Jewclidean Geometry: Pickaxing the Axioms of the War on Anti-Semitism

Euclid envy. It’s a rare phrase and a common phenomenon. Down the centuries, countless thinkers, knowingly and unknowingly, have sought to emulate the Greek mathematician Euclid (~330–~275 BC) and his world-historic book Stoikheia, The Elements. It’s the foundation-stone of geometry, which literally means “earth-measuring.” I find The Elements both astonishing and awe-inspiring. It’s astonishing to think that the book is twenty-three centuries old and was already a long-established classic when Christ was born. It’s awe-inspiring to see how Euclid builds a towering edifice of solid geometry on the seemingly slender foundation of basic axioms, simple statements of obvious and unquestionable geometric fact.[1] The Elements is a titanic achievement, a triumph of reasoning from simplicity to complexity.

Euclidean and Jewclidean: can axioms annihilate anti-Semitism?

And that’s what the Euclid-enviers have sought to emulate: his triumph by reasoning from simplicity to complexity. They’ve tried to measure earthly things using simple axioms to reach solid conclusions about complex matters. But their reasoning has often gone awry because they’ve missed something vital. The Scottish mathematician and physicist Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) was a genius, but became a Euclid-envier when he argued that the laws of thermodynamics proved the Earth was only about 40 million years old. My late father became a Euclid-envier too when he argued that Jews could not possibly support Muslim immigration, let alone be responsible for it. Why so? Because it’s axiomatic that Jews are intelligent and that Muslims hate Jews. Therefore Jews could not possibly be so stupid as to support immigration by their enemies. Therefore, according to my father, Jews didn’t support Muslim immigration and never had. Q.E.D.! And where do we get the acronym Q.E.D. from? It’s the Latin translation – Quod Erat Demonstrandum, “Which Was to Be Shown” — of something that you’ll find again and again in Euclid’s Elements. When Euclid has reasoned from basic axioms to complex geometry, he brings down the gavel with ΟΕΔ, the Greek equivalent of Q.E.D.[2]

Roche’s Recipe for Jew-Joy

Okay, my father never actually said “Q.E.D.” of his pro-Jew views, but he might as well have done so. He thought he had a kind of Jewclidean geometry that allowed him to understand geo-politics from his arm-chair, using simple axioms to reach solid and unshakeable conclusions about complex matters. And certainly I never shook his conclusions with mere facts and mundane realities. I’d quote powerful Jews saying “Jews and Muslims are natural allies.” It had no effect – my father would repeat his Jewclidean geometry: Intelligent Jews could not possibly be so stupid as to support immigration by their enemies. I’d provide links to prove that Muslims are imported by Jewish groups like the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS). It had no effect – my father would repeat his Jewclidean geometry: Intelligent Jews could not possibly be so stupid as to support immigration by their enemies. And so on. He remained a Euclid-envier and a Judeophile to the end of his days in 2018.

I don’t know if the Gaza Gorefest and the Iran Insanity would have shaken his conviction that Jews are great and Muslims good-for-nothing. But I doubt it. Still, he might have changed his mind, so I’m going to honor his memory with some Euclid-envy of my own. My father was right: you can sit in an armchair and use axioms about Jews to reach solid conclusions about Jewish behavior. My father just used the wrong axioms and applied them without the full context. Yes, Jews are intelligent and yes, Muslims do hate Jews. But Jews hate Christianity and fear that historically Christian Whites will turn on them as Whites have so often in the past. That’s why the highly ethnocentric Jew Barbara Roche once announced: “I love the diversity of London. I just feel comfortable.” In other words, Roche hates homogeneity and adores atomization, because Jews stand out in an otherwise homogenous society, but don’t stand out in an atomized society. Roche was the little-known immigration minister who began what I call the mud-flood, the opening of Britain’s borders to the melanin-enriched hordes of the Third World.

A Jewish penis-pianist

The mud-flood began under the so-called Labour party and worsened under the so-called Conservative party. Labour and the Tories are in fact two cheeks of the same Zionist backside. The two parties are funded by Jews, controlled by Jews, and tirelessly pursue Jewish and Israeli interests, not the interests of the British Whites who vote for them. Tory prime ministers like David Cameron and Boris Johnson were part Jewish in ancestry and wholly Jewish in sympathy and ideology. The recently departed Labour prime minister Keir Starmer is married to a Jew and has raised his children as Jews. The newly arrived Labour prime minister Andy Burnham celebrated his ascent by hastening to meet the corrupt Jewish penis-pianist Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine, where he promised Britain’s continued support for the meat-grinder that’s already slaughtered and maimed hundreds of thousands of Russian and Ukrainian Whites.

All of that is business as Jews-ual in British politics: Whites vote for politicians and parties who ignore what Whites want and obey what Jews order. Whites didn’t want the mud-flood and have repeatedly voted against it. But Jews did want the mud-flood. So we got the mud-flood – indeed, more and more mud-flood, which means more and more Muslims from corrupt, crime-racked, diseased-ridden countries like Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Bangladesh. My father opposed the mud-flood, but refused to accept that Jews were in any way responsible for it. Okay, then, Dad: if you’re watching from the afterlife, here’s some axiomatic reasoning that will prove how Jews control Western politics and therefore must be responsible for the mud-flood and mass migration by Muslims. But my axioms won’t be in fact be my own: I’ll take them direct from none other than the Jews themselves. I’ll use only two of them and they run like this:

Axiom #1. Anti-Semitism is wholly irrational, has no connection with actual Jewish behavior, and can erupt anywhere at any time. We must be eternally vigilant against it and never forget the Holocaust.

Axiom #2. It is a vile anti-Semitic trope to suggest that Jews control Western politics and media for their own advantage, and that they would ever seek to do so in any way.

Those are Jewish axioms of the war on anti-Semitism, endlessly promoted by groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in America and Community Security Trust (CST) in Britain. Axiom #1: Anti-Semitism is irrational and Jews don’t cause it; Axiom #2: Jews don’t seek or have control of Western politics and media. So here’s my reasoning from those two Jewish axioms. First and most importantly, I need to note that the axioms contradict each other. To understand how, just imagine that you have a very rich friend called Barry the Bigshot Billionaire. One day Barry video-calls you looking exhausted and scared. He starts complaining about his new next-door neighbor in an exclusive gated community in Palm Beach. The new neighbor is called Peter the Pickax Pauper. Barry tells you that Peter has a fearsome reputation, because he’s just been released from a long jail sentence for six attempted murders with a pickax. “He attacked those poor folk at random!” Barry bemoans. “For no reason whatsoever! And now he’s walking around with a new and even bigger pickax, muttering to himself and glaring at everyone he meets. We’re sure he’s soon going to attack at random again and really kill people this time!”

Baffled billionaires

Obviously, you’re sympathetic to your friend Barry and you offer him your full support. Just as obviously, you ask him what he and the other billionaire residents of the exclusive community are doing about Peter the Pickax Pauper. Barry replies with a shrug. “Oy, what can we do?” he says. “Peter attacks at random, without rhyme or reason, so nothing we do could make any difference. No, we’re baffled.” And now you’re baffled too. You point out that Barry and the other billionaires in the gated community surely have influence over how it’s run and what rules govern its residents. Barry shakes his head. “No, we never interfere with how things are run and what rules apply. We leave all that to local politicians and the police. Unfortunately they all like Peter. The politicians have decided that he’s entitled to live with us and the police have decided that he’s entitled to carry a pickax. The local media too, they’re all on Peter’s side. If we complained, they’d say we were prejudiced against paupers.”

You’re even more baffled now. “But you’re all billionaires,” you tell Barry. “And Peter is a pauper. How can one pauper carry more weight with politicians, the police and the media than so many billionaires?” Barry shakes his head sadly again. “It wouldn’t be moral to use our money to interfere in politics, policing, and the media. And don’t you understand? Peter attacks at random, for no reason. Otherwise we could take precautions, we could ask for police protection, we could maybe get sympathetic coverage in the media. As it is, there’s nothing we can do. Sooner or later, Peter the Pickax Pauper will pulp some billionaires at random, for no reason. It’s just a matter of time. And maybe I, my wife, our kids will be among the dead. Who knows? It’s in the lap of the gods.”

Allegory and actuality

That’s an utterly absurd scenario, of course. Billionaires would never allow a pauper with a pickax to threaten their welfare and the welfare of their families. If politicians and the police ever allowed a pickax-packing pauper beloved of the media to live among billionaires, the billionaires would use their money to persuade the politicians, police and media to change their minds. And they’d ensure that the politicians, police and media didn’t side with pickax-packing paupers ever again. In short, billionaires would seek to control politics, policing, and media for their own advantage. And who could blame them? It would be the rational and moral thing to do. If pickax-packing paupers became a deadly threat to billionaires and their families, then billionaires should and would act to remove the threat.

Would a billionaire really be helpless against a pauper with a pickax? (image of Jewish Sheldon Adelson and pickax-packing pauper from Wikipedia)

That absurd allegory obviously applies to an alleged actuality. It’s the actuality alleged in the Jewish axioms above: #1) that anti-Semitism is irrational, random and potentially genocidal; #2) that Jews neither seek nor wield any special power in politics and the media. But how can that be? Jews are the richest ethnic group in the West. If anti-Semitism is such a deadly and unpredictable threat, how could rich Jews not seek control of politics and the media in order to combat it? If anti-Semitism can erupt anywhere and at any time for absolutely no reason, then Jews can’t predict when it will occur or protect themselves against it by modifying their own behavior. No, if that Jewish axiom is true, the only way Jews can protect themselves against anti-Semitism is by increasing their own power and decreasing the power of anti-Semites. The more Jews insist on the irrationality and unpredictability of anti-Semitism, the more they undermine their claim that they neither seek nor wield any special power in politics and the media.

Jewclidean axioms

Accordingly, the two Jewish axioms about anti-Semitism are allelophagic: they eat each other. If anti-Semitism is utterly irrational, then it’s right and proper for Jews to seek control of politics and the media. And if White, historically Christian Europeans were responsible for the horrors of the Holocaust, which had nothing to do with Jewish behavior, then it’s right and proper for Jews to import non-White Third-Worlders, especially non-Christian ones, and thereby steadily reduce and ultimately eliminate the power of White, historically Christian Europeans to harm Jews. Euclidean axioms work in concert to create solid conclusions. Those Jewclidean axioms above clash and crumble. The axiom “Anti-Semitism is irrational and Judeocidal” contradicts the axiom “Jews neither seek nor wield any special power in politics.”

In reality, Jews do wield special power in politics and use that power against the interests of Whites. Jews do import Muslims to reduce and ultimately eliminate the power of historically Christian Whites. And those Whites are entirely rational in noticing this Jewish behavior and opposing it. Q.E.D.

[1]  In fact, the fifth of Euclid’s five postulates, the so-called “parallel postulate,” wasn’t so obvious and unquestionable. That’s why we have both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry.

[2] ΟΕΔ is used in modern editions of The Elements in Greek, that is, but Euclid himself routinely wrote the phrase ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι, “which was to be shown,” at the end of his propositions.