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.

 

The Perils of Victimhood: on Master Races and National Bolsheviks

I.

In reading Heel of the Conqueror (1991), a Time-Life book on the German occupation of Western Europe, I came across this choice quote on the German expulsions of French nationals from the contested province of Alsace-Lorraine:

Wagner expelled 105,000 Jews and pro-French citizens into unoccupied France; Bürckel prepared a similar exodus involving another 100,000 people. 

The deportations caused a minor uproar in high Nazi circles. Although the Führer approved the action, Himmler did not. Charging Wagner and Bürckel with wastefully giving away redeemable racial stock to Germany's age-old enemy, the SS chieftain drew up new resettlement guidelines based on what he considered to be proper Nazi principles. Henceforward, he said, Wagner and Bürckel should expel only the lesser breeds, meaning Jews, Gypsies, blacks, criminals, the mentally ill, and 'all other trash that does not belong to us on the basis of blood'. Alsatians and Lorrainers with proper lineage but improper political ideas were to be resettled in Germany or in eastern Europe where they could acquire appreciation for national socialism. Those who persisted in proclaiming loyalty to France were to be sent to concentration camps. 

The exigencies of the war in Russia postponed the full enactment of Himmler's fantastic scheme... 

In defence of the Germans, Germany, in expelling the French from Alsace-Lorraine, was paying them back for the expulsion of over a 100,000 Germans by the French after WWI. The depressing reality of Europe in the first half of the 20th century was that, if you wanted to improve the lot of your country, you felt it best if you were to annex part of another, expel all or part of its people and repopulate it with some of your own. That was how things were done.

More important to me is the question: is the Himmler quote is genuine? We know that the Americans, Russians, and British forged an enormous number of documents - including speeches and directives of Nazi leaders - during the war and afterwards (mainly for use in the Nuremberg trials), in what was to become the biggest lie factory in history. Most authors on the war - authors whose books flood our shelves - have accepted all of these without demur (Goebbels' diaries, which are probably forged, have formed the basis of innumerable books on the Third Reich, including those of David Irving, an author who is supposedly a 'revisionist').

After some thought, I am inclined to think that the Himmler quotation is true, not invented. And my response to it is: what's not to like? Far Right nationalists in Europe - and its colonies - all agree on the need to expel the millions of Africans, Muslims and Asians from the Continent; they believe that, in particular, careful attention needs to be paid to the cities of Rome, Amsterdam, Paris, Berlin, Stockholm, Athens... They only diverge on one point: where the Jews fit in. The Zio-populists believe that the colossal feat of the European Reconquista can be undertaken without mentioning the Jewish question; at the least, they believe it can be undertaken with European Jewry's tacit approval. The other faction of the Far Right, the anti-Semitic, believes that nothing can be accomplished without tackling the Jewish question first.

Let us return, though, to WWII. In Spoil of Europe, a 1941 book by Thomas Reveille on German-occupied Western Europe, we find :

 At the other end of the caste system, and next removed from the lowest species, would be "Negroid" peoples; in Mein Kampf Hitler asserts that a fair number of Frenchmen are of this type. This theme was taken up with great vigour by the German press and periodicals during the summer and autumn of 1940. Even supposedly technical periodicals, such as the Deutsche Volkswirt , had special review columns, headed "Frankreich gegen die Zivilisation" (France Against Civilization), devoted to pamphlets and books describing France as the center of world prostitution, trade in narcotics, and Negroid development. In the hope of forestalling serious German measures, the Vichy regime has expelled from Metropolitan France Algerians, Moroccans, Arabs, and Negroes.

By the time of the outbreak of the war, France had earned the dubious distinction as the most 'pozzed' (to use Alt Right parlance) country in Europe. Alone of all the nations in Western Europe - which was ethnically homogeneous at the time - France had tolerated, and even encouraged, the formation of a sizable non-white immigrant population. By 1941 France changed her mind, but only because of her defeat and occupation by the Germans. Vichy made the French cities free of non-whites, for the first, and last, time in the 20th century (we can assume that the non-whites were allowed to return to the cities after the American and British 'liberation').

So, from the dissident Right, something good came out of a bad war. Another example: the wartime German treatment of France's foremost minority - the Jews. The OSS (the Office of Strategic Services, the precursor of the CIA) wrote a classified wartime report 'German Military Government over Europe, 1939-1943' (1944) which can be found here. In the section 'German anti-Jewish legislation in occupied France and Alsace-Lorraine', the OSS writes :

On 21 and 27 August 1940 Gestapo agents in Paris made the rounds of the leading Jewish organizations, including the Jorid Jewish Congress, the Jewish National Fund, and the Ecole Rabbinique. On 3 and 28 November the offices of the Alliance Israelite Universelle and of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency were raided, and some sixty thousand volumes from the libraries of the Alliance and the Ecole Rabbinique were removed to the Institute for Research on the Jewish Problem in Frankfort.

The Germans here were behaving in a 'based' (again, to use Alt Right parlance) manner. You expect, then, the professional anti-Semites in the dissident Right movement - the Greg Johnsons, Kevin MacDonalds, Hunter Wallaces - to be full of praise as a consequence for Hitler, the NSDAP and the Germans in WWII, but alas, they are not. They do not see the German 'New Order' in Europe to be a model. This suggests to me that they are interested only in the problem, not the solution.

'Solution' here is the key word. It requires, when applied to Europe's Jewish question, and Muslim question, and African question, pragmatist, instrumentalist thinking. It becomes a matter of technics: if you have snow in your driveway, you need a shovel to clear it. And the example of Europe in WWII shows us that a precedent exists for the moving of millions of people around Western Europe. Europe does possess the logistical capability, it has demonstrated it.

Thought such as this naturally suggests political clichés along the lines of, 'Yes, we can do it, but do we have to will?'. No one denies that, in the aforementioned example, France could have expelled the non-whites from the cities before the Germans came; But it did not, because it did not want to; it liked having the non-whites there; it lacked the will to expel them.

A newly-found French resolve in this case proved to be decisive, as did institutions such as the Wehrmacht and the Gestapo, as did war (Hitler reflected that the war helped him accomplish much more, domestically and abroad, than during peacetime; in that regard, he was fond of quoting the Greek philosopher Heraclitus: 'War is the father of all things'). The Allies and the Soviets understood all this, which is they expended so much effort, after their victory, in destroying all traces of 'Prussianism' and 'Prussian militarism'. The great institution of the German army itself was wiped out, although for decades after the war ghostly after-images of it lingered in the East German Nationale Volksarmee.

This brings us to the concept of what I call the package deal. It is unlikely, at this juncture, that the conservatives of the Boris Johnson ilk will be able to make Europe's capital cities white again; ditto the populists of the Salvini and Orban ilk. Suit-and-tie conservatism, whether centrist or populist, has not  shown the capacity to deport millions of Africans, Muslims, Indians and Asians who invaded and occupied Europe after the war; indeed, that conservatism struggles, for the most part, to keep even the illegal of these immigrants out. Only the Germans, and the Germans of WWII at that, have proven to be capable of moving around non-Europeans around Europe. And the Germans, at the time, acted under the aegis of German or 'Prussian' militarism, which, if we are to make Europe white again, needs to be resurrected. The fulfillment of one demand depends upon the fulfillment of the other.

As noted in my last article, war (in Europe at least) has entered a new era in the 21st century: any war against the non-whites of Europe will be waged by the 'dregs of war', and this war will be so limited as not to be called war. But such an evolution does not preclude standing armies in the tradition of WWI and WWII. As the need arose, the Germans, before and during WWII, formed and built up a variety of paramilitaries and conventional armies. The Brownshirts, or SA, were tasked with ridding Germany of communists up until and after Hitler's ascent to power; the Waffen-SS was conceived first as a bodyguard for Hitler and a German conventional fighting force, and then a pan-European one; anti-communist forces, such as the Police Battalions in Greece, were organised to destroy resistance fighters and communist partisans... To go by history, then, we can imagine, in a future Europe, three armies: a conventional standing army, to defend Europe against Russia; a paramilitary, to quash the communist Left; an army of the 'dregs', to round up and turf out the Muslim, African and Indian invaders. Perhaps the second of these, the Brownshirt or Blackshirt-style paramilitary, will not be needed, given the extraordinary political (and military) weakness of the European Left after the collapse of communism in 1991; as the anti-Hitlerians in the Far Right never tire of reminding us, 'It's not the 1930s any more'. (It should be remembered that the SA, after 1933, by and large had outlived their usefulness - they had become a political and military liability by 1934).

The argument against this view always is: the spirit of the past - even the past of a not-so-distant 75 years ago - cannot be brought back. This objection, at first sight, expresses a common-sense 'realism', but is, in fact, rooted in ideology. Yockey observes in The Enemy of Europe (1953) that both the USSR and USA 'believe it possible to attain a static world-order in which History would have ceased exist'. That is to say, the West cannot possibly improve upon what America and Russia have accomplished: the door to any further development has been closed. The conclusion to be drawn from this is, naturally, that America and Russia's victory in WWII means that Europe will never see the reappearance of anything 'fashy' again.

Certainly, to judge by present events - and the events of the past 75 years - one must conclude that the Americans and Russians are right: the realists and pessimists have founded their view upon the facts - the brute facts. But this illustrates only a difference in perception. Spengler and his disciple Yockey perceived the shape of things to come, whereas the realists only perceive what is put in front of them. One side derives its worldview from the evidence of the senses, the other, from intuition. We on the Far Right have, in the modern era, tilted the scales to the realist side and have neglected the idealist. That explains why now we have taken such a pessimistic view of life in the West, seeing it as a prison from which there is no escape.

II.

The opponents of the Far Right dislike our anti-Semitism, naturally enough, but they dislike it even more when it threatens to become political - that is, political in Carl Schmitt's sense, in that it makes a distinction between Friend and Foe. It is one thing when anti-Semites write screeds and propagate memes; it is another when they seek to get into an actual position of power. This explains one of the reasons why the National Socialists and their allies were so despised, and that is because they actually did something about the Jewish question. The Far Left, and the Center, resist this 'doing something' because they understand that it meant curtains for them - the 'Jew fawners' as William Pierce used to call them; the Far Right, on the other hand, resists on the principle that - absurdly - nothing should be done. The modern-day anti-Semite's kingdom is not of this world. The real-world and political attempts to enact anti-Semitic strictures, in Europe from 1939 to 1945, created chaos and dissolved traditions of long standing. The Far Right today is opposed to this chaos, and moreover, it does not want to assume the responsibility, the burden, that comes with office. It prefers to snipe from the sidelines.

This explains, in part, the attraction the Far Right feels towards National Bolshevism and National Bolshevism's heroes in the struggle against USA, 'The West' and the 'New World Order': Ghaddafi, Milosevic, Hussein, Putin, Chavez,  Maduro, Assad... The National Bolshevik sees himself and the 'Axis of Resistance' as the underdog. Despite the fact that many of his heroes - the Mullahs of Iran and Putin of Russia - have held power, with an iron grip, for many decades, and could be described euphemistically as authoritarian, he sees himself as a rebel; despite the fact that they have accumulated obscene amounts of wealth, he sees himself as a socialist. He feels a resentment against the US - in particular against any of its authority and father figures, a resentment which a psychoanalyst would describe as Oedipal. That makes a perfect fit with the ideology of the 'Axis of Resistance': its leaders still a bear a grudge against 'Western imperialism', even though that ceased to exist (or at least ceased to function with good conscience) over a hundred years ago, as the downfall of the West probably could be traced back to the time of the end of WWI.

But it is not as though that the US, UK and Israel defend the West and the 'Axis of Resistance' ranges itself against it. As Yockey never ceased to iterate, America is a Jewish controlled entity - Jewry forms the mind, America the body - and it opposes the West as much as the 'Axis of Resistance' does. Both the USA and USSR formed, in Yockey's words, a 'concert of Bolshevism'.

Incongruous as it sounds, both Judeo-America and Israel see themselves as the oppressed, not the oppressor. (Zionism, as an ideology, has its roots in progressivism, liberalism, and nationalism (which itself began life as a left-wing idea)). And who is on the receiving end of the anti-authoritarian imprecations of Judeo-America? Who plays the role of the demonic and authoritarian father figure? The answer is of course Hitler. This can be easily revealed by a survey of all the Anglo-Jewish propaganda of the past eighty-five years. How many of the books published since then concern tricking, hoodwinking, evading, escaping Hitler and the Nazis: as if Hitler were some vengeful and demonic father god, who, like Jahweh or Saturn, punishes his worshipers and devours his children.

In contrast, Hitler - and before him, Kaiser Wilhelm - never, in their speeches,  took up the mantle of the underdog: they saw themselves as the equal, not the inferior, of their opponents. And this is understandable, as Germany - along with France, Spain, Italy, France, England - is to be identified with the West: it is no 'Bolshevik' nation rebelling against Western imperialism, it is Western imperialism. Because, by the time of the beginning of WWII, Germany had occupied more than was occupied, it took a dim view of guerrillas, partisans, irregulars, francs-tireurs, rebels, 'patriots' and 'nationalists' fighting for independence against a foreign oppressor. (Nationalism of this sort and guerrilla warfare go together, as Carl Schmitt I think has shown in his classic study, The Theory of the Partisan (1962)).

(Germany's ally in the war, Imperial Japan, did take up the underdog mantle: it saw itself as leading a 'Bolshevik' (in Yockey's sense) crusade against the West, which would culminate in the white's man ejection from Asia and the building of a 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere').

On this subject, when reading Anglo-Saxon publications from the war, one notices an English and American obsession with the National Socialist concept of the Herrenvolk, a word which is (deliberately) mistranslated into English as 'Master Race' but in reality means 'Gentlemanly people' or 'Lordly people'. The Anglo authors are irked no end by this word: to them it signifies an infernal German arrogance. How dare the Germans believe that they are to be situated above the Poles, the Czechs, the Ukrainians? The insolent German pride had to be broken - among other things by putting the German leadership on trial for 'war crimes'. (The Allies demanded a trial during both WWI and WWII, but only after the latter was their demand met).

But if one wants to rule over people from other lands, one must believe in one's right to rule. One needs to believe in one's worth. In other words, self-confidence, bordering on arrogance, is required. If that quality had been missing in the Anglo-Saxons, then the Dravidians of India would never have been suborned and administered by a handful of British, the blacks of the American South and the Caribbean by a handful of white men.

Yockey writes, 'All politics is an activity related to power'. Politics can be compared to a game: you want power, the other man has it, so you 'strike him down' (in Yockey's words) and appropriate it. The dissident Right (for the most part) agrees that Jewry has accumulated a great deal of power in the West, but does it want to take that power from Jewry? Or does it want to be the perpetual complainant and rebel...

If the dissident Right chooses the former course of action, it must follow the example of the Germans in WWII. For as Ernst Zündel - normally a pacifistic and idealist man - once remarked, in that time the Germans, and the peoples of Europe, for once, and once only, had the upper hand over Jewry; they were the subject, not the object. And Jewry has never forgotten, which is why they have kept a watchful eye on the neofascists in Europe and the nativists in America for the past 75 years. (This ties in with the Jewish mentality in Israel: despite being one of the richest countries in the Middle East, and the most powerful military, Israel still sees itself as an injured party 'oppressed' by the Palestinians).

The Germans, from 1933 to 1945, were faced with an existential choice - to be or not to be - in relation to Jewry: were they to be the master or the servant? They chose to be the master. In doing so, they knew they were kicking a hornet's nest, flying into a storm; they recognised that the spirit of the age - of Masonry, liberalism, 'Jew-fawning', tolerance of the alien,  - was against them; but nevertheless, they staked all on the one claim. And for this, they never received gratitude from the Far Right: 'Why did you invade Poland? You should have stopped at Czechoslovakia - or Austria'. All the same, the Far Right (particularly in America) will need to study their example.

Much of all this depends upon psychology. In the Genealogy of Morality (1887), Nietzsche sketches out his famous theory of Master and Slave morality - a theory that the dissident Right is by and large enamored of. The most important aspect of Nietzsche's idea is that yes, while it is the case that the being, the character, of the Master and the Slave determine their qualities, individual choice plays a part as well. To transpose the theory into the modern era (and a transposition is needed, as in Nietzsche and Hegel the encounter between the Master and the Slave takes place in some primeval past), we see that Masters and Slaves choose to be so: they act upon their better or lesser angels. The Far Right can, in effect, talk itself into being a Master or a Slave - into being either the rebel Spartacus or the emperor Augustus. So far, under the influence of National Bolshevism, they have opted for Spartacus.

III.

This brings us to a related question. Before, during and after the war, the Germans, the 'master race', were victimised to an extraordinary degree. This has been chronicled by a multitude of revisionist-minded authors, among them to be counted are Austin J. App (one of the earliest writers to tackle the subject) and the most famous Thomas Goodrich (one of the latest). But, it goes without saying, all this material makes depressing reading. Joe Owens, the British nationalist, observed that, to judge by Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 (2010), German nationalism - and by extension any Far Right and European nationalism - leads to economic ruin, misery, poverty, destruction. One has to ask, then, does the Hellstorm thesis in fact serve as propaganda against nationalism and the Far Right, and could it be that this propaganda in its demoralising power is more effective than the Jewish, liberal, 'anti-racist' and 'anti-fascist' sort?

In Nietzsche's narrative, the Master is tricked into adopting the morality of the Slave. Prior to his encounter with the Slave, the Master values strength, mastery, pride, a belief in his good fortune and the ability to surmount all obstacles with ease. He begins to doubt, however, his self-worth and think of himself small, weak, insignificant, unlucky, after exposure to the toxic Slave morality. He becomes transformed. He no longer sees himself as the hammer, but the anvil, in the words of Bülow's famous speech.

Whereas the Master is poisoned by the morality of the Slave, the dissident Rightist is poisoned by the morality of the victim - or rather, the morality of victimology. Reading of the tremendous suffering of the Germans - and the nations that helped them (Italy, France, Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary) - in the aftermath of the war lowers one's morale. Why embark on the nationalist venture, why challenge Jewish (and Masonic, and liberal, and Marxist) power if it leads to one's cities being turned into rubble, and to one's people being starved, impoverished, immiserised, enslaved, raped, murdered? Far better to follow the example of Joe Owens, and campaign for local government on promises of improved bin collection; throw your weight behind a third party (the Brexit Party) which goes nowhere; better yet, found your own 'British nationalist' party (after all, Britain can't have too many of those): that is the pragmatic, sensible way of going about things.

After contemplating the horrors of Hellstorm, one must ask what the political use of it all is: does victimology bring benefits? Jewry has proven to be adept at exploiting its victim status in WWII (as have China and Russia); its suffering won for it an entire country - Israel. But Western countries, such as Germany, cannot play the victim as well as Jewry. For one, Germany will always be placed at the bottom of the list of people who suffered the most during the war, Jewry always at the top. And Germany, like Britain, or France, or Italy, or Portugal or any other Western country which had arrogated colonies to itself, is temperamentally unsuited to seeing itself as a poor, downtrodden, weak, suffering and brutalised nation, despite the fact that it, out of all the Western European countries, lost the most people during and after the war.

This explains why National Bolshevism can never succeed in Germany or any other Western European country. On a subconscious level, the Western countries know that the incendiary 'Bolshevik' (in Yockey's sense) rhetoric of the Slobodon Milosevics, Saddam Husseins, Muammar Ghaddafis, Aleksander Dugins, is aimed at them. In the eyes of these men, Europe and its colonies have bullied, oppressed and exploited the coloured world. The achievements of white Australians, for instance, count for nothing, as Australia, rightly understood, is a nation of convicts and murderers of aboriginals.

In the world view of Yockey's 'Bolshevik' - which is the same as that of the contemporary Left - the German stands at the top of the hierarchy of bullies. The Anglo-Saxon of WWI acted as the midwife to this conception, which is now a hundred years old: the war was portrayed as a life and death struggle between Anglo-Saxon freedom and German tyranny, and between Anglo-Saxon respect for human life and 'Prussian' contempt.

In the end, the German is unable to shake this national self-image off: he cannot exchange the role of the wolf for that of the lamb. This is especially the case in view of the events of WWII. Many of the countries allied with the Germans during the war strove afterwards to absolve themselves of accusations of wrongdoing against the Jews by making the argument, 'It wasn't us, it was the Germans'. The Germans themselves cannot use that argument. In the words of Harry Truman, 'The buck stops here'.

IV.

In a recent article on Brian Ruhe, we find one commentator exclaiming, 'Man, what in the names of the Gods is going on here?'; another replies, 'Nazbols, that’s what’s going on. They’re sick in the head'.

National Bolshevism exerts a grip on the impressionable minds of many in the nationalist movement, and one has to ask why. After some reflection, I believe I have come up with the answer, and this is what I call the 'theory of baggage'.

Once you buy into 'neofascism' or 'Neo-Nazism', you are in effect assuming the debts of not only the Third Reich but the entire German people: you are buying into 'Germanism', 'Teutonism', 'Prussian Socialism' (as Spengler calls it), and must, as a consequence, justify nearly everything that the Germans and their helpers did before and during the war. One thereby shoulders a heavy burden. But the heaviness of one's load gives one an advantage, as I will demonstrate.

Suppose you are an international traveler about to board a plane. As you are wheeling your bags through the terminal, a Russian traveler notices you and remarks that you have plenty of space left over in your suitcase. Would it be too much trouble, he asks, if you can make room for one item that he wants you to carry? The item is marked 'Syrian War'. Agreeing with him that indeed you have too much room, you cheerfully assent. He then asks you to carry a second item: 'Ukrainian War'. And then another two: 'Georgian War' and 'Chechen War'. It goes without saying that soon you will be encumbered with Russian gear - all of it impeccably 'anti-imperialist' and 'anti-Zionist' and 'anti-NWO', but a hindrance nonetheless. And by taking on Russian obligations, you have marked yourself out as a fellow traveler with National Bolshevism.

On the other hand, suppose you are a sincere, committed 'Neo-Nazi' - not a Strasserite or some other permutation, but someone who follows (more or less) the Hitler party line. When approached by a mysterious Russian asking you to carry things for him, you'll reply, 'Sorry - I've too much baggage'.

Movement people only become National Bolshevist because of a vacuity - too much empty space in their luggage. Whereas mainline fascism of the old school (with no Strasserite deviations) fills up all spaces: it is a plenum, not a vacuum. And it represents the furthest advance in Far Right ideology up to, and including, WWII. But because any open espousal of it places you, as an activist, in danger, most Far Rightists find it too hot to handle. The result is that they contrive substitute ideologies, such as Identitarianism and Southern nationalism, which lack content. One does not go far with stop gap ideas, which is why, for example, Hunter Wallace abandoned Southern nationalism - there simply was not much to it. The other flaw with makeshift ideas is that they leave you open and vulnerable to the blandishments of the Putins, Ghaddafis and other high-octane salesman who, in the last analysis, stand for nothing except crude despotism and personal power.

One might object Russia (and China, another country touted by the Naz Bols) wield the upper hand: the Putins and Xis run actual states, with actual armies, whereas I - and other like me - are dreamer intellectuals in the same position as, say, an Ernst Jünger or Arther Moeller van den Bruck between the wars. One cannot deny that, in comparison to Hitler and Mussolini, Putin and the Chinese communists, show real staying power. One cannot argue with material success.

My response to that is that a difference exists (as mentioned before) between a politics derived from the senses and from intuition. We can either live in accordance with what is present before us or what may come to be. The Spenglers and Yockeys take after the latter, not the former. They encourage us to dare to dream, and take a gamble on what is not present before us. And without trances and vagaries, nothing is accomplished. One must remember that, before he founded the SS, Himmler was a chicken farmer...