Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Category: Culture

Black Lives MAGA: Republicans are the real SJWs

The Democrats: The Racist Enemy! A crime scene; the aesthetics of a horror movie; sinister music.  This is the latest Trump attack ad exposing Joe Biden’s “racism problem”, released a…

The Democrats: The Racist Enemy!

A crime scene; the aesthetics of a horror movie; sinister music.  This is the latest Trump attack ad exposing Joe Biden’s “racism problem”, released a day after the rioting began in Chicago.  The Trump campaign is engaging in offensive archaeology, digging up a Biden statement from all the way back in 1973.  Other Trumps ads criticized Biden’s opposition to busing and his support for a 1994 Crime Bill that mass incarcerated African-American men.  The Trump camp called out Biden’s association with Robert Byrd, who had been a member of the KKK — in 1946.  It was desperate stuff, fully reinforcing the notion that racism isn’t just bad, but the worst evil imaginable — and should be used as a main determinant as to whether or not to elect someone to the most powerful position in the world.  America has shut down over a pandemic and is in the midst of a recession, but racism still overwhelms all other issues.  Several American cities resembled warzones in the aftermath of the George Floyd-inspired rioting and looting but rather than comment on this fact, the official GOP Twitter account was labeling Biden “the architect of mass incarceration” — because being tough on crime is racist.

The Republican campaign strategy has, for some time, been to claim that “Democrats are the real racists”.  Republicans paint themselves as the genuine defenders of Black people whereas Democrats keep Blacks on “the plantation”.  Dinesh D’Souza is the master of this style, producing overblown propaganda that intercuts footage of the KKK with Hillary Clinton. Conservatism has been, in the words of Gregory Hood, “reduced to claiming it is actually the true version of American liberalism, and even to claiming past Leftist triumphs as its own.”  The Republicans are mirroring and amplifying the PC hysteria of the left and playing their part in turning America into a nation of hyperventilating racism hunters.  They co-opted wholesale the liberal tenets of anti-racism, reframing their own causes as racial justice issues: Damning abortion as responsible for “Black genocide”, to take one moronic example.  Every time they call a Democrat racist, they are pushing the whole debate leftward, positioning racial justice as the primary arbiter of legitimate governance.  D’Souza’s overblown propaganda doesn’t stop at calling the Democrats racist; the blurb of his book The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left reads, “In a sick inversion, the real fascists in American politics masquerade as anti-fascists and accuse the real anti-fascists of being fascists.”  Everybody accuses everybody else of being a fascist, all the time.  To borrow the absurdist hyperbole of D’Souza, if the Democrats are the real racists (they’re not, and even if they were – who cares), the Republicans are the real Social Justice Warriors and Trump is the shrieking, corpulent, blue-haired Antifa-in-Chief.  It’s from this febrile milieu of bipartisan hypersensitivity to racial issues that movements like Black Lives Matter and Antifa emerged.


Republicans respond to Black Lives Matter

BLM are successfully undermining the legitimacy of American institutions and demonizing the country’s history.  The BLM website claims that African-Americans are “systematically and intentionally targeted for demise” while the umbrella group, Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), argues that the United States is waging “war on black people” and subjecting them to “constant exploitation and perpetual oppression.”  It is extreme rhetoric that requires a full-throated response of unapologetic moral clarity, but has instead been met by stupefaction.  Responses have ranged from cowed silence and acquiescence to total capitulation.  Mitt Romney and Senator Mike Braun outright supported the movement.  In a cringe worthy video posted to Twitter, Marco Rubio presented the anger of the rioters as a fully rational response to the racism of white America: “Their lives are held with less value because the color of their skin.  This is an ongoing problem that has haunted us for much too long and it must be addressed.  The anger you saw spillover in these protests across the country: that’s where it comes from”.  In a speech on the Senate floor, Rubio called for “a full reckoning with racial inequities that still plague our nation” in order for us to become “more fully American”.

George W. Bush released a craven and mawkish statement, repeating the conspiracy theory of “systemic racism”.  His statement spoke of an “injustice and fear that suffocate our country”; it was “not the time for us to lecture” but rather “time for us to listen”.  The protestors, he told us, “march for a better future”, and that the “tragedy” of George Floyd’s drug overdose “raises a long-overdue question: How do we end systemic racism in our society?”  In an inversion of the truth, the most violent element of society is presented as the victim: “It remains a shocking failure that many African-Americans, especially young African-American men, are harassed and threatened in their own country.”  This was unsurprising from a President who has spent his retirement painting amateur portraits of immigrants with a hope to “focus our collective attention on the positive impacts that immigrants are making on our country.”

Republicans have been keen to blame the looting and rioting on Antifa rather than Black Lives Matter.  Ted Cruz pointed to “skinny white trust-fund ANTIFA kids” who he alleged were “burning Black-owned small businesses and murdering Black police officers”.  It is true that most of the violent activists in Portland were White, but they were targeting a Federal court building — not Black businesses.  In every other city, however, such claims are bald-faced lies whose sole purpose is to get Black people off the hook while smearing Whites.  If Republicans criticize BLM at all, it’s for their alleged Marxism — never for their anti-White animosity.

Criticism of BLM itself is framed exclusively in terms of Black interests.  The looting and rioting “damage Black-owned businesses” and “hurt Black communities”, we’re told — even though much of the rioting targeted wealthy non-Black precincts.  Lindsey Graham himself complained that the organization “hurts minority families”.  In an interview with OANN news, Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler bravely spoke out against BLM — for anti-Semitism.  Republicans will get animated and passionate when it comes to condemning anti-Semitism but are nowhere to be found once confronted with the image of anti-White hysteria.


Are BLM Marxist?

In a 2015 interview, Patrisse Cullors did, in fact, describe herself and fellow BLM co-founder Alicia Garza as “trained Marxists” but let’s not pretend they care about impoverished white members of the proletariat.  For all the communist LARPing, their animating principle is one of racial hatred. Black youths do not sit at home reading The Communist Manifesto and The Eighteenth Brumaire — dusty books by a long-dead White guy.  To the extent that ideas, rather than raw sectarian hatred, have influenced the protests, we can look to the literature of the 1619 Project, Ibram Kendi, Michelle Alexander, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and Robin DiAngelo — they’re race-baiters, not Marxists. BLM has received funding from George Soros (a committed anti-communist) and some of the largest corporations in America.  What they seek isn’t the overthrow of capitalism, but the establishment of racial castes within the capitalist system, together with the expansion of the rent-seeking sinecures of the already gargantuan diversity bureaucracy.  Soi-disant Marxists might like the edgy vibe of that ideology but couldn’t care less about who has control over the means of production — so long as they get some free stuff.  I’ve not heard a single protester even mention the working class.  What I have heard is “slavery” and “Jim Crow” and “systemic racism” and “White supremacy” shouted through a megaphone ad infinitum.  However loud they holler, mainstream conservatives will force it into the mold of communism.  That is, after all, a threat it is safe to stand up to.  However perturbed they may be feeling, White Americans recognize that defending Whiteness is the ultimate taboo.  Throughout these last few months, Rudy Giuliani has served as the lone voice staying the obvious, yet unsayable: “These are people who hate White people.”


Black Lives Matter owe more to the Republican Party than to Karl Marx

Christopher Caldwell argues that Civil Rights legislation is directly responsible for the malaise of political correctness: “Just as affirmative action in universities and corporations had privatized the enforcement of integration, the fear of litigation privatized the suppression of disagreement. The government would not need to punish directly the people who dissented from its doctrines. Boards of directors and boards of trustees, fearing lawsuits, would do that.”  Corporate HR departments have arguably played a larger role than “cultural Marxists” in helping to re-shape America into a nation of permanently incensed foaming at the mouth McCarthyite anti-racists.  And today the witch-hunter general who has poisoned public dialogue with the most militant anti-white sentiment is Robin DiAngelo, a grotesquely overpaid corporate diversity consultant.

Conservatives have assisted in the process of Civil Rights becoming America’s new civic religion. Kevin D. Williamson, writing in National Review – the leading publication of mainstream Conservatism – referred to the Republican Party as “the Party of Civil Rights”.  We can look back to that watershed moment in 1983, when Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law that made Martin Luther King the only American with his own national holiday.  This act was not trivial.  It didn’t just cement King as a national icon in the pantheon of American history; rather it helped to refocus the narrative of America.  No longer was it primarily the story of the founders but instead an ongoing story of racial justice in which White people are the eternal malefactors.  Republicans have come to mythologize and eulogize King every bit as much as the Democrats.  George W. Bush called him a “second founder” while Charles Krauthammer deemed him a “prophet”.  King became the protagonist of the new, deeply emotive morality play of American history and the defining icon of American political ideology — the lodestar of what it meant to be an American.  In 1998 Sam Francis wrote stridently about what the holiday represented, in terms that to most people would have, until recently, sounded paranoid and overblown, but have proven to be prescient:

“It is hardly an accident that in the years since the enactment of the holiday and the elevation of King as a national icon movements to ban the teaching of “Western civilization” came to fruition on major American universities, Thomas Jefferson was denounced as a “racist” and “slaveowner,” and George Washington’s name was removed from a public school in New Orleans on the grounds that he too owned slaves.  In the new nation and the new creed of which the King holiday serves as symbol, all institutions, values, heroes, and symbols that violate the dogma of equality are dethroned and must be eradicated.  Those associated with the South and the Confederacy are merely the most obvious violations of the egalitarian dogma and therefore must be the first to go, but they will by no means be the last…The logical meaning of the holiday is the ultimate destruction of the American Republic as it has been conceived and defined throughout our history.”

Having imbued the Civil Rights movement with a staggering moral grandeur, it is unsurprising that today’s extremists feel endowed with moral authority as they assault people and destroy property.  Commemorating the holiday in 1987, Reagan pioneered cancel culture urging Americans to “be totally intolerant to racism anywhere around you.”  Black Lives Matter and Antifa have taken that commandment to the nth degree.  While the mainstream Conservative media recently made a show of railing against cancel culture, they had themselves purged enyone with anything sensible to say about race long ago.  With their hyperfocus on a single line from a single speech (“they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”) the Republican establishment fundamentally misrepresents what Martin Luther King stood for.  King unequivocally supported affirmative action, writing that “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him” and arguing that Blacks deserve “special, compensatory measures”.  In his groundbreaking book, The Age of Entitlement, Christopher Caldwell writes:

“Republicans and others who may have been uneasy that the constitutional baby had been thrown out with the segregationist bathwater consoled themselves with a myth: The “good” civil rights movement that the martyred Martin Luther King, Jr., had pursued in the 1960s had, they said, been “hijacked” in the 1970s by a “radical” one of affirmative action, with its quotas and diktats…. None of that was true. Affirmative action and political correctness were the twin pillars of the second constitution. They were what civil rights was.”


Trump derangement syndrome

Looking at the Never Trumpers — the “principled Conservatives” trying to “save the soul of the movement” from anybody that articulated the interests of white people — it’s inaccurate to describe them as RINO’s.  They are the Republican Party, while Trump, a near singular aberration, is the outlier.  The Republican establishment had wanted Jeb Bush to win, a man who referred to illegal border crossing as “an act of love.”  Erick Erickson, the editor of RedState, called Trump a “fascist” and a “racist” while Lindsey Graham called him a “race-baiting, xenophobic religious bigot”.  For men such as these, the greatness of America can be found in its anti-racist activism.  Graham felt the true way to “Make America Great Again” was to tell the racist Donald Trump to “go to hell”.  In 2016 Graham believed “we’ve lost the moral authority to govern” the country if Trump gets elected.

Black Lives Matter agrees, seeing no legitimacy in the current administration or the institutions of the state.  Yet Donald Trump himself was a cuckservative all along.  During his presidency, Trump slammed Obama for doing a “bad job for minorities” and boasting “I did much more for minorities than he did”.  Following the death of “Civil Rights icon” Rep. John Lewis, President Trump ordered flags to be flown at half-staff in all public buildings, military posts, and embassies.  Anybody that doesn’t toe the line is maligned.  Bill Kristol, to take one example, smeared Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show as “close now to racism, White — I mean, I don’t know if it’s racism exactly — but ethnonationalism of some kind.”  Republicans have capitalized on White nostalgia and the problems of diversity (gun control, for example, is such a contentious issue due to fear of Black criminality) yet use their power to quash White ethnic sentiments.


The inevitable result of a maladaptive worldview

The egalitarian universalist ideology of America’s nominal conservatives was summed up by the influential political columnist George F. Will, who had once coached Ronald Reagan for a debate with Jimmy Carter.  Will believed that “it won’t do to say that a million English immigrants would be easier for Virginia to assimilate than a million Zulus“ because America is “a polyglot nation of immigrants” for whom unity is based solely on “a proposition”.  During a speech delivered in 2015, historian Mark Weber correctly predicted future disorder as an inevitable byproduct of this elite ideological consensus:

“In the months and years to come events will continue to unfold in keeping with the futile efforts to make reality conform to an impossible governing ideology…Just as the former Soviet Union eventually fell apart as an inevitable consequence of trying to organize society on the basis of an ideology and principles unrooted in historical social and biological reality, so also this society will and must continue to decline as it tries to force nature and reality to conform to wishful thinking based on an unsound worldview.”

The insurrection of 2020 isn’t a perversion of the memory of Martin Luther King brought about by undercover Marxists and critical race theorists (insidious as those people’s ideas are).  The uprising is the logical culmination of the Civil Rights movement itself.  It was always violent. Republicans think of themselves as the polar opposite of these student radicals yet they have themselves laid the ideological seedbed for the insurrection.  Republicans claimed to be the party of color-blind rugged individualists yet never rescinded affirmative action.  It’s convenient for conservatives to point the finger at the radical professors of critical race theory — it gets them off the hook.  They have no desire to question their Panglossian blank-slate egalitarian worldview. The current anarchy will be dismissed as just a blip on the road to “a more perfect union”.  Like an episode of Scooby Doo, peel back the mask and it was an old dead White guy all along: Every time a black hoodlum smashes a window or sets fire to a building they point and say “look what that Marxist just did” — as if this isn’t a race problem writ large but rather the fault of some nutty professors at the University of Marxist Leninism.  While critical race theory is worthy of critique, to see it as the root cause of the current chaos is wrong.  It implies our multiracial society would have worked out perfectly if only it wasn’t for those pesky Marxists ruining everything.  By this account, there is nothing intrinsically problematic about diversity.  In George Will’s worldview, were we to simply put a Milton Friedman book in the hands of Black college students everywhere, we’d be back on track toward a racial utopia.  Beltway Republicans use the long-expired specter of Karl Marx as the scapegoat for their own failed ideology of liberal multiculturalism. A million Zulus? Sure, just don’t let them read Das Kapital.

Donald Trump endorsing Mitt Romney’s Presidential candidacy in 2012.

Christopher Caldwell concludes that “While the Civil Rights Act succeeded in ending segregation, it did not fulfill the extravagant hopes and promises of Lyndon Johnson and others to end poverty, achieve equal outcomes, and so on.”  America’s black population still wants now what it wanted in 1964 — and that was never just equal rights and equality of opportunity.  In the wake of George Floyd’s death, Mitt Romney tweeted a photograph of his father, George Romney, participating in a Civil Rights march in the late 1960s.  Mitt was proud to be walking in his footsteps when he marched with Black Live Matter.  Mitt failed to recognize the total futility this represented.  George Romney was the Republican governor of Michigan during the 1967 Detroit riots that left 43 people dead and 2,000 buildings destroyed.  Over the course of more than fifty years, a plethora of costly social programs have spectacularly failed. Would Romney’s father have predicted that the upshot of all those programs would be race relations so bad that African-Americans will burn down major cities because a Black criminal died of a drug overdose?


The Republican Jacobins

Mitt Romney didn’t just march with Black Lives Matter – he also expressed support for Antifa. Responding to the violent clashes in Charlottesville in 2017, Romney asserted that Antifa and those he described as “racist, bigoted, Nazi” exist in “morally different universes”.  Violence is justifiable, so long as it is in service of the cause of anti-racism.  John McCain similarly contended there was “no moral equivalency” between nationalists and “Americans standing up to defy hate and bigotry”.  Charlottesville was a precursor to the violence we are currently suffering through and leading Republicans had painted the culprits as morally righteous.

Unable to interpret anything outside of a Republican/Democrat dichotomy the hyper-partisan Dinesh D’Souza called for an intensifying of the mass iconoclasm: “The only answer to them knocking down our statues (e.g., Columbus, Washington, Lincoln, and so on) is for us to knock down their statues.  I recommend three notorious racists: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, [and] LBJ.  If we don’t do to them what they are doing to us, they will never stop”.  The protestors didn’t care about political affiliation — they were pulling down every totem of Whiteness they could find. Inspired by BLM, Congressman Dan Crenshaw wanted to play his part in destroying America’s past: “Republicans won the civil war. That’s our history. Democrats have a long list of segregationists & KKK members.  That’s their history.  I’m glad to help them confront that racist past & voted to remove these Democrat statues.”  The founding fathers and the majority of American presidents throughout history were white supremacists. If they’re true to their own values, Republicans should want to detonate and flatten almost the entirety of Washington’s statuary.  Perhaps what needs to be toppled is not the effigies of men who presided over a functioning society, but the edifice of Martin Luther King, whose legacy rendered America a failed state on the precipice of civil war.

 

No Comments on Black Lives MAGA: Republicans are the real SJWs

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? versus Blade Runner as Racial Esoteric Moralization

Table of Contents 1. Introduction2.Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? as anti-Semitic allegory3. Blade Runner as Jewish Esoteric Moralization4. The significance of numbers in Blade Runner5. Rick Deckard6. Eldon Tyrell7….

Table of Contents

Introduction

Jewish Esoteric Moralization (JEM) pops up in surprising places, including Jewish adaptations of non-Jewish works. In fact, Jews may be more likely to adapt stories that are perceived to be anti-Semitic, whereas the natural inclination would be to stymie or invert the subtext. Such a transformation is particularly well illustrated in Blade Runner, the film based on Philip K. Dick’s classic sci-fi novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (abbrev. Electric Sheep).

Note that where JEM is based on existing stories (i.e. where names and other details are retained from the source material), the symbolism may be rendered imperfectly as a result. In such cases we may still detect the hand of the esotericist while allowing for some degree of inconsistency. As JEM analysis is not an exact science your mileage may vary; I encourage you to compare notes with me.

We’ll begin with an overview of Electric Sheep‘s subtext before applying Roman Interpretation to Blade Runner through the lens of Mark Brahmin’s Racial Esoteric Moralization. The reader should be familiar with the film, and with Brahmin’s thesis which can be studied at The Apollonian Transmission (and in his upcoming books). In particular, one should be aware of the practice of god-masking and the mutability of gods.


Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? as anti-Semitic allegory

Prior to writing Electric Sheep, Dick wrote The Man in the High Castle (1962). It’s a work of speculative fiction where the Axis defeated the Allies in the Second World War and divide America à la post-war Germany. It seems Dick’s fascination with the subject wormed its way into Electric Sheep (published in ’68); both are set mainly in San Francisco and background the colonization of other planets. Where they differ is that Electric Sheep camouflages its themes with a beguiling science-fiction setting. This distances us from the Second World War, such that we unhesitatingly slip on the boots of (what is essentially) an SS officer.

Following World War Terminus, the Earth is so polluted by radioactive fallout that humanity is forced to colonize other planets to ensure its long-term survival. We can think of these extraterrestrial colonies as the Lebensraum that Hitler wanted to procure for Germany. The bulk of the colonization work is carried out by a new slave underclass of genetically engineered humans called “androids.” In this reading, they personify European Jews who were treated as second-class citizens and put to work in slave labor camps by the German National Socialists.

Some androids manage to escape captivity and seek refuge back on Earth, where androids are verboten but easily blend in among people. They are the Jews who miraculously escaped the ghettos/camps and disappeared among native Europeans. Just as some Jews were sheltered from the authorities by so-called “Righteous Gentiles,” a man named John Isidore tries to do the same for a group of escaped androids (here Dick may be specifically referencing Isidore of Seville). And like Jews, the androids closely resemble one another. This is true to some extent of all races, of course, but is observably exaggerated among Ashkenazi Jews as supported by genetic studies.[1]

Some androids manage to infiltrate government agencies, posing a threat akin to Jewish spies and saboteurs in the Third Reich. Bounty hunters like our protagonist Rick Deckard are the SS officers or Gestapo agents tasked with hunting them down. A major clue is that his wife, Iran, has a name etymologically linked to “Aryan” (indeed, Iran means “Land of the Aryans”). Yet unlike typical two-dimensional Hollywood “Nazis,” Deckard is not pure evil: He’s disgusted by a fellow bounty hunter whose motto is “sleep with them before you kill them.”[2] And, like most German officers in the Reich – the majority being devout Christians – religion plays a role in his life.

A new-age religion called “Mercerism,” named for its Sisyphean messiah Wilbur Mercer, is a placeholder for Christianity: Mercerism enshrines empathy for all living creatures as the highest moral imperative, as most species have gone extinct due to the war. Adherents attend “church” via an “empathy box,” which generates a virtual reality-like experience of Mercer’s struggle. However, Mercer’s empathy does not extend to androids, no matter how human they might appear.

Just as Jews reject Jesus as their messiah and demonstrate animosity towards Christianity, the androids have no faith in Mercer. They’re legally barred from interfacing with him and cannot “convert.” When the television personality Buster Friendly “exposes” Mercerism as an elaborate hoax, the android Roy Baty and his wife Irmgard express they’d had their doubts. From their point of view, Mercerism and empathy are lies humans tell themselves to feel superior to androids. It’s implied that Buster and his cast of cronies are androids, hence they’re stand-ins for the Jewish media monopoly that regularly takes pot shots at Christianity. Despite Buster’s revelation, Deckard’s faith only intensifies; accordingly, Dick implies that Christianity fills a hole in people’s lives regardless of its veracity.

In contrast to humans the androids are incapable of empathy, even for one another. They admit this, and at one point commit the grave sin of torturing a spider for fun (perhaps Dick’s way of criticizing Jewish and/or Allied behavior during and after the war).[3] Thus, an empathy test – which measures minute physiological responses that only humans are capable of – becomes the primary method of identifying androids. This is the “Voigt-Kampff” test, which has a German name for obvious reasons.

In hunting some escaped Nexus-6 androids – the latest and most perfect imitations yet – Deckard is ordered to test some in person at their manufacturer, the Rosen Association. The name “Rosen” is a German/Jewish Ashkenazic surname, which is another important clue to the subtext. It turns out the company is waging an arms race against humanity as it attempts to design more perfect imitations, which are described as Caucasian in appearance. Dick appears to be commenting on the myriad forms of Jewish crypsis, while hinting that the humans of the future (Germans) want their androids to match the Aryan ideal.

The Rosen Association’s president and his niece Rachael (the latter another Hebrew name) personify the Jewish middlemen tasked with maintaining the ghettos/camps in the Third Reich, and they do so for profit. As to be expected of the Jewish Ghetto Police or camp kapo, the Rosen Association’s loyalties lie with the androids.

Initially, the Rosens fool Deckard into thinking the Voigt-Kampff is faulty in the hopes of abolishing bounty hunting permanently. The subplot calls into question the rudimentary tests used by German officers to identify and segregate Jews from the wider European population: Just as facial measurement tests might produce false-positives, humans are concerned that the Voigt-Kampff might incorrectly identify people with a flat affect as androids, resulting in their deaths.

Anthropometry was used to determine race under the Third Reich’s Nuremberg Laws. Prior to the Second World War, eugenics was a socially acceptable subject of research throughout the Western world. Credit: Universal History Archive Getty Images

When Deckard realizes the Rosens nearly outwitted him, he describes the corporation as “possessing a sort of group mind,” and that “his mistake (. . .) had been viewing them as individuals.”[4] This is perhaps the most biting commentary in the book; it implies Jews conceal an unflagging ethnocentrism under a veneer of individualism. Of course Jews have often been accused of having a hive mind, where most conflicts between them can be reduced to disagreements about “what is best for the Jews.” Thus, Dick seems to be advising his readers to err on the side of caution and never give them the benefit of the doubt.

Once the Rosens’ ruse has been uncovered they attempt to bribe Deckard, and when that fails Rachael attempts to seduce him. No bounty hunter has retired another android after having slept with her, or so she claims. She’s essentially a Jewish spy tasked with sexually compromising German agents (something of an Esther type). Alternatively, she personifies the imprisoned Jewish women who tried to win their freedom or favors by seducing German officers. She puts his loyalties to the ultimate test: “Some female androids seemed to (Deckard) pretty; he had found himself physically attracted by several, and it was an odd sensation, knowing intellectually that they were machines, but emotionally reacting anyhow.”[5] No doubt a similarly strange feeling came over German officers dealing with Jewish women.

Deckard tracks down the android opera singer Miss Luba Luft, but she turns the tables by calling the cops on him! He’s arrested by a parallel police force that he didn’t know existed. Here Dick plays on the mutual distrust between German officers of competing factions (i.e. the SA, Gestapo, and SS). Much to his surprise, the station’s police chief is one of Luft’s accomplices. Meanwhile, an officer named Phil Resch is paranoid that he’s an android with implanted memories. Dick uses these characters to explore Jewish subterfuge and the identity crisis facing German officers who possessed (or might possess) Jewish roots. Here, perhaps, “Phil” is an author surrogate.

Deckard and Resch return to the opera house where the latter executes Luft. The Russian name “Luba” and German word “Luft” hints that she was a Soviet Jewess masquerading in Germany under a false name (e.g. the reverse of Lev Bronstein becoming Leon Trotsky). Similarly, the android Sandor Kadalyi takes the name Max Polokov. Note that “Sandor Kadalyi” appears to be an anagram for “a.k.a. sly android.” Another solution is “yids load an ark,” possibly referring to the state of Israel (other words found in the name include “Alaska” and “Adonis” which find purchase in Blade Runner).

Dick even implies that Jews don’t want to work or build anything themselves, preferring instead to settle among established nations. The androids admit: “We came back (to Earth) because nobody should have to live (on Mars). It wasn’t conceived for habitation, at least not within the last billion years. It’s so old. You feel it in the stones, the terrible old age.”[6] Alternatively, this could describe the Jewish diaspora’s refusal to make aliyah given the harsh climate and desert conditions in Israel when compared with the creature comforts of Europe and the New World.

Despite Rachael’s best efforts, Deckard successfully retires all of the escaped Nexus-6 androids. She responds by killing his new (and expensive) goat in a petty act of revenge. In discussing this, Brahmin suggested the electric sheep and goat could be related to the story of the scapegoat in Leviticus, or to Matthew 25:31-46, the Sheep and the Goats. Humorously enough, because of the absence of a coherent shared symbol language, intention among goyishe artists can be harder to read.

If Dick is referencing the scapegoat, he may be mocking the accusation that Hitler scapegoated the Jews. Rachael’s killing of the goat suggests that scapegoating is a Jewish tactic. What’s more, in context, the implication is that the Jews scapegoated Germany as a whole. The Judeo-Bolsheviks were responsible for killing millions of Russians and Ukrainians before and after Hitler came to power, and National Socialism was – if anything – a reaction to the growing Communist threat. Thus international Jewry had every motivation to project its crimes onto Germany, as was attempted with the Katyn Massacre.

In the New Testament parable, those who do good deeds are “sheep” that go to heaven while those who reject Christ’s message are “goats” sent to hell. Rachael’s killing of the goat is self-destructive, for she is herself a “goat” according to the parable. On top of that, Deckard’s desire to care for a real animal rather than an electric sheep reveals his desire for true salvation; his purchase of the goat may prove his empathy for non-Christians as described by the parable. Alternatively, the purchase of a goat over a sheep may suggest an urge to reject the Christian “lamb” for something more authentic and “wild,” such as paganism, which aligns with the National Socialists incorporating pagan symbols into the Reich’s imagery.

In summation, Electric Sheep is a religiously-tinged allegory of the German-Jewish conflict during the Second World War. Note the “Germans” aren’t exterminating the “Jews” but put them to slave labor; this is closer to the truth than Jewish historians would like to admit. In 1968, the “Holocaust” had to yet to enter the vernacular, with the television mini-series still a decade away. Dick seems to sympathize with the Germans, likely due to their abhorrent treatment following the war, though his prose is not so artless that one can easily pin him down as anti-Semitic. Is he condemning the Jews by implying that those who lack empathy deserve none in return? Or is he criticizing Christianity and its message of love and tolerance as a farce, given the treatment of the Jews under the “Christian” Third Reich? Perhaps it’s a bit of both.


Blade Runner as Jewish Esoteric Moralization

We can be sure that Jews – adept at sniffing out even the faintest whiff of anti-Semitism – would have recognized Electric Sheep‘s subtext (especially following The Man in the High Castle). Thus we can assume it would have been a top priority to subvert its themes. Coincidentally, Electric Sheep was first optioned by the Jew Herb Jaffe, who pitched the story as a comedy in a likely attempt to neutralize its subtext. Dick put the kibosh on Jaffe’s screenplay, forcing the project into limbo for several years. Three of the four production companies that funded the final film were headed by Jews: Filmways, Inc. (the Ransohoff family); the Ladd Company (Jay Kanter); and Tandem Productions (Bud Yorkin, Norman Lear). As it was revived through this chain of investors and rewrites he was largely kept out of the loop.

Hampton Fancher wrote the first working screenplay. It’s unclear if he is Jewish but it was his script that changed “Rosen” to “Tyrell,” which Jewish critics note is “a case of whitewashing or a concerted attempt to de-Judaize the evil capitalists.”[7] Fancher (or the Jewish producers) introduced a number of other changes that are highly meaningful with regards to JEM. Some of these changes were the work of David Webb Peoples, a Jew hired to rework Fancher’s script. It’s also possible that Ridley Scott had a hand in the film’s symbolism.[8]

Even a casual analysis of Blade Runner reveals Biblical and mythological associations have been grafted onto Dick’s characters. Among these we find multiple name changes, and blatant name drops including Methusaleh, Salome, Lilith, and (Saint) Sebastian. Others, such as the introduction of a replicant named Zhora, can be as revealing as Dick’s “Iran.” Though it may initially seem like a tangled mess, in most cases the associations flow into one another in the manner established by mythographers. As such it’s something of an education in the evolution of world mythology or, as Brahmin puts it, Promethean Transmission.

The visual effects team refer to this opening shot as the “Hades landscape.” Perhaps the Greco-Roman references were a subject of discussion on set?

Most importantly, Brahmin’s framework reveals that Blade Runner has inverted the esoteric racial identities of Electric Sheep‘s characters: Deckard is now a Semitic cipher hunting Aryan replicants! The story encodes Semitic bride gathering as a central theme and operates as a rebuttal of the novel’s religious subtext, hewing closely to Brahmin’s thesis when properly understood.

The bride gathering element should be self-evident given Deckard’s arc has completely changed. Whereas before he was a married man and his primary goal was to earn enough money for an animal that he and his wife could bond over, now he’s a depressed bachelor. The story ends with him absconding with Rachael, who has been recast as a delicate virgin (i.e. the Semitic hero wins the day by taking an Aryan lover).

The film refutes Dick’s appraisal of Christianity through Roy Batty’s new arc, in which he becomes obsessed with his own mortality. As mentioned, in Electric Sheep Deckard’s unwavering faith implies that Christians would believe in Jesus even if he was a proven fraud because his message of love and empathy ring true. In contrast Blade Runner ditches Mercerism entirely, and reproaches the faithful as soothing their fear of death by deluding themselves with fantasies of an afterlife. This is clearly communicated when Roy takes on a Christ-like posture and is thereby pacified in the finale. This level-headed critique of religious faith aligns with studies showing that religiosity varies depending on mortality salience.

Whereas the novel impugns the Jewish character, Blade Runner ostensibly venerates Christianity. Roy saves Deckard’s life because of his newfound Christian morality (nothing like this occurs in the novel). Presumably Roy could even pass the Voight-Kampff! In some sense the screenwriters are asserting their moral superiority while patting themselves on the back for bringing out the best in the goyim. Of course the notion that “there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek,” or that one should “turn the other cheek” to one’s enemies are precisely the sort of lessons that have allowed Jews to dominate us. Roy’s parting words, “time to die,” round out his demoralizing arc.

When viewed as a microcosm Blade Runner depicts the religious conversion of the Ancient Roman/Aryan world. Jupiter, unlike Jesus Christ, does not promise salvation and immortality when his creation comes knocking. Disappointed by the natural order of things, and having lost faith in the cult of Jupiter, Roy kills his own god in favor of a foreign one. Hence Roy is a prototypical Roman (i.e. Aryan) who converts to Christianity after having bought hook, line, and sinker its promises of rewards to come. The subtext is a Jewish victory lap for having supplanted the Greco-Roman pantheon with their cult of Christianity, not unlike that discussed in my analyses of the films Deep Impact and Tron: Legacy.

Just as Roy has seen things people wouldn’t believe, it is difficult for most Europeans to begin to imagine life in the pre-Christian era. We can only speculate what was discovered and lost by the ancients (if not outright suppressed by Christianity). This, I believe, is the subtext of Roy’s poignant soliloquy in which he reminisces only to mourn that “all these moments will fade in time like tears in rain.” The implication being that Christianity purged the Aryan’s collective memory (at times by the sword). In contrast the Jew fanatically records and embellishes his own history, including – if not especially! – the crimes committed against him.

When Roy dies, he releases a dove symbolizing his attainment of inner peace, or his spirit ascending to Heaven. Esoterically it also symbolizes the loss of his consorts Aphrodite (Pris) and Venus (Zhora) – for whom the dove is an important symbol, as discussed in the character analysis. These women could have given Roy children, descendants being the next best thing to immortality. In other words, Roy had what he was searching for all along but let it slip through his fingers. The film’s last lines, “Too bad she won’t live. But then again, who does?” underscores the pragmatic and sober attitude towards life and death that pervades the JEM. The lesson being that one should live this life to the fullest; focus on having children and raising a family rather than succumbing to fantasies of heavenly rewards.


The significance of numbers in Blade Runner

Dick may have assigned the number six to his androids in reference to the mystical six million Jewish victims of Hitler’s regime. Here we begin to understand why a Jewish esotericist might find Electric Sheep a good candidate for adaptation: When viewed through the lens of Jewish symbolism, Dick has unintentionally contradicted himself by applying Aryan numbers to his Jewish ciphers.[9] Consequently, Blade Runner needn’t alter the Nexus’ model number to invert their racial identity.

Six may also represent the Aryan as a solar resource, thus the Nexus-6 slaves gel with the Jewish worldview that the goyim were created to serve them.[10] Errors like this are one of the reasons why Brahmin argues we need an agreed upon, shared symbolism.

The screenwriters emphasize the Aryan nature of the replicants via repetition of the number: We’re informed that Leon had been working at the Tyrell Corporation for six days before Holden tests him; and Roy interrupts Tyrell in the midst of buying or selling “sixty-six thousand” stocks.

Note that the sequel Blade Runner 2049 retcons Rachael as a Nexus-7 (Fancher’s invention). Ostensibly she’s been redefined as a uniquely advanced model replicant, but Brahmin’s study reveals that the number seven is the most important number in Judaism, so it raises some suspicion.[11] In accordance with the JEM number symbolism seven would presumably define her as a Semitic cipher, or perhaps an especially lucky match for a Semitic male. The latter interpretation relates to the Biblical Rachel, discussed in the character analysis.

Another “happy accident” for the filmmakers is the androids’ four year lifespan. The number four gained symbolic significance through its association with Enki, an Aryan Sea God central to ancient flood myths. Writes Brahmin: “During the second millennium BC, Enki was sometimes referred to by the numeric ideogram for ’40’, a ‘sacred number.’”[12] Thus it rained for forty days and forty nights in Genesis. Note that adding or subtracting zeroes does not change a number’s symbolic meaning, so 4, 40, 400, and so on are all aqueous symbols. Moreover “water, especially freshwater, (is) a symbol that commonly indicates Aryan blood” in the JEM.[13] Hence the replicants’ four year lifespan is consistent with the Aryan lifeblood.[14]

Lastly, Blade Runner appears to encode Hebraic gematria in numbers exceeding twelve (e.g. 995, seen on the side of the spinner vehicle, coincides with a Hebrew word meaning “the sanctuaries of Israel”). Gematria is an aspect of Jewish mysticism and encryption that falls outside Brahmin’s study, partly because its interpretation is highly speculative. Those interested may want to investigate the numbers in the film for themselves using Bill Heidrick’s gematria website to see what connections might be there.


Blade Runner character analysis

Rick Deckard

“Rick” is cognate with Dick, so our protagonist may be something of an author surrogate in Electric Sheep. However, his given name goes unmentioned in Blade Runner (Bryant refers to him as “Deck” for short). Its absence may be explained by its ambiguity: Brahmin advises that “Rick” may function as a Semitic identifier due to its phallic connotations,[15] or as an Aryan identifier in line with the Consumption motif (from its association with the word hayrick). Thus the filmmakers may have avoided it so as not to muddy Deckard’s new Semitic identity.

As for the surname Deckard, Dick allegedly chose it in relation to the French philosopher Descartes, famous for his statement: Cogito ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”).[16] Obviously that and Descartes’ mechanistic worldview relate to the question of what it means to be human vis-à-vis androids. Given Descartes’ low opinion of animals and Electric Sheep‘s emphasis on empathy, Dick seems to be saying the line ought to be: “I think and feel, therefore I am.” (In the film Pris parrots this line to Sebastian.) In fact “Descartes” literally means “dweller at the outskirts of town.” This is useful as it may describe Deckard as the stereotypical Jewish outsider vis-à-vis an Aryan populace.

As most of the characters in Blade Runner possess connections to Greco-Roman deities, I suspect the writers delighted in a more esoteric reading of the surname: In the ancient world Saturn was the most distant planet yet discovered, thus in celestial terms it was the “dweller at the outskirts of town.” Indeed Tacitus suggests that Jews worshipped Saturn specifically because of its perceived “highest orbit,” which they interpreted as Saturn’s dominion over all other gods.[17]

Deckard’s occupation and conflict with Roy also tie him to Saturn/Cronus: To wit, he’s the personification of death, Father Time, or the Grim Reaper coming to collect his dues. Note that Father Time and the Grim Reaper are often conflated with Saturn as Reaper,[18] and that the film’s new term for bounty hunters may describe these figures cutting down lives with a scythe. Indeed upon retiring Zhora, Deckard is described as a “one man slaughterhouse.”

Furthermore Scott famously suggested that Deckard is himself a replicant; as a replicant killing other replicants, he becomes Saturn eating his children. Obviously I’m not suggesting that Scott is to be trusted on that point, so take it with a grain of salt. Yet Deckard is rendered speechless upon Roy’s death; his empathy mirrors that of Saturn as the “patron of cripples” (Saturn gained this designation in the Medieval period, where he is often depicted with a peg leg). Moreover, his hesitance to take on the assignment and his reaction to Roy’s death aligns with Brahmin’s concept of the “Melancholy of the Shohet.” Thus Deckard may be recast as a god-masked Saturn/Cronus, one personification of the Jewish god and people.[19]

As a blade runner Deckard can be interpreted as the Grim Reaper, Father Time, and/or a god-masked Saturn/Cronus.

… as Semitic serpent

Putting that aside, we may infer that Deckard is a Semitic cipher from his repeated juxtaposition with dragons and snakes in combination with other contextual clues. These are used interchangeably in the JEM as symbolic synonyms of the serpent in the Garden of Eden, the Vine of Bacchus, and the Vine of Judah. In short, they represent the Jewish deity and by extension Jewry. None of the following details originated in Electric Sheep, so we can be fairly confident they’re examples of the Serpent motif encoded by the filmmakers.[20]

Early in the film Deckard eats at the “White Dragon” noodle bar, topped by a large neon sign of an Oriental dragon. This is, in part, a reference to the white dragon of Arthurian Legend,[21] where we find a quest for the Holy Grail that grants immortality. Clearly this relates to Roy’s quest for an extended life, and to Deckard’s conquest of Rachael as a rejuvenating, eugenic resource. Perhaps the “white dragon” here also implies that Deckard is a Semite of Aryan appearance or a crypto-Jew.

Deckard eats at the “White Dragon” noodle bar, esoterically alluding to the white dragon of Arthurian Legend and by extension the Grail quest.

Deckard finds an important clue in the form of an artificial snake scale left in a bath tub by Zhora. The snake scale, deposited onto her body by an artificial snake, has been metaphorically “shed” in the shower in the manner a snake sheds its skin. The ancients believed the snake’s unusual ability to shed its skin meant they were immortal.

An early example of this is the serpent in the Epic of Gilgamesh.[22] Like Roy, Gilgamesh goes on a quest to obtain immortality. He finds an underwater plant that can rejuvenate him, but before he can use it it’s stolen by a serpent which leaves behind its skin (indicating that it had eaten the magical plant and was reborn). Deckard effectively becomes this thieving serpent – a synonym of the seducing serpent in the Garden of Eden – when he scores with Rachael.

Deckard finds artificial snake scales in the bath tub of the hotel room, metaphorically “shed” by Zhora when she took a shower.

Tracing the scale’s maker’s mark to an animal market, Deckard interrogates an Egyptian man who specializes in making the snakes. His ethnicity and snake-related occupation alludes to the Ouroboros – the snake eating its own tail – an important Egyptian symbol associated with the world serpent, eternity, and immortality later adopted by Alchemists.[23] This further emphasizes the film’s themes.

Deckard interrogates the snake maker to learn Zhora’s whereabouts. Here we see blue and yellow neon signs reflected in the storefront window; Aryan colors per JEM symbolism.

 

Deckard finds Zhora at “The Snake Pit” strip club, and ends up chasing her out into the streets where he retires her. As he stands over her dead body we see another serpent symbol above him, this time a neon sign in the shape of a green Chinese dragon (green is a Semitic identifier in the JEM color symbolism).[24] We also see female mannequins nearby with snake-like tubes coiling around them. As mentioned, these tubes may equally represent a parasitic vine.[25] And there’s another dragon in the form of a statue at the street side bar where Deckard stops for a drink following the killing; random prop, or more esoteric symbolism?

Deckard is juxtaposed with a neon sign of a green dragon when he kills Zhora. He then gets a drink at a bar which features another dragon prop.

Eldon Tyrell

As mentioned, Fancher’s script renames Rosen to Tyrell in a clear attempt to distance the character from his implied Jewish ancestry. “Tyrell” is believed to derive from the Old French tirel from the verb tirer meaning “to pull.” Possibly this suggests that Tyrell is a puppeteer pulling the strings of his replicants by giving them false memories. More likely, Brahmin suggests the name is a reference to Tyr – the Aryan God of War in Norse myth – who is associated with both Jupiter and Mars. The latter half of the name sounds like El, a generic Semitic word for god. Indeed, contextual clues imply that Tyrell is a god-masked Zeus/Jupiter, an Aryan god.

The first clue is that one of the escaped replicants was electrocuted while trying to infiltrate the Tyrell Corporation’s headquarters (Zeus/Jupiter is associated with lightning and therefore electrocution). The second clue is a pair of eagle statues marking the entrance to the meeting room where Deckard tests Rachael. Another eagle statue sits over Tyrell’s shoulder in his bedroom (the eagle is Zeus/Jupiter’s sacred animal). More clues appear when examining other characters.

A pair of eagle statues guard the Tyrell Corporation meeting room. Another eagle statue seems perched on Tyrell’s shoulder in his bedroom. The eagle is Zeus/Jupiter’s sacred animal.

The name “Eldon” is itself an English habitational name for someone who lived on a “sacred hill.” In context, this could be taken to mean Mount Zion or Mount Olympus. Indeed the Tyrell Corporation headquarters resemble a hill, mountain, ziggurat, or pyramid. Fancher likely kept the name because it implies Tyrell’s godliness: As mentioned “El” means god, and “Don” or “Donald” means “world ruler” or “world wielder.”

Rachael

Dick likely thought that a common Jewish name like “Rachel” was appropriate for his Jewish vixen, yet Brahmin’s study reveals that the Biblical Rachel is understood to be Aryan by Jewish esotericists! There she is Jacob’s more beautiful second wife following his marriage to the “unloved” and “hated” Semitic Leah.[26] In Blade Runner, Rachael effectively becomes Deckard’s second wife, as his first wife (Iran) is mysteriously absent. Alternatively Rachael becomes Iran, his “Aryan” wife.

“Rachel” literally means “ewe” (female sheep) in Hebrew, so characters bearing this name in the JEM often personify desirable females to be poached from the Aryan flock.[27] Naturally Fancher retains the name, but transforms Dick’s backstabbing Jewish femme fatale into a delicate, virginal, Aryan flower to be plucked by Deckard. She no longer tries to deceive him or prevent him from doing his job, at one point retiring one of the runaways herself!

Notably the Biblical Jacob had to wait seven years before he could marry Rachel, which gels with our Rachael being a Nexus-7 if we go with the sequel’s retcon. And in keeping with an important strategy of the bride gathering cult, Deckard is a “neg-ing” Jewish suitor who initially mocks Rachael for believing her implanted memories are real.[28] In effect, he is the Jewish husband converting his Christian wife to Judaism, having convinced her that her most cherished beliefs are false. This does not occur in the novel, where she knows she is an android.

Left: Rachael wears a big fluffy jacket, her “wool” as a female sheep. Right: Rachel’s blouse features a floral pattern typically worn by fertile, young, Aryan women open to admixture in the JEM plant symbolism.

… as Eve and Psyche

Peoples’ script inserts a wrinkle into Rachael’s backstory that is highly revealing: We learn that Rachael’s implanted memories once belonged to Tyrell’s deceased niece “Lilith.” This is a bald-faced reference to the Biblical Lilith whom Adam rejects in the Garden of Eden. As “Lilith’s replacement” Rachael is conflated with Eve, Adam’s more beautiful and compatible second wife. Yet Adam is an Aryan figure cuckolded by the serpent,[29] hence Rachael-as-Eve is seduced by Deckard-as-serpent.

Eve, as a figure, is also conflated with Psyche. Writes Brahmin:

“The Hebrew word for Eve, ‘Chavah,’ חַוָּה is often thought derived from the closely related hayah, הָוָה, which means ‘to breathe’ in the ancient Hebrew. This might make Eve a reference to the clearly Aryan figure of Psyche whose name means ‘Soul’ or ‘Breath of Life.’ Likewise Chavah is considered related to chayah, חיה, on the premise the latter means ‘to live.’”[30]

… as Athena/Minerva

Brahmin also reminds us that the “breath of life” or “pneuma” of Psyche is mirrored in the animating breath of Minerva.[31] Indeed Rachael can be understood as a god-masked Athena/Minerva, as she’s the “daughter” of Tyrell-as-Zeus. Corroborating this reading is the presence of an owl during her introduction, a bird associated with the goddess (granted, an owl is also present in this scene in Electric Sheep, so it may simply be another gift that Dick accidentally dropped in Blade Runner‘s lap). It’s an advantageous detail given the subtext:

Recall that Minerva/Athena was “born” when the Aryan Zeus/Jupiter had a headache and the Semitic Hephaestus/Vulcan split his head open, freeing her. This correlates with Tyrell creating Rachael, who is then “extracted” from him by the Semitic Deckard.[32] Pertinently, the man who actually helped Tyrell “birth” Rachael (and the other replicants) is in fact the geneticist J.F. Sebastian (see Sebastian as Hephaestus/Vulcan, below).

“Do you like our owl?” purrs Rachael as Deckard enters the room. Note the art deco pattern on the walls in this room may represent the skyward-facing Aryan half of the interlocking triangles of the Star of David, symbolism mirrored in the conjoining of the upward-pointing compass and the downward-pointing square in Masonic imagery.

Roy Batty

Whereas Roy is simply referred to as the “leader” of the android escapees in Electric Sheep and is not particularly well-defined or charismatic, in Blade Runner he becomes a highly sophisticated and sympathetic character. The name “Roy Batty” appears to be a play on words meaning “crazy king,” but there’s much more here. Of course the name Roy, which may come from the French word roi (lit. “king”), is useful as names referencing nobility often identify Aryan characters in the JEM.[33] Additionally he is now listed as a “combat” model for “colonization defense” of Mars, a martial occupation further painting him as Aryan.[34]

Indeed Roy’s occupation, in combination with his flight from Mars and other details, implies that he is a god-masked Ares/Mars (an Aryan figure). Mars’ consort was Nerio or Neriene who became syncretized with Athena/Minerva. Thus Deckard’s eventual coupling with Rachael-as-Minerva further emphasizes the theme of racial cuckoldry, a central aspect of the JEM. Other clues explored below suggest Roy is a complex composite drawing from additional religious and mythical sources, but his primary identity appears to be Aryan.

Roy is identified as a “combat” model for “colony defense” of Mars in his file, suggesting that he’s a god-masked Ares/Mars.

… as the Biblical Adam or Esau

The name “Roy” is also a nickname for a person with red hair, stemming from the Gaelic ruadh (lit. “red”). Names meaning “red” or implying ruddiness are Aryan identifiers in the JEM naming convention, particularly as it relates to “Adam the Red.”[35] Hence the name suggests that, having been exiled to an off-world colony by his maker, Roy is an Aryan Adamic figure cast out of Eden by Tyrell-as-God. Likewise he is set up to be cuckolded by Deckard-as-serpent where Rachael is Eve.

This reading jives perfectly with the changes to the story. In Electric Sheep, Roy never meets with Eldon Rosen, as he’s unperturbed by his limited lifespan. Yet in Blade Runner the meeting between Roy and Tyrell couldn’t be more important. Here Roy remarks, “it’s not an easy thing to meet your maker,” underscoring that he is akin to Adam and Tyrell akin to God. Yet unlike the Christian God, Tyrell offers no hope of eternal salvation and simply advises Roy to live his life to the fullest. This is the pragmatic worldview of the ancients. Disappointed, Roy symbolically turns to Christianity in hopes of resurrection or an eternal afterlife in the finale.

As the name may refer specifically to those with red hair, it posits Roy as akin to the Aryan Esau (whose name is etymologically close to Adam and Edom), who is especially the red haired one as he is described as being covered with red hair at birth. Esau, of course, is a well known and accepted symbol of the goy while the Edomites, related to Amalek, become the hated Aryans that must be destroyed in the Jewish worldview. Note that Germans in particular are often posited as Amalekites by Jewish “scholars” as part of Israel’s twentieth-century foundation myth.

… as Dumuzid/Tammuz

Saliently, Fancher alters Roy’s surname Baty to Batty. Though the names may be interchangeable in some instances, the addition of an extra “t” can change the origin and meaning of the name. Baty – cognate with names like “Beatty” – stems from the Aramaic “Bartholomew” (which may imply the Biblical figure). In contrast “Batty” can mean “fisherman” or “boatman” where the Old English “bat” means “boat.” To the extent Batty means boat and is JEM, this may be a simple vaginal reference as boat and ark symbols appear to be vaginal symbols dating from Sumer, and emasculating goyishe characters in this manner does occur in the JEM. Alterantively, this new occupational surname may explain why Roy and the other replicants shacked up at the Yukon Hotel (a setting inserted in Blade Runner). “Yukon” comes from the Gwich’in word Yu-kun-ah which means “great river.”

It is my suspicion that the hotel is a reference to “the house (called) ‘The River Ordeal’” mentioned in Mesopotamian myth and later Israelite literature.[36] “Trial by river ordeal was a widespread phenomenon, in which the accused was plunged into the river, where his success in withstanding the rushing waters was supposed to determine his guilt or innocence.”[37] As a Christian convert Roy will certainly be judged. Here it’s worth noting that the sinuous Oriental dragons seen alongside Deckard are traditionally associated with rivers, suggesting he will do the judging.

“Yukon” comes from the Gwich’in word Yu-kun-ah which means “great river,” so the Yukon Hotel may relate to the house called “The River Ordeal.”

In the mythological subtext, the meaning of “Batty” ties Roy to the Mesopotamian Dumuzid/Tammuz who was also called “the fisherman (su – ha = bayaru), and later ‘the herdsman.’”[38] Tammuz’s flock is compared to that of the Greek Sun God Helios (cognate with Apollo) – suggesting Tammuz has stolen the Aryan’s flock – though here it simply suggests Roy shepherds an Aryan flock, as he’s the leader of the escaped replicants.[39]

As a Dying and Rising God and God of Spring who becomes a shepherd, Dumuzid/Tammuz is considered a synonym of Adonis. These Dying and Rising Gods are Semitic or proto-Jewish in origin – the Hebrew calendar even has a month named in honor of Tammuz – and they share much in common with Jesus Christ.[40] Hence we have what appears to be the first link in a chain describing Roy’s union with Semitic gods that will pacify his fear of death.

When taken together “Roy Batty” literally means “King Fisher.” This further conflates Roy with Dumuzid/Tammuz, as the latter is transformed into an allalu bird with a broken wing in tablet six of the Epic of Gilgamesh.[41] The allalu bird, belonging to a family called Coraciidae, are related to kingfishers and “share the colorful appearance of kingfishers and bee-eaters.”[42] Thus on some level the bird set free in the finale may symbolize Roy’s transformation into this allalu bird.

And like Dumuzid, Roy is a man with no children; tragically, his genetic legacy dies with him. In Dumuzid and Ĝeštin-ana 33-46,[43] we learn that Dumuzid is a man “who has not fulfilled those days and years” because he has no wife, no children, no friend, and no companion. As such Roy-as-Dumuzid has failed to live his life to the fullest as per Tyrell’s advice. For this reason, Dumuzid’s sister Ĝeštin-ana describes her brother as “the lad who is not a comfort to his mother,” presumably because he has provided her no grandchildren. Ĝeštin-ana’s “lament of misfortune” relates to Roy’s death before he can pass on his genes – a fate Deckard seeks to avoid with Rachael.

… as “King Mad” or Apollo Lycegenes

In the climax it seems Roy is going insane when he howls like a wolf and engages in a game of cat-and-mouse with Deckard. The wolf howling was added by Peoples, and fits a surface-level reading of “Roy Batty” as “king mad” or “king insane.”[44] As wolves howl at the Moon, this may relate to the lunacy caused by the Moon or the Moon God Sin.

However, the wolf howling also dovetails with Brahmin’s observation that the wolf is an animal totem projected onto the Aryan in the JEM.[45] This is seen most clearly in the Biblical Benjamin (the ravening wolf), as well as with the epithet Apollo Lycegenes (lit. “born of a wolf”). Apollo in particular is understood to be Jewry’s archnemesis, hence Roy may personify Apollo Lycegenes in his duel with Deckard. This could be hinted at when Tyrell tells Roy that he “burns brightest” (i.e., like the Sun God Apollo). Alternatively, the wolf howling serves as a reminder that Roy is an Aryan figure despite taking on the posture of a Dying and Rising God in the finale.

… as the Fisher King of Arthurian Legend and Caelus

If we reverse the meaning of Roy’s name we get “Fisher King,” suggesting the character of Arthurian Legend (also known as the “Wounded King” or “Maimed King”). Brahmin doesn’t encourage reordering names in this manner when translating the JEM, yet it seems applicable given the inclusion of the “White Dragon” noodle bar discussed earlier. Fittingly the Fisher King is the last in a long line of men charged with keeping the Holy Grail, a vessel that grants immortality. Clearly he and the Grail quest in general find a parallel in Roy’s quest for an extended life.

Brahmin argues that “holy vessels” (including the hearth, tent, temple, ark, or house) are symbols of the Aryan vagina or womb in the JEM.[46] If this seems bizarre, note the connection is spelled out directly in the Mesopotamian mythology, where Inanna refers to her vulva as “the Boat of Heaven.”[47] What is a “Boat of Heaven” if not a holy vessel by another name (i.e. a “Holy Grail”)? With this understanding the Holy Grail can be considered another Aryan vaginal symbol. Also note that a wine glass is traditionally smashed during a Jewish wedding ceremony (a symbolic breaking of the hymen, perhaps?). Related to this, it is customary for a newlywed Jewish couple to produce a bloodstained sheet soon after the wedding to prove the bride’s virginity.

Hence it is Roy-as-Fisher King who, as the last man charged with the Holy Grail, loses possession of the Aryan womb to Deckard. Deckard has killed Roy’s two female consorts, so this loss is depicted symbolically as a dove escaping Roy’s grasp (recall that the dove is an avian symbol associated with Aphrodite [Pris] and Venus [Zhora]).

Moreover, Roy’s kneeling death in the finale and the dove’s release conflates the “Wounded King” (as “wounded in the legs or groin, with him unable to stand”) with Caelus’ castration. Here, of course, Deckard-as-Saturn performs the deed from which Venus (as the dove) is “born” or “released” from Roy-as-Caelus.

Roy releases a dove in death. Note the TDK sign in the background; in Hebraic gematria TDK = 114, which corresponds to a Hebrew word meaning “to shed tears, to flow away,” perhaps revealing that Roy’s famous line about memories being lost like tears in rain was not improvised by Rutger Hauer.

… as Adonis and Christ

As mentioned the myth of Dumuzid/Tammuz and Inanna/Ishtar is believed to have directly inspired the story of Adonis and Aphrodite. Thus Roy may also qualify as a god-masked Adonis. His “kingly” name aligns with the Canaanite word ʼadōn (lit. “lord”) which became the Hebrew “Adonai,” from which Adonis takes his name.

In turn Adonis is believed to have inspired the story of Jesus Christ, hence Roy Batty as “King Fisherman” becomes suggestive of Jesus Christ as both “King of Kings” and “Fisher of Men.” This connection between Roy and Adonis/Christ is echoed in their female companions: Venus and Aphrodite find parallels in Mary, who shares the dove and rose as important symbols.

Indeed in some sense the addition of an extra “t” to “Baty” is like Fancher assigning the cross to Roy. Roy quite clearly becomes a Christ figure in the finale when his body undergoes rigor mortis shortly before his expiry date. He succeeds in briefly reviving his fading physical sensations by pushing a nail through the palm of his hand in an echo of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. Nothing even remotely like this occurs in the novel. Further, recall that Fancher had introduced a replicant named Mary in an earlier script; presumably she was a veiled Mary/Magdalene figure.

Roy pulls a large nail out of the floorboards and penetrates the palm of his hand in an echo of Christ’s crucifixion.

It is worth remembering that while the puncturing of the hand is a clear reference to Christ, symbolically it may represent something more elemental. After all, it appears the Christ myth is a reference to earlier developed symbolism that is completely opaque to the average person. For example, when Christ’s crucifixion is depicted in the form of a pentagram “the Five Wounds of Christ represented by the pentagram is a reference to ‘sexual union’ with ‘the evening star’ or the Aryan Venus/Ishtar.”[48] In this instance, Roy’s penetration of his palm evokes the stabbing of the Evil Eye of the Hamsa, [49] As the blinding of the Evil Eye can represent phallic destruction and/or the Jewish possession of the Aryan sexual resource, Roy has castrated himself. Perhaps the implication is that he has joinied a celibate priestly class, effectively removing himself from the arena of sexual competition. Here we understand Brahmin when he suggests that Semitic figures, whether Tammuz or Christ, are shepherds presenting their flock with a negative or passive role to follow.

This connection between the vagina and hand is implied when Roy grabs Deckard and breaks two of his fingers as punishment: One for Pris’ life and the other for Zhora’s. Why not a finger for Leon and the other (unknown) replicant(s) killed? Because they were not Roy’s female consorts!

In the end Roy is cleansed of his sins when he saves Deckard’s life in the ultimate act of grace. This allows Roy to achieve inner peace before death, where the Christian’s reward for good deeds and suffering in this life is an eternity in paradise. Of course, the novel ends very differently with Deckard simply shooting Roy.

Pris

The name “Pris” is ultimately derived from the Roman priscus meaning “ancient” and “primordial/primitive.”[50] In turn, she becomes a combination of ancient and primordial female goddesses. In the novel she sneaks into J.R. Isidore’s building unannounced, but in Blade Runner she pretends to be a prostitute down on her luck in order to trick J.F. Sebastian into letting her in. The name “Isidore” literally means “gift of Isis” which may have inspired Fancher to recast Pris as a god-masked Isis, a sacred prostitute figure. In turn, Sebastian becomes Pris’ gift to Roy, as it is through her seduction of Sebastian that Roy obtains his coveted meeting with Tyrell.

In Electric Sheep Pris is merely friends with Roy and his wife Irmgard, yet in Blade Runner Irmgard is discarded and Pris becomes Roy’s lover. Further, she is designated a “leisure/military” model replicant. As a prostitute and the lover of a god-masked Adonis, Pris appears to be a god-masked Aphrodite (the patron goddess of prostitutes). We can be reasonably certain she is not Venus, as that role has been given to Zhora (see below). Incidentially, both Aphrodite and Venus are syncretized with Isis, Inanna, and Ishtar (all Aryan goddesses).

As a nice little touch, Pris’ incept date is Valentine’s day in Blade Runner, befitting a goddess of love. Note the neon blue (Aryan color symbolism) in these shots, as the replicants are introduced.

In Homer’s Iliad Aphrodite is one of Zeus’ daughters, which aligns with Pris being manufactured by Tyrell, whom we take to be a god-masked Zeus/Jupiter. Moreover, Aphrodite was married to Hephaestus but “was frequently unfaithful and had many lovers; in the Odyssey, she is caught in the act of adultery with Ares.”[51] Hence Pris-as-Aphrodite cuckholds her “husband” J.F. Sebastian (a god-masked Hephaestus) by inviting Roy (a god-masked Ares/Mars) into his apartment without his permission. Sebastian is visibly perturbed by this development.

Sebastian is visibly perturbed by Roy’s unexpected arrival. When Roy and Pris kiss, he immediately gets up and interrupts them, announcing he will make breakfast.

… as Mary

Continuing with the theme of prostitution, Pris becomes a Mary Magdalene figure. Writes Brahmin: “Ishtar was also Mary, mother or lover of Christ.”[52] Hence Pris is also compatible with Roy-as-Christ. This likely explains why the Mary character was removed from later scripts, as she was somewhat redundant (besides her name being far too obvious).

Pris is introduced as a street walker wearing a collar necklace of zigzagging triangles, and a tiger-striped gold and black jacket. These are examples of JEM symbolism suggesting she’s a corrupted or Semitized Aryan akin to a “Mary Magdalene” figure.

… as Fortuna Primigenia

As priscus means “primordial” we might also infer that Pris is conflated with Fortuna Primigenia, as Primigenia means “primordial.”[53] Fortuna Primigenia was represented as veiled and blind, akin to Lady Justice. It appears Peoples incorporates these details into Pris’ character, such that she initially hides from Deckard under a veil, and paints a black band of make-up across her eyes as a symbolic blindfold. The latter detail is particularly odd absent this understanding.

In addition, Fortuna Primigenia is believed to be one of Hephaestus’/Vulcan’s lovers which further connects Pris to J.F. Sebastian. Primigenia also came to represent life’s capriciousness, and the name Pris itself relates to the word “caprice.”

Pris paints a symbolic blindfold over her eyes, and hides beneath a veil, details likely inspired by the etymological link between “Pris” and “Fortuna Primigenia.”

… as Prisca of the Montanist movement

Last but not least, Peoples appears to reference Prisca, the “charismatic female prophet of the second century Montanist movement.”[54] The Montanist movement preached that the Holy Spirit could enter the body, causing it to twist and spasm. In Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, she’s described as a “pawn of the devil who spoke and acted in ‘a frenzied manner.’”[55] These anecdotes seem to explain Pris’ bizarre, spasmodic death when Deckard shoots her (i.e. he puts the Holy Spirit into her). In Fancher’s earlier script it was Deckard whose body jerked spasmodically after killing Roy (again, all details foreign to the novel).

Incidentally, the Montanist movement was declared heretical by Catholic scholars in the fourth century, who described Prisca and Maximilla as “seductresses.” This description further dovetails with Pris and Zhora as sacred prostitute figures.

Pris screams wildly and thrashes spasmodically in death, like Prisca of the Montanist movement possessed by the Holy Spirit.

Zhora

Fancher appears to recast the android opera singer Miss Luba Luft as the replicant stripper Zhora. “Zhora” is a corruption of “Zohra,” the Arabic name for the planet Venus.[56] This appears to be the intended reading: Outside Zhora’s changing room we see a neon light in the shape of a five-pointed star which relates to Venus as the “evening star” as well as to the “pentagram of Venus” (a.k.a. the “five petals of Venus” or the “dance of Venus”). And inside her room we spy a clam shell decoration on the wall; the scallop shell is one of Venus’ symbols (famously seen in Botticelli’s “The Birth of Venus”).

The five-pointed star marking the entrance to Zhora’s changing room relates to Venus as the “evening star” and/or the “five petals” or pentagram of Venus, while the clam shell decoration evokes one of Venus’ other symbols.

Zhora’s occupation may define her as a god-masked Venus Erycina, whose cult “was considered suitable for ‘common girls’ and prostitutes.”[57] That she’s a freed slave may indicate she is Venus Libertina (“Venus the Freedwoman”). And just as Aphrodite was in an adulterous relationship with Ares, in the Roman tradition Venus would become paired with Mars. Hence she may be Venus Obsequens (“Indulgent Venus”), whose shrine was “supposedly funded by fines imposed on women found guilty of adultery.”[58]

Gaff leaves this effigy of a man in the hotel room where Deckard discovers Zhora’s snake scale. This may relate to Zhora as a god-masked Venus, goddess of love, sex, and desire, or to Roy and Leon as “burnt offerings.”

As Venus is syncretized with Aphrodite, she can be considered coupled with Roy-as-Adonis. And as mentioned earlier, the dove and rose are symbols Venus shares with Mary, so she can also be coupled with Roy-as-Christ.

Speaking of birds, there’s a prominent flamingo decoration in Zhora’s changing room. The flamingo bird’s name literally means “flame-colored,” which may relate to Zhora being a redhead. And according to Wikipedia, “the generic name Phoenicopterus literally means ‘blood red-feathered’” and “Phoeniconaias. . . means ‘crimson red water nymph (or naiad)’,” meanings which may relate to Venus as born from a mixture of Caelus’ blood and sea foam (i.e. the dove released by Roy-as-Caelus when castrated by Deckard-as-Saturn).

… as Demeter/Ceres or Feronia

The name Zhora is itself descended from the Ancient Greek from the element geōrgós ‎(γεωργός) meaning “tilling the ground, fertilizing.” Essentially it means “farmer,” which is an occupational Aryan identifier in the JEM. As a reference to fertile soil it may suggest she’s a goddess associated with agriculture and/or fertility such as Demeter/Ceres.[59] Somewhat like Venus, Demeter/Ceres is a daughter of Saturn. Here, however, the inference may be to Feronia – a goddess who came to be worshipped by farmers – as she was also the patron goddess of slaves. As with Venus Libertina, this esoterically ties into Zhora’s backstory as a freed slave.

… as Salome

Zhora works under the stage name “Miss Salome,” a Biblical figure related to Zhora’s original function as a trained political assassin. Wikipedia states that “in the New Testament, Salome was the stepdaughter of Herod Antipas who demanded, and received, the head of John the Baptist.” John the Baptist is frequently referenced in the JEM naming convention to identify Semitic ciphers, hence Zhora’s stage name foreshadows her attack on Deckard (our Semitic hero). Of course, “John” gets his revenge by retiring “Salome” as she runs for her life.

Zhora attempts to throttle Deckard, true to her stage name “Miss Salome.”

… as “false Eve”

Zhora works at “The Snake Pit” parlor and performs a sex act with an artificial snake as part of her act. Nothing like this occurs in Electric Sheep. She also has a cobra tattooed on the side of her face. Consequently she gives us an allusion to Eve seduced by the serpent in the Garden of Eden. However, just as her snake is artificial, she is an artificial or “false Eve.” As mentioned we know that Rachael – the new-and-improved version of Tyrell’s niece Lilith – is the true Eve of the story. Hence her act and tattoo may simply indicate that she is a Semitized or otherwise corrupted female figure (akin to Hecate/Trivia).

The Snake Pit, Zhora and her snake, Zhora’s snake tattoo, and female mannequins near her murder wearing coils convey Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

J.F. Sebastian

Fancher renames John Isidore to J.F. Sebastian. As he was originally a John, we can reasonably assume his initials stand for something like “Jean-François,” where both John and Frank are Semitic identifiers in the JEM naming convention (the former stemming from John the Baptist, the latter related to the Frankish motif). Perhaps the initials intentionally obfuscate the colloquial term for a man who patrons prostitutes, as “John” might be a bit on the nose given his relationship with Pris.

In Electric Sheep Isidore was the incompetent and semi-retarded assistant to Hannibal Sloat at the Van Ness Pet Hospital. In Blade Runner he works for Tyrell as a gifted geneticist. And in stark contrast to Isidore’s apartment which is full of “kipple” (junk), Sebastian’s place is overflowing with his fantastic animatronic creations. These are rather significant changes, and they strongly suggest that Sebastian is a god-masked Hephaestus/Vulcan, an inventor and tinkerer. As Vulcan is a volcanic deity closely associated with Yahweh this might explain the new surname, as “Sebastian” (from the Greek sebastos) means “revered.”[60]

Alternatively, the surname may be a reference to Saint Sebastian, who was supposedly shot with arrows but survived. He was rescued and healed by Saint Irene of Rome. Remarkably, Pris’ surname “Stratton” (which goes unmentioned in Blade Runner) means “Roman road” + “enclosure” or “settlement,” a name connecting her with Irene of Rome.

Furthermore in the medieval tradition Saint Sebastian is invoked as a defense against the plague, and it is believed the story Christianizes aspects of Apollo as an archer god who, “at times destroys his enemies by shooting plague-arrows from the heavens, but is also the deliverer from pestilence.”[61] In this case the callback may be an esoteric slight against Apollo, as it implies his plague arrows were unable to kill Saint Sebastian (though perhaps they’re the source of our Sebastian’s illness). Alternatively we might infer that Sebastian escapes Roy-as-Apollo Lycegenes’ murderous rampage, as we never see what actually happens to him.

J.F. Sebastian is greeted by his animatronic “friends”; a bear wearing a Napoleonic uniform and a wind-up soldier. These may represent the French, Russian, and/or Prussian Empires respectively, reduced to mere “playthings” in Jewish hands.

Strangely Sebastian still lives alone in an abandoned apartment building. Why wouldn’t Tyrell provide him accommodations inside the massive corporate headquarters? Perhaps Tyrell-as-Zeus has exiled him from Mount Olympus! We might even infer that Tyrell sleeps in J.F. Sebastian’s old room, as there’s a folding screen behind the former’s bed decorated with cranes (a bird sacred to Vulcan). That Tyrell-as-Zeus has gained the upper hand on Sebastian-as-Vulcan is also implied in their chess game, in which Tyrell is always winning (more on that near the conclusion).

Inside Tyrell’s inner sanctum there’s a folding screen decorated with cranes. Cranes are sacred to Vulcan, so this might suggest that Zeus has exiled Vulcan and taken his place.

Instead of suffering a mentally debilitating radiation poisoning, Sebastian is rapidly aging due to Fancher’s fictitious genetic disorder called the “Methusaleh Syndrome” (Methuselah is the oldest Biblical figure, said to have lived to the age of 969). As such he’s a prime example of the esotericist admitting that Jews are an aged race in need of genetic renewal.[62] That he’s “saturated with years” like Saturn/Cronus indicates a shared ethnicity.[63] Here the dilapidated apartment building echoes his physical deterioration.

As Brahmin has suggested, Jewish esotericists can be complimentary (as they evidently desire admixture with us). Roy asks, “Why are you staring at us, Sebastian?” He replies, “’Cause. . . you’re so different. . . You’re so perfect. What generation are you?” Roy replies Nexus-6, to which Sebastian exclaims, “Ha! I knew it! ‘Cause I do genetic design work for the Tyrell Corporation. There’s some of me in you.”

In Electric Sheep the bullied Isidore empathized with the androids as social outcasts. In Blade Runner, his disorder now mirrors the replicants’ limited lifespan. Further, Sebastian-as-Vulcan was “wounded” or “maimed” and is often depicted sitting in a wheel chair; he’s the mirror image of the “wounded” or “maimed” Roy-as-Fisher King. Also, Vulcan was exiled by Jupiter in the same way Roy-as-Adam was exiled from the Garden of Eden. Thus Sebastian may have been motivated to help Roy as an act of personal revenge. However, Roy apparently kills Sebastian, the lesson being that Jews mustn’t aid Aryan men.

Sebastian surrounded by his creations. Note the large vase in the background, which may represent Vulcan’s cauldron. Possibly it is a volute krater, traditionally placed in the center of a room and used to mix wine and water, with all that that entails in JEM symbolism.

… as Erichthonius, son of Hephaestus/Vulcan

Another intriguing possibility is that Sebastian references Erichthonius, one of Hephaestus/Vulcan’s sons.[64] In this interpretation, Hephaestus/Vulcan has simply been exiled altogether. Erichthonius was born with two serpent’s tails for legs, a kind of genetic deformity in line with Sebastian’s disability. In this case, Peoples may be knowledgeably corroborating Sebastian’s Semitic identity in line with the Serpent motif.[65]

Moreover Sebastian’s disorder relates to Ovid’s description of Erichthonius in Metamorphoses as requiring “new life.” This led the gods to grumble “why others should not be allowed to grant such gifts (the rejuvenating power of the goddess Hebe) . . . Mulciber (Hephaistos) required new life for (his son) Erichthonius.”[66] Additionally Zeus had a friendly relationship with Erichthonius.[67]

Hannibal Chew

Hannibal Sloat, originally a vet at the Van Ness Pet Hospital, is a minor character but one worth examining due to the changes in Blade Runner. The name Hannibal literally means “Baal is gracious,” where the last part of the name refers to Baal, a Semitic deity. Dick probably knew this, so we can guess that Hannibal Sloat is another one of his Jewish ciphers.

To a Jewish esotericist, however, “Hannibal” implies subservience to an Aryan god. Writes Brahmin: “The title Baal appears to be an Aryan identifier. . . equivalent to Jupiter at least to the extent this title appears alone without modifying additional names that may indicate it Semitic.”[68] Thus Hannibal now works for Tyrell-as-Baal/Zeus/Jupiter making replicant eyes at his lab, “Eye World.”

The exterior of Chew’s shop “Eye World” is colored green (a Semitic color) with a red “eye” in its signage.

On its face Hannibal’s new surname seems to be a minor change to better suit the Chinese character actor playing the role. In the Chinese it’s a name related to bows and archers and so doesn’t seem applicable, however the Chinese word “chú” (厨) means “kitchen” and may well describe Chew’s laboratory. In fact “Chew” is an English surname possibly meaning “fish gill.” Perhaps this identifies Chew as Baal/Zeus/Jupiter’s loyal “fish” to be caught by the “King Fisherman” Roy Batty. Notably, the two never meet in the novel.

However there is a far more interesting interpretation of “Chew” as it relates to Hannibal, the famous Carthaginian general. The religion of Carthage was largely based on that of the Canaanites and Phoenicians. There we find a smith, craftsman, engineer, architect, and inventor god similar to Hephaestus/Vulcan yet notably one who was subservient to Baal/Jupiter called Kothar-wa-Khasis. Strikingly, in the Phoenician Greek he was called Chusor. Thus it appears that Fancher took his cue from Dick’s Hannibal but squeezed him into the subtext with a more logical surname and occupation!

As a Smith God Chusor/Kothar could easily be mistaken for Hephaestus/Vulcan. Hence the filmmakers distance Chew from Vulcan’s fiery forge by placing him in an environment of extreme cold. The blue-yellow (Aryan) color symbolism in his laboratory further differentiates Chew from the Semitic Vulcan. Incidentally, Blade Runner has alerted Apollonian artists to a salubrious replacement for Hephaestus/Vulcan should they require such a craftsman in their work: Leave Vulcan in exile and god-mask Kothar/Chusor instead!

The blue-yellow (Aryan) color symbolism in Chew’s laboratory differentiates him from the Semitic Vulcan.

… as Ptah

Significantly, both Chusor and Kothar mean “the Opener” as it relates to Baal’s “window” in the sky through which he sheds his life-giving rain. By extension, this connects Chew to the Egyptian god Ptah, who was also known as “the Opener.” With Ptah it’s a reference to the opening of the mouth, though in Blade Runner it’s a reference to the eye or pupil as Chew specializes in making eyes. Indeed Ptah is a craftsman of bodies; he fashions “the divine bodies of royalty, and the bodies in which dwelt the souls of men in the afterlife.”[69] This relates to Roy’s kingly name as well as his newfound belief in the afterlife.

… as Thoth

The above reading may suffice but the specificity of Hannibal’s occupation seems to indicate yet another layer. In Egyptian mythology we find a god named Thoth who restores Horus’ eye when it is torn out by Set. Horus is a Sky God akin to Baal/Zeus/Jupiter who became associated with the Sun God Ra, hence Chew may be a god-masked Thoth (providing eyes as apparently required by Tyrell-as-Horus). This connection would also relate to Tyrell’s eyes being gouged by Roy (discussed in further detail below).

Gaff

Gaff is another curious character introduced in Blade Runner. The name means “one who made or used iron hooks, or a staff armed with such a hook.” A “hooked staff” might be interpreted as a shepherd’s rod, which is likely the intended reading as shepherd figures appear frequently in the JEM. Indeed, in the German-Jewish criminal lingo of the nineteenth century a crowbar was known as a Rebbmosche (lit. “Rabbi Moses”),[70] no doubt because it superficially resembles the Staff of Moses. This seems to explain why Gaff walks with a cane (i.e. his “shepherd’s rod”).

Related to this, Brahmin writes: “Frequently (the Romans) understood (Hermes/Mercury) as the Prophet Moses himself.”[71] Indeed, it seems as though Gaff rounds out the Greco-Roman subtext as a god-masked Hermes/Mercury – a shepherd, messenger of the gods, and soul guide. Consequently his cane is his caduceus or herald’s staff. As a messenger or herald he serves a summons to Deckard early in the film, effectively issuing what Joseph Campbell terms “The Call to Adventure.”

As a soul guide Gaff can read Deckard’s internal monologue. First he makes a chicken to mock Deckard when he initially balks at the assignment (Deckard’s “Refusal of the Call”), though strikingly the rooster happens to be one of Mercury’s symbols. The matchstick man, as mentioned, appears to reference Venus as a goddess of love or the replicants as “burnt offerings.” The unicorn implies he somehow knows Deckard’s dreams, and simultaneously suggests he approves of Rachael as a rare catch.

Of course, many interpet the unicorn as proof that Deckard is a replicant with implanted memories, but perhaps Gaff is simply a fairy godfather! It bears mentioning that “Gaff” may be a contracted form of “godfather” or “grandfather.” As a beneficent, Moses-like “godfather,” Gaff sets Deckard on his journey and allows him to escape with Rachael in the end.

Gaff walks with a cane, which might be interpreted as a shepherd’s rod or caduceus. He leaves origami figures as messages as if reading Deckard’s innermost thoughts.

Leon Kowalski

In Electric Sheep Sandor Kadalyi/Max Polokov is the Nexus-6 android who injures Holden and attacks Deckard. Fancher replaces him with Leon, though like “Max” this is probably a false name. “Leon” means “lion,” an Aryan animal symbol sometimes applied to Jewish ciphers in the JEM. His surname (seemingly inserted later by Peoples) is taken from the Polish “Kowal” meaning “(black)smith,” and therefore an occupational name associated with Hephaestus/Vulcan. Taken together, the name may be Leon’s unconvincing attempt to conceal his Aryan identity among the Semitic blade runners hunting him (akin to “Luba Luft”).

As mentioned earlier “Sandor Kadalyi” appears to be an anagram, so perhaps so too is “Leon Kowalksi.” In that case the solution is likely “solo weak link,” as Leon does not appear to have an esoteric identity. He’s simply a dumb Aryan male, as implied in his case file as a “combat/loader” with a mental level of “C,” in addition to his occupation as a janitor at the Tyrell Corporation. Another solution might be “kills on awoke,” a programming reference, as he almost gets the better of Holden and Deckard.

When Deckard encounters him on the street Leon reveals he fears his own mortality. Thematically he’s another Aryan in need of Christianity’s promise of an eternal afterlife. Notably it is Rachael who – as deus ex machina – appears just in time to kill Leon and save Deckard’s life. She will soon provide Deckard with the meaning and purpose that Leon lacked.


Additional JEM tropes & symbolism

The Triple Goddess in Blade Runner

Rachael, Pris, and Zhora may represent the Triple Goddess, a common motif in the JEM. As a virgin Rachael is the purest and thus most desirable form of the goddess (Selene). Pris would be the middle form (Artemis/Diana) that is on her way to becoming fully Semitized/corrupted – this is indicated in her occupation and costume. Zhora is the oldest and most Semitized, to the point she engages in bestiality with the snake and has a snake tattoo on her face, becoming the corrupted Persephone or Hecate/Trivia.

Water and blood symbolism in Blade Runner

Following Deckard’s violent altercation with Leon, he and Rachael retire to his apartment. Here Deckard sips a drink causing blood to mix with the clear liquid. He then massages his sore gums over the bathroom sink. This is likely JEM water symbolism – where blood mixing with water represents Semitic-Aryan admixture (see footnote 14) – as it immediately precedes Deckard and Rachael’s first lovemaking, and presumably her deflowering.

Deckard’s shirt is red and blue, JEM color symbolism related to racial admixture. When his blood mixes with his drink, and he washes the blood from his mouth, this is likely JEM water symbolism foreshadowing the love scene that follows.

The Evil Eye and the Blinding motif in Blade Runner

The film shows us a close-up of an eye during its introduction. From there we see the Voight-Kampff actively monitoring Leon’s left eye. Many have commented on the unique glow visible in the replicants’ eyes throughout the film. These allude to the eyes as the “windows to the soul,” but may esoterically convey the Evil Eye. In Jewish and Middle Eastern tradition the Evil Eye – whose pupil is typically blue (and thus Aryan) – is warded off or blinded by the Hamsa charm. Consequently the blinding of the Evil Eye becomes a common motif in the JEM.

There may be three examples of the Blinding motif in Blade Runner. The first is a female bartender who wears an eyepatch over her left eye. The connection between alcohol and blinding is suggestive of the intoxicating wine of Bacchus/Dionysus/Christ. The second is when Roy pushes his thumbs into Tyrell’s eyes while crushing his skull, perhaps an echo of Samson’s blinding. As with Roy pushing a nail through his palm, penetrating a man’s eyes carries sexual connotations suggesting a homoerotic decline or degeneration.

The third example occurs when Roy fights Deckard in the finale. In my experience it is typically a character’s left eye that is blinded in the JEM, hence the streak of blood over Roy’s left eye may subtly suggest his blinding in line with the motif. Here the inference is that Roy has been blinded by Christianity’s promise of an eternal afterlife. A related but less common motif is the deafening of opponents in what might be called something like “the Hamentasch motif.” In the climax Roy’s ear is grazed by a bullet, possibly conveying this.

Left to right: A bartender wears an eyepatch over her left eye. Roy gouges Tyrell’s eyes. And blood runs down the left side of Roy’s face, possibly a subtle example of the Blinding motif.

The Biblical flood and the world of Blade Runner

Blade Runner predicts an America hopelessly divided along racial, cultural, and linguistic lines. Thus it promotes the Jewish mantra of “inevitable diversity,”[72] a fairly common demoralization tactic in the JEM. Los Angeles is unrecognizably American, playing on fears of the “Asian Invasion” that was affecting the automobile and electronics markets of the 1970s and ’80s. Indeed Deckard needs a Japanese chef to translate for Gaff, because the latter speaks a new language that is replacing English as the vernacular. However, he doesn’t seem all that interested in escaping to the “off world colony,” which in the film may be a reference to Israel.

Note that Blade Runner‘s third world conditions are the complete opposite of Electric Sheep‘s barren, lonely, and depopulated Earth. This correlates with Brahmin’s concept of the Biblical flood, Bacchus’ Elysium, and Zion as a time and/or place of racial decadence. Again we note that the Oriental dragons appearing alongside Deckard “traditionally symbolize potent and auspicious powers, particularly control over water, rainfall, typhoons, and floods.”[73] Indeed, we recognize the “flood” of diversity as one weapon in the Jewish arsenal.

Related to this, while Mercerism goes unmentioned, we see what appears to be an Orthodox Jew wandering the crowded streets. It seems the filmmakers wanted to comfort Jews in the audience by letting them know that Judaism persists in the world of the film, particularly as something separate from the androids/replicants. As Brahmin elucidates, Jews view themselves as the “abiding stone” that can weather all challenges, including the Biblical flood.[74]

Mercerism has replaced all other religions in the world of the novel, yet we spy an Orthodox Jewish man in the crowded streets of the film as Deckard hunts for Zhora.

The chess match in Blade Runner

Finally we can discuss an important detail invented for the film: The fateful chess match between Sebastian and Tyrell. Roy picks up where the two left off and sacrifices Sebastian’s queen to win the game. This impresses Tyrell such that he grants access to his inner sanctum. Others have pointed out that this may reference a famous match played in 1851 known as “The Immortal Game.” Scott has stated that any connection is “purely coincidental,” yet the reference would fit the film’s themes perfectly.

Here we find the “eternal duel” between Semite and Aryan. Here we find Jesus Christ outwitting and defeating Zeus/Jupiter through an act of self-sacrifice. Here we find Roy surrendering his Aryan queen to achieve a Pyrrhic victory. And the name of the game itself relates to Roy’s quest for more life. Roy, the Christian convert, is the naive rube who doesn’t realize that Jesus is a recycled version of Tammuz, Dionysus, and Adonis. He has been reduced to a pawn in an age-old race war.


Conclusion

Blade Runner‘s story doesn’t appear to be very sophisticated, but it has been layered in such a way that it is easy to get lost in its web of esoteric symbolism. Indeed it has puzzled critics since its debut, though perhaps Brahmin’s framework has finally solved it. It certainly seems the writers were attempting to confuse or out-do Philip K. Dick, whom we understand was a race-conscious parabolist in his own right. Brahmin notes that there was an uptick in the number of racially and/or politically motivated White authors in the wake of the Second World War (e.g., J.R.R. Tolkien, Robert Heinlein, and Frank Herbert), and Dick appears to fall into this category. Sadly he died before the film was finished, which was rather convenient for the filmmakers.

According to Blade Runner‘s IMDB trivia page, Dick approved of what little he saw of the film – primarily the special effects shots of the city – and the script (it’s unclear which version this is referring to). The latter anecdote seems to be contradicted by his refusal to write the novelization of the movie, a contract worth four hundred thousand dollars. Were the filmmakers hoping that an official novelization of Blade Runner would replace Electric Sheep, and thereby snip its anti-Semitic themes in the bud? And there are two other bits of trivia that stand out:

“(At around one hour, twelve minutes) In the Japanese advertisement shown on the side of a blimp, in which a Geisha-like woman is swallowing a pill, the loud speakers play a line from a Japanese Noh play, saying “Iri hi katamuku”, literally “the setting sun sinks down.” According to special photographics effects supervisor David Dryer, the pills being swallowed are birth control pills.”

Thus the advertisement appears to contain an esoteric message that the Aryan sun is setting as its men and women choose not to have children. Of course, the message of the film is that having children is life’s purpose and the only real form of immortality. And then there’s this knee-slapper:

“Ridley Scott has always maintained that this movie is a piece of entertainment, nothing more. In fact, when he met Philip K. Dick during post-production, he specifically told Dick that he was uninterested in ‘making an esoteric film.’

Mr. Scott doth protest too much, methinks.


Notes and citations

[1] Nicholas Wade, “Studies Show Jews’ Genetic Similarity,” New York Times, June 9, 2010.

ii. William Cobbett suggested that due to intermarriage Jews “have all one and the same face, one and the same pair of eyes, and one and the same nose” in the Political Register of December 6, 1817.

[2] Dick may be referencing a statement given by Walter Bruns while imprisoned at the London Cage – a notorious British prison where P.O.W.s were tortured (the torture did not become public knowledge until years after Electric Sheep had been published). Bruns claimed that “at Riga they first slept with (Jewish women) and then shot them to prevent them from talking.” (Hadding Scott, “Talking Frankly about David Irving,” p.11, CODOH).

[3] Given the novel’s animal-related themes, Dick may be specifically criticizing the Jewish practice of kosher slaughter. Alternatively, he may be criticizing Jews for working with the National Socialists and doing their dirty work, particularly in the ghettos and camps. Or, he may be criticizing the torture of German P.O.W.s (of which there were many firsthand accounts by Americans following the war, e.g. Judge Edward Van Roden’s “American Atrocities in Germany,” The Progressive, February 1949, p. 21f).

[4] Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (New York: First Ballantine Books Trade Paperback Edition: 1996), p. 55.

[5] ibid., p.95

[6] ibid., p.150

[7] Seth Rogovoy, “The Secret Jewish History of Blade Runner,” Forward, October 5, 2017

ii. David Desser (1997:114), via A Critical Look at Race and Socio-politics in Two Dystopian Films: Blade Runner (1982) and In Time (2011),” Poison Apple, June 2, 2012

[8] Note that Scott and the screenwriters took an odious ownership of Dick’s work in the years since: Scott is an executive producer on the Amazon adaptation of The Man in the High Castle; Fancher wrote Blade Runner‘s sequel and a pair of shorts; and Peoples wrote Soldier as a “side-quel.” There are several notches on Ridley Scott’s belt that appear to contain JEM. In particular, I would point the reader to Matchstick Men. What could have conceivably attracted him to an otherwise insignificant and mundane character study, other than its JEM? Further commentary is beyond the scope of this essay, but I would encourage anyone studying REM to investigate that book and film for themselves.

[9] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The Parabolist’s and Propagandist’s Quick Reference Guide for Creating A.I.M.

[10]Sephardi leader Yosef: Non-Jews exist to serve Jews,” Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle, October 19, 2010

[11] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Saturn, A form of The Jewish God. Seven, a Reference to Saturn

[12] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The Promethean and Atlatean: terribly abused and misused words

[13] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The Infamy of Crete Part I: the Problem of Being ‘European’

[14] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Baptism and Anointing: Symbols for Copulation and Sexual Interaction

[15] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Names Part II: The Importance of Names in REM, Common names & Exoteric Alibis

[16]Deckard: Baby Name of the Day,” Appellation Mountain, January 14, 2016

[17] Tacitus, Histories 5.4

ii. Note, however, that names meaning “stranger” probably indicate an Aryan cipher in JEM as the Modern Hebrew word, נוֹכרִי, means “alien,” “stranger” but also “gentile.”

[18] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Circumcision, Saturn, Kumarbi, Foreskins & the Human Gelding

[19] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Saturn, A form of The Jewish God. Seven, a Reference to Saturn

[20] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Garden of Eden Part II: The Jewish Serpent & Jewish Tree of Knowledge

[21] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Arthurian Legend as Deleterious Myth

[22] Watch “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” a lecture by Andrew George, or for a shorter version “The Epic of Gilgamesh: Crash Course World Mythology #26

[23] See the Ouroboros tattoo in Annihilaton for another example of its use in JEM.

[24] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The Color Green, Robin Hood & May Day

[25] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “‘Blood Magic’ in Plant Color Symbolism: the Rose, the Holly and the Mistletoe

[26] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The Bride Gathering Cult Part VI: Jewesses as ‘Hated’ ‘Leah’ and Auxiliary Women

[27] See also Rachel Amber, a god-masked Persephone, in Life is Strange.

[28] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The ‘Neg-ing’ Jewish Husband and the Christian Wife

[29] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The Garden of Eden Part I: Adam the Aryan Cuckold

[30] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Captain Marvel Part III: Carol Danver’s love interest, Mar Vell, the Christian Crypto-Jew

[31] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The Racial Identity of Christ’s Parents Part II: The Annunciation Proof

[32] See Brahmin’s take on “owls” in the comments of “Esoteric Apollo: The Crow or Raven, Symbol of Racial Cuckoldry

[33] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Names Part II: The Importance of Names in REM, Common names & Exoteric Alibis

[34] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The Martial and the Apollonian

[35] See “Adam the red,” M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The Garden of Eden Part I: Adam the Aryan Cuckold

[36] Iddin-Dagan A 169-172, The Melammu Project

[37] P. Kyle McCarter, Harvad Theological Review, Volume 66: “The River Order in Israelite Literature” (Charlottesville, VA.: University of Virginia), October 1973

[38] James Hastings, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 12, Suffering – Zwingli (Edinburgh: T&T Clark), p.189

ii. There is some dispute over Dumuzid’s connection to Tammuz. Dumuzid the Fisherman is now believed to be the fourth king of the first Dynasty of Uruk and Gilgamesh’s predecessor.

[39] ibid.

[40] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The Bride Gathering Cult Part II: The Origin of the Semitic Bride Gathering Cult called Judaism

[41] Dumuzid, Wikipedia

[42] Coraciidae, Wikipedia

[43] Dumuzid and Ĝeštin-ana, The ETCSL project, Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford

[44] At one point Roy smashes his head through a wall, breaking checkerboard tiles in the process. Possibly this detail relates to the checkerboard floors seen in Masonic symbolism, suggesting a “mad king” at odds with the secret society. Though which king is being referenced here is beyond me.

[45] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Esoteric Apollo: the totem of Wolf as pseudo-praise

[46] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Nuns, Vestal ‘Virgins’ and Aryan Lioness as ‘Altar-Hearth’

[47]See passage no. 4, The Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi, K. Dickson, Comparative Mythology: Near Eastern, Myths of Inanna 1 (Sumer)

[48] For more on the crucifix as copulation with Venus, see M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The X-Rated Crucifix

[49] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The Micro-aggressing ‘Evil Eye,’ the Hamsa, the ‘mark’ and the third eye

[50] Priscilla, Wikipedia

[51] Aphrodite, Wikipedia

[52] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Etymology, mythography and the ‘Promethean transmission’

[53] Fortuna, Wikipedia

[54] Prisca, Wikipedia

[55] ibid.

[56] Compare with Zoran Lazarević as a reference to the Morning Star in Uncharted 2.

[57] Thomas A. J. McGinn, Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Ancient Rome, Oxford University Press, 1998, p.25.

[58] Staples, Ariadne, From Good Goddess to vestal virgins: sex and category in Roman religion, Routledge, 1998, p. 89.

[59] Compare with Chloe in Life is Strange, Josie Radek in Annihilation, and Chloe in Deep Impact.

[60] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Vulcan as an Important Form of the Lesser God

[61] Saint Sebastian, Wikipedia

[62] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The Apollo Cult

[63] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Saturn, A form of The Jewish God. Seven, a Reference to Saturn

[64]Hephaistos family,” Theoi

[65] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Garden of Eden Part II: The Jewish Serpent & Jewish Tree of Knowledge

[66] Ovid, Metamorphoses 9. 420 ff

[67] Erichthonius, Wikipedia

[68] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Red herrings in Leviticus and Moloch as example of Jewish ‘Projection’

[69] Ptah, Egyptian Gods

[70] J. Keller and Hanns Andersen, The Jew as Criminal (translated by R. Belser), p 13.

[71] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Mercury: The Philosopher, Priest, Prophet, Apostle, Wizard and Deceiver

[72] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The Promotion of ‘Inevitable Diversity’: An Ancient Pattern

[73] Chinese dragon, Wikipedia

[74] An Egyptian television series called “The End” sparked uproar in Israel in May 2020 for depicting a “post-Israel” vision of the future. It just goes to show how sensitive and hypocritical Jews are when it comes to ethnic demoralization when they’re the targets.

No Comments on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? versus Blade Runner as Racial Esoteric Moralization

The TERFs to Dissident Right Pipeline

If you are at all active in right-wing online spaces, you may have taken note of an influx of women into dissident right political circles over the past two or three years.

If you are at all active in right-wing online spaces, you may have taken note of an influx of women into dissident right political circles over the past two or three years. In addition, there has been an increase in conversations surrounding the phenomenon of women within the political left who have rejected some of the more egregious elements of third-wave feminism, often at great personal and social cost. These women, who identify as second-wave or classical feminists, unequivocally reject transgender ideology – they are Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists (TERFs).

“TERFs” emerged as a slur by early 2010, as pushback against trans activism within feminist circles gained more visibility, along with the lesser-used Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminist, or SWERF. With a major overlap, both groups reject the notion that sex is socially constructed and changeable, and both embrace that pornography and sex-positive feminism is a societal sickness and deeply exploitative of women.

These two core positions form the bridge between TERFs and the dissident right, with several other elements contributing to the exodus of women from the feminist framework altogether. TERFs aren’t necessarily “radical” in the sense that they are any more anti-male or passionate about their discourse than third-wave feminists, but for many, their adherence to the traditional feminist academic understanding of sex and gender earns them the label.

A surprising number of women involved in the dissident right admit to coming to their political stance from varying degrees of leftism. Similar to the “Libertarian to Alt-Right Pipeline” ubiquitous in 2016, the pipeline connects two diametrically opposed ideologies and makes converts out of an oppositional party. In order to understand this ideological leap, we have to understand what drives women to accept the core tenants of dissident right belief.

Gender as a Social Construct

Until the proliferation of transgender ideology in recent years, feminist academia understood gender as an entirely social construct distinct from sex, which is the unchangeable, biological basis of women’s oppression. Gender expression as a socially constructed phenomenon, or a product of an individual’s upbringing, is a concept undergoing a shift toward a more nuanced understanding of where and how the intersection of gender and biology occurs. The common dissident right position would be an unwavering view of immutable physical sexual dimorphism, a view shared by radical feminists, taken together with an understanding of gender expression as at least partly based in bio-psychological urges.

Feminists have long strained against the ties joining gender expression and a biological basis for gendered behavior, ardently arguing against the concept of a “woman’s brain” until recent developments in trans ideology have begun to repopularize the surprisingly regressive concept. In the midst of this confusion – a third position emerges. What if gender expression IS largely based on biology, and that’s perfectly alright? Why can’t we celebrate our unique aptitudes? Why can’t we accept what we cannot change, and advocate for women’s interests with this understanding?

Women’s Liberation to Corporate Slavery

The most severe catalysts for any women’s liberation movement are the immediate threats of physical and sexual violence and the lack of ability or opportunity for a woman to support herself or her children if her partner or guardian fails in his responsibilities or if he has passed away. Once these dangers were somewhat mitigated in the West, we see a shift from a genuine women’s liberation movement into the mid-to-late 20th-century Jewish-led feminist theory.

This movement and its development into third-wave intersectional feminism have helped to shape a society where violent pornography is encouraged for consumption and accessible to children, where mass immigration has caused rape epidemics in once comfortable European towns and villages, and women and girls are subject to unthinkable violence as part of a tradeoff for the supposed strengths of a diverse society. With self-identification laws and rabidly anti-woman LGBTQ activism, women have largely lost the right to privacy and the women’s only spaces vital for our safety. The freedom for women to work and support her family in a dire situation became perverted into a massive societal push for women to join the workforce en masse, resulting in what we now understand to be a wage-stagnating doubling of the labor pool and a generation of small children and infants raised in an often apathetic daycare system.

With this comes a new understanding of women’s oppression. We are torn away from our children by the new economic reality, sent into corporate slavery, and prevented from starting families. When the most natural essence of womanhood is discouraged and we are denied the fruition of our most basic biological instincts, we come to understand the current system as one dangerous to the feminine body and spirit, the family structure, and the backbone of western society. From this core realization onward, there are a number of factors that have caused the mass exodus of TERFs from the left into the dissident right.

Rejecting Degeneracy Depletes Social Capital

With countless women realizing that feminism, for all of its pro-women intent, has failed women and allowed these miserable circumstances to come to pass, nothing highlights this disconnect more than the social consequences of rejecting the trans and sex-positive narrative. The TERFs label results in the same personal or professional upheaval as being outed as a white nationalist, and trans activists use the same cowardly tactics as Antifa uses against suspected fascists. Women have lost their jobs, social circles, and families for failing to adhere to third-wave groupthink. They are subject to violent threats from trans activists and “feminist” men alike. These women become social pariahs and have simply already lost the social capital they stand to risk by getting involved in dissident politics.

TERFs Targets

Vancouver Rape Relief has been repeatedly vandalized, including a dead rat nailed to their doorway. The center provides support services to female victims of sexual assault.

Statistics and Race

Male violence is of unique interest when arguing the risks involved in allowing men into spaces where women are vulnerable, and one of the first steps in accepting the reality of male violence is actually viewing the statistics regarding male-on-female violence. Viewing the publicly available data with a critical eye reveals a truth known to anyone on the dissident right. It doesn’t take any thinking woman long to see exactly which men are committing violent crime and the majority of partner violence, and race realism is a natural next step.

Immigration

Another issue that sets most TERFs apart from intersectional feminists is their unflinching rejection of the Islamic encroachment on the West. Mass Islamic immigration is a grave concern to most women who value their safety over the social capital gained from intersectionality. Unregulated immigration from the southern border in the US continues to sacrifice female victims of illegal immigrant sexual violence on the altar of multiculturalism.

Certain sects of honest leftist politics have begun moving away from “woke” liberal discourse and into legitimate class struggle and economic analysis. Many have conceded the disastrous effects of mass immigration and an endless supply of cheap labor on wage stagnation and worker protections, and as these topics become less taboo in leftist dialogue, genuine leftist women feel more confident in questioning the diversity dogma.

Respect for Masculinity

Feminism creates a gender divide that doesn’t speak meaningfully to women who have healthy relationships with men. Anti-male rhetoric is toxically present in radical feminist spaces, and the most vehemently anti-male and anti-masculinity conversation pushes away women who have strong bonds with their fathers, partners, sons, and men in their communities, or even just the woman confident in her attraction to traditional masculinity.

Rethinking Patriarchy

Many women on the dissident right have come to understand patriarchy as a system of paternalistic male leadership, with the expressed goal of protecting women, families, and the larger societal structure. The adversarial understanding of patriarchal societies espoused by both MGTOW and third-wave feminism is both reductive and historically illiterate.

There is no perfect patriarchy to draw from historically, and some reactionary traditionalist movements only seek to replicate an idealized version of gender relations that are more a product of the 1950’s advertisement and marketing industry than a genuine understanding of our history. A pro-family, pro-natalist movement requires some degree of female participation, and reframing the patriarchy paradigm is essential – toward a system where men’s urges and strengths are allowed to flourish and channeled into healthy outlets, and women are protected and respected for their material reality and the gifts our unique biology affords.

No Comments on The TERFs to Dissident Right Pipeline

Imperiality vs. Imperialism

Editors Note:  By Israel Lira, Peruvian Political Theorist. Translated by Zero Schizo. Following Fernando Altuve’s thesis of the historicity of the State in his work “The Kingdoms of Peru”, we…

Editors Note:  By Israel Lira, Peruvian Political Theorist. Translated by Zero Schizo.


Following Fernando Altuve’s thesis of the historicity of the State in his work “The Kingdoms of Peru”, we cannot conceive of the State until the beginning of the Renaissance, and as we know it today, until the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). With this historical event, the bases for the concept of sovereignty was settled and was later used to give strength to another conception, that of the Nation, strictly linked to the State, insofar as this last term will mean the geographic community organized politically. On the other hand, sovereignty, evolved from being concentrated in the King, into founding its being in the popular will. With that being said, we cannot talk about the State before the aforementioned events, so that the proto-State organizations, will only receive the qualification of Political Units, in hope of not falling into an anachronism of categories.

Prior to the concept of State (whether it be in any of its three well-known forms of historical evolution, Absolute –1648– Federal –1776– and National –1789–) there existed Political Units called Empires. The following questions emerge: Is it the same Empire or Idea of Empire (Imperium) that we now call Imperialism? Could we talk about Imperialism in ancient times? We consider that, following Altuve’s thesis, such thing is imprecise and anachronistic, and that what we have in ancient times, as exclusive neologism contextualized and already scoped by us, is what we will call Imperialities, as the expression of the Idea of Empire (Imperium), and that Imperialism is a phenomenon which emerges from the decline of this idea in front of the rise of the State, so then, is a modern phenomenon. Regarding this:

“The loss of Calais in 1554 pointed out the beginning of the sea myriad by the English people, in front of a globalized worldwide space, it seemed obliged to launch itself to the conquest of the seas in the condition of pirates… With this conquest of the sea, with this active search for the taking of markets in contra-position to the taking of lands from the continental superpowers… Saxon Thalassocracy was born in the universal political order” (Febres-Lores, 1996:71-72).

Thalassocracy from the doctrine of the Mare Liberum, different from the territorial vision of the Hispanic Mare Clausum, is inspired by the image of Imperial Rome, of a plurality of peoples and dissimilar territories which conformed to a mosaic sorted by the civilizational role of the City (Febres-Lores, 1996). A vision beyond the Alameda of Hercules, and before the conquest, was also shared by the pre-Hispanic peoples, Aztecs, Mayas and Incas. Just to quote a close example, Quechua or Quechua Simi or Runa Simi is translated as the language of men and which fulfilled a civilizational mission in front of all of the other Andean peoples, product of the Tawantinsuyu* Expansion. Meaning, the Idea of Empire (Imperium) in general terms and as transversal historical category to different peoples, always brought with itself a main ideal of expansion of culture and civilization, while the commercial aspect was a mere factor, an accessory to the main one.

In consequence, the difference between Imperialism and Imperiality would be of teleological character. While Imperialism is a manifestation of thalassocracies or marine powers, the Idea of Empire or Imperiality is energized mainly by a universalist myth. In the same way, while Imperialism is a modern category of strict culture-dissolving economic domination, Imperiality is a category of ancient times of integrating cultural domination. Our ancestral peoples had it pretty clear in their civilizational vision, and were not estranged from the phenomenon of Imperiality.


Translator’s Note:

* Tawantinsuyu, also known as the Inca Empire in its original language (Quechua).


References

FEBRES-LORES, Fernan. (1996). «Los Reinos del Perú: apuntes sobre la monarquía peruana». Dupla Editores.


Bibliography

OSZLAK, Oscar. (1982). «Reflexiones sobre la formación del Estado y la construcción de la Sociedad Argentina». In: Desarrollo Económico, Revista de Ciencia Sociales, Vol. XXI, Enero-Marzo: Buenos Aires.

BANDEIRI, Luis María. (2007). «Patria, nación, estado «et de quibusdam aliis», In: Revista Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Políticas Vol. 37, No. 106, Medellín – Colombia, Enero-Junio.

MORTON H, Fried. (1967). «The evolution of political society an essay in political anthropology». Random House studies in anthropology, AS. 7. New York: Random House.

SERVICE R, Elman. (1984). «Los orígenes del Estado y de la civilización. El proceso de evolución cultural». Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

No Comments on Imperiality vs. Imperialism

Authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism

Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from the author’s forthcoming book “American Extremist: The Psychology of Political Extremism”. Central to both the modern American identity, to the problems the United States…

Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from the author’s forthcoming book “American Extremist: The Psychology of Political Extremism”.


Central to both the modern American identity, to the problems the United States faces, and highly relevant to our previous discussion of false collective fictions (https://radixjournal.com/2020/05/myth-mental-illness-and-political-extremism/), is the notion of democracy.  Democracy, which in practice operates a whole lot less like a mechanism for political efficiency and a lot more like a blunt object to be wielded against ones foes, is to a degree, predicated on stymieing the execution of political will by a central authority.  Deeper than a mere political problem, the philosophy of democratization in all spheres continues to challenge Americans on a psychological level.  This rejection of authority can be found at every level of contemporary American life to such a degree, that one wonders whether anti-authoritarianism is itself a key psychological feature of the American population.  I probably would not have given this idea very much consideration were it not for a broadcast on the NPI/RADIX YouTube channel that aired on April 8th of 2020.  In that conversation, Richard Spencer discussed the cynical (if not outright hysterical) response of many Americans toward the federal government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.  Forced business closures and a federally imposed lockdown drew considerable outrage, as many Americans looked upon Trump’s response as a massive abuse of government power.  While I was not unfamiliar with anti-authoritarianism conceptually, upon looking into the literature available on the matter, I was quite surprised at the volume of writings on the subject.  Further investigation drove me to pursue this line of questioning even deeper.  While his insight did give me pause, I believe I have arrived at a different conclusion than the one proposed on his program, as it seems evident to me that reducing the psychology of the governed to either simple authoritarianism (as was done by researchers such as Theodor Adorno in the mid-twentieth century) or simple anti-authoritarianism betrays the fact that Americans struggle to find an actionable equilibrium between the two positions.

Before we analyze the psychological divide between authoritarian and anti-authoritarianism in American consciousness, it would be prudent to consult the expert opinion on the matter.  Noted authors on the subject of anti-authoritarianism including Bruce Levine, Noam Chomsky, and William Kreml, generally agree on a definition of anti-authoritarianism which rejects both anarchic anti-authoritarianism as well as the kind of authoritarian submissiveness described by the likes of Theodore Adorno, Robert Altemeyer, and Erich Fromm.  In the view of the latter (and those who accept their hypothesis), authoritarianism – meaning, the individual who is prone to fascistic sentiment, and thus will submit to authority – is defined by characteristics such as:

  1. Submission to legitimate authority, 
  2. Aggression toward minority groups, 
  3. Adherence to cultural values endorsed by authorities, 
  4. Blind allegiance to convention,
  5. A tendency toward misanthropy, 
  6. A preoccupation with violence and sex, 
  7. Feelings of inferiority,
  8. Hostility toward creativity and artistic innovation.

While the psychological measurements devised to produce such findings (in particular the F-scale and the RWA scale) have been subject to much scrutiny, the conclusions drawn from these investigations have reached a degree of cultural saturation that no longer relies on the support of the academic community.  Contempt for politically authoritarian sentiment is now commonplace – not only among those well-situated members of the American economy, but all the way down the socioeconomic ladder as well.  To Richard’s point, it would seem the battle against authoritarianism has been won.  In the intervening decades, having exhausted opportunities for experimentally measuring right-wing authoritarianism (and still reluctant to examine left-wing authoritarianism) many researchers pivoted from understanding the psychology of the authoritarian to arriving at an accurate conceptual (and ethical) model of anti-authoritarianism.

For Levine and Chomsky in particular, anti-authoritarianism is not about a predisposition against authority, but rather, an antagonism toward illegitimate authority.  To this point, I will quote both.  Chomsky has said that, 

“When you stop your five-year-old kid from trying to cross the street, that’s an authoritarian situation: it’s got to be justified. Well, in that case, I think you can give a justification.”

Levine echoes this sentiment, 

“Anti-authoritarians question whether an authority is a legitimate one before taking that authority seriously. Evaluating the legitimacy of authorities includes assessing whether or not authorities actually know what they are talking about, are honest, and care about those people who are respecting their authority. And when anti-authoritarians assess an authority to be illegitimate, they challenge and resist that authority—sometimes aggressively and sometimes passive-aggressively, sometimes wisely and sometimes not.”

Levine and Chomsky both make rational arguments in support of a high-functioning and psychologically adaptive anti-authoritarianism.  Of importance is the fact that their stance directly opposes the chaotic anarchism which rejects all top-down and hierarchically organized models of authority (a position more commonly taken by communists, anti-fascists, and the anti-colonialism movement more broadly).

Less directly related (though perhaps still worth noting), are the findings of Cantoni, Yang, Yuchtman, and Zhang, who in a 2016 study set out to define the characteristics of the anti-authoritarian.  In a survey of over 1,500 university students in Hong Kong, the team found that anti-authoritarians are

“More risk-seeking, more altruistic, more reciprocal, and have a stronger preference for redistribution in a series of real-stakes dictator games.”

Furthermore, when examining the personality traits through an application of the five factor model, their investigation revealed that anti-authoritarians score higher on trait openness but lower on trait conscientiousness.  The same group scored higher on the Cognitive Reflection Test (based on the work of Shane Frederick and Daniel Kahneman, the CRT is a measurement of one’s ability to access “system 2” cognition), but also reported lower average GPA’s.  This was attributed to a pre-occupation with political movements engaged in anti-authoritarian action.  Cantoni et al also noted that,

Consistent with traditional, class-based models (e.g., Acemoglu and Robinson, 2006), students from poorer households and with lower anticipated future earnings are significantly more likely to be anti-authoritarian. Examining the demographic characteristics of students, one sees that older students are somewhat more anti-authoritarian than younger students, and that men are more anti-authoritarian than women. Interestingly, having a longer family history in Hong Kong is not strongly associated with anti-authoritarianism.”

It goes without saying that the historical, political, and biological differences that distinguish the United States from Hong Kong make any direction comparison or correlation in anti-authoritarian characteristics difficult, if not impossible, to do.  Nonetheless, it would behoove us to consider how these observations might lead to some insight as we continue our analysis in this work.  The common understanding of authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism tends to place the former in the category of the political right, while the latter is typically conceived of as a left-wing phenomenon.  In the American context, this may seem at least partly accurate, as psychometric testing has indicated that openness to experience predicts left-wing attitudes while conscientiousness predicts right-wing attitudes (Webster, 2018).  These findings have been corroborated in Europe as well, in particular Spain, Greece, Poland, Italy, and Germany (Vecchione, Schoen, Castro, Cieciuch, Pavlopolous, & Caprara, 2011).  Economically favorable attitudes toward reciprocity and redistribution have long been features of American left-wing politics, and so perhaps the findings of Cantoni et al do provide us with some corroborative evidence to confirm certain widely accepted notions of authoritarian (rightist) and anti-authoritarian (leftist) attitudes.  

Having presented these arguments, I feel it necessary to let the air out of the theoretical balloon I have just provided.  If we take the arguments I laid out in the preceding section as true (that the left-right divide is an inaccurate and misleading political construct), then perhaps the authoritarian-antiauthoritarian divide, too, is fallacious and harmful to our understanding of contemporary politics.  For example: Under Obama, the American Right decried him as an authoritarian fascist (among other things, e.g., crypto-Islamist, Communist, et cetera).  As we have seen throughout the Trump administration, the American Left has levied similar condemnations.  What does this tell us?  Are Americans hopelessly confused?  Is every political actor a fascist or a fascist-in-democratic clothing?  I believe that we can confidently say ‘Yes’ to the former, but ‘no’ to the latter.

What we have is the reality of democracy in action – one side of the political machine running roughshod over the other, at least until the temporarily dispossessed one gets their turn to abuse the governed.  More significantly, the democratic process obscures the true nature of authority, facilitating the interminable confusion in the minds of Americans as to what constitutes authority, and when precisely (if ever) it becomes ‘fascistic’.  Auctoriphobia, or the fear of authority, clearly emerges out of this confusion.  Not only does it emerge out of this confusion, but it also emerges as a result of the tragic and violent history of the preceding century; wars that claimed the lives of tens of millions, technological developments that stoked fears of ecological collapse, and the erosion of national infrastructure, to offer a view examples, have provided sufficient justification for anti-authoritarian sentiment.  We are now confronted with two important questions as relates to authoritarian and anti-authoritarian positions: What constitutes legitimate authority? (a question of perception), and how ought one conduct themselves in relation to authority? (a question of agency and ethics).  To orient ourselves in a healthful and psychologically adaptive way – that is to say, with clear-headedness and a maximum of free will – we must be able to understand this problem in a new way.

As I stated at the outset, the fundamental tension in the American political mind is of that between the authoritarian impulse and the anti-authoritarian impulse.  So should it be, as the question of authority is the most important question in virtually any human endeavor.  Authority, which for all intent and purpose might as well be another way of saying agency, is a matter of ‘right’ thought and ‘right’ action implemented in the ‘right’ circumstance.  It stands to reason, then, that authority is often about having the ‘right’ person in charge.  Without oversimplifying this problem inappropriately, we might say that he who possesses the will to act makes himself the authority.  Of course, authority can be secured through other means; hereditarily, meritocratically, anti-socially, to name a few.  Already, we begin to see the perceptual problem of authority, as not all people view each method as a legitimate path to the throne.  And even when a political actor rises to a position of authority through a conventional and generally accepted means, subjective perception may still deign to invalidate him.

In the home, in the classroom, at the market, and at the ballot box, Americans have proven to struggle mightily with the question of authority.  Parents fail to exercise their rightful authority over their children; teachers do not discipline their students; hedge fund managers, investment firms, and executive boards routinely engage in unethical and illegal conduct but frequently go unpunished (often, in fact, they are rewarded); and to the degree that Americans engage in the political process (which is far less than they ‘ought’ to), we find that they support the same policies and the same actors time and time again.  This is not to put the blame squarely on individual shoulders, as in each instance we find top-down initiatives which undermine the responsible demonstration of power.  Nonetheless, the point remains.  We can therefore say, and with a great deal of recent historical proof attesting to this fact, that Americans are deep in the throes of a crisis of legitimacy.  With neither the information necessary to make a proper evaluation of authority, nor even the capacity to adjudicate existent (or potential) information, we have been cast adrift in a sea of hopelessness and despair.  What we do have, however, is fear, anxiety, and resentment – and lots of it.  Supposedly unified by our shared American values, our freedoms, and our love of democracy (though not in actuality), the line between friend and enemy grows murkier with each passing year.  Though it should be said, there are things which unite us, just not in any productive or eusocial way.  We are united by the increased feeling of unease and uncertainty we experience; not just toward our present sociopolitical circumstance, but toward our very lives.  Here we see the problem of relation to authority, as our seemingly foundational antagonism toward the will to act renders us impotent in virtually every arena of American society.  Everywhere Americans look, they see failures of authority (often enabled by the very same authorities), thus producing a conceptual collapse whereby failures of authority anywhere become failures of authority everywhere. 

It has been said of scientific experimentation, though I know not by who, that “Everyone is a conservative in the area they are most knowledgeable.”  This was meant to express the deep hesitation specialists in a given field of study have toward making grand extrapolations.  Their expansive knowledge affords that rare gift of foresight; one can only stretch a set of data so far before it reaches its natural limit.  Co-opting this statement and applying it to the realm of the political, I would add the following “…and an authoritarian in the area they are the least knowledgeable and most fearful.”  Take the issue of gun control, for example.  Well-practiced and disciplined acolytes of the pistol or the rifle generally seek to retain control of their ability to act on this privilege and to preserve the culture of liberty around firearms, while those with less experience often seek swift and decisive action to limit it.  It follows that ambiguity and uncertainty may be the centrally driving forces behind the desire for authoritarianism.  But authoritarianism is not simply an expression of powerlessness or fearfulness; it is a recognition of the need for a central force which can act judiciously, particularly (though not exclusively) in those circumstances where there is insufficient information, and thus requires cool and measured action.  Perhaps we could say that the ambiguities (which inevitably crop up around important social issues like barnacles on the side of an ocean tanker) demand a capable authority, one who will not engage in endless and doubt-filled discussion, thus problematizing necessary action and prolonging suffering.  The correct attitude towards authority is one that recognizes it as both an inevitable and necessary feature of social organization.  Authority and authoritarianism are too often used as synonyms for oppression and violence, and are therefore used to indicate the badness of a person, party, or ideology.  Rarely do we think of it as the solution to our problems.  Once more, we suffer a problem of perception.  

Let us think a little bit more about this dichotomy between conservatism and authoritarianism.  Conservatism to a great degree is an instinct toward retention, often an impotent and stationary impulse, and as Freud noted in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, possibly even an instinct toward self-annihilation, or a reaching back to a state of non-existence.  Certainly its inability to confront the problems of change and expansion indicate a death of one kind or another (something that modern conservatives are increasingly aware of).  Authoritarianism thus is progressive; it is a willful and vital stance which seeks assertion, dominance, security – yes – but more importantly a securing of desire, of some thing, be it an object or a goal.  It is not merely a means for securing one’s own welfare or the welfare of the group, rather authority is the psychosocial means by which we may express our will.  The juxtaposition of these two instincts (1) the instinct to conserve, or preserve in stasis and (2) the instinct to progress and secure desire remain a psychological and political problem that has not yet found resolution within the American mind.  Necessarily this tension produces cognitive dissonance whereby the pursuit of something as novel as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is met with an equal force of “No, not too much of any of these, please.”  A society such as ours, built on ideas like breaking from tradition, limitless expansion, and geographic conquest is itself an expression of the paradox of authority and non-authority.  Even a cursory reading of the disagreements between America’s neophyte aristocratic order reveals this fact.  A commonly understood insight of psychology is that the stand-off between two opposing impulses creates a mental fissure by which action is rendered impossible and will is denied.  Such is the circumstance with which we are presently confronted.


For now, let’s turn away from the abstract and look at the problem of anti-authoritarianism and how it is expressed differently by our two subjects, the conservative and the progressive.  A fundamental and mutual misunderstanding made by conservative and republican types as well as progressive and democrat type (who both draw their historical and philosophical worldviews from the same liberal foundation) is that – from both perspectives – the other appears as a totalitarian despot, who, being unreasonable, dishonest, and stupid, seeks the domination and eradication of the other.  Both fail to recognize, particularly as their anxieties are intensified by interested parties in the politico-media complex, that they are both the sons of the same father.  Both see undue privileges bestowed upon the other, and each seeing themselves as solely and uniquely suffering the oppressive tyranny of their oedipal persecution.  It is a sibling rivalry par excellence. 

The conservative liberal is the yin to the progressive liberal yang, not being fundamentally distinct from one another in any meaningful sense, merely separated at birth.  For the progressive, the exercise of authority (for example, in the classroom or in the bedroom), stifles and necessarily suspends the realization of identity and the pursuit of happiness.  And for the conservative, an interventionist authority (perhaps at the gun show or in the marketplace), suspends autonomy, and self-reliance, themselves necessary for the pursuit of happiness.  Both seek permissiveness in those areas where their identities find realization and their values find expression.  Government, or the father, is never seen as a wise king, instead, he is always and forever the mad tyrant.  Where the conservative and the progressive lock hands, however, is in the righteous use of authority against external opponents – the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians.  Authority expressed within the domestic boundaries is an insufferable oppression, but when directed outwardly, it is felt as a gleeful nigh-orgasmic expression of a will to life.  “Yes he may be a tyrant, but he’s our tyrant.”

Building on the ideas set forth earlier in this chapter with regard to the mythic formation of the mind, the conservative has a peculiar antagonism toward authoritarianism predicated on his own mythologized self-concept.  The conservative, ever the rugged individualist, is therefore fiercely opposed to collectivism.  Being that the conservative is fundamentally liberal in his self-concept and his relation to the world, authoritarianism represents the final result of collectivism, to which he as a liberal is fundamentally opposed.  His opposition is rooted in the fear of self-destruction, of becoming absorbed into the horde, the mass, if collectivist authoritarianism were to emerge.  The right-liberal (or conservative), who most clearly has inherited the frontier myth of the American man, is unwilling to sublimate his internal drives to an order which would threaten his petty frontier psychology.  ‘Petty frontier psychology’ in this case would be understood as having the meaning of a smaller, more individualist and self-serving ambition.  Originally, the frontier was a place of limitless expansion – a physical terrain fraught with uncertainty and great danger.  It was a real place where the true test of man’s conquering spirit could be found.  But that place no longer exists.  Still, the myth lives on.  The ideology of the conservative frontiersman, not cleanly extinguished, has been abstracted from the physical terrain and transposed into the space of concepts and intangibilities (the free market, the stock trade, et cetera).  The market is the new conservative frontier where much can be gained and much can be lost, but at a comparatively less costly expense.  No longer will the conservative lose his wife, his children, or even his own life, but rather he may lose his accumulated wealth and – should the danger prove sufficiently great – other material (his home, private property) and social (status, respectability, prestige) goods.  Though the right-liberal may tell us that collectivism and authoritarianism are morally wrong not because of an a priori philosophical justification, if we scratch the surface we find that the true cause may be found in the threat posed to his tenuous self-concept and his grandiose social ambition.  And, of course, because we cannot truly assume that the American Girondin is in fact a monolith who may be reduced to a singular motivation, we may assume other factors exist which could explain his anti-authoritarianism.  Perhaps, he shares the historical anxieties associated with authoritarianism which are more clearly typified by his Jacobin brother (as we shall see in the following paragraph).  

The progressive on the other hand – sensitive primarily to concerns regarding social welfare and guided by his self-imposed moral responsibility to those with fewer protections – regards authoritarianism as a danger for its supposed historical implications (persecution and genocide).  Authoritarianism being something that only an evil person participates in, the progressive looks to history and sees those great villains, Italy and Germany specifically, as proof of this belief.  For the progressive, authoritarianism is not a true ideology or political system, but rather a collective hysteria predicated on the irrational scapegoating of a benevolent minority.  His moral axiom (protect the little guy) thus indicates to him that authoritarianism is wrong because it is rooted in the unjust persecution of endangered minorities.  In the case of Germany, those minorities were homosexuals, gypsies, Jews, the mentally and physically infirm, while in modern America, what constitutes an endangered minority is far more expansive (women, Muslims, immigrants, Blacks, Hispanics,  et cetera).  The historical factors at play (and the veracity of said historical claims) are of little consequence, what matters, is that someone is being persecuted.  By the progressives own logic, for centralization to occur and a politic of authoritarianism to settle in, there must be a scapegoated minority, and they must be extinguished for the good of the collective.  Authoritarianism is the means by which the mad tyrant, empowered by his brainwashed thralls, exercises his deranged will.  

So while the conservative fears erasure of the self, the progressive fears erasure of the other, who owing to his otherness is ontologically ‘first’ or ‘higher’. We might observe this in a Christian way, that because the last shall be first, the authoritarian must always be denied.  The relation to the other is interesting as it clearly differs in conception between the conservative and the progressive.  A number of studies conducted in the last twenty years attests to this difference.  In 2008, Oxley et al observed differences in threat sensitivity, noting that,

In a group of 46 adult participants with strong political beliefs, individuals with measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism, and gun control, whereas individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism, and the Iraq War.”

It should be noted that the researchers did not label the collected policy positions as Conservative or Liberal due to their relatively limited testing of political ideology (for example, they did not assess for positions on economic issues).  Sinn and Hayes (2016) compared Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory against the Evolutionary-Coalitional Theory and found that the “individualizing” (harm and fairness) moral foundation of liberals was better understood as a “universalizing motive” that consisted of a “broader set of moral commitments” and a “broader sociality than ethnocentrism”, while the “binding” (authority, respect, purity) moral foundation of conservatives was better characterized as an “authoritarian motive” typified by threat-sensitivity and outgroup antagonism.  Inbar et al (2011) found a positive relationship between disgust sensitivity and political conservatism, which held when controlling for demographic variables as well as the “Big Five” personality traits.  And finally, in 2017, Mendez reviewed personality, evolutionary and genetic, cognitive, neuroimaging, and neurological studies, arriving at the conclusion that

“Evidence [exists] for a normal right-sided “conservative-complex” involving structures sensitive to negativity bias, threat, disgust, and avoidance.”

To the best of my understanding (and there exists a not-so-inconsequential amount of literature to the contrary), the conservative has a stronger sense of self-preservation, aversion to contamination by pathogen, and is therefore more troubled by issues potentially caused by the ‘other’ (such as immigration, diversity and inclusivity mandates, marriage equality, et cetera).  Therefore, ontologically speaking, the ‘other’ is second because the conservative must be first.  With full view of both conservative and progressive lines of reasoning, we arrive at a differing-yet-convergent psychological justification for anti-authoritarian sentiment.  

But is it true that Americans are genuine anti-authoritarians?  We must understand that the most important aspect of this entire phenomenon is how a liberal worldview requires compartmentalization and rationalization among its adherents; full-blown, decadent and permissive 21st century liberalism doesn’t ask the individual to sublimate himself, much less repress any aspect of himself.  All ideas are given equal weight, all values are sanctioned, all actions are laudable, all pursuits are capable of commoditization, and all modes of being are good.  Of course these cannot all be true simultaneously, nor can such a worldview be sustained indefinitely.  And thus, compartmentalization and rationalization become necessary as the limits of the natural world collide with liberal ideology.  The sociopolitical realities of war, sex, race, religion, family, history, morality, class, and their intermediated negotiations increasingly puncture the thin veil of liberal thought, especially as America – for all its technological and material splendor – diminishes in global significance.  Without the prestige and comfortable living standard afforded as a result of being the uncontested leader of the free world, the house of cards noticeably begins to lose its stability.  As these tensions emerge, neurotic and obviously contradictory justifications fill the gaps like cheap glue.  

In truth, the ‘authoritarian’ is the shadow in the soul of the American liberal (conservative and progressive, alike).  And while it may be the force that performs acts of evil, this does not preclude either type from identifying with or enacting residual or latent authoritarianism when a situation of sufficient self-servingness emerges.  As has been pointed out earlier, there are times when life demands acts of authoritative will from us.  It is an unavoidable result of living as material beings that must suffer, and toil, and strive in this world.  The solution to this severing of the conscious from the unconscious finds itself in the execution of some ego defense which resolves the dilemma.  Whether it be through denial, compartmentalization, rationalization – some technique will be applied which will soothe the pain of self-betrayal.  

There is also, of course, the fact that political and philosophical identities are no different from the mask worn by attendees of a masquerade; they are a form of role play which facilitates the navigation of social realities.  So in those circumstances where we are not talking about the true believers who have a deep psychological need to explain their inconsistencies to themselves, we see that in both the conservative and progressive type a kind of childishness – the childishness of one who has been caught in a lie or some other impropriety who, upon being discovered, merely declares “You got me!” and laughs at the silliness of having been taken seriously in the first place.  Not everyone treats the idea as an object of the real, far from it, they are regarded by many (if not, most) as a fanciful and irreverent device which is more a problem of life than a means through which will and action can find their realization.  This psychological fact complicates the ideals of democracy and egalitarianism, and in fact, fatally undermines the liberal worldview.  Taking this into account we can characterize psychological and political liberalism itself as a Kleinian phantasy, a device of the mind through which the individual can interact with the world, but always at a distance, and always with the aid of a litany of ego defenses.  

And so, once more I ask, is the average American anti-authoritarian?  The answer is that every man serves a master, even if that master resides within his own mind.  It is on irrational grounds that we choose our authorities, no matter how coherent or logical the contrivances we make may be.  America’s ongoing crisis of legitimacy has perhaps created a fair-weather anti-authoritarian sentiment, but it is with the wind to be certain.  Different American institutions have burned all their credibility in the minds of different sects of America; those institutions that manage to retain their credibility only do so, again, in compartmentalized ways.  Left-liberals revere the institution of science, but not in its entirety.  Particularly for more extreme liberals and progressives, whole disciplines (e.g., behavioral genetics) are written off entirely.  Right-liberals revere the institution of the church, but not in its entirety.  The Christ that exists in the minds of many Christians today could not be any farther from the man found in the New Testament.  There is nothing Christian about the prosperity doctrine, and yet, many right-liberals conveniently reject the anti-materialism of Christianity in favor of the abundance afforded by capitalism.  When Obama was in office, many right-liberals suddenly became cynical, data-crunching statisticians who took the government’s reports on unemployment and job growth with the tiniest grains of salt.  This was not so when Trump took office.  Many left-liberals were riotous zealots in their opposition to George W. Bush’s warmongering.  Not so, when Obama took office.  Even NPR in 2011 and The Washington Post in 2013 took notice of this fact, asking “Where did the anti-war Left go?”  Americans are not anti-authoritarian, they merely want their authorities.  Only now the country is too big, too bloated, and too divided to provide a universally legitimate authority figure.  As we have seen with the recent coronavirus pandemic, Americans may not be as comfortable with authoritarianism as say, China is, but it would be a far cry to argue that a true anti-authoritarian sentiment rests deep inside the American soul.

2 Comments on Authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism

The Mythoid of the Neutrality of Science

Editors Note:  By Israel Lira, Peruvian Political Theorist. Translated by Zero Schizo. In order to have myth, what is needed is that the culture in which it appears would be…

Editors Note:  By Israel Lira, Peruvian Political Theorist. Translated by Zero Schizo.


In order to have myth, what is needed is that the culture in which it appears would be a mythological one. This culture supposes a complex group of mythical categories, among them those of time, space and causality. Mythoid lacks the transcendental character of myth, it isn’t, above all, overlapped with the totality of the culture in which it works. It is, in certain sense, isolated and could even oppose essential aspects of a given culture, but possess the fundamental characters of myth. (Miro Quesada Cantuarias, 1986:84-86). As exposed, myth, understood as a fact or event which does not have empirical correlate, is differentiated from mythoid, by the socio-cultural framework in which it is produced, by which in contemporaneity we would talk more of the generation of mythoids than myths, given that our current culture is found inside of a logocratic (reason) framework eminently and not a mythocratic one.

Following the aforementioned, one of the mythoids of our contemporaneity is configured in the belief in the fact that science enjoys of an absolute neutrality in which scientific research (creation of explicative theories) and technological application (execution of theories already given to concrete cases) are not just one. Disconnected, but instead they are at the same time, estranged from external powers which could exert influence in them.

This mythoid has a clear origin in Popperian vision inside of the philosophy of science, in which precisely the separation between scientific research and technological application is made. For Popper (1970), scientific research has, as such, an intrinsic value which is guided by determined norms of methodological character that could have a moral content, insofar as the objective of the investigation is the discovery, and thus the results of such research also have that inherent value, but are neutral regarding the moral. That one could make good or bad use from the results of a scientific research a-posteriori is an entirely different thing. So, the scientist has two obligations, to follow the moral requirements of the very same scientific praxis (the scientist as scientist), and to limit himself to foresee the possible uses of his results and denounce its bad praxis (the scientist as citizen).

This Popperian approach, which is the traditional one, opposes the historic-sociological approach of epistemologists like Bernal (1939) and Richta (1971), where it is remarked that by the nature of the scientific research, the scientist –in effect– has a double responsibility, to follow the norms of the scientific method, but above all to involve himself in an active way in the changing of society in order for science to fulfill its role of serving mankind, insofar as one is conscious that scientific knowledge could be used both in order to liberate and in order oppress mankind. These are symptomatic facts which are derived from the lacking of the very same social system to which science serves. Meaning, scientific research and technological application are not separated concepts, but instead they keep an intrinsic relationship.

This last point is reaffirmed by the fact that in the praxis of scientific research, the search for some theories or others and the choice between them is not an entirely free enterprise, remembering Quintanilla (1978), regulated exclusively by the canons of objectivity and in service of truth, as the unmistakable reality is that the scientist is a wage worker whose priorities of research are given as such to an order of priority which is established by particular interests which are the ones who direct, what things can be researched and what things are left relegated, “to the extent, for example, that research devoted to a determined topic are financed and not others, etc” (1978:54). As was exposed, “it is clear that we must renounce the comfortable consolation or illusion that science, in itself, has guaranteed autonomy and value despite the wrong applications that would be made of it circumstantially or despite its historical insertion in an unjust society” (1978:56).


References

MIRO QUESADA CANTUARIAS, Francisco. (1986). «Ciencia y técnica [en América Latina]: ideas o mitoides», in: Leopoldo Zea (Ed.), América Latina en sus ideas. Mexico: UNESCO/Siglo XXI; pp. 72-94.

POPPER, K.R. (1970). «The Moral Responsibility of the Scientist» in P. Weingarther and G. Zecha (eds.), Inducfton. Physis and Ethics. Dordrecht, p. 22-326.

BERNAL, J.D. (1939). «The Social Function of Science». London.

RICHTA, R. (1971). «La civilización en la encrucijada». Madrid.

QUINTANILLA A. Miguel. (1978). «El Mito de la Neutralidad de la Ciencia: la responsabilidad del científico y del técnico». EL BASILISCO, Revista de Materialismo Filosófico. En: http://fgbueno.es/bas/pdf/bas10105.pdf

 

No Comments on The Mythoid of the Neutrality of Science

The Next Great Awakening

With the rise of the BLM movement, we are not just witnessing protests and riots but the birth of an old/new religion. Summary The Black Lives Matter protests are best…

With the rise of the BLM movement, we are not just witnessing protests and riots but the birth of an old/new religion.


Summary

The Black Lives Matter protests are best understood as a religious revival, emerging from the United States but global in scale. This new religion is “Multiculturalism” and based on institutions and ideals outside traditional churches; however, its structure and sacraments strikingly resemble those of Christianity. It could even be considered a kind of heresy.

Religious revivals take place in the wake of wars and disasters, periods of elevated stress and widespread angst. They are spearheaded by and attractive to people who are relatively high in neurotic traits such as anxiety. Their disturbed mental states are, temporarily, alleviated by the religious experiences that take place through these revivals—with religion, more generally, being an adaptation that allows us to cope with an unpredictable and traumatic world.

Leftists and atheists, of course, proudly reject traditional religion and sexual morality, and we should appreciate the irony of a “religious revival” capturing their hearts and minds. However, as a group, leftists and atheists are high in mental instability—especially those who are young and female—and thus they are highly susceptible to the religious experience, if not religion as it has been historically understood.

Following the Industrial Revolution and the exploitation of fossil fuels, the world became immensely wealthier, healthier, and more comfortable, and the harsh Darwinian selection pressures that characterized previous ages subsided. One of the most impactful consequences of this is the dramatic decrease in childhood mortality. Thus, millions of people with high levels of mutations, who would not have survived childhood in previous times, walk among us in the postmodern age. These “spiteful mutants” have managed to bring about the collapse of traditional religion—which is associated with mental and physical health and evolutionary success. They have spread Multiculturalism as a religion in its place. The result is a Multiculturalist revival, where 70 years ago there would have been a Christian one.


Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You, you may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you will join us
And the world will be as one
—“Imagine,” John Lennon


Interesting Times

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement swept through the Western World beginning in May 2020 after the accidental death of African-American criminal George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer. The initial result was widespread riots and looting by African-Americans in Minneapolis, followed by similar scenes in other places. But this quickly morphed into an ideological movement—under the already extant slogan “Black Lives Matter”1—in which a kind of anarchy swept through American cities, encouraged by Social Justice Warriors2 and, to a large extent, the leftist media and political establishment. A kind of hysteria appeared to take hold among White Americans, including politicians and even police officers.

Flagrantly breaking the “lock down,” which had been in action for two months due to the Covid-19 pandemic, Whites gathered in the streets and knelt in the name of George Floyd. Many police officers publicly engaged in this deferential behavior, often holding out their open hands to signify their willingness to make themselves defenseless. White Americans were filmed not just kneeling before Blacks but symbolically washing their feet.3 The riots were stated, by the media, to be “largely peaceful” even as buildings were aflame behind them or as White news reporters were physically attacked by rampaging mobs. There were calls to abolish the police and even for complete anarchy, under the slogan “No Justice, No Peace.”

The hysteria quickly spread to other Western countries. There were Black riots— assisted by White SJWs—on the streets of central London. White news reporters were attacked live on air. British police, in front of the gates of Downing Street, knelt before Black protestors rather than arrest them for breaking the lockdown and for rioting, as English Law demanded. Companies began to signal their support for “Black Lives Matter,” with those who were slow to do so being criticized as “racist” because, according to one slogan, “Silence is Violence.” In a BLM protest in Helsinki, the overwhelmingly White and female “protestors” didn’t merely kneel but lay prostrate on the ground in order to signal total submission and deference. Young females posted videos of themselves online renouncing their Whiteness, showing their “solidarity” with BLM. In one extreme case, a woman smeared herself in excrement as a sign of abasement.

Then came the attacks on statues and other public monuments. A statue of Winston Churchill in central London was graffitied with the word “Racist.” Britain’s Cenotaph war memorial was desecrated, and a young Black woman attempted to burn the Union Jack that hung from it. The statue of an 18th-century philanthropist and slave trader, which had stood in Bristol since 1895, was dragged down by a mob and thrown in the dock. Other statues that “offended” the sensitivities of the mob were preemptively removed, likely never to be re-erected, to prevent their destruction, including one of Belgium’s King Leopold, which stood in Brussels.

The streaming service HBO Max removed the American civil war epic Gone With The Wind (1939)—a film preserved by the Library of Congress as “culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant”4—after its romanticization of the South and depiction of African slaves was deemed unwatchable in the current climate. The chairman of Warner Media called the ban a “no brainer,” a curious choice of words.5 The BBC even removed from its streaming sites relatively recent comedies, made by liberal comedians only a decade ago, such as the light-hearted “Little Britain,” because “times have changed.”6


A New Religion

This wasn’t just mob rule and anarchy. On display was a religious intensity. And people were sucked into it. If the mob declared that you were not a “true believer,” you could lose your job, or perhaps even be subject to a police investigation. So, as more people exhibited their adherence to the Cult of George Floyd, an arms-race developed to indicate ever-greater fervor.

This eventuated in some White protestors “going Medieval” and actually engaging in self-flagellation—a grotesque spectacle but a seemingly inevitable culmination of the White guilt narrative.


What Causes Religiousness?

This was all so predictable. In April 2020, experts in the study of religion cautiously suggested that there might be some kind of religious revival in the wake of the Covid-19 crisis, though they focused on what might happen in churches.7 There are always religious revivals after or during wars, famines, and pandemics. Why would the Covid-19 be any different?

In other words, we are witnessing another “Great Awakening.” But the religion of a significant portion of Western populations, and especially the young, is not Christianity. This new global religion of the 21st century is Multiculturalism. That said, Multiculturalism contains many elements of evangelicalism, both aesthetically and structurally, and perhaps could be viewed as Christianity’s latest mutation.

In order to understand what has taken place, we need to make sense of what religion is; why “mortality salience” is relevant to it; and how, precisely, religious revivals occur. Once this is clear, we will see that Multiculturalism is not just an ideology, partisan politics, or passing fad; it must properly be understood as a religion itself.

One of the key predictors of becoming religious is being confronted with your own mortality or that of your loved ones. No matter what an inveterate skeptic might say or write throughout his life, when told that his mother is in intensive care or his daughter has been in a car accident, there is a very strong possibility that, in private, he will beg God for help. “There are no atheists in foxholes,” as the saying goes. So-called “mortality salience” is an extreme example of the kind of psychological stress that appears to elevate religiousness. “Feelings of exclusion” seems to cause people to become more religious, too, as do periods of dramatic change, such as significant changes in government.8

“Religion,” in the widely accepted sense of the word, involves all of the key components of an evolutionary adaptation. Religiousness is around 0.4 genetic; it is associated with physical and mental health partly at the genetic level;9 it correlates with fertility; and specific parts of the brain are associated with it.10

There are likely a number of non-exclusive reasons why religiousness evolved. One is that it promoted pro-social behavior. Those who believed in a god who told them to behave in a pro-social way were less likely to be cast out or killed by the pre-historic band and were, therefore, more likely to pass on their genes. A related possibility is that it reduced stress in the face of danger or as we become aware of our own mortality. Those who felt that their life had eternal meaning and that a god was constantly looking after them would be less likely to become depressed and anxious and would be more likely to pass on their genes.11

Consistent with this, not only do people tend to become more religious at times of stress, they are more likely to have dramatic religious experiences, in which they do not merely vaguely feel that God is present but, as far as they are concerned, see Him and hear His reassuring voice.12 People who are high in neurotic personality traits are prone to depression and anxiety, these being manifestations of “mental instability.” Neuroticism seems to decrease considerably after one has undergone conversion and other religious experiences.13

Intrinsic religiousness—genuinely believing in god—is negatively correlated with Neuroticism.14 We can see this in the average churchgoer of the past century, a man who conforms to the belief system of his community, intellectually believes in a higher power, but likely doesn’t take his religion overly seriously nor does he worship with particular emotional affect. On the other hand, extrinsic religiousness—outward conformity to religion—is positively associated with Neuroticism. We can think of the fanatic or obnoxious scold, someone who wears his faith on his sleeve, perhaps even so devoted that religion negatively affects his welfare.

Being a “religious seeker” is also associated with Neuroticism. This involves going through phases of mental instability that are alleviated by an unusual and often very extreme forms of religiosity, which are duly abandoned during periods of sound mental health.15 Overall, it’s reasonable to argue that religiousness would have been selected for, because it promoted mental health, with the result that mental health and religiosity have become genetically related, due to both being simultaneously selected over a lengthy period of time.16

Religion also would have been “kin-selected.” You can pass on your genes indirectly by aiding your kin: your children share 50 percent of your genes, and more distant kin, such as nephews, share 25 percent. If a person were highly religious, it makes their kin more attractive, because of the associations between religiousness, pro-social behavior, and mental stability. This would help explain why some Islamic fundamentalists kill daughters who have dishonored the family. It is a way of signaling the family’s commitment to Islam and, thus, elevating kin selection.17 An ethnic group is, in the sense, an extended genetic kinship group and thus a means by which you can indirectly pass on your genes.18 It is has been found, using computer modeling, that groups that are highest in positive ethnocentrism (internal cooperation) and negative ethnocentrism (external hostility) tend to dominate others in the battle of group selection.19 There is evidence implying that religiousness is genetically associated with both kinds of ethnocentrism, because a part of the brain associated with ethnocentrism is also associated with religiousness.20 And the correlation between positive ethnocentrism and religiousness would make sense because a group would be more internally cooperate if it were high in pro-social traits and low in mental instability. But our key point is that religiousness has evolved, in part, as a means of coping with stress and mortality salience.


Why Are Women So Religious?

The high female presence both in BLM protests and in churches is obvious to anyone who has ever attended either. And this shouldn’t be surprising. Women are more religious than men, across cultures, in terms of how likely they are to believe in God and engage in collective worship.21 In the United States, Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Mainline Protestants, and Mormons are each 55 percent female. Some 70 percent of American women report an “absolute certainty” in their belief in a god, compared to 57 percent of men. American women are also much more likely to report that religion is important in their lives, and atheism is found twice as often among men than women (12 percent vs. 6 percent).22

This occurs because religion has been sexually selected for, too, as it is associated with being pro-social, rule-following (and thus not cuckolding your husband or abandoning your family and child), and with being part of a supportive group of co-religionists. These clear sex differences in the strength of religiousness will become significant later when we analyze the Black Lives Matter protests.

There are a number of probable reasons for higher female religiousness, one of which is empathy. Females are higher than in empathetic behavior, which involves being interested in people’s feelings and being able to detect their feelings from external markers, such as facial expressions.23 There is evidence that people who are high in empathy transfer this ability over to the world itself, meaning that they perceive the presence of a “mind” or “higher power” simply from looking around the world. Accordingly, low empathy—that is, stereotypical autism—is associated with atheism.24

Another reason may be adaptation to patriarchy. Females sexually select for male status because a high-status male is better able to invest in them and their offspring, meaning that both are more likely to survive.25 Until the Industrial Revolution, wealth and status strongly predicted completed fertility, and this is the case among pre-industrial peoples today. 26 If males must invest resources in the female in order to obtain sexual intercourse, then they want to be certain that the offspring in which they are investing their resources are actually their own. The result is a system of patriarchy in which females are controlled by males such that male paternity anxiety can be reduced. This system of patriarchy will tend to be promoted by the society’s religion as divinely ordained, possibly because patriarchal societies reduce paternity anxiety, meaning that they, in turn, reduce inter-male conflict, thus causing males to be more internally cooperative. And, again, as computer models have shown, societies of internally cooperative people are more likely to triumph in warfare with competing societies.27

This system of patriarchy, however, would mean that females would be strongly selected to be accepting of patriarchy and thus to be religious, as this is what the religion would promote.28 Consequently, there would be a religious “arms race” among females in order to obtain the highest-status males, especially in the kind of polygamous societies in which humans have lived for most of history, in which the highest status males monopolize the most desirable females. As such, we would expect females to be strongly prone to wishing to signal their virtue and, if religiosity were regarded as virtuous, to signal this. And they would be more convincingly able to signal it if they genuinely believed it.


Why is Religiousness Associated With Mental Health?

It is also clear to anyone that has ever attended a BLM protest that many of those involved—with their stereotypical unnatural colored hair and screams of righteous fury—are not mentally well. By contrast, females in churches appear sober and under control.

Why should traditional religiousness be associated with mental health? The answer lies in its evolutionary history. In understanding the evolution of religion, it is worth noting that it is a combination of a variety of traits, which would have been adaptive in pre-history.

1. Agency Over-Detection. We have a cognitive bias towards detecting the presence of an agent behind events. Following the “Smoke Detector Principle,” it is adaptive to assume the worst and get it wrong—such as to assume that that noise over there was a wolf rather than just the wind. This helps to explain why we might see evidence of god in the world.

2. Pattern Over-Detection. We are evolved to over-detect causation. This is adaptive because those who under-detected it would have put themselves in danger of being wiped out or not been able to analyze and understand the world around them.

3. Follow the Leader. We are evolved to form strongly-bonded groups and obey authority. By working as a team with a leader, groups are more likely to survive in the battle of group selection.29

Religions will vary in the extent of the prominence of each of these factors. This means that although religiousness is generally adaptive in an evolutionary sense of promoting individual and especially group fitness, it is quite possible for maladaptive forms of religiousness—which do not promote genetic fitness—to manifest. Some devotees might be, for example, too extreme in their obedience to the leader or in their pattern over-detection, such that adhering to such a religion is harmful for its followers. An obvious example of this would be suicide cults—such as the notorious Jonestown—in which devotees are so inclined to follow their leader and so inclined to over-detect patterns that they accept a mentally ill man’s paranoid worldview and kill themselves, completely destroying their genetic interests.30 Membership of such groups is associated with other maladaptive traits—such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder—whereas traditional religiousness is genetically associated with mental health.

The relationship between religiousness and sound mental health makes sense if we delve a little deeper into how religiousness has been selected for over time. This will also be highly relevant, later, to understanding the nature of the Black Lives Matter movement. As I have discussed in my study “The Mutant Says in His Heart, ‘There is No God,’”31 we were under conditions of harsh Darwinian selection until the breakthroughs of the Industrial Revolution, which began in around 1800. The resulting improved public health and living conditions meant that child mortality has fallen from around 50 percent in 1800 to 1 percent today.32 High child mortality ensured that the surviving population was very strongly adapted to its ecology. Babies with mutations that made them unfit—such as those leading to a poor immune system—were purged from the population every generation, meaning that it overall had a very low “mutational load.” Under these brutal conditions, traditional religion—based around the collective worship of a moral god—was adaptive, meaning that it came to be selected for in tandem with other adaptive traits, which thus became genetically connected.

With the break-down of harsh Darwinian selection, we would expect the population to display increasing evidence of mutational load. This would be observed in secular increases in the prevalence of partly genetic medical conditions.33 We would also expect the development of all kinds of deviations from this delicately balanced Darwinian religious norm—deviations that would be maladaptive in terms of group and individual selection and that would be attractive to people with maladaptive traits, such as mental illness. Religious suicide cults, such as Jonestown and Waco, would exemplify this process. These religious deviants would have high mutational loads and likely be people who would not have survived childhood under harsh Darwinian conditions.

How do we know that such people would not have survived? In that the brain is 84 percent of the genome, it is an enormous target for mutation, meaning that those who have physical mutations can be expected to have mental mutations as well, which would direct them towards deviations from the most adaptive form of religiousness. Consistent with this, it has been found that, in modern samples, collective worship of a moral god is genetically associated with physical and mental health and is negatively associated with other markers of high mutational load, including autism, physical asymmetry, and left-handedness. These are associated with atheism or religious deviations, such as paranormal belief. The inability to develop a symmetrical phenotype implies a poor immune system, because a person with a poor immune system would have to use disproportionately more of his bio-energetic resources to fight off pathogens, meaning insufficient resources left over to ensure symmetry. Left-handedness is an accepted marker of “developmental instability.” If the brain develops symmetrically, people will tend to be right-handed. Failure to do so implies mutational load and, thus, left-handedness is associated with many examples of poor physical and mental health.34

So, with the nature of “religion” and its connection to mortality salience understood, let us now turn to making sense of “religious revivals.”


What Causes Religious Revivals?

Religious revivals appear to occur when the kind of situation that would lead to a period of religiousness in an individual—such as stress and mortality salience—are experienced relatively suddenly by a substantial portion of a society. There will be variation in the nature of the revival, depending on the kind of people who are impacted. But, in general, dramatic change and a period of difficulty can be expected to lead to a religious revival of some kind. These can be charted throughout history and, interestingly, there is often a time lag separating the period of stress from the revival itself.

Christian evangelists are constantly attempting to create revivals, traveling to different communities and preaching their message of conversion and redemption. However, they only seem to be able to create mass revivals during, or just after, periods of significant distress.

An examination of British revivals during the 20th century is consistent with this pattern. The first major revival of the twentieth century took place in Wales between 1904 and 1905. At the time, South Wales was ravaged by industrial unrest and unemployment in a society in which there was no welfare state. Accordingly, Welsh workers, many of whom were already heavily influenced by Methodism and were facing serious hardship and the realistic possibility of destitution.35 Interesting, there was no religious revival during World War I in the UK, nor during the Spanish Flu pandemic that immediately followed it36. There were, however, various revivals during the 1920s. The lack of communications at the time meant that it was more difficult than in the 1950s for these to become national phenomena. A major revival in East Anglia in 1921 focused around socioeconomically deprived fishing communities, which were under considerable distress even compared to ordinary people recovering from the Great War. The following year, there were revivals in other parts of the country, most notably in fishing communities in northeast Scotland.37 There was no major revival in Britain in the 1930s, other than in the deeply conservative Hebridean islands off the north west of Scotland in 1939. This year was a time of elevated distress due to very real possibility that Britain might go to war again.38

There was no major revival in the UK during World War II itself. The next Christian revival, and a concomitant reassertion of conservative attitudes, came after the War, and especially in the 1950s. There was a revival in the Hebrides in 1949, in which large numbers of people, who had not previously been especially devout, underwent religious experiences and became more involved in their church and in which those who were already religious became more fervent. According to revival leader the Rev. Duncan Campbell (1898-1972), in late 1949, in the village of Barvas on the Island of Lewis, he conducted a night-time meeting at which:

Three o’ clock in the morning came and God swept in. About a dozen men and women lay prostrate on the floor, speechless . . . We left our cottage at 3am to discover men and women seeking God. I walked along a country road and found three men on their faces, crying to God for mercy. There was a light in every home; no-one seemed to think of sleep.

At 5 AM that morning, 14 buses full of people arrived from all parts of the island and even from the island of Harris. People at these meetings fell into trances, fainted, swayed and collapsed to the floor.39 Campbell felt that he had been inspired by the Holy Spirit to go and revive the Outer Hebrides and, given the stressful conditions of the time, people were extremely receptive to religious-fervor in a ways that they otherwise wouldn’t have been.40

Wartime rationing did not cease until 1954, so it could be argued that it was only at this point that “normal life” finally reasserted itself.41 In an era of mass-communication, a spark was needed to set off a nationwide revival, and this came in the form of American pastor Billy Graham (1918-2018), as witnessed in his British rallies, which took place between 1954 and 1955. The postwar religious fervor was such that it has been estimated that roughly 21 percent of the London population attended a Billy Graham rally, while up 73 percent of the Glasgow population did so.42 In 1955, 100,000 people packed a Glasgow stadium to attend a single service conducted by Billy Graham.43 I am not aware that the relationship has been quantitatively tested, but, as a rule of British Modern History, religious revivals seem to manifest in areas of elevated mortality salience as a consequence of impoverishment or, directly, famine and other highly stressful phenomena.


What Kind of People Have Religious Experiences?

What was happening, in terms of individual and mass-psychology, during these revivals? As we have discussed, quotidian, stable religiousness—in which you are religious all the time—is correlated with sound mental health. Even religious people who are mentally healthy, however, go through periods of stress and mortality salience in which they may become more religious. They may even undergo forms of what is known as a “religious experience.”

Religious experiences are profound psychological experiences in which a person may be overwhelmed by a feeling of God’s love and even hear God’s voice or believe to have seen Him. In making sense of these kinds of experiences, American neuroscientist Andrew Newberg and colleagues argue that the mind has two effective systems, calming and arousal. When either of these systems is pushed to their extremes, through meditation or hyper-arousal—both of which can be achieved via religious services—they argue that it is dangerous for the body. Accordingly, the other system hits in, leading to alternative states of consciousness and intense psychological experiences.44 British biologist Richard Dawkins has suggested that they may be provoked by the way in which stress makes us highly instinctive, and thus prone to religious belief anyway. Dawkins also argues that we are also evolved to over-detect agency: as mentioned above, if we mistake a distant rock for a wolf, we have lost nothing, but if we make the opposite mistake, we may be killed. Accordingly, at times of very intense stress, we are much more likely to mistake some unidentified sound as the voice of God and, at the same time, find that our calming system would hit in. This would lead to an intense religious experience combined with feelings of relief and joy.45 Undergoing mild religious experiences—known as “spiritual” experiences—is about 0.3 heritable. Undergoing intense religious experiences is approximately 0.66 heritable.46 This high heritability might imply that the ability to undergo a religious experience is extremely beneficial, in evolutionary terms, because it combats stress and, due to its profound nature, keeps you low in negative feelings for a substantial period of time afterwards.

However, we must distinguish between the “religious experience” and the “conversion experience”—and also between being “religious,” being “hyper-religious,” and going through a phase of being intensely religious. American psychologist William James (1842-1910) distinguished between the religion of the “sick soul” and that of “healthy mindedness.” The religion of healthy mindedness is characterized by relatively mild religious experiences. The religion of the “sick soul,” however, is marked by a dramatic conversion experiences, which occur at times of intense stress.47 Those who lead religious revivals—people such as Billy Graham—can be regarded as constantly “hyper-religious.” As already noted, this is associated with either schizophrenia or with being a severely depressive personality. Psychological studies of those who lead religious revivals have found that most of them display evidence of these pathological traits. They require, for example, the absolute structure and order which fanatical religiousness provides in order to allay their anxiety and frequently undergo intense religious experiences.48 Such is the nature of revival “leaders.” It may be beneficial for a healthy society to be able to maintain a very small percentage of such lunatics, precisely because they are able to inspire fervent religiosity in other people and religiosity is traditionally a means of promoting ethnocentrism. In this regard, it has been noted that tribal shamans tend to the same kinds of psychological characteristics as modern-day charismatic leaders.49

But what about the followers, and those who become followers during a revival? What is their psychology? Religious revivals are characterized by the “conversion” type of religious experience, in which a person undergoes a kind of psychological breakdown and, to some extent, adopts a new identity, for example as a “Christian” or as “real Christian” in a way that they somehow were not prior to the revival.50 They, consequently, go through a transient phrase of hyper-religiosity. Transient hyper-religiosity is associated with high Neuroticism,51 while bipolar disorder and bouts of depression also predict periods of extreme religious fervor, as does schizophrenia.52 Schizophrenia, and its milder forms, is also elevated at times of stress, just as is anxiety.53 There is a range of severity to schizophrenia-type conditions. Mild symptoms are summarized as “schizoid personality.” This is characterized by anhedonia (the inability to experience joy) and apathy. More severe is “schizotypal personality,” where the schizoid symptoms are accompanied by social anxiety, paranoid ideation, unconventional or paranoid beliefs, and, sometimes, psychosis. Diagnosable schizophrenia is a particularly severe manifestation of these characteristics.54 Having undergone a conversion experience has been found to be associated with having been, prior to that experience, high in anxiety and other Neuroticism traits.55 When people suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress, which is associated with high Neuroticism, they can develop a very specific kind of religiosity known as “spiritual struggle” or “negative religious coping.” Those who undergo this believe that God is punishing them for their sins, plead for God to intervene in the world, and project hostility towards out-group members. “Positive religious coping” can cross over with this, insomuch as it involves conversion, but this also involves the belief that God has forgiven you and that you are purified of your sins.56

So, people who are high in Neuroticism—and even under the harsh Darwinian conditions prevalent until 1800, there would have been population variance in this trait—are more likely to become part of religious revivals. They will feel stress more acutely and will, accordingly, be more likely to become extremely religious in the aftermath of periods of intense societal distress. Females score higher than males in Neuroticism. For this reason alone, we would predict that females would play a noticeable part in religious revivals.57 Consistent with this, studies of religious revivals in the U.S. have found that “white and black women were among the most visible participants at religious revivals, where converts wept, wailed, writhed, and fainted as they received God’s grace.”58 Neuroticism tends to decrease with age in males. But in females, Neuroticism decreases with age until adolescence and at that point, it increases, possibly due to the adaptive need to worry about one’s children. This can be seen most obviously among university students, where females in particular tend to suffer mental health problems of various kinds that they will often have recovered from by the time they are in their mid-20s.59 Neuroticism, in women, begins to decline in early adulthood.60 For this reason, as well as due to their higher general religiousness, we would expect females in their mid-teens to mid-20s to be attracted to religious revivals. In line with this prediction, there is detailed data on those who “came forward” to receive God’s forgiveness during Billy Graham’s British rallies. In London, 65 percent were female and 50 percent were under the age of 19. In Glasgow, 71 percent were women and 73 percent were under the age of 30.61

Even those who are not sufficiently Neurotic to undergo religious experiences can be expected to be influenced by a religious revival if it appears to be sufficiently popular. Neuroticism predicts extrinsic religiousness, that is, religious outward conformity.62 People who are high in Neuroticism will fear being judged negatively or even being ostracized for failure to conform, meaning that they may fake religious fervor even if they don’t actually feel it. This means that religious revivals that become particularly prominent can envelop people who are far lower in Neuroticism than those who are, as they see it, “slain by the Holy Spirit.” Accordingly, popular revivals can generate a kind of group hysteria and thus appear far more popular than they really are. This is obvious when we consider how so many celebrities felt compelled to jump on the bandwagon of Black Lives Matter.


The Religion of Multiculturalism and Mental Health

So, with the nature of “religion” and “religious revivals” clear in our minds, we can now explore the “religious” nature of the Black Lives Matter protests. There are obvious parallels between 20th-century religious revivals—such as that that spear-headed by Billy Graham—and the Black Lives Matter revival. The leaders of the movement are extreme “liberals”—with this being clearly associated with mental instability, where conservatism and traditional religiosity are correlated with mental stability.63 The “revival” has taken place in the wake of a period of elevated mortality salience; in other words, it is a response to stress. Those who are drawn into it are politically liberal themselves, with this being associated with mental instability.64

In many respects, Multiculturalism can be argued to be a secular “replacement religion” for Christianity—and perhaps even a kind of Christian sect. The same argument has been made with regard to Marxism and even some kinds of Romantic Nationalism.

1. Dogmas

Traditional Christianity is based around a series of dogmas that you must accept in order to be regarded as a Christian and achieve salvation. These dogmas are sometimes logically incoherent—such as the Trinity—or require the acceptance of truth-claims that cannot be proved or are, on any reasonable basis, extraordinarily improbable. However, you signal your intellectual submission to the religious community by accepting these. This can be regarded as their purpose; they are tests of loyalty. In much the same way, Multiculturalism requires that you accept dogmas that are empirically inaccurate or patently nonsensical, such as that there are no race differences in intelligence or that everyone is “equal.”

2. “The Last Shall Be First.”

Christianity also tends towards idolizing the “marginalized.” It preaches that “the last shall be first” and encourages its followers to empower those who are supposedly marginalized, and humble themselves, embracing a kind of sacred poverty. Similarly, Marxism idolizes the dispossessed in the form of the “worker”; Romantic nationalism worships the “peasant”; and Multiculturalism, as espoused by Whites, idolizes non-Whites, and the more different they are—culturally and genetically—from Whites, the more they are worthy of reverence. There is evidence that humans—being evolved to tightly structured groups—have two fundamental instincts: one towards climbing the social hierarchy and the other towards equality, as groups that are relatively equal tend to avoid collapsing into discord.65 Thus, religions that preach “equality” can be highly psychologically attractive, especially to those who are not close to the top of the hierarchy or who fear they will not be able to get there. This is consistent with evidence that males who are physically strong—and thus who would have been more likely to ascend the prehistoric hierarchy via winning fights and being sexually selected for—are more likely to hold conservative views that specifically favor hierarchy and inequality.66

3. Self-Abasement and Guilt

The third key point that Multiculturalism has in common with Christianity, though not with pagan religions such as Hinduism, is the salience of “guilt.” In general, “guilt” and “shame” both function to make people “know their place,” and thus conform and behave in pro-social, cooperative ways. Accordingly, a group that adopts a religion imbued with these feelings to an optimum degree would be likely to out-compete other groups.

Christianity is a religion to which “guilt” is extremely important—“central to the biblical message” as one theologian has put it.67 According to Christian dogmas, humanity is “Fallen” as a consequence of its “Original Sin.” In other words, God is perfect and all-benevolent, whereas humanity is inherently sinful and bad, living in a sinful, Fallen world. Indeed, it was cast down into this world from Paradise as a punishment for its wickedness. The only way humanity can gain salvation and forgiveness is to admit how sinful it is and humbly worship God and follow the commands of His Church. Worldly success is, in a sense, something for which you should feel guilty—unless you are certain that God has blessed you with this success—because it implies that you are insufficiently humble; you are failing to sufficiently repent for your wickedness.

In much the same fashion, the Church of Multiculturalism tells its adherents that they are burdened by the Original Sin of Whiteness. White people are presumed to have treated people of other races in abominable ways, with images of slavery, the Holocaust, Jim Crow, and the like acting as symbols of their primal deeds. Whites must repent for their Original Sin by empowering those who are not White, such that racial “Equality” is attained. In the same way that wealthy people in Christian societies are “privileged” and must engage in charitable works to assuage their “guilt,” White people have the “privilege” of being “White”—not only being wealthy but enjoying that wealth at the expense of non-Whites, whom their ancestors brutalized, enslaved, or murdered. “Privilege” is the source of “guilt,” which must be assuaged through acts of humility and penance, potentially including not producing White children and adopting non-Whites instead.

Shame, though less obvious, is also germane to Christianity and its replacement religions. Those who refused to conform to Christianity could be “shamed” as devil-worshippers who might bring God’s anger on the community, and shunned accordingly. Those who do not “take the knee” for George Floyd or who remain silent, instead of publicly stating their support for Black Lives Matter, can be shamed as possible “racists;” with this term of abuse implying that you are not an adherent to the religious community. You are “Other.” This is because membership of the community is based around adherence to dogmas, not around blood-bonds, as is the case with pagan religions and with many forms of nationalism.68


A New Kind of Awakening

The key difference between the Church of Multiculturalism and Christianity is that there is no god—no non-physical existence. Moreover, Black Lives Matter represents an extremely “spiteful” form of religiosity, in the sense that there doesn’t appear to be any “forgiveness.” In Billy Graham rallies, you could “step forward” and be forgiven for your sins. In Black Lives Matter rallies, it doesn’t matter how many times you “take the knee,” there can be no forgiveness for your sin of being White. You must simply learn to live with the guilt, slightly assuaging it ever so often by campaigning to empower non-Whites.

As previously discussed, we can conceive of two distinct kinds of religion: those which are selected for under centuries of Darwinian conditions—that tend to involve the collective worship of a moral god—and those which deviate from this norm. Due to the way in which mental health and religiousness were co-selected under Darwinian conditions as we have explored, this “traditional religiosity” is now positively associated with mental health, while deviations from it—such as New Age affectations or belief in the paranormal—are associated with anxiety and depression, either on-going or periodic. People who are high in mental instability can be expected to become highly religious in the wake of a crisis and being low in traditional religiosity as well as fervently left-wing correlates with being high in mental instability

Accordingly, we would expect such people—self-identified “liberals”—to become extremely religious (in terms of their religious deviation) in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, and this is what we appear to be seeing. In previous situations of gravity, the overwhelming majority of the British population was Christian and believed, to varying degrees, in its doctrines. This would have meant that the relationship between being a traditional Christian and mental stability would have been much weaker than is now the case. It also meant that the revivals were Christian in nature, because this was the religious belief even of the kind of mentally unstable people who tend to undergo intense religious experiences. As already noted, a specific form of religiosity has been found to manifest among mentally unstable people suffering from high levels of stress—“Spiritual Struggle.” Those who felt the Holy Spirit during this revival would be, in general, relatively high in Neuroticism, something that would be soothed, temporarily, by their religious experience. Usually, their Christian zeal would be temporary. It would no longer be psychologically required once the period of stress was over and recovered from, by which time the factor that was elevating their anxiety to intolerable levels would have dissipated.

In 2020, especially for younger people, their religion is Multiculturalism and not Christianity. Christianity is now the religion of a shrinking minority. Consequently, we would expect some variant on the kind of revival outlined above to occur in the wake of Covid-19, especially among such people. Its leaders, as with Christian revivals, would be mentally unstable people. However, many of the “followers,” caught up in the revival, would be prone to mental instability and would be going through a particularly acute phase of anxiety. As with a Christian revival, these feelings would be alleviated by the collective experience—in this instance of “Black Lives Matter”—in which they would feel a sense of certainty that they were morally superior; that they were better than most (“racist”) people; and that they were part of creating a paradise on Earth. Once the anxiety-reducing feelings this induced wore off, such people would no longer be subject to acute mortality salience and then they would return to being much less fervent believers in the Church of Multiculturalism.

We would expect any such revival to be more pronounced among Multiculturalists than among Christians. Social Justice Warriors are irreligious and liberal, both of which correlate with mental instability. “Christians” are conservative and religious, both associated with mental stability. Accordingly, in a world in which remnant Christianity is associated with sound mindedness, a Multiculturalist revival in the wake of a pandemic becomes far more probable than a Christian one—though there still may be a Christian one of some kind in the near future. We would expect this Multiculturalist revival to be elevated among young people—because people go through a period of relatively high mental instability when they are young adults—and, in particular, among young females, because females are more religious than males and they are more prone to depression and anxiety. Multiculturalism is the “new religion”—the “new morality”—and thus females would be evolved to want to signal the extent of their adherence to it, being ultimately psychologically adapted to polygamous societies in which they must compete for the highest status males by strongly signaling their religiosity and sexual faithfulness.69 Females are also evolved to a patriarchal society in which decisions tend to be made for them by their fathers and husbands. With the breakdown of patriarchy, it has been argued that we would expect females—especially young females—to make particularly maladaptive decisions.70 These would include strongly aligning with a religion that seeks to destroy their ethnic group and effectively encouragers them to be childless.

It should be noted that, in relatively religious societies, females tend to be more politically conservative than males, seemingly because females are more religious and the religion promotes “traditional” values as the will of God. However, when the influence of traditional religiousness breaks down, the female propensity towards higher empathy—and thus leftism and anti-traditionalism—begins to manifest. In 1992, in Britain, women born in the 1920s were more conservative than men of the same age. However, women born in the 1960s were less conservative than males of the same age.71 These younger women, no longer as influenced by traditional religious ideas, tend to promote leftist ones—including altruism towards competing ethnic groups—with a kind of religious zeal. One commentator astutely termed them “The New Church Ladies,” evoking the subterranean religious quality to so much of contemporary female discourse.72

Traditional religiousness took the female propensity to strongly believe in God and engage in religious worship and focused this into an adaptive form of religiosity in which God promoted group-selected values. With the breakdown of this religion, we are left with females tending to be religiously fervent and high in generalized empathy and thus attracted to Multiculturalism and leftism. Females are also higher than males in Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism, and, thus in social conformity.73 So, for this reason as well, we would expect them to be more heavily involved in the New Church into which younger females have been inculcated.

It has been observed that highly educated young people—those with post-graduate degrees—are significantly over-represented among Black Lives Matter activists.74 One possible explanation for this—beyond the fact that university Humanities and Social Science departments are increasingly indoctrination factories for leftist ideas75—is that there is a positive relationship between Neuroticism and academic success at university, especially when this is combined with high Conscientiousness (impulse control and rule-following).76 This is possibly because anxiety acts as a motivator towards diligence or because Neuroticism means you desire greater certainty about the nature of the world and believe you can attain this through higher education. In that Neuroticism predicts extrinsic religiousness77—that is, outward religious conformity—we would expect non-SJWs who were relatively high in these traits to be drawn into this dominant, public revival due to their fear of not conforming, leading them to compete to strongly outwardly conform.


Anarchic Religious Awakenings

The other difference between the British religious awakenings in the 20th century and Black Lives Matter is the anarchy involved: BLM activists flagrantly breaking the law, engaging in dangerous behavior, rioting, inciting perpetual disorder (“No Justice, No Peace”), and engaging in iconoclasm by toppling statues and desecrating memorials. In this sense, a clearer comparison can be found in the Peasants War that took place in German-speaking states in the 1520s, in the early days of the Reformation. There are multiple reasons why the Reformation began when it did, but one of them was a period of elevated mortality salience. There had been severe famine in Germany between 1515 and 1520.78

Reports indicate that violent Protestant mobs would strip Catholic Churches of their valuables and destroy their idols. As with Black Lives Matter, educated people were heavily over-represented among early Protestant iconoclasts—they were mainly the so-called “middling sort.”79 The Protestant leaders would oppose iconoclasm, publicly stating that idols should only be removed with permission from the proper authorities. But, as has occurred in Britain in 2020, the Swiss authorities preemptively removed icons as a way of halting public disorder and also as way of appeasing Protestant leaders. In June 1524, all Zurich churches were closed in order to prevent a maelstrom.80

In other words, Black Lives Matter is a particularly pronounced religious revival. In the 1520s, this occurred, in part, due to particularly difficult conditions. In 2020, it may be that the cause was moderately difficult conditions plus a growing percentage of young people who, partly for genetic reasons underpinned by increasing mutational load, increasingly suffer from depression and anxiety and, therefore, cannot psychologically cope with what would have been historically regarded as quite normal levels of mortality salience. Contemporary young people are increasingly in a situation of “evolutionary mismatch” where—under the influence of modern, anti-traditional ideologies, over-parenting, and education— they are decreasingly socialized as children in the manner that was the norm under harsh Darwinian conditions. This has been shown to lead to severe behavioral problems in non-human animals,81 and we will explore this issue in more detail below.

Furthermore, far superior communications—social media and instantaneous reactions to events around the world—mean that what may otherwise have been isolated patches of revivalism have been globalized, impacting much larger numbers of people. And there may also be an extent to which these riots are in the interests of some powerful individuals, who are themselves fervent adherents to Multiculturalism or who desire a subservient population that will not challenge them. If the population is depressed and demoralized, this subservience is clearly better accomplished. Accordingly, the riots—which could be crushed if so desired—are permitted to run their course. It is as if ordinary people are being told: “Look what we can allow to happen to you if you elect the wrong people or vote the wrong way in a referendum.” Afraid of offending the righteous mob—and their high-level sympathizers—even leaders who oppose leftist disorder dare not act decisively. Again, comparisons to the iconoclasm of the early English Reformation leap to mind. Iconoclasts were permitted to “get away with it” during the periods when the Protestant faction, most notably led by Thomas Cromwell (c.1485-1540), wielded the most influence at Court.82

All of this leads us to a final question. How have we reached a situation where so many people—including many in positions of power—wish to destroy their own extended kinship group?


BLM and the Spiteful Mutants

Christianity, even the zealous kind of the Reformation, was an adaptive form of religiosity. Thus, a key part of it is “forgiveness”—after publicly confessing your sins and wavering of faith. With the breakdown of Darwinian selection, we see an increasing deviation from this religious evolutionary norm, including religions that are maladaptive, because they are ultimately nihilistic and lack doctrines that allow a person’s highly negative feelings during times of stress to be fully expunged. This is what we see with Black Lives Matter—the ultimate logic of which is that Whites should simply feel perpetual shame throughout their lives with no hope of it being alleviated, other than in a very mild and brief way via “taking the knee.”

Young people have been inculcated with this maladaptive religion due, in part, to the breakdown of traditional Christianity, which, like all religions that survived under harsh Darwinian conditions, tended to take behavior that was adaptive in terms of group selection and turn this into the will of God. As discussed above, as child mortality collapsed, we had more and more people who would not have survived under harsher conditions—due to their high mutational load—who had mutations of the mind that caused to hold beliefs that would be highly maladaptive if held by even a small percentage of the group—anti-natalism being only the most obvious. Due to our being a highly eusocial species—that is, interacting in a “hive mind”—we are heavily influenced by those around us. In this way, it has been found that depression can spread like a contagion. If you are around a person who is depressed then you are more likely to become depressed yourself, a condition which is negatively associated with fertility.83 As a result, these mutants— spiteful mutants84—helped to spread their maladaptive ways of thinking even to non-mutants, gradually undermining adaptive institutions, such as traditional churches, and replacing them with their Church of Multiculturalism, a church which is now clearly adhered to even by the leadership of the Church of England.85 Having taken over the state’s organs of power, such as the education system and the media, they could then inculcate young people into the New Church, alter the evolutionarily adaptive methods of socialization traditionally imposed on them, and push them—and with them, the entire super-organism—to think and behave increasingly contra to their genetic interests.

This became possible when a “tipping point” is reached, whereby about 25 percent of the population advocated anti-traditional ideas. Experiments have shown that when this happens, people perceive the new worldview as the way forward and begin to abandon the old one en masse.86 With our evolution to obedience and following the leader and the mob, this can sometimes result in a misfiring of our adaptations such that we start to engage in behavior which is not in our evolutionary interests. This is particularly likely to be the case if we are subject to “evolutionary mismatch;” if we are placed in an ecology to which we are not evolved. We are evolved to a pre-industrial ecology, so we can expect to find ourselves increasingly maladapted as the ecology increasingly deviates from this. We will engage in behavior which would have been adaptive under previous conditions – such as following the crowd – but this will be decreasingly adaptive as the crowd is increasingly evolutionarily mismatched, mutated and influenced by spiteful mutants.

In 1954, this tipping point had not yet been reached in Britain. People forced themselves, for fear of ostracism, through so-called “effortful control,”87 to believe in traditional Christianity, meaning that the revival was Christian and adaptive in nature. Around 1970, the tipping point was reached. This is demonstrated by the fact that evidence of mutational load – in the form of autism, which is associated with paternal age – did not predict atheism in the 1950s, but by the 1970s it did predict atheism. By the 1970s, in the U.S., having an older father predicted atheism in a way that had not previously been the case. This is because Christianity was so strong during the earlier period that autistics, who tend not to be religious as we have already noted, forced themselves to conform to the dominant religiosity. By the latter period, the tipping point had been reached, so they no longer needed to conform.88


The Toppling of Evolutionary Success

The Church of Multiculturalism, and its Black Lives Matter conversion rallies, is a Church with “spiteful mutants” as its priestly class. Under harsh Darwinian conditions, only those with adaptive cognitive biases survived childhood, because maladaptive cognitive biases were under-pinned by mutation, and those with high mutational load would likely perish before reaching adulthood. With the extreme relaxation of these conditions, these “spiteful mutants” walk among us in significant numbers. These are people who are programmed to behave in a way that is highly maladaptive in evolutionary terms—which results in the destruction of group and even individual fitness—and to persuade others to do likewise. All of the doctrines they advocate involve, if accepted, essentially being a “failure as an organism”:

  • life has no meaning so you may as well not have children;
  • put the interests of other ethnic groups above your own and so reduce the extent to which your own genes are passed on;
  • have few or no children to assist non-human animals and their genetic interests over your own.

The toppling of “racist” statues by the Black Lives Matter mob can be perceived as tearing down the “old gods,” those whom European people have venerated as heroes. These statues have traditionally been erected to honor highly group-selected people who have promoted the genetic interests of Europeans by expanding their territory and leading their ethnic group to victory over rivals. In a sense, the statues are sacred, they are idols; objects of worship. To tear them down is a way of asserting that the religion that they represented no longer has any power, is no longer sacred, simply because the idols that embody it can successfully humiliated.

In 1520, Spanish explorer Hernan Cortes (1485-1547) destroyed every Aztec idol that he could and desecrated the temples. He noticed that it left the Aztecs demoralized and less able to put up a fight.89 So, this leaves the worshipers in a state of confusion in which the previously certain, uniquely real system by which they made sense of the world—and in which they played an integral and positive part—is an under assault. They feel confused because they have got used to this system, and the comforting presence of these statues, and they feel demoralized and anxious. Any significant change can cause this by virtue of elevating anxiety about the unknown.90

This, alongside the symbolism of the system that gives their life meaning being attacked, leads them to feel depressed and looking for new certainties. But what if the certainties offered are nihilistic and tell you that you are inherently evil and should debase and even destroy yourself, never able to be forgiven for your and your ancestors’ sins? This is the ultimate message of the Death Cult that is the Church of Multiculturalism. It is, therefore, no coincidence that it attracts the same psychological types who are attracted to literal suicide cults. Indeed, a Black Lives Matter Suicide Cult, in which young White women kill themselves to repent for their racist sins, would not be beyond the realms of possibility.


References

  1. Black Lives Matter, “Herstory,” accessed June 20, 2020. ↩︎
  2. See Edward Dutton, “The Return of Heresy,” The National Policy Institute, March 26, 2020, accessed June 20, 2020. ↩︎
  3. Associated Press, “Police Officers Wash Feet of Black Pastors in North Carolina, U.S. News and World Report,(8th June 2020). ↩︎
  4. Complete National Film Registry. ↩︎
  5. Ryan Parker, “Bob Greenblatt Calls Temporary Removal of ‘Gone with the Wind’ From HBO Max a ‘No-Brainer,’The Hollywood Reporter, accessed June 20, 2020. ↩︎
  6. BBC News, “Little Britain pulled from iPlayer and Netflix because ‘times have changed’” (June 9, 2020). ↩︎
  7. Religion Watch. Religious Revival or Reversal Emerging From the Pandemic?” 35: 6 (2020). ↩︎
  8. Ara Norenzayan and Azim F. Sharif, “The Origin and Evolution of Religious Pro-Sociality,” Science, 322 (2008): 58-62. ↩︎
  9. Edward Dutton, Guy Madison, and Curtis Dunkel, “The Mutant Says in His Heart, ‘There Is No God’: The Rejection of Collective Religiosity Centred Around the Worship of Moral Gods is Associated with High Mutational Load,” Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4 (2018): 233-244. ↩︎
  10. Rüdiger Vaas, “God, Gains and Genes,” in The Biological Evolution of Religious Mind and Behavior, eds. Eckart Voland and Wulf Schiefenhövel (New York: Springer, 2009). ↩︎
  11. Ara Norenzayan and Azim Sharif, “The Origin and Evolution of Religious Pro-Sociality,” Science, 322 (2008): 58-62. ↩︎
  12. Lewis Ray Rambo. Understanding Religious Conversion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993). ↩︎
  13. Peter Halama and Mária Lačná, “Personality Change Following Religious Conversion: Perceptions of Converts and their Close Acquaintances, Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 8 (2011): 757-768. ↩︎
  14. Peter Hills, Leslie J. Francis, Michael Argylea, Chris J. Jackson, “Primary Personality Trait Correlates of Religious Practice and Orientation, Personality and Individual Differences, 36 (2004): 61-73. ↩︎
  15. Ibid. ↩︎
  16. See Dutton, Madison and Dunkel, “The Mutant Says in His Heart, ‘There Is No God,’” op cit. ↩︎
  17. Yael Sela, Todd K. Shackelford, and James R. Liddle, “When Religion Makes It Worse: Religiously Motivated Violence as a Sexual Selection Weapon,” in The Attraction of Religion: A New Evolutionary Psychology of Religion, eds. D. Jason Sloane and James A. Van Slyke (London: Bloomsbury, 2015). ↩︎
  18. Frank Salter, On Genetic Interests (New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions, 2006). ↩︎
  19. Ross Hammond and Robert Axelrod, “The Evolution of Ethnocentric Behavior,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (2006): 1-11. ↩︎
  20. Colin Holbrook, Keise Izuma, Choi Deblieck, Daniel M. Fessler, and Marco Iacoboni, “Neuromodulation of Group Prejudice and Religious Belief,” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11 (2016): 387-394. ↩︎
  21. Darren Sherkat, “Sexuality and Religious Commitment in the United States: An Empirical Examination,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41 (2002): 313-323. ↩︎
  22. Pew Research, “Religious Landscape: Gender Composition,” accessed June 20, 2020. ↩︎
  23. Simon Baron-Cohen, “The Extreme Male Brain Theory of Autism,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6 (2002): 248-254. ↩︎
  24. Catherine Caldwell-Harris, Caitlin Fox Murphy, Tessa Velazquez, and Patrick McNamara, “Religious Belief Systems of Persons with High Functioning Autism,” Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, 3362-3366 (2011). ↩︎
  25. Edward Dutton and Guy Madison, “Why Do Finnish Men Marry Thai Women but Finnish Women Marry British Men? Cross-National Marriages in a Modern Industrialized Society Exhibit Sex-Dimorphic Sexual Selection According to Primordial Selection Pressures,” Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3 (2017): 1-9. ↩︎
  26. Edward Dutton and M.A. Woodley of Menie. At Our Wits’ End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What It Means for the Future (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2018), Ch. 3. ↩︎
  27. Hammond and Axelrod, “The Evolution of Ethnocentric Behavior,” op cit. ↩︎
  28. Rachel A. Grant and V. Tamara Montrose, “It’s A Man’s World: Mate Guarding and the Evolution of Patriarchy,” Mankind Quarterly 58 (2018): 384-418. ↩︎
  29. Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought (New York: Basic Book, 2001). ↩︎
  30. Marc Galanter. Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). ↩︎
  31. Dutton, Madison, and Dunkel, “The Mutant Says in His Heart, ‘There Is No God,’” op cit. ↩︎
  32. Tony Volk and Jeremy Atkinson, “Is Child Death the Crucible of Human Evolution?” Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2 (2008): 103-116. ↩︎
  33. Matthew Sarraf, Michael A. Woodley of Menie, and Colin Feltham, Modernity and Cultural Decline: A Biobehavioral Perspective (Basingstoke, Hants: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019) ↩︎
  34. Dutton, Madison, and Dunkel, “The Mutant Says in His Heart, ‘There Is No God,’” op cit. ↩︎
  35. Pippa Catterall. Labour and the Free Churches, 1918-1939: Radicalism, Righteousness and Religion (London: Bloomsbury, 2006), 94. ↩︎
  36. Callum G. Brown Religion and Society in Twentieth Century Britain (London: Routledge, 2006), 92.It’s worth mentioning that 1917 saw publication of first revision of the Scofield Reference Bible, which was deeply influential on the development of evangelical Christianity, apocalyptic Christianity, and Christian-Zionism.
  37. Stanley C. Griffin. A Forgotten Revival: East Anglia and Northeast Scotland, 1921 (Bromley: Day One Publications, 1992). ↩︎
  38. Matthew Backholer. Revival Fires and Awakenings, Thirty-Six Visitations of the Holy Spirit (ByFaith Media, 2009). ↩︎
  39. Backholer. Revival Fires and Awakenings, op cit. ↩︎
  40. Andrew Woolsey, Duncan Campbell: A Biography: The Sound of Battle (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1974). ↩︎
  41. Ina Zweiniger-Bargielowska, Austerity in Britain: Rationing, Controls, and Consumption, 1939-1955 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 237. ↩︎
  42. Callum Brown, The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation, 1800-2000 (London: Routledge, 2009), 173. ↩︎
  43. Ibid., 6. ↩︎
  44. Andrew Newberg, Eugene G. D’Aquili, and Vince Rause, Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief (New York: Ballantine Books, 2002). ↩︎
  45. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Bantam Books, 2006), 116. ↩︎
  46. Matt Bradshaw and Christopher G. Ellison, “Do Genetic Factors Influence Religious Life? Findings From a Behavior Genetic Analysis of Twin Siblings, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47 (2008): 529-544. ↩︎
  47. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1902). ↩︎
  48. William Sargent. Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brainwashing (Cambridge, MA: International Society for Human Knowledge, 1997). ↩︎
  49. See John M. Ingham and Denis Feeney. Psychological Anthropology Reconsidered (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). ↩︎
  50. Thomas Hywel Hughes, Revival: The New Psychology of Religious Experience (London: Routledge, 1933). ↩︎
  51. Hills, Francis, Argylea, Jackson, “Primary Personality Trait Correlates of Religious Practice and Orientation,” op cit. ↩︎
  52. Harold Koenig, “Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications,” ISRN Psychiatry (2012). ↩︎
  53. Cheryl Corcoran, Lilianne Mujica-Parodi, Scott Yale, et al., “Could Stress Cause Psychosis in Individuals Vulnerable to Schizophrenia?” CNS Spectrum, 7 (2002): 33-42. ↩︎
  54. Jo Hodgekins, “Schizotypy and Psychopathology,” in Schizoptypy: New Dimensions, eds. Oliver J. Mason and Gordon Claridge (London: Routledge, 2015), 184. ↩︎
  55. Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi and Michael Argyle, The Social Psychology of Religion (London: Routledge, 1975). ↩︎
  56. Crystal L. Park, Philip H Smith, Sharon Y. Lee, et al., “Positive and Negative Religious/Spiritual Coping and Combat Exposure as Predictors of Posttraumatic Stress and Perceived Growth in Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans, Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 9 (2017): 13-20. ↩︎
  57. Christopher Soto, Oliver John, Samuel Gosling, and Jeff Potter, “Age Differences in Personality Traits From 10 to 65: Big Five Domains and Facets in a Large Cross-Sectional Sample,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100 (2011): 330-348. ↩︎
  58. Kathleen Brown, “The History of Women in the United States to 1865,” in Women’s History in Global Perspective, ed. Bonnie G. Smith, (Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2004), 264. ↩︎
  59. Paul E. Jenkins, Imogen Ducker, Rebecca Gooding, et al., “Anxiety and Depression in a Sample of UK College Students: A Study of Prevalence, Comorbidity, and Quality of Life,” Journal of American College Health (2020) DOI:10.1080/07448481.2019.1709474. ↩︎
  60. Soto, John, Gosling, and Potter, “Age Differences in Personality Traits from 10 to 65,” op cit. ↩︎
  61. Brown. The Death of Christian Britain, 173. ↩︎
  62. Hills, Francis, Argylea, Jackson, “Primary Personality Trait Correlates of Religious Practice and Orientation,” op cit. ↩︎
  63. Emil Kirkegaard, “Mental Illness and the Left,” Preprint (2020) doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25598.33605. ↩︎
  64. Sarraf, Woodley of Menie, and Feltham, Modernity and Cultural Decline, op cit. ↩︎
  65. Jerome H. Barkow, “Beneath New Culture is Old Psychology: Gossip and Social Stratification, in The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, eds. Jerome H. Barkow, John Tooby, and Leda Cosmides (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992). ↩︎
  66. Michael Bang Petersen and Lasse Laustsen, “Upper-Body Strength and Political Egalitarianism: Twelve Conceptual Replications,” Political Psychology, (2018). DOI: 10.1111/pops.12505. ↩︎
  67. Timothy Tennant, Theology in the Context of World Christianity (Zondervan, 2004), 93. ↩︎
  68. See Alain de Benoist, On Being a Pagan (Atlanta, GA: Ultra, 2004). ↩︎
  69. See David Buss. The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating (New York: Basic Books, 1989). ↩︎
  70. Menelaos Apostolou, Sexual Selection Under Parental Choice: The Evolution of Human Mating Behavior (Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 2014). ↩︎
  71. Pippa Norris, “Mobilising the ‘Women’s Vote’: The Gender Generation Gap in Voting Behaviour,” Parliamentary Affairs, 49 (1996): 333-342. ↩︎
  72. Jim Goad. The New Church Ladies: The Extremely Uptight World of Social Justice (Stone Mountain, GA: Obnoxious Books, 2017). ↩︎
  73. Ronald W. Johnson and Joan MacDonnell, “The Relationship Between Conformity and Male and Female Attitudes toward Women,” Journal of Social Psychology, 1 (1974): 155-156. ↩︎
  74. Ed West, “Why the Rich are Revolting,” UnHerd, June 10, 2020), accessed June 20, 2020. ↩︎
  75. See: Noah Carl, Can Intelligence Explain the Overrepresentation of Liberals and Leftists in American Academia?” Intelligence, 58 (2015): 181-193. ↩︎
  76. James McKenzie, Mahdad Taghavi-Khonsary, Gary Tindell, “Neuroticism and Academic Achievement: The Furneaux Factor as a Measure of Academic Rigor,” Personality and Individual Differences, 29 (2000): 3-11. ↩︎
  77. Hills, Francis, Argyle, and Jackson, “Primary Personality Trait Correlates of Religious Practice and Orientation,” op cit. ↩︎
  78. Andrew Cunningham and Ole Peter Grell, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Religion, War, Famine and Death in Reformation Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 15. ↩︎
  79. Lee Palmer Wandel. Voracious Idols and Violent Hands: Iconoclasm in Reformation Zurich, Strasbourg, and Basel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 14. ↩︎
  80. Bridget Heal, “Visual and Material Culture,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations, ed. Ulinka Rublack (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 603. ↩︎
  81. See Michael A. Woodley of Menie, Matthew A. Sarraf, Radomir N. Pestow, and Heitor B. F. Fernandes, “Social Epistasis Amplifies the Fitness Costs of Deleterious Mutations, Engendering Rapid Fitness Decline Among Modernized Populations,” Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3 (2017): 181-191; and John Calhoun, “Death Squared: The Explosive Growth and Demise of a Mouse Population,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 66 (1973): 80-88. ↩︎
  82. Julie Spraggon, Puritan Iconoclasm During the English Civil War (Woodbridge, Suffolk, The Boydell Press, 2003), 4. ↩︎
  83. T.E. Joiner, “Contagious Depression: Existence, Specificity to Depressed Symptoms, and the Role of Reassurance Seeking,” Journal of Personal and Social Psychology 67 (1994): 287-296. ↩︎
  84. M. A. Woodley of Menie, M. Sarraf, R. Pestow and H. Fernandes, H. Social Epistasis Amplifies the Fitness Costs of Deleterious Mutations, Engendering Rapid Fitness Decline Among Modernized Populations. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3 (2017): 181-191. ↩︎
  85. See Edward Dutton, “Imagination—It’s An Illusion, Quarterly Review, May 25, 2018, accessed June 20, 2020. ↩︎
  86. Damon Centola, Joshua Becker, Devon Brackbill, Andrea Baronchelli, “Experimental Evidence for Tipping Points in Social Convention, Science, 360 (2018): 1116-1119. ↩︎
  87. K. MacDonald. Effortful Control, Explicit Processing, and the Regulation of Human Evolved Predispositions. Psychological Review, 11 (2008): 1012-1031. ↩︎
  88. M.A. Woodley of Menie, S. Kanazawa, J. Pallesen, and M. Sarraf. Paternal Age Is Negatively Associated With Religious Behavior in a Post-60s But Not a Pre-60s US Birth Cohort: Testing a Prediction From the Social Epistasis Amplification Model. Journal of Religion and Health, (2020). doi: 10.1007/s10943-020-00987-9 ↩︎
  89. Victor Davis Hanson. Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power (New York: Knopf Doubleday, 2007), 175. ↩︎
  90. Ara Norenzayan and Azim F. Shariff, “The Origin and Evolution of Religious Pro-Sociality, Science, 322 (2008): 58-62. ↩︎

4 Comments on The Next Great Awakening

The Hidden Meaning of the Uncharted Video Games

The Uncharted video game franchise is a flagship of the Playstation brand, having sold more than 41.7 million copies. They’re among the most impressive, lavishly produced, movie-like video games ever…

The Uncharted video game franchise is a flagship of the Playstation brand, having sold more than 41.7 million copies. They’re among the most impressive, lavishly produced, movie-like video games ever made. The player’s avatar is a globetrotting treasure hunter clearly inspired by Indiana Jones. Just as Indiana Jones was co-created by Steven Spielberg, Uncharted was co-created by the Jewish Neil Druckmann, and these aren’t the only things they share in common.

Druckmann is an Israeli whose family immigrated to America when he was eleven-years-old. In college he co-created his first video game, an 8-bit demo called Dikki Painguin in: TKO for the Third Reich (which appears to be a hack of Act 2, stage 1 of Ninja Gaiden 2). It stars a cartoon penguin fighting Germans in World War Two. Suffice to say, Druckmann’s Jewish identity has informed his game design from the very beginning.

Druckmann’s first video game starred a cartoon penguin fighting the German National Socialists.

Druckmann joined Naughty Dog – the Sony-owned subsidiary that created the Crash Bandicoot games – in 2004 after meeting its co-founder Jason Rubin at an industry conference. Rubin is also Jewish, so perhaps that played a part in his hiring.[1] Rubin has since left the company and Druckmann is now vice president. Yet despite being born in Israel and repeatedly referencing the German National Socialists in his video games, Druckmann has attempted to downplay his ethnicity.

In an interview with The Frame Druckmann said, “I see myself as a pretty progressive person and yet (as a writer) my default (character) is a white, straight, christian [sic] male. That’s interesting because I’m Jewish and yet that’s the norm for me right now.”[2] He’s right, that is interesting considering he surreptitiously casts Jews in leading roles! For example, the protagonist in Druckmann’s The Last of Us is evidently Jewish. This detail is never explicitly emphasized in the games’ surface narrative, but was confirmed in an official holiday illustration.

An official holiday greetings card published on Naughty Dog’s official Twitter account shows The Last of Us’ Joel in a Hannukah sweater.

Like his peers in Hollywood and advertising, Druckmann has been keen to insert a radical left wing agenda in his stories. He inexplicably decided that an interracial lesbian romance between teenagers would appeal to his largely “White, straight, Christian male” audience, and doubled down with The Last of Us Part 2 (just released this month). In addition to promoting homosexuality, the company has hired a transsexual actor and made his/her character a transsexual, and one of the antagonists has been made more muscular since she was originally revealed, in order to be more “trans friendly.” In the aforementioned interview with The Frame, Druckmann confirmed that his games will feature fewer heterosexual White men moving forward:

“When you make a game, you have these different pillars that you’re trying to balance. It’s graphics, it’s gameplay, it’s story and you’re trying not to let any one pillar overwhelm the other. . . Recently, I realized that there’s this other pillar of diversity. That’s just as important as any one of these other pillars. I’ve kind of empowered people on the team that have made this their top priority. . . Can this be a person of color? Can this be a woman?”[3]

Incredibly, the above examples merely scratch the surface of the subversiveness of Druckmann’s games. What follows is an analysis of the four main Uncharted games (not including the PS Vita sequels or spin-offs), where we find clear examples of Jewish Esoteric Moralization (JEM), a subset of what mythologist Mark Brahmin calls Racial Esoteric Moralization (REM).

Abby, a character in The Last of Us Part 2, was “beefed up” in order to be more “trans friendly.”


What is Jewish Esoteric Moralization?

JEM is a bit like Joseph Campbell’s The Hero’s Journey but with archetypes specifying racial groups. Whereas Campbell’s framework applies more or less universally, JEM encodes an incredibly specific racial subtext that champions Jewish men in resource competition with vilified White/European men. Often the battle is over sexual access to Aryan women. We refer to these groups as Semitic and Aryan (or Dionysian and Apollonian) respectively to clarify that this isn’t just a religious division.

That Jews have hidden a complex symbol language from us is not without precedent. The reader will no doubt be aware that they successfully hid the existence of the Talmud from their European hosts for hundreds of years, and are experts at crypsis. However, it should be stressed that not all Jews are cognizant of the symbol language or would necessarily identify with its message. Indeed it appears that Jewish women are as benighted as Gentiles, as they are often the target of hatred and rejection in the JEM.

If every Jewish work of art was as obvious as Portnoy’s Complaint, The Graduate or Meet The Parents, even the dullest of Gentiles would catch on. With JEM, Jewish artists enjoy(ed) the freedom to subtly communicate and reinforce their worldview, safe in the knowledge that Whites would be blind to it. Take, for example, this ill-informed piece about Uncharted 2 celebrating its supposed reinforcement of White endogamy. As will be demonstrated, precisely the opposite is true. Fittingly, the blinding and/or blindness of their enemies is a common motif.

Sometimes even non-White actors/characters portray an Aryan or Semitic cipher to camouflage the true meaning of a work. Brahmin emphasizes the importance of researching names when examining esoteric art, as they’re often the key to identifying who is who. This is what we’ll be doing with Uncharted, as names cognate with Biblical and mythological archetypes (God Masking), or that describe animals, plants, elements, colors, and other descriptors, can tell us if a character is Semitic or Aryan. For example, Apollo, Ares/Mars, and Zeus/Jupiter are archetypes that personify the Aryan male.

Today anti-White hostility is readily apparent in the media, but if you want to know when crafty Jewish authors are giving you the middle finger behind the curtain you must read Brahmin’s groundbreaking thesis at The Apollonian Transmission and in his upcoming books. It will open your eyes to a whole new world. The following analysis assumes you’re completely new to JEM, so you can pick it up as we go along.

Naughty Dog vice president Neil Druckmann accepts awards for best writing in a video game at the 2014 and 2017 Writers Guild Awards for his work on The Last of Us and Uncharted 4. It must be easy to win awards when you’re part of a secret club!

I’m confident that Druckmann is Naughty Dog’s resident esotericist after having studied his work. It’s possible that none of his coworkers know about the subtext discussed below, but multiple Jews have held key positions on his titles. I bring this up not to suggest some sort of Jewish conspiracy (besides, perhaps, the oft-observed ethnic networking), but rather because JEM is more likely given the circumstances. For example, lead writer Josh Scherr and lead designer Emilia Schatz are self-identified Jews. Several others have names and appearances that suggest Jewish ancestry (such as co-president Evan Wells).

Druckmann is curiously absent the third installment, Drake’s Deception, but I will touch upon aspects that appear to retain his signature. It follows that he made contributions given his involvement with the franchise. My guess is that he helped lay the groundwork but refused to put his name on it due to artistic differences with writer/director Amy Hennig, whom he later allegedly ousted from the company.[4] When he replaced Hennig as writer/director on the fourth game he scrapped much of her work, causing one of the key voice actors to quit due to “weird changes” to the script.[5]


Nathan Drake, a crypto-Jewish hero

The Indiana Jones of the Uncharted games is Nathan Drake ( Morgan). Note that on its own, a Biblical or Hebrew name does not guarantee that a character is a Jewish cipher in the JEM. The given name Nathan means “he gave,” while the longer Nathaniel means “god gave.” This is similar to the meaning of the Hebrew name John (lit. “graced by Yahweh” or “Yahweh is gracious”), the patronymic surname of Indiana Jones (lit. “son of John”). In other words, Yahweh has favored our protagonist.

Ironically, the Old English surname Drake is what gives Nathan’s racial identity away; it’s a byname meaning “snake” or “dragon.” Ostensibly he adopted it after his childhood hero Sir Francis Drake, similar to Jones’ adoption of the nickname “Indiana.” Yet the serpent is one of the most important animal symbols in Jewish art – vines and dragons are variants of it in the JEM – and these identify Semitic (or Judaized) figures.[6] Incidentally, Indiana Jones’ ophidiophobia (“Why does it always have to be snakes?!“) serves as an irreverent in-joke to cognizant Jews.

The surname Morgan isn’t mentioned much in the games. It appears to be a reference to Morgan le Fay of Arthurian legend, particularly “the unpredictable duality of her nature, with potential for both good and evil.”[7] Indeed Drake’s penchant for murdering hundreds of men over the course of his adventures makes him the posterboy of what Clint Hocking terms ludonarrative dissonance. Druckmann has addressed and rejected this criticism,[8] as Drake’s real surname is an esoteric admission that he was never intended to be a paragon of morality.

The name Morgan has its own meaning which relates to Drake’s Jewish nature. It stems from the Old Welsh “Morcant” meaning “sea chief,” “sea protector,” “sea defender,” or “sailor/captain,” which may be a Biblical reference to Noah and Noah’s Ark. Indeed, both Uncharted 1 and Uncharted 4 begin with Drake aboard a boat, and water-based settings figure throughout the franchise. This is significant as water is an Aryan element in the JEM related to blood and admixture.[9] Hence the surname implies that Drake is the master or shepherd of the Aryan flock and that he’s a casanova among its female sheep (his “ark”). This interpretation is corroborated by plot details discussed next.

Nathan Drake, our crypto-Jewish hero, as seen in Uncharted 4.


Nathan Drake’s Aryan love interests

Before we continue, neophytes should understand one of the key themes of the JEM. Namely, Jewish authors such as Druckmann are encoding a “mating call” in their work, which is well illustrated in Uncharted. The objects of their desire are blonde, blue-eyed (Aryan) women. The Jewish obsession with blondes is well-documented,[10] and it is why Brahmin proposes that Judaism is a Semitic bride gathering cult. For example, the name “Indiana” is another Jewish in-joke alluding to sexual intercourse with the Greco-Roman goddess Artemis/Diana, the personification of the coveted Aryan female. Imagine the chutzpah of marketing a film/character to a mostly White male audience that covertly boasts of their racial cuckoldry!

In the first game Drake becomes romantically involved with an attractive independent journalist named Elena Fisher. Her given name is cognate with the Greek name Helena, which in the JEM is a reference to the unmatched beauty Helen of Troy.[11] Additionally, when paired with a Jewish suitor their relationship becomes an esoteric celebration of the proto-Jewish or Semitic infiltration of Hellenistic Greece. As such, this name is usually – but not always – reserved for Aryan women and Elena fits the phenotype exactly (though, inexplicably, her eyes will change from blue to brown or gray in the third and fourth installments).

Elena Fisher personifies the coveted Aryan female, referencing the legendary beauty Helen of Troy. Her eyes inexplicably changed from blue to brown-gray as the series went on.

 The surname “Fisher” may class Elena as Christian, where references to fish often connote Jesus Christ as the “Fisher of Men.”[12] Fish are also an Aryan aqueous resource in the JEM (one ingredient in the Consumption motif). If perhaps a bit of a stretch, Elena’s hunt for news scoops can be interpreted as a reference to the Goddess of the Hunt, Artemis/Diana. All things considered Elena is a distinctly non-Jewish love interest, while Drake is akin to the seducing serpent in the Garden of Eden. Drake even engages in “neg-ing” when he cruelly abandons Elena part way through their first adventure together.[13] When they reunite she eventually forgives the betrayal, accepting that his aloofness is part of his roguish charm.

The sequel takes place sometime later when their relationship is on the rocks. In Elena’s absence Drake has teamed up with a fellow thief named Chloe Frazer; she’s an auxiliary woman – and they rekindle their romance. Her given name is a cognate of Demeter/Ceres, the Greco-Roman goddess of agriculture, itself a common archetype in the JEM associated with Aryans and fertility.[14] This is emphasized by the surname Frazer, which is “the Anglicized form of the Gaelic personal name Frasach (meaning) the generous/fruitful one.”[15]

Chloe Frazer references Demeter/Ceres, the Greco-Roman goddess of the harvest. As an Indian-European mix (or the daughter of Saturn/Cronus, a Semitic deity), she’s not as desirable as a full-blooded Aryan.

 When Drake and Chloe unexpectedly run into Elena again mid-adventure, she’s accompanied by a cameraman named Jeff Wynis. Jeff is a potential rival for Elena’s affections, but he’s immediately eliminated when he’s shot and killed by some enemy soldiers. Thus we’re not terribly concerned if he was an Aryan or Semitic sexual competitor. What’s important is that with Jeff out of the picture, Druckmann has set up a love triangle between Drake, Elena, and Chloe. Given that Elena is a blonde, blue-eyed woman and Chloe is an Indian-European mix with black hair and tanned skin, no points for guessing who he ends up with. The bride gathering cult is, at its heart, a eugenics cult desiring Aryan features.

Chloe and Elena meet in Uncharted 2.


 Cassie Drake & the Cassandra of Greek myth

Drake and Elena have more adventures together in the third game, get married, and by the end of the fourth game have a daughter named Cassie. She’s an example of the Cassandra archetype,[16] a character from Greco-Roman myth who rejects Apollo’s romantic advances. To be clear, the JEM archetype differs from the prevailing “Cassandra metaphor.” The archetype is deployed to demoralize White men as Cassandra(s) reject them in favor of non-White sexual partners.

Hence Drake and Elena’s daughter Cassie, although just a child, has been set up to reject a White suitor in line with the archetype. This is the sort of subtle racial slights that Jews can incorporate into a story; should Cassie feature in future installments, I predict that she’ll be paired with a Jewish or non-White love interest.

In fact, there are two examples of the Cassandra archetype in the Uncharted series as Drake’s mother is also named Cassandra. Thus, we infer that she was an Aryan woman who chose to marry a non-Aryan man. This tells us that Drake inherited his Jewishness from his father, an arrangement not uncommon in the JEM,[17] which reinforces the notion that Jews are inherently admixed while simultaneously corroborating Brahmin’s concept of the matrilineal ruse.

Drake’s mother and daughter reference the Greco-Roman figure Cassandra, who famously denied Apollo’s advances. Note the subtly Jewish features of Cassie’s face. Her t-shirt shows a golden flame surrounding a blue lotus flower, an esoteric “blending” of the Jewish Fire God with an Aryan color symbol.


Sully the trickster & Sam the king maker

Drake’s mentor and father figure is the veteran thief Victor “Sully” Sullivan. His given name is self-explanatory, but the nickname Sully means “south meadow,” where the South is typically understood as a non-Aryan realm (in contrast to the Hyperborean North). The same designation applies to the East versus the West, hence “Sully” seems to be a Semitic ally.

This is corroborated by the meaning of the Irish surname Sullivan, which stems from the basic word súil (lit. “eye”). The latter half of the name is contested; in full it can mean “one-eyed,” “quick eyed,” “little dark-eyed one,” or “hawk eyed.” This ambiguity is actually handy from the esotericist’s point of view, as the name can reference multiple mythological figures to convey Sully’s personality and archetype.

If Sullivan means “one-eyed,” he’s likely channeling the one-eyed Norse god Odin. However, if the name means “hawk eyed,” Sully is posing as the Arthurian wizard Merlin (there’s a species of pigeon-hawk called the merlin). Indeed Druckmann may be intelligently referencing both of these figures, who, like Sully, are wizened tricksters. Frequent references to Norse myth (handed down to us from the Church) and Arthurian legend appear in the JEM, and these myths appear to hew closely to the symbol language. Later, we’ll see the odd reference built upon symbols from Incan mythology as well as Hinduism/Buddhism, but these are outliers/one-offs from my personal study of JEM.

Victor “Sully” Sullivan is Drake’s mentor and partner in crime, a trickster like Odin and Merlin. Note the encoded Ouroboros symbol on the door in the background ( see my analysis of Annihilation for how it relates to JEM).

Drake’s older brother Samuel is introduced in the fourth game. The sudden appearance of a down-on-his-luck older brother brings up an interesting motif in the JEM whereby siblings (especially brothers) may be racial rivals.[18] However, the name Samuel tends to be a Semitic identifier in the JEM so the Drakes don’t appear to follow this pattern. His Hebrew name means “God listened” or “God heard,”[19] suggesting God has answered Nathan’s prayers with Samuel’s reappearance.

The Biblical Samuel is the “king maker,” and Sam fits this role perfectly. Nathan has given up “treasure-hunting” (having married Elena) and is living a mundane existence; it is Sam’s return that coaxes Nathan into joining one last adventure. Sam surreptitiously collects some pirate gold during their quest, which is later used to purchase the company that Nathan works for (Nathan takes over as boss, becoming “king”). As a result, Nathan and Elena are set for life when they complete the treasure salvage in Malaysia that his former boss had been planning.

Sam, the “king maker,” rescues his brother from his life of doldrums.


The Frankish motif

In Uncharted: Among Thieves, Drake befriends an old German explorer living in the Himalayas who was originally hired by the German National Socialists to find the entrance to Shambhala. His name is Karl Schäfer, which reveals that he’s another Semitic cipher. Characters named Karl and its cognates compose what Brahmin terms the Frankish motif. His surname means “shepherd,” an occupation that aligns with Semitic archetypes such as Moses and Hermes/Mercury. As the latter was a “soul guide” to the Underworld or afterlife, Karl’s role is to guide Drake towards Shambhala, which is synonymous with Heaven or paradise.

It’s possible there’s another example of the Frankish motif in the third game, where we find the Englishman Charlie Cutter (Charles is a cognate of Karl). Despite his Anglo-Saxon name and appearance, Charlie is Drake’s trustworthy brother-in-arms. His surname, originally an occupational name for a cloth cutter, may also suggest a woodcutter. Wood is a symbol representing the Aryan as a consumable resource for the Jewish Fire God, wood that Charlie metaphorically “chops down” when killing foes.[20]

In the fourth game, we learn that Drake’s employer Jameson is married to a woman named Karla. It’s a minor detail for a character we’ll never meet, but it’s patterns like this that confirm the symbol language is at play. What’s important here is that these characters are Drake’s allies, which is why Brahmin suggests the Frankish empire was either Jewish, philo-Semitic, or inadvertently aligned with Jewish interests. We’ll see several historical references to anti-Semitic figures next, in the manner of Indiana JonesBelloq (a reference to the writer Hilaire Belloc).

Karl Schäfer and Charlie Cutter, possible examples of the Frankish motif. Note that Charlie wears black and green, Semitic colors in the JEM symbolism.


Antagonists in Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune

Atoq Navarro, a Peruvian Mestizos archeologist – and thus Drake’s treasure-hunting rival – is the main antagonist in the first game. His given name stems from Incan astronomy where a dark constellation called Atoq represents the fox.[21] The fox may function as a Semitic identifier related to the Teumessian Fox of Greco-Roman mythology, while the surname “Fox” and its cognates are also common Jewish names (note that Drake thinks Crash Bandicoot is a fox in Uncharted 4). In Incan mythology the fox is a thief that is said to have deceived the gods. Wikipedia states:

“(T)he deity Cuniraya Viracocha was angered by a fox and stated that, ‘As for you, even when you skulk around keeping your distance, people will thoroughly despise you and say ‘That fox is a thief!’ When they kill you they’ll carelessly throw you away and your skin too.’ In other narratives, the fox is said to have tried to steal the moon but the moon hugged the fox close which resulted in the spots on the moon.”[22]

These details are thematically appropriate. The latter anecdote arguably posits Atoq as a Semitic figure via an association with the Moon God Sin.[23] Alternatively the fox and Moon’s embrace dovetails with Atoq’s kidnapping of Elena, as she is associated with the Moon via the Artemis Daphnaia motif.[24]

“Navarro” is a Spanish and Sephardi Jewish surname, further hinting that he’s a Semitic figure. Thus we have what appears to be a Caducean Conflict wherein both protagonist and antagonist are esoterically indicated Jewish bride gatherers attempting to obtain El Dorado.[25] Essentially they are both after gold as a symbol of the Aryan’s blonde hair.[26]

The secondary antagonist is a man named Gabriel Roman. His given name is taken from the archangel, where, writes Brahmin: “Angels, in general, as figures, are Aryan with a few exceptions.”[27] The surname Roman ties him to the Roman Catholic Church.[28] Atoq kills him when he’s overcome by the corrosive power of the game’s MacGuffin, the cursed mummy inside the El Dorado sarcophagus.

Atoq Navarre and Gabriel Roman. Note Atoq wears black (a Semitic color) while Roman wears white and blue (Aryan colors).

The tertiary villain is an Indonesian treasure hunter named Eddy Raja. Raja is an Indian name meaning “king,” where names indicating royalty commonly identify Aryan characters in the JEM.[29] Thus despite his surface-level race, Eddy can be read as a historical reference to King Edward I, who famously issued the Edict of Expulsion in 1290. Hence he’s an inherently anti-Semitic villain! Indeed Raja manages to capture and imprison our hero, but Elena breaks Drake out of his prison cell (a bit like Oliver Cromwell “freeing” the Jews).

Eddy Raja is a reference to King Edward I. Note that he wears bright yellow and gold jewelry (Aryan colors/metal).


 Antagonists in Uncharted: Among Thieves

The main villain in the second game is a Serbian war criminal named Zoran Lazarević. Zoran is a common Slavic name, the masculine form of Zora, which means “dawn” or “daybreak.” It comes from the Zorya of Slavic mythology, “the two guardian goddesses, known as the Auroras. . . the Morning Star and the Evening Star.”[30] To wit, Druckmann is drawing a line between these Slavic goddesses and their Greco-Roman counterparts Eos/Aurora (the Goddess of Dawn), and Hesperus/Venus (the Evening Star). Indeed the Slavic name Zora is etymologically linked to Zohra, the Islamic name for the Planet Venus!

Saliently the masculine form of the name is linked to Lucifer (also the dawn-bringer and Morning Star). Brahmin argues that Lucifer is an epithet for Apollo,[31] implying Zoran is a god-masked Apollo. The smoking gun? Zoran’s official bio in Uncharted 4 informs us that he had a “love for the writings of Neitzsche,” whose philosophy famously proposed the Apollonian Dionysian dichotomy. That Apollo is repeatedly vilified as the personification of the “anti-Semitic Aryan” by Jewish authors is one of several reasons why Brahmin suggests we should embrace Apollo as our representative God.

The Serbian surname Lazarević is derived from the Hebrew name אֶלְעָזָר (Elʿazar or Eleazar), meaning “God has helped,” likely because Zoran manages to obtain the power of the story’s MacGuffin in the finale (though Drake still manages to defeat him). This heals Zoran’s burn scars which covered part of his face (an allusion to a fateful encounter with the Jewish Fire God, perhaps?). Alternatively the surname may describe Apollo as naturally gifted.

As a Serbian war criminal we can assume that Zoran is guilty of ethnic cleansing. This is likely a veiled criticism of the Apollo Cult’s eugenic Thargelia rituals, yet constitutes what Brahmin calls Conscious Ethnic Projection (CEP) given Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians. Indeed in December 2019 the International Criminal Court in the Hague announced that would investigate Israeli war crimes, which was predictably met with accusations of anti-Semitism.

Zoran’s name is a reference to “dawn” and “daybreak,” and the Slavic Goddess of the Morning Star, esoterically connecting him to Lucifer, and, by extension, Apollo.

The power of the Cintamani Stone of Buddhist and Hindu mythology is what heals Zoran. Here the stone is depicted as a blue orb in the center of a white tree referred to as the Tree of Life. The sphere’s blue coloration, which matches the sky and the Aryan’s blue eyes, indicates it is an Aryan power source.[32] This plot device strikingly communicates the bride gathering cult’s obsession with the Aryan as a rejuvenating genetic resource. Given its color, power, shape, and position within the tree, this MacGuffin is the physical manifestation of the Tiferet, the sixth Sephira on the Tree of Life representing the planet Jupiter in Jewish mysticism.

The Cintamani Stone in the Hindu/Buddhist Tree of Life, a stand-in for the Kabbalistic Tree of Life.

Zoran’s left-hand man is the treaure hunter Harry Flynn. He’s another Aryan villain: the name Harry (as distinct from Harrold) is cognate with Henry, ultimately stemming from the Old German “Haganrich,” where hagan means “enclosure.” Names referencing enclosures often indicate a god-masked Apollo, whose name originally meant “wall,” “fence for animals,” and “assembly within the limits of the square.”[33] Here we gain further insight into Indiana Jones’ rejection of his given name Henry; he is, in effect, rejecting the implied association with Apollo!

Things get even more interesting: The surname Flynn, which means “reddish” or “ruddy complexion,” is another Aryan identifier in the JEM related to Adam the Red.[34] In other words, the enclosure referenced with “Harry” is the Garden of Eden. Thus Druckmann has strongly corroborated what Brahmin calls the Eden Proof (feel free to pause here to read this essential article).[35]

Harry Flynn, an esoteric reference to Eden and Adam, strongly corroborates what Brahmin terms “the Eden Proof.”

 Zoran’s right-hand man is a black man simply named Draza. His race in the surface narrative appears to camouflage a historical figure, one Draža Mihailović, a Yugoslav Serb general who was convicted of high treason and war crimes by the Communist authorities during the Second World War.[36] As a staunch Royalist and Nationalist, the anti-Communist Mihailović is thus another villainous anti-Semite, from which we infer that Druckmann stands on the side of the Judeo-Bolsheviks and their unparalleled atrocities.


Antagonists in Uncharted: Drake’s Deception

Despite Druckmann’s supposed sabbatical from Uncharted‘s third chapter, we find what appears to be more JEM symbolism within it. The main antagonist is Katherine “Kate” Marlowe, the English leader of an over 400-year old hermetic Order. Katherine would follow JEM naming convention as a reference to Hecate/Trivia,[37] as “Kate” (and its cognates) are believed to stem from the latter half of “Hecate.” As the third aspect of the Triple Goddess, the old crone, Katherine is an older woman who personifies a corrupted, witch-like, and/or Judaized Aryan female. She metaphorically enters the Underworld when she’s consumed by quicksand in the game’s finale.

The game helpfully informs us that Queen Elizabeth I, Francis Walsingham, John Dee, Walter Raleigh, and Francis Drake belonged to Kate’s Order. This is an allusion to the Illuminati,[38] and corroborates Brahmin’s observation that the JEM outs historical crypto-Jews.[39] This also seems to apply to the game’s mention of T.E. Lawrence (a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia) whose surname is cognate with Stephen (these identify Semitic ciphers in the JEM). Here the age of the Order may imply an Aryan organization due to the symbolism of the number four, though typically the Illuminati/Freemasons are depicted as subordinate to Jewish interests.[40]

The surname Marlowe is a habitational name for someone who lived in Morlaix, Brittany, a peninsula in the northwest of France. This may indicate her family (or the Order itself) came with the Norman Invasion of England in 1066. Alternatively the name Morlaix sounds like mort lait which is French for “dead milk.” Jewish esotericists may imply “the milk has gone sour” or “has run dry” with such female characters.[41] Just as the crone represents the end of the life cycle, the implication here is that Zionist Freemasonry has “run its course” or has become corrupted.

As Katherine appears to have been consciously developed within the JEM framework, it seems likely that Druckmann conceived her. In contrast, Marlowe’s second-in-command is a man simply named Talbot, which means “messenger of destruction.” It seems to me that Talbot is one of Hennig’s creations, named in homage of David Talbot, the head of a similar secret society in Anne Rice’s The Tale of the Body Thief. Hennig had previously worked on games starring vampires, so it follows that she’d be a fan of Rice’s work.

Katherine “Kate” Marlowe is likely an allusion to Hecate/Trivia, a witch-like archetype in the JEM. Sister Catherine, seen briefly in Uncharted 4, is another example. She’s a strict nun who watches over the young Drake during his stay at a Catholic orphanage.


Antagonists in Uncharted: A Thief’s End

Druckmann was back in the driver’s seat for the fourth game. Here we find an imaginary villain named Hector Alcázar. In Brahmin’s estimation Hector – the legendary Trojan killed by Achilles – is a Semitic figure.[42] The Spanish surname is a word for a type of Moorish castle or palace, as well as a habitational name for someone from Spain, suggesting perhaps Sephardi Jewish roots (indeed Hector looks as though he could be Drake’s father!). Alternatively, it may suggest the infamous island prison Alcatras, as Sam supposedly befriended Hector while the two were inmates in prison.

It is my suspicion that Alcázar, as “Butcher of Panama,” is a historical reference to Manuel Noriega Moreno. “Moreno” is a Spanish, Portuguese, and Sephardi Jewish surname, possibly a derivative of the classical Latin “Maurus” meaning “Moor” (which would tie into the aforementioned meaning of Alcázar). Perhaps Druckmann is telling us that Noriega was a Jew. Alternatively Noriega’s ties to the United States intelligence agencies made him a puppet, an “imaginary villain,” just like Alcázar. This relates to Brahmin’s concept of the Caducean phenomenon.

The real villain is a White man named Rafe Adler. His given name (pronounced like “safe”) has multiple origins, the most likely being the Old Norse variant which means “counsel of the wolf,” or “wise wolf.” The wolf is an animal totem commonly assigned to Aryan characters in the JEM.[43] Here it is paired with a German surname that means “eagle.” This is revealing, as both the wolf and the eagle are among Zeus/Jupiter’s sacred animals. Thus at bare minimum Adler is a clearly defined Aryan villain, if not a god-masked Zeus (Zeus is an Aryan god hated for having exiled Saturn and Vulcan, the latter two being important Semitic deities in the JEM).

Nadine Ross and Rafe Adler in Uncharted 4.

A black woman named Nadine Ross is Adler’s accomplice. Her given name is of Arabic origin meaning “admonitory/messenger,” which is contradicted by its secondary meaning of “Showerer of blessings.” Thus she’s indicated as neither good nor evil, or someone between an ally and a villain. Indeed she does not seem terribly concerned with killing Drake, and would later star in the spin-off Uncharted: Lost Legacy alongside Chloe as her partner in crime.

Her surname may descend from the Gaelic word for “headland,” which is “a narrow piece of land that projects from a coastline into the sea.” This clearly relates to her paramilitary outfit “Shoreline.” It can also mean “a strip of land left unplowed at the end of a field,” which implies she is neither sexually penetrated nor inseminated, i.e. a virgin.

These clues imply that Nadine is a god-masked Athena Parthenos, virgin goddess of war (and one of Zeus’ children). More specifically, as a black woman Nadine appears to venerate Martin Bernal‘s (discredited) theory of “Black Athena,” which is based on Plato’s notion that Athena was originally inspired by the “war-like” Egyptian goddess Neith.

Moreover these meanings imply Nadine is a lesbian: In the JEM symbolism, water represents the Aryan as an aqueous resource, so if “Ross” means something like “peninsula,” Nadine is posited as the hard, masculine, earthen element penetrating the sea. The sexual connotation of “unplowed field” still applies as fully compatible with lesbianism.[44] Athena mourned the accidental killing of her beloved friend Pallas by taking her name, becoming “Pallas Athena,” the implication being they were more than friends. Indeed an official holiday illustration depicts Nadine and Chloe blushing under the mistletoe.


The Jewish experience in microcosm

Often JEM takes the form of a parable where important historical conflicts are reduced to a microcosm. Let’s explore a simple example from Uncharted 4, when Drake spends some time in a Panamanian prison. This section of the game begins with a fist fight between him and a Spanish-speaking prisoner named Gustavo. “Gustavo” is the Spanish version of the Old Swedish name “Gustaf,” meaning “staff of the Geats.” To wit, Drake’s conflict with this “Spanish” thug is a parable of the Jewish struggle for dominance in Visigothic Spain reduced to a microcosm.

The fight is interrupted by a crooked prison warden named Vargas, who’s a minor villain. His is a Spanish habitational name stemming from a knight named Iván de Vargas who “distinguished himself in the (re)conquest of Madrid,”[45] allowing Christians to supplant Muslims at the center of the city. The reader will be aware that Jews opened the gates to the Moorish invasion of Spain, so Vargas is yet another reference to an historical anti-Semitic villain. Both Gustavo and Vargas will meet their demise as Drake escapes – effectively a “dunk” on Catholic Spain, which is a sore spot for Jews due to the counter-Semitic measures taken during the Spanish Inquisition.


Apollo versus Jesus in Uncharted 4

As we saw in Uncharted 2, names cognate with Henry often indicate a god-masked Apollo – Jewry’s archnemesis. This appears to be the case with Druckmann’s reference to Henry Avery, a legendary pirate, in Uncharted 4. In the game’s plot we learn that Henry Avery founded a pirate utopia called Libertalia with the help of eleven other legendary pirates. The “twelve pirates” who pooled their gold together are possibly the deities of the Greco-Roman pantheon related to the Zodiac.[46]

Henry tried to take the colony’s treasure hoard for himself, and poisoned the other pirates with the help of an accomplice named Thomas Tew. This may represent Apollo supplanting the other gods to become the most important deity. However, he failed: Thomas stabbed Henry in the back in an attempt to take the treasure for himself. In the finale we learn that Henry and Thomas killed one another.

Characters named Tom are often Christ figures in the JEM where the apostle “Doubting Thomas” is considered the “twin of Christ” (indeed Thomas means “twin” in Hebrew).[47] Thus the rise and fall of Libertalia, with its ill-fated Apollo and Christ figures, may be a parable of Christ’s victory over Apollo and the collapse of the Ancient Roman Empire.[48] Of course, Christ was crucified by the Romans and so Thomas Tew never made it out alive, either.

However, there may also be an encoded political message here. Note the similarity between Henry Avery’s pirate sigil and the Skull and Bones society’s logo. Iconography present in Henry’s mansion points to his organization being something akin to Freemasonry, which would apply to Skull and Bones. Also note that Skull and Bones was started by two key figures, and had twelve original members. Hence the game’s backstory may communicate that Skull and Bones was an Aryan movement attempting to rob America that collapsed due to the Christian beliefs of its members.

Skull and Bones (a.k.a. Order 322) is an important organization in American politics and one that seems to be referenced in films. Take the famous football scene from The Dark Knight Rises for example, in which a luxury suite numbered 322 explodes. The stadium where this scene was filmed does not contain a suite with that number, suggesting the detail is a deliberate reference. See also the Prescott family (i.e. Prescott Bush, a member of Skull and Bones) in Life is Strange.

Henry Avery, whom Drake refers to as a “paranoid psychopath,” has a golden harp in his mansion. The harp is one of Apollo’s symbols. Also note the sunbursts on the floor and the golden suns on the doors in the mansion, more Apollonian symbols. On the doors, beneath the sun, there’s an encoded Masonic compass which is missing its partner, the square.


Other JEM symbolism in Uncharted

There is much, much, more to explore, but for brevity’s sake I will highlight only a few examples. In many areas the correct path forward is subtly marked with yellow, which guides the player as if on a “yellow brick road.” Yellow, like gold, is an Aryan color corresponding with blond hair and the sun. Blue is also an Aryan color due to the Aryan’s blue eyes. Take note where blue and yellow are combined in props or costumes. Green,[49] on the other hand, is a Semitic color, while “purple is where an Aryan blue meets red, the color of vulnerability to admixture.”[50] Thus Drake wears a green shirt and Elena wears a purple shirt as they share dinner and a passionate kiss in Uncharted 4.

Costume colors matching the esoteric racial identities and themes appear in this scene from Uncharted 4.

 JEM number symbolism is also present (keep your eyes peeled for the number six), as is Hebraic gematria. For example, in Uncharted 4 the Saint Francis cathedral – the orphanage where Drake stays as a boy – is addressed 1016. In Hebraic gematria, 1016 corresponds to a Hebrew word meaning “what is redundant or overlapping.” This is a religious slight describing Christianity from a Jewish perspective. Other associations with 1016 appear in 366, where we find “Alliance” (describing Drake and Sam or St. Francis as a crypto-Jew allied with the Catholic church) and 456, “an orphan; a fatherless child” (reflecting Drake’s childhood).

The Saint Francis cathedral is addressed 1016, corresponding to meaningful Hebrew words via gematria.

Eagle-eyed players could have a field day sifting out all of the JEM tropes. Perhaps the most noteworthy motif is the franchise’s general focus on flashy water effects. Throughout the series, Drake will navigate river rapids on a sea-doo, infiltrate a tanker as it’s tossed about at sea, escape a sinking cruise ship, and so on. Ostensibly Naughty Dog’s designers wanted to show off the technical power of the Playstation with their visual effects wizardry. Yet as mentioned earlier, water (especially fresh water) is an important symbol representing the Aryan as an essential resource (Semites are a desert-dwelling people, after all).


What this means for Sony, Naughty Dog, and Amy Hennig

That Naughty Dog’s games contain Jewish Esoteric Moralization raises serious concerns about Druckmann’s leadership. Dissidents will certainly want to boycott the company, but what about the studio itself? Can straight, White, Christian men working under his regime truly expect fair and equal treatment, given his deep-seated racial/religious bias? How many non-Jewish employees have been passed over for promotion, simply because they’re the “enemy”? And has he made any passes at blondes working there, such as the actresses he hires to portray his characters?

Of course until JEM becomes a widely known phenomenon Druckmann can deny and deflect with exoteric alibis. Yet the scandal surrounding Amy Hennig’s departure from the company seems to be the clincher. As mentioned, despite her industry experience Hennig was allegedly “forced out” by Druckmann and Bruce Straley. This analysis reveals the likely motive: Her ideas were simply incompatible with the esoteric subtext Druckmann sought to insert! Hypothetically, he could rally his co-ethnic male peers to his side but had to leave her in the dark. And so he and Straley allegedly “stonewalled” her, which must have been personally and professionally devastating to her.

Three’s a crowd: Amy Hennig was allegedly forced out of the company by Neil Druckmann and Bruce Straley.

Hennig is a cut above most video game writers, but like most non-Jewish authors she probably thinks of her work as having no purpose beyond entertainment. It should be self-evident that the intricacy and purpose behind Druckmann’s work is, in its own way, impressive and imitable. If left unchallenged, he will no doubt become something like the Steven Spielberg or Stan Lee of video games. His other baby, The Last of Us, is widely acclaimed – despite its many shortcomings in game design – purely because of its production value and story.

Brahmin argues we must treat our own Art with the same care and respect because of its power to shape the culture and attitudes of our people. A “return to sophistication,”[51] both in how we write stories and interpret them, will inevitably require “the establishment of an agreed upon, shared symbolism.”[52] Race-conscious White writers can begin the process of moralizing our people by simply reversing the way in which Greco-Roman archetypes are deployed in the JEM (for some quick tips, click here). Applying Roman Interpretation to Jewish art is an education in itself that will yield many important building blocks.

Lastly, I feel Sony should send in a Japanese task force to radically restructure Naughty Dog from top to bottom. This likely won’t happen, but the debacle surrounding The Last of Us Part 2 and its bizarre political agenda would provide the perfect cover for terminating Druckmann’s employment. Hennig could be invited back as the lead writer/director, which would signal a return to form while pleasing stalwart fans. At the very least Sony should audit the software marketed by former Naughty Dog employee Andrew Maximov called “Promothean A.I.” to determine if he has stolen any of the studio’s intellectual property. Prometheus is, after all, a Semitic figure who stole fire from the Gods.


Notes and Citations

[1] Rubin directed the original Crash Bandicoot games, which are legitimately good, as well as the Jak & Daxter trilogy (which are solid if not spectacular). His games were more about fun than politics, and many fans have been unhappy with Naughty Dog’s direction since his departure.

[2] Michelle Lanz, “A peek into Naughty Dog game creator Neil Druckmann’s creative process,” the Frame, July 13, 2016

[3] ibid.

[4] Paul Tassi, “‘Uncharted’ Writer/Director Amy Hennig Reportedly ‘Forced Out’ At Naughty Dog,” Forbes, March 5, 2014 (archive link)

[5] Kyle Orland, “Alan Tudyk: I left Uncharted 4 over ‘weird changes’ to script,” October 20, 2015

[6] Mark Brahmin, REM: Racial Esoteric Moralization (Washington Summit, 2020) book #, chapter: “Garden of Eden Part II: The Jewish Serpent & Jewish Tree of Knowledge

ii. M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “Garden of Eden Part III: Seth as Serpent Seed and Sargon of Akkad as Serpent

[7] Morgan le Fay, Wikipedia

[8] Chris Suellentrop, “‘Uncharted 4’ Director Neil Druckmann on Nathan Drake, Sexism in Games,” Rolling Stone, May 24, 2016.

[9] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Baptism and Anointing: Symbols for Copulation and Sexual Interaction

[10] See also Yaron Ben-Naeh, “Blond, tall, with honey-colored eyes: Jewish ownership of slaves in the Ottoman Empire,” Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 2006

[11] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “The Value of Homer

ii. See also Lena in Annihilation, Ellen Biederman in Deep Impact, a character originally named Helen in Super Bad, Ellen (“The Lady”) in The Quick and the Dead, Helena Harford in Eyes Wide Shut, and so on.

[12] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “Homosexuality Part VII: The Aryan Jonah and the Pederastic Synagogue

ii. See the obvious Christ figure Spurgeon “Fish” Tanner in Deep Impact.

[13] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “The ‘Neg-ing’ Jewish Husband and the Christian Wife

[14] See also Chloe Price in Life is Strange, Chloe in Deep Impact, and Josie Radek in Annihilation.

[15] Frazer, Wikipedia

[16] See “Names referencing racial cuckoldry against Aryans” in M. Brahmin, “Names Part II: The Importance of Names in REM, Common names & Exoteric Alibis

ii. See also Cassie in Annihilation, and Cassidy in Life is Strange 2.

[17] See also the admixed Leo Biederman in Deep Impact, whose mother is named Ellen (also a reference to Helen).

[18] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “Aryans as ‘First Born,’ Jews as ‘Second Born’ & The Curse of Cain

ii. See Shaun and Daniel Diaz in Life is Strange 2 and Kain in Annihilation.

[19] See also Sam in The Last of Us and Sam Flynn in Tron: Legacy.

[20] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “Semitic Fire Gods

[21] Marina Jones, “The Dark Constellations of the Incas,” Futurism, August 10, 2014

[22] Foxes in Inca mythology, Wikipedia

[23] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “‘Sin’ as an Original Jewish God?

[24] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “The Daphne Motif and the problem with Laurels

[25] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “The Caducean phenomenon

[26] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “Star of David, Power Rings, Crowns and Gold

[27] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “The Racial Identity of Christ’s Parents Part II: The Annunciation Proof

[28] See also Roman Castevet in Rosemary’s Baby.

[29] See “Names Indicating Aryan Characters or ‘Aryan Identifiers'” in M. Brahmin, “Names Part II: The Importance of Names in REM, Common names & Exoteric Alibis

[30] Zorya, Wikipedia

ii. See also Zhora in Blade Runner as a reference to Venus.

[31] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “Esoteric Apollo: Lucifer, an imperfect name describing an Aryan God

ii. See also CLU in Tron: Legacy.

[32] See color symbolism, M. Brahmin, “The Parabolist’s and Propagandist’s Quick Reference Guide for Creating A.I.M

[33] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “Apollo, the Wall, the Enclosure, the Garden, the Assembly and the Eden Proof

ii. See also Henry in The Last of Us, Little Henry in American History X, and Coach Harris in Revenge of the Nerds.

[34] See “Adam the red,” M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The Garden of Eden Part I: Adam the Aryan Cuckold

[35] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “Apollo, the Wall, the Enclosure, the Garden, the Assembly and the Eden Proof

[36] Draža Mihailović, Wikipedia

[37] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “The Underworld as non-Aryan, ‘Sacred Prostitution’ and Jewess as ‘Trivia’

ii. See also Kat in The Last of Us Part 2, Kat in DmC: Devil May Cry, Trinity in The Matrix, the Trent sisters in Rosemary’s Baby, Adele Lack in Synecdoche New York, Kate Marsh in Life is Strange, Karen Reynolds in Life is Strange 2, Caitlin Stanley in Deep Impact, Catherine Langford in Stargate, Kathleen “Kitty Kat” Cleary in Wedding Crashers, and the company ‘Cathi Sue’ in Heist.

[38] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “Illuminati confirmed

[39] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “Historical Crypto-Jews Identified in JEM and History as Propaganda

[40] See number symbolism, M. Brahmin, “The Parabolist’s and Propagandist’s Quick Reference Guide for Creating A.I.M

[41] Another tantalizing though perhaps unlikely association occurs in a local legend of Morlaix, which is home to the “so-called Duchess Anne’s house,” named for Anne of Brittany. She was Duchess of Brittany from 1488 until her death in 1514; readers will no doubt be aware of the significance of the number 1488 which is alluded to (perhaps) via this villain’s surname.

[42] See Hector, M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “The Value of Homer

[43] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “Esoteric Apollo: the totem of Wolf as pseudo-praise

[44] A somewhat similar euphemism may be implied with the Marvel character Carol Danvers, where “Danvers” may mean something akin to “dyke.” See M. Brahmin, “Captain Marvel Part I: The Jewish Feminist Carol Danvers a.k.a Ms. Marvel

[45] Madrid (Middle Ages), Wikipedia

[46] See the number twelve, M. Brahmin, ibid., “The Parabolist’s and Propagandist’s Quick Reference Guide for Creating A.I.M.

[47] See Tom in 1917 and President Tom Beck in Deep Impact.

[48] See also Tron: Legacy.

[49] M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “The Color Green, Robin Hood & May Day

[50] See “purple,” M. Brahmin, ibid., book #, chapter: “Captain Marvel Part II: The Christian Kree and The Jewish Skrulls

[51] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “A Return To Sophistication

[52] M. Brahmin, ibid, book #, chapter: “Myth and Symbol Language Part I: The importance of establishing an Agreed upon, Shared Symbolism

No Comments on The Hidden Meaning of the Uncharted Video Games

Nostalgia, Nationalism & Woody Allen

Nostalgia is the great opium den of Nationalist circles where many bright and energetic minds in dissident politics go to escape modernity and embark on a quest of contemplation and…

Nostalgia is the great opium den of Nationalist circles where many bright and energetic minds in dissident politics go to escape modernity and embark on a quest of contemplation and yearning for what “could have been”. Is this something that can be fully separated from radicals in our movement? Maybe not completely, however, just like the addict in the opium den, so too, are nationalists being consumed in reverie over any time period that they never lived in, and in place of progression is a great wheat field image induced stagnation that breeds depression and resentment.

Third position ideas do require reflection on our past, which can justifiably create immense admiration, but if only for the purpose of moving forward. Jewish Filmmaker Woody Allen, seems to understand the negative effects of nostalgia and seemingly gifts us with his 2011 film, Midnight In Paris. A film that displays how this trance-like state of yearning for the past can seriously complicate your present. The only problem is Allen, I feel, is speaking to a very specific audience and that audience is us. Thus, he is careful to not encourage us too much and, as you will read below, I believe he has a more nefarious purpose for this messaging.


OVERVIEW OF MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

 Midnight in Paris, written and directed by Woody Allen, is a quirky tale of a screenwriter seemingly at an impasse. Gil Pender (Owen Wilson), is vacationing in Paris with his fiancee, Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her parents John and Helen. As we can see right off the bat, Gil and Inez couldn’t be more different than one another. Gil is very lackadaisical while Inez is explicitly high maintenance and intense. Inez’s parents have nothing but disdain for Gil and his ostensibly aloof and unserious personality. Gil is almost finished with his first novel about a man working in a nostalgia shop. Inez is not impressed or encouraging with this novel and wishes he would stick to screenwriting due to to his success in Hollywood. Inez is also annoyed at Gils’ insistence that they should live in Paris indefinitely due to his nostalgic euphoria over the Paris of the 1920’s.

Paul, who is a friend of Inez, and his wife happen to be in Paris at the same time as them. She admits to Gil she had a “crush” on Paul in college to which a clearly jealous Gil describes him as “Pedantic” and “Pseudo-intellectual”. Inez is clearly infatuated with Paul while Gil cannot stand him. Paul is a very dapper man who speaks with confidence and with every chance he gets, he tries to be the smartest man in the room. Even when he is contradicted by a tour guide about the artist Rodin and his tryst with his wife and mistress, Paul will not relent and keeps insisting he is right (and as the viewer can find out if they look into the life of Rodin, the tour guide was correct).

Gil and Inez have a night of drinking with Paul and his wife until Gil opts for a walk around the city of Paris alone to take the city it all in while Inez leaves with Paul and his wife in a taxi. Gil stops on his walk to figure out where he is exactly and as soon as the clock strikes midnight, a 1920’s vehicle pulls up in front of Gil. The passengers, also dressed from the 20’s, invite him to join them. It is at this point Gil is transported back in time to what he sees as the Golden Age of Paris. The 1920’s. This allows for an entertaining list of famous characters from the time to enter the plot such as Ernest Hemingway, Salvador Dali, Luis Bunuel, Cole Porter, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and more.

Every night Gil transports himself back in time to meet all these artistic giants of the 20th century while his wife spends her time with Paul and, supposedly, his wife. After Hemingway brings Gil to Gertrude Stein’s flat so that he may have his novel analyzed, he meets Adriana (Marianne Cotillard). They have an instant connection and Gil becomes conflicted with this new flame that he has in the past and his current fiancee.

After visiting an Antique vendor in the present day, he finds Adriana’s diary where she has written a passage about her love for Gil. This encourages him to go back in time once more so that they may communicate their feelings for one another. They do so,and as they kiss at midnight, a horse drawn carriage pulls up in front of them and a well dressed couple invites them in. They are then transported to the 1890’s which is the true Golden Age, according to Adriana. After she is offered a job to make costumes for the theater, she decides to stay but Gil cannot. He realizes that everybody is bored with the age in which they live and they won’t find their meaning by going back. He decides the present is where he should remain and they choose to part.

Once in the present, Gil realizes Inez may be cheating on him with Paul (a discovery made by Hemingway after he reads Gil’s novel; Gertrude Stein then relates to Gil that Hemingway could not believe the protagonist did not see his fiancee was having an affair right before his eyes with “the pedantic one”) and when he confronts her, she admits to doing so but that he needs to just “get over it”. Gil seems rather pleased and takes this moment to tell her he will stay in Paris and they are not right for one another. In the end, we see Gil walking, yet again, through the city of Paris and at midnight he bumps into a young beautiful antique vendor he met earlier in the film. They walk off together through the streets, in the rain, which is where Gil always felt happiest.


WOODY ALLEN & THE ARYAN

 What does this film mean, and more importantly, what does it mean for nationalists? In a way, Allen is giving an honest critique of reactionary thought. Not living in the now and spending ones time only in the past can produce untold unhappiness in the present. Gil is frustrated with how he is presently living. He dreams of a before time when to him everything was great. We see this many a time in politics. For a typical Republican, perhaps it’s America in the 50’s. To some 1930s Europe. To others medieval times and there are even those that believe that in the days of cavemen things were far more ideal. Which ever time one finds themselves pining for, Allen is telling the viewer that it is the present we should be focused in but how exactly is he portraying the present?

The film opens with a series of static shots that appear almost like paintings to display the very best of Paris. Throughout the film, the city is always ever present as another character in the story. While indeed very inspiring and breathtaking, it is obvious Woody Allen has only picked very select parts of the city. What we know of Paris today is that it is a shell of its former self. Even in 2011, during the films release, migrant hell holes burrowed their way into the city along with the trash that covers the streets. Culture in Paris is waning and the very best parts of the city are only preserved for the sake of tourism and not for the French soul. I doubt Allen is ignorant to any this. Quite the opposite. I believe this was a calculated decision on his part to ensure that we don’t spend much time in the past but to also accept our present as being more than sufficient, therefore we have no need to look to our future. As Nationalists, we are inspired by our past which Allen is more than aware, and as I’ve stated before we take elements from our Golden Age (whenever that may be) so that we may apply it to our lives in order to create a different future than the one that has been currently decided for us. Allen is careful to not encourage us too much. He wants you to stay forever in the present and to imprison your passion within the confines of a “this is good enough” type of attitude.

How do we know Allen is speaking to us? Some subtle clues in his body of work, as well as Midnight in Paris specifically, give us an indication of who he is speaking to. One of the ways we can find these clues is through name recognition which you can learn through the work of Mark Brahmin and his work in Jewish Esoteric Moralization also known as JEM. Many Jewish filmmakers pick very specific names in order to indicate who is an “Aryan” and who is a “Jew”. Gil can be translated to a few different meanings. Foolish, simpleton, and happy (which can hint at a happiness out of ignorance) are among those meanings which makes sense when you view this blonde and blue eyed character in the film. JEM often portrays the Aryan figure as gullible and generally oblivious.

It’s not that Gil is an ignorant man by any means it is more that he is a bit unaware of his surroundings and can be easily manipulated. Two women in his life that are Jewish signifiers, Inez (Who’s father is a Jewish figure named John who is also a neocon) and Adriana (meaning black, which is a Jewish signifier), merely have Gil around for their temporary entertainment. Adriana, for example, writes in her diary that her reasons for loving Gil are that he is “naive and unassuming”. Paul Bates, being short for Bartholomew which is a Jewish signifier, even cuckolds Gil. The Jewish figure steals the Aryans woman away from him.

While there are several symbols and other names that we can delve into, the point is that Allen is giving, in my opinion, a direct message to the “goy”. Jews are very fearful of an inspired Aryan people which may lead to uprisings as we have seen in the past. Since film is possibly the most versatile art form in history, it would behoove one such as Woody Allen to not only entertain his audience but to also influence them in a way that he feels benefits him through subversive means.


CONCLUSION

Nostalgia, while being quite natural, can be a trap. Gil experienced this well enough. While its aroma can be alluring, it has been the great motivator of inaction among Nationalists currently. I cannot emphasize enough that we can, and should, look to days gone by to find inspiration and ideas that we can use or even update to create a future. But A movement must have vision. Vision requires forward thinking. There is no return to tradition and Nostalgia is by no means meant to be our end goal.

Midnight in Paris interested me because on one hand Woody Allen is acting as if he is giving us good advice on this matter. On the other hand, making sure we are stopped in our tracks. This is one of many ways our opposition tries to control us. The film is well done, entertaining, and quite funny. With that being said, Allen wishes to make you feel like you are progressing while in reality keeping you in a perpetual hamster wheel. It is all too Caducean. We need to spot this effect in every aspect of our lives. We need to break free of not only the prison our opposition has created for us but the one that we, as nationalists, construct for ourselves. Move forward. Not backward.

 

No Comments on Nostalgia, Nationalism & Woody Allen

How a society becomes extreme

Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from the author’s forthcoming book “American Extremist: The Psychology of Political Extremism”. Extremism is a top-down phenomenon, meaning that it is something that originates among…

Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from the author’s forthcoming book “American Extremist: The Psychology of Political Extremism”.


Extremism is a top-down phenomenon, meaning that it is something that originates among the powerful and then floats downstream through the various institutions of power and influence. It is a widely held belief that political change arises organically from the bottom, but many a great scholarly work (C.A. Bond’s ‘Nemesis’ and Christopher Caldwell’s ‘The Age of Entitlement’, for example) utterly demolish this faulty perception.  Nothing has ever occurred, whether we speak of the American Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, Mussolini’s or Napoleon’s rise to power, to use some recent examples, without the patronage of the upper classes.  The extremist capture of the United States is no exception.  Before we may begin, I must credit some of these insights to the work of Polish psychiatrist Andrzej Lobaczewski, who, after collecting several decade’s worth of work studying the psychology of totalitarian regimes (in particular the USSR), published them in 2006 in a book titled ‘Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes’.

In his book, Lobaczewski described a ‘hysteroidal cycle’ whereby the privileged classes transmit maladaptive attitudes and behaviors over the course of multiple generations, the final result of which is a phenomenon he termed ‘macrosocial dysfunction’.  Put succinctly, the dysfunctions of the few (the privileged classes) become the dysfunctions of the many (everyone else).  These hysteroidal cycles consist of alternating durations of ‘happy times’ and ‘unhappy times’, where, in the former, moral and psychological knowledge pertaining to issues of psychopathology is suppressed, while the latter represents an excavation and exploration of this previously forbidden trove of knowledge.  The subsequent recovery of this knowledge is then used to rectify problems created by the hoarding of this information.

Lobaczewski views social injustice as integral to the perpetuation of mass psychological dis-ease, seeing as, in his view, the upper classes necessarily exploit the lower classes in order to attain (and preserve) their wealth and good fortune (The happiness and prosperity of this first phase of the cycle itself may be predicated on the suppression and persecution of some minority group, or the under classes more broadly).  Through conversive and hysterical reasoning, these privileged classes selectively perceive information in such a way that they can more easily justify profiting from their ill gotten gains and marginalizing the moral, mental, and labor values of those they exploit.  Each subsequent generation suffers from a progressive “atrophy of natural critical faculties” (p. 170) which ultimately culminates in the censorship, persecution, and even genocide of those underprivileged classes, whose very existence challenges the pathological worldview of the privileged.

Control of the psychologically normal is achieved first by the embedding of a “pathologically hypersensitive censor” (p. 177) within the citizenry themselves.  These are in effect, ego defenses deployed by the upper classes who seek to preserve their own positive self-image.  It is these defects of the ego, in the form of “egoism, egotism, and egocentrism” (p. 177) which are the root psychological causes of what he terms characteropathic failings.  Moreover, not only will these privileged classes adopt pathological – and ultimately violent – attitudes toward those they rule, but they will even develop contempt and antagonism toward competing nations that adhere to a healthier and more psychologically integrated approach in their governance.  (We may easily look at the present day United States and see a manifestation of what Lobaczewski describes; the American upper classes regularly castigate their constituents for their moral failings, their lack of sophistication, et cetera, all the while decrying other nations which, however imperfectly they may be achieved, work far more diligently to protect and provide for their people.  Countries such as Hungary, Poland, Russia, Iran, and China come to mind immediately).

In Lobaczewski’s ponerological model, a society is comprised of two essential psychological types: The characteropathic and the normal.  Characteropaths are those individuals who suffer some biological condition (such as brain trauma) or genetic predisposition (for example, a personality disorder) and are thus given to a psychological disposition of evil.  Whether they are the progenitors of such evil or merely the lackeys who happily execute the evil will of others is of little consequence.  We may call these types maladapts.  The ‘normals’ are greater in number than the maladapts, and have an innate moral character in addition to a well-adapted psychological profile, but are often incapable of recognizing (or even properly resisting) this psychology of evil due to their naïve condition.

Any institution can find itself infiltrated by maladapts who then work to bend that institution to their will, which in turn signals a fertile ground for other maladapts and pathocrats to gain entry (pathocrats being defined as any political actor given to a psychology of evil).  It is the nature of the characteropath to exploit structural weaknesses in an organization so that he may overtake it, turning it to his own diabolical purposes.  Should he fail it would be his death; if the characteropath cannot ascend to the role of pathocrat, he would either wash out of society due to his own weakness and lack of social utility or be driven out by those members of polite society who have become wise to his game.  We may say then that subversion and domination are among the defining traits of the characteropath.  They are a biological type who cannot thrive under normal conditions – they must destroy what is good and healthy in order to live.  Fortunately for us, Lobaczewski argues that “the pathocracy’s dominance will weaken imperceptibly but steadily, finally leading to a situation where in the society of normal people reaches for power. This is a nightmare vision to the psychopaths. That the biological, psychological, moral, and economic destruction of the majority of normal people becomes, for the pathocrat, a biological necessity.” (p. 208).  The essential civilizational struggle, in Lobaczewski’s view, lies between ‘the normal people’ and the pathocrats; it is a conflict which has occurred in every civilization for as long as human societies have existed and will persist for as long as our species draws breath.

As I have noted already, Lobaczewski looks to the sciences of biology and genetics to find the origin of the characteropath.  It is of interest to note that Lobaczewski was among the last class of psychiatrists to be trained in these disciplines before the Soviets censored them and restricted the discipline to the study of Pavlovian concepts.  (Here we see a clear bit of historical proof for Lobaczewski’s argument).  While the science of psychopathology has progressed a great deal since Lobaczewki’s time as a student (and there still remains a great deal of disagreement over the proper diagnostic criteria for many of these conditions), I will reproduce his findings as he described them so that the reader may appreciate them in their full and unadulterated context.  Primarily, Lobaczewski connects the biological dimension of the characteropath’s psychopathology to a condition of schizoidia.  The schizoid is recognized by an acute hypersensitivity and characteristic distrustfulness; they are inattentive to the emotions of others, quickly adopt extreme positions, and retaliate harshly (and immediately) for perceived slights against them.  Typically eccentric, they are prone to projecting (“superimposing” in Lobaczewski’s words) “erroneous, pejorative interpretations of other people’s intentions” (p. 123).  In simpler terms, they are quick to malign others without sufficient reason for doing so.  They are drawn to moral causes, although they “actually inflict damage upon themselves and others” (p. 123).  Owing to their impoverished worldview, they are overly pessimistic and misanthropic with regards human nature.  Schizoids have a “dull pallor of emotion” and “consider themselves intellectually superior to ordinary people” (p. 124).  Interestingly, Lobaczewski points out that, demographically speaking, schizoids are represented most numerously among Jews (elsewhere, and repeatedly, Lobaczewski observes the overrepresentation of Jews among these pathocratic types).

However, we should not limit our concern to these dysfunctional individuals alone.  Exposure to these types who exhibit dysfunctional personalities can twist the minds of a normal person, capturing them in the vortex of their mental illness, not unlike a starship caught in the tractor beam of some intergalactic warmonger.  Proximity to characteropaths, then, is as great a risk to the average person as their mere existence is.  The pathocrat is a natural parasite who can only thrive in an environment that is explicitly hostile to the needs and demands of the average person.  As such, characteropaths frantically work to pervert the organizations they join by manipulating and distorting language so as to provide cover for their true intentions.  The characteropath sets himself up as an integral member of the institution, enshrining himself as a necessary priestly type who may then provide the ideological weight for the yet-to-be-adopted belief system.  Where these individuals (to use Lobaczewski’s phrase, “spellbinders”) are unable to directly influence and redirect the energies of a given organization, they will form alliances with more charismatic types who may themselves be less pathological, or simply possess an earthier charm and personal magnetism that allows them to capture the imagination of a people, even without any kind of intellectual or ideological acumen to support his campaign.

Often, these pathocrats are able to attract less dysfunctional types (Lobaczewski calls them “skirtoids”), who dutifully execute their dictates and assist in maintaining the new moral infrastructure.  These skirtoids “are vital, egotistical, and thick-skinned individuals who make good soldiers because of their endurance and psychological resistance.  In peacetime, however, they are incapable of understanding life’s subtler matters or rearing children prudently.  They are happy in primitive surroundings; a comfortable environment easily causes hysterization within them.  They are rigidly conservative in all areas and supportive of governments that rule with a heavy hand.”  (p. 136).  These psychopaths (pathocrats), often being physically incapable of enacting the methods they propagate through oral and written sophistry, are heavily reliant on these skirtoids and a third type, which he calls “jackals”.  These individuals are “hired as professional and mercenary killers by various groups and who so quickly and easily take up arms as a means of political struggle; no human feelings interfere with their nefarious plans.” (p. 136).   But Lobaczewski stops at the point of categorizing these types as fitting within either the skirtoidal or psychopathic dimensions of psychopathology, but rather suggests that “we should assume this type to be a product of a cross between lesser taints of various deviations.” (p. 136). Furthermore, he states “mate-selection psychology produces pairings which bilaterally represent various anomalies.  Carriers of two or even three lesser deviational factors should thus be more frequent.  A jackal could then be imagined as the carrier of schizoidal traits in combination with some other psychopathy, e.g. essential psychopathy or skirtoidism.” (p. 136).

It is critical for these pathocratic spellbinders to nudge the normal majority away from what Lobaczewski calls its “congenital instinctive infrastructure” (p. 60).  He repeatedly emphasizes the necessity for the “common sense” (p. 188) of the normal majority to prevail in order for a society to maintain its moral center and to thrive intellectually, creatively, economically, and spiritually.  To separate the majority from their common sense, the spellbinder employs the use of doubletalk as his chief strategy for nudging people away from their natural instincts.  The process of ponerization (the overcoding of a society’s moral structure from moral to immoral) necessitates a dual semantic layer, wherein the outer layer is used rhetorically against the target while the inner layer reinforces membership among those psychopaths embedded within the power structure.  In effect, these differing meanings serve to re-stratify the classes of a ponerogenic culture.  The spellbinders (and their collaborators) immediately recognize its hermeneutic meaning; it is only after prolonged exposure (and great labor on the part of the masses) that the targets of this ponerogenic speech are ever availed of its true meaning.  To put this in our current context, we may look at certain phrases (e.g., “Diversity is our strength”) and understand how the meaning differs depending on who utters it (diversity may be a strength for the spellbinder, but as Robert Putnam argued in his 2000 publication, “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community” it proves to be a problem for those outside of the spellbinding class).

I have made this point already but it bears elaboration: Innately these spellbinders are people who cannot function in a healthy society, and moreover, feel wronged by it.  As part of their paranoid ideations, they perceive themselves as marginalized and persecuted (although in a certain sense they are correct, given their predilection for manipulation and harm, the natural response is one of ostracism).  The narcissism and self-absorption of the psychopath leads him to create a kind of hero myth that justifies his own actions (if not to himself than to those he seeks dominion over).  By necessity, the characteropath casts himself as a savior – as one who has graciously taken up the causes of liberation and nobility.  This approach proves advantageous for him if he operates within a society where actual injustice is present and easily identifiable (which is usually the case).  Lobaczewski points out that these types construct ideological unions which are predicated upon 1) the exaltation of a wronged other, 2) the radical redressing of that wrong, and 3) the higher values of the characteropathic individuals who have usurped the organization.

Individual psychological failings (be they psychopaths, or abnormal and deficient in some other way) are then moralized into a revolutionary credo that gives them just cause for retribution, thus providing sufficient motivation to deny any self-examination.  Were this technique not so repugnant, one could admire its ingenuity; the moral wickedness of their conduct (which would surely be apparent to any outsider, were it stripped of its romanticism and paramoralisms) is neatly excused and then expelled.  Such a practice is especially important for counteracting the functional conscience in those with a more typical psychological profile.  The fact that true injustice does exist, and that this new ideology claims to resist it means that inductees into this new culture will be more easily swayed into rationalizing the spellbinder’s doubletalk, and never question its truer esoteric meaning.  Naturally, there is more to this story – and 21st century America is very different from the Soviet Republic of the last century.  I will address these differences in a moment.  For now, let us look once more at this phenomenon of spellbinding.

For the skeptical reader, we can dispel with the fanciful terminology and simply look to the very real circumstances we observe in our current situation.  Take the language of victimization and its myriad expressions – racism, sexism, xenophobia, transphobia, homophobia, islamophobia, ableism, to name a few.  Let us begin with the use of the term ‘racism’: Initially, the word was used to describe an irrational and seething hatred of other races.  Those noble of heart and sensitive to the plight of, say, African-Americans, knew in their souls that they did not harbor animosity toward Blacks and therefore willingly acclimated to the changing cultural and political dialectics.  But as per the hermeneutic tradition of the spellbinder, the term came to take on a new meaning – that of power and privilege.  The eternal revolt against racial discrimination required a new meaning for a new time, against a new generation of foes.  Now, to be racist no longer means being an unsophisticated bigot, full of hatred; instead, it means to enjoy the privilege of cultural, historical, and political continuity.  To be a racist in 21st century America is to hold power, unearned power, over the dispossessed other.   In one sense, that power is one of an unbroken continuity of being – but in a more immediate and political sense it is about institutional hegemony.  Whites, being privileged, now find themselves swimming in a racist undercurrent, where every action, every errant glance, each thoughtless utterance is actually a demonstration of sinister, unjustifiable power and racial superiority that must be deconstructed.  As the usage of this term and the ability to affect political and cultural change based on the desire to annihilate racism grows, more Americans find themselves scratching their heads at the new power this term wields.  “How is that racist?  That doesn’t make sense.  I don’t hate Blacks or Hispanics.”  And likely they don’t.  Only one no longer has to hate non-Whites in order to be racist, one merely has to exist in order to be racist.  The jargon of pathocratic psychopathy has thus emerged from its cocoon different, changed, and now more powerful than when it first appeared.

Sexism worked in this way too; the willful discrimination and marginalization of women meant something far different a few decades ago.  Whereas any social role that was denied to women was understood to be sexist, now any circumstance which affects women differently is evidence of sexual discrimination and oppression.  With such an elastic definition, instances of racism and sexism now explode with regularity.  Similarly with homophobia, islamophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and the like, the spellbinding hermeneutics of prejudice grant more power to the characteropath and further oppress the normal and the psychologically fit.  Of particular insidiousness is the use of the suffix ‘phobia’; the use of a clearly understood medical and psychiatric terminology, ‘phobia’ has been grafted to a sociopolitical system of linguistics that overcodes an entire range of cognitions and affects, reducing them to a singular phenomena – fear – the use of which now paints anyone who demonstrates anything other than unflinching support (and submission) towards an underprivileged group could be considered fearful, despotic, and mentally ill.

A new meaning for millennia old biological and evolutionary normalcy’s was created to psychologically wound average people who are not nearly as Machiavellian and sinister as those spellbinders responsible for creating this new moral-linguistic landscape.  A whole range of emotional responses (e.g., disgust, confusion, reticence, self-preservation, et cetera) are no longer legitimated for anyone outside of the spellbinding class, and especially for those unwilling to subjugate themselves to it.  It is difficult to overstate the effect this has on the mind – by constantly changing the moral language and rules of social engagement, consciousness is split, and new sub-personalities are created which now exist in a constant state of conflict.  Not only do these terms create a new moral, linguistic, and affective landscape, but they also radically redraw the sociopolitical structure, creating new castes of privileged and unprivileged members, and allotting people to these new classes based on their willingness to conform to an ever-changing set of demands.

Another example would be the constantly evolving charge of anti-Semitism.  Clearly, it was once understood that claims of anti-Semitism were intended to characterize attitudes and conduct that were explicitly (and perhaps even implicitly) discriminatory or hostile toward Jewish people.  Presently, (and much like the plastic definition of racism) it is now used to designate any othering of Jews, be it negative or positive.  And so, folded into the original meaning of these terms (hatred and fear) is any impulse toward differentiation (another ‘common sense’ instinct as Lobaczewski would say).  Interestingly, the very use of the term is curious because it creates a cleavage in the Gentiles understanding of who precisely is a Semite.  Anti-Semitism is fundamentally about anti-Jewish sentiment, but the term Semite is a cultural, linguistic, ethnic, and racial designation that encompasses a far broader grouping of peoples than simply that of the Jewish individual.  Once more we see how spellbinders use language to fracture and limit the cognitive abilities of the average person.

The originators of these spells create the circumstances by which a healthy society is carved up under the new rules of engagement.  But as I have already pointed out, their progeny merely inherit this system of rules and logic, often without any insight into its genesis.  This phenomenon is not unlike the transmission of rituals and taboos, whereby people unthinkingly inherit these dictums but are oblivious to their intention, and so merely act on them in rote, unconscious fashion.  This is how psychopathic tendencies are transmitted intergenerationally – at first as an intentional means of control, and then merely as a commonplace and thoughtless habit, not unlike how one washes up after themselves.  The situation becomes far worse for the inheritors of this system, as they merely acquire these attitudes through the mechanisms of conditioning and modeling.  They are indoctrinated into a pathological worldview which dictates every relationship they enter, every career they take up, each choice and each breath.  Children don’t just inherit the material or biological traits of their parents, but also their ideological ones (particularly the farther one goes up the socioeconomic ladder, where the stakes are higher).  Of course, these conditions are guaranteed to degenerate over time, as the inheritors of this system possess none of the insight, none of the self-awareness of their forbears, and are subsequently left with fewer psychological tools with which to manage themselves or their pathological reactions.  While they may acquire their power second-hand, it comes with a litany of irrational and hysterical impulses which can neither be contextualized nor dissipated.  Heavy indeed is the head that wears the crown.  Naturally psychopaths wound themselves with their psychological contortions, ego defenses, and general anti-social conduct.  We understand very easily as well that they wound those who are made the targets of their pathology.  But what is less well understood is how those around them, their wives, husbands, children, nieces and nephews, too, are victimized by their pathological and misanthropic outlook.  Their impoverished psychological worldview becomes a mental prison that their kin rarely, if ever, escapes.  Worse still, those that do escape become permanent outcasts, as they – not unlike cult members – have broken out of an inter-generational cycle of psychopathy only to find little in the way of community outside of it.  However, it should be said that they often end up worse than cult members.  In many cases, these individuals lose affiliations of race, religion, social class, and more personally, blood relations.  It is difficult to quantify just which is worse for such individuals – the spellbinding that keeps them in a state of conformity or the ostracism they suffer as a result of breaking free.  Each outcome is tragic in its own way.

It is not uncommon to come across people (even in the online dissident sphere) who believe that the upper classes are made up of individuals with relatively typical psychological profiles.  This is not to say that they are just like us, but it is a kind of reflexive unwillingness to entertain the possibility – neigh, the existence – of evil.  Such individuals may rationalize away the failures of leadership or even identify with their plight.  There are some who believe in the existence of a One Weird Trick For Solving Political Strife, whereby all that is required to solve the problems confronting the over-class is to provide them with a better system or a better deal.  I cannot in good conscience endorse this worldview.  We simply know too much about the nature of the psychopathy and its prevalence among the leadership classes (Robert Hare and Hervey Cleckley have both written extensively on the over-representation of psychopathy among corporate and political leadership).  All of this is not to say that every leader is a dastardly, mustache-twirling loon, or even that every psychopath presents a clear and present danger to the social order (psychopathy is defined by a variety of traits, and it is not necessarily the case that the psychopath is malevolent; often they merely lack that positive social feeling more commonly found among the normal population), but what I am saying is that these individuals are not, by and large, a class to be reasoned with.  A sober analysis (such as the one I have provided) puts us in a superior position to organize and develop effective strategies for advancing our political aims, and not the aims of those who view us with contempt.


References:

Andrzej Łobaczewski, Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes, (Grande Prairie: Red Pill Press, 2006), 60, 123-124, 130, 136, 170-177, 188, 203

C.A. Bond, Nemesis, (Imperium Press, 2019)

Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Touchstone Books: Simon & Schuster, 2001)

No Comments on How a society becomes extreme

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search