Globohomo is the vast system of anti-White, minority-worshipping leftism that wants to control and suffocate the entire world. And if you want a good example of the “globo” in globohomo, just consider this. At school in the UK, White British students are taught all about the Black American non-entity Rosa Parks (1913–2005) and nothing about the White British genius George Boole (1815–64).

Whites as oppressors and exploiters

In other words, British leftists import globohomo propaganda from America to instil guilt in White children and resentment in non-White children. At the same time, they suppress the huge achievements of the White British. Leftists don’t want White children to feel pride in their ancestry, but shame. They want children to see Whites only as oppressors and exploiters, not as innovators and inventors. That’s why they plug Parkes and ban Boole, even as children inhabit a world shaped by his genius:

Boole’s legacy surrounds us everywhere, in the computers, information storage and retrieval, electronic circuits and controls that support life, learning and communications in the 21st century. His pivotal advances in mathematics, logic and probability provided the essential groundwork for modern mathematics, microelectronic engineering and computer science. (Who is George Boole? The mathematician behind the Google doodle, Sydney Morning Herald, 2nd November 2015)

The White genius George Boole

Boole has had a “Google doodle,” but Google and other leftists celebrate him only as an isolated and exceptional individual, not as an exemplar of White genius and the heir to millennia of separate and special evolution on the European continent. Leftists certainly do not acknowledge that he contributed more to mathematics and technology in his short life than all Blacks who ever lived. If White children were taught about him in that light, they would begin to question minority-worship and the colonization of Britain by non-Whites who over-achieve only at crime, corruption and nation-wrecking.

Knights and knaves

Even worse, from the leftist point of view, is that learning about Boole can be a lot of fun. Imagine White children enjoying themselves as they learn about a White world-shaper! Leftism wants Whiteness to be associated with pain, not pleasure. And so, when leftism is defeated, pro-White education ministers should ensure that children learn about knights-and-knaves, not about Rosa Parks. Not only are knight-and-knave logic puzzles an enjoyable introduction to Boolean ideas about truth-values and logic, they’re also a good way to understand leftism.

Some Boolean logic

You can learn the truth from leftist lies if you apply Boolean ideas. To see how, let’s start with one of the knight-and-knave puzzles invented by the Jewish mathematician Raymond Smullyan (1919–2017). The puzzle is set on an island inhabited by two kinds of native: knights, who always tell the truth, and knaves, who always lie. Suppose you visit the island and decide to take a walk to the beach. Soon you come to a fork in the road where two natives of the island are standing. You want to ask them how to get to the beach, but you don’t know whether they’re knights or knaves. And there’s no point asking them directly, because, as you quickly realize, all natives will claim to be knights.

However, suppose you ask each of the two natives what the other one is. And suppose that each of them replies: “He’s a knave.” Now you know that one of them must be a knight and one must be a knave. If they were both knights or both knaves, both would reply: “He’s a knight.” But when both claim that the other is a knave, you know a knight has truthfully identified a knave and a knave has falsely identified a knight. But you don’t still know who is who. However, you can now learn the right way to the beach by asking either of the natives a simple question. What do you ask?

The logic of leftist lies

You use an indirect question and ask one of the natives to tell you which way the other native would point if you asked him the way to the beach. Suppose the righthand fork in the road leads to the beach. If you asked the knight directly which fork led to the beach, he would point to the right; if you asked the knave directly, he would point to the left. So a direct question is no good to you. But if you ask the indirect question of the knight, he will truthfully point left, because this is the way the knave would indeed point. And if you ask the indirect question of the knave, he will lie and also point left, because this is not the way the knight would point. Therefore, whether you ask the indirect question of the knight or the knave, you will learn the wrong direction to the beach. And if you know the wrong direction, you automatically know the right direction.

Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks at the Justice Department in Washington, on Tuesday, June 15, 2021. (Win McNamee/Pool via AP)

If the sinister Jewish leftist Merrick Garland opposes “white supremacy,” it must be a good and essential thing

Knight-and-knave puzzles are a lot of fun to solve, but there are serious and important mathematical and logical ideas behind them. Boolean ideas, because they come from the work of George Boole. Using Boolean logic, you can learn the truth from falsehoods. And that’s I want to do to leftist ideas. We know that leftism is an ideology built on falsehoods, so we can apply Boolean logic to understand what leftists really mean when they use terms like “white supremacy” and “white privilege.” Leftists are liars, so what they pretend to mean and what they really mean are different things. Indeed, entirely opposite things.

So let’s examine how leftists use the term “white supremacy.” Merrick Garland, the sinister Jewish Attorney-General in Biden’s Bolshevik cabinet, has said that “Domestic violent extremist groups, particularly white supremacists, pose a growing threat to the United States.” Carol Anderson, a Professor of African American Studies at Emory University, has said that “American democracy’s most dangerous adversary is white supremacy. Throughout this nation’s history, white supremacy has undermined, twisted and attacked the viability of the United States.” And Jennifer Ho, a Professor of Asian American Studies at the University of Colorado, has responded to Black violence against Asians by blaming it all on Whitey. She says that “White supremacy is the root of all race-related violence in the US.”

The power of propaganda #1: ever-increasing use of the term “white supremacy” (from Google Ngrams)

So what do leftists mean by the term “white supremacy”? You have to start by recognizing that leftists are liars, so their language inverts the truth. If leftists say that “white supremacy” is “a growing threat to the United States” and “American democracy’s most dangerous adversary,” they must mean that “white supremacy” is the opposite of a threat to the United States and the opposite of an adversary to American democracy. Therefore they must mean that the United States and American democracy depend on “white supremacy” in some way. So what can “white supremacy” mean but “white autonomy” and “white achievement”? That is, when leftists condemn “white supremacy,” they are condemning the civilization built by Whites and the ability of Whites to act in their own interests and possess their own nations, institutions and property.

The power of propaganda #2: ever-increasing use of the term “white privilege” (from Google Ngrams)

But it gets worse. Leftists don’t merely condemn “white supremacy”: they want to overturn and abolish it. But if they want to abolish “white supremacy,” that is, White autonomy, this can only mean that they want to destroy White civilization and enslave ordinary Whites. If you don’t have autonomy, can’t act in your interests, and don’t possess your own nations, institutions and property, what are you but a slave? “Abolishing white supremacy” can only mean enacting White enslavement.

Leftism is doomed to die

The same reasoning applies to the leftist concept — and condemnation – of “white privilege.” If “white privilege” is a bad thing to leftists, it can only be a good thing in reality. And it is: “white privilege” means the entirely natural and just way in which the White creators and sustainers of White nations act in their own interests to maintain those nations for the benefit of themselves and their children. When leftists say that they want to abolish “white privilege,” they really mean that they want to take White nations away from ordinary Whites. As before, “abolishing white privilege” means enacting white enslavement.

In effect, leftism presents us with a simple knight-and-knave puzzle. We know that leftists always lie, so we simply turn what they say on its head to discover the truth. From leftist lies we can learn the truth about leftist intentions. When leftists say “Abolish white supremacy!”, they mean “Enact white enslavement!” Leftists don’t want to end injustice but to impose it on ordinary Whites in ever-harsher ways. And at the heart of that anti-White leftism are genuinely “supremacist” Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). If we apply leftist-lie logic to the name of the ADL, we can see that it must really be the “Anti-Description League.” The ADL campaigns against the objective and truthful description of reality, which is why it wants truth-tellers like Tucker Carlson to be silenced:

The Anti-Defamation League has called for Fox News to fire prime-time opinion host Tucker Carlson because he defended a white-supremacist theory that says whites are being “replaced” by people of color. In a letter to Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott on Friday, the head of the ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt, said Carlson’s “rhetoric was not just a dog whistle to racists – it was a bullhorn.”

The civil rights group listed numerous instances Carlson has used anti-immigrant language. Those include saying immigration makes the U.S. “poorer and dirtier” and questioning whether white supremacy is real. Greenblatt said that “given his long record of race-baiting, we believe it is time for Carlson to go.”

The white-nationalist “great replacement theory,” otherwise known as “white genocide,” says people of color are replacing white people through immigration in the Western world, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC]. Some white supremacists also say that Jews and progressive politicians are furthering this change, the civil rights group says. (ADL: Fox should fire Carlson for white-supremacist rhetoric, WSBTV, 9th April 2021)

The ADL and SPLC are supreme practitioners of the Jewish-leftist principle of inverting reality and morality. They claim that truth is lies and that lies are truth, that good is evil and evil is good. Accordingly, you can learn the truth by reversing what the ADL and SPLC say. If they deny that “immigration makes the U.S. ‘poorer and dirtier’,” you can be sure that immigration does exactly that. If they deny that “Jews and progressive politicians … are replacing white people through immigration in the Western world,” again you can be sure that this is exactly what is happening. And if they oppose “white supremacy” and claim that it is a dire threat to Western civilization, you can be sure that “white supremacy” is a good thing and essential for the survival of Western civilization. Leftists live by lies, which is why leftism is doomed to die.

“What Julius, and the horde of other Jewish literary scholars, are really asserting here is their antagonism towards anything but positive reflections of Jews in literature, which is not only arrogant and unreasonable, but also further indication of a pathological level of ethnocentrism. Their efforts have the dual function of staining the legacy of the English literary past, and shackling authors in the present, who would feel constrained to avoid having a negatively portrayed Jewish character in their works.”
Review: Anthony Julius’s Trials of the Diaspora, February 2013.

In February 2013 I wrote the above paragraph and, like many paragraphs I’ve written in the years since then, I find myself drawn back to it time and time again. The most recent prompting occurred a week ago, when news emerged from London’s Royal Court theater that an undoubtedly virulent form of anti-Semitism was once again abroad in the world of the arts. The controversy surrounds a new play by Al Smith, Rare Earth Mettle, which portrays the billionaire CEO of an electric car company who presents himself as a kind of messianic figure while covertly attempting to monopolize the planet’s natural resources. The problem with the character rests exclusively on his name: Hershel Fink. By selecting this name, which certainly screams “Jew,” and associating it with billionaires, monopoly, and international villainy, the play’s writer had broken the unspoken rule alluded to in the paragraph from my 2013 book review. Mr Smith had dared to “have a negatively portrayed Jewish character” in his work.

Although Hershel Fink is not portrayed in any other way as having a Jewish heritage, the name alone was enough to provoke a huge backlash. The interim director of London’s Jewish Museum protested that “This image is a stereotype as it shows a Jewish person in a malevolent way, so it’s a racist depiction of a Jewish person – rich, controlling, in power … These are deeply hurtful stereotypes that have existed for centuries and is something that is very hurtful to the Jewish community today.” Both Royal Court and Al Smith immediately pleaded ignorance, saying they didn’t realize the name was Jewish. The Jewish comedian and writer David Baddiel took to Twitter to complain: “The Royal Court claims they didn’t realize ‘Hershel Fink’ was a Jewish name. Hmmm. Somehow it just sounded so right for a world-conquering billionaire.”

I can’t quite believe that the name’s Jewishness was completely missed by all concerned. My own opinion of the matter is that Smith was looking for an alien-sounding name that mimicked the syllables in “Elon Musk,” and that, while he was aware that the name had a Jewish quality, Smith was completely oblivious as to the seriousness of his infraction of unstated but powerful cultural rules — especially those concerning criticism of the Jews. I believe that “Hershel Fink” sounded right to Smith, for a number of reasons including its alien quality and a perhaps barely conscious appreciation of the idea that this would be an appropriate name for a global oligarch and arch villain. Smith’s schoolboy error, however, ensured that he would receive a brief and almost devastating instructional in Jewish cultural power. He got the message. “Hershel Fink” was disappeared down a memory hole, and the character was renamed Henry Finn, the last name being of Irish origin and meaning, curiously enough, “white” or “fair-haired.” It seems our fictional Jewish world-grasper has been traded for an Aryan one.

That the play advanced so far in production, in this age when gatekeepers are everywhere, is remarkable in itself. Objections were apparently raised in early September, when “the name had been raised by a Jewish director in a workshop discussion held as part of the series “Directors: Working on New Plays.” The leadership of the Royal Court has now professed itself “in conversations with this director as we hold ourselves accountable for why this was not taken further or passed on to the writer,” as well as engaging in “an internal review” and working with members of the Jewish community to “understand how this harm was committed.” In other words, they are grovelling for their failure to acknowledge and acquiesce to their appointed gatekeepers.

The Cultural Code

The episode raises a number of interesting questions and themes. The first concerns cultural codes. It’s tempting for those “in the know” to laugh at the bovine naïveté of Smith and his colleagues, and there is a darkly comic element to the tragic fate of Hershel Fink — who will unfortunately never see an audience. But what this naïveté suggests is that many of those who wish to advance in the arts need to possess at least some knowledge of the cultural code, which in turn involves at least some appreciation of Jewish influence. In other words, to be truly oblivious to, and in denial of, Jewish influence is potentially dangerous. The ignorant, like Mr Smith, will simply stumble into infractions of a code they are unaware of. The ideal scenario, for those overseeing the status quo, is for Jewish power to be acknowledged (an otherwise anti-Semitic position) but unstated (leading to compliance). We’ve seen multiple instances from the arts in the past where common knowledge of Jewish influence has been expressed publicly, with disastrous consequences for those speaking out.

One need only think of Marlon Brando, a lifetime flamboyant philo-Semite, who “broke down and wept” before several Jewish leaders in 1996 after he broke the code and commented publicly that “Hollywood was run by Jews.” It was perfectly fine for Brando to know this, and to have it moderate his behavior and creative choices, but it became “anti-Semitic” in a very political sense the moment it moved from mere acknowledgment to public conversation. Brando was very close to Jews for most of his life, and knew their rules better than anyone, but he made the mistake of thinking he could be seen as one of them or be exempt from their injunctions. Perhaps even more important than Brando’s basic comment on Jewish influence in Hollywood was the wider context of his statement, delivered during an interview on Larry King Live, where he addressed the very theme that Al Smith stumbled upon — the Jewish injunction against negative portrayals of themselves in art:

We’ve seen the nigger, and the Greaseball. We’ve seen the Chink. We’ve seen the slit-eyed dangerous Jap. We have seen the wily Filipino. We’ve seen everything. But we never saw the kike because they knew perfectly well that that’s where you draw the wagons around.

Everything Brando said is objectively true, doubtless learned by Brando over many years of close engagement with Jews, but it was an infraction against the cultural code to express it publicly. The very proof of Brando’s claim that Jews run Hollywood was the overwhelming pressure subsequently brought to bear on him (some newspapers spoke of the “rage” of Jewish leaders) to recant his statement. The episode with Al Smith, meanwhile, is simply more proof that we’ll never see “the kike” on screen or on stage because this is where the cultural overseers “draw the wagons.”

No Jewish Villains

A second theme raised by the Al Smith controversy, then, is that of the censorship of the Jewish villain. In a 2011 article published by YnetNews, Amir Bogen asks: “Where have Jewish villains gone?” Bogen writes,

Israelis have become outcasts abroad. We’re called murderers, racists, even occupiers. Is that they way we are perceived by the world? And if so, where the hell have cinema’s Jewish villains gone?

The question can, of course, be answered perfectly with another question: Who controls the cinema? Bogen remarks that “It seems that since Shakespeare’s Shylock (“The Merchant of Venice”) and Jew Süss (from Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda film), the Hebrew antagonists have disappeared from popular culture.” The case of Magneto, a villain from the X-Men film franchise, is highlighted as an example of Jewishness being written into a character in order to ameliorate rather than accentuate their evil qualities. Magneto was originally designed in the 1930s as an arch villain with no redeeming qualities until a 1981 edition of the X-Men comic unveiled the character’s past as a “Holocaust survivor,” thereafter making him “less aggressive, less racist, much more complex, and even neurotic and traumatized.” In terms of the recent film versions, Magneto is portrayed extremely negatively, but his Jewishness is played for sympathy only at strategic moments in the plot, and is abandoned in almost every other respect. Bogen highlights that

Hollywood doesn’t allow Magneto an accent that would signify his [Jewish] origin or ethnicity. Both Michael Fassbender [German-Irish] and Ian McKellan [British] portray him with a British cadence, despite the established origin.

Bogen hints that the question of the absence of Jewish villains is ultimately bound up with censorship by ending the piece with the suggestion that “these questions should not be directed at Marvel, or the Justice League of America, but rather at the Anti-Defamation League.”

Writing in the aftermath of the Al Smith affair, journalist David Aaronovitch elaborated on the Jewish unease with cultural representations of Jewish villainy by asking what would in fact be acceptable to Jews:

This is a problem. A Jew can’t be a banker (Rothschild), a financier (Shylock), an organiser of pickpockets (Fagin) or a dubious entrepreneur (Melmotte). It goes wider. The forged/plagiarised Protocols of the Elders of Zion famously put Jews in charge of everything, from trades unions to newspapers via pornography and (of course) banking. So almost anything associated with power, money and secret manipulation is out. … Infernal slyness and mendacity are no good either. Jewish “shapeshifting” is also a stereotype. Nor would an anti-patriotic, anti-national, cosmopolitan Jew be unworrying. Blofeld has to be German, no? Imagine Bond breaking into that underground cavern and coming across a cat-stroker in a kippah.

Aaronovitch, like Bogen, concludes that the only acceptable Jewish villains are those of an “amiable” type (e.g. cinematic representations of Bugsy Siegel and Meyer Lansky) that have been portrayed by non-Jewish actors like Robert de Niro. Even here, however, the Jewishness of these characters is watered down in the extreme by the time they reach cinema screens.

“Subliminal Anti-Semitism”

An interesting example of the portrayal of Jewish villains going awry is Nicolas Winding Refn’s 2011 Drive. The film concerns the clash between a Hollywood stunt driver played by Ryan Gosling and two Jewish mobsters played by Albert Brooks (born Albert Lawrence Einstein) and Ron Perlman. Both Jewish mobsters are thus portrayed by ethnic Jews, and their Jewishness is referred to in a number of ways throughout the movie, including subtle references to crypsis. In one memorable instance Ron Perlman’s character Nino comes upon Bernie Rose (played by Brooks) in his restaurant:

NINO: What are you doing eating Chink food in my restaurant?

BERNIE ROSE: What’s a Jew doing running a Pizzeria?

The exchange is a further play on the fact “Nino” is in fact “Izzy,” whose apparent play-acting as an Italian pizzeria-owner (a mere front operation for broader criminality) is a source of amusement to the more up-front Rose. Rose later explains to another character in the film: “I ever tell you how long Izzy and I been friends? Since we were six. Only Jews in a neighborhood of wops.” We suspect therefore that Izzy became “Nino” in part as a survival strategy, in a perfect artistic representation of ideas put forth in the sixth chapter of Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents.

Although these are the only explicit references to the Jewishness of Rose and Izzy in the script, in 2011 a Jewish woman, Sarah Deming, brought a class action lawsuit against the film’s makers, alleging that the movie was “subliminally” anti-Semitic. When the initial case was rejected, Deming “tried to get the judge removed from the case for allegedly being anti-Semitic himself.” David Leaf, a lawyer in the case, explained the grievance:

Real life Jewish gangsters, such as Mickey Cohen, Meyer Lansky and Bugsey Seigel, were portrayed in film as good fathers and sympathetic characters. … Not so with the cartoon one dimensional Jews in Drive, right down to the gold pinkie rings, gold watch, and thick gold chains, that only a “senior citizen Jew stereotype” department could have come up with. … When the gangsters embody most, if not all false negative Jewish stereotypes, that’s racism. The whole Nino/Izzy slur, straight from Nazi propaganda, about the Jew never fitting in, but always trying to mask his identity. Or the false racist canard about Jews being a threat to the Christian child. Both incorporated here, neither necessary to be a gangster. I could go on for each of the Jew hating stereotypes that the Jews in the movie ‘just so happen’ to embody.

In the text of the lawsuit, particular attention is paid to the fact the Jewish characters were:

Money hungry; lustful; evil; corrupting; controlling everything behind the scenes; a threat to the wife and child; loyalty to each other – to the detriment of the Gentiles; rude; pushy; gaudy; usurious, violent, etc….

Other instances highlighted as “subliminally” anti-Semitic included the framing of certain shots, the most important of which is probably a scene in which Bernie Rose kills the stunt driver’s employer, Mr. Shannon, in the latter’s workshop. Rose slices open one of Shannon’s arms, severing arteries with one slash of an ornate antique razor. The movement itself is arguably reminiscent of kosher slaughter, but the primary complaint made by several Jews is that the backdrop to the scene is a workshop wall with beams that appear to form a Star of David.

In the text of the lawsuit we see it complained that:

In the above scene, Rose says, “Don’t worry, don’t worry, that’s it, its done, there’s no pain, its over”, a cynical reference to the arguments in favor of Kosher slaughter. Cynical because Shannon is obviously suffering and conscious of his fate. Rose then washes the blade, and puts the blade in a gold case, all elements of Kosher Slaughter. As Rose closes the case, the Jewish ritual blade cuts across the reflection of the Church Steeple, a nonconscious message that Jews and Judaism are the enemy of Christians and Christianity.

I don’t believe that the film’s director or cinematographer intentionally crafted these scenes to foster “subliminal” anti-Semitism, nor do I even believe they unintentionally crafted a work of subliminal anti-Semitism. I do, however, believe the entire affair surrounding Drive illustrates a remarkable paranoia concerning negative representations of Jews in mass culture, that reaches back to the image of Judas in the New Testament, passes through that of Shakespeare’s Shylock, and is very much alive and well in the censorship and elimination/transformation of Hershel Fink. What the furor over Drive and Hershel Fink really illustrate is that the only acceptable Jewish villain in popular literature or cinema is a Jewish gangster who isn’t played by a Jew and who isn’t money hungry, lustful, evil, corrupting, controlling, threatening to women or children, loyal only to his own kind, rude, pushy, gaudy, usurious, or violent. In short, there is no representation of genuine villainy acceptable to Jews.

The Semitic Discourse

A third theme raised by the Hershel Fink episode is the general unease of Jews when it comes to cultural knowledge about them in the wider population. They don’t just want to censor negative depictions because it offends them, but because of what effect the depictions might have on the wider population. One of the more interesting works on anti-Semitism published in the last 30 years is Bryan Cheyette’s Cambridge-published Constructions of ‘the Jew’ in English Literature and Society: Racial Representations 1875–1945 (1993). Cheyette’s central thesis is that, extrinsic to explicit references to Jews in British literature and theater, there existed what he called a “Semitic discourse.” This discourse informed attitudes toward Jews even where individual knowledge or experience with Jews was weak or non-existent. In other words, even if the average Englishman had never personally met a Jew, there was enough of the discourse subtly present in his culture to inform him that Jews were, for example, not to be trusted in business or very strongly concerned with money. The concept of the Semitic discourse is fluid enough that it could encapsulate novels like Dracula, where the foreignness of the Count, his physical features, and several of his traits could themselves be viewed as conveying (negative) knowledge or ideas about Jews. Conversely, Cheyette also acknowledged that philo-Semitic elements permeated the Semitic discourse, and that Christian Zionists imbibed heavily from cultural streams that placed Jews in the role of the apple of God’s eye. The Semitic discourse was thus a pool of ideas, in general circulation in the culture, that could be drawn upon at any time and by anyone.

Cheyette, who is Jewish, advanced his thesis primarily as an attack on English culture. One of his most scathing concluding arguments, for example, is that “A semitic discourse in liberal England can … be implicated in the Holocaust.” That’s quite a leap of logic. Aside from this malicious usage, however, I find myself in close agreement with much that Cheyette has to say on the subject. I agree, for example, that English culture possessed and disseminated certain streams of knowledge about Jews, and that it had done so from at least the time of Shakespeare. But I diverge from Cheyette on two points.

The first is that I believe the Semitic discourse was, for the most part, a good and useful thing. I think it’s healthy for any people to develop methods of knowledge that inform interactions with out-groups. The second, related, point is that Cheyette is disingenuous in his failure to acknowledge that all peoples do in fact formulate cultural discourses about outsiders. We could very easily write a book or two on a Goyim Discourse in Jewish literature and film (from the Talmud to the present day), which informs Jews in subtle and not-so-subtle ways that Europeans, especially the rural kind, are dangerous, superstitious, stupid, irrational, and gullible. Bryan Cheyette himself admits, in an essay in the volume Jewish Writers of the Twentieth Century that one of Britain’s foremost Jewish novelists, Howard Jacobson, wrote “anti-Gentile novels,” specifically Coming from Behind (1983) and Peeping Tom (1984).^[1] In terms of representation on film, no group has fared worse in the hands of Jewish Hollywood than the Southern Whites, as illustrated in John Cone’s excellent Patterns of Bias in Hollywood Movies (2012).^[2] The book’s sixth chapter is almost exclusively concerned with a multitude of Jewish writers and directors who collectively produced endless films depicting rural White Americans, especially Southern men and women, as childish, inept, irrational, petty, and brutal.

Conclusion: Whither Hershel Fink?

The Goyim Discourse is currently everywhere, and the Semitic Discourse has all but vanished; sanitized out of existence through censorship, legal changes, and cultural control. The vanishing of Hershel Fink and his replacement with Henry Finn is perfect proof of this dynamic in action. The episode sheds light on the impossibility of representing Jewish villainy, and the return of the Jews to a state of legal and cultural protection not seen since the hofjuden of the early modern period. Ironically, Al Smith’s play concerns a billionaire who poses as benevolent before destroying a number of South American economies in the malicious satisfaction of his endless greed. A worthy template would therefore be found less in Elon Musk than in the Zionist Paul Singer, once described by The Independent as “the vulture capitalist who devoured Peru.” With plenty of real international villains like that, who needs fiction?

^[1] S. Kerbel (ed) Jewish Writers of the Twentieth Century (New York: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2003), 14.

^[2] See in particular Chapter 6: Regional Prejudice: Hollywood’s Rape of the South.