Saturday, December 19, 2009

© Eso Antons Benjamins, a.k.a. Jaņdžs

65 The Future of The Wuerzeltod (III)

The Alpha and Beta (see below and click on “canids” for explanation of terms) were incensed when they heard. “Is this how our mothers manipulate our baby brothers?” cried one. “We cannot allow this. We must put a stop to it,” cried another. “This is boy abuse. She is turning her sons into Omegas,” cried a third. “For shame,” cried a fourth. ”“But how are we going to stop them?” asked a fifth.

“I know,” said the shaman.

“What, give the boy a man’s nipple?” cried one of the men and all laughed.

“No. But we can put a scare in the baby,” answered the shaman.

“You mean scare the boy not to suck milk? You must be kidding. How are we going to do that?” [Click link and go to Question 4 for an answer of what happens to breastfeeding after the baby is given the treatment described below.]

“It will be quick and fast.”

“Alright, what is it that you have in mind?”

The ‘idea man’ or shaman gathered the men around him and explained. Some men objected saying they believed that nature meant things to be this way. Others agreed with the shaman and said that it was worth a try. All Alpha men agreed with the shaman. So, they decided to do it.

This is how it came about that all the Alpha and Beta men who lived in their own “men’s quarters” gathered together and walked over to the women’s and children’s quarters. As they expected, a number of women were breast feeding their babies, some of them boys. Without saying a word, the men seized the baby boys from their mothers. The shaman took his obsidian knife and quick as a flash cut off the foreskin of the babies’ penises. The women and babies screamed, but that was it. There was nothing they could do. The deed was done.

When done, the shaman motioned for the men to hand the screaming babies back to their mothers. When the mothers put the babies to their breasts to calm them, they would not take the breast, but continued screaming.

The shaman told the women to take their screaming babies away, then explained to the remaining women that he and the men had done what they had done because they wished to make sure that the boys always knew what tribe they belonged to. No raiders from other tribes could now come and steal the boys and make them one of their own. The explanation was, of course, a lie, but it sounded plausible, and the mothers had to accept it. Actually, the mothers had no choice, because they were told to keep quiet on the pain of death.

In the modern world circumcision is assisted by anaesthetics, and the baby suffers little or no trauma. Today circumcision is indeed a ritual for the sake of differentiation. Yet in the past, when the men first cut off the baby boy’s foreskin, it was different. There were no anaesthetics. It was done in the “raw”. Needless to say, the operation caused the baby such pain that it had what we call an out of body experience. It happened involuntarily. At a young age, when the body of the child has not separated from the head, a circumcision—which necessarily comes as a total surprise—comes like a blinding flash of near intolerable pain. The pain separates one from one’s body. Even if the baby forgets the event, its sentient effects not only linger, but have life long side effects.

From the moment he is taken from his mother’s lap and circumcised, the boy knows that he cannot trust his mother to protect him. The mother is soon seen as too weak to protect him, even though he is too young to remember his circumcision consciously. In any event, from the moment that they are circumcised, baby boys become distrustful. If any appear to forget the experience, distrust can be quickly reawakened.* If trained recruiters are ready, they will quickly join the ‘brotherhood’ commanded by the Alpha male. In other words, circumcision facilitates excessive male bonding. Indeed, whenever the ‘brotherhood’—now fear-based—suspects a threat (and it may be the result of pure fantasy), it may initiate ‘preventive’ action and attack.

Though the following link explains that based on their characteristics men can be grouped into three main categories: Alpha, Beta, and Omega males, I would like to add a fourth—‘canids’. (When reading this link, please give especial attention to the section discussing canids, although perhaps a better—more neutral—name for the circumcised males is ‘Cetas').  Made apprehensive of their mothers, Cetas tend to switch their trust and loyalty to the Alpha male, who becomes their lord not only in secular matters, but replaces Allness and becomes ‘Lord God’ of their imagination.**

The males of proto-Latvian Jersiks were probably not circumcised if it is true that at the time of Bishop Alberts attack on King Visvaldis, the king and the Children of Johns deferred to the Sun not only as a word synonymous with mother, but addressed the Sun as the object that best represented time as transcendent divinity. We may wish to remember that for proto-Latvians the word ‘God’ (‘Dievs’) did not exist, because they equated God with Visums, re Allness, Visums being reflected in the name of the Jersik king: Visvaldis, ruler over Allness.

The question therefore is, whence comes the word ‘Dievs’ (in our times, the closest word to it is the feminine ‘Diva’, Goddess, and, of course, the masculine ‘Dios’), God? The best etymology that I can discover is that Dievs evolved out of the Latvian word ‘dot’, to give. Another word deriving from ‘dot’ is ‘deva’, meaning a contribution or portion, from which the word ‘dahvana’, gift. Yet another is ‘dien(eht)’, to live out my days, to serve, as in ‘dieneht armiyah’, to serve (my days) in the army. If I were to say that you and I are “Visuma deva”, I would be saying that we are contributions or gifts from out of Visums, Allness. Similarly, the Sun is such a gift, too, whence the ‘deva’ or ‘dahvana’, a contribution, a gift, a portion of the Sun is ‘diena’, day, the light of day. A word that combines both ‘diena’ (day) and ‘dahvana’ (gift) is the old Latvian word (presently no longer used) ‘dievaine’ or ‘dievaines’, holy day, holy days, days separated out from ordinary day, ‘diena’. If we follow the above recipe for the evolution of the word, ‘Dievs’ (God) should be pronounced ‘Diens’. The reason why ‘n’ has been replaced by ‘v’ should not prevent us from accepting the recepe, because it may be explained by an intrusion of a colloquialism or another dialect. For example, words such as ‘dien-vids’ (today meaning ‘south’, but literally standing for ‘day-middle’) or perhaps David, the latter a compound of day + vid (day + middle, a space, also ‘a flash’, as in the Latvian word ‘pavideht’, to make a mark before disappearing). In short, ‘Dievs’ like the word ‘God’ is an empty signifier waiting to be filled with meanings that may be stuck to it by way of charisma or violence.

So, why is it that the post-Jersika proto-Latvians abandoned the Sun and replaced her with the male gender, which bid the Sun step aside and make place for God? I believe the answer can be discovered if we analyze the phrase Glaesa del Dios. Today the phrase is interpreted by neo-Christians as meaning the light or aura of God. However, if we remember that the word ‘Dios’ (God, Dievs) has its origin in the word ‘day’ (‘diena’ in Latvian), we may also translate the phrase as “aura of day”, i.e., light of day, light of the Sun.

It should suffice to say that the Sun was driven out of our forebears by violent acts. The violence induced an out of the body experience, as a result of which the men of Jersika became Omegas to the Alpha and Beta knights in Riga, and were forced by them to worship ‘God’. ‘God’ is—as pointed out above—in and of itself meaningless, empty, but its very meaninglessness allowed the violent ones to fill it with meaning.

The meaning chosen for the ‘empty’ word was ‘lord’, and the lord (lords actually) made laws that made and kept Bishop Albert and the knights wealthy. The hidden agenda of neo-Christianity is, if you will, to put a stop to gift giving among the natives and control the economy by forcing the natives to labor on behalf of the secular princes it serves.

Asterisk & Notes of Interest:

*Similar negative effects may be achieved with “christening” at an early age. The fact that a stranger lays his/her hands on the baby boy is sufficient proof to the baby that his mother has betrayed his trust in her.

** The same may be accomplished in other ways. As the link to the circumcision ritual shows, women can be ‘persuaded’ to show-mime happiness over circumcision of their sons, what with coercion having happened a long time ago and now internalized and become a habit and rote ritual. See Michael Taussig, “Mimesis and Alterity”, p. 85, Routledge: “For this sacred violence exists in two quite contrary ways. On the one hand the women and children, forming the ‘audience,’ have to pretend—to mime—on pain of death that what they are witness to are real gods and not their kinsmen acting as gods. In this way the public secret essential to mystical authority is preserved. On the other hand is the violence associated with the demasking of the gods that the male initiates are forced to witness in the privacy of the men’s house. Through the violence of demasking fused with laughter, the power of the mimetic faculty as a socially constitutive force is thereby transferred from the older to the younger men, the duped becomes one with the dupers….” For the entire context of this quote click here . The question that always remains is if the dupes remain dupes and the dupers dupe without ever awakening to the consequences. My bet is on the “no”—sacrifice is never eliminated.

On material depravation  in Latvia.
On the theme of “more-equal-than-others” re Orwel's AnimalFarm

Of great interest to me this and like articles like articles. It presents some of my reasons for supporting the cultivation of Johns Grass in Latvia.

Favored serendipitous click or “chronal mirage” on the internet. I was searching for a relationship between the burning of Jersika and heretics in Lanquedoc, France. You must read the text at near the end of the scroll, re image of “The Burning of St. Joan”, Monday, September 03, 2007, to get the point.

My most explicit statement as to the results that come from a failure to sacrifice, re “Tiresias’ Revenge”, my reinterpretation of Sophocles’ “Oedipus Rex”. I believe that Sophocles had to hide the true meaning of his play for political reasons. It is apropos of the political situation in the world today, also in Latvia. The play may be found at blogs 40 through 47. Start from Blog 40.

These blogs tend to be a continuum of an idea or thought, which is why—if you are interested in what you read—you are encouraged to consider reading the previous blog and the blog hereafter.

Partial entries of my blogs may be found at LatviansOnline  + Forum Home + Open Forum –ONLATVIANPOPULISM vs LATVIJASLABEJIE. If you copy this blog for your files, or copy to forward, or otherwise mention its content, please credit the author and

No comments:

Post a Comment