The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewE. Michael Jones Archive
Nazi Hunters and Their Catholic Proxy-Warriors: Part I
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“You must not exact vengeance.” — Leviticus 19:17

“This is not murder. This is mitzvah.” — Meyer Offerman, Hunters

Over the course of 2019 the Jews lost control of the narrative in America. When Jews lose control they get upset, because, in a world without logos, the only order is the order they impose on the rest of us, a group known as the goyim, whom, Jews believe, have a natural tendency toward anti-Semitism. When the Jew loses control, he thinks the world is out to get him, and when he thinks the world is out to get him, his thoughts turn to murder. As a result, we are now being subjected to one paranoid Jewish fantasy after another advocating murder as the solution to what they perceive as the problem of anti-Semitism. A year ago Amazon Prime members were subjected to The Man from High Castle, a fantasy about what America would be like after losing World War II. In mid-March Netflix released the film version of Philip Roth’s paranoid fantasy The Plot Against America, and in late February Amazon Prime released Hunters, probably the most flagrant example of Jewish paranoia leading to Jewish murderous fantasies to date. Hunters is set in America in 1977. In the opening scene, a Jewish couple arrive at a barbecue given by the husband’s new employer, an obnoxious white southerner (Is there any other kind?) wearing a “Kiss the Cook” apron as he presides over grilling hot dogs, which is of course prescient of the Holocaust. After our obnoxious Southern host makes some tactless sexual remarks, the Jewish wife, who looks to be in her thirties, suddenly recognizes him as a former officer in Auschwitz. After trying to brush off her distress with a few humorous remarks, the southerner pulls a gun out of the barbecue and shoots not only the Jewish couple but every member of his own family as well. He then sits down in a lawn chair, where he waits for 24 hours until a fellow Nazi arrives to dispose of the bodies and then shoot him in the arm to give him an alibi.

Does that sound plausible to you? Well, it’s as plausible as this paranoid piece of Jewish revenge porn gets. Hunters tells the story of how Meyer Offerman, “a wealthy Holocaust survivor with a thick Yiddish accent played by Al Pacino,” based loosely on Simon Wiesenthal, who got into the Nazi hunting business in 1977, assembled “a diverse band of Nazi hunters” to kill anyone they suspected of being Nazis from taking over America and turning it into—you will be expecting this—the “Fourth Reich.” Jonah Heidelbaum, the protagonist in this struggle, is a young man whose grandmother got murdered by a man in a black hat, whom Offerman identifies after introducing himself at Grandma’s wake as a Nazi hunter. Jonah initially ignores Offerman’s offer to help, but soon gets busted for selling dope, and when Offerman goes his bail, their collaboration begins.

Al Pacino as Meyer Offerman
Al Pacino as Meyer Offerman

Unfortunately, Jonah shows some initial reluctance at killing people in cold blood even if they’re Nazis. As a result, Offerman spends a good part of the conclusion of the first episode trying to convince Jonah that his homicidal rampage is both religiously and morally justified: “This is not murder,” Offerman tells Jonah, “This is mitzvah,” which means blessing in Hebrew. Once again Hollywood has drawn us into an alternative universe where hate is a Jewish virtue, and we become anti-Semites who are complicit in Nazi crimes if we object to Jews gunning down in cold blood anyone they find suspicious.

Director David Weil told the Jewish Telegraph Agency that “his first and main inspiration was his grandmother, who survived imprisonment in the Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen concentration camps, and whom Weil said he used to see as a superhero while growing up in a Conservative Jewish family on Long Island.” Hunters is “a love letter to my grandmother, it is a way to honor my birthright and my heritage and my Judaism, and it’s a way to shed light on hidden crimes and secrets.”[1]

Weil also had specific movies in mind when he directed Hunters, which is a mash up of Steven Spielberg’s Munich and Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds. “If ‘Inglourious Basterds’ is one end of the spectrum, and ‘Munich’ is the other end of the spectrum, I think ‘Hunters’ lives in the middle,” Weil said in the same interview.[2]

Hunters is also about morality, as Jews like Weil defines that term, which means in this instance comic book morality according to which “The center of the [Hunters] series really revolves around the moral, ethical question about ‘Does it take evil to fight evil? Do you have to be a bad guy in order to effectively combat the bad guys?’” Logan Lerman, who plays the show’s protagonist Jonah Heidelbaum, says in a phone interview from Los Angeles. “I’m really curious to see what people’s responses are.”[3]


As Weil indicates, we have been down this road before. Steven Spielberg’s Munich, an epic drama about Mossad agents who seek to retaliate against the Palestinians responsible for the “Munich Massacre” at the 1972 Olympics, offers two arguments for the need for violent Jewish revenge — one is the biblical eye-for-an-eye means of paying back the Nazis for the suffering they caused. Hunters, which gets its moral theology from Munich, is full of flashbacks to scenes of chilling Nazi atrocities, such as a chess match that SS officers play involving real prisoners, who are forced to kill each other as the game progresses. The other argument is one of self-defense. As the hunters torture a Nazi by blaring loud music into his ears, Jonah urges them to stop — he is clearly conflicted by inflicting pain on someone else. But since the goal of the torture is to extract information about who else the Nazi might be working with in order to stop a possible plot that could harm Jews and others, he reluctantly accepts the death of the Nazi they were trying to interrogate.

Similarly, in Spielberg’s Munich, the Israelis agonize a lot over killing Palestinians. Munich is about revenge, but it is also a film about morals and epistemology. It is a film about Mossad agent Avner Kauffman’s involvement in killing nine people whom he assumes were involved in the Munich massacres. As the film proceeds, it becomes clear that he really has no way of knowing if the people he blows up or guns down are guilty because he is simultaneously judge, jury and executioner, and people with all three of those duties are notoriously lax in fulfilling their responsibilities. Avner Kauffman killed Mr. X because the secular equivalent of the rabbis, in this case the Mossad, told him that Mr. X was guilty. There was no trial. The guilt of the Palestinians in question is certain because someone in the Mossad said so. Disagreement is not an option. Anyone who disagrees with the rabbi gets expelled from the synagogue. Munich is Jewish discourse with a vengeance—in just about every sense of the word.

Munich may be a movie about the rules of Jewish discourse, but it is also a movie about how giving the wrong answer to a Jew will result in your death. Wa’il Zu’aytir’s “trial” consists of the two Israeli assassins questioning the Palestinian with the loaded guns in their shaking hands aimed at his head and vital organs. This lesson in Jewish discourse begins with a question: “Are you Wa’il Zu`aytir?” Before getting a satisfactory answer to that question, the assassins move on to their second question: “Do you know why we are here?” The second question has an eerie existential ring to it, as if the Israeli hitmen are asking themselves some vague question about the purpose of their mission and, by extension, their lives as well. Having failed to answer either question to their surprise quiz correctly, the unarmed elderly Palestinian translator gets gunned down in cold blood. The question the murderers forgot to ask is “Did you have anything to do with Munich?” If he had said “no,” would they have shot him anyway? Or would this have called for more facial agonizing by the handsome movie star (Eric Bana, who played Hector in Troy) who played Avner Kauffman?

Above The Law

Is Abu Khalid telling us the truth when he says that Zu’ayatir had nothing to do with the Munich massacre? Or was Avner right in his belief that Zu’ayatir was involved with Black September? The answer to this question is that civilized peoples and nations do not conduct inquiries with loaded guns aimed at the heads of people expected to answer these questions. In a civilized world, people suspected of murder are apprehended by the police and put on trial. People who think that they have some God-given or racially conferred right to question and execute suspects are not part of the civilized community of nations. They are criminals and they should be treated as criminals. At one point this thought even occurs to Avner Kauffman. “Couldn’t we just arrest him and put him on trial like Eichmann?” The answer, according to Avner’s Mossad handler is “no” because in the meantime more Israelis would die. The moral logic of this response—or the lack thereof—convinces Kauffman that he has to go on killing.

Hunters picks up where Munich left off. Hunters is about the moral education of Jonah Heidelbaum at the hands of Meyer Offerman, who begins his course by promoting revenge. “Living well is the best revenge,” Offerman claims, citing the Talmud. Jonah becomes a Nazi hunter because his grandmother, who survived Auschwitz, was murdered by a Nazi doctor from Long Island. Toward the end of the first episode, Jonah starts to express moral qualms about taking the law into his own hands. “Did you tell the authorities?” Jonah wonders.

At this point, Al Pacino, the Hollywood star who plays the moral center of the film, sets young Jonah straight. Because the American legal system is effectively in the hands of Nazis and Nazi sympathizers, Jews have to become vigilantes and take the law into their own hands. When Jonah wonders why they don’t just go to the police, Offerman says:

“Well, we tried. We went through all the proper channels but . . . we were laughed at. They didn’t believe us. So I took the matter to the senators I know, the congressmen that I got elected but they ignored me. No one dared stake their reputation on investigating some Jew killings. So with nowhere else to turn we made a vow. We would find these criminals ourselves. And bring God’s justice to bear on them.”

“You mean murder them?” Jonah asks.

The Best Revenge

“Murder?” Offerman responds. “No, Jonah, this is not murder. Before Jews even existed ancient slaughter awaited us for thousands of years. From Masada to Munich we’ve been murdered. Pharaohs and popes and princes . . . called for our blood, and now we survived the war; we survived the greatest mass eradication in modern history. And we arrived home to find that the people who did this to us are our neighbors. So tell me, what should we do? Shake hands? Turn a blind eye? Forget? No. No. The greatest single gift of the Jewish people is our capacity to remember. And it’s because of our memory that we know this is survival. This is not murder. This is mitzvah. We have no choice. We must instill fear. Send a message. Let them know not again. No more. No more, Jonah. Nip it in the bud. The Nazi doctor from Auschwitz, the monster in my story, still haunts me to this day. The Talmud is wrong. Living well is not the best revenge. Do you know what the best revenge is? Revenge.”


At this point, the goyim are supposed to cheer on these Jewish thugs and hope they are not the victim of mistaken identity when the multi-culti Jewish SWAT team shows up at their door or when someone from Antifa doxes them. I’m referring here to the more widespread Jewish involvement in character assassination, not unrelated to the spread of political correctness, which has been the modus operandi of Jewish organizations in America for decades now. I am referring specifically to the character assassination of Catholics and conservatives which occurs whenever they incur the wrath of powerful Jews. The case of Father Charles Coughlin springs immediately to mind. He gave a speech following the attack on German Jews now known as Kristallnacht, in which he deplored the violence against the Jews but added that if Catholics were going to be held responsible for Nazism, then Jews should accept responsibility for Bolshevism.

Charles Lindbergh met a similar fate when he gave a speech in Iowa in which he claimed that the Jews and the British wanted to drag America into war. The fact that what he said was true was irrelevant. Lindbergh was punished for telling a truth which Jews found offensive, and he would serve as a paradigm for future punishments, which increased in America in direct proportion to Jewish political power and in inverse proportion to the distance from the infraction. The difference between the assassinations performed by Israeli hit squads and the character assassinations Jews perform on public figures they don’t like is that the hit squad assassinations end with the death of the victim. Character assassination, on the other hand, goes on forever, or as long as Jews write books. The character assassination of Lindbergh was resurrected by Philip Roth in his novel, The Plot Against America, which got released in March as an HBO special. It was in many ways the sequel to Hunters.

We have reached an intolerable situation. Mass culture shoves one artifact after another under our noses, but open discourse about those artifacts is prohibited. As a result of all this, any goyische reviewer of a series like Hunters or a film like Steven Spielberg’s Munich is in a bind: If the reviewer says that Golda Meir is a cold-blooded killer who has nothing but contempt for the rule of law, he runs the danger of being called an anti-Semite. But this is precisely how Steven Spielberg portrays Meir in his movie, even if at the same time he tries to make her look as grandmotherly and sympathetic as possible.


This is just an excerpt from Culture Wars Magazine, not the full article. To continue reading, purchase the April 2020 edition of Culture Wars Magazine.




[3] Gabe Friedman, “Murder or mitzvah? Amazon’s ‘Hunters’ grapples with the morality of Jews killing Nazis,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Feb. 21, 2020.

[4] Michelle Goldberg, “The war on ‘Munich,’” Salon, December 20, 2005,

[5] David O’ Connell, “Elie Wiesel and the Catholics,” Culture Wars, November 2004, pp. 24-33.







[12] EJ Dickson, “How a New Meme Exposes the Far-Right Roots of #NoNutNovember,” RollingStone, November 8, 2019,


(Republished from Culture Wars by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Arts/Letters, Ideology • Tags: Anti-Semitism, Hollywood, Jews, Nazis 
All Comments Hidden • Show  247 Comments • Reply
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.