Namatianus and the Sullen Jew

For a sullen Jew was guardian of the spot,
An animal that spurns at sound human food.
He charges our bill for the bushes disturbed, the sea weed,
Struck with our sticks, and clamours that his loss
Is grievous in the water that we drink.
We fling fit answer to the filthy race,
That upholds shameless circumcision —
They are a height of stupidity; cold sabbaths charm their heart;
And yet their heart is even colder than their creed,
Each seventh day to shameful sloth’s condemned,
An effeminate picture of a wearied god!
Their other wild fancies from a bazaar of lies
Not even a child in their sleep would believe.
Would that Judea ne’er had been subdued,
By Pompey’s wars and under Titus’ sway!
The plague’s contagion all the wider spreads;
The conquered presses on the conquering race.

From On His Return, by Rutilius Claudius Namatianus, 416 A.D.

I recently devoted some time to reading the entirety of Saint John Chrysostom’s eight homilies on the Jews, an experience I’m not inclined to recommend to anyone seeking a clinical exploration of Jewish influence. The homilies are masterworks of rhetoric and invective, but, like many pre-Enlightenment texts tackling problematic Jewish behavior, they are overwhelmingly dominated by Christian theology, and empirical analysis of the socio-economic relationship between Jews and Europeans is only hinted at. It would be redundant for me to labor these points here since the best exploration of Chrysostom’s hints and allusions to Jewish socio-economic misbehavior can be found in Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents (pp.95-97, 116-118 in paperback), and in a 2015 TOO post by MacDonald that in turn reflects on an interesting article by Roger Pearse, a scholar of Christianity. I was, however, prompted by my reading of Chrysostom to search for ancient writers that did offer the kind of analysis or critique that met my expectations, and that hadn’t already been covered by MacDonald’s treatment of late Roman anti-Semitism in Separation and Its Discontents (pp. 109-139 in the paperback version)—at a time when anti-Jewish writing emphasized Jews enslaving Christians; and accusations of Jewish greed, wealth, love of luxury and of the pleasures of the table became common. I was also keen to move beyond some of the more familiar figures of the ancient world to whom anti-Jewish remarks have been attributed: Cicero, Seneca, Tacitus, Horace, Quintilian, Dio Cassius, Celsus, Plutarch, and Strabo. It was while reading “Cultivated Pagans and Ancient Antisemitism,”[1] a 1939 article from The Journal of Religion, that I finally encountered a substantial reference to the remarkable piece of poetry opening this essay. What follows is an effort to analyze the poem and place it in historical and cultural context.

Rutilius Claudius Namatianius was a high Roman functionary, aristocrat, and Imperial poet. He was a native of southern Gaul, having his origins somewhere near modern Toulouse. His long Imperial career saw him occupy influential roles at a time when Rome was in chaos, and Namatianus claimed to have personally witnessed the final sack of Rome in 410 and its aftermath. Around the year 415, Namatianus undertook a voyage home to Gaul, later penning a kind of travel memoir in epic poetic form titled On His Return. The poem, of which only the initial third has survived, offers unique insight into a period not normally associated with literary treasures (the early ‘Dark Ages’), as well as a singular example of late Pagan lament on civilizational decline and the characteristics and growing influence of the Jews.

The episode opening this essay occurs during Rutilius’s trip, after he passed the island of Elba and landed at the port of Falesia Portus. I have been unable to determine precisely where on a modern map this would be, but I assume it’s somewhere between modern Piombino and Livorno. At Falesia Portus, Rutilius and his travelling companions watched celebrations organized for the god Osiris, before exploring and enjoying their surroundings:

Landing, we seek the town and roam the wood;
The ponds delight us, sweet, with shoals begirt,
The waters, spread within the enclosed flood,
Allow the sportive fish amid the pools,
To dart and play.

This peaceful commune with nature offers some reprieve from the omnipresent signs of social and political collapse. Problems begin, however, when the group arrive at their lodgings, a villa and gardens whose conductor (the middleman who administrated the inn and its domain) is a Jew.

But he who leased the spot,
A harsher landlord than Antiphates,
Made this reposeful loveliness pay dear.

Antiphates, of course, was the king of the Laestrygonians, described in Homer’s Odyssey as a race of giants known for devouring foreigners. The comparison with Antiphates sets the stage for Namatianus’s poetic reflections on the misanthropic, anti-social, and exploitative nature of the Jews, both in the personal interaction with the Jewish innkeeper, and in the much broader clash between Jews and the late Roman Empire. It’s worth recalling that it was unusual for Jews to be found so far north in Italy during the 400s, because, in a preference that has remained almost constant to the present, Jews tended to cluster around seats of government and commerce. In the Italy of the 400s, this meant Jewish concentration around Rome, Milan, Ravenna, and Aquileia. More predictably, it’s notable that this Jew is not a rustic farmer, soldier, or craftsman, but a middleman.

The standard narrative of most apologetic histories of the Jews will earnestly feed readers the fairytale that Jews were sons of the soil, much like any other people, until Christians persecuted them, counter-productively it would seem, into powerful and exploitative financial positions. This is despite a clear record of evidence demonstrating that the special relationship between Jews and money preceded Christianity. Jews had settled among European host populations since ancient times, with the oldest communities located in the urban centers of the Mediterranean. A list of Jewish colonies in this area can be found in the First Book of Maccabees, and in the early Roman empire clusters of Jews could be found as far north as Lyon, Bonn and Cologne.[2] The economic nature of these communities was uniform, and similar to those in the East. Even prior to the Talmudic era, c.300–500 A.D., Jews had developed a strong interest and aptitude in commerce and banking and, from its beginning, Jewish involvement in these spheres was regarded by host populations as malevolent and exploitative. In one of the earliest examples, a papyrus from the first half of the first century B.C., a man named Heracles writes to a friend in Hellenistic Egypt about some associates who “detest the Jews.”[3] In another, dated to 41 A.D., an Alexandrian merchant warns a friend to “beware of the Jews.”[4] During the fourth century, Alexandria witnessed a number of anti-Jewish riots, almost all of them provoked by accusations of economic exploitation. Under Tiberius, several Jewish middlemen in Rome were discovered to have been misappropriating silver and gold, prompting the expulsion of 4000 Jews to Sardinia in 19 A.D.[5] In short, Namatianus’s Jewish innkeeper is not so much of an aberration as might first appear to those schooled only in mainstream apologetic scholarship.

It’s clear that Namatianus already has a pre-existing animus towards Jews, an aspect of his politics and worldview presumably shaped over decades as a Roman administrator. For Namatianus, this sullen innkeeper is primarily an anti-social “animal,” and a true example of his breed. Namatianus expresses no surprise at the character traits of the innkeeper, nor does he attempt to explain his complaints. He clearly expected his readers to understand and sympathize with what he has to say about Jews and Judaism. Namatianus rather nonchalantly sets the sullen Jew in the context of his tribe, pointing out before anything else that the innkeeper is part of an ethnically solipsistic race that sets itself apart even through diet by avoiding “sound human food” like seafood and pork (similar complaints were made by Juvenal in his Satires and Tacitus in his Histories). Roman hatred of Jewish separatism ran deep, with its origins at least as far back as Pompey’s siege of Jerusalem in 63 B.C. Jewish rebellion began almost immediately, and accelerated after the establishment of the province of Judea in 6 A.D. Roman officials were unanimous in attributing this rebellious behavior to Jewish ethnocentrism, the sense of Jewish uniqueness, and the Jewish belief that, as Tacitus expressed it, the East would be victorious and leaders from Judea would come to rule the world (Historiae, 5, 13: “ut valesceret Oriens profectique Iudeaea rerum potirentur”).

The sullen Jew encountered in Falesia Portus is money-driven. He “charges our bill for the bushes disturbed, the sea weed, Struck with our sticks, and clamours that his loss, Is grievous in the water that we drink.” Namatianus and his companions finish their enjoyment of the landscape only to find that their every move has been watched, and every broken branch accounted for. We might presume that this is a well-used process of exploitation for the innkeeper, regularly employed to milk ignorant travelers for more profits. Jews are thus not merely presented as a people apart, but unscrupulous, unreasonable, and untrustworthy in financial transactions of any type. In a scene almost comical, the Jewish innkeeper is so miserly and exploitative that he would even go so far as to demand money for water drunk from pools on his land, pleading that, by quenching their thirst, Namatianus and his men had caused him a “grievous” financial loss. Namatianus’s account of this stingy Jew, shamelessly hard in business, is a pointed rejoinder to those who claim that ‘tropes’ about Jewish financial misbehavior were a side-effect of the putatively accidental (!) entry of the Jews into highly lucrative moneylending niches during the Middle Ages.

Namatianus recounts that he responded to the innkeeper’s attempted exploitation with “fit answer to the filthy race,” by which we must assume that he responded with verbal abuse or aggression of some kind. The term “Jew” was itself a pejorative at the time, with even the Jewish Midrash containing a story about two Roman women who argue only to later reconcile apart from one outstanding issue — the insulted party could not forgive the other party for saying she “looked like a Jew” during the argument.[6] Roman aversion to Jewishness was such that both Vespasian and Titus refused to accept the honorific ‘Judaicus’ after having suppressed the great revolt and their victory in Judea (unlike the very willing traditional adoption of titles such as “Britannicus,” “Germanicus” and “Africanus”).

In popular Roman culture, two aspects of Jewish identity were singled out for particular scorn and derision — circumcision and the sabbath. As with diet, both were viewed as symbols of Jewish separatism, but both also included further strata of meaning. Namatianus’s use of the term gens obscena, “filthy race,” is directly connected with the remark on circumcision, and it’s likely that Namatianus responded to the innkeeper not only by referring to his Jewishness, but also with some kind of reference to circumcision and perversion. In the Roman mind, both were linked, and accusations of hyper-sexuality or perversion among Jews are common in the literature of the period. At the more comedic end of the scale, Juvenal chuckled at the strangeness of Jews who “worship the sky” and “by and by, shed their foreskins,” (Satires, 14.99), while at the more serious end there were accusations from figures like Tacitus that Jews were addicted to lust. Sexual slander of competing groups was of course extremely common on all sides during the period. The Jewish literature, for example, depicted Romans as addicted to pederasty, and gentiles in general as prone to bestiality. In this regard, Tractate Avodah Zarah 22b, an entire chapter of the Talmud dedicated to the subject, has some truly remarkable allegations, including the stunningly improbable account of a Rabbi who says he witnessed a gentile engage in bestiality with a goose before roasting and eating it, and the claim that “The animal of a Jew is more appealing to gentiles that their own wives.”

Namatianus’s comments on the sabbath are equally interesting. The allusion to the “chilly” nature of the sabbath, and coldness more generally in the first instance, is a likely reference to the then frequently mocked fact Jews could not light fires on that day. But Namatianus immediately reflects on something deeper in the Jewish personality, implying that this “cold” concept of a day of rest “charms their heart” because “their heart is even colder than their creed.” For Namatianus, there is something fundamentally cold, sterile, and inhuman about the Jews and their religion, something hinted at first in the exploitative approach of the Jewish innkeeper, but now expanded upon as a primary racial characteristic. The philosophical background influencing many Roman aristocratic groups, to which Namatianus belonged, included a respect for humanitas—the ability of men to be sociable. The coldness of Jews is found in their lack of humanitas, which was an essential structuring aspect of higher Roman society. Being incapable of humanitas, Jews were inevitably seen as being themselves disruptive and undesirable within a society they were not prepared to co-operate with but merely exploit. Such perspectives are remarkably similar to complaints made about the social behavior of Jews in the early twentieth century, as they entered and ascended the Western middle class, upsetting many social conventions in the process.

As well as “coldness,” the sabbath is also linked to the idea that Jews are given over to a “shameful sloth,” dictated by a god apparently lassatus or “wearied” and therefore, in a Roman culture where masculinity was linked to motion and action, irredeemably mollis or “effeminate.” When not engaged in active rebellion or sedition, one of the primary perceptions of Jews among the Romans was of a people prone to, as Tacitus put it (Historiae, 4, 3), “the charms of indolence.” That the brief interaction with the sullen innkeeper at Falesia Portus would prompt a reflection on the sabbath may indicate Namatianus’s opinion that the innkeeper was slothful. The complaint that Jews are unique in their apparent dedication to avoiding physical work has been common in anti-Jewish writing for almost 2000 years, and the linkage here is difficult to side-step. For Namatianus, the sullen Jew is cold and lazy, preferring, like a spider, the passive exploitation of those who fall into his web rather than the active earning of his own daily bread. In the Roman aristocratic worldview, such an approach to life is not only lacking in morality and human warmth, but is fundamentally effeminate.

It’s especially interesting that Namatianus implies that Jews are not merely superstitious in holding to these traditions, but also prone to advancing falsehood. He situates Jewish religious customs, “wild fancies,” as originating from “a bazaar of lies, Not even a child in their sleep would believe.” The reference to the bazaar or marketplace (catasta—literally, the stage on which auctions take place), is a further association with Jews and merchant activity, but it also suggests a proliferation or abundance of falsehood for profit, and the idea that the Jews themselves are a fountain of lies and exaggerations.

The section’s final four lines are perhaps the most thoughtful and poignant. Namatianus regrets that Judea had been conquered by Pompey and Titus because these conquests facilitated the ingestion of that which could not be digested. The annexation of Jewish territories and the free movement of Jews within the empire brought into the Roman body a “plague’s contagion” that “all the wider spreads.” The sullen Jewish innkeeper, who, in his rejection of humanitas, is not prepared to co-operate with his guests but merely to exploit them, is therefore merely symbolic of the broader gens obscena who reject humanitas and thus live within the Roman Empire not to co-operate and take part in it but merely to exploit and destroy it. Through such an approach, inconceivable though it may have been to his contemporaries, Namatianus argues that “The conquered presses on the conquering race.” The term has close resonance with Seneca’s complaint of the Jews that “the vanquished have given laws to their victors,”[7] as well as with some of the most famous and pessimistic anti-Jewish texts of the nineteenth century including Marr’s The Victory of Jewry over Germandom and Toussenel’s The Jews: Kings of the Epoch. Marie Roux comments, in her analysis of On His Return, that “The biological metaphor used by Rutilius forms part of his argumentation according to which Jews are and will remain pernicious enemies of Rome that had clearly taken advantage of Rome’s generosity. … Jews are presented as internal enemies that show the limits of Rome’s imperialist policy.”[8]

By making such clear references to Jewish misanthropy, financial exploitation, social disruptiveness, and status as an “internal enemy,” this remarkable poem by Rutilius Namatianus offers a shocking riposte from the early fifth century to those keen to portray such concepts as simply the warped byproduct of Christianity or as the recent invention of bigots. One of the most surprising aspects of the poem is how fresh it appears in its concerns and complaints. One might imagine it written today, referring perhaps to a sullen slumlord in Brooklyn, or to Jewish influence in the declining American empire. It is this last element that I find especially haunting. Namatianus was a man writing at the twilight of his age, in almost total disbelief that the all-conquering European force to which he belonged had succumbed to something so outwardly pathetic and yet so inwardly fanatical, cold, and unmoving. For me, the poem speaks volumes.

[1] N. W. Goldstein, “Cultivated Pagans and Ancient Antisemitism,” Journal of Religion, 19:4 (1939), pp.346-364.

[2] P. Johnson, A History of the Jews (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1987), p.171.

[3] S. Almog (ed), Antisemitism Through the Ages (Jerusalem: Pergamon, 1988), p.16.

[4] S. Baron (ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York: Schocken, 1976), p.22.

[5] Almog, p.18.

[6] Lamentations Rabbah, 1:11.

[7] See St. Augustine, City of God, VI. 11.

[8] Marie Roux: Rutilius Namatianus, On His Return I.377-398.

38 replies
  1. TOO fan
    TOO fan says:

    I am reminded of the two quotations from ‘nietzsche’s Jewish problem’ here at the Occidental Observer:

    ‘However, in 1876 Cosima’s suspicions were raised by aspects of Rée’s personality. In October 1876 she wrote in her diary: “In the evening we are visited by Dr. Rée, whose cold and precise character does not appeal to us; on closer inspection we come to the conclusion that he must be an Israelite.”’

    ‘”Many things came together to produce that deplorable book! Finally Israel intervened in the form of a Dr. Rée, very sleek, very cool, at the same time being captivated by Nietzsche and dominated by him, though actually outwitting him: the relationship of Judea to Germania in miniature”‘

    The second quote seems particularly appropriate to the above essays last few lines.

    Personally despite how they are portrayed on television at least in Europe I find that Jews are humourless and unwilling to extend common humanity to those not of thier tribe. I find that giving some of the passive hostility straight back to them usually works to make them find thier manners. What causes this behaviour? Perhaps a quote from Roald Dahl shall suffice ‘There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews’.

    Anyway excellent essay.

    • Seraphim
      Seraphim says:

      Cosima was half-right. Dr. Rée was definitely an “Israelite’ and he actually was the one influencing Nietzsche. And one should not forget the other great influence: Lou Andreas-Salomé (born either Louise von Salomé or Luíza Gustavovna Salomé) the Russian-born, but suspected ‘Finnish Jew’ psychoanalyst (actually her father was a Jewish doctor, Stein), pupil of Dr. Freud.

  2. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    And so the words of St. Paul in the Book of Romans:

    “Unless the Lord Almighty
    had left us descendants,
    we would have become like Sodom,
    we would have been like Gomorrah.” Romans 9:29

    “God gave them a spirit of stupor,
    eyes that could not see
    and ears that could not hear, to this very day.”

    And David says:

    “May their table become a snare and a trap,
    a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
    May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
    and their backs be bent forever.” 11:9

    To be abandoned by God is a terrible dreadful thing and imagine only a remnant of them will be saved.

    “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
    only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out
    his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”

    A mere 7000. Ouch!

    Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 11:2

  3. Lord Snooty
    Lord Snooty says:

    Rutilius Claudius Namatianus : what a find!
    That even as late as the fifth century, a Roman could make such an impassioned defence of paganism was news to me. If today, a Brit were to make similar derisive comments about Jews, he’d find himself being ‘interviewed under caution’ by the police.

  4. Seraphim
    Seraphim says:

    Rome was sacked several times. 410 AD was not the final. The most ‘famous’ and talked about was the sack by the Vandals in 455 AD, hence the name of ‘vandalism’. But the ‘final sack of Rome’ happened in 546 AD at the hands of the Ostrogoths of Totila who vowed to turn Rome into a sheep pasture and left it completely devastated.

  5. Eric
    Eric says:

    “The conquered presses on the conquering race.” “The vanquished have given laws to their victors.”

    The Anglosphere has been Judaized for well over one hundred years. The repulsive features of the Jews have infected our race. This is something that needs to be investigated.

    How extensive is the infection? What is its nature?

    Since I haven’t thought much about this, I can only venture some guesses. The corruption is most intense in the White “elite” that partners with the Jews: journalists, academics, school teachers, corporations (including tech and social media), government employees (including the police and military leadership), politicians, movers and shakers in the fine and popular arts, and most “Christian” leaders.

    To these groups you can add professionals (lawyers, doctors), college students pursuing bachelors and higher degrees, and scientists who depend on government grants and/or corporate money.

    In other words, all the “important” people in society.

    The infection is likely to be much less serious, or even non-existent, among Whites who do not fall into any of those groups.

    The only exceptions I can think of are White working class members of Christian denominations that are Judaized — especially the evangelical Protestant churches and, to a surprising degree, the Roman Catholic Church.

    I remember Catholics who were upset over the actions of a “fellow Catholic” named Goldstein. I said, “Well, of course she’s a problem; she’s a Jew.” From the response I got, you would think I’d burned down an orphanage.

    What is the nature of the disease as it infects the elite group?

    What is its significance for the group that is largely if not completely immune?

    The effect on the elite group is this: It turns them into de facto Jews. To them, you can justly say, “You think/act like a Jew.”

    The significance of the Jewish infection for the more-or-less immune group is that it hangs over them like a dark cloud. They are not stupid or insensitive. They do not think about what is going on, but they know what their boundaries are: You don’t talk about the Jews. If you are asked about them, you only say nice things.

    If all the Jews were disappear today, we would still be under the Jewish yoke. Our battle is not just with the Jew, but many of our fellow White people as well.

    I cannot control other people. But I can observe my own thoughts and behavior and try to purge them of their Jewishness.

    • Oscar Wilson
      Oscar Wilson says:

      @ Eric.
      A request for further elaboration, or correction, of your views apparently expressed elsewhere that your opposition to the Jews is basically theological and that human (if not humane) warfare must be waged to get rid of them.
      (1) There is an evil supernatural power called Satan. What is your evidence of this?
      (2) The Jews are the offspring of Satan with his inherited evil character. Is this a metaphor (e.g. John 8.44?) or a literal biological fact (e.g. “serpent bloodline” of some identity-cults?).
      (3) The war against the Jews must “give no quarter” (an idiom which, “like take no prisoners”, implies the killing of prisoners, survivors & non-combatants). Does this require total extermination?
      (4) Would you consider that your personal theology, which is scarcely supported by academic theologians or historians, could be mistaken in any way, or would you argue that they are perhaps adversely influenced by the Evil Spawn of Satan?
      There are a number of very scholarly studies by non-Jews on the origins of the concept of Satan, but one Jewish study that may be of relevance and interest is Joshua Trachtenberg, “The Devil and the Jews” (1995 ed.).

      • Gerry
        Gerry says:

        @ Oscar love that name by the way and Eric I got this.

        {1} Evidence of Satan? How about being pushed into a wall just before ones bedroom door quite literally and twice I might add on two different days and then while attending a Sunday Church Service shortly thereafter and being late forcing me to sit in the back row and having a hand touch me on my right shoulder going right through the leather jacket and even flesh. When I turned around to see who was doing this I was faced with only the back wall!! Like to think the one doing this was the angel who rolled away the stone? The morning sermon was on spiritual warfare to which was no coincidence!!! No academics needed when one has experienced the reality of it. Similar to the Prophet Daniel. But I suppose for the academic inside one look up the book of Job which explains what happened with the Mothman of Virginia. That mothman was guess who? Or better yet look up Dr. Walter Martin who was an exorcist in his own right. He has plenty of proof and experience.

        [2} Offspring of Satan? and biological? No its not biological but spiritual a good example being Judas Iscariot who Satan entered into and caused him to betray his Lord. For some inexplicable reason the issue is or revolves around the desires and lusts of the heart. The more a person desires evil and lusts after sinful things the more one opens oneself to demon possession. The Jews in rejecting Christ are being influenced by spiritual powers which appeals to the nature of sin within us all unfortunately. Add to that this lack of knowledge to and viola one has the reason for everything. One need only think about what Christ had to go through with his own disciples who after all was said and done they still couldn’t understand the cross and their kings sacrifice leading Christ to say and literally tutor them through the Old Testament:

        Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, Luke 24:45

        3.5 years living, travelling talking and experiencing everything and still they were uneducated?

        {3} Strange case here but just go here to read about ‘cousins’ and Ben Gurion and you will like me be in for quite the surprise!!! good luck Oscar Wilson

        [4] lol good one. May I ask you the same where Climate Change is concerned. I mean really the Bible teaches that it is the work of Almighty God what we are currently seeing and experiencing throughout the world but alas you need proof? Plenty you can start with the Dust Bowl of the 1930’s which was the work of God. why? Read the book Climate Change the Work of God by Gerry Fox and you will have all the answers you could possibly want or need though I would imagine in your case it would raise many question about the lack of scholarship on the subject.

        Don’t you all understand that the solution to the Jewish question lies in of all places their very history?

        Hmmmm, ‘cousins’ I still can’t get over that but makes sense.


        • Former Liberal
          Former Liberal says:

          Thanks. I’m also a veteran of the psychic wars, to borrow a phrase from an old Blue Oyster Cult song. Until they experience it, most people can’t understand or won’t consider the possibility that spiritual warfare is real. For the readers on this website who are deeply skeptical or just curious, I suggest Dr. Richard Gallagher’s book, “Demonic Foes”. It is widely available.

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        1. The evidence that Satan exists is in the Bible. You may accept that evidence or reject it as you please.

        2. John 8:44 addresses the spiritual — not the biological — being of the Pharisees. I would say John 8:44 applies to most Jews. They are anti-Christ, which by definition puts them in thrall to Satan.

        “The serpent seed” idea is biological, and for that reason, I reject it.

        Christian Identity claims that Whites of European descent are the genetic descendants of the chosen (until God un-chose them) Israelites.

        The Identitarian suggestion is that Whites of European descent are God’s chosen people because of their biological (genetic) heritage. This is a claim that is un-Christian.

        Christ said “My kingdom is not of this world”. It is not a material kingdom, but a spiritual one that is open to all who believe in the Apostle’s and Nicene creeds, repent of their sins (turn away from sin), get baptized in water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and spread the Gospel (good news) to others.

        3. “Give no quarter” means doing the minimum necessary to free oneself of Jewish subversion. It doesn’t necessarily imply the use of violence.

        4. Theologians and church leaders after about 1850 are not reliable guides to the Christian faith. The proof is — to use a cliche — in the pudding: Roman Catholics have bowed down to the Jews. Evangelical Protestantism is Judaized.

        The Christian faith posits that Satan is at war with God. Satan has succeeded in turning many of the faithful away from God.

        Appeals to authority are fallacious. What most academic theologians and historians think is not determinative of anything.

        BTW, thanks for the Trachtenberg reference.

        • Oscar Wilson
          Oscar Wilson says:

          @ Eric
          Thank you for the clarification.
          There are many views other than yours about the credibility and meaning of verses (e.g. John 4.22 + Hebrews 7.14) in the 4th-century collection known as “the Bible”; and I think the critera you personally list with great assurance, to rescue millions of human beings past and present from endless torture after death, are somewhat excessive.

    • Whiteguy
      Whiteguy says:

      @ Eric

      Journalists, academics, school teachers, corporations (including tech and social media), government employees (including the police and military leadership), politicians, movers and shakers in the fine and popular arts, and most “Christian” leaders.

      To these groups you can add professionals (lawyers, doctors), college students pursuing bachelors and higher degrees, and scientists who depend on government grants and/or corporate money.

      In other words, all the “important” people in society.

      LOL, and really Loud too!!!!! My word man all you had to do was use one word Freemasonry!!!

      An organization that started in of all places Great Britain?

      What happened to England?

      Lord Snooty I’d imagine might reply with the smell of Rothschild’s money of course? What else?

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        I’ve read Nesta Webster and others on secret societies. I don’t doubt their existence or significance. But I don’t think you need secret societies in order to explain what has been going on in the world. Understanding Jewish influence is sufficient.

        • whiteguy
          whiteguy says:

          “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” 1 John 2:18-19

          @ Eric

          Doesn’t this one scripture all but explain so much about our world? If Jewish influence has reached the place it has is it not because of the traitors within our midst?
          My reading and understanding took me to the likes of Henry Makow and his book The Cult that Hijacked the World and the website the Vigilant Citizen. In deed at the Vigilant Citizen especially this link:

          reveals perfectly the unbelievable extant of this organizations power.
          The preimment expert though was the late Dr. Walter Martin. He understood the spirit behind the cults more than anyone really.

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            1 John 2:18-19 (and the entirety of 1 John 2) is not talking about “traitors”. Its purpose is to show that faith in Christ allows you to walk in the light, while not having faith in him leaves you in darkness. What does it mean to walk in darkness? To continue to sin. If you continue in your sin, you are not faithful to Christ. The most famous part of the chapter is verses 22 and 23: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” This is the meaning of “antichrist”. Not a traitor, but someone who does not believe that Jesus it the Christ. Such a person cannot know God the Father. Such a person cannot enjoy eternal life.

            Yes, we have traitors in our midst. But there was no need for the Illuminati or Freemasonry to make that happen. All that was needed was allowing a highly ethnocentric and hostile tribe into our midst; namely, the Jews. Freemasonry and Illuminism added a little bit to their armory, but they could have accomplished their subversion without those things. Did Harry Truman recognize Israel, betray Chiang Kai Shek, and follow through on Roosevelt’s scheme to stop Patton in his tracks and let the communists take Eastern Europe because he was a 33rd degree Freemason or because he relied on the Jews for large campaign contributions? Or did he simply have the typical Anglo American attitude that the Jews are a holy people unfairly persecuted and Jesus was a Jew, blah, blah, blah.

            I try to go with the most simple and obvious explanations and the most direct remedies.

            The Jews, through their international networking, became the world’s Money Power a long time ago. Money is what enabled them to buy and control politicians and all of the major institutions of society. Once the non-Jew White leaders sold out, the rest followed automatically. It became dangerous for anyone to criticize or oppose the Jew.

            The point I tried to make in my post above, which nobody has addressed for some reason, is that this situation has caused us to become like the Jews. And doesn’t that make sense? The people who control a society will be able to remake it in their image and put their stamp on everyone else.

            If the Jews went away tomorrow, we’d still be like them. If the Freemasons and Illuminati disappeared in a puff of smoke, we’d still be like them. The Jews haven’t just been a problem for us, they’ve caused us to become a problem for each other.

            So I consider giving a lot of time to studying the Freemasons a distraction. Why concern yourself with secret societies when you have the main enemy front and center and right in your face? The Jews are everywhere in this country, controlling everything, and quite visible.

          • Ned J. Casper
            Ned J. Casper says:

            This statement about being in “last hour” was written over 8 million hours ago. As for Jesus himself the NT documents describe him as a Jew (Rev 5.5, Heb 7.14, John 10.22 & 19.40). In real life, of course, he may have had a Gentile father, as some ancient Jews and some modern Nazis claimed (this may be the background to John 8.48). He is reported as saying that salvation comes from “us the Jews” (John 4.22). The application of the phrase “synagogue of Satan” to all Jews is not supported by the original text which says that it consists of people who are not Jews.

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            Ned J. Caspar:

            I checked in my Bible (KJV, Cambridge University Press). John 10:22 and 19:40 say nothing about Jesus being a Jew. John 4:22 does not say “salvation comes from us, the Jews,” is only says, “for salvation is of the Jews.”

            Jesus is God and God exists before time, before there were any Jews.

            That is the most fundamental tenet of Christianity. The most you can say is that God manifested himself on earth as a Jew. What he manifested himself as is not what he is.

            Jesus makes that clear in John 8:56-58:

            “[Jesus:] Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

    • Seraphim
      Seraphim says:

      How extensive is the infection and how old? The Brits became adept to believing that they are the descendants of the ‘lost tribes of Israel’, their Kings direct descendants of King David and that they must continue the ‘mission’ of Israel in the world by the end of the 16th century! They are not recent victims of Jewish infiltration. They thought of themselves as the same ‘race’.

      • whiteguy
        whiteguy says:

        Jerusalem the great stumbling block of humanity? Humanity should have taken a cue from the gospels that Jerusalem is nothing more than the Tears of God really and stayed away accordingly. That place was forsaken and continues to be forsaken by God until the day arrives when as Christ said:

        “You will never see me again until you say, Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord”

        Something that apparently will not occur until that city is surrounded by armies at the time of Armageddon.

        Strange business and along comes the likes of Cecil Rhodes and others who assimilate these ancient beliefs and ideas with their own ideas and adding to it and building upon the past for the future and America to return to the fold of England no matter the cost?

  6. anonym
    anonym says:

    The lack of “humanitas”, a romantic sensibility for life and nature, seems to be a defining trait of Jewish culture. Jews seems to oscillate between cold cerebral intellectualism and raw primal urges, especially greed and sex.

    When it comes to marriage the old traditional Jews emphasize practical and worldly aspects. Quote from the article “The Cult of Ugly” a couple of days ago:

    “the Talmud advises Jews not to regard physical beauty as important in marriage: “For ‘false is grace and beauty is vain.’ Pay regard to good breeding, for the object of marriage is to have children” (Taanith 26b and 31a).”

    Conversely, reform Jews, especially atheistic Jewish relationship experts, emphasize sexual attraction as the most important aspect of a marriage. Or as in the case of family therapist Esther Perel, and lawyer Mark Goldfeder, an break with traditional marriage and a move towards polygamy and open marriages. (The books “State of Affairs” resp. “Legalizing Plural Marriage”.) These “experts” often claim that monogamy is “unnatural” and “impossible”, and therefore advocate new and more “free” family formations.

    This may be caused by the lack of humanitas – they don´t get the romantic, deeply personal loving relationship that´s considered normal to most europeans.

    Rabbi Shmuley Boteach combines the two, I guess, in his idea of “Kosher Lust”, where ‘Lust is the pinnacle of holiness.’ Quotes from an article in Daily Mail:

    ‘All of the famous marriages of the Bible are lust relationships, not love relationships,’ the 47-year-old father of nine told the New York Post of his theory.
    ‘Just look at our patriarchs. Jacob waits seven years for Rachel and for him it feels like a few days. The first thing Rebecca does when she meets Isaac is veil her face,’ he added.
    The reason why women leave bad marriages is because they don’t feel desired,’ he said. ‘Even in affairs, men don’t love the other woman — they lust after her. If you put love and lust together, love stands no chance.’

    The reason “love stands no chance” may be that they have problem feeling love. They mostly feel primal urges, which they then rationalize intellectually.

    Freud makes it crystal clear (in his own way). He even claimed that an infant breastfeeding from his mom, is filled with sexual lust for her. A lust that leads to subconscious jealous hate towards the father, and an ensuing battery of neuroses – “The Oedipal Conflict.”

    Strange people.

  7. Ned J. Casper
    Ned J. Casper says:

    Three books worth consulting: (i) Peter Schaefer, “Judeophobia: Attitudes towards Jews in the Ancient World” (1998); (ii) David Nirenberg, “Anti-Judaism: The History of a Way of Thnking” (2013); & (iii) Benjamin Isaac, “The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity” (2006).

    “O wad some Power the giftie gie us/ To see oursels as ithers see us/ It wad frae mony a blunder free us” (Burns).

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      Am I mistaken, or are the authors Jews?

      If they are, what is the value of a Jewish explanation of racism/ anti-Jewism?

      I would expect such an explanation to confuse, not enlighten.

      • Ned J. Casper
        Ned J. Casper says:

        @ Eric
        As a collector of antisemitic quotations (other people prefer butterflies or stamps) you would actually find these books a mine of information.. What would you think of a strategist in warfare who refused to examine any ideas of the enemy? What value would attach to the studies of (say) Kevin MacDonald if he had not consulted a single Jewish author? I am relucant to make a personal observation, but you have a closed mind made up in advance and impervious to fresh data or opinions. This is a sign of a fanatical bigot not an objective scientist or serious historian.

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          I just find it a bit odd that you don’t say up front that these books are by Jews. Not everyone recognizes Jewish names. And three of them? What for? What particular value did you get from them?

  8. Cthulhu
    Cthulhu says:

    As a matter of fact when I read the poem and before seeing who it was credited to, I was wondering if somebody had just written it and the article was going to be about new nationalist poetry.

  9. Ned J. Casper
    Ned J. Casper says:

    @ Eric
    Beware of single simple “explanations” of events in the real world.
    How many billions BC or AD are likely to believe in the Apostles’ Creed (why not the Athanasian?) &c &c.
    Why should your particular personal analysis of the “New Testament” be the right one, and scores of qualified scholars, historians and clergy all wrong and presumbly hell-bound along with the ancient Greeks, modern Chinese and of course “the Jews”?

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      In what way are my explanations simple? Is it a bad thing to be simple (as opposed to, say, simplistic)? Why?

      You refer disparagingly to my “single” explanation (“Beware of single simple ‘explanations’…”). What would be the purpose of multiple explanations?

      You refer to my analysis as “personal”. Yes, it is an analysis that I personally have provided. What would an “impersonal” analysis look like? That seems to be what you would prefer.

      Appeals to authority (“…scores of qualified scholars…”) are fallacious.

      If you don’t want your claims to be fallacious, don’t make appeals to authority. Instead, point out how what I’ve said is wrong and why.

      And it would help if you addressed me directly instead of putting your comment in a part of the thread where I might not see it.

      Such passive-aggressive behavior is — well — kind of Jewish, is it not?

      • Ned J. Casper
        Ned J. Casper says:

        @ Eric
        I can only answer your comments directly on the same thread you use,
        Actually, I do not rely blindly on “authority” as such, but usually try to examine the reasons and evidence that people advance for their views. So far as the “Bible” goes, there are numerous competitive interpretations of various verses, and indeed their value. Take, for example, the difference between traditional RC, Lutheran and Calvinist dogmas on faith, works & predestination; I do not agree with any of them. Or the “antisemitism” of the Fourth Gospel; cf. the Leuven Colloquium 2000; Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg; Raymond Brown; Maurice Casey; Bishop Spong; John Ashton; &c. The reflections of scholars qualified in Greek, Hebrew and first-century literature are not to be dismissed out of hand.
        It is simplistic and also incorrect to “explain” adverse world events solely as the work of “Satan” and/or (his “children”) the Jews. Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses haven’t asserted the former, or the National Socialists the latter. One-track minds rarely coincide, and are usually wrong (if not mad).

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          All you’re telling me here is that you reject Christianity. But you won’t say it straight up. Instead you bury that rejection in a fog of mystification about competitive interpretations and what a bunch of scholars say.

          You can find a scholar to promote any harebrained notion that you like, especially nowadays. I don’t care about them. If you want to know what Christianity is about read the Bible: KJV or Douay Rheims, any older version.

          I’m telling you what I think. If you don’t like it, too bad. All I require is that you not misquote scripture, pretend to be against Jews when you are for them, etc.

          Many people here dislike Christianity. I have no problem with that. But I don’t like it being misrepresented, which you have done with your “salvation from us, the Jews” misquotation.

          “It is simplistic and also incorrect to ‘explain’ adverse world events solely as the work of ‘Satan’ and/or (his ‘children’) the Jews.”

          Boy, you sure like to put quotation marks around things. I take that as a sign that you’re holding back what you really want to say.

          The Bible doesn’t say adverse world events are solely caused by Satan, and neither have I. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D., prophesied by Jesus in the Gospel of St. Matthew, was done by God, using the Romans as his instrument.

          But to suggest that Satan is not a significant factor in the Bible is wrong.

          KJV Luke 22:3: “Then entered Satan into Judas…”

          As for the Jews being children of the devil, Jesus tells them just that:

          KJV John 8:44-47: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it….He that is of God heareth God’s words; ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.”

          I think you just don’t like the fact that the Bible is about good and evil, right and wrong, and those things are treated as absolutes. Well you have plenty of company. And a lot of those people falsely call themselves Christians.

      • Ned J. Casper
        Ned J. Casper says:

        (Mod. Note: speaking of the moderator, this little ongoing “thing” between Eric and Ned is getting a bit boring. Please get a private space, and stop wasting TOO bandwidth and my patience with this futile spat. Henceforth “more of the same” will not be approved.)

  10. Ned J. Casper
    Ned J. Casper says:

    @ Eric
    A somewhat pointless labour debating with someone who adamantly believes that Jesus is God and Satan is a real being, but just to explain one contested point: when Jesus is quoted at John 4.19-26 he accepts the identification as a Jew by a Samaritan woman in contrast to her own people and also as the Jewish Messiah. “WE worship what WE do know, for salvation is from the Jews [i.e. us]” (NIV & other translations).

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      (Mod. Note: speaking of the moderator, this little ongoing “thing” between Eric and Ned is getting a bit boring. Please get a private space, and stop wasting TOO bandwidth and my patience with this futile spat. Henceforth “more of the same” will not be approved.)

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      The KJV says salvation is of, not from, the Jews.

      The same is true of the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible.

      Newer Bibles like NIV are suspect. Should it surprise anyone that Jews would try to change Christian scripture?

      The three big Jewish distortions: 1) Jesus is just a Jew. If you worship him, you’re worshiping the Jews. 2) You’re blessed if you bless the Jews (and the nation of Israel as it exists today), and cursed if you curse them. 3) Salvation comes from the Jews.

      Oh, and let’s not forget number 4: It was the Romans, not the Jews, who killed Jesus. The Jews had nothing to do with it!

      As Jesus said, their father is a liar and the father of it.

  11. Ned J. Casper
    Ned J. Casper says:

    (Mod. Note: speaking of the moderator, this little ongoing “thing” between Eric and Ned is getting a bit boring. Please get a private space, and stop wasting TOO bandwidth and my patience with this futile spat. Henceforth “more of the same” will not be approved.)

Comments are closed.