Anyone who takes the time to apply REM theory to modern Jewish art, such as Hollywood films, comics, and video games, will find Jews are actively using the symbols, motifs, and naming conventions that Brahmin has decoded on his website, and with the apparent purpose of moralizing Jews at the expense of their racial competitors.
Your critique didn't even touch the main thrust of his thesis, which is that Judaism is an ancient bride-gathering cult seeking Aryan admixture (which is esoterically encoded for obvious reasons). Indeed Jewish storytellers encoding JEM poke fun at Israeli Jews for not understanding this.
At the end of the day all you've done is point out where Brahmin is speculating on this and that -- which he himself admits one can only speculate about -- but you haven't actually debunked REM theory or taken the time to examine Jewish art to understand why he's come to the conclusions he has. Which is a shame, as you seem to be bright enough that you could easily apply REM analysis to Jewish art.
The bride-gathering cult thesis is not the centerpiece of REM theory, and it doesn't even require REM theory in order to argue for it. The centerpiece is the supposed esoteric use of symbols in myth and art to achieve real world outcomes in an eternal racial competition between Jews and "Aryans".
I have no doubt that if you set out to read a text with a predetermined conclusion in mind, primed to hunt for correlations between racial themes and abstract symbols, you will find nothing but support for your conclusion. After all, that’s how Mark Brahmin admits he developed his theory in the first place.
The bride-gathering cult thesis is absolutely foundational to REM theory. Brahmin has written almost a dozen articles on it alone, as it -- the competition for Aryan women -- is the main theme of Jewish esoteric art. The fact that you've side-stepped this crucial aspect of his thesis in your lengthy critique suggests you want to dismiss Brahmin's theory to the uninitiated without bringing attention to it, for it reveals something deep and true about Judaism as a religion. For this same reason we suspect the ADL will never attack Brahmin's thesis for it will only put a spotlight on Jewish women's unfortunate status within their own religion.
Secondly, the notion that REM theorists are simply fitting square blocks into circular holes doesn't hold water. The more REM analysis we conduct the more evidence there is supporting Brahmin's thesis, none of which you have refuted here. And there are literally decades' worth of material to sift through. I challenge you to provide a more meaningful reading of Jewish art than Brahmin's. You can't. Readers will be astonished at the cohesion and repetition of symbols within Jewish art decoded by Brahmin.
Furthermore anyone who doubts that Jews could have developed and maintained a hidden cryptolect should be aware that Jews successfully hid the existence of the Talmud for centuries, as well as created the secret language of Leshon Hakmah, which you can read about here: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-secret-language-of-jews-leshon
Brahmin didn't even get around to writing about the BGC until months after he initially published his first pieces laying out REM theory and Apolloism. That's because the BGC thesis doesn’t even rely upon the existence of an imagined symbol language or a revisionist understanding of Apollo in order to work. The thesis that Jews act acquisitively toward non-Jewish women and have a history of intermarrying or attempting to intermarry has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of an esoteric symbolic language. Moreover, the idea that Jewish men in particular are interested in attracting and seducing non-Jewish women has a long history that predates Brahmin. (Incidentally, the BGC thesis is also one of the more plausible aspects of Brahmin's writings, precisely because it does NOT depend on REM theory.)
But the gist of your comment is just misguided. I have no problem at all responding to any particular claim about the BGC thesis and its relationship to REM theory. Even if you’re correct that it is central to REM theory, I’m not side-stepping anything about it. The point is that Brahmin’s beliefs about symbolic languages are silly and incoherent, and his attempts at reading and making sense of history are even worse. The BGC thesis does nothing to rehabilitate these, and you haven't suggested any way in which they might.
Separately, you challenge me to provide a more meaningful reading of Jewish art than Brahmin’s. I’m not sure what you’re looking for. What is it that you think needs explaining? Any attempt to gather up thousands of years of art, literature, music, etc. produced by and for millions of people across languages, regions, etc. under a tidy little description will inevitably be too broad to be interesting. The fact that you think there is something demanding explanation at this scale should be a clue as to the unseriousness of Brahmin’s project. I’ve already commented on the claim about the cohesion of REM theory in this respect. Conspiracy theories always have a self-sealing quality to them where if you operate from within their precepts, you will find nothing but confirmation and corroboration.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say that the Talmud was kept secret for centuries. There’s a huge literature on the development of the Talmud, there’s a huge literature on the Jewish people in the early rabbinical period that, even if it did not disclose some particulars about the Talmud until more recently, minimally discloses to us a vigorous ethnogenesis and differentiation of the rabbinical Judaic movement from the early Christians.
Lastly, I cannot evaluate the claim about “leshon hakmah” as a secret language. It’s not something I’ve heard of before, but I’d make two quick points: first, I noticed that, of the strongest claims about the existence of a “secret language” in the article you linked to, only one of them appears to be sourced; and second, there is no contradiction whatsoever between what I have written about Brahmin’s REM theory and the idea that linguistic minorities (not just Jews) resort to speaking privately among themselves in disparaging ways about their majority counterparts. This is very different from positing the existence of a “neutral and universal” symbolic language as imagined by Brahmin.
The point about "leshon hakmah" was not that jews speak
"privately among themselves in disparaging ways about their majority counterparts." That's an oversimplification of what Karl Radl describes, which is that the "language of the wise" references specific parables and passages of the Bible and Talmud to communicate messages that wouldn't be obvious to outsiders. This is essentially how JEM operates, with the addition that jews will also make coded references to Greco-Roman mythology, Arthurian legend, and so on.
It's true there's not much information available online about the "language of the wise," but this just goes to show that jews can develop and maintain a secret language and keep it from prying eyes if they want to. Howard Jacobson mentions it offhand in this article (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/feb/12/howard-jacobson-im-my-mothers-son-which-was-terrible-news-for-my-father), so unless he's lying it must exist. The point being, if they have managed to keep it so well hidden for centuries then it becomes much more plausible that they have developed and maintained the cryptolect Brahmin claims to have deciphered, which is reinforced through repetition in storytelling (with cues for those "in the know").
Jews are taught to hunt for these clues. In addition to the autistic jewish numerology/gematria, you've got the jewish method of interpreting biblical parable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_mystical_exegesis) and the Pardes system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(exegesis)). The latter teaches jews to hunt for esoteric meanings in jewish texts at four levels of depth, essentially preparing jews to look for and understand JEM.
And no, we are not engaged in "conspiracy theories (with) a self-sealing quality... where if you operate from within their precepts, you will find nothing but confirmation and corroboration." On the contrary we are dealing with something akin to Joseph Campbell's universal monomyth. Not applicable to all stories but certainly applicable to some. But I doubt you would disparage Campbell's thesis as "circular conspiratorial thinking," because it has been accepted by the academic community and is in no way anti-Semitic.
All that being said, it's laughable that you would dismiss the notion that the most ethnocentric group of people to have ever lived could be engaged in secretive in-group messaging in the manner Brahmin describes.
You’re not engaged in a conspiracy theory, yet you still haven’t provided a single source that actually supports Brahmin’s thesis, which you also seem to be confused about. He doesn’t merely argue that some ethnic group engages in secretive in-group messaging, his theory is far more ludicrous than that. He posits a "neutral and universal" symbolic language that mystically exercises a discernable power over human minds, and that the conscious and intentional use of this secret, supernatural symbol language explains world history.
I don’t want to be dismissive but I strongly suspect that you don’t know the first thing about Pardes or Jewish mystical theology and I’d really prefer not to go around in circles in a Wikipedia-studies debate. Candidly, I’ve lost interest in REM theory and likely won’t bother finishing editing the last part of my essay on it, but if you want to actually respond to any of the arguments I make against it in your own blog post, I’ll be happy to read it.
Anyone who takes the time to apply REM theory to modern Jewish art, such as Hollywood films, comics, and video games, will find Jews are actively using the symbols, motifs, and naming conventions that Brahmin has decoded on his website, and with the apparent purpose of moralizing Jews at the expense of their racial competitors.
Your critique didn't even touch the main thrust of his thesis, which is that Judaism is an ancient bride-gathering cult seeking Aryan admixture (which is esoterically encoded for obvious reasons). Indeed Jewish storytellers encoding JEM poke fun at Israeli Jews for not understanding this.
At the end of the day all you've done is point out where Brahmin is speculating on this and that -- which he himself admits one can only speculate about -- but you haven't actually debunked REM theory or taken the time to examine Jewish art to understand why he's come to the conclusions he has. Which is a shame, as you seem to be bright enough that you could easily apply REM analysis to Jewish art.
The bride-gathering cult thesis is not the centerpiece of REM theory, and it doesn't even require REM theory in order to argue for it. The centerpiece is the supposed esoteric use of symbols in myth and art to achieve real world outcomes in an eternal racial competition between Jews and "Aryans".
I have no doubt that if you set out to read a text with a predetermined conclusion in mind, primed to hunt for correlations between racial themes and abstract symbols, you will find nothing but support for your conclusion. After all, that’s how Mark Brahmin admits he developed his theory in the first place.
The bride-gathering cult thesis is absolutely foundational to REM theory. Brahmin has written almost a dozen articles on it alone, as it -- the competition for Aryan women -- is the main theme of Jewish esoteric art. The fact that you've side-stepped this crucial aspect of his thesis in your lengthy critique suggests you want to dismiss Brahmin's theory to the uninitiated without bringing attention to it, for it reveals something deep and true about Judaism as a religion. For this same reason we suspect the ADL will never attack Brahmin's thesis for it will only put a spotlight on Jewish women's unfortunate status within their own religion.
Secondly, the notion that REM theorists are simply fitting square blocks into circular holes doesn't hold water. The more REM analysis we conduct the more evidence there is supporting Brahmin's thesis, none of which you have refuted here. And there are literally decades' worth of material to sift through. I challenge you to provide a more meaningful reading of Jewish art than Brahmin's. You can't. Readers will be astonished at the cohesion and repetition of symbols within Jewish art decoded by Brahmin.
Furthermore anyone who doubts that Jews could have developed and maintained a hidden cryptolect should be aware that Jews successfully hid the existence of the Talmud for centuries, as well as created the secret language of Leshon Hakmah, which you can read about here: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-secret-language-of-jews-leshon
Brahmin didn't even get around to writing about the BGC until months after he initially published his first pieces laying out REM theory and Apolloism. That's because the BGC thesis doesn’t even rely upon the existence of an imagined symbol language or a revisionist understanding of Apollo in order to work. The thesis that Jews act acquisitively toward non-Jewish women and have a history of intermarrying or attempting to intermarry has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of an esoteric symbolic language. Moreover, the idea that Jewish men in particular are interested in attracting and seducing non-Jewish women has a long history that predates Brahmin. (Incidentally, the BGC thesis is also one of the more plausible aspects of Brahmin's writings, precisely because it does NOT depend on REM theory.)
But the gist of your comment is just misguided. I have no problem at all responding to any particular claim about the BGC thesis and its relationship to REM theory. Even if you’re correct that it is central to REM theory, I’m not side-stepping anything about it. The point is that Brahmin’s beliefs about symbolic languages are silly and incoherent, and his attempts at reading and making sense of history are even worse. The BGC thesis does nothing to rehabilitate these, and you haven't suggested any way in which they might.
Separately, you challenge me to provide a more meaningful reading of Jewish art than Brahmin’s. I’m not sure what you’re looking for. What is it that you think needs explaining? Any attempt to gather up thousands of years of art, literature, music, etc. produced by and for millions of people across languages, regions, etc. under a tidy little description will inevitably be too broad to be interesting. The fact that you think there is something demanding explanation at this scale should be a clue as to the unseriousness of Brahmin’s project. I’ve already commented on the claim about the cohesion of REM theory in this respect. Conspiracy theories always have a self-sealing quality to them where if you operate from within their precepts, you will find nothing but confirmation and corroboration.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say that the Talmud was kept secret for centuries. There’s a huge literature on the development of the Talmud, there’s a huge literature on the Jewish people in the early rabbinical period that, even if it did not disclose some particulars about the Talmud until more recently, minimally discloses to us a vigorous ethnogenesis and differentiation of the rabbinical Judaic movement from the early Christians.
Lastly, I cannot evaluate the claim about “leshon hakmah” as a secret language. It’s not something I’ve heard of before, but I’d make two quick points: first, I noticed that, of the strongest claims about the existence of a “secret language” in the article you linked to, only one of them appears to be sourced; and second, there is no contradiction whatsoever between what I have written about Brahmin’s REM theory and the idea that linguistic minorities (not just Jews) resort to speaking privately among themselves in disparaging ways about their majority counterparts. This is very different from positing the existence of a “neutral and universal” symbolic language as imagined by Brahmin.
The point about "leshon hakmah" was not that jews speak
"privately among themselves in disparaging ways about their majority counterparts." That's an oversimplification of what Karl Radl describes, which is that the "language of the wise" references specific parables and passages of the Bible and Talmud to communicate messages that wouldn't be obvious to outsiders. This is essentially how JEM operates, with the addition that jews will also make coded references to Greco-Roman mythology, Arthurian legend, and so on.
It's true there's not much information available online about the "language of the wise," but this just goes to show that jews can develop and maintain a secret language and keep it from prying eyes if they want to. Howard Jacobson mentions it offhand in this article (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/feb/12/howard-jacobson-im-my-mothers-son-which-was-terrible-news-for-my-father), so unless he's lying it must exist. The point being, if they have managed to keep it so well hidden for centuries then it becomes much more plausible that they have developed and maintained the cryptolect Brahmin claims to have deciphered, which is reinforced through repetition in storytelling (with cues for those "in the know").
Jews are taught to hunt for these clues. In addition to the autistic jewish numerology/gematria, you've got the jewish method of interpreting biblical parable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_mystical_exegesis) and the Pardes system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(exegesis)). The latter teaches jews to hunt for esoteric meanings in jewish texts at four levels of depth, essentially preparing jews to look for and understand JEM.
And no, we are not engaged in "conspiracy theories (with) a self-sealing quality... where if you operate from within their precepts, you will find nothing but confirmation and corroboration." On the contrary we are dealing with something akin to Joseph Campbell's universal monomyth. Not applicable to all stories but certainly applicable to some. But I doubt you would disparage Campbell's thesis as "circular conspiratorial thinking," because it has been accepted by the academic community and is in no way anti-Semitic.
All that being said, it's laughable that you would dismiss the notion that the most ethnocentric group of people to have ever lived could be engaged in secretive in-group messaging in the manner Brahmin describes.
You’re not engaged in a conspiracy theory, yet you still haven’t provided a single source that actually supports Brahmin’s thesis, which you also seem to be confused about. He doesn’t merely argue that some ethnic group engages in secretive in-group messaging, his theory is far more ludicrous than that. He posits a "neutral and universal" symbolic language that mystically exercises a discernable power over human minds, and that the conscious and intentional use of this secret, supernatural symbol language explains world history.
I don’t want to be dismissive but I strongly suspect that you don’t know the first thing about Pardes or Jewish mystical theology and I’d really prefer not to go around in circles in a Wikipedia-studies debate. Candidly, I’ve lost interest in REM theory and likely won’t bother finishing editing the last part of my essay on it, but if you want to actually respond to any of the arguments I make against it in your own blog post, I’ll be happy to read it.