JEM in Historical Accounts: Concentration Camp as Metaphor for the Biblical Israelite Camp

While this study is uninterested in speculating on the historical events occurring during World War II that involved Jews, there are many elements of Biblical descriptions especially of the camp of the wandering Israelites and sacrificial rituals, particularly as they appear in Leviticus, that remind us of the official Holocaust narrative at least as it appears to us in propaganda.

Here we accept that all descriptions of War World II, and surrounding events, are propagandized to this extent or the other, as is always the case in war and history more generally.  Famously: “History is written by the victors” and no one has been more victorious in Western cultural life than Jews. Hence the word propaganda is used here neutrally.

Indeed, the familiar Holocaust Propaganda is particularly interesting to us.  Here it is unnecessary to deny central elements to the story as actual to nevertheless wonder if they are emphasized, in some cases, or combined with other perhaps invented elements, to complete metaphors or references to scripture for example.

To the extent we accept Christ as a historical figure, which is perhaps dubious, we might suspect a similar process. Indeed, as with the Christ story, which is evidently parabolic and referential, particularly to earlier Rising and Dying Cults, the Holocaust narrative, at least in some of its key symbolic elements, seems likewise.

But what is the evidence? First the word “Holocaust.”  Of course, the term Holocaust had appeared prior to the mid-20^th-century events in central Europe to describe calamity, typically of a military kind, more generally. Though here the term appears deployed, characteristically, in a much more conscious, specific, symbolic and, yes, Religious manner. In fact, one is scarcely permitted to use the word except as a reference to the treatment and suffering of Jews during World War II without risking obloquy.

Thus in a sense, Jews have gained a sort of de facto copyright on the term, enforced by social and even economic pressures emanating, ultimately, from Jews themselves. Doubtlessly as well the word, like the event it describes, has become sacred on a Religious level. In fact, this is regularly admitted by Jews themselves. This study details the importance of words and their careful use among Jews. Surely this word, of all words, would not have been chosen haphazardly nor outside of an accepting consensus. Likewise we suspect a similar, intelligent and careful word use with other terms associated with “The Holocaust.”

The word holocaust itself means “burnt offerings” and “burnt offerings” are a central feature of the sacrifice rituals described in Leviticus and the Hebrew Bible more generally. There “burnt offerings” are translated in the English from the Hebrew word olah, עֹלָה.  They describe the burning of livestock animals. Commonly Holocaust propaganda describes Jews as having been “scapegoated” by Hitler’s regime and this particular and repeated use of language is likely as well, in its propagandistic origin, a Biblical reference to Leviticus where we find Azazel the scapegoat.  That is, in any case, the precise reference being made with the term “scapegoat.”

This study shows clearly that Yahweh is a consuming fire God, interested in “consuming” or destroying non-Jewish or Aryan stocks through intermixture and otherwise, who in contrast are understood as flammable animals, animal fat, oils or wood. Hence the oft-repeated trope among Jews that concern with the Holocaust has replaced the Modern Jews devotion to their God becomes ultimately a way of indicating the esoteric idea that the Yahweh is the fire that consumes the “Holocaust.”  Likewise, to “deny the Holocaust” is to deny God or Yahweh, esoterically Jewry, his sacrifice. What or who exactly that sacrifice is, within the esoteric parable of the Holocaust, where Jews are exoterically slaughtered, is speculated in this discussion.

A salient crematorium motif emphasized in Holocaust narratives strengthens this connection to fire and consumption by fire. In the third book of Daniel we may find another relevant parable. There, three Jews are placed into a furnace for their refusal to bow to King Nebuchadnezzar’s golden statue. The statue, partially via a metal or color symbolism, appears to be a reference to a solar God like the Aryan figure Apollo. Here, as historians relay, we understand that the Book of Daniel was not written during the “Babylonian captivity” but as an esoteric parable during the Maccabean revolt against the Syrian Greeks. Thus perhaps Apollo is precisely the God or idol they are thinking of.

When the three Jews are in the furnace, a fourth figure also appears in the furnace next to them described as having “the appearance of a son of the gods.” To Nebuchadnezzar’s astonishment, the Jews emerge unscathed. Possibly there is a play on words here and the furnace,  like the lion’s den in Daniel 6, is a vaginal reference, yet with the idea a Jewish “fire” inhabiting it.

The number three as well appears to have sexual connotations in the JEM, appearing as a reference to insemination or sexual interaction between Jew and non-Jew.  Also the word here for furnace, only appearing in Daniel and ostensibly of Aramaic origin, is attun,  אַתוּן.  In the Modern Hebrew it means “she-ass,” “female donkey” or “mare.” Strikingly it may also mean or be a reference to “Athens.” The word in the Biblical Hebrew for “she-ass” athon, אָתוֹן, is close. This study establishes Donkey’s among other livestock animals as references to non-Jews.

In the end, this “miracle” or sleight of hand, in which the Jews emerge unfazed from the furnace, is part of a psychological campaign on the part of Daniel to demoralize and psychologically dominate Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar will famously go insane for seven years before finally submitting to the Jewish God.

Again, Jews, like their God, are suggested in this parable as  “the element of fire,” thus spared by Yahweh. Indeed, in some profound and seemingly deliberate sense the Holocaust becomes a repetition of this parable. As in Daniel, Jews are understood as having been cast into a furnace and having emerged unharmed.   The Jews of the Holocaust likewise, as an image, become exoterically akin to the condemned sinner in a fiery Christian hell which, especially in Matthew 25, is also taken from a ritual sacrifice metaphor identical to that found in Leviticus. There goats are separated from sheep, with the former burned. On an esoteric level, though, with Jews understood as fire itself, Jews become the natural inhabitants of fire, devils, Azazels or “Scapegoats.”

In other words, whether one rejects Christ or accepts him, he can’t escape Jews. This is the Caducean. Perhaps on one level the Holocaust, precisely like the legend appearing in Daniel, becomes a parable of Aryan malevolence, Jewish indestructibleness and Jewish resurrection. It seems possible the goal here, in both narratives, is demonstrating that Jews are an indestructible and indomitable foe, despite best efforts, a Dying-and-Rising God. Yet the Holocaust narrative, to the extent it was consciously developed in a parabolic direction, and ultimately, as a parable, has another more important layer. This has to do with the metaphor of “the camp.”

The setting of the  Holocaust narrative, Leviticus and much of Exodus is a camp.  Indeed, for the sacrificial livestock involved: a death camp. As in Exodus, the Jews in the Holocaust narrative have once more become travelers, whether as exiles or refugees. The camp of course is a central feature of the Exodus story where, as in Leviticus, we find the “Israelite camp.” The Jewish internment camps of War World II themselves, which no one denies the existence of, may have been an existing narrative element from which then Biblical metaphors were developed. Here it seems that parabolists would have naturally seized upon the camp of the wandering Israelites of the Hebrew Bible as an obvious metaphor.

There is of course one key difference between the Holocaust Narrative and Leviticus or other Biblical accounts of the Israelite camp. Ostensibly, where Aryan or non-Jewish “Israelites” are indicated esoterically as being sacrificed as livestock to Yahweh or Jewry at the central Tent of Meeting in the Biblical account, in Holocaust Propaganda, Jews are the ones being indicated as the sacrificial lambs. Though, to the extent the Holocaust Propaganda represents JEM, it seems that perhaps esoterically, as in Leviticus, it is actually, ultimately, Aryans that are esoterically indicated the sacrifice, as additional clues will indicate. This would not be unique in JEM.  Rather elsewhere we find parabolic examples where figures presented exoterically as Jews appear to have been developed to represent Aryans.

In any case this would align with a consistent theme of sexual and racial Jewish triumph found in JEM. Again, here the goal is to demoralize out groups through hidden messaging.[1] The general and more obvious psychological objective of the Holocaust Narrative is in no way distinct from the Christ Narrative. In both narratives, the Aryan who receives these parables is obliged to understand himself as fallen Adam, who must feel contrition and sorrow for a Jew that has died or suffered because of his sinfulness.  Like Christ, Jews have gone into Hell and risen. Failing to feel contrition, gratefulness and even fear of the risen Jew, Adam, the Aryan, suffers consequences. This study reveals how Adam is an Aryan figure. Even in the camp setting of Leviticus, and in the Hebrew that describes it, we see a distinction between a servile Israelite man or “Adam” and his God, Yahweh, a synonym for Jewry.

In the Hebrew Bible the Israelite camp is machaneh, מַחֲנֶה.  Machaneh may also mean “army” or “host.” “Army” or “host” appears to be an Aryan identifier in the JEM where the Martial Aryan is understood as “host” to Yahweh who is “Lord of Hosts” or “Lord of Armies.”  Here we may imagine the warlike Hyksos, if Aryan in the main, ultimately directed by an exploitive, proto-Jewish priest class devoted to the Egyptian “Set” or “Seth,” or Typhon as he was known to the Greeks. The Hyksos have indeed been suggested by Historians as the Israelites described in Exodus.

Smoke as well features saliently in Holocaust narratives where the chimney of crematorium are often understood as continuously bellowing columns of smoke as the Jewish bodies of slain prisoners are incinerated around the clock. Clouds and smoke are also a salient symbol of the Jewish God in the Hebrew Bible, where he appears, for example, as a column of smoke for the Israelites to follow. There, in the form of smoke, he enshrouds the volcanic mount Sinai or the Tent of Meeting. Hence this motif of smoke exhaling chimneys becomes a reference to Yahweh as volcano God as well as a reference to his earlier form, the proto-Jewish Vulcan.

Likewise, in Leviticus 16:2, Yahweh tells Moses to prevent Aaron from entering the Most Holy place of the Tent of Meeting “or else he will die, because I appear in the cloud above the mercy seat.” Possibly the famous gas chambers of the Holocaust narrative, which are indicate as having been supplied, in some instances, by exhaust from relatively innocuous diesel engines, is especially a reference to descriptions like this, where we find a Tent of Meeting enshrouded or inhabited by Yahweh in the form of smoke and fire.

The oft-cited number of six million deaths is also interesting to us. Contesting this number of six million has officially been made a legally punishable act of blasphemy or “hate speech” in countries throughout Europe. This is the only case of which I am aware where questioning the number of dead during a wartime incident is illegal. While one may increase this number in estimates, he may not diminish it. Hence we understand it to be, unequivocally, a sacred and religious number with an esoteric meaning. After all, Religion is especially the domain of symbol and language. Any statement of opinion that one punishes or any symbol one banes, one punishes and banes “Religiously,” for better or worse.

Here again, with the number six million, we may find a reference to the Ancient Israelites, who numbered 600,000 during their camp living in the desert. This study argues that six is commonly a reference to Aryans as resource such as appears with the sixth sefirah of the Kabbalah, the Tipheret.  The Tipheret is a reference to the sun and, ultimately, coveted Aryan genes. It is also understood as the “number of man,” distinct form Yahweh.’

Thus we appear to find more corroboration that the six million dead or “burned” in the Holocaust narrative is, on one level, actually an esoteric reference to Aryans. This makes sense when we understand the Aryan tribe of Israelites as indicated, esoterically, the sacrificial livestock animals, food or fuel of a central Jewish Fire God located in the Tent of Meeting. Does this “Holocaust of the six million” then gloatingly refer to the camp or the “armies” or “host” whom died in War World II?  Does it referred to the “armies” or “host” as having been defeated and “sacrificed” in this conflict?  Does it refer to the present Aryans as a “doomed,” demoralized, consumed, “burned,” “sacrificed” and disappearing livestock resource?

Some of the more salient, sordid elements of earlier versions of the Holocaust narrative, that are now admitted by historian to have been outright fabrications, likewise appear to be possible allusions to Leviticus or Biblical descriptions of sacrifice more generally.  The use of Jewish fat in the production of soap for instance.

Fat is a repeated motif in Leviticus as a sacrificial substance to be burned in fire. Such as in Leviticus 4:35 “[the priest] is to remove all the fat, just as the fat of the lamb is removed from the peace-offerings, and he shall burn it on the altar along with the offerings made by fire to the LORD.”  The word for fat here is cheleb, חֶלֶב, meaning also “best” and “finest.” It appears in passages like Genesis 45:18:“[Yawheh] will give you the best of the land of Egypt, and you shall eat from the fat of the land.” Along with milk, as appearing in the repeated phrase, “land flowing with milk and honey,” this study identifies fat as an Aryan identifier.  In fact the word for milk in that famous phrase, chalab, חָלָב, is very close and likely related. It ultimately seems to describe a selective Bride Gathering where the “best” is taken.

Soap though is ultimately the process of turning fats into salt and the symbol of salt appears to emerge as a reference to Jews or Semitization in JEM, whether with Lot’s wife who turns to a pillar of salt in Genesis 19, in phrases like “the salt of the Earth” appearing in the New Testament or as a symbol referencing the southern dead sea, adjacent to ancient Judea, and precious salt deposits found in that region.

More, salt is directly referenced in Leviticus where salt is placed on the sin offering.  There it says “And you shall season each of your grain offerings with salt; you must not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offering—you are to add salt to each of your offerings.”[2]  Grain and bread as well, appear in JEM as references to Aryan as resource and are possibly related to Aryan Grain Goddesses like Kore, famously abducted by the Semitic Pluto. Hence the metaphor of turning human fat into salt may describe an insemination or Semitization of the Aryan, a motif that appears in JEM, especially with references to the Triple Goddess.

The idea that the skin of slaughtered Jews was turned into Lampshades, now a refuted claim, is perhaps also a reference to the Leviticus story or the salient symbol of the lamp or menorah where olive oil is used to fuel fires or lamps.  In both Leviticus 24:2 and Exodus 27:20 it says: “Command the Israelites to bring you pure oil of pressed olives for the light, to keep the lamps burning continually.” In Leviticus 24:4 it says “[Aaron] shall tend the lamps on the pure gold lamp stand [Menorah] before the LORD continually.”

Here oil is shemen, שֶׁמֶן, which this study estimates as perhaps being related to the word sun Shemesh, שמש, and the sun God Shemesh, an Aryan figure.  For example, the central branch of the oil fueled Hanukkah candelabra, represents the solar god, Shemesh. Here Shemesh, a Symbolic Synonym of Apollo and the Aryan, is understood as the “servant” or “helper.” It is by this central flame that the rest of the candles are lit.

Olive trees, olives and olive oil, as well, is estimated a symbol of Aryan as resource in this study, possibly sharing a symbolic origin with the olives association with the Goddess Athena.  Further, that the skin of Jews would represent a trophy to Nazi offers may be found in the line: “As for the priest who presents a burnt offering for anyone, the hide of that offering belongs to him.”[3]  This line in Leviticus may even be a reference to racial camouflaging through admixture as might be the idea of a human skin lampshade.

In light of these details, it seems fair to wonder even if the figure of Ann Frank has been promoted as a central figure, at least in part, because of a “fortuitous,” symbolic value in her name. After all, there is a clear Frankish Motif that appears in at least contemporary JEM where it seems Jews understand themselves as having been influential or heavily intermarried with Frankish nobility, the clan that would brutally establish Christianity throughout the European continent. The meaning of the surname Frank would of course point first to the Franks but it also means “free” or “liberal.”  Perhaps she is hinted as a Goddess like the “Roman” Libertas, a Goddess of slave emancipation, or Lady Liberty who is based on the former. Is it possible the Holocaust narrative, at least as it presented as propaganda, is, in many of its primary elements, metaphor or analogy?  Is this, indeed, “Shoah Business?”

In this vein, one final point. The word Shoah, שואה, by itself ostensibly means “catastrophe,” “disaster” or “cataclysm.” The phrase that is used to describe these events, indicating their singularity, is H’Shoah or The Shoah, השואה.  The phrase has an interesting meaning in the Modern Hebrew where it means “The Holocaust,” “resemblance,” “comparison,” “equalization,” “analogy” and “analog.” The word Shoah appears to be derived from sho, שׁוֹא, in the Biblical Hebrew which is speculated by Strong’s concordance to mean “ravage” and is commonly translated as “destruction,” “to destroy” or “desolation.” Though the exact meaning is unknown.

In the Modern Hebrew sho means “deceit,” “falsehood,” “false,” “false visions,” “lies,” “vain” “emptiness” and “worthlessness.” Likewise it’s similarity to the word shav, שָׁוְא, in the Biblical Hebrew is striking. Shav, which is believed derived from sho, also means “deceit,” “falsehood,” “false,” “false visions,” “lies,” “vain” “emptiness” and “worthlessness.” The English term “gas chamber” may also be a play on words. By 1847, the English word gas was slang for “empty talk,” by the mid 1910s it was slang for “fun, a joke.” Of course, by pointing out these linguistic and symbolic details, I make no remark on the historicity of the event known as The Shoah, particularly as it is commonly relayed to us.

 

 

[1] If one doubts for a moment that the “inherited psychological trauma” of the Holocaust ostensibly suffered by Jews is not, at least at the highest esoteric level, consciously and cynically manufactured for political gain and ethnic power, they are recommended to two important Jewish works. Those rare and honest works are Norman Finkelstein’s book The Holocaust Industry (New York, NY: Verso Books, 2000) and the 2009 film Defamation directed by Yoav Shamir. These works remove all doubt. I investigate the symbolism involved later in this study.

[2] Leviticus 2:13

[3] Leviticus 7:8