Jews have not reacted to my study and yet some people, in the ostensibly anti-Semitic Alt Right, have reacted to it Jewishly. Indeed, despite my multiple detractors, I’ve been slandered and yet not one of my arguments has been compellingly addressed or refuted. Rather some of my detractors, insisting my ideas false, will not “deign” to prove them so. This we can be sure is owed to a certain inability on their part.
The most “potent argument,” or rather slur, posited is that I am prone to a sort of mad “over excited pattern recognition.” Any fan of the Alt Right livestreams might surmise the origin of this line of thinking. Hence we might say the reaction to Brahminism has also been homosexual.
If so, a sort of funny irony appears, in that my “madness” is criticized by an actual crippling form of madness, one that is made especially manifest in a type of insatiable female jealousy where even mere intellectual rivals and their ideas are felt as “evil.” Of course this is just a guess or one might say an “over excited pattern recognition.” The truth of this will remain unknown and is wholly unimportant. Yet, nevertheless, the reaction does, indeed, remain “ghey.”
Of course an “over excited pattern recognition” would only be a flaw if it were a false pattern recognition. High intelligence and intellectual accomplishment is, in fact, predicated, in part, on a highly developed ability to recognize patterns. And yet still not one of my pattern recognitions is shown by these detractors to be false or dubious.
Jews also are critical of a “mad over excited pattern recognition” as we well know. One important “mad over excited pattern recognition” these persecuted people condemn is the “anti-Semitic conspiracy of Jewish power.” They likewise will not “deign” to prove its mad proponents incorrect. After all, as with my detractors, such an engagement would prove fatal to their positions.
Twitter debates, of course, are pointless. And I liberally block disrespectful and bad faith commenters. After all, in a twitter-debate the more noble person may lose precious seconds of his life, bogged down with a single, cowardly, dishonest knave, whereas he might slay an entire horde of them on a livestream debate, provided the opposing champion is someone half-way formidable.
Another less sophisticated technique that appears from my detractors, possibly from Christian quarters, is claiming I’ve indicated a Jew as creating JEM when describing an instance of JEM, when, in fact, we actually find a Gentile. This is a claim they will make despite compelling evidence that the person in question is and has been consciously Jewish and, most importantly, is clearly developing JEM in their work.
Here they also ignore the established Jewishness of every cowriter and executive producer along the way, as well as the entire Jewish milieu in which their art is cooked. Here they are especially interested in blood tests which they assume forthrightly delivered. “It’s impossible a quarter Jew has allegiance to Jewry,” they’ll claim, even while every living non-Jewish US president may be seen in a photograph, in a kippah, praying at the Wailing Wall.
Indeed, as my study shows, Jews are an inherently admixed people, existing racially along a relatively broad spectrum between Aryan and Semite, even if clustered somewhere in the middle, and that ultimately they are a Religion governed and cohered by symbols. For them to render symbols consciously in a work at all, they would, of course, have to be, before anything, consciously Jewish, as opposed to racially Jewish. We understand, for example, the Ashkenazi to be more “European” than the Sephardi. Yet we don’t imagine the former to be less Jewish, rather we know them to be more potently Jewish.
By these detractors, the phenomenon of Jewish Crypsis and, even, eventually, Jewish hostility itself is discounted. Of course Roman Interpretation is developed, for among other reasons, precisely to counter the phenomenon of Jews, proto-Jews or post-Jews, submitting work anonymously. It is also developed to counter JEM or degenerate works developed unconsciously.
While I have never claimed my analysis is perfect, and it is theoretically possible to, for example, mistake the unconscious production of JEM with the conscious development of JEM, these detractors will look for some little mistaken identification of this or that creator as if it is the golden thread that will unravel my thesis wholly. Yet the basic premise of my work, even without accepting my more detailed claims, which I will stand by until they are compelling shown false, is so clearly obvious that the efforts of my detractors are amusingly futile.
For example, is it the contention of my detractors that Jews are not producing carefully detailed anti-White Propaganda in their fictional Hollywood parables? Ostensibly the next question is “how detailed?” And yet none of these detractors, frequently lacking all relevant knowledge, can compelling refute any of the more specific interpretations I’ve made. These petty skirmishers can’t approach this level of critique.
Interestingly, because of a poor understanding of the internet on the part of my detractors, I’ve encountered clear cases where established Christians have claimed to have no Religious or ideological identity when making these sort of critiques. The reason for this is obvious. After all, what is more plausible, Christianity as something more than a Jewish parable, or the idea that Jews are introducing demoralizing messages into their propaganda?
To be clear, the tension here is that my work reveals that Jewish Esotericists understand Christianity to be deleterious to Aryans and reveal this understanding in JEM. Hence an astonishing dynamic appears. Christians rally in defense of Jewish propaganda, Christ defends Bacchus, the two vines and serpents of the Caduceus unite. O how they pine for the stupid days of Christianity versus the “illuminati” where they were allowed to impotently complain all the way to their graves. And then there is the childish straw-man, “Brahmin claims all mainstream Art JEM.” As if I’ve made such a silly claim.
One might argue that the reason that my ideas have not been treated squarely by their detractors, in a fair debate with me, is that I and my ideas are obscure on the Alt Right. This is obviously false.
I’ve been a regular guest with Richard Spencer on his livestreams for months now. Spencer is, indisputably, the most famous and central figure of the Alt Right, worldwide. Hence if I am wrong in my thinking it would seem that there would be some urgency to show me so, in a debate. If an unfair treatment of my ideas is related to a dislike of Richard Spencer by some factions, then, again, this is Jewish, homosexual or infantile at best. Tragically, it is also Christian.
Hence the Alt Right is left with a choice: become ice-bound in its thinking and Medievalize, or expose itself to the thawing sun of Roman Interpretation. We are growing tired with embarrassingly reverential “book reports” on Evola and Spengler. We are “up to speed” already. Nietzsche did not sire us to be children forever. As any good father, he hoped we would be greater than him.
But alas, the sun will rise regardless of who desires to remain in the cave.