Thursday, July 30, 2009

16 How to Immobilize Living Flesh

The peace that sprang into being through violence has begun to break down. However, not everyone sees it that way. After all, the breakdown has not yet affected the upper class skiing down the remains of alpine glaciers and expecting the supersonic train that has run off the tracks to jump back on track.

Neither has the breakdown had much effect on the young and elderly generations, the first as flesh extruded from irresponsible and oversexed parents, the second unable to see that a time comes when the only activity that remains for a body to do is waiting for death. When that time of waiting comes, can one really do no more than wait? The late Picasso, a famous 20th century artist, counts among his last works a self-portrait in which he stares with stark and anxious eyes at death, his face enough to scare any child. Unlike a child, the artist appears to have forgotten that his parent is the universe, and that the spheres of the universe may sing a lullaby.

Though clearly one’s flesh and mind are codependent, the mind may nevertheless transcend the flesh it depends on by instituting a community. Such a community will outlast the individuals it is made of—just like a bee or ant colony may survive a bear come thieving for its honey. However, whereas an individual bee’s consciousness (as surmised by this author) makes the colony be one body of its queen, human consciousness is to each individual. For an individual to become part of a community, he-she has to make a voluntary decision to join one. Moreover, the joining of the community has to be convincing to its already existing members. The deed that convinces consists of two interlocking acts:

1) The individual gives an oath of allegiance to the community that contains the words “I will prove my oath by dying a self-sacrificial death, which I will dedicate to the community”; and

2) Such self-sacrificial death is an on-going practice at the community, which guarantees that the oath of the newcomers is guaranteed by its doability.

Breaking the oath by meeting death through an “act of god” dissolves the community if the majority of individuals decide to go along. On the other hand, once such a community institutes itself through a series of founding acts (a wonder of human perception and will to institute the perceived), it is strongly resistant to dissolution, simply because with the death of the community there must die all the individuals who contributed to its making.

Peace through violence was instituted by neo-Christianity, which usurped arch-Christianity about the time of the 11th century. The founding act of violence was the removal of self-sacrifice (symbolized by Johns of whom Jesus was one) from Earth to heaven. With no active religious act (self-sacrifice) to cause any second thoughts among those serving secular power, the top of the pyramid became the only power on Earth. The original motivation for the founding violence came from the power grab of medieval princes and barons, who then replaced resistant arch-Christianity with a pliable neo-Christianity. The so-called Ponzi or pyramid schemes illustrate the power and wealth grab perfectly.

While great power and wealth came to the princes, demoralization gripped and dumbed-down the populace. The dumbing-down of sexual responsibility is witnessed by the impossibility of stopping SPAM selling a thousand ways to have a sexual orgasm. Those who respond to this are mostly post-pubescents. In spite of having consciousness, self-control (let alone self-sacrifice) has never been taught them. This is not to say there are no exceptions, but the existing situation gives evidence of having been left to its “animal” tracks. As we know, animal communities are unable to transcend themselves for lack of consciousness.

The same may be said about aged flesh. When the neo-Christian church began its drive to oust John from Earth by renaming him Jesus, pushing him up into the clouds, and teaching that Jesus had put an end to further need for sacrifice, not everyone agreed with the “good news”. However, successful resistance at this early time was nigh impossible. Neo-Christianity came equipped with priests-psychologists paid and backed by the sword of princes. The “good news” proselytes soon persuaded all doubters that Jesus had “saved” everyone from further responsibility for having been born a human being. Humankind could relax and leave the job of providing social order to Jesus’ intermediaries, the priests and their supporter, the prince.

To cover the traces of their lies about the “resurrection” (it never happened), neo-Christianity began to distract the attention of the populace by preaching that “at the end of days” everyone was destined to rise from the dead. As if to prove that this was not fantasy, neo-Christian priests preached that material self-sacrifice—that is, death by one’s own will—was against the laws of God (Jesus, Spirit), and punished the relatives of those who took self-sacrifice to the limit by depriving them of the property of the one who had sacrificed him- or herself.

Over a period of time (the so-called middle ages until today) the mind became immobilized and as dead weight as the pound. Such a state of the mind affected the young as much as the old, and while the old bore the responsibility for this state of affairs, the young bore the babies. The wealthy, for their part, bore no burdens but fear. As we have noted, those who incinerated Basil (Johns-Jesus) got over their fears of revenge. After all, since the rulers had no inhibitions to turn their power into violence, they could and did resort to terrorism at their choosing.

There are many examples of state terror. In most cases, the state does not acknowledge any participation in repressions by staying silent. Sometimes the silence is all the greater, because the acts occur in small states whose language is not English and whose connections with the outside world are limited.

One such country with limited outreach is Latvia. It is easy in Latvia to keep things quiet and unknown. For example, one Adolfs Buķis, a Latvian national, who in 1993 took his life in front of the Latvian Freedom Monument in Riga to protest the rising corruption in Latvia. He was quickly declared mentally unbalanced, and the promised investigation of the motives for his self-sacrifice never occurred. Though a number of news articles about Buķis death did appear, these are now all buried in archival stacks (in 1993 the internet was not widely available in Latvia) and unavailable by searching the internet.

Another case of government violence is illustrated by the case of Ken Saro-Wiwa, a writer from Nigeria, who in 1995 was hanged by the Nigerian government for protesting the environmental damage caused by the Shell Company for the financial benefit of Shell and high Nigerian government officials. See

In 2006, Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian journalist, was killed for her criticism of President Vladimir Putin and his war against the Chechnya people. There are of course thousands of such cases.

Jesus’ death and his removal to heaven makes all self-sacrifices—according to the claims of neo-Christianity—irrelevant. because Jesus was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

15 Live Happy, Make Others Happy

After the Johns (innumerable generations of sons of the Sun) had circled their respective communities around the Sun (aka the Big Other of psychologists and philosophers) and secured social stability through the institution of informal self-sacrifice*, there originated a saying that expressed an observation and a sense of accomplishment: “Live happy and you will make others happy”.

The echoes of this saying have many variations. One speaks of smiling and discovering that the whole then world smiles with you. Another finds its way into Jefferson’s phrase in the American Declaration of Independence: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident that all Men are created Equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Nevertheless, we note that these statements about happiness appear to be valid only under conditions of social and political stability, i.e., social control achieved by either charismatic self-sacrifice or by violence. Since the vertical State was constructed by visiting military (and bureaucratic) violence upon its horizontal predecessors, the Johns, the descendants of Johns are gene-** and honor-bound to rediscover such not-violent acts as will deflate and end militarist violence.

Today the survivors or the “children” of Johns are all who understand that the neo-Christian spiritual order is a coo coos egg. If the forebears of Johns Children once fell for the trick of the cynic, who was able to lay his egg in their nest simply by calling out: “Cook-coo! Look! Heaven! Believe it!”, today they have the experience not to fall for the trick. However, it remains an open question as to what tactic they are to use to reclaim for themselves a political position.

One idea that presents itself as doable is to found a settlement of not-voters at the periphery of the corporate “democratic” society, i.e., a settlement that collectively refuses to acknowledge the corporate order as a democratic order. If this community does not vote because it is systematically coherent (though still only an egg waiting to hatch), and at the same time thinks of itself as a community of Johns Children, then it is (implicitly) is a political party

Another doable community may justify itself not only by being not-voters, but define their systematic coherence as one interested in reestablishing authority over death. This community may begin as a community of elderly people. Given the orthodox dogma that calls voluntary death “suicide”, the elderly have a special interest in reestablishing their authority over the young and inexperienced, the neo-Christian priesthood, and regain their authority as peacemakers and facilitators of social cohesion.

In short, waiting for the moment of the final collapse of our dysfunctional orthodoxy does not mean practicing political ennui. Time spent waiting may be used in activating self-conscious inactivity, as the examples mentioned above show—by popularizing the notion of staying away from voting booths at election time, by recognizing death to have a creative social function. One may ad communities of Johns Children that refuse to become obscene consumers (but occasionally practice fasts), ones that practice sexual unions that result in no children, but which propagate themselves as clones. Such communities will precondition society to life in a not-violent society, even as it maintains awe for life that violence has dismissed.

At the level of recent history, the first major crack in the “modern” system occurred with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Though capitalists celebrated the collapse of the Soviet Union as their victory, they forgot that the breakdown of the Soviet order preceded their own. Moreover, the collapse of the Soviets occurred because they could not block their publics from being witness (through their television sets) to the seemy side of the West’s success. The disappointment of the Soviet public over its inability to join the West in consumer binge, i.e., unpunished plunder, set the stage for the collapse of the Soviet bureaucracy that was unwilling to lead by example.

The second crack occurred in the fall of 2008, when the Lehman Brothers Bank, one of the world’s largest, collapsed in the Unites States of America. The collapse sent a wave of panic through the world’s financial systems. Governments ordered their printing presses to grease the banking systems that had locked up their gears as lenders and become savings institutions of and for its investors.

The current economic collapse in the West is not a mere cyclical dip on capitalist charts, but initiates a social meltdown to be replaced by communities of not-violent terror, i.e., terror come to mean but another name for self-sacrifice.*** Of course, we will hear a thousand denials that the system is breaking down, and hear a thousand accusations of fear mongering. Even so, theirs is a militarist presumption of authority and claim that the house they built is the best house ever built. The state (existence) of society no longer can accept this argument as convincing.

The arch-Christians achieved not-violent peace with what psychologists (those raised under the aegis of neo-Christian dogma) call the “death drive”. While the arch-Christians had not heard of quantum mechanics, they understood that the gap (I call it the “possible unknowable”) in our understanding was real and for ever and we had to bridge it by faith. The quantum jump of the arch-Christians was doable through the act of self-sacrifice practiced by Johns and their Children. On the other hand, the neo-Christian act of sending John (as Jesus) to heaven made for a gap that makes 1% of the population oligarchs, 99% poor and worse.

To sum up: the “death drive” stands for a space within which a human being may exercise freedom not determined by choice of mere survival. A human being may say “no” and refuse to do his duty as writ by the laws or demanded by habit. It is true that the same human being may say “yes” to the law and do as ordered, however, it is the “no” that results in the collapse of the house of cards. It is the “no” that offers an opportunity for others to say likewise. It is the refusal to act that is at the root of a community premised on not-violent terror.

*The first most likely routine form of the self-sacrifice to become instituted in society was among the elderly through their refusal to consume food. Evidence of this is seen among the Cathars, re: the “endura”, and statues of Budhist monks .
**“Gene-bound” = an assumption that life is an unrestrainable force, and though it cannot eliminate death, it may outlive it by outwitting it.
***The injunction “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is based on our knowing that at times our selves come as monsters in human dress. This is why self-sacrifice must forgive our monster-like neighbors as did John-Jesus, when he told those who had come to watch him being thrown into the pit of fire: “Brothers and sister, forgive them, for they know not what they do”.

Monday, July 20, 2009

14 The Unmaking of Jesus (cont.)

The once upon a time the sacred king became a mere king. Some call this mere king a “naked king”. Whatever, this “new” king had two fronts to fight on.

The first front was against the people whom the king had abandoned. No longer bound by the charisma of self-sacrifice, the people fragmented into groups, some of which came to believe that the community was an unnecessary bother, except of course as a military group or mafia that has the power to exploit others. To one such group belonged the “new” king, who maintained peace through force of arms.

The king’s bookkeepers and tax collectors, the Jews, were in the forefront of the second front. This front had the advantage in that it not only helped the secular king rule, but allowed him to “divide and rule”. The king was able to deflect the anger of the people from himself to his tax collectors. This is why, when the king’s position became weak for lack of charisma, the king did not stand in the way of the people venting their anger against the Jews.

Nevertheless, no “pogrom ” happened without the king having a hand on the bridle. To escape the people’s wrath, the Jews hid among the wandering Johns, the group that they themselves had once emerged from. The more successful among the latter, having lost their status as perpetual pilgrims and wandering monks, had settled down as innkeepers. The less fortunate had become mercenary soldiers or beggars. Whatever their personal fortunes, the Johns-Jews knew whence their origin. The bond between the John and Jew held for a long time—until the Johns were demoralized to a degree that lost them their self-awareness, and they became converted to neo-Christianity and joined the mob of those demoralized by the secular kings.

Because the Jews knew how to write, they were able to use writing to defend themselves against both the secular king and the people he had demoralized. The Jews began to collect and record customs of the community. The mere recording of them encouraged the observance of respectful conduct. The Jews called the recorded customs “laws”. However, if in the beginning, the “laws” were much like bookkeeping, merely recorded customs, later, these “laws” became refined through a process known as critique. Obviously, some “laws” were critiqued as being more sophisticated than others and were, thus, made amenable to a greater variety of interpretations than other laws.

This is how books came about—the Codex Hanmurabi, for example , which displeased the king and his court in the extreme. Given that the king had given up self-sacrifice and by so doing had also given up his exceptional status (his status above the law), the writing of laws into codices meant that he became subject to law as everyone else. Which is why, to maintain his privileged position, the king needed the support of arms, but arms needed the “moral” support of a story different than that of Iananna and Basil. Even so, the new story, while repeating many of the elements present in its old story, needed a notably different ending: it would end not with self-sacrifice, but the end of self-sacrifice—forever if possible.

[John] Basil was thrown into the pit of fire in 1084 or 1185. The latter is the preferable date, because then the raison de etre for the Crusade against Constantinople is better explained. It clears away the lies that claim that the Turks destroyed the city in 1453. Indeed, the crusade of 1204 and destruction of Constantinople at that time cleared the stage and put an end to arch-Christianity. This, in turn, enabled the introduction of a very different, a self-sacrifice denying, theology.

The next two hundred years that followed 1204, were consumed with wars of repression or neo-Christianization: the Albigensian Crusade, Crusade against the Balts, Crusades on other continents, indeed with the brutal persecution of everyone who was associated with arch-Christianity. This period proved violence and brutality to be such successful tools with regard to repression that even dictators of the 20th century continued to exercise it. This is why the terror of Hitlerite, Stalinist, and Maoist states vied with each other in as near a “total” slaughter of their (state created virtual) “enemies”.

However, the logistics, especially the speed of communications, had so changed society, that violence, though not ended, was shown to be failed policy.

In the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries, state violence was a marvel to behold. Arch-Christendom was eliminated beyond recalling, except as a theoretical shadow in a mathematician’s (Anatoly Fomenko) calculations. The followers of the Sun and her priests, the Johns, were no longer. While for a time the numbers of Jews increased due to the swelling of their ranks by the Johns and their “children” fleeing from neo-Christian attempts to remove them from society and put them into insane asylums, the pogroms caught up with the Jews in the 20th century. With neither kings, dictators, nor democracies needing them as their tax collectors any longer, secularism turned on Jews with such ferocity that only a perverted religion could muster. Of course, by that time the Jews—deprived of history except as myth—had changed their story of origin completely. In fact, those who survived the holocaust adopted a mythical story as objective history, turned to violence to enforce the perception of the myth as reality, and abandoned the universalism of their forebears.

As for neo-Christianity, its leader, the Pope, became all pomp, ceremony, and forgetfulness of self-sacrifice. Most neo-Christian popes die in bed of natural causes. Moreover, Jesus, become John Basil crucified rather than burnt, sits safely in heaven and pontificates over a planet Earth in shambles.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

13 The Unmaking of Jesus (cont.)

The story of the murder of the Bogomil leader Basil by the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I is a story well known in the 12th century when it took place. It is not so today. Today many people are likely to be shocked to hear that what happened to Basil is a story that parallels closely to what happened to Jesus. There is a reason and explanation for this.

The story of Jesus was created around the story of Basil. The dreadful events that overtook Basil provided a ready available armature for the story for then emerging neo-Christian church founded by the Byzantine emperor Alexius I. Of course, the new story is reaches us not only inverted in the reasons for it happening, but the main cathartic events were changed from burning to being nailed to a cross. The reasons for these changes, too, are founded on the need to divert the public’s attention from what really happened.

Most likely these events happened under the rule of the Byzantine empire’s Emperor Alexius I. The Emperor felt compelled to change the story and found a new church and a new religion, for two main reasons.

1. The arch-Christian church, what we today derogatorily call the cult of “pagans”—of which Alexius his predecessors and I had been the sacred kings—had for many years felt alienated from their king. The people had once called their kings “the sacred king”. However, something increasingly unacceptable happened. For several consecutive generations the sacred king began to fail to fulfill his sacred function—which was to act the role of the kingdom’s founding father—by reenacting the founding violent moment by self-sacrificing himself. Since time immemorial, the founding moment (of death and miraculous rebirth) was celebrated during the annual solstice festivals. The festivals, one in winter and one in summer, generally went by their local name, but for the most part retained the root name of the sacred being: John, Yan. We see this practice in such names as Ivan Kapusta, John the Baptist, Yannukah, Hunnapu, Yohammad, and so on. Depending on the age of the sacred king (whether young or old), the length of his reign was determined by priests. Usually the agon, the moment of self-sacrifice, came with an obviously old age.

In any event, the sacred king of the Byzantine empire began to act increasingly as merely a king, that is to say, a man with a standing army who could and often did rob his people, his neighbors, aggrandized himself, and dictated what people should or should not do and think. In short, there occurred mutual alienation between the king’s and the people. Eventually, this alienation reached a stage, where it broke out into a civil war. As part of his war effort, the emperor needed to kill not only the Johns, the wandering priests of arch-Christendom, but also to replace their ideas with ideas of his own.

2. It is probable hat the alienation between the sacred king and the people began when the king began to use a number of the priests to the Sun, as not only his bookkeepers, but collectors of the gifts that the people donated to the temple-palace. These priests, were self-castrated devotees of the Sun, and, thus, not attracted to women for sexual reasons. This made them attentive workers and bookkeepers. Unfortunately, since the priests were such competent gift collectors, the sacred king soon discovered a way to have them collect more gifts than was customary. In time, the word “gift” came to mean “tax”.

At first, the tax was used to build grander temples, which then became the sacred king’s palaces, which of course soon no longer pretended to be temples. As the sacred king abandoned the temple for the palace, he became what today we call a temporal or secular man, an atheist as religiously devoted to materialism, as the sacred king had once been devoted to the aura of charisma that held the community under its umbrage. The temple prostitutes (women who wished to make the temple especially attractive as a place for leaving gifts) became part of the king’s harem. The “gifts” paid for a standing army, employed an increasingly large number of artists and artisans, and so on. Indeed, the king abandoned the ancient practice of self-sacrifice and began to seek ways to escape death altogether. This is what is behind the stories where kings and heroes go out on adventures to seek the magic plant (usually guarded by a serpent), the eating of which will give one immortality.


3. The priests of Iananna (the Johns) learned not only how to do bookkeeping and collect taxes, they needed to invent writing to do so. And they did so. With the invention of writing, the castrates learned not only how to record old stories, but invent new ones. Some of the stories, which the priests invented, did not sit well with the king. He began to fear that they would take power away from him. This fear was the cause for discovering various ways by which to bind the priests closer to the palace and alienate them from the temple.

This is how there developed two factions of priests. One faction stayed with the people. These were the wandering preachers, the Johns. The other faction became known as “Jews”, most likely a word that was semantically connected to words for gifts and taxes. The word “jewel” comes to mind. The Jews necessarily became involved in palace intrigue, while the Johns remained of the people.

Friday, July 17, 2009

12 The Unmaking of Jesus (cont.)

Let us continue with the story.

It was midnight when Iananna reached Great Palace below Earth and the door of the room known as The Heart of the Dead. When Ereshkigal saw Iananna, she exclaimed: “Ha, ha! Naked bitch! Just look at you! What a sorry sight!” Her tone was full of obvious shadenfreude.

There was some truth in what Ereshkigal said. Iananna stood not only naked, but also seemingly burnt out. What had been firm and pointed breasts in the morning, were now hanging long and spent. Moreover, Ereshkigal was dressed in Iananna’s attire. Though Ianannas clothes had lost their color and turned grey, Ereshkigal looked like a queen in them. “Did the Earth get you down during your travels, sister? Here, have a glass of Black John wine. You will feel better.”

Iananna drankthe wine and started for her room, but Ereshkigal blocked her way. “If you please, sister, I would like you to sleep in the barn with the geese tonight,” she said. “Tonight I am having a ball in the great hall of your apartment. All the great stars of the night will be there.”

Iananna was about to ask why Ereshkigal had not invited her, too, when she felt faint (the poison in the wine had taken effect) and she fell.

Ereshkigal’s servants dragged Iananna to the barn, tied her jaws shut as if she were dead, cut off her long braids, tied them as a rope around her waist, and then hung her corpse by this belt on the horns of an old moon. “Sweet dreams, sister,” said Erishkigal with a grin on her face. Then she left for Iananna’s apartment to join the revels of the stars.

When the morning came, the Sun did not rise. John, Iananna’s son, awoke in his earthly home, but when he did not see the Sun, he imagined that he had woken up too early and went back to sleep again. Thus, John slept the whole of the next day. Indeed, he had a strange dream. He dreamt that he awoke in a hole in the ground. He and his mother Iananna lay side by side. He lay with his face up and could see the night sky filled with stars. Iananna, his mother, lay (Oh horror of horrors!) beside him and—in an apparent reversal of roles—suckled on his nipple.

John awoke and understood that his mother was in trouble. However, what was he to do? There was not a sliver of light anywhere. John felt about to see if perhaps his mother really lay beside him, but his hands found nothing to touch. Great fear and anxiety overcame him. However, John was smart enough to take a deep breath. This allowed him to get his bearings and understand he should rise up, no matter how dark the hour, and try find his mother. After all, it was Iananna, who, if he, John, died, would rejuvenate him by giving birth to him again.

Meanwhile, in the barn with the sleeping geese, Iananna slid off the horns of the old Moon. She floated as if dead for three days through the abyss before she was then caught on the horns of the new Moon. As the new Moon rose, Iananna was bathed by the dew and came to life again.

Iananna rose into the sky and a song that resembled a roar greeted her. It was a shout of joy. During the three days of Iananna’s absence, her creation had taken fright. Everyone remembered the three days of darkness as days that sent chills to the bone and stuck in the eyes like glue. The was like a flower opening. People drew a knife across their palms, then pressed the palms against their door as a sign of how much the Sun, Iananna, had been missed and how much she was loved.

Iananna rose more quickly to the zenith that day or so it seemed. She was anxious to see her son John. Like him, she had dreamt a strange dream. In it, she had come to the gates of a cemetery and discovered John to be its gatekeeper. When she wanted to enter, he had blocked her way. “This is no place for you, mother,” he had said. “Not for a thousand lives.”

“By what right do you keep me from passing?” she had asked.

“That of my life,” John replied.

“But don’t you want to live?”

“Of course, I want to live, but if you die there will be no sunrises.”

Iananna had not understood and had tried go past John. John had raised his hands, his palms facing her. They were stained with blood.

Iananna awoke from her dream her heart pounding. She raced up the night sky toward the dawn and then higher toward the zenith from where she could overlook everything on Earth. it was too late. John had died. Though Iananna lifted her skirt and touched John’s crotch, John’s rooster did not crow.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

11 The Unmaking of Jesus 1

Jesus’s name was and sometimes is still pronounced and written as Isa, Esa, Yesa, and comes in innumerable variants. The famous epic known as Ramayana, for example, translates as the journey (or is it pilgrimage?) of one Rama. Since the name Rama is related to the place name Rome, the one meaning “God like”, the other to “a stronghold”, Ramayana may be translated as “the pilgrimage of life” or even “the pilgrimage of Christ”. It is the same with Basil, a name that means “king” in Greek (for interesting associations ). Basil’s self-sacrifice in defense of self-sacrifice served as the basis for the story of Jesus the Crucified. Indeed, Basil the Burnt is Jesus the Crucified, with the crucifixion replacing a pit of fire to remove the event to a time that would not be associated with a practices of the time (early middle ages and the Inquisition).

The name John (Ian, Yan) was once closely associated with the Sumerian Sun Goddess Iananna or Inanna. A similar story with a mother-and-son relationship at its nucleus is the story of the Egyptian Goddess Isis and Jesus or Osiris. Of course, the myths that have come down to us no longer speak of Iananna or Isis as Sun Goddesses, but present them as Goddesses of Love, Fertility, and War. At some point in history male insecurity transmuted itself into a dictatorship and replaced the mother-son unit with that of a single male, who imagined himself as creating the world by masturbation. In our own time, a similar male insecurity prompted the psychologist Freud to suggest that women suffered from “penis envy”.

The masculinization of the Sun is a process associated with the creative process—albeit a negative one. The process of masculinization forces non-violence to suffer belittlement and lies, which in turn results in a perception that non-violence is unnatural. Thus, non-violence needs the reinforcement of “faith”, which is of course unnecessary. Nevertheless, in this way, lies lift violence into prominence, whence it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and creates a violent civilization. The profanation of femaleness does its crude work even in our own day—as a number of fundamentalist sects illustrate.

The refusal to accept non-violence as part of the natural and given order (now become accepted as a tradition beyond disputing) grounds itself in several phenomena:

1. It grounds in the animal kingdom, where nature has evolved life forms, which survive eating other animals—even though the animals would be happy to eat carrion if it were available;
2. It grounds in exponential or unconscious (unchecked and uncheckable) enthusiasm of life for life;
3. It grounds in the envy of male consciousness over female creativity and the unspent energy that after copulation does not result in death (as in the world of insects, for example);
4. It grounds in the failure of conscious intelligence (whether female or male) to realize and actualize male castration;
5. It grounds in a) willful identification of castration with violence; and b) replacement of the charisma of self-sacrifice by the violence of the sword.

Society is mostly concerned with above points 4. and 5. However, these points did not exist in a matriarchal order, when the social order acknowledges female superiority in the realm of the biosphere. The latter has ample evidence in past religious orders, where males practiced self-castration.

To rediscover the old myths, we need to return to the role of the son in a social order set by the mother. This may be achieved by way of deconstructing our contemporary versions of the myth. While the story of Iananna and her myth comes garbled, the existing version provides enough evidence to put forward a myth that is not as contorted.

We will advance in our deconstruction if we note that the name of the Goddess (and numerous names of those associated with her) begin with the consonant Y, thus, Inanna = Yanna; An = Yan; En = Yen; Nan = Yan; Enki = Yenki; and Dumuzi = Yunuzi, probably all endearing terms. A close modern parallel may be found in such male endearments as Ivanjka (Russian); Yanchuks (Latvian); Yannuchka (Hebrew); etc.

We ought to note that in the adulterated Sumerian myths that have been passed to us, Iananna is no longer the Sun Goddess. Instead, the Sun God is her brother Utu.

Our reconstruction will also be helped if we realize that Iananna is the daughter of the moon Goddess Nanna (Yanna?). How the Sun is born of the Moon or Iananna from Nanna, that is for another day, except to say that in ancient days the Moon was understood to be an aide in surviving the night. Incidentally, the Moon, too, became masculinized and survival has been heightened by male rhetoric and now spells “terror”.

The myth: Iananna the Sun Goddess—born of darkness and the cold light of the Moon, who in her death-like sleep patiently spins the formula that turns cold into heat—rose over the mountaintops and created the day. At noon, she hung motionlessly at zenith and cast no shadow. Those who stood immediately under her disk knew they lived, but because there was no shadow, they could not tell if they were real or not. After about an hour of thus rfeminding creation in her power, Iananna began a long walk down the Afternoon Road that led to Evening Shadows, the name of the home of her son John. There Iananna helped John milk the cows, after which she started out again, this time for her apartment at her sister Ereshkigal’s (Ereš = queen, lady; Ki = earth, Gal = great) kingdom, also known as the Great Palace Below Earth.

As soon as Iananna went below the horizon, she had to give up a piece of her clothing. She passed through seven gates before arriving at Ereshkigal’s kingdom. At each gate, she left a piece of her clothing. After Iananna went through the last gate, she stood in her apartment utterly naked.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

10 The Intelligence of Persecution

The sense of self-betrayal that afflicts the Latvian people’s psyche and contributes to reducing Latvia to a state administered by strangers from Brussels or, for that matter, by their own leaders’ in-your-face corruption is not only a problem for Latvians, but afflicts people in the United States of America, Russia, China, and other nations great and small. I have in mind the sense of self-betrayal that results from the abandonment of the principle of self-sacrifice, which is the result of the imposition on the people of the dogma of “original sin”. This theological crime, a psychic violence perpetrated in the name of a ruling secular class, not only cripples the mind of society with brain lock, but also enables violence to rule in the name of social order almost indefinitely.

Because of centuries of rehearsal, every politician who today runs for an office in whatever country has a set of phrases that center around “sacrifice for country”. The clichés and phrases are drummed into schoolchildren and the electorate. We only need to remember the often cited phrase by the late American president John F. Kennedy: “Don’t ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. Since society takes its cue for action from its leaders, and since no leader as a leader ever sacrifices (except as an exceptional and accidental circumstance), society turns into stone. Even schoolchildren know that saying so does not make it so, but that doing does. All the same, self-sacrifice denies itself to go about and set itself to doing.

Why is the dogma of “original sin”—today perhaps no longer known by that name, but deeply ingrained in social make-up nevertheless—so advantageous to the ruling classes?

Simply put, self-sacrifice exposes liars. Self-sacrifice (what some sociologists and anthropologists call “the founding violence”) puts lies to a test these cannot survive. In our own day, we may call these tests tests of transparency, because self-sacrifice is usually the result of independent thought. Self-sacrifice encourages independence of action, and such action escapes the control of whoever would rule after having taught us that self-sacrifice is an act of violence against Creation, i.e., original sin. Therefore, groups that wish to dominate continuously, continue to persecute self-sacrifice as a heretical practice.

Many centuries of rehersal have taught the rulers that political transparency escapes becoming a reality when the body politic is agitated in such a way that the agitation divides it, but not to the point where agitation causes open violence. Under such circumstances, it is possible to block direct access to the truth by means of a rhetoric that obscures. For example, when in place of the word “self-sacrifice” the authorities use the word “suicide”.

Once the desired level of obscurity is achieved, professional (paid) agitators are sent among the public to demand from it “faith”—trust beyond evidence and logical arguments. In short, the public is to have faith in the rhetoric of the irrationalism of the ruling class.

As the origins of the word “terror” indicate (see Chapter 1), the original meaning of the word was not connected to persecution and murder, but signified “a fight for survival”, i.e., the necessity to get one’s will up for survival in an Earth environment that is not hostile, though it may certainly be demanding in the extreme. The Earth’s demanding-ness asks us to be on the alert, to have our guard up. Moreover, mortality makes human beings vulnerable to death even when we have not reached the age when the body has naturally worn down. We see this vulnerability when Yitzhak-John (see previous blogs) went to defend himself and his flock against thieves with a determination that the thieves did not expect.

While overreaction by human beings to a given situation cannot always be avoided and may lead to deadly consequences, early cultures did all that was possible to minimize violence. For example, two tribes who had a dispute, often squared off one against another, but send only one “hero” from each tribe to wrestle with each other. There have also been occasions when female elders have engaged in sex in the middle ground between the groups to ease the tensions.

Unfortunately, “sacred books” such as the Bible and Qur’an, institute violence by its mention in their beginning chapters, re Genesis 4:9-16 and Qur’an 5:27-31. This is not to deny the possibility that two human beings may kill each other upon meeting, however, Cain and Abel are the sons of Adam and Eve, and their a priori antagonism (an editorial fiat) sends signals that violence is a trait that can never be repressed to the point that it rears its head not later, but always sooner.

By making violence “natural” and inevitable, it becomes possible to propose that only “faith” will enable society to escape “original sin”. However, what is “faith” if not a will to believe in something for which there is no proof?

If non-violence is natural and violence a provocation (as this author claims), the dogma of the rulers to the contrary, that it is violence that is natural, it becomes necessary that society be converted to non-violence through “faith”—even if it means persecuting society in order to force it to such a “faith”. Those who resist the simplistic dogma, because they understand its implications—that a violent group wishes to determine say over what is violence—they may end up the losers. By transferring non-violence from natural habit to a habitat of “faith”, the rulers of the “faithful” are able to impose on society an order that holds that a non-violent social order needs to kill those who believe that a non-violent order may only be established through the founding violence of self-sacrifice.

The example of Cain and Abel in the Bible and Qur’an are part of the the dogma that establishes for violence a preeminent position. The said “sacred” documents—established as “sacred” by a caste of secular priests disguised as religious—prejudice society in favor of believing violence to be an unavoidable part of human nature.

“God” did not deliver either the Bible or the Qur’an from a printing house in heaven, but through men who were so used to violence that non-violent behavior was beyond their imagination. This fact suggests that by the time the “sacred” works were written (some scholars—Anatoly Fomenko, for example—claim that this happened no earlier than Middle Ages), self-sacrifice as a tool employed in avoidance of communal violence was already repressed.

Today society has developed and “grown” to the point that it needs violence to maintain what has been constructed by violence.