Feedback received from this article has inspired me to support the research with the development of this REM Wiki – an unofficial offshoot of the REM project.
As the title suggests, what follows is my argument in favor of the existence of the multi-millennia-old symbolic language (re)discovered by Mark Brahmin. I find it pertinent to make this case primarily because of the resentful science deniers who, out of jealousy, wish to pretend that the Apollo-sphere is somehow not at the forefront of science and technology; in reality, this fact is not only self-evident but will be continuously truer over time as more elites enter Apollonian ranks. To illustrate what are the 2 more famous examples of this fact, the symbolic language is the most significant advancement in recent semiotic and cultural research, and the multi-chain is, despite the emergence of smart contracts and NFTs, the only blockchain technology of significance, since Bitcoin.
Before I make the argument, I will first address the point that I am, indeed, not an expert in said language. Be that as it may, one does not require expertise or fluency in a particular language in order to determine that the language exists. A concept can be deemed to exist or to be real when its definitional criteria are met. This brings us to an important question:
What Is a Language?
The most fundamental and basic definition of a language is any coherent system of patterns which reliably convey meaning. In the case of spoken languages, we are referring to a coherent system of meaningful vocal patterns. In the case of body language, we are referring to a coherent system of meaningful bodily patterns (e.g. facial expressions, hand gestures, posture, … ). In the case of the symbolic language, we are referring to a coherent system of meaningful symbolic patterns, the most common of which I will provide examples for in order to empirically support my argument. However, we must first establish the definitional criteria of the symbolic language, so that we may evaluate whether they are met; this is the means by which the existence of the symbolic language can be determined. To further give credit to Mark, I will dub this method the “Brahmin Test”.
The Brahmin Test
The Symbolic Language Is Real if:
- it is composed of marks, signs, or designs (collectively referred to as symbols) which represent, signify, or are understood as representing an idea, object, or relationship by association, resemblance or convention;
- its symbols repeat in a predictable manner (collectively referred to as symbolic patterns);
- its symbolic patterns interact, interrelate, or interdepend, so as to form a complex whole, such as a message, narrative, or story (which are collectively referred to as symbolic systems);
- its symbolic systems relate to one another in an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent manner;
Let’s apply the Brahmin Test. Does the symbolic language satisfy the 1st criterion? Serpents, the caduceus, messengers, eldest sons, identification as “alien” or as “the other”, competition over fertile young women, solar and lunar light, fire and rebirth, and tribal indicators are all examples of symbols. We can further support this claim with the fact that the meaning of these symbols are agreed upon by both Indo-European and Semitic civilizations. Granted, they use these symbols to moralize their respective tribes and to demoralize each other, but the fact remains that the meanings of the symbols are mutually agreed upon.
In the Ancient Greco-Roman world, it was common for the hero to triumph over a serpentine creature, such as
Hercules vs Hydra or Apollo vs Typhon. To contrast, Semites identify with serpentine creatures and this is illustrated in Jewish stories such as the serpent’s triumph over Adam and Moses’ use of serpents to defeat the Pharaoh’s magicians. Case in point, Egypt was itself a Semitic civilization and they, too, identified with serpentine creatures, as demonstrated by the Pharaoh’s crown (among many other elements of Ancient Egyptian culture) which clearly signifies a cobra. The use of symbolism is, therefore, unquestionable and, as such, the 1st criterion is, without a doubt, satisfied both rationally and empirically.
Thanks to feedback received for this article, it was brought to my attention that the Herculean epic is an example of JEM, rather than AIM. Hence, it has been crossed out.
Hydra is the Indo-European in the Herculean epic, and not Hercules (who shares his name with Herakles, otherwise known as the Semitic Kronos). This is corroborated by the meaning of the word “Hydra” which refers to water and symbolizes blood. Given the clarity of water, I further suspect that purity, i.e. “blood purity”, is implied in this instance of water symbolism in juxtaposition to the promotion of admixture in JEM and Jewish culture. This would be consistent with the National Socialist origin and ideology of the Marvel Universe’s fictional organization “Hydra” and the expression “Hail Hydra”.
Consistent with this logic is Hercules’ own admixture who is half-man and half-god. His genesis also follows the general pattern of cuckoldry of Abraham and Jesus’ “father” Joseph, the results of which are invariably Semitic half-gods. Hercules’ 12 Labors are also reminiscent of Jesus’ 12 disciples.
Does the symbolic language satisfy the 2nd criterion? To prove the existence of the language’s symbolic patterns, I will demonstrate the repetition of various symbols between the story of Abraham and the story of Prometheus (2012). In the story of Abraham, we begin our story with a man named Abram (“high father”) who is married to a woman he refers to as Sarai (“my princess”). A powerful figure which lurks in the shadows called Yahweh (the progenitor of the Jews) offers to make a deal with Abram, through a Seraph (angel or winged serpentine messenger), and the deal goes something like this: I, Yahweh, will impregnate your infertile wife if you agree to raise the child as your own and, in exchange, I will make of my offspring a new kind of human who will remain distinct or “alien” to other nations. So Abram signs the deal by mutilating his genitalia and becomes Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarai becomes Sarah (“princess”). If that’s not emasculating enough, Yahweh “exits Sarah’s tent” (wink-wink) as Sarah laughs at the idea of her getting pregnant. Yahweh then turns to her, in front of Abraham, and says “keep laughing, you’ll see!” In conclusion, Mazel Tov: the Jewish Nation was thus born.
Now, let’s summarize the story of Prometheus. Charlie is married to the infertile Elizabeth. A powerful figure which lurks in the shadows called David (the progenitor of the J– err… serpentine aliens and “coincidentally” is named after a Jewish hero) collects alien sperm and tricks Charlie into drinking it. The infected Charlie then has sex with Elizabeth who then gives birth to a new kind of species who will remain alien to other species. In addition to the commonality of the trope, Charlie (who bears a European name) is basically cuckolded by David who impregnates Elizabeth (& also bears a European name). In both stories, we have the Indo-European figure being cuckolded and emasculated. To those of you who think this is all a coincidence, let me tell you more. The Engineers speak the proto-Indo-European (i.e. Aryan) language and are described as a defeated species. Later in the movie, it is revealed that they died at the hands of the aliens. At the very end of the movie, one of the Ary- err.. Engineers awakens from hibernation and attacks Elizabeth; her alien son comes to her defense and vanquishes the Engineer by inserting his tongue (which happens to be a reproductive genital) inside the Engineer’s mouth. This explicitly sexual act is furthering the Engineer’s emasculation who, in turn, gives birth to another alien. One’s a fluke, two’s a coincidence, and three’s a trend. There is no basis to the claim that it is all just a giant accident. There are too many details that one would have to “coincidentally” get right.
Back to the 2nd criterion: are there symbolic patterns? The answer is clearly yes. Both of those stories can be further analyzed in much greater depth and there are also many more cinematic examples we will not get into, e.g. (Karate Kid, Star Wars, etc). For the purposes of my argument, my summaries are sufficient to unambiguously and unmistakably determine symbolic patterns. Let’s move on to the 3rd criterion.
Does the symbolic language satisfy the 3rd criterion? Absolutely. All civilizations who have used the symbolic language have used it to convey a moralizing story for their respective peoples. In the early Greco-Roman world they used this symbolic language in their development of myth to moralize their gens, a concept which was used at the time in the way that the word “race” is used today (i.e. common genesis); Mark refers to this action as Aryan Inner Moralization (AIM). When Jews do this, he refers to that action as Jewish Esoteric Moralization (JEM). In either case, the symbolic language is used intelligently to form stories, tropes, parables, all of which interact, interdepend, and interrelate to moralize a people. Thus, the 3rd criterion is satisfied.
Does the symbolic language satisfy the 4th criterion? Undoubtedly. Both Greco-Roman and Jewish mythology comprise many stories, all of which follow a certain order (many of them chronological in order). Both mythologies have a story of genesis (Hyperboreans vs Hebrews), an ideal figure (Apollo vs Yahweh), and conflicts in which their respective tribes are victorious in some way whether in battle or in sexual competition. Therefore, these stories relate to one another in an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent manner. The 4th criterion of the Brahmin Test is satisfied.
The symbolic language has passed all 4 criteria of the Brahmin Test. Thus, I have demonstrated, despite my limited knowledge and fluency of the symbolic language, that it is real. Those who deny that which is real are necessarily reality deniers, and such is what I consider those who deny the existence of the symbolic language to be: anti-intellectual, unsophisticated, backwards, and jealous. One need not agree with Mark’s political opinions to recognize the scientific validity of his work. The science speaks for itself.
In the interest of clarity and wider appeal within the scientific community, I would like to present the following suggestion. It is rather tedious to refer to the symbolic language as “the symbolic language”; spoken languages, for example, are denoted by their respective originating ethnic groups (English, French, German). For purely marketing reasons, giving that language a name will go a long way. While I understand that the term Racial Esoteric Moralization (REM) exists, it ultimately refers to the action or process of moralizing rather than the language itself.
It would seem to me that synthesizing a compound word from Greek or Latin root words would be the way to go. I think some collective brain-storming is in order for this task and to contribute to that end, I propose the term “Semaglossia”.
Sema- from the Greek “sign” and -glossia from the Greek “tongue”. These roots are consistent with their English usage in the words “semaphore“, “semiotics“, “idioglossia“, and “polyglot“. Someone, like Mark, who can communicate in Semaglottic would be known as a semaglot.