaza' placard. Examining the photo carefully, observers spotted a stuffed toy - a blue octopus - sitting atop an armchair, and concluded, by a leap of logic that is unfathomable, that Thunberg was using the octopus to send a coded anti-Semitic message.

 

We must view all this against the background of history. Ever since the Far Left turned against Israel - which was probably sometime in the early 1970s, when the Palestinian cause became Left-chic - Israel and Jewish organisations have levelled a charge of anti-Semitism against the Far Left. The Far Left is said to have taken up a new anti-Semitism; conservatives in their polemics are making the anti-Israel Far Left equivalent to the 'Nazis'. If left-wingers study the history of the Arab and Israeli conflict, they may be surprised to learn that the statement of equivalence that Far Left anti-Zionists = Nazis is nothing new; in fact, it is at least fifty years old.

 

All the same, the virulence and vehemence of the Far Left in 2024 against Israel, Zionism, and the Israel lobby has given some on the dissident Right pause, and some white nationalists have been forced by events to give voice to opinions on the new anti-Semitism; Kevin Alfred Strom of has written a good three-part analysis starting here. Those on the Far Right are debating whether those on the Far Left have come over to their side on the Jewish question. The matter is permeated by fog and confusion, because the idea of anti-Semitism itself is vague and undefined, and this has been the case since Moritz Steinschneider ('Maurice Stonecutter', 'Maurice Jeweller'), the 19th century Jewish political activist, invented the term, putting it forward with a view to muddying the waters. And as we can see from the Thunberg scandal, a great paranoia exists, and when we examine the dispute, we feel uncertainty: does the pro-Israel activist really believe that Thunberg is an anti-Semite, or does he not believe? Perhaps he is tricking us; perhaps he seeks to fool the more gullible among us into thinking that Thunberg is an anti-Semite, that, although it seems doubtful, Thunberg and her circle have been swotting up on anti-Semitism, reading Henry Ford and Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf and Ford's commentary on the Protocols.

 

Naturally, those on the dissident Right contemplate the possibility of a left-wing anti-Semitism with excitement and satisfaction: their surrounded and encircled army has been waiting a long time for relief; now their hope is that the Far Left has gotten wise to the Jewish question and that it is assembling a rescue force that shall come to their aid. The hypothesis is a most pleasing one; but all the same, those on the Right must investigate the ideology of the anti-Israel Far Left dispassionately and rationally, even if they run the risk of putting some illusions, some hopes and daydreams, to rest. Articles such as Strom's attempt such an analysis. I here will be doing something similar, and the conclusions I arrive at will not be all that profound and original - the likes of Strom have said it all before - but what I will be doing that is new is looking at the same material from a different angle.

 

II.

 

The political circumstances of 2024 oblige us to formulate clear, precise definitions; I will here attempt to define what anti-Semitism is - that is, the real anti-Semitism and not the fake. Clear formulations matter; their lack pollutes contemporary political discourse, as shown by the careless bandying about of Steinschneider's conception.

 

Whenever accusations of anti-Semitism are made, these should be disarmed by the asking of a few questions that, although obvious, are rarely asked. The first of these is: who are the Semites? We know that the Akkadians, Phoenicians, and Arabs belong to the Semitic category as well as the Jews. And that leads us to the next question: what, precisely, is 'Semitism'? We can define Marxism, Freudianism, and Darwinism easily enough, but 'Semitism' is the great indefinable, and that entails that one cannot be 'anti' it: we must know what the 'ism' is before we can be 'anti' the 'ism'. We know what anti-communism is because we know communism is. We know what a communist is, but we do not know what a Semitist is. And so, we must ask: what is anti-'Semitism'? Furthermore, we must ask why it is that anti-Semitism, whatever it is, is the most wicked and obscene doctrine in the history of the world. I am willing to accept the conclusion, but I must have arguments, and so far, there seem to be none. Summing up, after a cursory examination, Steinschneider's conception comes loose from its moorings; it is filled with holes, as even Steinschneider's Wiki entry admits.

 

But a person who would make these sound objections would be logical and rational, and at the same time naive; that is, he would be someone who has had little to no experience of the Jewish people - at least none of the experience that the Babylonians, Egyptians, Persians, and Greeks of the Bible had. The experience of these ancient peoples gave birth to a doctrine that I call the real anti-Semitism, real because it is empirical.

 

The real anti-Semitism consists of a number of propositions that are easy to understand, hard to accept - hard for most people, that is. In the list, the first of the propositions is: Jews possess political power. Second, they wield it over non-Jews; and third, they can use it for evil and not good; and fourth, they use it as Jews and not as 'Illuminati', 'Masons', 'capitalists', 'corporations', 'globalists', 'the Far Left', 'the Davos elite', not even as 'Zionists'.

 

To the American conservative, these are outrageous slanders, but we can draw these anti-Semitic 'canards' from the one book that the American conservative should regard as the most authoritative, and that is the Bible. One only need start with the story of Joseph in Genesis, which if you have read it - and chances are that you have not - tells of the exploitation and starvation of millions of Egyptians by Joseph and the enrichment of Joseph and his family. If anti-Semitism is whatever casts the Jews in a bad light, then the Old Testament is the most anti-Semitic book ever written. And for our purposes, it is important to recognise that the Bible tells the story of all Jews and not some Jews: it does not distinguish between 'Zionist' and 'anti-Zionist' Jews, 'Marxist' and 'capitalist' Jews, 'good' Jews and 'bad' Jews.

 

Joseph is a hero in the Bible, and the Bible allows us to see how Jews see themselves. We would assume, then, that the Bible paints a flattering portrait of the Jews. Or does it? The truth is that any reader would be shocked and appalled by what Simeon, Levi, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Saul, David, and other Old Testament heroes did to the non-Jews. And this brings us to another proposition of anti-Semitism. The Jewish festival of Passover celebrates evils wrought upon the Egyptians, Purim upon the Persians, and Hannukah upon the Greeks. Any non-Jewish scholar contemplating these would find them offensive, to put it mildly; but they rarely come up for criticism from our Jewish intellectuals, and this is the case no matter how 'left-wing' the Jewish intellectual may be. This is a central proposition of anti-Semitism. The Jews of the Old Testament understood that a hostility existed but could not explain that hostility. A blissful ignorance exists, and with it a presumption of an irrationality dwelling in the minds of the non-Jews who take exception to Jewish conduct. This carries over into the present, and we see a trace of it in one article lauding the anti-Israel protests at American universities. The Jewish communist Daniel Lazare records with pride that at one American encampment, the anti-Zionist Jewish activists 'On Monday evening, the first night of Passover... even held a Seder complete with matzo and prayer books'. Lazare had not read the Bible, otherwise he would have recognised that Passover is not worthy of celebration, for it commemorates the mass slaughter of thousands? tens of thousands? of the Egyptian 'firstborn'. Exodus 10:29: 'And there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead'. Explaining Passover, Dan Barker writes:

 

Every year during Passover, the Jews hold a festive feast where they celebrate the Tenth Plague. They eat unleavened bread, drink wine, sing, and commemorate the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent children. The word “Passover” is a translation of the Hebrew pesach, which most likely means “he passed over.” During the final plague of Egypt, while children were being murdered by the God of the Old Testament through no fault of their own, the children of the Israelites who smeared lamb’s blood on their doors were spared. They were passed over. Apparently, searching for that blood mark was the only way God’s Angel of Death could tell the difference between the bad innocent children and the good innocent children. Jews all over the world annually rejoice over that non-difference, happy that they are the good chosen people. [Dan Barker, God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction (2016)]

 

All Jewish organisations, religious bodies, journals, agree that the Jews of Exodus and subsequent books are typically Jewish. And they put forward the notion that any criticism of this Jewishness is unfounded, irrational, and moreover, dangerous and immoral. And this leads to another important thesis, one that AIPAC, the Israel lobby, and American conservatives extend to anyone who criticises Israel: any aspersions cast on the Jewish people give evidence of a desire to hurt and even destroy the Jews wholesale. If you deplore the conduct of the Jews of Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, you are a Jew-hater who wants to exterminate all Jews; and the same affect manifests itself when you deplore the conduct of the Jews of Israel and the Israel lobby. Fancying themselves to be psychoanalysts, AIPAC, the ADL, and other Jewish organisations claim to understand you better than you understand yourself; they know the evil that lurks in your heart.

 

And now we come to another proposition of anti-Semitism, which is this: Jewish organisations and intellectuals can display an extraordinary belligerence, aggression, and paranoia that non-Jews can, whenever they deign to notice it, find obnoxious and offensive. Whatever did Australians of all people do to merit this tweet:

Amusingly, the mentality behind it reminds of this tweet, from the account of a renowned vatnik:

 

'You're locked in here with me', in the words of Rorschach, one of the anti-heroes of The Watchmen (2009). A pop psychologist would not characterise this as healthy.

 

Now it is a peculiarity of human nature that one group, if it is decent and thinks of itself as being decent, dislike being accused of wanting to oppress, enslave, murder another. Suppose a man is indifferent to the fate of Israel or even mildly critical of the Zionist project: does that make him bad? According to the Johnathan Greenblatts, it does; and furthermore, it makes him hateful, evil, murderous. Any intellectual, journalist, politician, entertainer, public figure who takes up a position even mildly critical of Israel is shocked and overwhelmed by the ferocity of the attacks of the Greenblatts. And his hackles rise; he takes umbrage at being called a bigot, an anti-Semite, a Jew-hater, and inevitably, a Nazi. After the assault, which 'discomfits' him - to use one of the favourite words of the Bible - he is often reduced to spluttering that he likes the Jewish people, that he has many Jewish friends, that he recognises the many accomplishments of the Jews in the arts and humanities; and in a last desperate defence, he takes refuge in the thesis (one that has by now become hackneyed) that not all Jews are Zionists. Such is human nature, though, over time he becomes accustomed to the unrelenting hostility and lack of fair play, and these exert influence upon his character. Again and again, our liberal and moderate anti-Zionist is told that he hates the Jews and everything Jewish and that he wants to murder Jews; and the turning point comes when, exhausted, he asks himself whether there is something to the accusations. This is human psychology. If I am indifferent to x or mildly critical of x, and x, perceiving this, tells me that I hate him and I secretly want to destroy him - the first time I may dismiss his accusations as the ravings a madman, the hundredth time, I may think there is something to them. Oddly, the Greenblatts and other witchfinders-general charged with rooting out anti-Semitism make use of the indoctrination by repetition technique of a cult. If you are told something over and over, you begin to believe it, no matter how absurd it is.

 

In Greenblatt's conduct we perceive a self-destructiveness. Representatives of the ADL and other organisations devoted to defending the honour of the Jewish people often bring up without prompting anti-Semitic 'tropes' that are known only to the anti-Semitic cognoscenti, and they shout these 'canards' and 'slanders' out loud and rub them in the faces of the public - a public that is by and large ignorant of real anti-Semitism. The classic example is the ADL's constant bringing up the 'blood libel', which is a Jewish term for something that anti-Semites call Jewish ritual murder. Here, I will not touch upon it, for it should be set aside for an advanced masterclass in anti-Semitism; here, I am writing only a beginner's guide. The question is, why are the Greenblatts, who are in the business of doing public relations for the Jewish people, bringing up such an unsavoury subject; and why are they presenting it to the 'normies', who know nothing of it and want to know nothing of it? It is as though I feel a compulsion to blurt out to complete strangers that I have been accused of terrible crimes and perversions; and at the same time, I noisily insist that there is nothing to these slurs, that they exist solely in the imaginations of accusers who are bad, wicked people who for no reason want to slander my good name and destroy me. The irony is, if an irony it be, that none of the strangers would never have heard the vile accusations had I not importunately injected them into the general discourse. And my repeating these slanders to an audience that is at first indifferent and after a time resistant produces an effect. At the start, my audience concludes, rightly enough, that I am somewhat unhinged; and by the end, it begins to ask itself if there is anything founded in these 'unfounded' accusations after all.

 

III.

 

Because of his unusual appearance, Greenblatt is compared in memes to Max Schreck in Nosferatu (1922).

 

 

Interestingly, modern commentators spy in Nosferatu 'anti-Semitic undertones'.

 

A Nosferatu, a Dracula, any variant thereof, is a Persona - a word that the ancient Greeks used for a mask worn by an actor. In the Greek theatre, the mask brings forth a character from out of the actor's unconscious; and to use one of the terms of Jungian psychology, it presents us with an archetype. Many Personae from the Old Testament are being called forth and presented to this day, and as we shall see, that phenomenon constitutes one of the premises in a chief argument for anti-Semitism.

 

One of the first Jewish Personae that appears in the Bible is the Jewish pimp. Abraham pimps Sarah, Isaac pimps Rebekah, and Mordecai pimps Esther. Significantly, the three Jewish men engage in pandering with a view to political advantage: they wish to win the favour of non-Jewish rulers. This feeds into the anti-Semitic 'trope' that the present-day Abrahams, Isaacs, and Mordecais are encouraging venality and indulging our appetite for vice, whether that vice be pornography, gambling, drugs, alcohol (in the Prohibition days), the services of prostitutes... It is most important to note that they do this in order to assert dominance: like the panderers of Biblical times, the Jeffrey Epstein-style panderers of moden times exploit Gentile weakness so as to get one over the Gentiles.

 

A second Jewish Persona, and one that is most pertinent in 2024, is the Jewish war criminal, who first appears in Genesis, in the story of Shechem and Dinah. A two-man army, Simeon and Levi kill all the males in the city of the Hivites, lay waste to that city, steal all the livestock, and enslave all the women and children. Fearing the consequences, Jacob reproves his two sons: 'And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house' [Genesis 34:30]. The racial massacres - for which the Jewish intellectual and anti-Nazi activist Rafael Lemkin coined the term 'genocide' - commence in earnest in Numbers. The Midianites are nearly all wiped out after Moses orders the death of all the Midianite men and all the non-virgin women. Of the survivors, the Israelites take captive 16,000 virgin females, and interestingly, 32 of these females are set aside for a sacrifice to Yahweh - one of few instances of human sacrifice that are approved of in the Bible.

 

The third significant Jewish Persona is the cruel overlord and oppressor: see Joseph. The Joseph story leads us to what I call the Jewish political model. The Jewish hero of the Old Testament seeks power not by ascending to a throne - that would be too public - but by becoming a middleman. He insinuates himself into a court and bit by bit makes himself indispensable to a ruler who is usually vain, empty-headed, and easily swayed. Joseph and the Pharoah, Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, and Mordecai and Ahasuerus give examples. The first two Jewish heroes, Joseph and Daniel, win the Gentile rulers over by becoming interpreters of dreams and portents - that is, psychoanalysts - and all three heroes use their influence to amass wealth and power for themselves and for the Jewish people; and such are the persuasive powers of their Jewish advisors, Ahasuerus and Darius the Median obligingly order the execution of the enemies of Mordecai and Daniel. 

 

Among the other archetypes we find the Jewish heroine who is a Jewish patriot: we see the prostitutes Sarah, Rebekah, and Esther; two female assassins, Jael and Judith, who murder men who are enemies of the Jews; and the prophetess Deborah, a sort of Jewish queen, who being a 'stronk womyn' (strong woman) doubtless wins the admiration of feminist scholars.

 

Quite a few archetypes can be found in the Bible that have fallen into disuse, that is to say, we do not see Jews in the modern age taking up these Personae. For examples of discarded Personae, see Elijah and his disciple Elisha, who are evil wizards; these men are the Jedi of the Bible, but unlike the Jedi, they owe allegiance to the dark side of the Force - perhaps they are not Jedi, but Sith. And any discussion of magical powers in the Bible brings us to the one archetype that appears more than any other, and that is the religious maniac who makes a habit of animal and sometimes human sacrifice. These are the men who give burnt offerings to Yahweh, that is, holocausts, holocaust being a word that stems from the Greek word kauston, to burn. 'Burnt offering' appears nearly 250 times in the Old Testament and 'holocaust' over a dozen times in the deuterocanonical texts. (When someone accuses you of denying the Holocaust, the smart rejoinder is: 'Which one?'). Neither term appears in the New Testament, suggesting that Christianity is a religion that has parted ways from Judaism. The doctrine of the latter rests upon the ritual slaughter, butchery, and sacrifice of animals; Yahweh takes pleasure in it; the fiery sacrifice of these beasts is a 'sweet savor to the Lord'; Leviticus is one long cookbook and butcher's manual. But after the destruction of the Second Temple, Jews stopped their sacrificing; and sometime before then, the Ark of the Covenant, a box that Yahweh lives in, was stolen by parties unknown. After these two cataclysms, Jews enter the modern era, one that is devoid of magic, Yahweh having left the Earth. Steve Wells observes that the destruction of the Second Temple 'caused a complete change in Judaism: from a temple-based religion, with lots of animal sacrifices, to a new form called Rabbinical Judaism, with no sacrifices'.

 

The lower-case 'h' holocaust relates to the upper-case 'H' Holocaust that we all we know; the two are connected. Those on the Left who are opposed to Zionism, Israel, the 'genocide in Gaza', are unable to avoid this relation, because any defender of Israel and Zionism will bring it up sooner or later. And it is here that any rationality, logic, argument, comes to a halt. We traverse from secularism to religiosity. And against faith, there is no argument. Simply put, the Jewish religious tradition is filled with nonsense, but such is the hold of that tradition on the contemporary Jewish mind, not even the most avowedly secular Jewish intellectual is willing to challenge any part, no matter how nonsensical.

 

Strom illustrates for us one instance of Jewish religious absurdity:

 

According to the Talmud, in the year 132 AD the Romans slaughtered the Jews in the town of Bethar. Bethar was a small town about ten miles southwest of Jerusalem, and it had an area of approximately five city blocks — one source gives its area as about 600 meters by 200 meters. Not only did the Romans kill every Jew in Bethar, but according to the named and “authoritative” rabbis writing in the Talmud, the number of Jews killed there was 800,000,000. Just in case such a number might seem a tad exaggerated, the Talmud makes it all clear by informing us that the blood of the holocausted Jews ran to the sea in a huge tidal wave that swept boulders in its path and was so deep that it reached the nostrils of the Romans’ horses. The crimson tide of Jewish blood, we are told, roared over 35 miles to the sea, where it stained the waters red four miles from the shore.

 

Not only did 800,000,000 Jews live in Bethar, but they lived in luxurious ease, and within those 600 by 200 meters were 64,000,000 Jewish schoolchildren who attended schools operated by the 400 synagogues. We are additionally informed that the evil Romans wrapped each of the schoolchildren in his scroll and burned all of them, and that the bodies of the Jews were then used to build a wall enclosing Hadrian’s vineyard, which was 18 miles square, and the Jewish blood that was salvaged from the tidal wave was used as fertilizer for seven years.

 

And that brings us to the Talmudic tall tale that wields the most power. This is the Holocaust, the 'h' being capitalised. According to the Talmud, the Gentiles will throw the Jews into giant ovens; six million Jews will be immolated; and Yahweh, recognising the sacrifice, will bring the murdered Jews back to life. After this, the Jews will reclaim the lost State of Israel.

 

As we know, this reclamation is what happened in 1948, when the prophecy was fulfilled. Or perhaps it was not; perhaps the prophecy was nonsense, religious nonsense, all along.

 

IV.

 

When considering all this, the theme that emerges is continuity. A bridge across time joins the Jews of Biblical times to the Jews of today, and it is faith and blood that links the two generations. Unusually for a religion, Judaism takes race and faith to be commensurate; the men of the Jewish faith who choose to marry women who are of a non-Jewish faith are betraying the Jewish race. In Numbers, the Fourth Book of Moses, Jewish men 'commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab' [Numbers 25:1]. Outraged by this, Yahweh sends a plague that kills tens of thousands of Jews. Fortunately, the plague comes to an end after a Bible hero, Phinehas, spies a Jewish man, Zimri, copulating with a 'Midianitish' woman, Cozbi, in a tent; he steals into the tent and with a spear skewers the pair; he 'thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly' [Numbers 25:8]. Greatly pleased by the double murder, Yahweh puts an end to the plague - but not before it has killed 24,000 Jews.

 

Racial purity matters to the Jews of the Bible because of continuity. In one form or another, the doctrines of afterlife and the immortality of the soul turn up in the teachings of all the world's religions, but Judaism is unique insofar as the only immortality and afterlife that it acknowledges lie in the continuance of the Jewish racial line. This is why, after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the daughters of Lot ply him with alcohol and rape him - 'that we may preserve seed of our father' [Genesis 19:32]. As Guyenot writes in From Yahweh to Zion: Three Thousand Years of Exile (2018):

 

This fundamentally materialistic nature of ancient Hebraism has often been pointed out by historians of religion: the rewards promised by Yahweh to those who “fear” him are entirely material—to be “full of days,” to have numerous offspring and a great fortune. Man’s only survival is through generation, or blood descent, according to the Torah... In the story of Cain and Abel... It is not Abel’s soul that suffers, but rather his blood “crying out to God from the ground” (Genesis 4:10).

 

We must pause here. In the event that readers feel some revulsion to the above, I must warn them: they are feeling the onset of anti-Semitism. Does the atmosphere of the tawdry saga that is the Old Testament seem cloying, closed-off, stuffy, suffocating, incestuous? Does the morality of the Bible seem debased? Yes, and such a reaction is healthy and normal; but it is anti-Semitic.

 

V.

 

Guyent's ruminations on blood, progeny, lineage, and continuity prompt us to delve into the topic of the Jewish philosophy of life. Because the events of the Old Testament are often sordid and the actions of Yahweh are often merciless, cruel, and murderous, one would assume that Jews have a fierce mien and a grim view of life, but that assumption does not square with our knowledge of the Jews that we are acquainted with in everyday life and the world of popular culture.

 

Between ourselves, this is where many anti-Semitic polemics fall down. A recent article by Douglas Mercer posted at the National Alliance site, an article that primarily concerns the Jewish comedian Jerry Seinfeld, goes too far; it lacks nuance; simply put, it is so badly written and badly thought out, so much so that I will not be linking it here, for it gives anti-Semites a bad name. If you spoke like Mercer does to anyone old enough to remember Seinfeld, they would regard you as a freak - and rightfully so. A comic masterpiece, Seinfeld features good actors who possess superb comedic timing, and it made viewers laugh. To those of us who experienced it, it gave fleeting moments of pleasure; we have fond memories of it; and perhaps the more nostalgic of us revisit it; but Mercer, a puritan, tells us: stop enjoying it! But even the founder of the National Alliance, William Pierce, concedes that some Jewish TV and movie productions amuse him. In a 2001 broadcast, Countering the Poison, Pierce says:

 

All in the Family’s Archie Bunker was used to make White Americans with traditional ideas about race and sexuality seem ridiculous, to seem ignorant and small-minded. M*A*S*H, starring the leftist actor Alan Alda, was used to make Whites with traditional attitudes seem like vicious bigots, despised by all decent people. Tens of millions of White Americans watched these programs on black-and-white television screens week after week. I was one of those White Americans. The programs were genuinely funny, genuinely entertaining.

 

But alas, he sighs: 'And they were genuinely poisonous to the easily manipulated lemmings who made up the vast majority of the viewers'. He goes on to say that the creator of All in the Family, Norman Lear, was Jewish; as was the producer of the M*A*S*H TV show, Larry Gelbart; as was the director of the M*A*S*H movie, Robert Altman.

 

In all due deference to Pierce, when I first heard him in that broadcast - nearly a quarter of a century ago - identify Altman, one of the great New Hollywood directors, as a Jew, I experienced doubt: after all, Altman was known to be a Catholic director. And indeed, the Wiki entry (which is by no means authoritative) says that Altman was not Jewish. If Wiki is right and Pierce is wrong, it is of no great consequence, but I think that it is a symptom. Simply put, white nationalists always want to offload anything bad about white culture, the white Western world, what Spengler called the Faustian or Occidental Culture, onto the Jews; furthermore, they are unwilling to admit that many of the Jews working in the fields of popular culture and entertainment have given us works that are diverting and amusing. To the white nationalist, such a concession represents a betrayal of the worst kind. For he believes that one cannot relax - not even for a second. The ethic of the white nationalist is: take everything, even an old and trivial piece of entertainment such as Seinfeld, seriously - extremely seriously. The American white nationalist is as dour as a member of the Plymouth Brethren, and one can spy the spirit of Protestantism lurking behind him; for all his professed anti-Christianity, he is at bottom an Evangelical.

 

If you want the opposite of seriousness, look to the Jewish philosophy of life as expounded in Ecclesiastes. There we find plenty of the materialism that Guyenot speaks of, and a pronounced opposition to the heroic spirit that we see in the myths of the Greeks and the Babylonians.

 

To understand the anti-heroism of Ecclesiastes, take note of how the Old Testament parodies certain of the Greek and Roman heroic myths. The story of Samson parodies the story of Hercules, and it does this because it is intending to degrade; it wants to make fun of the demigod myths and drag them into the mud. 

At the same time, the Jewish tradition wants to recast these Classical myths; it wants to build a Jewish version. The result is that in the person of Samson, the Bible creates a Jewish Hercules. Samson is the son of a mortal woman and an angel (or perhaps Yahweh himself) in the same way that Hercules is the son of Alcmena, who is a mortal woman, and Zeus. From the telling of the Samson story, we can deduce that the Jewish tradition despised the Classical but at the same time acknowledged its power.

 

When examining Ecclesiastes, let us look first to the hedonistic and happy-go-lucky philosophy. This book of the Bible delivers welcome relief from all the gloom, violence, and seriousness, that goes before:

 

"There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour." 2:24

 

"There is no good ... but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life." 3:12

 

"Every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour." 3:13

 

"There is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works." 3:22

 

"A man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry." 8:15

 

"Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart." 9:7

 

"Walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes." 11:9

 

"Of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh." 12:12

 

Then there is the anti-heroism:

 

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast." 3:19

 

"For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion." 9:4

 

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." 9:5

 Finally, there is the nihilism and pessimism:

 

"All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." 3:20

 

"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." 9:10

 

"The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." 9:11

 

Seinfeld won for itself the reputation as being the 'show about nothing'. A good many critics attributed Seinfeld's nihilism, hedonism, and anti-heroism to the influence of the spirit of the nineties, a decade which was, according to these critics, postmodern. And indeed, Jerry Seinfeld's world view slots into the postmodernist's quite nicely. But we can see how it is that the philosophy of Seinfeld and Ecclesiastes converge.

 

V.

 

I think I have presented a fairly comprehensive summing up of the principles of anti-Semitism, and over other accounts it possesses the advantage of being rooted in the Jewish past; it does not waste time on recent Jewish history - the history of the Rothschilds, the Balfour Declaration, Theodor Herzl, Elie Wiesel, Anne Frank, Bibi Netanyahu, and the rest. In order to understand the principles of real anti-Semitism, one needs to forgo the contemporary and stick to tradition.

 

Something that struck me when exploring that tradition is the importance of the insight that there are three characters on the stage: the Jews, the non-Jews, and Yahweh. The last of these is the worst killer and oppressor of the Jews, and throughout the books of the major and minor prophets, Yahweh does nothing but threaten to rape, starve, enslave, and kill the Jewish people. Now and then he throws the Jews a bone and promises them dominion over the non-Jews; but most of his utterances, including the very last words of the Old Testament, consist of threats towards the Jews. And if we are to believe the tales of the earlier books, the body count of Jews killed by Yahweh - and often for small infractions - reaches into the hundreds of thousands. Ridiculously, the Catholic Church regards the books of the minor prophets as holy, and it devotes sacred days to their study. That being by the by, the important question is: why is it that Jews worship a god that is so destructive and abusive? What do they get out of it?

 

An economist would say that the Jews of the ancient world performed a cost-benefit analysis when throwing their lot in with Yahweh, which is true enough, and we know that to these Jews, the benefits of a fealty to a murderous, capricious, and grim god outweighed the costs. But to repeat, such a statement is anti-Semitic.

 

And so now that we have some understanding of what I call the real anti-Semitism is, we must ask the question, does the ideology of the radical, pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel Left betray its impress? Has the radical Left become anti-Semitic? Has it become - to use a word that is now over-used, worn-out, and nearly devoid of meaning - 'Nazi'?

 

VI.

 

In order to answer that, we must scrutinise contemporary leftist discourse and keep a look-out for the special words and phrases that may indicate anti-Semitism. Such is the task of the Greenblatts, who perform it every day: it is their purpose in life.

 

Certain words were acceptable yesterday and unacceptable today. Some sixty to seventy years ago, Blacks in America were called 'coloreds', 'negroes', and 'blacks'; over time, those terms became verboten and were replaced by 'Black' (with a capital b) and 'African American', the last being a misnomer because most American negroes have never set foot in Africa.

 

Some words become reserved for use by one group and not another, and the word 'Black' may wind up in that category. When Trump referred to 'Black jobs' in the 2024 debate with Biden, sectors of the Left professed outrage: because Trump is a white man, it was implied, he had no right to use the word. But African Americans can use it all they want. The same holds true for the ultimate reserved word, which is of course the 'n' word. Negro musical performers, especially rap artists, can use it all they want, but if a non-negro uses it, well, he condemns himself to cancellation.

 

We see the same twisting and turning when it comes to the words 'Jew' and 'Jews'. If you are not Jewish and you refer to Jews with the definite article - 'The Jews' - you run the risk of sounding anti-Semitic. Likewise, the indefinite article arouses suspicion and hostility from the Greenblatts, especially when you apply it to an individual: 'The economist Milton Friedman is a Jew'. The verb 'jew' betokens anti-Semitism as well: see its use in the 1995 Michael Jackson single They Don't Care About Us: it means to deceive, exploit, swindle, rob.

 

But in the main, Jews themselves are allowed to freely use words that are forbidden to non-Jews. A Jewish writer may exclaim, 'I am a proud Jew'; he may declare that 'rising anti-Semitism on American college campuses is making the Jews nervous'; he is permitted to throw 'Jew' and 'Jews' about liberally. But you are not allowed, and you shall treat 'Jew' and 'Jews' in the same manner that you would treat words that refer to African Americans: these are the words that are to be handled most carefully, and better yet, not at all. It is far safer to use the adjective 'Jewish' ('These are the Jewish people', 'This is the Jewish-American community') instead of the nouns 'Jew' and 'Jews'. But you must take care to deploy 'Jewish' positively, never negatively; otherwise, you will stray into anti-Semitic territory. Years ago, when discussing the world of contemporary finance with a friend of mine - who was a prominent leader on the Far Right - I explained to him the practice of short-selling, and he shook his head disapprovingly and opined that short-selling sounded 'very Jewish'.

 

I predict that the words 'Zionism' and 'Zionist' will go the way of 'colored' and 'negro'. In the Bible, Zion denotes three things: a hill near Jerusalem, Jerusalem itself, and a mystical land. Zionism, the political and national movement that we all know, draws upon these Biblical connotations. A hundred years ago, the word attracted little in the way of controversy and comment, but in recent years, it has become a curse-word, especially to those on the Far Left, so much so that the ears of the Greenblatts prick up when they hear it; to the Greenblatts, the man who uses the word 'Zionist' as a pejorative term - and perhaps he contracts it sneeringly to 'Zio' - is announcing to the world that he is an anti-Semite.

 

We know that in 2024, the Far Left likes using the words 'Zionist' and 'Zio', which to the Greenblatts implies that the Far Left is on the way to real anti-Semitism. How, then, does Greenblatt fight it? The only means of refuting anti-Semitism is denial. You deny the proposition that Jews possess great wealth and power, that they can use their resources to bring about evil and not good, that they can be - as we see in the example of Greenblatt - paranoid, belligerent, aggressive, and a little unhinged. Denying is what American conservatives and Jewish organisations do around the clock. But a limit is reached, and after a point even the Far Left, which traditionally pays scant attention to Jewish matters, starts to show signs of scepticism; it cannot buy into the notion that the Jews are a poor, victimised, oppressed people who are bullied at every turn by the Gentiles in a most savage and cruel manner. They cannot accept Greenblatt's contention that the Jews possess no political power. And so, cracks begin to appear.

 

It is true that the Far Left fails to perceive the link between the Jews of yesterday and the Jews of today: if prominent thinkers of a left-wing persuasion deigned to read the Bible, they would see that Netanyahu's starvation of the Gazans mirrors Joseph's starvation of the Egyptians. But then, few on the Left or the Right bother to read the Bible and study Jewish history; and even the most devout Christians are unaware of what dwells in the Bible's pages.

 

VII.

 

Leftism consists of a number of beliefs, propositions. We can conceive of these as being part of a solar system, the center of which is socialism, Marxism, communism, Bolshevism. The typical leftist mind is filled to the brim with Marxism; it is crammed, and it has no room for any of the 'isms' - and that includes anti-Semitism - that compete with Marxism. All the same, the left-winger must deal with allies who subscribe to non-Marxist beliefs. Among the non-Marxists are those who dedicate their energies to the advancement of Islam and their race. And that brings us to Ilhan Omar, an East African immigrant and a Muslim who was elected to the US House of Representatives in 2019. In that same year, Omar caused a controversy with this tweet, which was deemed anti-Semitic:

 

 

Oddly, Omar is considered to be left-wing, that is, someone to be grouped in the same category as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both of whom are self-professed socialists. And it is here that the notorious phenomenon of left-wing anti-Semitism comes into play. In contemporary America, a sort of no-man's land exists between the sphere of the classical socialist, the Marxist, the Bolshevik, and the sphere of the Muslim, the African American, the immigrant; and in that fertile soil the real anti-Semitism, an anti-Semitism of the sort that can be detected in Omar's tweet, sprouts. Omar showed signs of becoming aware of the propositions that are easy to understand, difficult to accept: that Jews possess power, that Jews possess money, that Jews use both to get their own way, that they do this as Jews and not as members of the 'Davos elite' and 'the capitalist class' and 'the fascist Left' - these are the propositions that the anti-Semite finds unremarkable and the American conservative abominable.

 

The political implications are profound, and we need to digest them; one could write a lengthy analysis of what they entail for the Right, the Center, and the Left. But a meditation on the spiritual aspects as opposed to the political would profit us more.

 

In the section on Ecclesiastes, I touched upon the Jewish attitude towards the Roman and Hellenic heroes, and how Judaism sought to appropriate Classical myth and turn it into something Jewish. Judaism wanted a Hercules or Gilgamesh, and it gave us Samson. But how was the Classical and Babylonian hero to be converted into a Jewish? The answer is: by means of a holocaust.

 

After the mysterious angel reveals that he has impregnated the previously barren wife of Manoah, Manoah begs him to stay for dinner, for he has killed a goat for the occasion. The angel agrees, but demands that Manoah sacrifice the goat to Yahweh so as to mark the unborn Samson and consecrate his person to Yahweh. Manoah complies: 'So Manoah took a kid with a meat offering, and offered it upon a rock unto the LORD' [Judges 13:19]. Now, think of that image - the sacrifice of a goat on an altar - and what it reminds you of; does it not evoke a Satanic horror movie? After this quasi-Satanic sacrifice, the Bible continues with infernal imagery. The angel departs, shooting off to the skies, leaving an exhaust column of flame in his wake; he is like a rocket ship - or a cartoon devil. 'For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar' [Judges 13:20]. The symbol of the flame, fire, heat, is to Judaism what the symbol of the moon is to Islam. Because of centuries of Christian indoctrination, we in the West associate the Old Testament fire imagery with hell, devils, Satan; but we must keep in mind that the Old Testament differs from the New in its conception of Satan, hell, devils, demons. Old Testament stories such as the story of Samson challenge our Christian assumptions. For centuries, we in the West have believed that hell is 'down there', under the earth, under our feet; but the fiery angel - who refuses to divulge his name - after taking his leave flies off up there and not down there. Perhaps Hell or what the ancient Norse called Muspelheim is up there, in 'heaven', and not down there, deep in the bowels of the earth.

 

In the B-grade British horror movie Long Time Dead (2002), a marauding Arabic fire demon (a 'djinn') kills a series of British students and nightclubbers, setting them alight with his touch; Yahweh murders Uzzah and then Moses' nephews Nadab and Abihu using the same method. The last two men died because they performed a holocaust ritual in the incorrect way, much like a neophyte practitioner of black magic who, when attempting to summon demons, commits the mistake of stepping outside the pentagram. After the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, Yahweh warns their father Aaron that Jews should take extra care when entering Yahweh's tent. Curiously enough, apologists for Judaism will tell us that the deaths by immolation of Uzzah, Nadab, and Abihu were good. If we are to make sense of this notion of ‘the good’, we must perform what Nietzsche calls a transvaluation of values and understand that the Jewish tradition sees such spectral fire-beings as not evil and demonic but splendid and divine.

 

But those of us who stand outside the Jewish tradition take a different view, and we want to keep Yahweh as far away from us as possible, for he belongs in a horror movie of the seventies Satanic genre - movies such as The Exorcist (1973) and The Omen (1976).

 

Both movies are Christian, and perhaps the makers of them were looking at their subject the wrong way. Our perspective is limited by centuries of Christian indoctrination and training; like us, the ancient Egyptians found themselves constrained by their own religious presuppositions when it came to the Jewish question. For the life of them, they could not understand the Jewish religion, and they sought to comprehend Jewish religious doctrine by seeing in it parallels with their own - they believed that Yahweh was Set, the Egyptian god of darkness and evil, in disguise. And Set in Egyptian theology is the closest deity to the devil in Christian theology. Mulling over cross-religious comparisons, I see parallels between Yahweh and the fire-giant Surtr of Norse myth; Surtr is a blacksmith, and a recent academic treatise argues convincingly that Yahweh is the Canaanite god of smelting.

 

Were the Egyptians right about Judaism? Certainly, we can see that today's Christians have gotten Judaism wrong, and it is the opposing elements, the contradictions, within it that make Christian Zionism a jumble. The authors of the Talmud loathed Christianity, and that should make Christians treat Israel and Zionism with caution; but Christian Zionists treat the State of Israel as a means to an end. Steve Wells speaks of the American Evangelist attempts at building the Third Temple:

 

The Jews returned to Israel in 1948 and took control of the territory that contains the site of the temple in 1967. So a third temple could be rebuilt and animal sacrifices could resume. What's the hold up?

 

The hold up is the red cow.[2] A red cow that meets the requirements of Numbers 19 must be found and sacrificed to make the holy water that can purify priests from all the dead bodies that they have come into contact with during their lives.

 

Once a red cow is found, killed, and burned, its ashes can be used to purify priests, the temple can be rebuilt, and God will smell the sweet savor of burning animal flesh once again.

 

And according to Maimonides, when the third temple is rebuilt the Messiah will come.

 

Of course, Christians believe the Messiah came and went a long time ago. But many also believe that when a red heifer is found and the temple is rebuilt, he'll come again. And then all hell will break loose and the end of the world will come.

 

Recently five red heifers have been sent from Texas to Jerusalem, hoping that one of them will meet the rabbi's standards.

 

To the person who has seen one too many seventies horror movies, these Evangelicals are playing with fire. What would happen if the Dome of the Rock was levelled and the Third Temple was built in its place? Conceivably, Yahweh could come back; although perhaps we need to recover Yahweh's box, the Ark of the Covenant, for that to happen, the mere suggestion alone should frighten. The rebuilding of the Temple could make up the premise of a seventies-style horror movie: by their actions, Orthodox Jewish zealots and foolish Evangelicals unleash Yahweh once again upon the world; in the movie’s trailer, a voiceover announces in a sepulchral tone: 'An ancient evil returns'.

 

But in order to bring back Yahweh, perhaps we do not need to restore the Temple, or find the Ark of Covenant, or build a portal that will allow him into cross from his dimension into ours, because to judge by the chaos, misery, and death in Gaza and Lebanon, Yahweh is already here.

 

Fire Tricks part II: on the Bible, Vaporwave, and American TV

 

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: