YHWH and My People as God: imitable concepts

Throughout JEM (Jewish Esoteric Moralization) we find characters that are the embodiment of the collective Jewish people. This relates again to the “Parabolist Law of Microcosm” where victorious Jewish figures appearing in Jewish parables are best understood as manifestations of the Jewish God.   In the Biblical works, this phenomenon is unqualifiedly true with the figure of Judah, David and Christ. Christ we will examine more closely to show this as his case is the most “esoteric.” But David and Judah are also interesting cases we will examine.

To be clear, these figures may be understood not merely as “epitomic examples,” avatars or forms of the Jewish God but also synonyms. We may extend this understanding as well to “Pagan figures” such as Saturn, Bacchus or Vulcan to use only Greco-Roman examples. These figures doubtlessly also represent the same Jewish God.

The personage referred to as Yahweh though is perhaps most striking example of this phenomena. Here it should be made clear that when we refer to Yahweh as an especially good illustration of a deity embodying the Jewish people, we refer especially to the Tetragrammaton. The Tetragrammaton means (“[consisting of] four letters”). It is rendered Yahweh, יהוה‎, in Hebrew and YHWH in Latin script.

The etymology given to Yahweh, in Judaism, is that it is derived from ehyeh ašer ehyeh, אֶהְיֶה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר, meaning “I am who I am.” While it is understood that the actual original etymology of the name Yahweh is perhaps dissimilar this is, in fact, irrelevant. Indeed, doubtlessly this etymology was retained because Jewish esotericists understand this phrase as the meaning of the name Yahweh.

 This meaning is indicated in Exodus 3:14. Here Moses, having met with God, asks God how he should refer to him vis-à-vis the ancient Israelites.   God responds: “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

Moses, having met with God, asks God how he should refer to him vis-à-vis the ancient Israelites.   God responds: “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”  This is word play.  Moses is to identify himself as God.

Readers should understand this as word play. Indeed, it might even be understood as a sort of characteristic “devilish” humor.   For instance, suppose later an ancient Israelite asks Moses, “what is the name of God?” or “who is God?” Theoretically Moses, as well as any Jew, might respond “I am.” In other words, contained within the name of Yahweh is the notion that Jews are God. This is suggested in Exodus 7:2 when Yahweh remarks to Moses “See, I have made you [a] God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.”

But more, we understand that ultimately the word Jew itself is developed from this phrase. Indeed, in Genesis 29:35, when Leah’s son Judah is born she says, “This time I will praise the Yahweh.” The next line is translated “So she named him Judah.” One sees clearly that the name Judah or Yehudah, יְהוּדָ֑ה, is derived from Yahweh, יְהוָ֔ה. Indeed, it is clearest to understand Yahweh and Judah as synonyms.

Among the Seven Holy Names of the Jewish God, we find as well, ehyeh, likewise derived from the phrase I am who I am.”   It means “I will be.” Again, here we find another word game. If one asks a Jew the name of God, he may respond “I will be.” Here we begin to perceive why, straight away, we should put aside fears of “hubris” at the idea that rather we are of an Aryan God from which a Semitic or Non-Aryan mortal has descended.

Here we begin to also understand why religiously observant Jews don’t pronounce or read aloud the Tetragrammaton but substitute it with more innocuous terms such as hakadosh baruch hu, הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, meaning “The Holy One, Blessed Be He,” Adonai, אֲדֹנָי meaning “The Lord” or HaShem, השם meaning “The Name.”   This is esotericism, the burying and concealing of meaning. It is preferred here that even most of the Jewish flock, the unconscious “Sussmen” as we shall call them, are unaware of these things. Loose lips sink ships, as it is said.

Instead, these unconscious ones become prideful and racially cohesive through reaction to an aura emanating from an inner or higher body of Jews. This aura appears from the understanding that this higher body of Jews understands themselves consciously as “God.” Indeed, the Hebrew Bible indicates this name become known first to Moses, born into the priestly class of the Levites.

His articulate brother Aaron, whom would act as his spokesman, would then become the first high priest from which the Kohen would descend. Thus, perhaps, metaphorically, among the “Kohen,” we find the “conscious ones.”   Here though it is obviously ridiculous to believe men bearing the name Kohen are therefore Jewish esotericists (Coen Brothers excepted). Rather, we understand these Biblical figures now, more practically, as metaphors.   Hence “Kohen” becomes merely another epithet for Jewish esotericist not to be understood literally.

The realization that Moses, Aaron or Jewry, in general, is also Yahweh also contains a proof that Yahweh and the serpent in Eden are the same figure. This or the serpent is an agent directed wholly by Yahweh. After all, in Exodus, both Levites, Moses and Aaron, will wield a rod that is capable of turning into a serpent.

Again, this serpent is a reference to the vine, Bacchus and also the phallus. By the same token, one understanding of the caduceus as a symbol is that it represents the “two heads” of the Jewish God, to wit, his head and his phallus, his “benevolent,” dissembling face and his concealed Bride Gathering motive.

 In popular culture the Tetragrammaton will appear in the Spielberg film A.I as among the more decisive bits of evidence that Spielberg intended the Robots as Jews or at least something akin to the Ancient Israelites. There the robot Gigolo Joe (Jude Law), having assisted David (Haley Joel Osment) in his escape from persecuting humans, is being hauled away to be destroyed. His last words to the robot David are “I am.”

Gigolo Joe, in A.I., identifying himself as the Jewish God.   His last words to David, the primary antagonist, are, cryptically, “I am.” 

Things are made more complex when we understand Gigolo Joe and David represent something called the Twin Messiahs, with David being decidedly “more Jewish.” This concept, however, is explicated elsewhere in this study.   For now it is enough to understand that Gigolo Joe, like the Biblical Joseph of the Hebrew Bible, serves and sacrifices himself for the line of Judah, and thus, is understood in the end, as part of God, God himself. We understand Jews, in any case, as inherently admixed with a dominant Semitic element.

This Jewish concept of Jew as God is a fascinating and doubtlessly potent bit of “psychological technology.” It is at once deeply moralizing and deeply collectivist. One is saying “I am my God. All who are his (true) children are also he.   Thus I am also they and they I.” In the end, it is Religiously sound and, in fact, precisely how Religion and Art should be practiced.

The final significance of this formation “I am God” is “I am powerful and terribly so.” After all, having power defines one as Godlike with Gods representing merely forms and types of human power.   It also defines oneself in the “active.” The sense with Christians, of course, who worship the Jewish God, and esoterically Jews themselves, is passive. The Jew, in contrast, gives fealty to a God who is himself. He is not something separate from him. Hence he too is powerful and may affect the world.

We cannot doubt for a moment that the sense of “chosenness” and, indeed, ultimately Godhood, that Jews have instilled in their children, has not emboldened them toward dominance.   This is, of course, wholly imitable.   Here we should be careful not to confuse individual pride with racial pride. Indeed, each healthy man, of every race, has an instinct to instruct some measure of humility in his son, so that he is well received among his peers, may successful interact with them and so that he may assess himself accurately and improve himself accordingly.

The success of the son, indeed, is based to some extent on such a preparation in “humility” tempered, of course, with an instruction in individual and familial pride. Likewise, we should be humble as a race vis-à-vis our ancestors looking always at the ways in which they were superior. Yet we should also be proud vis-à-vis our ancestors looking for ways to grow superior to them.

Our ancestors are in this sense only our rivals. To the extent we are proud of ancestors, we must first make ourselves at least their equals to gain this right. After all, one is not convincingly proud of an ancestor, as representing himself, if he may not even imitate or surpass this ancestor by the more objective measures. Rather one coveys, instead, he is not proud of the ancestor as he evidently does not find him a good measuring stick.

Yet “humility” should not be given to other peoples, except as Jews give it, expediently, falsely. Though here, falsely, only in the microcosm, in the macrocosm, on the plane of ideas especially, we are forced to demarcate and separate ourselves from others respectfully, but with no apologies. This is not to suggest we should underestimate the ability of other races, particularly Jews, any more than we might underestimate any other non-racial existential challenge our race might face.

However, it is to suggest that the interests of all other peoples should be understood as far beneath ours if existing at all. This, of course, is consistent with the Jewish understanding.   As Jews ask only “is it good for Jews?” and then, when answering in the affirmative, begin explaining to the rest of the world how it is good for them as well, we do likewise, yet from our perspective. But in the end, we admit, we do these things because they are good for us. What would you expect of a people?



4 thoughts on “YHWH and My People as God: imitable concepts

  1. Great article, thank you.

    Some copyedits for you, Mark:

    “this name become known first” –> “this name became known first”

    “Aaron, whom would act as his spokesman” –> “Aaron, who would act as his spokesman”

    And maybe it’s just me, but this sentence seems unclear:

    “Though here, falsely, only in the microcosm, in the macrocosm, on the plane of ideas especially, we are forced to demarcate and separate ourselves from others respectfully, but with no apologies.”

    I think it would be clearer if you said it like:

    “Though falsely only in the microcosm. In the macrocosm, on the plane of ideas especially, we are forced to demarcate and separate ourselves from others respectfully, but with no apologies.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s