Tuesday, February 16, 2010

© Eso Antons Benjamins, aka. Jaņdžs

82 Gridlocked In Latvia (1)
[This begins a new theme series (see above) and ends one called “NOT-VIOLENT TERROR”. While the previous series took a look (with the aid of a hologramatic perspective) into a heretofore unheard of Latvian social and anthropological past, the present series will attempt to take a closer-to-home look of things. As the reader may know, this blogger believes that during the elections on October 2 of this year (2010) the voters should give the government a NOT-VOTE. A not-vote is a vote that begins to count when it reaches numbers that give the not-voters authority over and above that of the government. While the government may claim that such a result is unthinkable, a majority not-vote gives the not-voters an opportunity to reassert their sovereignty over the government, which must resign, leaving a caretaker government to administer the state until a new Constitution is written. With but a total of 700,000 voters in Latvia, a not-vote is possible. What constitutes a quorum is a question for academics and legal experts. With regard to what Latvians may wish to accomplish with the not-vote (in one man’s opinion) and other proposals see Blog 81 and preceding.]

One may reasonably argue that the Soviet Union unintentionally conserved Latvia and its germanic cultural tilt (also known as a tilt to “the West”) of the Latvian capital of Riga and the related proto-urban landscape of the small regional cities as a result of a too slow a pace of assimilation of Latvians into the Soviet Man. Perhaps the slowness was due to Bolshevik overconfidence and brutality, and because they failed to consult with social anthropologists.

However it happened, the Soviet Union did not last long enough to cause the Latvians to lose their identity entirely. Many Latvians to this day resent profoundly the liquidations, deportations, and destructions practiced during the Soviet rule. Just as the resentment of the Jews against Hitler’s holocaust is parahistorical, that is to say, is a history never to be forgot, so the remembrance of the Central Europeans of Stalin’s atrocities are parahistorical too—certainly for Latvians.
Be that as it may, a parahistorical memory does not need to become Zionist or zionationalistic, but may transcend history and the shortness of human memory by calling for the institution of self-sacrifice on the part of high government officials not only of their own nation, but as a form of government self-control and citizen control of government the world over. This may be (and likely will be) accomplished by nullifying the separation of state and religion one of these days soon.
Parahistorical memory is not new. It was practiced in prehistorical times, when the self-sacrificial individual was known as the “Sacred King”. One of the last sacred kings was John-Jesus (in this blogger’s terminology). The cause or source that created the Sacred King in ancient times—just as in our own—is the potential of material and spiritual corruption among the rulers (in early times the elders) of the community. When a corrupt cabal of rulers (most likely those of the Byzantine Empire) had grown strong enough, they took away the “John” that was a part of Jesus’ name, and sent Jesus to Heaven. Once in heaven, Jesus could but sit on his hands. As the Latvians know, “John” was then turned by the secularists into the King of Beer. The secularists live happily to this day. The state they control continues to preach separation of state and religion, while the Balts (and the Slavs) get drunk on Johns Day, re Midsummer Eve.
Post-Soviet Latvia is, as one government official described it recently, “is not just some small nation, but we are now part of NATO”. [Director of State Chancellery (Valsts kancelejas, VK) Gunta Veismane in an interview on LTV1 program “100. Pants” on February 15, 2010.] The statement was made in an effort to justify said official’s intent to call for the Latvian State Security Police (DP) to investigate a journalist’s source of information. [The call did not go through because of the scandal that the official’s actions elicited in the media.] My reason for quoting it is that it implies an attempt by the official to justify interference with the flow of free information on the basis of Latvia being a participant in NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). In other words, an official of the Latvian government is willing to compromise a journalist’s right to investigate by referring to NATO as a reason for compromising freedom of information. This also puts into question freedom of speech in Latvia.
Also, there is a much larger political context that the official’s statements may be put. Here is a paragraph from Blog 80: “This past week several Latvian “political” parties made yet another step toward apolitical politics when the Citizens Party (PS) declared its readiness to form a coalition with the New Times Party (JL) and Party for Different Politics (SCP). Said coalition is to be called "Unity Party", and according to Girts Kristovskis, chairperson of the Citizens Party, it will oppose parties of the oligarchs and pro-Russian parties.”
Let there not be doubt that this government’s “drang nach Westen” would not be possible without Latvia being a member of NATO, a military axis of the U.S. and the EU nations. As the Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borisov said with regard to [NATO] stationing interceptor missile components on Bulgarian soil: “My opinion is that we have to show solidarity. When you are a member of NATO, you have to work for the collective security.” Compare this to Ms Veismane’s “[Latvia] is not just some small nation, but we are now part of NATO”. It is beginning to sound as if the member nations of NATO are getting ready—in the name of “collective security”—to curtail freedom of information by intimidating journalists.

(More on Latvia’s tilt toward militarism and “the West” in upcoming Blog 83.)

Asterisk & Notes of Interest:
On the theme of “more-equal-than-others” George Orwell's "Animal Farm". A recommended read: “The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism” by Emmanuel Goldstein (A book within a book from George Orwell's "1984".)  
Of great interest to me is this and like articles. It presents some of my reasons for supporting the growing of Johns Grass in Latvia.
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 http://esoschroniclnes.blogspot.com/  

No comments:

Post a Comment