Ant-Man and the Logic of Jewish Triumphalism
Over the past eight years, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) has distinguished itself as the quirky, light-hearted cousin to rival DC, whose identity has been shaped by Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy.
Nolan—and his heir at DC, Zach Snyder, the director of 300, Watchmen, and Man of Steel—produce comic book movies that are epic, serious, and “dark and gritty.” They depict, at least ostensibly, how a super hero might exist in the contemporary world, with a heavy emphasis on his suffering, loss, guilt, and despair, even when the subject is the usually invincible and bright-eyed Clark Kent.
Marvel, on the other hand, has embraced the ridiculous, campy, and outlandish qualities of the genre, to the point of putting a talking raccoon in space. Whereas Nolan cruelly shows the breaking of Batman’s back and his climb out of a prison pit, Marvel’s movies are beloved for wisecracks and self-aware winks to the audience. Blood, brutality, and death are, for the most part, minimized or kept off screen.
The MCU is also, like its earlier comic precedent, an unrelentingly complicated project. It involves dozens of interconnected storylines unfolding across dozens of films and television shows, all leading, apparently, to a climatic space battle for the Infinity Gauntlet. In other words, Marvel movies are meant to be read and interpreted, however frivolous they might appear.
In light of this, Ant-Man (2015) could claim the title of the ultimate MCU flick.
First and foremost, it never takes itself seriously and is successful as a comedic caper romp. That said, it would be great folly to assume Ant-Man contains less meaning than the ostensibly more contemplative, noirish Nolan and Snyder works. Perhaps, the opposite is true. For Ant-Man’s seeming innocuousness aids its esotericism. And its accessibility, especially to younger audiences, makes it a more formidable experience. The clay of the golem, as it were, is perceived earlier, before it hardens.
Ant-Man, especially its 2015 filmic incarnation, is a work of esoteric messages, messages that become quite pronounced for those with eyes and ears to see and hear them.
These messages in Ant-Man are quite similar to those woven into Stan Lee’s much more heralded X-Men series. Regarding the X-men, I argued that Jewish themes and symbolism in the comic book pantheons would likely weaken as they abided longer in the culture, and more assimilated and less ethnically-aware Jews and non-Jews adapted the stories. This will almost certainly prove the case generally, with Nolan’s Batman series as the preeminent example of the “Gentile-ization” of a Jewish genre. What is disarming about the 2015 film Ant-Man is that it appears that the elements of this original symbolism—the Jew-as-superhero metaphor, most importantly—have been refined, sharpened, and amplified, rather than diluted.
In his earliest incarnations, the Ant-Man developed rather whimsically and was “half-baked” in comparison to, say, Professor X and Magneto. In light of the 2015 film, these incarnations of the comic seem like “drafts” of the Ant-Man myth.
We must assume that this deeper refinement in the 2015 film is largely the consequence of the wizened Stan Lee’s prestigious and abiding mentorship. Lee (born Stanley Martin Lieber in 1922) is the former Marvel Comics president and chairman, who bears a great deal of responsibility for Marvel’s success in the 1960s, with all of its off-beat, relatable superheroes: the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, the Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, and more.
Lee famously appears in a comical cameo role in every MCU movie. These are ostensibly friendly nods to the avuncular, old man of Marvel. On a deeper level, Lee reappears as the MCU’s super-ego—implicitly, almost invisibly informing everything that happens on screen.
The key creators of Ant-Man (writers, production designers, and director) are largely non-Jewish, and they are certainly not representative of “visionary” artists. With Ant-Man—as with the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a whole—we find the Hollywood tradition of “film by committee,” where four to five persons will have worked on a single screenplay. Directors are attached and then removed, as the production company, studio, and producer struggle to get the right fit. It is a process that puts creative control in the hands of the producers and the studio, and not the director. And Stan Lee was the Executive Producer.
In the end, writers and directors become, like actors, mere paints upon the palette. Such a process tends to homogenize movies, yielding indistinct, commercial goods, which pander to the widest audience. It is a mistake, however, to believe that such a process can only result in a shallow, meaningless work, especially when it is guided by the vision of Stan Lee, who created these stories in their original form. Indeed, there is a unified vision behind Ant-Man, and we are right to assume it is none other than that of the old master.
In this line, “bubble gum” directors like Peyton Reed (whose previous works include Bring It On, The Break-Up, and Yes Man) seem perfectly suited to Lee’s purposes. And for this “collaboration,” we should be grateful, for the ethnically-minded Stan Lee is allowed to refine his creations through the instrumentality of unwitting and obsequious Gentiles, and thus offer further insight into the mind of an ethnically-minded Jew. Indeed, through Lee’s achievement of orchestration, we glimpse the impressive “mind power” controls of a Professor X … or an Ant-Man!
Lee becomes the Rabbi, who activates the Golem, or simply the self-confident, “pushy” Jew, who takes his superiority for granted and thereby subliminally persuades others of it, allowing him to assume leadership. Such a man is not so insecure that he would not let others take credit, particularly if a deference of credit aids him in his goal. (Any nobility will require this confidence and Machiavellian craft.)
And another layer of subterfuge can be added to the esotericism: “This film was made by Gentiles!” But in the end, a film is not just about execution; it is the big ideas and messages that count.
A Man of the Cross
In unlocking Ant-Man, perhaps the best place to start is with the villainous figure of Darren Cross (Corey Stoll). Cross is the present-day CEO of Pym Tech, a company founded by Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), who was the original Ant-Man, and the developer of the Pym Particle, a technology that permits miniaturization through the shrinking of the distances between molecules. Cross, who was Pym’s erstwhile protégé, and Hope van Dyne, Pym’s estranged daughter, have forced Pym out of his own company.
As the original Ant-Man, Pym’s heroics went, naturally, undedicated. But during the Cold War, a myth arose of a miniature warrior who fought the Soviets. Most dismissed this as propaganda; Darren Cross, however, always believed that the Ant-Man was real, and that his former mentor had cracked the problem of miniaturization. He is intent on replicating these powers, so that they could be produced on a vast scale and sold to interested parties. Hank Pym, who desperately wants to conceal the Pym Particle, is horrified by this effort.
In one sense, Cross is a familiar Hollywood stock villain. He’s an Adorno caricature—the “authoritarian personality”—who seems to represent a sort of Jewish nightmare, or something worse. Cross is a Gentile, who is an independently wealthy, power-seeking Captain of Industry, akin to Henry Ford or even Donald Trump. It is exactly because of men like Cross, personalities seemingly autonomous from the control of the Jews, that most Jews tend to be, at least outwardly, highly critical of capitalism—for capitalism contains the possibility of funding “fascism.” (This is the true reason why self-conscious Jews tend to object to Ayn Rand.) And lo and behold, in the film, Cross will eventually attempt to sell the shrinking technology to HYDRA, a terrorist group that is Nazi to its core.
And yet, even deeper suggestions seem to arise regarding Cross, as they do in the X-Men cycle, in the form of cryptonyms.
The name “Cross” lends itself to villainy, as it suggests a stern attitude or even betrayal (as in “double-cross”). But “Cross” is also a reference to Jesus Christ and the Christian church. And to the extent that Darren Cross is understood as a Christian figure—if not an embodiment of Christendom, or even the embodiment of Christ—he is also understood, racially, as a White European Christian. That Cross (or European Christendom) will eventually turn Nazi is not a message that should be lost on us. Indeed, this is the other half of the Jewish nightmare: authoritarian, European Christians, with their “uptight” and rigid sense of morality, especially sexual morality, are nascent Nazis simply awaiting their opportunity. Thus, in the figure of Cross, both the capitalistic and Christian Gentile is demonized.
Hank Pym, Founding God
Assuming our speculation is correct—that Cross represents a Christian figure and Cross Tech, the institution of Christianity—we come naturally to understand our hero as Jewish. This is, indeed, a tiny leap, as Ant-Man’s Jewish creators, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, along with other early Jewish comic-book creators (Superman’s Jerry Siegel most saliently), have long pedigrees of creating characters who are consciously designed as crypto-Jews, as well as villains that can be understood as avatars of anti-Semites.
In this vein, it is likely the name “Pym” is both a cryptonym and a charactonym, pointing both to Hank Pym’s Jewish origin as well as his ability to shrink. The Hebrew word “Pim,” also described as a Pim Weight, is an ancient monetary unit mentioned in the Bible (the first “Pym Particle,” if you will). A Pim is a small polished stone two-thirds the value of a Shekel. As corroboration that the name Pym is such a reference, we see another likely charactonym in the surname of Pym’s wife and sidekick, Janet van Dyne, who was also equipped with shrinking powers and came to be known as “The Wasp.” Dyne is a scientific word that describes a small unit of force.
In Pym’s successor as the Ant-Man, Scott Lang, we find an ironic charactonym akin to Robin Hood’s “Little John.” The surname “Lang” means “tall.” Though “Lang” is German, it is a name that has appeared historically among Ashkenazi Jews. We see again Lee’s tendency to invest all names with meaning (and “Lang” will bear more fruit as we delve deeper into the Ant-Man mythos).
If Pym is, indeed, a reference to the Pim Weight, and thus to Pym’s ethnicity and shrinking power, it is quite an obscure reference, especially in a pre-Internet age. It is a word that was, at the time, only recognizable to certain academics or, alternatively, religious Jews. Now that’s esotericism!
In the 2015 film, the casting of the comedic “Jewish-presenting” Paul Rudd as Scott Lang and the half-Jewish Michael Douglas as Pym is certainly not coincidental. Jewish audiences are far more likely to know the ethnicity of these two actors than non-Jewish audiences. Hence, by this simple method, an esoteric message is reinforced.
Corey Stoll, who plays Darren Cross, is also Jewish (though this is much less well known). Nevertheless, Stoll’s presentation in the film—as a masculine, authoritarian, and open power-seeker—is quickly sensed by Jewish audiences. In the film, Rudd is the benevolent, witty Jewish type; Stoll is the uptight, zealous, arrogant Gentile. (As delved in below, Douglas’s casting is more complex.)
Cross’s desire to replicate the Ant-Man technology is symbolic of Christianity’s “appropriation” of Judaism (Cross Technologies replaces Pym Technologies). This message was likely always intended by Lee. Indeed, Cross’s desire to mass-produce the technology is also of interest to us. To wit, Cross Tech is expanding Pym’s formerly exclusive powers to the masses, much in the manner that Christianity universalized the cult of Judaism.
It is important to mention that in Ant-Man, this effort to distribute the Pym power is understood as unequivocally evil—and as highly disruptive to the world the Marvel superheroes are tasked with protecting. Notable here, too, is the fact Pym had been driven out of the company after Cross assumed control. Metaphorically, Christianity “reformed” Judaism, with the cost of expelling and ostracizing Jews. Or as Cross describes it to Pym: “That’s why you are the past, and I am the future.”
By denying the existence of Ant-Man, Pym is metaphorically denying or diminishing Jewish power (e.g., the existence of a Jewish media ownership, the Israel Lobby, etc.), as is almost uniformly done by Jews out of an instinct of self-protection.
The scene also seems to contain a likely intentional insight into Jewish “atheism.” When Cross insists that Pym reveal whether or not the Ant-Man was real, Pym, seeking to discourage Cross in his quest to replicate the power of ministration, insists that the Ant-Man is “just a tall tale.” Of course, in the world of the film, the Ant-Man, Pym’s secret identity, represent the founding Jewish God, as well as the great tribal power that is derived from it. Indeed, in the Jewish concept of God, at least, esoterically, the Jewish people collectively are God.
Moreover, Jews have long understood that the Gentile appropriation of the Jewish God through Christianity has resulted in the formation of a rival, competitive tribalism, akin, in many ways, though not all, to Judaism itself, as Christians strive clumsily and unconsciously to become the “true Jews.”
Hence, as a protective measure against Christians, and to encourage their weakening and disappearance, Jews have developed an instinct to "deny God.” After all, they, before all people, intuit their “God” as a weapon of ethnic and racial domination (or survival, as they would likely see it). Hence Jewish “atheism” is, ultimately, exoteric, as much as their God is, by definition, esoteric, and intended only for Jews. Indeed, a Jew “believes” in God by acting in a manner that benefits his people (as mentioned, “God” is Jewish Tribalism). On the other hand, by denying God to a Christian, who requires the Rewarding God in the afterlife to motivate his prosperity and continuance, he is, as is described in the Jewish Myth, removing the word of God from the golem and thereby deactivating it.
So what are Cross and Pym really fighting over? As mentioned, the cryptonym Pym (or Pim unit) hints at the monetary character of Jews and Jewish power. Indeed, the Pym Particle can be understood as a metaphor for the “power of the purse,” something akin to the Ring of Nibelungs (i.e., one of those multiplying, power-and-wealth-giving rings of Norse myth). The struggle in Ant-Man is between Christianity, seeking to discover the Pym Particle (or the power of the purse), and Pym, seeking to deny him this power.
Here, a Jew might see more clearly what really occurred in the division between Christianity and Judaism than a devout Christian—a competition for resources. (After all, there is no survival and existence without resources.) The capitalistic Jew with “coined-stained” hands is ostracized and ghettoized by the hypocritical, tithe-demanding Christian Church, which comes to declare money itself (Pims) as evil, at least exoterically. But this resource competition can be seen anywhere that the Jew or Christian has sought to exclude or marginalized the other, whether it be from society, education, trade, property, or positions of influence, and whether it be through open, honest policies or through hidden, mafia-like ethnic networking.
Let us consider what the Pym Particle allows—miniaturization and infiltration—which becomes, in this context, the power of Jewish crypsis. Indeed, in the film, Lang will use the miniaturization power to infiltrate Cross’s corporation (Christendom) and bring it down from within.
In accordance with Jewish sentiment, the WASP elite of America would have almost certainly preferred to have excluded these Jewish parvenus from influential positions in society, had economic opportunities not come attached to them. And certainly this money allowed Jews to “miniaturize” their “true superhero identities” (as Jews) and, to some extent, assume the trappings and appearance of WASPs.
Indeed, let us consider Pym himself, especially as he is depicted in the 2015 version of the story, which, again, must be understood as the most definitive hitherto. To the extent Pym is considered a Jew by his original creators, which is almost 100 percent certain, Pym is an old-school, crypto-Jew who has assumed the outer appearance of a WASP. This is indicated especially in Pym’s attire and home, which are replete with all the trappings of WASPdom: hard-wood library, stained-glass windows, and a tweedy wardrobe.
Indeed, Michael Douglas, while known well as being of partial Jewish heritage, is a sort of the definitive “WASP-presenting” Jew, typically playing characters that are assumed to be WASPs, such as in his memorable portrayals in Romancing the Stone, Wall Street, The Game, and more. Indeed, in the case of the superhero Ant-Man, so deep will his crypsis become that he will even eventually take the female superhero “The Wasp” as a wife. (We presume her to be, as she is named, a WASP, but will parse this more carefully below.)
If only in a Jungian sense, it should be of interest to us that Cross is also intent on acquiring the power of miniaturization (or Crypsis). Let us ponder the profundity of this metaphor—perhaps intended, perhaps not—for a moment. For after all, isn’t Christianity itself the imitation of a type of Jewish crypsis?
Consider that Christianity is, ostensibly, a creed of anti-power: meekness and selflessness are venerated as the highest virtues. Yet Christianity is itself a “will to power.” For instance, the manifestation of anti-Semitism in Christianity, as a type of resource competitiveness toward Jews (whether through exclusion or expulsions), likewise represents this. Anti-Islamism is another example. Jews and Muslims alike are vilified in Christianity, precisely because they are “power-seeking,” unlike, presumably, pious Christians. Jews will likewise venerate meekness and powerlessness, while simultaneously seeking power (or, indeed, as a cover for seeking power, whether conscious or not). And as Hank Pym-like inventors of this type of “morality,” Jews typically do this in a far more convincing and effective manner than Christians. After all, as Nietzsche described it, “morality” is often just the power of mimicry (or, indeed, the power of Crypsis). The self-diminishment/miniaturization of Ant-Man, in this context, also becomes the perfect metaphor for the Jew or Christian projecting meekness, while, nevertheless, retaining a superhuman strength and will within.
With the figure of the tiny Ant-Man, we are reminded now of the figure of the Dwarf, who appears in mythologies as disparate as Norse, Egyptian, Greek, and Hindu, and is understood as a non-Aryan, Semitic figure. In the Hindu tradition, the Dwarf is, like Ant-Man, capable in some stories of both growing and shrinking, again suggesting a sort of protean power of Crypsis. Pym’s connection to wealth and money (Pim unit) also appears in myth in the gold-obsessed Dwarf, especially in the Norse tradition (this is continued in Tolkien), where he appears as a miner of gold and precious metals. Indeed, Pym’s helmet, which is understood as being requisite to the shrinking ability, is also found with the villainous, Dwarfish figure of Alberich in Der Ring des Nibelungen, the Wagnerian opera based on these myths. Here is the Tarnhelm, a helm of invisibility, shape-shifting, and deception, that Albrecht wears in Das Rheingold, the prelude to Wagner’s Ring.
More profoundly, in Greek and Roman mythology, the ominous figure of the King of the Underworld, and Death himself, possesses the helm of invisibility. He, too, is connected to wealth, especially in the Roman pantheon, where the name Pluto, in a manner similar to Pym, is derived from the Greek Plouton or “God of Wealth.” We see this in English in the word “plutocrat.” Like Hades and the Dwarf, Ant-Man is also a hidden and chthonic being, an inhabitant of tunnels.
As mentioned, Hope van Dyne is the daughter of Hank Pym and Janet van Dyne (the original Wasp), who, we learn, mysteriously disappeared while on an adventure with Hank. Throughout the film, Hope expresses her wish to take up her mother’s mantle, and she puts herself forward as the person to infiltrate Cross Tech and steal the shrinking technology. This is fiercely resisted by Pym. And after much prodding, he reveals that on a mission to stop a Soviet nuclear attack on the United States, the Ant-Man and Wasp jumped aboard a missile in mid-flight and endeavored to climb inside it and disarm it. They found this impossible, as the missile was cased in a titanium shell. Without hesitation, the Wasp chose to override her suit’s regulator and shrink down to “subatomic” proportions in order to climb inside. This quantum realm proved to be an “undiscovered country,” whence no traveler returns. Pym sees “going subatomic” as a constant danger and, in order to protect his only daughter, he refuses to let subject herself to the dangers of being a shape-shifting superhero.
By the end, it is revealed that Hank has changed his mind and that Hope will assume the superhero identity of the Wasp. (The 2018 sequel to Ant-Man will be called Ant-Man and the Wasp.) The Wasp of the comic book series possess Pym’s shirking ability and is equipped also with wings. She is a latter-day Tinkerbell (though, of course, Tinkerbell as a post-feminist “modern woman").
The creator’s decision to make Dyne assume the identity of a Wasp, as opposed to an ant or other insect almost, certainly has significance. To a degree, “Wasp” carries a connotation of beauty (in the sense of a woman having a “waspish” figure), and certainly beauty is understood as an attribute of “the Winsome Wasp,” as she was known in comics. On the other hand, this decision almost certainly had a more important root, particularly in light of all that we have hitherto discovered.
As a New Yorker, Lee (along with his collaborators, like Jack Kirby) was certainly aware of the acronymic term WASP (White Anglo-Saxon-Protestant) when they created this character in 1963. The term was already in colloquial usage by the 1950s, and nearly all things colloquial are known early, if not first, in the great cultural crossroads of New York City, and especially among those most cosmopolitan of peoples, the Jews. (The term WASP was widely popularized by the E. Digby Baltzell book The Protestant Establishment, which appeared in 1964, a year after the Wasp first appeared in the comics.)
The 2015 film seems to esoterically confirm this link. Hank Pym, speaking to his daughter Hope, utters this cryptic line: “They called your mother The Wasp. She was born to it.” On its face, he is saying she was a natural superhero. Esoterically, being “born to it” seems to reference “WASP privilege.”
The name Janet van Dyne indicates Old New York or New Jersey Dutch ancestry, and is, technically, not Anglo-Saxon. Technically. After all, the tiny founding Dutch population of New Netherland, of whom it is implied the “old money” van Dyne is descended, rapidly assimilated to the greater Anglo-Saxon culture following the Revolutionary War, losing its language and virtually all outwardly signs of cultural dissimilarity. Subsequent Dutch immigrations would follow suit.
In other words, van Dyne is intended as a WASP by any reasonable definition of the term (and certainly from the perspective of her Jewish creators, who are unlikely to make such fine-grain distinctions). Why not actually give her an Anglo-Saxon name, if the name is intended as a cryptonym? Perhaps, not making her technically a WASP (which was a term of abuse), may have prevented the cryptonym forbeing too blatant in the eyes of the occasional adult supervisor (who was, at the time, commonly him or herself a WASP, even if not of the wealthy, Brahmin variety). Here, a sort of plausible deniability appears.
The final bit of evidence for the Wasp/WASP connection is the sort of play of words that occurs with this term. To wit, it was understood as fitting because WASPs were “waspish” (or at least this was the caricature that was implied). And perhaps, indeed, WASPs of the period were waspish toward out-groups. (We see a latter-day residue of this in the “petulant” Ann Coulter.)
Arguably this “waspishness” is also manifested in a sort of edginess and coquettishness that appears in the character. In these tales, she incessantly teases the Ant-Man by openly admiring other superhero men, especially the masculine Thor. She does this, it is understood, because Ant-Man just won’t commit! Such is, perhaps, the ambivalence of a Jewish man dating a shiksa WASP woman (at least during this period of Jewish ascension).
On the one hand, he is envious of what he perceives as a beautiful and powerful people; on the other hand, if his tradition teaches him anything, it is that a “Wasp” is shallow, inferior, and hostile. Indeed, his very existence as a Jew through all of history has depended on this kind of antagonism towards Gentiles. Philip Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint and Woody Allen’s Annie Hall are the classic studies in Jewish male ambivalence, lust, and chauvinism toward the “Winsome Wasp.” In the character of Ant-Man, we see it rendered in comic-book form, for the kids.
Indeed, in the end, it seems impossible to believe that Stan Lee, the master of cryptonyms, did not intend The Wasp to essentially represent a WASP. What may be more surprising, however, is the Wasp’s appearance as a heroine and not a villain. Perhaps the fact that she is female is the reason. It is difficult to imagine a strong White male character named “The Wasp” who is also a “good guy” sticking around for long in the Judaized universe of Marvel, if he ever did, accidentally, appear.
Instead, here, between the male Ant-Man and the female Wasp, we see a covert alliance, symbolically, an alliance between a Jewish man and a WASP woman. Do we not see an awareness—perhaps a surprising one—of the great many benefits gained by Jews in their relationship to WASPs?
Of note is that in the 2015 film, Hank Pym and Janet van Dyne battle a hostile Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Cold War was, of course, a period when the environment of the Soviet Union was understood to have grown antagonistic to Jewish interests. Hence, we see in the Ant-Man/Wasp pairing, a metaphor for a Jewish-WASP alliance in opposition to an “anti-Semitic” Russia. Importantly, the Jew is metaphorically the man in this relationship.
Of note here is an interesting reversal that seems to occur with The Wasp. Typically, superhero characters that are intended as crypto-Jews—the most famous case being Superman—have superhero identities that are understood as their “real identities” (i.e., the hidden, superhuman Jew), shrouded by a WASP disguise (i.e., Clark Kent). With the Wasp, we have the opposite. Van Dyne’s powerful superhero identity is her assumed identity. In truth, her real Gentile identity is understood as human, weak, and vulnerable. Indeed, the only reason she has power at all is because the Ant-Man has granted it to her—and, it can be assumed, he is directing that power, if only by virtue of being its provider.
In the case of Hope van Dyne, we assume 50 percent biological Jewish inheritance. The casting of the brunette Evangeline Lily neither strongly confirms nor refutes this. As mentioned, at the beginning of the Ant-Man film, we find her working at Cross Tech, as a close associate of Darren Cross. Because of this, keeping with Lee’s metaphor, we can grasp that she identifies as a Christian. Indeed, we come to understand that her relationship with Pym is seriously damaged. Hence, in context, we also understand her relationship with Judaism as likewise damaged.
Pym refuses to reveal to Hope the circumstances under which her mother perished. Perhaps we could metaphorically conceive of Hope as resenting Pym for obliterating her WASP heritage?
At Cross Tech, however, she soon discovers that Darren is not as benevolent as she first imagined. Her disillusionment begins with Cross’s animal testing. While exploring scientifically the miniaturization technology, Darren uses lambs, which are slaughtered in vast numbers—turned into blobs of bloody goo, as Cross struggles to properly shrink the space between molecules. Hope asks Cross, “I thought we were using rats.“ He answers back, ”What’s the difference?"
So while the morality of animal testing is gestured at, it’s hard not to see these slaughtered lambs as deeply symbolic.
So what is really happening here? The scapegoat or sacrificial lamb is one of the central motifs of Jewish esotericism. As I have discussed elsewhere, the scapegoat is an animal into which the Jewish community places their sins. They then destroy the goat in order to absolve themselves of these sins. Kosher slaughter is almost certainly an expression of this notion. Freud more succinctly distills the premise of this ancient phenomena in his notion of “projection.”
In that case, who are the lambs being sacrificed by Cross (or “dying on the Cross”)? As I have mentioned elsewhere, Christ, symbolically, is an example of such a scapegoat. Hence at least on a Jungian level, we see the process of scapegoating as it ostensibly occurs within Christianity, to the extent that it likely misunderstands itself and therefore successfully imitates the foreign religion of Judaism. To wit, by the continual reenactment of Christ’s crucifixion, the community places its sins onto Christ, destroys him (“he dies for their sins”), and thereby absolves themselves. Emerging absolved and sinless, they are then liberated to act selfishly in the interests of their tribe. In a Jungian manner, Cross’s slaughter of these lambs signifies this. In Judaism, it is ultimately the Other, the livestock animal, the goyim, that is symbolically destroyed in the ritual. We are reminded of the astonishing and darkly amusing case of Bernie Madoff and his wife, Ruth while under house arrest; the latter was recorded frequently lamenting that Gentiles had brought on their misfortune. Here, it seems, the instinct that was created and reinforced by the religious practice of scapegoating is revealed.
In Ant-Man, it is insinuated that the Other is being forced to die for the sins of Cross (that is, the European Christian). We are familiar with this mantra in Jewish statements regarding the Holocaust—usually a variation on how “Christian Europe made a scapegoat of the Jews.” The use of the word “scapegoat” is quite deliberate. Indeed, brilliantly, hilariously, and dizzyingly, the scapegoated Goyim are scapegoated as the scapegoat-er! And, perhaps, again, to the very limited extent that Christianity has successfully imitated its forbearer, Christianity has sought to scapegoat its enemies (especially Jews) out of sort of dim, golem-like reflex, which senses, with great irritation, that it has been manipulated. After all, Christianity is an imitation of Judaism, likely even intended in its origin, as I have argued elsewhere, to scapegoat and weaken the very people it sought to convert. This has occurred, I believe, by placing the dying and suffering God Christ, the scapegoat, as an imitable bellwether for its flock, with Jewish antagonists like the Pharisees merely adding credibility and salability to the tale (not unlike, with the X-Men, the villainous, Jewish Magneto placed vis-à-vis the Christ-figure Professor-X).
In any case, even when Christianity assumes its more positive incarnation, the notion of sacrificing one’s own God to save oneself as the sacred act is, of course, a knave’s ethic. It is entirely repellent to the Aryan soul, which, for a great long time, has labored in confusion, perilously stunted by the utterly alien and confounding symbolism of Christianity. The Ant-Man film, in a sense, depicts this confusion, depicting Darren’s struggle to comprehend and replicate something Pym developed much earlier, and which, for Pym, comes naturally.
The element Darren is missing is the Ant-Man helmet (or the Tarnhelm of Wagner’s Ring). In a Jungian sense, the helmet, associated with the head, could also be a reference to Pym’s (and the Jew’s) greater intellect and comprehension, to mention nothing of his greater powers of deception and Crypsis. And, along these lines, a bit of “esoteric comedy” appears when Cross finally succeeds in replicating the technology and triumphantly holds a miniaturized lamb in his hand. Indeed, the goyim, livestock animal, the mindless herd have achieved a Judaic power. Cross (Christ) has his flock!
In short, in the lamb-slaughtering sequence, we see Hope van Dyne coming to the realization that the morally-judgmental and scapegoating Christian is the very type that “leads to the Holocaust” (as it is put). The mechanized, technological “mass-murder” of the lambs is particularly suggestive of this. The specter of “Nazi experimentation on Jews” is likewise hinted at. This realization marks Hope’s spiritual return to Pym, and to Judaism.
Interestingly, however, Hope will remain at Cross Tech (that is, within Christendom), while acting to undermine it, in allegiance to Pym, her Jewish half. Here, we see shades of Kevin MacDonald’s contentions. To wit, Jews benefit by some out-group intermixture, which serves to improve relationships with Gentiles and acts as a sort of outer protectant. A circle of half-Jews or partial Jews surrounding the core will remain faithful to Jews, and they will further Jewish interests in ways that full Jews could not.
In the Ant-Man metaphor, Hope, having ostensibly rejected Pym (Judaism) has the trust of Cross, whereas Pym does not. Hence Hope may act more effectively in the interests of Pym. These partial Jews or “assimilated” Jews—Conversos, as they were called in previous Christian societies—are in a sense understood here as the “Hope” of Judaism. Here, in the character of Hope is an esoteric and subliminal call to Jews outside of the faith to serve the interests of Judaism, even if while not presenting themselves as Jews. It is also a call, in the character of Pym, to Jews within the faith, to strengthen relationships with their “assimilated” cousins.
Again, the fact that Hope’s mother, Janet, has died is symbolic. The WASP heritage is dead. Hope’s “character arc” is to accept this and cease blaming her father for her loss. And the film makes clear that Pym is innocent of everything. The daughter’s rebellion was perhaps understandable, certainly forgivable, but ultimately wrongheaded.
Revealed, as well, is the dubiousness of Jewish Matrilineality, as a kind of iron-law requirement for fidelity toward Judaism. When Hope assumes her mother’s “WASPy” costume, as she does at the end of the film, it is precisely that—a costume, a means of crypsis, by which to wage war against the racial enemies of Pym (Judaism). With Hope’s mother, Janet, the Wasp represented her heritage.
In this line, it’s is useful to return to the nature of Janet van Dyne’s death, which occurred in a highly symbolic fashion. In order to stop a Russian nuclear missile headed toward the United States, Janet van Dyne was forced to “go sub-atomic” so as to pass through the metal and de-activate it. “Going sub-atomic” is understood as essentially a suicide mission. In the world of the film, no one returns from going sub-atomic, but rather enters into a sort of inescapable netherworld. As Pym describes it, “Everything that you know and love, gone forever.”
If one understands the Ant-Man power of shrinking (and stealthy infiltration) as an especially apt and powerful metaphor for Jewish crypsis, then “going sub-atomic” likewise becomes the perfect metaphor for complete assimilation—that is, racial death. After all, at some point, Jewish crypsis becomes this. One can minimize their true identity only so far without losing it entirely. Yet, of course, the metaphor must also apply to WASPs, even if their identities are understood as a mere costumes to begin with. Hence, we see the WASP “going sub-atomic” and losing her identity to save the great “Idea Nation” of America and also, perhaps, as a condition of becoming Pym’s wife. As Pym retells the story, his technological “regulator” was damaged and thus would not allow him to make the same sacrifice.
Though, on the other hand, the Jewish Lang will likewise have to “go sub-atomic” to dispatch Cross and rescue his daughter. He, however, is able to make the return by applying a shrinking device to his “regulator.” Perhaps some might read this as lazy writing of part of Marvel’s avoidance of tragedy: the lead character miraculously escapes so as to be ready for a sequel. But on a deeper level, this gesture is a coup de foudre of the central metaphor of Ant-Man—indestructible identity of Judaism.
Lastly, the Ant-Man’s name does not only derive from his small stature, but from his ability to control teams of ants through brain waves. This scientific power is akin, in many ways, to Professor X’s mind-control powers, which I have discussed in relation to the X-Men. Here, once more, the film appears to seek to heighten ethnic messaging, which are only latent in other Marvel mythologies.
In Ant-Man, the Jewish Lang has two sets of allies, whom he leads against Cross Tech. These allies are the ants in the miniaturized world and a trio of dimwitted, bumbling, ex-con immigrants and minorities in the human realm: a Mexican immigrant, a Semitic-looking Russian, and an African-American. Indeed, in our politically-correct climate, this human trio would almost certainly be understood as comprised of insulting stereotypes, albeit humorously and lovingly rendered. (Certainly, someone somewhere took offense.) Perhaps, however, this should be understood as the “good-natured” and, undoubtedly, deserved, ribbing of shabbos goyim and useful idiots.
Regardless, it is clear that a parallel is being drawn between Lang’s two sets of allies. Lang, himself an ex-con and master thief, directs the ex-cons in criminal enterprises and, eventually, operations serving the interests of Pym. Clearly, Lang is posited here as the “brains” of the human group.
Likewise, by using his Ant-Man technology, Lang directs his ant swarm. Hence, it is suggested that both allies are minions. And, at least as far mythic precedents go, outside of the metaphor of the golem, no metaphor suggests servility quite like the metaphor of an ant.
Here we see Jews allying with and directing non-White and foreign immigrant groups against a core White Christian culture (Cross Tech). The suggestion is that these non-Whites and foreigners can be commanded as easily and readily as ants. Indeed, they are held in contrast, of course, to their enemy, who cannot be commanded and must be destroyed (Cross Tech/Christendom).
In some sense, it is rather as if David Duke and Kevin MacDonald, developing an interest in esoteric story-telling, co-conceived the Ant-Man, intending it as a tragedy—only to have it rendered as a happy-ending comedy by a group of cruelly-amused Hollywood writers and directors. This is the “conspiracy theory,” transmitted esoterically by Lee: Jews would prefer a non-White or mixed population to live among because they would be easier to command.
These immigrants and minorities are likewise golems as understood in Jewish lore. They are animated and commanded only by Jews, and are otherwise inert. Pym makes this clear in a discussion with Lang:
Scott, they are ants, they can do a lot of things… but they still need a leader. Someone that can infiltrate a place that is designed to prevent infiltration.
The irony here, of course, is that Cross Tech, or Christendom, is designed, at its, conception precisely to allow infiltration. To wit, dousing oneself with baptismal water and simply claiming one is a Christian seems, truly, the primary criteria. Indeed, the shared Christianity of Mexicans, for example, is regularly understood by Christians as making them more benign than Muslims from the Middle East—when, in fact, the very opposite is the case. After all, Muslims usefully erect stronger barriers against us and are opposed to entering Christendom.
Hence what emerges is the happy acknowledgement by Lee that Jews direct foreign elements against their host nations, and that these foreign elements are unintelligent, unwitting pawns.
This is what could be called “Esoteric Jewish Triumphalism.” And Stan Lee is a master of it. Spielberg is another. Whatever its goal, its two-fold function appears to be: 1) subliminal demoralization of the host population; 2) moralization of Jews, both those who unconsciously sense the message and those who can decipher it.
The weakness of Esoteric Jewish Triumphalism, on the other hand, is made clear merely by my decoding of fables like Ant-Man and X-Men. To wit, it is required to be communicated to a relatively large and disconnected group of people, however small relative to the larger population. Hence, symbols and references cannot be too obscure or coded, or they will be missed, both by the conscious and unconscious mind. Indeed, the more ambitious and global its intention, the simpler and more recognizable the symbols must become. Thus, non-Jews, with a little practice and a little cleverness, can decode it. Additionally, the Internet vastly eases and accelerates this process. (Perhaps most important of all, the loss of an emotional attachment to Christianity, a key subterfuge in Jewish esotericism, allows for complete analysis.)
The strength of Esoteric Jewish Triumphalism is plausible deniability on the part of artists. To wit, Stan Lee, for example, can always say that his superhero myths are just fantastical stories, and should not be interpreted beyond the surface level. Yet, of course, as other things become apparent regarding Jewish behavior, the plausibility of this deniability becomes weakened, and is ultimately irrelevant. In some instances, as I’ve conceded, symbols and metaphors undoubtedly arise from the subconscious and were not necessarily intended by the artists. Yet from a practical view, this is, perhaps, less relevant, especially since no verification can be expected from what is a hostile source.
In fact, the larger question will persist and remain unanswerable. Namely, to what extent are Jews conscious of both their hyper-ethnocentrism and their adversarial behavior toward the European racial type? And to what extent do they act out of a mere traditional, religious, cultural, and genetic instinct?
Hence, analysis of Esoteric Jewish Triumphalist art should not exclude consideration of symbols and metaphors that, perhaps, arise unconsciously, any more than the analysis of Jewish behavior should exclude understanding behavior that may or may not be conscious. How well Jews know themselves is of less importance to us than how well we know Jews. And, indeed, we should not be so arrogant to discount the possibility that such metaphors will reveal something insightful about ourselves, good or bad, even as we understand the adversarial and chauvinistic hands by which they are formed. For instance, in many instance, comic creators employ the polytheistic Greek religion, but from the perspective of the hidden and Chthonic, and not from the Truthful and solar. Nevertheless, they reminds us of our lost religion.
Toward Esoteric Hyperborean Triumphalism
The solution to this particular type of culture warfare is to two-fold.
Analysis—sober and accurate, which takes as few leaps as possible and reveals Jewish esoteric messaging to Gentile audiences.
Adaption—the development of symbolist works from an Aryan perspective.
Both the effective analysis of Esoteric Jewish Triumphalist works and plausible deniability will protect symbolist works developed from an Aryan perspective. In other words, “if you can go to war, so shall we!” Or, flipped, “We are not going to war. You are just paranoid!”
This analysis, from our perspective, will have a motivating effect on artists otherwise debilitated by the purposeless perspective of their deracinated art. As Goethe said: “To do something, you must be something.” We call them, as Nietzsche did, to be Hyperboreans.
We are at a vast advantage here. Our deep and rich myth traditions, which have no equal, particularly the Greco-Roman, will aid us. Here alone the aesthetic and the symbolic (or subliminal) are aligned. And as far as creating beauty in form, we have no close competitor. One should understand that the archetypes of the gods, especially the 12 Olympians, are the archetypes for story-telling. Through Christianity, these gods have (literally) been demonized, and hence the gift of story-telling and Art in its highest form—as a race-protecting religion—has been taken from us.
Nietzsche was correct: Art is the answer. And Gods, you are free.
In this line, the widespread influence of the relatively shallow Star Wars is due less to its brilliance as mythology, and more to its appeal to children. This was also the achievement of Walt Disney. ↩︎
HYDRA is most often associated with the Red Skull, a kind of Hitler stand-in. It was founded by Baron Wolfgang Von Strucker. The last name Strucker, applied to this bald superhero Nazi, may be an allonym for the phonetically similar Julius Streicher, the publisher of Der Sturmer. Interestingly, however, the full name seems to be, perhaps, a fusion of Streicher and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Goethe, of course, is rightly considered one of the greatest minds in German history. By Jews, he has been typically regarded as a beneficent figure, who helped open a period of scientific inquiry, and who has come down as a key figure in the Aufklärung and democratizing process, which reoriented Central Europe away from the monarchies of old. On the other hand, Nazis also venerated Goethe. As the Nazis came to power, Freud quipped: “Ah well —a nation that produced Goethe could not be all that bad.” Yet with Lee’s nomenclature, there is more than a whiff of Henry Morgenthau, even if consciously he was merely intending a very German-sounding name (given its associations with Goethe). One imagines the unpretentious Lee saying simply: “Screw ‘em all, high and low.” Indeed, perhaps, in newer incarnations of this figure, he will appear as Edgar Allen Anglun (though in what country or upon what planet is as yet unclear). The Red Skull (or “Roter Totenkopf”), for his part, is almost certainly a reference to the Nazi Totenkopf or “Death’s Head,” with his red coloration possibly a reference to the red on the Nazi flag, which is understood to symbolize “blood” (as in race). ↩︎
As further support for the significance of the name Cross, we discover the full name of the comic-book character to be Darren Agonistes Cross. The name Agonistesis is a title that modifies the proceeding word and means “the suffering.” It appears most famously in the title of John Milton’s Samson Agonistes. Indeed, the original conception of Darren Cross (appearing in Marvel Premiere #47) is of a hulking man of general superpowers, including great strength. And also like Milton’s Samson, he is a “sufferer.” Mutated into a giant with superpowers by the use of experimental nucleorganic pacemaker, Darren’s new form exhausts his heart. Thus, he is required to undergo a never-ending series of heart transplants to survive (which he, of course, harvests from anonymous indigents, akin to the sacrificial lambs we see in the 2015 film). One wonders if Stan Lee is aware that, among industrialized world, only Orthodox Jewish groups and the criminals they employ have been found guilty of the illegal and foul crime of harvesting organs. Indeed, from whence comes his inspiration? With whom did he keep company? Ah, the lovely art (or instinct) of scapegoating. Christ, of course, is also a sufferer. And indeed, perhaps here, in Lee’s original conception, and consistent with the nomenclature, Cross functions as a Samson-Christ hybrid. Samson is understood to have estranged himself from the Jewish God through an act of exogamy (his relationship with Delilah) and Christ likewise, seeking to reach outside the tribe. This must be understood as estranging himself from fellow Jews. Perhaps of interest in this early version of Cross is the appearance of the (almost certainly Jewish) “Doctor Erica Sondheim” the most brilliant physician in her field, whom Cross has enslaved to perform the life-saving heart transplants. Here, the golem-like Cross is animated and re-animated by a Jewish hand. Is Lee describing Christianity, perhaps accurately, as a sort of Jewish golem run amok? One that must finally be permitted to die? Perhaps this was not intentional, but the metaphor persists. ↩︎
The X-men pair of Professor X and Magneto convey deeper, more subversive and more interesting themes than Ant-Man. In the Ant-Man film, Christianity is a dangerous force that can place the Jewish “technology” of Crypsis into the wrong hands, namely Anti-Semitic Gentile hands, and thereby empower foes against Jewish heroes. In the X-men universe, ultimately both Christianity (as embodied by Professor X) and Judaism (as embodied by Magneto) serve the interest of Jews (the Mutants). Though, perhaps, comparing the two stories, a distinction between “good” and “bad” Christianity (from the Jewish perspective) appears. “Good” Christianity is a Christianity that worships and trusts a Jewish God (Professor X) and passively and naively counts on his protection alone from evil Pharisees or powerful demons (Magneto). “Bad” Christianity is one that seeks to adopt the Jewish method of presenting meekness and “piety,” while secretly seeking power (Pym’s Particle). ↩︎
Perhaps the Jewish tendency to take surnames related to precious metals as relevant here. And since officially, last names do not exist in the synagogue, perhaps like Hank Pym, Jews understand the subliminal power of associating oneself with wealth: people will want to work with “gold” and “silver” (Advertising 101). ↩︎
It is worth mentioning that the name Lang, in its Hungarian and possibly Jewish derivation, has a different meaning than “tall.” Here, it means “flame” and is thought to be an occupational name for a smith. So appears the figure of Hephaestus or Vulcan, the smith and Artisan god, an axe-wielding, chthonic, homely figure, who seems to be the archetype for all those Norse Dwarfs. Jews, likewise, first appeared as artisans, soon dominating entire trades, much to the vexation of local inhabitants. The character Scott Lang, like Hephaestus, is an engineer and inventor, able to modify Pym’s creations. This is, perhaps, a tenuous connection, but it is, at the very least, a fascinating coincidence. To wit, the name Lang, like the shape-shifter Scott Lang, has two identities, one as the Dwarf and the other, “Tall.” It should not be lost on us that Jewish artists like Lee will often identify their heroes with the hiding and usurping gods of the underworld and death, vis-à-vis the solar gods of truth and light in their parables. The Wachowski brother’s Matrix (1999) comes first to mind, with its subterranean “Zion” and its red-pill “awakener” named Morpheus, the Greek god of dreams and illusions and nephew of Thanatos (Death). Their knowledge and understanding of these gods is greater than ours. As we awaken, this will change. ↩︎
The element of the WASP group most likely to ally itself to Jewish interests, perhaps, in exchange for greater “female empowerment.” After all, it is Pym that provides the empowering, shrinking “Pym Particle” to The Wasp and not the other way around. Indeed, The Jew frees the WASP girl from her authoritarian, racist, and illiberal heritage. Is it, in the end, simply the enchanting, controlling, and dissolving influence of money (the Pym Particle)? ↩︎
The Greek Myrmidons— who, as legend goes, trained Achilles—were the “ant-people” of the ancient world. They were believed to be, indeed, “ant-like,” especially in obedience. For a long time the term was used interchangeably with “minion.” It also later came to mean an obedient, hired ruffian, which would rather suit Lang’s human friends well. One wonders if Lee makes that oblique reference here. Given his veiled references to mythology elsewhere, it would not be surprising. ↩︎