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.

No comments:

Post a Comment