Garden of Eden Part III: Seth as Serpent Seed and Sargon of Akkad as Serpent

Seth is the “Serpent Seed”

The Bible appears to indicate Eve’s son, Seth, from which the Jewish line will eventually descend, as an offspring of her union with the serpent. We know this because Seth is almost certainly derived from the Semitic Egyptian god Set or Seth via “Promethean transmission.”

In ancient Greek, the language by which the Biblical parables officially entered non-Jewish societies, the Egyptian deity’s name was given as Sēth (Σήθ). There, in Greece, he was equated with the Serpentine Typhon, a form of the Jewish or proto-Jewish God. This is fitting, after all, in the Greco-Roman pantheon, Typhon, regarded as one of Jupiter’s fiercest enemies, was the son of the Jewish Saturn. Here it seems clearly suggested that Seth is descended from the Jewish God, whether Saturn or the Serpent in the Garden. This tends to suggest as well that the name Adam, indeed, is a reference to Saturn’s “adamantine” sickle as this study explores.

To be clear, my premise is distinct from a “Serpent Seed” premise held by some Christian sects that understands Cain as the descendant of the serpent. Though there are some interesting, potentially contradictory details of this tale, the JEM clearly indicates Cain as an Aryan figure as this study will explicate. Hence Genesis repeats a racial displacement theme with the Aryan Adam and Aryan Cain, the latter whom is doomed to wander the earth.

Sargon of Akkad as The Serpent

The tale of Sargon of Akkad, the first Semitic “King” on record, seems to tell the tale of the Garden from “the Serpent’s perspective.”

The tale of Sargon of Akkad, the first Semitic “King” on record, seems to tell the tale of the Garden from “the Serpent’s perspective.” Indeed, in the semi-mythical figure we find numerous similarities to Biblical figures that are reoccurring motifs in JEM. Like Christ, he was born of an illegitimate mother. Like Moses he appears to palace servants as a baby in a basket of rushes floating in a river. Like the Serpent of Eden, he infiltrates the royal garden or “garden of the gods” as a servant. There, like Christ, during his baptism, he is visited by a “Holy Spirit” or the Aryan Inanna or Ishtar appearing in a cloud of doves. Like King David, he gains access to kingship through “marrying in.”

To the extent he is understood as a historical figure, he is known for appointing his daughter, Enheduanna, as the high priestess of Nanna/Sin at Ur. In his mythical relationship with Ianna/Ishtar, he resembles Dumuzid, the clear first inspiration of Christ and the proto-Jewish Dying and Rising Cults that will follow. As a Semitic king presiding over cults like the cult of Nanna/Sin, which saw Aryan women made sacred prostitutes and breeding stock for Semitic kings, he also resembles Enlil, the Semitic father of Nanna/Sin. He was considered the great “ensi” or Lord of Enlil. Enlil, Dumuzid and Nanna/Sin may all be understood as proto-Jewish Gods, akin to Christ and Yawheh alike. These details are explicated in this study.


26 thoughts on “Garden of Eden Part III: Seth as Serpent Seed and Sargon of Akkad as Serpent

  1. Wow! Keep ‘em coming!

    This got me thinking about “Seth” in American History X, and I ended up on a tangent. But let me take an (amateur) crack at it.

    America History X (a Brahmin-woke take)

    This is an encoded, prescriptive Aryan-Christian “salvation” tale, depicting hidden Jewish protagonists, a cryptic Dionysus reference to proto-Christianity, and cuckoldry by the Jewish God.

    The Vinyard brothers are a clear Christian “duo”, with Derek and Danny serving as a sort of combined “Christ” figure, the subject of the films analysis.

    It is shocking on the realization that Derek (whose name means “leader of men”) is identified as a powerful, strong Aryan, the first born to his brother Daniel ( whose name, from the Torah, means “god is my judge”) a Jewish figure, smaller and weaker, and much more morally reflective.

    As such, here is a depiction of the eternal “battle” for the soul of European man, with the two brothers as an almost “split psyche” representing this struggle. (Incidentally, “Seth”, a serpent seed if there ever was one, plays a clearly significant role.)

    The “Dinner” Scene, is a terrifying confrontation, here we have the direct implication that Doris has been seduced by Murray, an obvious avatar of the Jewish God (this suspicion exists without the overt knowledge of the audience), cuckolding Derek’s father as per the Christ mythology.

    The meaning of Derek’s father however, whose name “Dennis”, an obvious reference to Dionysus, a proto-Christ figure, is unclear, and could be simply implying this “proto” esoteric connection, or (could be hinting at a true “structure” of the Christian trinity? Something else?) But the Dionysus reference is clear.

    Regardless, Derek, the Aryan “half” of European mans psyche rejects the Jewish God in his entirety in this scene, an action that ushers about his total downfall and ultimately the sacrifice of the son of God himself, (when Danny is executed in the final scene).

    In prison, derek is betrayed (obviously), and finally converted from his beliefs by “Lamont”, a clear Jewish figure, betrayed by his diminutive stature and his name, meaning “man of the law”.

    But by then of course the events had been set in motion, as always man must pay for his “sins”, as the redemption tale is completed and a thoroughly moralized European “Late Christian” stands at the ready.

    P.S. As a final note, the Cameron Alexander figure (“crooked nose” “the great”?) is possibly a reference to Jewish “controlled opposition”, but that’s getting a little conspiracy-ey even for me.

    Tfw u go so far down the rabbit hole u literally end up in a yeshiva


    1. “There is an aspect of Jewish law called Karov LaMalchut קרוב למלכות (“close to the Kingship”) under which a Jew is permitted to transgress certain aspects of Jewish law in certain circumstances if his relationship to a non-Jewish ruler benefits the Jewish people or if his relationship with the ruler is such that his practicing an aspect of Jewish law would endanger the Jewish people (e.g. refusing to travel on Shabbat for a command appearance before a king).”

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Hey Brother, I watched the film again (American History X) and checked out your analysis. I wanted to post my latest reply here after actually having watched the film again and then checking out your analysis, because I think I may have jumped the gun a tiny bit on some of my earlier conclusions (developed below and on the rest of this thread). Here I was just making conclusions based on a cursory knowledge of main characters names, my vague memory of the film and our discussion. This is a reminder to myself to basically zip it before a full analysis.

      Here’s the thing with the film, while certainly it is a work of demoralization (obviously – what is not nowadays?), it’s unclear how coherently or cogently esoteric messaging is developed in the film or at least relative to other salient Jewish Esotericists. While many of your general salient points seem clear, Danny as Christ figure etc, the naming convention in the film seems a little looser than you might find with say an Aronofsky or a Woody Allen. The figure of Seth Ryan for example. Is he a Jewish figure? The name Ryan is a bit of a throwaway as an identifier. On the other hand, the names Derek, Danny, Davina and Doris, for instance, seem sound. Striking how all the names start with Ds. And we’ve already discussed in this thread the possible reasons for naming the father Denis while still considering him an Aryan character.

      There are any number of reasons for this looseness. For instance, perhaps collaboration between a presumably unwitting Gentile Screenwriter and a Jewish director was uneven (as I remember it was a difficult collaboration between Kaye and at least Ed Norton who I believe assumed control over the film at some point) or, theoretically, Kaye is a less adept or knowledgeable Jewish Esotericist than other salient Jewish artists (even quite a few obscure ones). I don’t have a deep familiarity with him as a filmmaker nor have I studied any of his works besides giving this one a look.

      Again, I do remember Kaye was unsatisfied with the finished product, so its possible there was a combative relationship even developing early on, where he was unable to assert full control, which usually can be accomplished very nicely and “slyly.” Again, what goy is likely to quibble over whether a character is named Daniel or Derek, for instance? Rather he’s more likely to pick his battles on style points, something a Jew is often very happy to negotiate. If such a conflict was disruptive to messaging in this case, this is actually very unusual. So in other words, to full give credit to all the compelling points you raise in your article, it may represent a sort of imperfectly rendered work of JEM, if JEM none-the-less.

      Your effort on this is certainly to be commended and you raise some excellent points, without a doubt. Watching the film again I realized how shoddy a piece of propaganda it is. Or at least it didn’t age well. Or maybe we grew up. The music track and a lot of the dialog is mawkish. Cameron Alexander, Seth, Derek’s girlfriend are especially cartoons. Then again, some days I think there are quite a few living and breathing cartoons in this world.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Wow, thanks so much for your reply! I appreciate all constructive criticism, and my rule here is to keep these essays “open”, as I work a few things out.

        My goal here is to basically make a short “reference” to Jewish esotericism, a collection of about 5-10 of movies, with an introductory summary and catalogue of your work as it pertains to film particularly.

        The Dennis reference did seem loose especially, although I thought the firefighter “square-up” wasn’t too bad. It’s in every scene. The “possession” issue has come up in other films too, where a name, (or a red article of clothing, for example) may indicate “association” or “possession”. It is certainly unclear as to the production, seeing as Kaye went nuts over it, but the Seth character seemed somewhat unimportant, as he was cut from a major character in Mckennas earlier script to quick cameos and a few lines.

        I tried to focus on the Vinyard family, which is where I believe the Jewish esotericism really was heavy.

        Ultimately though, while it may be a sloppy piece, (and we may have been young indeed), I think we can still assume that A) Danny is a cuckold Jewish son, and B) Christianity, and progressivism more generally, are displayed as positive, and led by Jews. Demoralizing, if not perfect.

        To this point, since I’ve been working on my second essay (Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan”), I’ve come realize what you mean. I thought American history X was high-grade. But once you get to the big boys like Spielberg, this stuff is layered on thick. Just seamlessly coded. As in, thousands of theaters full of crying boomers who don’t even know why.

        I’ll be certain to keep these tight as I go on, and will definitely edit these articles as I’m corrected, and as I become more familiar with where the symbolic boundaries are and why.

        If there’s any specific criticisms you have, that might come to you, please let me know so I can train my “eye”.

        P.S. I know you have another writer on your blog by the way, (who is excellent!). For me, this as a sort of side project. However If you’d like, feel free to put anything (after your review of course) on your site. I aim to make this a quality project (although it might take time).

        The more anti-priests the better. After all, a lot of this new mythological translation is going to be open-sourced. This is absolutely groundbreaking and there’s just so much ground too cover.

        By the way, when will your book be available on amazon, or whenever?


      1. Yeah, but possibly before too. Kaye is an Orthodox Jew, and after the Dionysus reference my ears pricked up.

        My theory here is that Danny is the cuckold son of Murray, the Jewish figure in the film. Check out the first scene with Principal Sweeney and Murray, when they’re talking about Doris. It’s implied that they got it on.

        If you think about it, it makes sense, as both characters fit the first/second born Esau/Jacob, Cain/Abel paradigm you propose. While Derek is a clear Germanic name. Combining this with the obvious Christian mythology, it seems Danny is Jewish.


  2. That sounds like a potentially sound thesis. I’ve certainly encountered this in numerous Jewish works. The reference to Dionysus in the father’s name may suggest him as a Proto-Jewish figure akin to Jacob, who becomes Aryan after wrestling the Jewish God and being renamed Israel. I explicate this closely in forthcoming writings.

    I would encourage you not to think of the Aryan figures as “Christ” figures, per se, as Christ is clearly a Jew and names referencing him, like Thomas, indicate Jews. You can think of Aryan figures, though, as sacrificial figures, representing consumable resource, rams, bread, wood etc. So the last name Vineyard suggests a soil or Garden for the Jewish vine or snake to plant its seed.

    If you want to write it up, I’ll take a look at it and (possibly with some editing) we can feature it on the blog. I’ll have to watch the film again and am pressed for time so I’ll wait until you send me something. It’s got to be tight. Make it an audit. Focus on symbols. Commentary has to be focused on not merely interpreting text but “translating” text as much as possible. No extraneous commentary, emotional reaction etc. We are familiar with Jewish behavior, the Bride Gathering phenomena and so forth so it doesn’t need to be expounded upon etc. Could be a good, popular article because that’s obviously a film that the Alt Right is interested in. If you get stumped on any name or symbol shoot me an email.


    1. I’ll keep at it. I write blogs on a wide variety of topics, but this has captured my attention in a way I doubt I’ll be able to shake for a while. It’s incredibly profound to see this “structural” mythic theme indicating cynical Jewish control of Gentiles. This stuff is everywhere you look once you get the basics. For reference, your “Rosemary’s Baby” analysis is excellent.

      To your point, yes, I already see that was an error, as “Danny” (Not the Germanic-monikered “Derek”), seems clearly to be the Christ figure – the Jewish son.

      BTW, just so you have some feedback, here’s how esoteric “troubleshooting” feels from a newcomer to your theory: “Derek” seems to be a Cain/Esau figure, to a Jewish “Danny”, who represents Christ… But were any of Christ’s siblings depicted like “Derek”? Seemingly not. So is Kaye “mixing” Jewish myths together? Is this on purpose, and is it even relevant? (And if not, why not, and since when!) This is, roughly, the type of block I’ve encountered as I’ve been trying to understand Jewish artwork. The semiotic “texture” seems incredibly “frayed at the ends”, to the uninitiated.

      Anyway, for AHX, the core structure of “JEM”/Anti-gentile esotericism seems to be there. I’ll be writing something up either way, but certainly feel free to use or investigate this idea in your material… as someone who has studied this so extensively, I feel you make much, much better sense of this symbol language than I do. I also think you are right that an analysis of AHX might “hit home” with a younger reader, moreso than Rosemary’s Baby, which while more sophisticated as a mythic template, is probably better known to The Boomer.


      1. Here’s the answer to the question that I think should make it clear. The names are ethnic identifiers. So the symbol language is elemental or “modular”. Don’t assume, for instance, that because one of the characters is named Daniel the artist is trying to retell the Book of Daniel. It’s merely identifying him as a Jew whom vis-a-vis the Aryan (or “Adam”) is the serpent. This will help you throw out a lot of the distractions in decoding these things. That Daniel dies in this film may suggest him as a Dying and Rising God but I’d have to look at the film to suss this out. Certainly it leads to Derek’s “conversion” to multiculturalism hence in that way he is Christ like. I think you’re on to this, I’d encourage you to pursue it. I am already working with another writer to apply the system to other works of JEM.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Okay, that certainly clarifies that issue, thank you very much. One final, more specific question, if you have the time.

        Would “Dennis”, a name corresponding to Dionysus, always be understood as esoterically indicating a Jewish character? (In this instance, Derek’s ostensibly non-Jewish father who was murdered)

        Are there any exceptions, or “modifiers” of the main JEM archetypes that you think readers should be aware of?


  3. That would be the tendency as my study reveals Dionysus as a synonym of Yahweh and the wine-stained Judah, who keeps the donkey under a vine. You have to remember Jewish parables are puzzles so theoretically other clues could modify this. Off the top of my head, there might be a possessive sense to the name Dionysus, in other words, Dennis Vineyard may mean Dionysus’ Vineyard or the Jewish God’s vineyard which would indicate Dennis as resource. This could be a good theory that you could posit but see if you can confirm it based on other clues. But also see if there are other clues suggesting him as proto-Jew akin to Jacob. That he is a fireman by profession suggests him as an Aryan oppositional figure to a Jewish fire god. Be settled on this point and make a call saying “possibly” or “likely” depending on how good you feel about it. But you have to go over this with a comb. You’ll be pausing a lot, parsing dialog etc. It’s definitely a case of JEM, so its just a matter of unlocking. Good luck, son of Jupiter! This will undoubtedly be appreciated by the community. I’ll make a show on it if all goes well. We like to understand when we are being insulted and exactly how we are being insulted.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Man oh man, I’ve been turning over stones for 3 days straight. You are not going to believe what I’ve found in this movie.

        (Consider also, the prior scene to the “Dennis Vinyard” flashback dinner, in which the Vinyard brothers tear down their racialist posters, revealing a freshly exposed *wooden wall* upon which they gaze hypnotically, right after tucking their gentile-indicated kid sister – Dennis’ surviving daughter – into bed.)

        I’ll brush it up, and upload it on a separate blog within a few days.


      2. Alright, here it is, uploaded on a new blog:

        Since you’ve said you may even discuss this film on your program (please do!), I’ve treated this professionally, confirming references and patterns multiple times and from different angles, going through the film in sequence. The most helpful tool, as you’ve suggested, has been a “Bible search engine”. With the instruction of your work, I’ve taken this movie apart at the *seams. It’s turned out very well, a shocking analysis.

        Presented in 4 essays, with an introduction paraphrasing and explaining your theory, which I think you’ll appreciate. The blog itself look nice, or will eventually, just needs more articles, so I’ll be continuing to do these reviews for a while, periodically as I learn more. Something by the Coen Brothers next perhaps. Whatever this is, I’m hooked.

        When I write I generally make no apologies for standing on giant’s shoulders, so to speak. Since I’ve (obviously) drawn heavily from your theory and language, I’ve of course taken the effort to link to your material several times, and alluded to your work as foundational more generally.

        Doing this analysis has been a 100-kiloton nuclear redpill for me. I thought I had a very, *very rigorous grasp of myth studies, and ethnic conflict, before I’d read your writing. I still can’t believe it. If I missed anything, feel free to point it out. If even a fraction of my analysis is accurate, this should blow minds. People *loved* this movie.

        Promethean transmission deciphered, gentlemen.


      3. Awesome. Going to read now. Deeply flattered by the way. This is important work. Painstaking, yeoman’s work. And as you’ve said, it can be addictive as well. Someone will need to go through the entire Coen brothers oeuvre. So I would encourage the “systematic reading” of artists.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Alright. I’ve read Part 1. This is great stuff. I want to watch the film though so I can check your work. I may or may not get to that this weekend but will do so shortly. Do you have any interest in being a guest on the show? Given your close study of the film this would lead to a rich study I am sure. Let me know.


      5. I appreciate the compliments! Although for now, I’d like to stick to writing, building these analyses. One day perhaps, when this is all more familiar.

        Still, I’m curious as to your take if you do end up re-watching it. Before I went down this rabbit hole I’d hardly known about Kaye’s background, or suspected this as a film full of deep esoteric reference. Absolutely fascinating.


  4. Awesome! Thanks for putting it out there.

    I have another one coming. A big one. Easily as good as American History X, and perhaps even easier to explain. But I’m going to have to be thorough, so it might take some time. I’ll be sure to keep in touch with the blog.

    As to what you said before, I’ve decided to lay off the Coen Brothers, for now. I’ve been through most of their stuff now, and their symbol language is incredibly complex, using different indicators (“the gift of Gab” etc.), and often depicting interfaith disputes amongst Jews, and separately amongst Gentiles groups, rather than keeping it simple. “Miller’s Crossing” is fascinating in this regard (I suspect the title designates just that -basically an ethnic civil war between the Jewish “Millers” of the film, “Tom” included, reverberating throughout all of crime-noir chicago.) I suspect the standing “edgy” take on the film, which is something like the counter-currents review, is false.

    Maybe one day, when I’ve been around the block a bit more I’ll look more closely at the Coen brothers.
    Again, thanks for giving my writing a good word!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s