Rosemary’s Baby: A Valuable Rosetta Stone

In some important cases, contemporary JEM (Jewish Esoteric Moralization) appears in an especially concise and comprehensive form providing for us, as it were, a “Rosetta stone” more rich in insight than a larger body of JEM. The 1968 film Rosemary’s Baby and the 1967 book from which it was adapted are such works.

The Plot of Rosemary’s Baby runs as follows. Rosemary (Mia Farrow) is a woman living in New York City with her actor husband, Guy Woodhouse (John Cassavetes). Her husband, Guy Woodhouse, a Protestant, is by degrees more sophisticated. In the end, though, he’s your typical oblivious, vain, career-oriented actor. The two are interested in living in an upscale apartment building called the Bramford. Though a swanky setting, the building has a past shrouded in mystery and occult bloodshed.

Indeed, during the early 20th century it is said to have been the base of operations for a notorious coven of witches headed by the Arch-Warlock Adrian Marcato. Among these witches are included the Trench Sisters who “cooked and ate several young children.”  Also, the building is a bit out of their price range.

Nevertheless, despite the caveats of their concerned friend “Hutch” (Maurice Evans), they move in.  Shortly thereafter they meet the Castevets, an eccentric older couple living in the adjacent unit. Odd happenings steadily occur from there. As the film reveals, the Castevets, Minnie (Ruth Gordon) and Roman (Sidney Blackmer), are ostensibly “Satanists,” the heirs of the Marcato Cult. Their interest in the young couple is with Rosemary’s womb.

Eventually Rosemary finds herself drugged and raped by a serpentine humanoid during what appears to be a “Satanic” ritual. It is clear she’s been sold out by her careerist husband Guy Woodhouse who effectively bartered her off to the Castevets in exchange for valuable contacts in the theater world. On the other hand, it was Rosemary’s desire for social status that pushed Guy to live in the otherwise unaffordable Bramford.

Finally, at the end of the film, Rosemary gives birth to a devil child who is given the name “Adrian” doubtlessly in honor of Adrian Marcato. Readers should understand that this film depicts the Semitic Bride Gathering Cult of Judaism, particularly as it is aided by the assisting intermediary cult of Christianity. Here youthful Aryan stock is used to continue and maintain a more racially aged Jewry. Below is the evidence.

Esoterically, the setting of the Bramford is the Catholic Church. In fact, in Ira Levin’s book, it is even indicated that the building is owned by the Catholic Church. Yet the clues are multiple.


The references in Rosemary’s name should be immediately recognizable to readers. The last name, Woodhouse, taken from her husband an Aryan Protestant, Guy Woodhouse, conveys the arboreal. This, as our broader study reveals, is a reference to the Aryan or Aryan “stock.” Indeed, the name Guy Woodhouse refers twice to the arboreal. To wit, the name Guy is the Norman French form of Wido. Wido was originally a short form of names beginning with the Germanic element witu “wood” or wit “wide.”

The name Rosemary is a triple reference to the Biblical Mary. To wit, the name may be understood as a reference to the herb ros marinus meaning “dew of the sea.” Hence it becomes a reference to both the sea-borne Venus and Mary. The element “Rose” is, as our broader study reveals, a reference to the blood admixture of the Aryan Venus and the Semitic Adonis. There we understand the blood of a Semitic Adonis mixed with the tears of the Aryan Venus to form the first rose. In fact, the building name Bramford is also a reference to this.

Bramford is comprised of two elements, Bram, which is a shortened form of Abraham, and ford meaning: “a place where a river or other body of water is shallow enough to be crossed by wading.” This is certainly a reference to Abraham’s River in Lebanon. This river is also known as Adonis’ River. There the water turns red every February due to soil erosion. In mythology, this reddening is understood as caused by the spilt blood of the slain Adonis flowing into the river’s water. Again it symbolizes intermixture between the Semite and the Aryan.

Hence the author Levin neatly and knowledgeably conflates Christianity and its directly preceding earlier form, the Adonis cult. Again, the Rose, particularly through rosary beads, is also a reference to Mary’s devotion to Christ in Christianity. Esoterically, the setting of the Bramford is the Catholic Church. In fact, as noted above, it is even indicated in Ira Levin’s book that the building is owned by the Catholic Church. Yet the clues are multiple.

The name of their neighbor, Roman Castevet, who will turn out to be the chief “Satanist” and witch, is clearly a reference to the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, the word Roman as an adjective may mean: “of or relating to the Roman Catholic Church.” Likewise, as a noun, it may be a disparaging reference to a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

During Rosemary’s ceremonial rape at the hands of a serpentine devil, the Pope himself will appear assuring her capitulation in this case is not sinful. Obviously, the filmmaker and author intend this to be interpreted as a “Satanic corruption” of church vis-à-vis audiences. Yet through the symbols of the film, it is clear that, instead, the esotericists convey the notion that Christianity is itself “Satanic” or rather, more objectively, a vehicle of Jewish continuance and dominance.

Likewise, it will become evident that Levin and Polanski are making the connection between nuns, witches and even Jewesses that are made in this broader study. Indeed, during one scene, while Rosemary is drifting off to sleep to the muffled voice of Minnie Castevet in the adjoining apartment, she will hear Minnie essentially plotting with Roman to obtain a womb for the “devil baby.” However, she will dream that it is the voice of a scolding nun appearing in a childhood memory. Here we may even find an esoteric suggestion that nuns served as willing accomplices or Trivia-like attendants in a Semitic Bride Gathering Cult during a benighted, medieval period. The broader study will find other such suggestions.

Indeed, one of the Castevets accomplices in the Bramford is an older woman named Ms. Gilmore. The name Gilmore means “Servant of the Virgin Mary,” which is suggestive in this context. More compelling, the last name Castevets, apparently invented, is comprised of the words Caste and vets. Here the Bride Gathering Cult is made explicit. The Castevets have vetted the Aryan breeding stock to breed the “higher caste”, to wit, Jews.

The mysterious Trench sisters, whose reputation haunts the Bramford, are exoterically a reference to a famous murder case where two french maids  were convicted of murdering their employer’s wife and daughter in Le Mans France on 1933.  The surname Trench derives from the Old French verb trenchier ‘to cut.’

Terry Gionoffrio, an important figure appearing in the film, has a name containing similar elements as this study reviews.  Though with her, a victim figure, it seems suggested that she is the “cut” as opposed to the “cutter.”   Here we may find a common circumcision or emasculation reference as well.

In the film and the book, one of the Woodhouses friends, “Jimmy,” attending their housewarming party, will mispronounce the name referring to them as the “Trent Sisters,” only to be corrected by another party guest.  Though posing as a bit of naturalistic dialog the mistake is obviously inserted by the careful symbolist Levin as a reference.

The surname Trent is typically considered a topographical name referencing any of the several rivers named “Trent,” in Staffordshire, Derbyshire, and Dorset, for instance.  Ultimately it is guessed-derived from the British name “Trisanton.” Here “tri” means through, across, and “santon” means road.  Possibly this is a reference to the Goddess Hecate or Trivia, a Goddess of “cross roads” and a clear precedent for the witch of European folklore.  If so it may be a double or triple reference.

Indeed, the reference may also be to the 16th century council of Trent where the Catholic Church initiated a counter-reformation vis-à-vis a rebelling Protestantism. Even more likely it is a reference to Simon of Trent. Simon of Trent is a famous case occurring in 1475 Italy wherein Jews were accused of the ritualistic sacrifice of a non-Jewish child. In Rosemary’s Baby the Trent sisters are understood as having carried out their murders in the basement of the Bramford.

It is possible, Levin and Polanski are esoterically endorsing the idea that Jewish ritual child-sacrifice or “blood gathering” did or does occur as entertained by the Jewish author Ariel Toaff in his 2007 book Passovers of Blood: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murders. However the symbolism here is deeper and far-reaching.

Here, again, the ritual cannibalism of children is at once a Eucharistic reference and a reference to the destruction of Aryan racial youth and health by absorption into a more aged Semitic element. This is consistent with a common “Consumption motif” pervasive in JEM in which Aryans are understood as fuel or food such as unleavened bread, olive oil, or sheaves of wood.

Regardless, the reference to it here, in Rosemary’s Baby, reinforces the idea of a hidden controlling Jewry in the “basement” of the Catholic Church. Likewise it reinforces the idea of the church and Christianity more broadly functioning as an accomplice to the Semitic Bride Gathering Cult. After all, as we will see, the Catholic Church is presented in Rosemary’s Baby as simply a front for a hidden controlling Jewry.


The character Hutch in Rosemary’s Baby is another figure useful in confirming our understanding of Greco-Roman Religion. By name, manner and appearance we class Hutch as a WASP.  He is also an Aryan Apollo-figure and this is indicated by his name Edward “Hutch” Hutchinson. The word “Hutch” means “a pen or enclosed coop for small animals.”

Hence we encounter the “enclosure motif” which is explicated in the larger study.  In short, it is a reference to Apollo, “the Protector of Flocks”, whose name is often understood to mean “enclosure.” Edward meaning “wealth guard” is also suggestive in the context of a protector. This, of course, is precisely his role in the film. He warns the Woodhouses against moving into the Bramford. He plays a concerned, parental role vis-à-vis the couple and remains their friend after they move into the Bramford.

Hence we encounter Jewish minds, in Levin and Polanski, conscious of Jews thieving Aryan stock from an Apollonian enclosure a la the Mercury of mythology. Here it is important to note a transactional relationship that will also occur in other works of JEM. Here the Aryan stock is purchased through career and wealth opportunities. But, of course, how else might Mercury, the God of Merchants, steal Apollo’s flock? Likewise, though, we see a contrast between secular “Apolloism,” Hutch versus Christianity, the Bramford.

When Hutch sees that Rosemary has grown gaunt and ill during her pregnancy and he learns that she is being prescribed a mysterious “Tannis Root” by Minnie Castevet, he begins looking for answers. Eventually Hutch will succeed in warning Rosemary that the Castevets are, in fact, witches.

Though Hutch will mysteriously fall into a coma during his research, doubtlessly stricken by the sorcery of the Castevets, he will have a book delivered to Rosemary. The book, titled All of Them Witches,” is a book that details the cult of witches believed to have operated in the Bramford. Written in the book, Hutch has scrawled: “the name is an anagram.”

The name in question, found in the book, is Steven Marcato, the son of Adrian Marcato, the notorious Arch-warlock believed to have run a “Satanic Cult” in the Bramford. Indeed, when the letters of the name Steven Marcato are rearranged they become the name of Rosemary’s neighbor Roman Castevet.

The significance here lies partially in the name Roman. Hutch is symbolically revealing to Rosemary that their neighbor is not “Roman”, to wit, he is not a Roman Catholic. Rather, of course, he is a Jew. The name Marcato may have a double significance, the second and more complex of which we will discuss shortly. The word Marcato means: “(of notes or chords in a musical score) strongly accented.” Hence it may suggest foreignness and hence Jewishness.


As mentioned, Minnie Castevet will give Rosemary a pendant shortly after meeting her. The pendant will contain a bad smelling fungus or mold, green in coloration. Here the JEM color symbolism indicating Green as Jewish or sexual, such as with the Semitic God Osiris, seems to apply. Minnie calls the plant “Tannis Root.” Later, when the Aryan Rosemary has already been impregnated by “The Devil”, a being surely indicated as Jewish as we will discover, Minnie will give Rosemary a foul-tasting drink containing “Tannis Root” as an herbal aid for her pregnancy.

Rosemary detests the drink but Minnie insists on it. The dark joke here is certainly that Rosemary is wearing and drinking Jewish semen or “root.” Here we see, perhaps, a metaphor for a sexually advanced, Jewish Trivia functioning in a corrupting way vis-à-vis the more naïve and innocent Aryan Venus Urania. Hence, Hutch’s concern about the plant metaphorically indicates an Aryan concern about the sexual debasement of Aryan women.

Indeed, the name “Tannis” is a reference to Tanis Egypt where Moses was discovered in the marshes of the Nile River. Minnie’s first name is doubtlessly intended here as a diminutive of Miriam. Miriam, again, is Moses sister who put Moses in the basket of reeds or bulrushes. With reeds and bulrushes, ostensibly, we have a phallic symbol contrasted with the vaginal symbol of the Nile River. Hence we find confirmation for admixing and racial cuckoldry as a primary means to power for Jews. This we must understand is encoded as a religious prerogative. To be clear, Moses is understood in the symbolism as a cuckolding seed or scion entering Egypt, a cuckoo’s egg.

The name of the city Tanis itself might be understood esoterically as related to the Hebrew word Tannin, תַּנִּין, meaning “serpent”, “dragon” or “sea monster” or tannah or tan, תן/תַּן, meaning “jackal”, “dragon” or “sea monster.” In Modern Hebrew, Tanis תנים may be translated as “jackals.” In other words, it is possible, if not likely, “Tannis Root” is more directly a reference to the phallus or seed of the reptilian “serpent” that eventually rapes Rosemary.

The racial cuckoldry theme is clear in Rosemary’s Baby. After all, in the film, Rosemary’s Aryan husband, Guy Woodhouse, will even be present at the insemination ceremony, willingly cuckolded by “the Devil.” Here, again, Guy Woodhouse has traded his wife’s womb for career success, an acting career secured through the “magic” machinations of the Castevets.


Guy Woodhouse will only get his break after the Castevets cause a rival actor to go blind, thereby ceding the part to Guy. This loosing of sight or senses is a reoccurring motif in JEM related to the Hamsa symbol. Here we find an esoteric admission of “Jewish conspiracy.”

Likely blindness as a symbol in Judaism is a reference especially to the Biblical city of Dothan. As the broader study reveals, the city of Dothan appears twice in the Hebrew Bible, in the second book of Kings, where Elisha blinds the Arameans, and in Genesis, where Judah, a synonym for the Jewish God, convinces his brothers to sell his Aryan brother Joseph, likely as a catamite, to merchants.  As the broader study discusses, in Modern Hebrew Dothan, בְּדֹתָֽן, means “Religion”, “Faith”, “Denomination” and “Edict.” Hence straight away we understand the meaning and purpose of Jewish “Religion”, whether Christian or Jewish. Here the subtext is clearly Jewish dominance, cultural, religious and economic.


Rosemary learns that she is pregnant and is due on June 28, 1966. That’s 6/66.  Our study reveals this as a solar number or a reference to the Aryan. Simply Rosemary is the sought after solar Tipheret, the Aryan breeding stock.

Indeed, the day in this date is a solar references as well that confirms this interpretation. The number 28 is likely also significant. In Jewish tradition there is a 28-year solar cycle in which the sun returns to its place in Creation every 28 solar years. This is commemorated in April every 28 years with the recitation of Birkat Hachama, ברכת החמה, the “Blessing of The Sun.”

Interestingly, the Hebrew expression itself doesn’t appear to contain the word ‘sun’. Rather it is comprised of Birkat, ברכת, meaning “blessing” but also “pool”, “pond” and “lake” and the word, Hachama, החמה meaning “the hot” and “browning.”

Perhaps, as with the metaphor of Baptism, these aqueous references are suggestive of intermixture. The broader metaphor does suggest this. For instance, Jewish tradition indicates that when the Sun completes this 28-year cycle, it has returned to the position when the world was created. Hence metaphorically, the Semite joins with the Aryan, Adonis joins with Venus, to be “recreated.” This is not the only bit of numerology in the film.

Indeed, the apartment unit that the Woodhouses move into was an apartment partitioned from a ten-room apartment unit, the other portion of which is occupied by the Castevets. The ten rooms are doubtlessly a reference to the ten seriphot of the Cabala and, as the broader study discusses, by my estimation, a theme of “multiplicity” or pluralism, a dividing and breaking up of the Aryan monad. The apartment is on the seventh floor. This, perhaps the most common number in Jewish numerology, at least as it appears in JEM, is a reference to Saturn, the Reaper and Castrator.

Indeed, Rosemary’s first ascent into the apartment, up the seven floors, is highly symbolic. During this scene, these numeric details outlined here are oddly emphasized by the realtor as the Woodhouses ascend in the elevator to view the apartment for the first time. Here is Venus Urania being cut from the Aryan father Caelus represented by Guy Woodhouse and the Aryan race more broadly. Yet this motif is implied even more strongly elsewhere in the film.

Terry Gionoffrio and Ms. Gardenia: the “Caste-vets” exhausted resources

Indeed, the Castevets had their sights set on another womb before Rosemary’s arrival, a dark brunette, ex-junky named Terry Gionoffrio. Yet Terry will kill herself shortly after the Woodhouses move in, leaping from the seventh floor, perhaps in an effort to deny the Castevets her womb.

However, it’s as likely she was killed when the better and fairer option of Rosemary appeared. With Terry there are strong suggestions of a Saturnine castration or circumcision motif. Indeed, Terry Gionoffrio’s last name appears to be invented. Rather it appears to be comprised of two actual names, Gion and Onofrio. Gion is a family and personal name that appears to be a form of Gidon. Gidon is a Hebrew name that means “hewer.”

This appears verified by Terry’s first name Terry or Theresa which means “to harvest.” The name Onofrio is an adaptation of the Egyptian name Onnophris which means “always happy.” This fits with Terry who will be described by Minnie Castevet after her suicide as “a very happy girl with no reason for self-destruction.”  More importantly, Onnophris is an epithet of the god Osiris who is best understood as a Symbolic Synonym of Adonis or Christ. Thus the notion of a harvested vegetation god emerges. That Terry is a brunette and ex-junky is relevant. She is, in a sense, an exhausted resource. With her, the milk has “gone sour.”

We learn in the beginning of the film, as well, that a woman named Ms. Gardenia occupied the Woodhouses’ Apartment unit before they moved in. Her name is clearly a reference to the Garden of Eden as much as the reptilian devil that impregnates Rosemary is a reference to the Serpent. The apartment as well, filled with plants that she had been growing, reinforces this idea.

According to the building manager, ostensibly Gardenia was an older women who, like Hutch, fell into a coma and died. Clearly the film indicates that she was seeking to escape the Castevets. Indeed, when the Woodhouses are first viewing the apartment an unfinished letter penned in Gardenia’s name reads cryptically: “I can no longer associate myself….”

Likewise, they find a massive secretary which had been inexplicably pushed in front of a closet containing only towels and a vacuum cleaner. Importantly the closet is also a conduit to the adjoining Castevets apartment, in some sense, symbolically, a gate to Eden as well as a vagina. As this study discusses, the symbol of Baptism, which is a symbol of Semitic and Aryan intermixture, is understood as a “purification ritual.” It functions this way vis-a-vis the Jew who is made more pure through intermixture with the Aryan. Perhaps these cleaning appliances are cleansing or purification symbols.

Certainly Gardenia was at some point “breeding stock” as well, thus Levin and Polanski corroborate the symbol of the Garden of Eden as a symbol for Aryan Genetics, as is explicated in our broader study. That both Gardenia and Terry have Italian last names may suggest an esoteric understanding that Rome, in particular, through the Roman Church, was an important stage of Semitic Bride Gathering for Jews. We remember again that Jews are understood to owe half their lineage to Italian women according to genetic studies. Yet both Gardenia and Terry here become symbols of racial exhaustion.

Dr. Abe Saperstien, Servant of the Jewish Saturn

Additional confirmation for the “Jewishness” of the Castevets plot comes in the form of the sinister Dr. Abe Saperstien. Dr. Saperstien is a doctor that Castevets insist Rosemary go to during her pregnancy. By his last name one might guess that he is a Jew, even a Rabbinical figure.  While it is true he is indicated a Jew in the book, understanding him as a Jew, while other figures in the film as not, would be a mistake

Abe is, of course, a reference to the Biblical Abraham.  As this study explicates,  Abraham is an Aryan figure who has entered into a blood covenant with the Jewish God. This study explicates the Jewish God as a monetary figure, hence, in a sense, Abraham might be regarded a bribed Aryan. He is certainly a cuckolded figure as this study explicates. But Saperstien’s surname provides the deeper meaning.  It is a Jewish surname but that is its least important aspect. The name Saperstien means Sapphire Stone.

Linguists propose that the word Sapphire derives from Sanskrit, Shanipriya (शनिप्रिय). “Shani” (शनि) means “Saturn” and “priya” (प्रिय) means dear, i.e., literally “dear to Saturn.” The reader already knows that Saturn is a reference to the Jewish God. Indeed, Saturn the Reaper and Castrator is a form of the Jewish God especially connected to circumcision. Thus this would especially relate him to Abraham, the first to enter into the circumcision “covenant” with the Jewish God.

“Stone,” suggested by the suffix stien, is more curious here.  Normally names meaning “stone” would indicate a Jew and perhaps that is the case here. However the stone may be a reference to the sharpened stones used for circumcision in the Hebrew Bible. Hence perhaps the name is meant to be understood as “Abraham, dear to Saturn’s stone.” Ostensibly, given the broader metaphor, Abe Saperstien’s status as doctor may also be a reference to “Doctor of the Church,” the great ecclesiastics honored by the Church.

Rosemary eventually becomes ill from Minnie’s Tannis Root but Saperstien also insists she take it. Eventually she will defy both of them and go to another doctor named Dr. CC. Hill (Charles Gordin). But much to her horror, Hill will betray her and summon Saperstien to his office to take her away. The name Hill, a chthonic or montane reference is very likely a Jewish identifier.

The symbol of the mountain, for instance, is, like the stone, a Jewish identifier in JEM. Indeed, the Hebrew word Geba, גֶבַע, means “hill” and “a stone.” This may suggest that the symbol of the stone and hill might be treated as synonyms in JEM.

The Jew as Typhon son of Saturn

The impregnating Devil is also given a specific Semitic identity. The clue will be given in a dream, a drugged Rosemary has before the impregnation ceremony. In the dream she will find herself in a nautical setting, on a dock, then eventually on a boat. Much of this is setup, however, to introduce the name and identity of the “Devil” whom will impregnate her. Indeed, at some point, during this sequence, a sailor or boat captain warning of a storm will shout: “Typhoon. Typhoon.” This is a reference to the Greek monster Typhon from which the word Typhoon is derived.

Typhon is generally described as scaled and serpentine in the myths. The devil who rapes Rosemary will appear likewise. Typhon is the son of the Jewish God Saturn. As this study explicates, Typhon is a synonym of the Egyptian God Set or Seth and Seth, the Jewish or proto-Jewish son of Adam. Set is the slayer of Osiris so he is also referenced in Terry Gionoffrio’s name. The deceased character of Ms. Gardenia also seems to conflate this Typhon with the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. In any case, serpents and dragons are Jewish identifiers in JEM.

Jew as “Black” lover in Song of Solomon and color symbolism in Rosemary’s Baby

When Rosemary’s “Devil child” is finally conceived it will be given the name “Adrian.” The name “Adrian” has various etymologies. It is a form of Hadrian with the emperor Hadrian being its most famous bearer. Yet this is not the reference here. Indeed, that this devil is no beast of Aryan or “Nazi” despotism is made clear when Roman Castevet celebrates the birth of the child.

Roman cries: “He shall overthrow the mighty and lay waste to their temples.  He shall redeem the despised and reap vengeance in the name of the burned and the tortured.” Indeed, “The Devil” is a good democrat! “Burned”?

Given when the book and film were released, 1967 and 1968, possibly this is a reference to the Holocaust, a term only then beginning to circulate. Yet our broader study reveals that “fire” as a motif and in name meanings is a reference to the Jewish God who is described in the Hebrew Bible as a “consuming fire.” This, as this study argues, is also the meaning of the “Holocaust” which may be understood as synonymous with the Jewish God.

Regardless, the name Adrian may also mean “dark or black” or it may mean “sea.” “Black”, particularly in name meanings, is a Jewish identifier in JEM as the broader study will reveal.  That this likely the intended meaning of the name is corroborated in the nickname given to the Bramford because of Adrian Maracto’s activities there.  As Hutch mentions toward the beginning of the film, it is the “Black Bramford.”  In my estimation, remarkably, the name “Adrian” may be a reference, at least in part, to a series of old ninth- or tenth-century English works under the generic name Solomon and Saturn.

Indeed, these works, a series of answer and question dialogs between figures identified as Solomon and Saturn, and dealing with Biblical questions, also fell under the names Adrian and Ritheus as well as Solomon and Marcolf. In short, where Solomon and Saturn are not indicated as the interlocutors, the interlocutors are nevertheless understood as Solomon and Saturn, only under a different name. Hence Adrian becomes Solomon.

Perhaps corroborative of this is the name of Roman Castevets deceased, Arch-Warlock ancestor Adrian Marcato who features centrally in the plot and after whom doubtlessly the Devil Baby is named. Indeed, Marcato may be a reference to Marcolf, and therefore Saturn, as both Marcato and Marcolf are derived, in part, from the Latin name Marcus or Mars.

This is supported by the reference to Saturn in Dr. Saperstien’s name. On the other hand, again, “Black,” as a name meaning, appears commonly in JEM as a Jewish identifier. As this study will explicate, it may be a reference to the Song of Solomon. There the mysterious lover, identified in Judaism and Christianity as the Jewish God, announces to his fair lover “I am black!”

To the extent “Adrian” might be understood as a reference to Solomon and not the Jewish God more generally, what is the significance of Solomon as “Devil”?  The reader will know already that he is the central figure in Freemasonry. Yet it would, of course, be a mistake to regard the reference to Freemasonry and not Jewry. Indeed, it would be wholly unimaginable for a Jewish author and Jewish filmmaker to regard the famous Jewish King, King Solomon, non-Jewish or not representing a Jewish power.

Here it may be meaningful to note that King Solomon was remembered as something of a sorcerer and demonologist.  Yet he’s also of the Davidic line and according to Matthew an ancestor of Christ. Indeed, even Christ will laud his wisdom. In any case, would an ancestor of Christ, let alone a direct descendent of David, be also the Devil?

In a manner, yes. After all, what is being indicated in the esotericism of Rosemary’s Baby is simply that “The Devil” is really “The Jew”, whether Solomon or Christ or otherwise. This is also indicated in the esotericism of the Garden of Eden as this study explicates. Indeed, as specific as the reference to Solomon may be taken, it is better understood more broadly. Solomon, like any of the Jewish patriarchs, particularly those descending from Judah, is himself, The Jewish God, by virtue of being a Jew.

In fact, the “Devil” in Rosemary’s Baby may as readily be identified as Christ.  After all, Rosemary, a clear reference to Mary in the Bible, is the child’s mother, whilst Solomon’s mother is a woman named Bathsheba.

Other color symbolism in the film includes Rosemary’s striking red outfit on the day of her rape by the reptilian creature. Red is a reference to Semitic and Aryan blood admixture or the racially “wounded” Aryan as this study explicates. Further, Polanski depicts the Woodhouses’ apartment in golden and yellow hues. This is a reference to the sought after golden, blonde, Aryan “Tipheret.” Gold as this study explicates is an Aryan identifier or an identifier of Aryan surfaces, exteriors or appearances.

Rosemary’s Baby as valuable Rosetta Stone

Rosemary’s Baby is in many ways of tremendous value to us. Here we see clearly the Jewish esotericist view of the Aryan Christian. The understanding is certainly of something inferior, at least in knowledge or gnosis, but nevertheless invaluable, coveted, necessary. It seems evident that the Jew, or Jewish Esotericist more specifically, knows precisely what the Christian is thinking but never vice versa. It is a difficult assessment to challenge.

We see here, for instance, the Jewish understanding that Christianity is especially meaningful to women. We see here, also, the Jewish understanding that the Christian religion is entirely mysterious to the Aryan laity or flock of Christianity. Hence the Christian is unmoored, dependent on a God he or she can neither see, understand, nor even trust.

Unable to trust their “own God” and purpose, the Aryan Christian is rendered directionless, malleable. In the end, they may only be told what is good or evil, rather than understand it instinctively. Indeed, unlike the Jew, they are not their own God nor do they understand him thus they lack executive powers. If the Pope says its not sinful to have sex with a reptilian humanoid than it is not sinful.

There is also the suggestion that “sin”, that curious Semitic, Mesopotamian moon God, no matter how repulsive and initially unpleasant, is made erotic by Christianity, even if by taboo. Lastly the Jewish Esotericist understands fully that Christianity is a “horror movie.”

Eternal damnation is the consequence of any misstep. All of this may be applied to Multiculturalism. Today the Aryan multiculturalist is governed psychologically by the Jewish Multiculturalist who is, again, the Gnostic, who “understands bigotry”, who has the moral authority and “sapience” to determine who is a sinner and who is not, one misstep and it is, indeed, eternal damnation.

Likewise we begin to understand why Polanski holds such a high place in the mind of world Jewry. Films like Rosemary’s Baby that are widely celebrated while gleefully depicting Jewish antagonism to Aryan civilization are profound works of JEM, greatly moralizing to Jews and demoralizing to Aryans, whether common members of either group understand the messaging clearly or not. Jews would have at least understood it as depicting Aryan Christians as mad, psychologically vulnerable, sexually accessible, easily manipulated and ultimately degenerate, whatever their pretensions.

In fact Polanski’s unpunished abuse of Aryan children, broadly forgiven or pooh-poohed by world Jewry, also functions as JEM.  Consider it in this context: Polanski’s most famous film includes a Devil worshiper, bearing his own uncommon first name, involved in child sacrifice. That he himself led a cult implicated in drugged rape, child abduction and murder, doubtlessly, likewise, adds to his “gangsta” mystique.

Lastly we should consider if Polański had a particular insight and even connection to the cult of Catholicism, which is evidently still quite strong in Poland, a land where he may trace his father’s roots. He suggests much but what exactly does he know? And what should the Catholic laity know?

42 replies
  1. Alfred
    Alfred says:

    “It seems evident that the Jew, or Jewish Esotericist more specifically, knows precisely what the Christian is thinking but never vice versa. It is a difficult assessment to challenge.”

    They have studied us for thousands of years.
    They KNOW the Aryan mind, they use their ownership of the media, print and electronic, to seduce the minds of the goyim.

    This quote is from an article written by a gentleman who used the name of “Ferrari”, I don’t know if it is still on the internet, it may be and well worth a read…

    “Paul Mazur of Lehman Brothers decided to change that, and with Edward Bernays’ adroit effort in public relations, they conceived and gave birth to the American Consumer by creating, molding, and then catering to the individual’s desires.

    The nephew of Sigmund Freud, Bernays was fascinated with his uncle’s work on the human subconscious and its applicability to commerce. For example, when tobacco industry executives came to him with the problem that half the population wouldn’t buy cigarettes, Bernays devised a scheme making it acceptable for women to smoke. Basing his research on psychoanalysis, he identified cigarettes as a phallic symbol. Bernays arranged for a group of young socialites to interrupt the New York Easter Day Parade by lighting up, declaring them “Torches of Freedom” for the whirring cameras and reporters. By portraying smoking as an act of women’s liberation, Bernays turned the tide, and Big Tobacco soon captured the other half of American market. Bernays and his cohorts continually repeated such manipulative feats for the next fifty years, and in the process supplanted the American citizen with the American consumer.

    The ramifications of the shift away from a needs-based culture cannot be overestimated.”

    The Catholic Church was taken over by the Tribe in Vatican II. Malachi Martin was one of their insiders.

    This is a very mild overview of the Vatican II debacle:
    How The Jews Changed Catholic Thinking
    By Joseph Roddy, Look Senior Editor
    from LOOK Magazine, January 25, 1966, Volume 30, No. 2
    Read it here:

    Now, we are seeing revival in traditionally non-evangelical regions such as China, India and Africa. These people are reading the Bible without 1,900 years of European anti-Israel (and in many cases anti-Semitic) theology and are able to grasp God’s heart for Israel–His firstborn. Now, we are back on track to the “in this way” path to Israel’s full spiritual restoration–even world redemption (Tikkun Haolam). —Ron Cantor

    Dr MacDonald’s excellent article on the changing of RC views on the Tribe:

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      Good points. But it’s worth mentioning that Jews could never have pulled this off, to the extent they do now, in the 19th century.

      Schopenhauer said that nothing about Judaism can be confused with Reason.

      And Bryon even exposes and pokes fun at their power in Don Juan.

      Though it is true that by the second half of the 19th century Jewish power and influence had grown considerably (though, again, not to the extent we’re all familiar with now), so that even Wagner was warning Nietzsche to cool it regarding his more barbed jabs at the chosen.

      But 30 years after Nietzsche’s death came the publication of Ortega’s The Revolt of The Masses, which meant Quantity had triumphed over Quality, thereby insuring Jewish Supremacy’s success over the West. Cause the masses were easy to bamboozle and swindle.

      So much so that one thing that speaks to your comment is the Manson murders. Particularly how Polanski had the gall to turn his return to the house just a week or two later into a Look magazine article and photo shoot of him kneeling beside the couch at the very spot where Sharon was murdered, her blood stains still very much there deep in the carpet.

      Looking back now, knowing what we know and about them in general and through in-depth analysis like the kind provided by this excellent TOO article, makes one wonder, or makes one flat out suspicious.

      Talk about brazen effrontery. Talk about callous indifference and mercilessness. In other words, talk about chutzpah.

      Read the article, check out the photos and tell me if it doesn’t have the feel of a criminal returning to the scene of the crime because he’s protected from up on high and knows he can get away with it.

      Who of us here, and not just here, who know the extent of their brazenness and criminality would put it past them?

  2. TGD
    TGD says:

    I read the book and saw the movie when they first came out but being young and naive, regarded them only as very “cool” entertainment. Mark Brahmin (symbolic?) has certainly dissected all of the esoteric meanings, shibboleths and subtle profundities in Levin’s novel (if his interpretation is indeed correct). Reminds me of the 1960’s Peter Paul and Mary song, “Puff the Magic Dragon,” which was regarded as a delightful children’s ditty but when the lyrics were deciphered, turned out to be about illegal drugs.

  3. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    Again, more superb content. Excellent.

    This analysis reinforces my belief that culturally and spiritually European man (and his geographical extensions) freed himself from Jewish Supremacy for the first time with the creation of Romanticism. Which was a reaction against the failure of The Enlightenment.

    Tempted to launch into an explanation, I’ll resist out of consideration to TOO’s moderator.

    So, I’ll just say that this article itself is, I submit, in the Romantic tradition*. In that it dismantles the superstructure of Jewish thought. It’s an exercise in de-mystification. Mystification being the belief that we can only become acceptable to others by denying our own truth.

    *The analysis of all controlling ideologies and explanatory systems, including one’s own.

  4. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    I’m well aware of the fact that Romanticism is misrepresented in our teaching-learning institutions.
    As is virtually everything having anything to do with the European tradition.

    If Romanticism was properly understood there’d be no need for an Alt, or Dissident Right, which, ideologically is the equivalent of the Catholocism mentioned in Mark Brahmin’s article, ie; something the superficially intellectual but profoundly gullible use to continuously play into the hands of their malicious and conniving handlers.

  5. Irq
    Irq says:

    Just when I get to thinking that Prof. MacDonald is really rather reasonable, he publishes an article like this which sort of defies the reader to swallow it.

    • Hugo Adrian
      Hugo Adrian says:

      As expected, a naysayer doth appear! These sorts of analyses always attract comments reflecting a general ignorance of the amount of time, energy, and planning that goes into a creative work like a film or novel, as well as the sort of mystical thinking that Jews engage in, particularly if they’re kabbalists. Some films are in the development phase for many years. Besides, Jews are taught to read the bible at four levels to tease out secretive and mystical meanings in its stories (see Pardes), so it seems natural that Jews would encode them in their own work. It doesn’t mean every detail of this analysis is correct, but don’t throw out Rosemary’s baby with the bath water! As the author states, Jewish storytellers telegraph these hidden meanings expecting only other Jews to pick up on them. I appreciate his effort to demystify this work.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        (1) Hugo Adrian’s words, which suggest that he regards naysaying as such to be ignorant, tempt one to postulate in defense that his own critical response is motivated by remarks he considers merely insufficiently hip, especially as he has no reason to characterize as ignorant the other gentleman’s basis for disliking the article.

        (2) “Jews are taught to read the bible at four levels. …” No, they aren’t. Jews as a group are not to taught to read the Bible at all. If they read anything of a “religious” nature, it is the Talmud, which is not a religious work in any sense that a non-Jew would recognize (hence the sneer quotes).*

        I myself have worked with and known perhaps a hundred Jews during my seven-plus decades of life, and precisely two of them even owned an Old Testament, let alone devoted the odd moment or two to cabalistic rumination.
        * In Yeshiva University’s curriculum, the major in Jewish studies includes a course in the Hebrew scriptures only as an elective. So much for their interest in the Bible.

        • Hugo Adrian
          Hugo Adrian says:

          Reply to point (2) Are you suggesting the Pardes system does not exist? Why do you strawman my point by extending the length of the goal to include every single Jew, man, woman, and child? It seems you are worried that Mr. Brahmin is onto something and that Jewish esoteric symbolism will become common knowledge. Try reading his website, it’s full of fascinating examples. I am currently in the process of analyzing a Jewish pop-culture work, and I noticed many of the same patterns without having ever read Mr. Brahmin! Now I am learning from his writings and will certainly be buying his book.

        • pterodactyl
          pterodactyl says:

          @Pierre Re the Jews and the Bible/Old Testament
          Interesting comment about the Jews and the OT.

          What book do the Jews use as their source of information about Abraham, King David & the Exodus and Passover story?
          Do they regard the OT that Christians use as an authoritative source?
          Did Jesus read the same texts on Jewish history as the modern Jews? Were these not incorporated into the OT?
          I looked up ‘Talmud’ & am none the wiser, except I learned that in S Korea they have the Talmud as a book in primary school.

    • Mark Brahmin
      Mark Brahmin says:

      I am unsure of the basis of this criticism. However people who are interested in common criticisms of my work, which are frequently emotional or “partisan,” may google “Apollonian transmission shallow criticisms and their refutations.” I wrote the article to avoid going back and forth in poisonous and, most importantly, time consuming exchanges with anonymous critics.

  6. SS
    SS says:

    Not reliable information. For one thing, Guy is a Jew in the book, and the actor playing Guy is not an Aryan type. The cannibal sisters are the TRENCH sisters, not Trent. That name is possibly a reference to Miss Gulch, of Wizard of Oz of fame.

    • Mark Brahmin
      Mark Brahmin says:

      Hi SS, the question of whether of not Guy was a Jew puzzled me as I began to study this work. Two reasons I suspected it is because a) his appearance and b) there is some ambiguity during the insemination scene where both Guy and the “Devil” are present. So of course I went back to the book, as I mention in my study. I listen to the audio book and there it says Rosemary was estranged from her family for three reasons “A) marrying a protestant and B) marrying in only a civil ceremony and C) having a mother in law that had two divorces and was married now to Jew up in Canada.” Can you send a citation where he is indicated a Jew? What is your source? I am of course reluctant to listen to the audio book again/read the kindle. I am happy to be corrected though if you can cite the passage in the book.

      • SS
        SS says:

        Oops, sorry, my mistake on the Guy a Jew claim. It is as you say, Guy is Protestant, his mother was divorced and is married to a Jew. Page 26 of an August 1968 Dell paperback. It is the Trench sisters, though, (page 18.)

      • SS
        SS says:

        I thought I answered this yesterday, but it looks like it did not post. You are correct, I was wrong, Guy is a Protestant in the book. But the sisters are the Trench sisters, page eighteen of the August 1968 Dell paperback. Sorry for my mistake, but I had it in my head all these years that her family was mad that she had married a Jew.

        • Mark Brahmin
          Mark Brahmin says:

          They are indeed the Trench sister. Two names for them appear in the film and book, the Trench sisters and then a second name slyly inserted by the author as a mispronunciation: Trent. Somehow writing the article the later stuck in my head especially with the Simon of Trent association. Given the Jewish subtext of the film, it is certainly the case Levin was making this reference albeit briefly and carefully. But the name Trench is also interesting. The article is revised to include a discussion of this name which, of course, on the surface level is a reference to the French Trench sisters. The revision only strengthens my case. JEM relies especially on careful name usage. Thanks for pointing out the oversight.

  7. Walter Lew
    Walter Lew says:

    “Here we see clearly the Jewish esotericist view of the Aryan Christian.”

    Clearly you missed the connection between Dr. Abe Saperstien, Servant of the Jewish Saturn and Abe Saperstein the founder, owner and coach of the Harlem Globetrotters.

  8. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    This article reads like an audition piece for an invitation to an exclusive literary conclave run by what its author takes for the coolest members of the European New Right (think of it as something akin to the annual MLA convention but in an alternative universe à la Star Trek). Like those whose ranks he evidently seeks to join, Mr. Brahmin can’t quite make up his mind which he hates more, the West’s Christian past or its Jewish present, and his ignorance of the significance of the former skews, indeed cripples, his analysis of the latter.

    The thirty or so factual errors his article perpetrates about the movie and the book—a few of them have already been noted by other commenters who seem as dismayed as I am—are, sadly, the least of his transgressions. Far more galling is his habit of repeatedly teasing his readers with unfulfilled promises that he will, any day now, provide irrefutable documentation for his tiresomely long stream of weakly supported assertions, all of which he misleadingly labels evidence. Although he never actually delivers the goods, does his failure to do so deter him from over and over claiming that he has? Certainly not! Mr. Brahmin’s bottomless self-esteem could make him Exhibit A in some similarly inventive fabulist’s docudrama on the glorious fruits of Brown v. Board of Education.

    Worst of all, however, is the author’s habit of using the words “hence” and “therefore” in place after place where he has demonstrated no necessary connection, either evidentiary or syllogistic, to be present. The most charitable interpretation might be to conclude ruefully that he doesn’t know what these words mean.

    In light of the foregoing, that any reader would fail to feel as insulted as I do by this shoddy excuse for an academic paper leaves me scratching my head.

    As just suggested and as many here will recognize, this rhetorical style, whose primary characteristic is the deceptive fluency of bluff and bravado, is native to those who shamelessly declare themselves scholars, even though little or nothing they write would ever be recognized as scholarship by the honorable men and women who were so called a century and more ago.

    Mr. Brahmin has doubtless been scarred by his years of unpaid toil on the chain gang of academic enslavement to the whims of overpaid timeservers. Still, I wish that his debut article for Professor MacDonald’s site did not so clearly bear the disfiguring marks of the term papers and theses he has learned to produce to measure.

    • Mark Brahmin
      Mark Brahmin says:

      One reader here pointed to an actual error, where I focused on the name of Trent, a sly confusion of the name Trench inserted in the film and book by the Author. I’ve addressed this oversight in a revision of the section I’ve sent to the author. As to the rest of your remarks, my refutations are here:
      I am guessing a good response to you will be found in the section entitled: “The Emotionalized _________ and Pagan sources of Criticism.”

    • Hugo Adrian
      Hugo Adrian says:

      Are you trolling? This is a subjective analysis. It seems the only evidence you’d be willing to accept would be written notes scrawled in the margins of the original manuscripts, or testimony from Ira Levin or the child rapist himself, admitting in detail what was intended with this detail or that. Don’t hold your breath. His use of “hence” and “therefore” are used as necessary to explain his reasoning. If you disagree with his theory, point out a better one. Otherwise, join the ignorant chorus that creative writers would never – could never! – inject a hidden subtext into their work.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        … join the ignorant chorus that creative writers would never – could never! – inject a hidden subtext into their work.

        With curled lip, Hugo Adrian declares me ignorant for thinking something I may or may not actually think* but certainly never referred to in my comments. He won’t object, surely, if I reciprocate with a little mind-reading and off-the-cuff analysis of my own.

        So in that spirit, let me ask whether it is truly farfetched to see him as a brother under the skin to Mark Brahmin, a man who proudly, even defiantly, calls upon me to read his backhand dismissal of all who won’t genuflect to his genius, however much that genius may resemble the “insight” of a psychologically grandiose personality wearing the figurative cap and bells of an eighteenth-century village atheist and thus produces fragments of wisdom that bear a striking resemblance to familiar adolescent prejudices?

        In that Mr. Brahmin’s linked apologia is such an omnium-gatherum of thoughts, beliefs, notions, and coy coinages, it is inevitable that a certain amount of it has the ring of truth. Let it be emphasized, however, that nothing in it that is true is original to him, and nothing that is original to him is true.
        * I don’t, as it happens, though that is neither here nor there in the present circumstances.

  9. James Clayton
    James Clayton says:

    Here’s an ~hour-and-a-half aired-on-PBS example of How the Jews Invented Hollywood for those over-14 years-of-age. My wife and I were shocked when we viewed the bought-at-a-neighbor’s-yard-sale DVD. You will be, too, I guarantee you. It is available at several locations as opposed to having been removed for being unadulterated communist propaganda. I think it is worth your time toward better understanding of the money, talent, sophistication, and distribution network of the enemy.

    Foyles War S01E02 The White Feather part 1/2
    Dailymotion · 12/31/2017

    Foyles War S01E02 The White Feather part 2/2 – video dailymotion
    Dailymotion · 12/31/2017

    1. “Foyle’s War” The White Feather (TV Episode 2002) – IMDb
    Nov 03, 2002 · Storyline. Foyle investigates the activities of Edith Johnson, a maid at the White Feather hotel, who was caught cutting telephone wires. When the owner of the White Feather, Margaret Ellis, is shot Foyle finds himself investigating a murder. The actual target was likely Guy Spencer, the leader of a fascist pro-Nazi movement known as the Friday Club.
    o 8.5/10
    o Content Rating: TV-14
    o Director: Jeremy Silberston

  10. John Lilburne
    John Lilburne says:

    This the world of the “occult” with hidden symbolic meanings that resemble zen koans and Sufi riddles, where the search is more important than the meaning.
    It is the world of David Icke ( and the one eyed symbolism of the vigilant citizen (
    The magic world of Magic-EROS AND MAGIC IN THE RENAISSANCE loan P. Couliano
    and the Lurian Kabbalah of the Zohar
    Where all the gods are neither Jewish nor Aryan but Babylonian
    where the statue of Liberty is a symbol of Semiramis a symbol of occult elite rule.
    A world where it is easy to become lost

  11. Jack McArthur
    Jack McArthur says:

    “the Semitic God Osiris”. As best I know the roots of Osiris worship are still unknown and I don’t think you will find many Egyptologists today who will make such a bold assertion as this being fact. The bible describes the Egyptians as being a mixed people and the most venerated woman was Queen Ahmose Nefertari who was given the epithet “Mother of Egypt” (her family evicted the semitic Hyksos who had occupied the north). She was commonly depicted as black ( the colour of resurrection through the black fertile soil of the annual inundation). At the very least black skin had no negative racial connotations.

    “Onnophris which means “always happy.”” This is a Hellenised form of wnn nfr (several slight variations). People like Faulkner and T. G. Allen do not translate this in books I have and there are several takes on what the epithet could mean so this seems too bold an assertion.

    I take it “cult” is being used in a derogatory manner but the RCC has always used the term historically in a respectful way i.e. the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

    That the ancestral spirit of the Jews is hostile to Christianity in general, and the RCC church in particular, can indeed be witnessed through the poisoning of the popular media but this essay didn’t lift my boat spiritually or ehance my understanding of history.

    A couple of sayings of Jesus did come to mind i e. “before A Braham was I AM” (perhaps through a pet theory of mine relating to wnn nfr) and that to enter the Kingdom of heaven a person has to become like a little child.

  12. LavonDishon
    LavonDishon says:

    Mark Brahmin derives his amazing insights by combining the skills of the first Evangelist with those of the chief Hindu god. Perhaps because I’m Jewish, this article duplicates my thought process when I watched Rosemary’s Baby 50 years ago astoundingly well.
    Seriously people, when Jews undermine Western Civilization, their techniques are usually no more subtle than Allan Sherman used in “Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah.” I am seriously whether any of the techniques described here would be effective. Brahmin needs a shave by Occam’s Razor!

  13. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    Wouldn’t it have been easier and required less writing to simply say:

    jooz are evil. Rosemary’s Baby is really about how evil jooz are.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      It certainly would have required less thought.

      We don’t need to resort to ad hominems like they do with us. We like to think and we’re good at it.

      It’s why European man created the university.

      And why they’re destroying it.

  14. Mykel Alexander
    Mykel Alexander says:

    The most dangerous issue addressed in the film Rosemary’s Baby is the existence of cohesive groups and stealthy behavior based on lies, dissimulation and transmitted ancestral heritage.

    This is recurrent in history …

  15. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    “Here youthful Aryan stock is used to continue and maintain a more racially aged Jewry.”

    The most recent and more ominous manifestation of which is the normalization of organ “donations” and replacement, which is certainly far more savage and inelegant than intermarriage and subsequent breeding. As if there is something quite acceptable about thinking you deserve a second (or even third) life thanks to a form of cannibalism. White people are becoming spiritual middle easterners with their atheistic terror of death. “Pleeze, God, give me one more chance! I’ll be good!!”

    Presumed consent, anyone? You don’t even have to sign an organ donor card in some places and itz coming here. A more disgusting industry than organ transplanting does not exist. That most organ harvesting appears to be voluntary is irrelevant because, for one example, there is much pressure on parents of a deceased child to have his body carved apart for some stranger’s “benefit”.

    But as to the involuntary form of organ donation:

    The comments are most interesting. Is it the Albanians or the Israelis…

  16. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    Of the many boasts in this article, the first and most revealing, perhaps even the most important, is to be found in the subtitle: “A Valuable Rosetta Stone.” Few readers will need reminding that the significance of the Rosetta stone—which was discovered in 1799 by a French soldier in a scientific unit attached to Napoleon’s Egyptian expeditionary force—is that it provided the key to decyphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.

    Is Mark Brahmin, then, implicitly claiming that frequenters of the Occidental Observer have heretofore been ignorant of Jewish intrigues, subversions, deceptions, and “revolutions within the form” but now, at last, have been offered the key to their decyphering?

    A marginally related addendum: I recall seeing a list, compiled about forty years ago by a clever journalist whose name I can’t recall, entitled something like Fifty Good Things to Be Said for Imperialism. The discovery of the Rosetta stone—the old basalt one, that is—was somewhere in the top twenty.

  17. Savage Literary Critic
    Savage Literary Critic says:

    Why is this rubbish being published at The Occidental Observer?

    I felt like I was reading some confused nonsense from 2003. I genuinely hope the author is an enthusiastic youngster and not a genuine ‘basket case’… or worse.

    The author is supremely fascinated with jewish ‘thinking’. Fine, good for him. However, in response to the entirety of this tedious, wearying prose I would only say: must we really concern ourselves with the mental processes of the rat or the mosquito or the cockroach before we are rid of them?

    Rosemarys baby? Really? And yet you didn’t even mention ‘Rosicrucianism’! You’re not even doing it right, bud!

    Go away, until you can come back with something useful and grounded in reality, and not vomitous jew bosh!

    • Mark Brahmin
      Mark Brahmin says:

      Jews, as an adversarial group, have done quite well for themselves understanding how we think. God forbid we understand how they might think. Is this alone the conflict where such knowledge would not be useful? I am sure you don’t think that. In fact a great number of the articles here are devoted to understanding how Jews think. Should they also be banned because they are concerned with the thinking of (presumably powerless and inept) “cockroaches,” you say?

  18. John
    John says:

    It’s all in good fun, but at some point, I sense an inventiveness that outdoes the fictional work itself. It has been my observation that Jewish creators rely on obscurity, not to hide some deeper truth, but to pretend to hide some deeper meaningful truth.

    • Mark Brahmin
      Mark Brahmin says:

      Feel free to point to a place where I have suggested a connection the artists are making that seems more “inventive” than the work itself. Though of course my case does not rest on this or that one clue. Rather it is found in the cumulative analysis, where thematically consistent, reinforcing clues reappear. It also is corroborated in the phenomenon of Jewish Esoteric Moralization itself, an important phenomenon among salient Jewish works of Art and Religion.

Comments are closed.