Joe Rogan and the Jews
Joe Rogan remarked that the Jewish love for money is akin to the Italian love for pizza—that is to say, very strong. The comment is more controversial than Rogan realises if you remember the old saying “love of money is the root of all evil”—the implication being that the Jews are synonymous with “all evil”.
Rogan considers himself to be “not racist” and I’ve even heard him say that he left a bar because people were “being racist”—of course, “racism” is a meaningless non-concept but as it is broadly understood it includes to generalise about people; and so, in this sense, Rogan is “racist” and, of course, a hypocrite—a point we will return to later with regard to Judaism in particular.
Jews have been very rich—they have also been very poor: the Rothschilds and the New York rag merchant are both as Jewish as each other. Hence, though Jews have often been rich, their wealth is not intrinsic to their Jewishness—and it is not really why people who have a problem with the Jews disdain them. Indeed, it is people who want to defend the Jews who will say “you just envy their wealth” or “you just envy their success.”
When I was at school we used to play matches against Britain’s only Jewish boarding school—it was just down the road from us (and, as I found out last year, had some very peculiar esoteric architecture in it—of which more anon, perhaps). As it happens, the school closed due to lack of money long before I did my leaving exams. Yet, while it operated, as with almost all British boarding schools, it had a half-day of lessons on Saturday (otherwise the kids would go wild with nothing to occupy them for two whole days). Saturday is, of course, the Jewish Sabbath—and a strict Jew is not even meant to turn on a stove or a light on that day. What do?
The school consulted a rabbi and the rabbi told them to dig a shallow moat (only ankle deep, if I recall correctly) around the school perimeter. In Jewish law, this made the school *technically* a fortified compound and, in accord with Sabbath law, the Jews could work in a fortified compound on Saturday. A similar situation exists in some Orthodox neighbourhoods in cities like New York where you will find what seems to be a telephone wire strung around the district—the wire also *technically* makes the neighbourhood a fortified compound exempt from Sabbath regulations.
Now we have arrived at the problem with the Jews—it’s not that they’re avaricious (although perhaps they are that too, but if they are it is not their main vice); no, it’s that they are legalistic hypocrites. Who famously pointed out this situation? Jesus Christ. He came to tell the Jews that they only adhered to the letter of the law and not its spirit—by, e.g., establishing a strict Sabbath and then finding a loophole so that they can *technically* work anyway. It’s almost a Jewish joke itself: “Avram, why work on the Sabbath?” “With only one in the week, can you afford not to?”
It’s why the Jews make excellent lawyers. However, lawyers are liars—not by the letter definition but in the spirit of the truth. Lawyers and people involved in the law are miserable people—the British politician, George Galloway, who is notoriously litigious, is a fine example in this regard; he sues people at the drop of a hat (he likes to wear a trilby) and yet generally carries on in a dishonourable and hypocritical way (strict socialist who enjoys his champagne and cigars).
It comes down to the two expressions “the law is a blunt instrument” and “the law is an ass”—both are true. If you have to get lawyers to solve your problems—worse, to solve your personal problems (such as a divorce)—you are in trouble. The law works by a fixed mechanism, it has little scope for common sense—if it doesn’t follow immutable railway tracks, it isn’t law (it has to be consistent). So clients get their expert interpreters—as the Jews have been trained to be, Talmudic exegesis being transferable to the law of torts—and these two interpreters will look for loopholes and exceptions and cases where their clients are *technically* correct.
It’s miserable, it’s petty, it’s time-consuming—it’s the law. It’s also unproductive—lawyers are parasitical, for the most part, on people who produce actual goods and services. This lawyer-nature is embodied in Shylock: his fault is that he sticks to the letter of the law, just like his ancestors—he has a clever dodge, he demands a “pound of flesh” from Antonio and that will kill Antonio for sure (but *technically* it’s just a pound of flesh, so it’s not murder—and that’s lawyer-think).
Shylock cannot forgive either—“Israel never forgives”. His famous plea for the Jew’s humanity—often cited by liberals without context—runs, “If you prick us, do we not bleed?; if you tickle us, do we not laugh?; if you poison us, do we not die?” and yet, though Shylock calls for mercy as “a human being”, he extends no such mercy to Antonio—who must die to “fulfil the law” (which was fulfilled with Christ and is now null). Liberal appeals to our “common humanity”, explicated in utilitarian terms (“prick us”), have always been hypocrisy and a veil for legalism.
The remorseless legalism found in Shylock is also found in our computerised societies. Jospeh Campbell, known for the odd anti-Jewish comment, once observed that computers are “like the God of the Old Testament, lots of rules—and no mercy.” Computers, it should be added, can also be “hacked”—which is almost literally where you find a loophole in the logic. So a computerised society is a Judaised society—it’s a rigid law-based society with no spirit and no soul (only clever loopholes).
America is the most Judaised society in the world because it is the land of the lawyer—they have signs all along the highways 1-800-LAWYER (or however American telephones work, I can’t be bothered to google it). The Jews do well in America because it is a godless society formed by Pharisees that worships lawyers—and it was founded on hypocrisy, it was founded on the proposition “all men are created equal” when the Americans were “the drivers of the negroes” (and the hypocrisy, the unexorcisable ghost, haunts America to this day).
There’s this anachronistic English phrase, “It just isn’t cricket,” which refers to the way someone refuses to play in the spirit of the thing—just like the spirit of Christmas, where you “get into the spirit”. Legalistic people don’t understand that; they understand rules (like women—the Jews are feminine). “You’re trying to Jew me out of it,” people used to say at my school—that is to say, “You’re trying to manipulate me, like a woman, so as to have your cake and eat it.”
This is not about greed as such, it’s about refusal to be in the spirit. Jesus himself spoke in paradoxes because his opponents were legalistic people who wanted to “catch him out”—the paradox, “render unto Caesar”, creates ambiguity and mystery and lawyers can’t deal with ambiguity.