Catch 20-Jew: A Godless Guide to Gagging Goyim about Gaza

Logos is ancient Greek for “word.” But the Greek word is bigger than the English word. Much bigger. Logos also means “discourse,” “reasoning,” “explanation,” “debate,” “field of study” and so on — all things that we do with words and that depend on words. In the ancient Greek of the New Testament, logos got bigger still and achieved its apotheosis. Literally so, because it’s the title of Jesus in the Gospel of John: En arkhē ēn ho Logos. … Kai ho Logos sarx egeneto kai eskēnōsen en hēmin — “In the Beginning was the Word. … And the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.”

Cut off from God

This is why some Christian apologists argue that without Christianity, we can have no true science, wisdom or morality, only parodies and perversions of those things. Without Logos — Divine Wisdom, God-Guaranteed Rationality — we would have no understanding of the world and no grasp of right and wrong. Those who reject Christ the Word are therefore embracing ignorance, arrogance and amorality, throwing themselves into the snares of Satan. And that’s exactly what Jews have done, according to the Catholic polemicist and Judeo-skeptic E. Michael Jones. He argues that by crucifying Christ and rejecting Logos, Jews as a people have cut themselves off from God and God’s grace. Without God and as enemies of God, they’ve embraced arrogance and amorality, which explains everything from the Jewish mega-fraud of Robert Maxwell and Bernie Maddoff to the Jewish murder-machines of the Gaza War and Russian Revolution.

Yes, it explains all the tragedies inflicted by Jews on goyim down the centuries. But it also explains the tragedies suffered by Jews, from the Babylonian Exile to the Holocaust to what Jones predicts will be the coming collapse of arrogant and amoral Israel. So do I accept his theocentric theory about Jews rejecting Logos and becoming both arrogant and accursed? Well, I’m attracted to the theory, because it explains so much about Jewish misbehavior, and Logos is both a beautiful word and a beautiful concept. But in the end I don’t accept Jones’ theory. Maybe I’m making a big mistake. It’s not just an interesting theory, but an unsettling one too. What applies to Logos-rejecting Jews as a people must also apply to Logos-rejecting goyim as individuals. I don’t loathe Logos as Jews do, but I don’t love Logos as Jones says I should. So am I cut off from true wisdom, reason and morality? I hope not, but I’ll continue to ponder Jones’ theory and wonder whether it indicts me as a goy even as it indicts Jews as a race.

Pickles’ Prickles

I pondered Jones’ theory again this month when I came across a startling piece of bad logic in the Jewish Chronicle. Logic is part of Logos, part of what rational beings do with words. That’s why logic is called “logic” (from Greek logikē tekhnē, “art of reason,” literally “wordly skill”). According to Jones, by rejecting Logos Jews have also rejected logic and reason, which would explain why I was startled by that article in the Jewish Chronicle:

The former chair of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has warned that House of Commons procedures are being “abused” to facilitate a debate based on an age-old antisemitic conspiracy theory. Lord Pickles told the JC that a parliamentary motion scheduled for June 22 calling for a public inquiry into “pro-Israel influence on politics and democracy” falls squarely within the IHRA definition of antisemitism [presumably the part that refers to the power of “Jews as a collective”] and risks legitimising a centuries-old anti-Jewish trope at a time of record levels of antisemitism in Britain.

He has suggested that the House of Commons should examine its procedures after the debate was granted when a petition surpassed the 100,000-signature threshold required for the petitions committee to consider it for debate. The petition claims there is an “urgent need to scrutinise how pro-Israel organisations, networks, and lobbying efforts may shape government decisions, party policy, and public debate”.

But Pickles, who previously served as the UK’s special envoy for post-Holocaust issues and as communities secretary in David Cameron’s cabinet and currently chairs the Lords’ group of Conservative Friends of Israel, said the petition’s very premise was antisemitic.

“The motion unambiguously falls within IHRA’s definition of antisemitism,” he told the JC. “At a time of rising Jew hatred on our streets, the House of Commons procedures are being abused to debate an antisemitic trope as old as the hills. I believe it brings deep shame to the Mother of Parliaments.”

The government formally adopted the IHRA definition and all 11 of its examples in December 2016. While there have previously been calls to enshrine the framework in law, it is currently a non-legally binding educational tool. Pickles’ intervention follows Jewish communal organisations citing concern that the debate could lend parliamentary legitimacy to antisemitic narratives.

Russell Langer, director of public affairs at the Jewish Leadership Council, told the JC: “This petition is based on an antisemitic conspiracy theory and has been amplified by those seeking to cause further division. We therefore wrote to the committee earlier this year to request this petition was taken down. Since then, we have had the Golders Green attack and a Downing Street summit to discuss how to tackle antisemitism across society. This only makes it more absurd that this petition is getting the respectability of a parliamentary debate. If those speaking in this debate, including from the front benches, are sincere in their efforts to fight antisemitism, they will be clear in linking the rhetoric in this petition to the increased threat to the Jewish community.”

Danny Stone MBE, chief executive of the Antisemitism Policy Trust, urged parliamentarians to avoid engaging with antisemitic tropes during the debate and said it was “the responsibility of every decent parliamentarian to go in and ensure that the particular historical resonance surrounding the charge of undue influence when it comes to Jews, is not engaged by any of their colleagues within the context of this debate”.

“They might also point out that there are lobbies for many countries, Israel being one of them. It is unexceptional in that regard. Too often Israel is singled out as uniquely powerful or evil — an antisemitic framing. No doubt Parliament and the government in its response will wish to set the standard in showing how Israel can and should be treated — like any other member of the UN,” Stone added.

The petitions committee’s chairman, Liberal Democrat MP Jamie Stone, had previously defended the decision not to reject the petition, citing similar debates about Russian and Chinese influence on British politics. (“Parliament’s ‘Israel lobby’ debate ‘falls within’ IHRA antisemitism definition, says Lord Pickles,” The Jewish Chronicle, 16th June 2026)

Shabbos goy Eric Pickles and pedophile Cyril Smith (images from Times of Israel and Channel 4 (UK)

The repulsively obese Lord Pickles reminds me of the repulsively obese Cyril Smith, an MP who was unmasked after his death as a boy-abusing pedophile. So maybe Jews are blackmailing Pickles into Semitic servitude because he has dark secrets like Cyril Smith. Or maybe Pickles just enjoys performing the goy-grovel, the ritual abasement and sycophancy performed by goyim before powerful Jews. He’s certainly one of Britain’s biggest shabbos goyim — and “biggest” in both senses. That’s why he’s echoed the complaints of those “Jewish communal organisations” about the planned debate in Parliament. The ludicrous logic runs like this: You can’t investigate undue Jewish influence in British politics because any suggestion that Jews wield undue influence in politics is a “centuries-old anti-Jewish trope” and “age-old antisemitic conspiracy theory.” Goyim cannot accuse Jews of wrongdoing because by making the accusation they invoke toxic anti-Semitic tropes and therefore prove that the accusations are both baseless and malign.

Goy-gagged about Gaza

In short, Jews are arguing: “If you accuse us of anything, we’re innocent of it, therefore you can’t accuse us.” This has the happy result of gagging any goy whom Jews want to gag. Okay, if you’re not anti-Semitic, Jews will happily allow you to criticize Jews or Israel. But if you criticize Jews or Israel, this proves you’re anti-Semitic and therefore you can’t do it. Heads Jews win; tails goyim lose. You could call this a “Catch-20-Jew,” from the phrase created by the Jewish novelist Joseph Heller in his bestseller Catch-22 (1961). Set during World War Two, the blackly comic novel describes how crewmen on American bombers are permitted to stop flying horrendously dangerous missions if they can prove that they’re insane. But they have to ask to stop and by asking to stop they prove that they’re not insane, because only sane people want to avoid horrendous danger. So if you carry on flying, you prove that you’re insane and therefore permitted to stop flying. But if you ask to stop flying, you prove that you’re sane and therefore not permitted to stop flying. That’s the crazy logic of Catch-22.

And Heller knew it was crazy logic. He was satirizing war and the military mind in Catch-22. The crazy logic of Catch-20-Jew is not meant to be satirical. No, the Jews who invented it want it to be taken perfectly seriously: “If you accuse us, we’re innocent, therefore you can’t accuse us.” These arrogantly illogical Jews want to use tropes as ropes, binding all their critics into compliance and silence. Any criticism of Jews or Israel that invokes an “anti-Jewish trope” or “antisemitic conspiracy theory” is automatically illegitimate. And it’s Jews who get to decide whether such tropes are “invoked.” In effect, those Jews have appointed themselves Popes of Tropes. They’re claiming an infallible ability to spot a trope and anathematize an anti-Semite ex cathedra. And there can be no appeal from the anathema. Just look at the Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell, whose 40 years of work for the newspaper ended because Zionists wanted him goy-gagged about Gaza. He drew a cartoon about the Gaza War that contained a shocking “anti-Jewish trope,” you see. Or rather, you won’t see. Here is the cartoon in question:

Gagging for a goy-gag: Steve Bell criticizes Netanyahu and the IDF in homage to the Jewish cartoonist David Levine (see Bell’s website)

Can you spot the “anti-Jewish trope”? Me neither. All that sane and honest people will see in that cartoon is criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu and the IDF (Israel Defense Force). But while the Popes of Tropes may or may not be sane, they’re certainly not honest. That’s why they accused Steve Bell of making a reference to a toxic anti-Jewish trope from four centuries ago. When Bell submitted the cartoon to the Guardian, he was told it wasn’t acceptable because “Jewish bloke; pound of flesh; anti-Semitic trope.” In other words, he stood accused of invoking the cruel and vengeful Jewish money-lender Shylock in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice (c. 1600). Shylock infamously demands “a pound of flesh” from the gentile protagonist Antonio as “security for a loan.” Shylock will cut the flesh from Antonio’s breast and kill him if he defaults on the loan. But it’s ludicrous to claim that there’s any reference to Shylock in Steve Bell’s cartoon. In Shakespeare’s play, Shylock will maliciously cut out someone else’s flesh; in Bell’s cartoon, Netanyahu will mistakenly cut out his own flesh. Bell wasn’t being anti-Jewish: he was being anti-IDF and anti-Netanyahu. Not only that: he was paying direct homage to a cartoon about the Vietnam war by the Jewish cartoonist David Levine.

Straight from the Hebrew’s mouth

But the Popes of Tropes had spoken and there was no appeal. The Guardian silenced Bell, refused to publish his anti-Netanyahu cartoon, then ended his contract with the paper. It was a classic piece of goy-gagging. The Jewish journalist Melanie Phillips, herself no mean wielder of Catch-20-Jew, has described how it works. In the Jewish Chronicle she mocked a proposed Holocaust memorial near Parliament as a “giant toast-rack” and said that some opponents of the memorial “are keeping quiet — almost certainly because they fear being accused of antisemitism.”

Steve Bell confirms his crimethink by mocking the Popes of Tropes (see Socialist Worker)

That’s straight from the Hebrew’s mouth: Melanie Phillips has openly admitted that Jews use dishonest accusations of anti-Semitism to gag goyim. But Steve Bell kicked against the K-words. He satirized his goy-gaggers and their illogical claim of an “anti-Jewish trope” in his cartoon about Netanyahu. In another cartoon, he mocked the Labour shabbos goy Tom Watson as a “Trope-Finder General.” As for me, I find Bell’s cartoons sometimes interesting but never amusing. I find the same with cartoons by Martin Rowson at the Guardian. Rowson is a better artist than Bell but not a braver artist. Steve Bell fought back when he was ludicrously accused of using an “anti-Jewish trope.” When the Popes of Tropes targeted Martin Rowson with ludicrous accusations, he broke down and performed the most abject goy-grovel I have ever seen.

Atheist Goy says: “God forgive me”

Rowson’s mea culpa in the Guardian — “I was now consumed with deep, devouring shame” — was like an agonized auto-critique from a Stalinist show-trial or the Chinese Cultural Revolution. He’d drawn a satirical cartoon about Richard Sharp, a Jewish BBC apparatchik and former banker with Goldman Sachs. Rowson hadn’t known that Sharp was Jewish and would have drawn the same kind of cartoon if Sharp had been gentile. This made no difference to the Popes of Tropes, who don’t like even the slightest hint that Jews might ever be predatory and amoral. So the Popes cried “Tropes!” and Martin Rowson threw himself flat and goy-grovelled before his goy-gaggers:

At the end of April [2023], I drew a cartoon, part of which included a depiction of the former BBC chairman Richard Sharp as a typical employee after being sacked, carrying out their possessions in a cardboard box. After the cartoon was published on the Guardian’s website, another wholly plausible description was posted on Twitter by Dr Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust [a Jewish spy-agency and part of Britain’s Deep State], describing it as brimming with vicious antisemitic tropes.

You can read my account of what I thought I’d drawn on my website, written within hours of Rich’s initial tweet. In the same piece I apologised unconditionally and took full responsibility for the enormous hurt and upset I had unintentionally caused. But how could both things be true? I had drawn an antisemitic cartoon, yet I had not been aware I was doing so. […]

Intentionality became irrelevant. I could now only see what Rich and thousands of others saw, and saw it for what it was. I was now consumed with deep, devouring shame. That coming Friday, I was due to draw a cartoon covering the coronation, but by this stage I had long since lost all sense of moral authority or even agency to draw anything or judge anyone, and two days after the Sharp cartoon was published I asked for time off.

All of this matters so much because this mistake — though “car crash” comes closest in my mind to describe the jagged intermeshing of accident, chaos, loss of control, damage and huge hurt to blameless bystanders — happened within a context I’m very conscious of.

Since that Saturday, I keep remembering my late colleague Simon Hoggart’s story about travelling out of London with Alan Coren to record an episode of the News Quiz [a comedy on BBC radio]; how when they boarded the train Coren, who was Jewish, went into a kind of psychic shock. He’d been triggered, somewhere in his subconscious, by the role trains played in transporting millions of European Jews to their murder.

I also keep remembering one of the most chilling scenes in Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah, where a historian displays the receipts for block-booking excursion tickets for the Nazis’ victims’ journeys to the death camps. I also keep thinking of the suitcase packed and ready by the front door in preparation for immediate flight.

This is the banality of evil continuing to terrorise: the everyday things where evil lurks in train timetables and tickets; disguised, who knows, in your neighbours; in a stupid drawing laden with otherwise unperceived meanings steeped in death in a cartoon in your morning newspaper, God forgive me. (“Bite the air in Britain and you can taste the prejudices that haunt us. I’m sorry I became part of that,” The Guardian, 26th July 2023)

In the Shadow of the Shoah: Martin Rowson inadvertently traffics in “tropes”

“God forgive me!” says Martin Rowson. But he’s a militant atheist who has deep contempt for Christianity and regularly mocks the Crucifixion in his cartoons, as I’ve previously described at the Occidental Observer. He obviously didn’t feel any irony or self-contradiction when he, a freethinking atheist, grovelled before the irrational cult of Jewish supremacism that works to prevent any criticism of Jewish and Israeli misbehavior. Rowson grovelled before Dave Rich, of the Community Security Trust (CST), which, as noted, is a Jewish spy-agency and part of Britain’s Deep State. And Rich himself used the Guardian to heap more shame on Rowson’s Hebrew-humbled head. Note that Rich condemns the American journalist Matt Taibbi, who is part-Filipino, part-Hawaiian, part-Irish and was accurately describing the motives and behavior of the bank Goldman-Sachs. Here’s what Rich wrote:

Rowson says that Sharp’s Jewishness was not in his mind, but in a way that is beside the point. For centuries our world has taught us that this is how to imagine wealthy, powerful Jews, especially those accused of wrongdoing. The fact that his pen veered, however unthinkingly, towards these antisemitic motifs shows how easily, and unthinkingly, they can rise to the surface.

Then there are the contents of the box that Sharp is carrying. Rowson calls this “the standard accessory of the just sacked” (although that begs the question why it is a Goldman Sachs box and not a BBC one, when he has just lost his job at the latter). The most eye-catching thing in the box is a big pink squid, which seems puzzling until you remember that in 2009 Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone, famously described Goldman Sachs as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money”.

This metaphor was, and remains, antisemitic. Goldman Sachs was founded by Jewish families and has a Jewish-sounding name. Antisemitic conspiracy peddlers regularly describe the fantastical Jewish power network they believe exists as a squid or octopus, its tentacles reaching into every part of society. In the antisemitic imagination, Jewish power is never about muscular strength or straightforward authority, but is more insidious and manipulative. This is why anti-Jewish zoomorphism tends towards snakes, spiders and, yes, squids, rather than, say, predators like sharks or lions. There is nothing honourable, in this way of thinking, about how Jews acquire and deploy money and power.

The specific invocation of a “vampire squid” connects with the blood libel allegation. Even Dracula himself, a mysterious figure of unexplained wealth who drinks blood and hates crosses, implicitly draws on this anti-Jewish tradition. Put all this together and Taibbi’s description of Goldman Sachs ticked numerous antisemitic boxes. (“Richard Sharp is a public figure and fair game for satire. The use of antisemitic tropes is not,” The Guardian, 1st May 2023)

The “Pope of Tropes” David Rich is using Catch-20-Jew: no-one can accuse any Jew of misbehavior if the accusation invokes an “anti-Semitic trope,” which Jews can define and detect as they please. By making the accusation, you prove that it is illegitimate and therefore you’re not allowed to make it. If a new Jewish Bernie Madoff or Robert Maxwell appears, it will be anti-Semitic to say so, because that would invoke the anti-Semitic trope of the “insidious and manipulative” Jewish fraudster.

So keep your goyish gobs shut: no-one can express any negative views about Jews or Israel if Jews object. And Jews will object. An “anti-Semitic” accusation automatically annuls itself. That’s the logic of the Popes of Tropes and their Catch-20-Jew. It’s utterly dishonest and self-serving logic, but E. Michael Jones would say it’s exactly what we should expect. Those who crucified Logos will inevitably corrupt logic to serve their own perverted, power-hungry ends.

An Aureal Afterword

After criticizing Jews for abusing logic, I have to praise a Jew for his amusing logic. Yes, some of the most delightful and intellectually stimulating books I’ve ever read were written by the professional Jewish logician Raymond M. Smullyan (1919—2017). The Popes of Tropes invoke The Merchant of Venice to close mouths, so here’s Smullyan invoking the play to open minds:

In Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice Portia had three caskets — gold, silver, and lead — inside one of which was Portia’s portrait. The suitor was to choose one of the caskets, and if he was lucky enough (or wise enough) to choose the one with the portrait, then he could claim Portia as his bride. On the lid of each casket was an inscription to help the suitor choose wisely. Now, suppose Portia wished to choose her husband not on the basis of virtue, but simply on the basis of intelligence. She had the following inscriptions put on the caskets:

Gold: THE PORTRAIT IS IN THIS CASKET.

Silver: THE PORTRAIT IS NOT IN THIS CASKET.

Lead: THE PORTRAIT IS NOT IN THE GOLD CASKET.

Portia explained to the suitor that of the three statements, at most one was true. Which casket should the suitor choose? (From Raymond M. Smullyan’s extremely educative and entertaining What is the Name of This Book? The Riddle of Dracula and Other Logical Puzzles, 1978)