It is perhaps in Leviticus, one of the dreariest of the Hebrew books, where the metaphor of Aryans as livestock and sacrificial livestock becomes most salient. On its face, Leviticus appears to be, for the most part, merely instructions for the “arbitrary” and sometimes barbaric rituals, allowances and prohibitions of an ancient, superstitious and backward priest class. This includes saliently the sacrifice of “unblemished” livestock animals by the Israelites to the Tent of The Meeting. The opposite, of course, is the case here. Indeed, its relative lack of narrative and apparent backwardness has no doubt protected, in part, the messages encoded here. Rather it is a rich esoteric text.
In Leviticus, as elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, it’s important to remember that the Israelite’s, in contrast to Yahweh and the Levites that are commanding them, are not Jews, but a broader group of tribes. These are the tribes that the tribe of Judah through David and his successors come to dominate in Biblical parable. Likewise, it is important to remember that Yahweh is a synonym of Jewry and is distinct from Israel and also “man” or, frequently, “adam” in the Hebrew. Jewry instead is understood as the inheritor or “Son of Man.”
Indeed, the name Israel is commonly believed to derive from Sarah, שָׂרָה, and El, אֵל, an epithet for the Jewish God meaning lord. Hence we may derive the meaning “El’s Sarah” or “El’s Princess.” Israel was the name given to the proto-Jacob after he wrestles one of Yahweh’s angels and is touched on the “hip (or lion) socket,” seeming to indicate him as sodomized.
This study has already pointed out the similarities of the Hebrew name word Sarah to Saarah, שׂעֲרָה, meaning “hair” and sa’iyr, שָׂעִיר, meaning “goat” and “hair.” Hence the name Israel may mean as well “Yahweh’s Hair (Vagina)” or “Yahweh’s goat.” Therefore the Israelites are in a manner as well the goat to be exploited and sacrificed by Yahweh. A knowledgeable reading of Leviticus makes this obvious.
The message of Leviticus is also protected by an exoteric “Traditionalist message.” For instance, in Leviticus is says: “You must not defile your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will be prostituted and filled with depravity” and “You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination.”
Here it is important to remember that, at least in these cases, these are commands that Yahweh bid Moses “Speak to the entire congregation of the Israelites” and not necessarily what this mysterious, curtain-veiled figure or this Levite protectors follow themselves. Here we must remember that Moses and Aaron are wizards, serpent wielders, akin to Asclepius and Mercury, the God of Deceivers. Likewise, here a veneer of piety or “traditional values,” allows authors to smuggle in a darker esoteric message.
Indeed, the esoteric message of Leviticus, the symbol of the Tent of Meeting and the Biblical works more broadly, this study argues, presents messages that are quite opposite to Leviticus’ exoteric “anti-degenerate,” “Traditionalist” pronouncements. Rather it would appear that Holy Place in the Tent of Meetings is possibly a reference to sacred prostitution as we will discuss in the chapter entitled Jewish Notions of “Cleanliness” and “Holiness:” The Aryan as “Discharge,” “Leprosy” and “Holy” Prostitute. There Yahweh is given access to “unblemished sheep.”
This “two-faced” presentation, where a piety cult conceals a Bacchus cult, is not unique to Leviticus, but rather a feature of JEM. It is a feature it seems especially pronounced among the more complex, more “pious appearing,” and longer abiding forms of JEM, from the Christ story, to the destruction of Sodom appearing in Genesis 19 to central parabolic elements of Holocaust propaganda. Nevertheless, as everywhere in the Biblical works, even the ostensibly “tribal” Hebrew Bible, we don’t find an endogamous race of Jews, but one, as David, eager to marry into powerful Aryan Benjamite tribes.
Here, as now, the Melting Pot is venerated among Jews. The stern Leviticus, which orders the killing of men for picayune offenses, such as speaking ill of HaShem/Yahweh, is “open borders.” There, the Israelites, who are distinct from Jews, are commanded: “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am Yahweh your God.”
Also the language here is characteristically deceptive and nothing can be trusted. Without a careful review of the Hebrew, the meaning here cannot be fully derived. Take for instance the line: “No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am Yahweh.” The word for “close relative” here is sheer, שְׁאֵר, meaning “relatives,” “flesh and blood” but also “meat,” and “food.” In Leviticus we also find the related word, shaarah, שַׁאֲרָה, meaning “kinswoman.”  Possibly, as well, shaarah meaning “kinswoman” is related to the name and figure of Sarah, שָׂרָה, and the word saarah, שׂעֲרָה, meaning “hair” as well as the word sa’iyr, שָׂעִיר, meaning “goat” and “hair.” Also, in some cases, one can scarcely fathom how typically innocuous English translations were derived.
Regardless, this study argues that an incest motive emerges in JEM as a way of slandering racial endogamy, whether appearing in the common media trope that racist Southerners are inbred or in parable.  Thus “No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations” maybe a remark against racial endogamy among the Israelites. And this theme does appear to emerge saliently in Leviticus as this study discusses. In Leviticus it appears that multiple metaphors will emerge for Aryans indicating them as “leprosy” and their non-Jewish offspring or seed as unclean “discharges.”
Leviticus’ provisions against bestiality may be understood similarly. There one is bid not to have sex with behemah, בְּהֵמָה, or “cattle,” yet cattle here are Aryans. For instance, the great Behemoth, בְּהֵמוֹת, appearing in the book of Job, whose name is taken from behemah, appears there clearly as a metaphor for the Aryan figure of Job himself, contrasted with the Semitic and serpentine Leviathan.
Hence a similar trope of rural men having sex with their livestock, appearing in JEM may, in some cases, have similar significance. In Woody Allen’s 1972 film Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex but Were Afraid to Ask we see Doug Ross, a Jewish doctor played by Gene Wilder, fall in love with a sheep named Daisy. It is almost certain that the sheep is intended as an Aryan and others naming clues in the film appear to corroborate this.
This desire to forbid the sexual interactions of Aryans among themselves, albeit esoterically, is meaningful. Here a metaphor emerges in the Hebrew Bible of a camp of Aryans or Israelites as livestock animals sustaining the Fire God Yahweh located in a central slaughter house or “Tent of Meeting.” Here the word for “meeting” in Tent of Meeting is moed, מוֹעֵד, which may mean “assembly,” “feast” or “festival” so a sense of eating or consumption is conveyed as well.
It may also mean “appointed time,” “time,” or “season” so a Saturnian sense of harvest is also conveyed. Indeed, here grains as well as livestock are sacrificed to Yahweh. In fact this feeding or Consumption Motif is perhaps even relayed in the metaphor of the Desert, which in the Hebrew is midbar, מִדְבָּר, meaning both “desert” and “mouth.” The Book of Numbers puts it thusly: “Yahweh’s anger burned against Israel, and He made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until the whole generation who had done evil in His sight was gone.”
The slaughter occurring in the Tent of Meeting is metaphorical. The interest is in giving Yahweh or Jewry access to the best brides or breeding stock. Here, as well, the sheep like “Israelites” are commanded to deny themselves the same “food” or reproductive relationships or to regard these things as unclean. For instance, Leviticus 7:25 says: “Anyone who eats the fat of an animal from which a food offering may be presented to Yahweh must be cut off from their people.”
In Exodus 13:2 Yahweh says to Moses: “Consecrate (set apart) to Me every firstborn male. The firstborn from every womb among the Israelites belongs to Me, both of man and beast.” Firstborns, esoterically are understood as “Josephs” or Aryans. Esoterically an intense sense of sexual and racial jealousy appears in Leviticus where Yahweh asserts ownership over Aryan sexual resources or “livestock.”
More evidence in the Hebrew corroborate the livestock here as metaphors for humans. In Leviticus, as elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, livestock animals are offered as olah, עֹלָה, or “burnt offerings.” In the Hebrew Bible, we find this curious word ishsheh, אִשָּׁ֔ה. It means “woman, “wife,” “female” in the Biblical Hebrew. In the Modern Hebrew ishsheh means, strikingly, “woman” but also “burnt offering” and “sacrifice.”
In Leviticus 10 two of Aaron’s own son are “accidentally” consumed by Yahweh’s fire for offering “unauthorized” or “foreign” fire before Yahweh. It is meaningful that they are Aaron’s oldest sons. Here very likely a firstborn motif appears indicating them Aryan and Aryans as sacrificial livestock. There are two sons which complicates the metaphor but the names may be a clue: Nadab and Abihu. The names said together might mean something closer to “volunteer/sacrifice father” or “volunteer/sacrifice her father.”
It’s the speculation of this study that the Hebrew word ab, appearing as an element in these names, and meaning father in Hebrew, is related to the Sumerian ab in ancient Sumerian, meaning semen and fresh water. It’s the conclusion of this study, fresh water, retaining this genetic aspect or symbolism, reoccurs in the JEM as a reference to Aryan blood.
Regardless the death of Nadab and Abihu are treated dispassionately as if they were indeed mere animal sacrifices. Yahweh tells Aaron and his remaining younger sons that they will die if they mourn for these sacrificial sons. This speaks to a sort of steely Jewish indifference toward sexual and racial competitors or the decline of Aryans founding groups.
There is incredible irony here considering that Leviticus also is famous for its prohibitions against Moloch. Where it is said “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Moloch, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.” Contemporary mythographers commonly connect Moloch to the Carthaginian Baal-Hammon, Saturn or Cronus based on descriptions of these Gods. All are proto-Jewish Gods according to the conclusions of this study.
Some believe Biblical accounts of sacrifice suggestive of the idea that Yahweh emerged from a Moloch cult. But this seems incorrect. The existence of a distinctive Moloch among the pantheons of the ancient word is thin to non-existent. Moloch, as an notion that has come down to us, is almost certainly a scriptural creation possibly developed as a generic Aryan God. As well extra-Biblical sources seem to have colored him.
For instance, a rabbinical tradition attributed to the Yalkout of Rabbi Simeon, estimated to having been written at some point between the 13th and 15th century, indicates that the theoretical idol of Moloch was hollow and comprised of seven compartments. The first compartment was filled with flour, the second with turtle-doves, the third with an ewe, the fourth with a ram, the fifth with a calf, the sixth with an ox and the third with a human child. Then the idol was heated as an oven killing its occupants.
These ingredients, as well as the “Saturnian” number of seven, seem taken directly from Leviticus and the Hebrew Bible more generally where sacrifices to the clear fire God Yahweh are described. Whether this supports or damages the case that the Yahweh cult emerged from Moloch is difficult to say. Evidence of the original Biblical text, though, suggests it as an example of CEP or Conscious Ethnic Projection.
If so, it is not dissimilar in its way from the connection of the figure of Cain to the “Eternal Wandering Jew” in the Medieval period even if this latter connection appeared out of ignorance. This study asserts that the agricultural figure of Cain, contrasted with the Shepherd figures of Abel and Seth, is an Aryan, if fallen figure. Both with Moloch and Cain, along with figures like Apollyon, Amalek, Haman and Gog and Mog, we may find Biblical “hate objects” by which Christian Aryans are compelled to direct their psychic energies at a target without understanding that target to be a representation of Aryans.
Only one mention of Moloch of eight in the Hebrew Bible mentions fire. But in those passages it also seems to indicate a solar God: “[The Jewish King Josiah] also desecrated Topheth in the Valley of Ben-hinnom so that no one could sacrifice his son or daughter in the fire to Molech.”. The phrase translated in English as “Valley of Ben-hinnom” is, perhaps appropriately, gay, גַּיְא, which means “valley” and may be related to the word goy, גוי. It may as well represent another vaginal reference to Gentiles.
The line that follows says: “And took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entrance of the house of the LORD, by the chamber of Nethan-melech the officer, which was in the precincts; and he burned the chariots of the sun with fire.” That Moloch himself was a solar God was an influential view advance by the now obscure 16th century English academic John Spenser in Lex transitum per ignem, in honorem Molechi prohibens, yet appears to have been later ignored by 19th and 20th century thinkers perhaps taking their lead from Rabbinical reports.
When animals are described as sacrificed to Yahweh, we find clear language. They are animals being burnt for or even in the fire God that is Yahweh. The slaughtering of the animal is shachat, שָׁחַט, meaning “to slaughter” or “to beat.” Indeed, the animals themselves are described as olah, עֹלָה, or “burnt offerings” even prior to being slain or burnt. Yet no such references are made when Moloch is mentioned. There the language is much more innocuous.
Where one is indicated as sacrificing to Moloch in English translations, the Hebrew word is abar, עָבַר, which may mean “alienate,” “pass over,” “through,” or “by.” The identical word abar is used to describe Joshua “crossing” the river Jordan which has a genetic symbolism related to crossbreeding with Aryan or non-Jewish outgroups this study argues. Hence prohibitions with Moloch are ultimately commands to Aryan Israelites against copulation with or veneration of the male Aryan type or the race Moloch represents. This would conform to messaging in Leviticus that desires unblemished Aryan lambs set aside for Yahweh and insists on admixture.
This is clearer In Leviticus 20:5, the Israelites are prohibited from “prostituting” themselves to Moloch with the verb zanah, זָנָה, which means “to commit fornication” or “be a harlot.” In the preceding lines 20:2 to 20:4, one is forbidden from “giving” their offspring to Molech. The verb here is nathan, נָתַן, meaning to “give,” “set” and “put.” Likewise the word for offspring here is zera, זֶרַע, which may also mean “seed” or “semen.” In fact, occurrences of the word in Leviticus are commonly translated as seed or semen. In Leviticus 15, in particular, there are four occurrences that are almost always translated as semen or seminal fluid.
Moloch is also connected to Baal such as in Jeremiah 32:35 where it is said: “They have built the high places of Baal in the Valley of Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Moloch.” The title Baal appears to be an Aryan identifier, this study argues, equivalent to Jupiter at least to the extent this title appears alone without modifying additional names that may indicate it Semitic. The Carthaginian Baal-Hammon, for example, is distinct and appears to be a development similar to Amun-Ra in Egypt, where we find an Aryan sun God or class conjoined with a rising proto-Jewish one. Hammon is another name of Amun. Amun, whose name means “hidden one,” appears to be a Semitic and Chthonic God perhaps inspiring the exclamation “Amen,” this study argues.
Lastly the name Moloch or Molek, מֹלֶךְ, is derived from melek, מֶלֶךְ, meaning king and sans a Jewish modifier, like Baal, is possibly an Aryan Identifier. For example, this also appears to be the root word for angel, malak: an angel, מַלְאַךְ, who appears to be a servile Aryan figures in relation to a Jewry or Yahweh. Likewise, nobility, kings, rams and lions, in general, unless specified through symbols as Jewish, appear to be categorized as Aryan in JEM. Biblical words commonly translated into English as Lord, Yahweh, Adonai, Kyrios and El (as opposed to the plural Elohim) appear to be exceptions to this. As everywhere in JEM, context and possible modifying language is important. Here it seems the English word “Lord” was at least originally deployed in English translations by persons knowledgeable in JEM. But this seems natural.
 Leviticus 19:29
 Leviticus 19:29
 Leviticus 19:1
 As distinct from actual historical events, to the extent they can be accurately determined or agreed upon by “non-biased” or unintimidated historians. Though we accept bias as an unavoidable factor in discussions of history.
 Leviticus 19:34
 Leviticus 20:15
 See the chapter Arthurian Legend as Deleterious Myth in book #4 of this series.
 It’s never mentioned that Doug Ross is a Jew yet it appears esoterically indicated. For instance, the name Douglas means “Dark river.” Here the name mentioned is Doug, isolating the element meaning “Dark.” Name meanings like “Dark” and “Black” are commonly Jewish Identifiers in JEM. These name meanings are possibly connected to the concept of Yahweh as “black” or “dark” as he is described in the Song of Solomon. Ross, meaning “headland” or “rose,” is a common Jewish name. Gene Wilder, a Jewish actor, “presents” Jewish in the film but “Doug” may be our most concrete clue.
 Numbers 32:13
 Attributed, for example, by Moses Margoliouth, A Pilgrimage to the Land of my Fathers 1850:125
2 thoughts on “Red herrings in Leviticus and Moloch as example of Jewish “Projection””