Common Shallow Criticisms of Brahminism and their Refutations

First it must be said, most of my detractors have little actual familiarity with my work.  This is, in fact, true in every case of which I am aware.  Hence when my work is challenged it is commonly dismissed out of hand by people who haven’t read a single paragraph of my writing.  In some cases they’ve skimmed an article I’ve written, familiar with some of my more controversial ideas, and in a hot, uncomprehending rage that desires my conclusion to be incorrect.

Frequently, though not always, these detractors are among the most ignorant the Alt Right has to offer. Very frequently not a single specific point or observation I’ve made is addressed. Second, it must be said, most of these detractors likewise have little knowledge of the cultural works that I analyze in my writing.

In cases where knowledge exists, they’ve regarded these works breezily, assured of their own profound understanding.  Generally, the idea that a Hollywood film or mainstream book contained some important message that they somehow missed (and I’ve caught) is vexing to them.

Nothing gets passed them, least of all things appearing in the “frivolous” and degenerate regurgitations of Hollywood. Were it not for ethnic, Religious or “moral” biases, people like them, equally knowledgeable and skilled in the use of symbol and parable, would be creating far more sophisticated works themselves.

Indeed, frequently as well these detractors have little actual interest in culture, art and religion as topics and are, instead, focused on the repetitive consumption of news items delivered from an Alt Right perspective.  In these cases they might fairly be understood as culture-less.

Commonly they appear to doubt the power and influence of Culture, Art and Religion even while they admit their power in perfunctorily uttered platitudes.  They might say for instance: “White culture must be protected,” “Shakespeare, Goethe and Wagner are invaluable,” “Religion is important,” even “Art is important,” or  “Politics lives downstream from culture.” And yet downstream is where they also live.

“Over Excited Pattern Recognition”

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. Indeed, even when these catty, ephemeral livestreams are long forgotten, people familiar with the history of the Alt Right will readily guess the origin of which I speak with the following clue:  we might guess the reaction to Brahminism has been, at least in this one case, 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.” 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 itself 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.

The telling unwillingness to debate

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, insulting knave, whereas he might slay an entire horde of them on a livestream debate, provided the opposing champion is someone half-way formidable.  My detractors would never dare debate me, clearly ceding victory to my ideas.  When they are stupid enough to attack my ideas, while invariably declining debate, they injury their credibility for all time.

Doubting the Jewishness of creators

Another less sophisticated technique that appears from my detractors 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 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.  Stunningly as well, sometimes they reveal their disbelief in the Jewish origin of Christianity!

Doubting the importance of name usage in JEM

One element of my work, which causes skepticism among evaluators, is the claim that character names in Jewish fictional works are used with considerable knowledge and carefulness. It’s an odd bit of skepticism appearing from people who often accept the broader premise that Jewish artists regularly embed their work with meaningful symbols.

Of course what I describe in my work is significant trends among salient Jewish Artists and in salient Jewish works, whether contemporary or ancient. The careful, intelligent and symbolic use of names in Jewish Art is an important phenomenon as my work details. Obviously, I have never claimed that every Jew that has picked up a pen or movie camera uses names in this manner any more than I’ve claimed that every Jewish artist is involved in the production of JEM.

“The 100% ubiquity of JEM” straw-man 

Indeed, this is another reoccurring straw-man proffered by my detractors, the notion that JEM is present among all Hollywood or mainstream works let alone all Jewish works.  Frequently it will be insisted that I’ve made this claim of all ancient mythology as well!

Of course in the ancient world I am very careful in indicating which cults I consider proto-Jewish. I posit the Apollo, Jupiter and Mars cults as especially Aryan cults likely developing, at least in their intelligent and salubrious forms, in reaction to adversarial Semitic and Chthonic cults.

Here, my detractors surmise, I posit that every Jew or proto-Jew has an understanding of a symbol language inscrutable to non-Jews.  The near opposite is actually what I claim. In fact I’ve developed the term Sussman to describe the relatively unconscious Jew who would be oblivious or relatively oblivious to encoded messages appearing in Jewish Art and Religion.  Here I assume the vast majority of Jews are Sussmen.

Indeed, sometimes I am struck that such a claim about my work is made.  It’s as if my detractors believe it possible that such a scenario could even occur. In fairness, what my detractors are more likely indicating, through exaggerated language, is their belief that I greatly overestimate the intelligent influence of intelligent Jewish symbolists on salient works.

Yet here I’ve never surmised percentages of works containing JEM, I only point to it as a salient and important phenomenon appearing among salient and culturally significant Jewish produced works.  Though it is worth pondering: would my detractors argue that Jews do not exercise a wildly outsized artistic and cultural influence in the contemporary setting? Of course no one would take such a claim seriously.

Again, my detractors are typically never specific in pointing to a particular case where I have misdiagnosed JEM.  And when they do point to a specific case, invariably their arguments are far less compelling than my own.

The Lack of “Genetic” or “Linguistic” Evidence in the Promethean Transmission thesis

Some will claim I have indicated Promethean Transmission or the influence or proto-Jewish or crypto-Jews on this or that myth body as lacking the “genetic” or “linguistic” evidence. The genetic evidence for the racial origin of a myth or symbol, of course, cannot be obtained anymore readily than the genetic evidence for the racial origin of a common dirty joke or urban legend.  So, unfortunately, digging up the odd Viking tomb won’t solve this.

Indeed, the transmission of myth and symbol in the ancient world would have only required a very small number of relatively intelligent, well-connected and influential people.  These people would be gifted enough to develop symbolically rich, clever and abiding parable.  A much larger “receiving population” would, in turn, serve to disseminate or pass on these myths and symbols.

Likewise a requirement of proof of “linguistic evidence” is of course absurd. Jews and their earlier forms have always spoken the language of their hosts. In fact, they often have spoken this host language much better than their hosts and certainly better than its more common classes. This is sensed from the beginning, in Sumer, where bilingualism was rife and clear proto-Jewish Gods such as Dumizid appear, himself an obvious model for Tammuz, Adonis, Bacchus and finally Christ. Indeed, are Spider-man, Superman and Batman “Aryan heroes” because of the “Germanic tongue” in which they were rendered?

Rather I look in the only place where the origin of a myth may be determined, at the myth itself, at its “genetic makeup.” Clear and undeniable patterns make my thesis of Promethean Transmission a thousands times more plausible than the thesis of pure unconscious Jungian transmission dumbly trotted out by my detractors.  As Darwin was forced to determine what was most plausible, based on available evidence, we likewise are forced to do so.

The emotionalized Christian and  Pagan source of Criticism

Interestingly, because of a poor understanding of the internet on the part of my detractors, I’ve encountered clear cases where established Christians or “Practicing Pagans” have claimed to have no Religious or ideological identity when making these sort of critiques. In the case of Christians, 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 clarify the above statement we must understand that 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.

“Practicing Pagans” also have an emotionalized reaction to my work which has developed the Promethean Transmission thesis.  Here they are concerned I am taking credit from Aryans even when “Pagan myths” are compelling shown as deleterious.

Questioning the legitimacy of contemporary JEM as source of ancient symbol decipherment

One of the childish remarks made concerning my work is that my analysis is based partially on the study of contemporary parable whether in cinema, literature, comic books or otherwise and, therefore, somehow invalid.  Here, in the contemporary context, my analysis runs the gamut, from Arthouse to more popular forms.  It is certainly true that an analysis of contemporary works, especially Jewish works, has lent great insight to my work in deciphering European mythology and world mythology more generally.

Likewise it is true that any honest reader of my work will see the clear value of contemporary JEM in deciphering ancient JEM, whether openly or anonymously submitted.  Here a clear continuity and shared symbol language is detectable.  Of course my familiarity with contemporary sources does not exist in a vacuum.  Rather it is buttressed and preceded by a life long study of world mythology more generally which has never been successfully tested or shown meaningfully flawed by any of my detractors, themselves frequently ignorant of such matters.

Frequently when they possess knowledge, it is overly narrow and concerned with one or two closely related myth bodies which they revere in a non-objective manner.  This prevents them from seeing the obvious and strong repeating motifs occurring throughout world mythology more generally.

Indeed, it is because of my strong background in world myth that I have been able to discern repeating mythological motifs in JEM.   This criticism of my familiarity of contemporary texts, which essentially amounts to a criticism of possessed knowledge, is especially hilarious appearing from Christians and “Practicing Pagans.”  Here, for example, they ostensibly doubt the mythological importance and “seriousness” of Superman or Batman, figures perhaps more well known by more people, in the history of the world, than the likes of Heracles and Odin.

In their mind, the forgotten “comic books” which they hold sacred, have more meaning than the myths and heroes which today, presently, influence the minds of billions.  What is revealed is they have no interested in or understanding of what currently influences the minds of the world and no interest in influencing these minds themselves.  In a sense these LARPers and blind conservers of myths, myths which are mysterious even to themselves, become blindly reverential or Chinese, non-creative.  To wit, they cease to be Aryan.

The supposed obscurity of my ideas

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.

This article is an update of this article here (where earlier comments can be read): Common Shallow Criticisms of Brahminism and their refutations