We are bewildered by the alarming consistency in Jewish-developed books, TV, video games and film production, where message is consistent. For example, Aryans are heroes and victors to the extent they stand up for or lovingly accept obvious racial rivals and sexual competitors. They are villains to the extent they oppose or reject them and protect their own sexual and racial interests. As we decode the subtler messaging of JEM, we are also surprised at the consistency. There a Jewish worldview consistently depicts a doomed Aryan world being socially and sexually out competed by Jewish figures or The Jewish God.
This consistency, yet from our perspective, will be imitable. Indeed, we shall be far more fastidious. Each meaningful work of Art or Religion, we must understand, as does our adversary is, inescapably, a microcosm of the world, wherein racial types vie for dominance. There are no exceptions. Each protagonist or hero is a representative and model for every viewer or reader to the extent the viewer economically, socially, sexually or racially resembles the model and is likewise exoterically and/or esoterically identified with him or her.
Each character is an archetype or “God.” This, in fact, we will now understand, is the only meaningful definition of a God. To be clear, this does not conflict with earlier or exoteric understandings of this term. These “Fertility Gods” and breeding examples are, indeed, “saviors,” “redeemers,” commanding “lords” and the very creators and fathers of life. They direct the behavior of viewers or “worshipers” including most importantly breeding behaviors. This simple idea I express here is one that Jewish Esotericists have long taken for granted. Hence our Art, in its only valuable form, is inescapably paeans to our Gods and their victory over threatening adversaries.
When it is socially inappropriate to depict a God openly the parabolist is obliged to resort to what we might call “God Masking,” a practice common among Jewish Esotericists, where figures in a parable are references to this or that older God or hero, often identified, in part, through the use of names alongside other symbols. This practice seems to explain how Symbolic Synonyms or new Composite Gods first developed in the ancient world. For instance, how Christ was derived from Adonis and Bacchus. Modern American Comic books, for example, are awash with examples of this practice. This is an imitable practice for Aryans when it is inappropriate, inexpedient, taboo or even illegal to creates open paeans to Apollo.
The notion of a God as well is greatly descriptive of the tendency among types of people to conform to type. For instance, we find it remarkable that nearly every Jew will defend criticisms of their people, among whom obvious hypocritical behavior appears, with the most contrived rationalizations if not outright lies. Hence speaking to the single Jew, we speak to the race of Jews who thereby become one personage. To wit, in this instance, we speak to the Jewish God as Mercury, God of Deceivers. Likewise, with nearly every Jew we find a Liberal, at least on the only important matter of race, hence we speak to Bacchus or “Liber.” Each additionally is wary of authoritarian Aryan types and nurses a racial memory of expulsion, hence each is vindictive Vulcan.
This understanding we will call the “Parabolists Law of Microcosm.” Its second requirement is one of succinctness. Each character in a parable must have a unique and important lesson to convey; they must, for example, represent a type, adversarial, tragic or heroic, by which we may gain a salubrious, worthwhile lesson. By this method, when well executed and sufficiently original —yet wrought of the common symbol language— stories are made succinct, impactful and immortal. The macrocosmic world itself is formed from the microcosm of the parable.
5 thoughts on “The Parabolist Law of Microcosm, The Definition of a God & “God Masking””