The Marxist leader Lenin famously said: “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” Since then, this line has been used by rightists to refer to the duplicity of modern political left or, more plainly, Jews in politics. Here they contend, elements of Jewry, whom are in every instance looking to push Aryans toward degeneracy, will disingenuously posit themselves on an apparent opposite end of the political spectrum as leaders. Here they attempt to blunt, neuter or mislead the opposition.
This is certainly a very real phenomena, however, it is deeply mistaken to consider it a uniquely “Marxist” or even an especially modern technique. Rather, it is part of an ancient phenomenon, deployed by Jews or Proto-Jews since time immemorial. Indeed, it’s best symbolic representation is in the ancient symbol of the Caduceus, which again, we find first in Sumer with the figure and symbol of Ningishzida. Here Interpretatio Romana helps us identify and blunt for all time this troublesome phenomena.
The Caduceus, particularly as it is refined in the Greco-Roman symbolism, is a wand or staff entwined with two opposing serpents, facing each other. This is understood as Mercury’s shepherd’s staff by which he leads the flock. The Caduceus is also a wand by which Mercury hypnotizes. The myths relate that when Mercury spins the Caduceus it becomes enthralling. The viewer fixates on it and cannot look away. The flock is entertained, made passive, assured he has allies looking out for him vis-à-vis enemies.
One myth describing the caduceus’ origin describes the serpents as derived from two fighting serpents. Here we presume a contest between the two ostensibly opposing serpents is simulated. Of course it is a false contest, between false opposition, which Mercury uses to entrance and lead the herd. Here we might consider the symbol of the Ouroboros, which depicts a serpent eating its own tail —thus fighting itself— as a related if not synonymous symbol. Indeed another myth describes the serpents of caduceus as derived from two mating serpents. Here, in the modern context, to use a simple example, we imagine the rigged “contest” between Fox News and CNN.
Of course, the real poles of opposition are not between the two serpents of the Caduceus but between the Semitic Mercury and the Aryan Apollo, between the underworld to which Mercury leads and Apollo’s protective enclosure. Indeed, we remember here also that the viewer of the enthralling caduceus is the flock Mercury stole from Apollo.
Here it is important to remember as well that with Mercury’s Caduceus the Serpents remain symbols of Bacchus. Thus, in Mercury’s hands, there appears the suggestion of Jews as the lead promoters of degeneracy which even a subtle Nietzsche corroborated. Thus Mercury, like Bacchus, also becomes “the Vintner.” Yet here with the Caduceus, we find two serpents, hence two, ostensibly oppositional forms of degeneracy. To wit, one is forced to “pick their poison.” Of course it is a false choice and a deception. One should never have to choose between poisons.
The serpents themselves are likely a reference to the medicinal cults of the ancient world whereby the venom of serpents were used on patients as “therapy”or, rather, as opiates. We see this also in the staff of the supposed healer Asclepius. The symbolism here is profound. Enough poison and a pain killing, euphoric, opiate effect can be produced. Too much poison and sickness or death can be induced.
Likewise, as with any toxin or narcotic, through continued use, one can “build a tolerance.” Of course, continued, sustained use is deadening, numbing, destroying. Hence there is something especially malevolent in the use of the caduceus in medical symbolism which, to add insult to injury, is often understood as a staff representing commerce. Those especially incensed at the opioid crisis facing modern Whites, where Jewish owned pharmaceuticals play a disproportionate role, will find this symbol especially apropos, if also angering.
To be sure, there is an acknowledgement in the medical field that the caduceus appearing in medical symbolism is actually a misuse of the symbol and that the staff of Asclepius, a staff featuring a single serpent, is the true symbol of medicine. Asclepius himself, though officially the son of Apollo, was born of the unfaithful lover Coronis and maybe understood as Semitic if only by dint of his mother’s mortality.
Likewise the Semitic element of earthly fire features centrally in Asclepius’ birth where he is understood as having been rescued from the woman of his dead mother as she was consumed on a pyre. In a sense, he was “fire born.” With his medicinal powers he develops the ability to resurrect the dead for which he is eventually killed by Jupiter. Possibly this is a reference to the Dying and Rising cults that come to us down from Sumer where proto-Jews or Jews functioned as priests. It may also be a reference to Aryan reaction. In any case, like Mercury he may clearly be classed as a “Serpent God.” To wit, he is Semitic. Thus whether the serpent staffs of Aaron and Moses appearing in the Hebrew Bible are a reference to Mercury or Asclepius is irrelevant, as both Mercury and Asclepius are Semitic figures.
As we have already discussed, the serpent as a symbol is a synonym as well of The Vine and, in particular, the wine-producing grape vine. Hence the Greco-Roman symbolism acknowledges wine or alcohol as a kind of opiate and poison. These ancient medicinal cults offer their services as a remedy, a cure even. Likewise, with the first Jewish Christians, these Hermes Poimandres (“Shepherd’s of Men”) we find “physicians” selling a cure for the poison they also inject. This phenomenon and “technique” is described specifically in the Hebrew Bible.
In the above-mentioned Numbers 21:8, Moses’s fiery serpent is created as a “cure” for serpents “the Lord” previously sent among the people of Israel to poison them. It is reasonable to guess that these first serpents sent among them are vines of Bacchus, alcoholism, vice. Hence the Jewish God, stays sober, sickens, creates a problem then sells “the cure” or a false remedy that allows him to lead the sick.
Hence likewise Christianity emerges as a “cure” for degeneracy. The “Glad Tidings” though are, in truth, the HaBesor ‘eben,[אֶבֶן הַבְּשׂוֹר [1 or depressing, “stone message.” Here the fixation is on death, thinking about death, worrying and preparing for death. Hence the supposed anti-depressant, like the modern pharmaceutical depressant, only increases depression. Here maybe, in the pre-medieval and medieval context, wine, the serpent’s poison, is used in “moderation.” Thus the two serpents on the Caduceus become symbiotic.
Likewise it is the competitive method of Jews, as Mercury the deceiver and psychopomp, to first put before the Aryan every saddening notion and false problem and then every easy, mollifying, false, feel good solution to it. We see this in the “problem” of a personal death and the “solution” of a personal afterlife. We see this in the “problem” of hierarchy and the “solution” of democracy. We see this in the “problem” of racism and the “solution” of multiculturalism. We see this in the “problem” of sexism and the “solution” of androgyny.
However, between problem and solution lie steps, lie convincing. Some race to the solution, some resist it instinctively and must be coaxed to it. Thus there form two camps, the “early adopters” and the “slow learners,” the liberals and the conservatives. “Liberal” here, we can understand, again, as a reference to Liber or Bacchus.
With Christianity, on one side of the Caduceus there is “The Vine,” Christ, who is Bacchus sublimated, the serpent in dove’s clothing. On the other side we have the vine and serpent as well, Bacchus revealed, if, necessarily, under a different name, “Satan” or “The Serpent” for instance. For the Roman, Christ was on the “left,” despised yet, perhaps, less so, in stances, than the Bacchus and Adonis cults. For the prostitute or “Bacchante” Christ was on the “right.” Thus right and left are, as we know, terms of limited usefulness.
Nevertheless, for the purposes of clarity, as we develop the metaphor of the Caduceus let us incorporate the familiar terminology appearing in the Assemblée nationale during the French Revolution.  Yet here let us carefully alter, refine, clarify and adapt this terminology to our purposes, so that it is given actual meaning that might usefully abide. To wit, we will consider the serpent on the “right”, though “false opposition,” closest to Apollo’s enclosure and Aryan eugenic revival, and that on the “left,” closest to Bacchus, the underworld and dysgenic destruction.
In every instance the “right” head should be understood as “transitional” as, indeed, a Mercury psychologically dominated by a vengeful Vulcan will always shepherd toward the “left,” to wit, the underworld. Again, Mercury is useful to us, only if he is explicitly a priest of Apollo, and eugenic revival, only if he returns the flock to Apollo. Again, this sadly excludes those identified as Jews.
With the ascent of Christianity, at some point Christ became the right, the better of two poisons, whilst Satan, a disguised Bacchus, the left. Indeed, this division would quickly manifest itself more subtlety and complexly in schisms within the church itself. Eventually we see Catholicism and Protestantism, then Christianity and Capitalism, then, it began its way back ‘round again, with Capitalism and Communism, Conservatism and Liberalism. Such is the twirling Caduceus.
On a deeper level, with the Caduceus we see every false opposition that keeps the flock from the Apollonian enclosure. We see the Pharisee versus the Christ, both with the same goal, we see the Christian versus Islam, both with the same goal, we see “the patriarchal” Christian versus the feminist, man versus woman, pathetically, publicly airing this humiliating division, both with the same ultimate goal, to serve the Jewish God, to render everything on to him.
The Caducean also conceals Jews as a monolithic people, as Hermes the “stone,” ultimately unified in a direction. To the extent caducean struggle is “real,” it is resource and power competition between two ultimately Semitic or Jewish led factions over an Aryan body.
The Caducean also describes a necessary “division of labor.” Likewise it conceals individual hypocrisy which, consistently found among Jews, could than be extrapolated to group hypocrisy. Here one Jewish driven faction ostensibly segregates from another so that individuals on either side may avoid the charge of hypocrisy.
For example, while it may, indeed, be the case the most Jews are for open boarders in the United States and Europe generally, while controlled borders for the state of Israel, the development of “two opposing sides,” one against open borders in general, but particularly in Israel, and one for, creates the impression of a divided Jewry. Likewise it lends credibility to persons in each camp, who are, ostensibly, consistent, not hypocrites.
Yet the conflict is obviously theater, “Caducean twirl,” developed to create the impression of a dutifully self-regulating Jewry, one that is “on top of it” and doesn’t require external input which if too meaningful is hastily determined “anti-Semitic.” The proof of this is the “right” for Jews to comment on or seek to control an Aryan fate while rejecting and silencing a similar input from Aryans.
Hence critiques remain “in family,” where punches can be pulled and an outcome rigged, no actual contender is allowed to enter the ring. Here the relation between Aryan and Jew is very much like that between shepherd and sheep or parent and child. Parents naturally make the decisions in the family, not children. The entire tone of the relationship could only be regarded as extremely offensive to even the slightly sentient Aryan.
Jews are monolithic on the only important question: Jewry must continue and must control its own fate with no interference from the outside, otherwise it is endangered. In this way we are alike. Aryans must continue and ameliorate. Likewise, we must control our own fate with no interference from the outside, otherwise we are endangered. The conflict arises because Jewry may only continue by control of and through an Aryan body. This is encoded into their Religion as this study reveals. We don’t have this same requirement vis-à-vis Jewry.
Our “two faces,” both honest, are gentle, reasonable, brilliant Apollo and Mars, Good Cop and Mars, God of Peace and Mars. We greatly prefer Apollo, yet the choice is our adversaries. Our motto is: things will go our way, one way or the other. We will give the word caducean two senses. The first is to describe the phenomena, the second is an adjective to describe false-opposition established by Jews. Thus a “caducean figure” is a figure appearing as false opposition to another, typically, more common or mainstream Jewish position or figure.
We will find it an encouraging note to remember, as Karl Kerenyi points out, that in the earliest tales of Apollo’s battle with Python, two serpents are indicated, a female named Delphyne and a male serpent named Typhon. Hence the God Apollo trumps not merely the single serpent, he overcomes the caduceus. Indeed, no infinity of serpents is a match for him. Regardless, the Apollonian shall be wise to remember: “serpents always appear in pairs.”
 Kerenyi The Gods of the Greeks 1951:136
 This is a Hebrew expression for the New Testament. It means “message stone.” The stone described
 Surely, the inspiration for this right/left dichotomy is earlier. We find for instance the word Sinistra in the Latin meaning “left” and “left hand.” This was developed into the English word “sinister.”