Sunday, September 6, 2009

Copyright E. A. Benjamins aka Jaņdžs
25 Blood Libeled History

A young forester, just out of forestry school, takes his first job as a forest fire watch. His job is to sit at a look out station and watch for smoke or other signs of fire.

The forest is a new growth forest and is located in Israel. In the course of his daily tasks, the forester discovers that the forest hides the ruins of a Palestinian village. During the Israeli war against the Palestinians in 1948, the village was set afire, and later a forest was planted over it. An old Palestinian tends the station. His tongue was cut out during the war. The old man cannot tell what happened, but manages to get himself across nevertheless.

The young forester learns that his workstation is the Palestinian’s former home; moreover, that during the war the man’s wives were murdered here. The dark secrets reveal themselves after the old Palestinian burns down the forest and among the ashes we see stand the silhouette of the Palestinian village.

The story, a novella called “Facing the Forest” (1963), by A.B. Yehoshua, a well-known Israeli writer, remains controversial. It is controversial in Israel, because the writer describes the violence as an inescapable byproduct of the founding of the state of Israel during its war for independence. The tongueless Palestinian represents silenced history.

The novella becomes yet more controversial when the reader recalls that the state of Israel is founded on myth, which is to say, its founding did not only involve violence but also created a story, a myth, a lie of how the land came to be in Israeli possession. Nevertheless, the lie is believed to be divine and to have the blessings of God.

To say that the foundation of Israel is violence and myths may bring on one the curse of the Zionist terrorist and late Prime Minister of Israel, Ben Gurion (1886-1973). The latter accused those who did not believe that the State of Israel was founded on objective history of being guilty of “blood libel”. In short, Ben Gurion was a Zionist committed to enforcing the belief that water may be turned into wine by mixing war and lies.

However, the state of Israel is only one small product of violence ruled times.

It is not only the history of Israel, but the history of the West, even the history of the world, that is written with an understanding that the result will be a lie designed to hide a lie. The victor writes the history of the whys and wherefores of his “holy” war and, thus, explains his right to be the dominant power. To disbelieve the victor earns the doubter a curse of “blood libel”. The very history of neo-Christianity is a long book justifying violence, first against the so-called “heretics”, the arch-Christians; second against the Jews for admitting so many arch-Christian “converts” fleeing the cruelty of neo-Christians; and third, violence going out of control and becoming a universal habit.

The punishment that the doubter earns depends on the exposure he to the victor: whether he is a large or a small nation, weak or strong, nuclear armed or not, near or far. Russia—the leading nation of the former Soviet Union—apologized to Poland over the Katin forest murders of 22,000 Polish officers in 1940-1941 only in 2009 , while it has not yet acknowledged that it occupied its small neighbor Latvia in 1940. Thus, Latvia, an independent nation again, endures a “blood libel” curse from Russia, which Latvia’s big neighbor hides behind the word “fascist”, i.e., Latvia “a fascist nation”.

The institutive act of the West (Russia including) was the murder of the arch-Christian Basil (an event most likely to have occurred in the 12th century; whether Basil’s name was Ivan, John, or Yan), the Byzantine holy man, and his replacement with Jesus and the neo-Christian myth of Jesus. Byzantine Emperor Alexeus I, the executioner, was among the first of the movement of secularist kings, princes, and barons who—in order to do their will unopposed—wanted to remove from civil society the strong willed self-sacrificial Johns.

However, the secularist movement was stronger in the West. This was most likely because the territories of Western Europe were settled late compared with the settlement of the territories in the East. In the West, arch-Christian traditions had not yet sunk as deep roots as in the East. This is why the war for secularist domination contained a war within itself, i.e., among the secularists themselves. Thus, before the secular West began its “crusades” against its own peoples (the Cathars, the Children of Johns among the Balts, etc.), they needed to eliminate its competition from the East. The so-called Fourth Crusade, 1204, against Constantinople, the capital of Byzantium, did this. The goal of the Crusade was to destroy the center of the world in the East and bring it to the West. Of course, the West took advantage of the fact that Alexius I had already murdered Basil. It let Alexius I take his deserved murderer’s wrap, at the same time as it renamed Basil-John as Jesus, and removed him from the open roads of Earth to the prison of Heaven.

Another institutive act of the West involved Russia. In real time, Russia is what remains of a vast sacred kingdom over which there once ruled no secular ruler. Instead of secular rulers, the land of the open roads and pathways was “ruled” by the wandering teachers cum priests, cum shamans, cum kings known as Johns. The Indian holy men or sadhus—babas—is all that remains of the Johns today.

Jesus replaced Ivan in Russia with the arrival of the Romanov tsars. The name Romanov is, for the Slavs, a two-edged sword. In the days of John-Basil, the inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire (considered by many to be part of the original borderless sacred empire) knew themselves as Romans, Rome being the name of any charismatic center or bastion. However, these Romanovs came no longer by way of Constantinople, but by way of Rome in Italy.

The institutionalized lies continue to be defended. When a well-known Russian mathematician-statistician, also historian, Anatoly Fomenko, wished to advertise his books in Britain, the BBC, a western propaganda resource of note, refused to carry the advertisement. Why? Because it would suggest that the perspective on history in the West is the result of a lie and question whether the history of the West is as the West claims.

If you copy this or otherwise mention the content of this blog, please credit the author and

No comments:

Post a Comment