“We are required to reach a consensus on the meaning of our myths and symbols.”
In this study we will discover that between the most important Jewish artists there is, in fact, an agreed upon language of symbols. This is a massive strategic advantage and goes no small way toward explaining their current dominance in the world. It is rather the very key to it.
In fact, I will argue, the understanding of myth conveyed by their most important artists and myths is generally and most often the correct understanding. There, however, it is only told from a veiled, Chthonic, Jewish perspective which promotes the Chthonic over the Celestial, the Semitic over the Aryan.
Some readers will hate to hear it, but in my humble estimation, Jung, Campbell and perhaps even Nietzsche can’t hold a candle to Stan Lee or Woody Allen in terms of understanding myth. This study will prove this.
In the end, our understanding and use of symbols must move far beyond academic, interested speculation to something of actual use to us. To cut to the chase, we are required to reach a consensus on the meaning of our myths and symbols. This is, in fact, the only way that our symbols and myths will hold any meaning. It is also the only way they will have constructive value to us.
Hence the language requires coherence. This means the symbols within the language require agreed upon meanings. After all, without the agreed upon meanings of words, for example, a language becomes entirely incoherent. Likewise, the parables of our ancestors and the parables we are destined to pass on become entirely incoherent.
Would such a “codification” be too rigid? Is it obstructive to “Aryan creativity”? There is rigidity and there is consistency, form and coherence. Rigidity is, indeed, the absence of creativity. However, for a system of symbols and, indeed, the “Culture” it comprises, to have any power, form, meaning or coherence, these symbols must be applied consistently.
We see this consistency among Jewish Esotericists at least as it concerns primary Symbols. Yet we see few signs of “rigidity” or an absence of creativity and sophistication. What must be said of Jewish culture is that clearly it, among all the cultures of the world, is, in this fleeting moment, the strongest. This is simply objective.
To be clear, I assert that the symbol language I propose is one that already exists and may not be significantly or arbitrarily altered save by he who endeavors to make ephemeral and useless works. Rather it is, thus far, our one permanent language and link to both descendants and ancestors. It is our task to study it, learn it, more tightly define it and deploy it. Here the fundamental symbol system itself is neutral and universal. It is only that it has been used for a very long time to cast curses against us rather than to aid us. This we will change.
The force and abidance of any art, I assert, may only correlate with a correct and relatively precise rendering of these symbols. Hence Jewish Esotericists, for example, are not at liberty to easily reinvent these myths and certainly not themselves as they are represented in these myths. Rather Jewish Esotericists are obliged to faithfully render themselves within them as hidden, Chthonic beings and, as a condition of their survival, delight in this identity.
Thus our process becomes, in part, the correct interpretation of Jewish Esotericists measured against our best interpretations of ancient myths and religion. Part of this is intuitive. After all, we Aryans, in the first place, helped cultivated this symbolism if primarily, as I would theorize, in response to antagonistic Semitic Religious and Artistic developments. Nevertheless, the latter would require us especially to understand this language clearly so as to respond in kind.
Here interpretation is of vital importance. The meanings will be based on the credibility of interpretations but, of course, biased, in every case, on considerations of racial survival and amelioration. Nevertheless, errors in this interpretation will, in some instances, put us in the position of rooting for Gods or clinging to symbols that are, in fact, esoterically indicated as anathema to our racial type and its survival.
This, in my view, is no petty matter but rather creates a deep and subliminal demoralization. Indeed, this “creative interpretation” was one of the things that kept and keeps Christianity afloat, where here, somehow, eventually Christ himself becomes the Aryan Amorite!  This has been or failing as well as a sort of vague, lazy, haphazard, “spiritual” or emotive understanding of things that on the other hand refuses to analyze symbols too deeply.
All of these things are highly disruptive to our credibility both internally and externally. Indeed, where frequently people don’t know what is right, they very often can sense what is wrong or simply an “interpretation” of things or, frankly, weak. Thus cohesiveness in Christian society, for example, is invariably loose or “individualistic”, while religious factionalism and infighting inevitable. Everyone correctly doubts the credibility of everyone else. It little matters that no one knows the answer!
Indeed, a man who uses myths or symbols, whether invoking them in his speech or setting them in a work of art, without a nuanced understanding of their meaning, is like a man who speaks a language, having never learned it, but nevertheless capable of accurately imitating its general sound. The Swedish Chef of Muppet Show fame comes to mind. This is all of “Aryan Christendom” and all of Pagan “Norse” White Nationalism as well.
Indeed, we must move away from cheap, easy or incorrectly used metaphors, like the word “Promethean” as a reference to Aryans, “Faustian” as a reference to our period of psychic enslavement, “Pagan” as a reference to who knows what, and the recent “Red Pill” that ostensibly makes us sound smart and “hip,” yet when parsed, reveals, profoundly, the opposite. Indeed, even the densest “Sussman” is right to guess we are blowing hot air.
I posit that if one believes the meaning of symbols can be turned any which way according to his whim and purpose than he doesn’t believe in their power and should posthaste find something else to occupy his time rather than fussing with such “powerless things.” But, of course, he does believe in their power. He just misunderstands them perhaps having interpreted them hastily. Nevertheless, often he insists on asserting force with them however vainly and destructively.
Rather the roots of our symbols must be strong and not vulnerable to later critiques and re-evaluations that point to the actual original meaning of poorly selected symbols. Behold how this effortlessly discredits that the “Racialist Christian.”
Of course, only Aryans will be part of this process. We, for instance, don’t presume to help Rabbis understand their Kabbalah, even if a penetrating interpretation of their Kabbalah may help recover our own Religion. They and their secular proxies and useful idiots shall have no involvement in our Religion. To be sure, this is not because we believe they lack understanding. Frankly, they only lack trustworthiness. Obviously we are obliged to remain ever vigilant of such “contributions to an understanding of world myth.” And always, they will be “known by their fruits” by a people who once again understand symbolism.
Indeed, it is never a rude or “racist” question to wonder “who interprets?” Any future “priesthood” or artist class asks this question first and continually. We understand, for example, the strict racial criteria supposedly given to the Jewish Kohanim that comprise the priestly leadership of the Jewish people. Even if it is mythical, and Jews are admixed by definition, it is imitable. Hence, the interpreter—much like the artist as myth-maker—is also given a racial criterion.
It is, of course, requisite that his perspective not be superstitious or “mystic.” Such a worldview, as even the mystic Helena Blavatsky understood, is distinctly anti-Aryan. And we require a Religion tailored to our instincts and strengths. Naturally this racial criterion is merely the fundamental criteria. An especially high intelligence and a “sense of myth” are also requisite.
This series is continued here: Myth and Symbol Language Part II: Art and Religion are State Projects
 This was a view advanced by the 19th and early 20th century political philosopher Houston Stewart Chamberlain.
 Helena Blavatsky famous and influential Russian Occultist wrote: “Magic…is practically beyond the reach of the majority of white-skinned people;…Probably not more than one man in a million of European blood is fitted — either physically, morally, or psychologically — to become a practical magician…” Helena Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled, Vol 2, (Theosophy Trust,  2006), 582-583. This remark is something of a backhanded compliment, alluding both to the superstition and ability in deception found in the non-Aryan races.