Sunday, March 7, 2010

© Eso Antons Benjamins, aka Jaņdžs

88 Gridlocked In Latvia (7)

The decomposition of the Latvian people, the 80% or so, who are at or below the poverty line, is continuing apace.

One obvious example of the decomposition are the 150,000 (soon to reach 200,000) Latvians who are now speaking English as a result of emigration from Latvia. 200,000 unemployed are willing standbys for the next emigration airplane.

To learn English as one of Latvia’s official languages to facilitate Latvia’s integration in the European Union, however, does not seem a politically viable proposal—even if it may help save Latvia. The leaders of the Latvian state have found it expedient to turn to jingoism or what I call zionacionalism. Zionationalists (there is more than one party) use neo-Christendom and the Latvian language as two foci for their political campaigns for populist votes. Unfortunately, the zionationalists misuse these populist issues cause negative effects on populists and the nation.

How and what ill affect? By dismissing arch-Christianity to which the forebears of today’s Latvians were born-to. By making public references to “Christianity” (implying that the party understands by it neo-Christianity and all is for it) and dismissing arch-Christianity as an antique by not knowing a thing about whence the Latvian Midsummer ritual known as Johns Eve (and Day).
Politicians impose on Latvia the idea that it is a homogeneity, whereas Latvia is a heteroginy. Heteroginy in Latvia does not begin as Milda Female and Lahchplehsis (Lāčplēsis) Male and this is all yee need to know. It begins in a mindset that wishes to impose on the personality of Latvia a one-piece furniture set. Thus, for example, Johns festival (really a Festival of Johns Children) is encouraged to become by the time it ends a celebration by drunks. Because zionationalists do not acknowledge that their policies encourage the Earth to become unipolar, the Children of Johns Festival becomes at best a day in the fields of grass. That is fine, but Latvia and its people could do better.

Let me therefore get to the theme not too popular among populists thought it ought to be discussed in the media and other public places.
No doubt, if Latvia’s laws were to be written in English, Latvia needs to become a country that has to institute an education system with obligatory courses in three languages, re Latvian, Russian, and English. Given that the time for community rebuilding and reshaping was the time when the Soviet Union fell, a time when most Latvians already spoke Latvian and Russian, one could expect that a third language was unlikely to present a psychological block to students. It was to be expected that since the lingua franca of the Soviet Union was Russian, the new requirement would meet resistance among the Russian speaking population, which had developed psychological blocks against learning another language just as Americans have. The three-language society was unfortunately never publicly discussed; indeed, the rapid rise of zionacionalism encouraged just the reverse: it was obligatory to study Latvian, because the language of government was to be Latvian, even if logic put at risk the future of Latvia.

An expedient political tool for “urrah” (for Latvia!) enthusiasts, zionacionalism escaped rational analysis, perhaps because in the world at large it has certain political overtones that some prefer not touch upon and some use this to their advantage. If we think at it, we as practitioners of zionacionalism potentially face two outcomes, which in a paradoxical sense are one. Let us see.

One of the poles of zionationalism is exemplified by the state of Israel under Zionist leadership, whence the word “zionationalism”. Israel faces a rapid and catastrophic decomposition due to its refusal to become an integrated state. It needs a “victory” by way of a decisive war—if it is to survive with its zionationalist policies intact. This is why its influence over the U.S. government is so important.
Israel’s influence in the U.S., however, is not because of the presence of Jews in the U.S., but because the U.S. needs Israel as an anchor on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea to better effect its foreign policy. The U.S. has invested heavily not only in Israel, but in its own foreign policy aims, as we witness from the deposition of the Iranian government of Mohammad Mosaddegh  in 1953, to the war in Iraq (now moved to Afghanistan), and the renewed threat of war on Iran, which nation deposed the U.S supported Shah in a surprise revolution known as the Iranian revolution in 1979. A victory by the military forces of the West over those of Iran would likely secure the “victory” that the zionationalists of Israel seek. Given that the interests of Russia and China are to see Iran remain as much as possible an independent state, such a “victory” depends on the successful implementation of Western (the U.S. and NATO countries) foreign policy. The stakes for all interests concerned are high. Israeli zionationalists are betting on a U.S.-NATO victory.

Before we move on, a few words here on “zionationalism”. Though zionationalism, as we shall see, arose concurrently with the "apartheid" system in South Africa by racist whites in 1948, the same word was used to describe the political situation that was created by the Israelis between themselves and Palestinians.
Nevertheless, religious and ethnic apartheid is an Israeli invention, re: Arabs vs Jews, Muslims vs Jews, Palestinians vs Jews, disarmed Arabs vs armed Jews, Evil Muslim WMD possessors vs good Jewish WMD possessors, etc. Though apartheid is clearly exclusionary and makes the excluded the enemy or a potential enemy, and therefore has similarities with the Palestinian vs Jews situation, it does not quite fit the shoe of a Jew. The reason is because Jewishness in modern times evolved with two components, Jews as an ethnic entity and Jews as a religious community. At one time it was that only the religious community mattered.

[As this blogger has argued in previous blogs, the Jews, the Cathars, the Bogomils, the Bosnian Church, the Waldesians, the (proto-Latvian) Children of Johns share the same religious origins in arch-Christianity. In some ways the arch-Christians are the Europeans when Europe was still mostly wooded land. Neo-Christianity, with Catholicism its first institution, arises with the deforestation of Europe and increasing urbanization of the land. The vagrant holy man named John, is burnt (or other) and sent to heaven as Jesus.]
Zionism, drawing on the myth presented by the Bible and arguing that the Jews had their own ethnicity and religion, evolved into an international nationalist political movement that supported the establishment (indeed, “reestablishment’) of a Jewish state, which according to the myth existed in Israel. Israel is purported to have been a country in the geographical area known as Palestine.

The concretization of this myth (by all kinds of sleight of hands) made fiction real and the conquest of the “historical land”—Eretz-Israel—legitimate. Zionationalism pretended to sovereign rights for a certain group of survivors of the branch of arch-Christianity. Of course, by doing so, the Zionists brought upon the Jews (the other denominations of arch-Christianity having been forgot) the latent prejudices persisting in neo-Christianity in real time. The holocaust against the Jews and a near total forgetfulness of arch-Christianity was both the terrible and unfortunate result for heteridoxity.

Interestingly, the Latvians (currently of know-nothing mind) most probably originated in the arch-Christian Church of the Children of Johns. The true extent of this community is the entirety of Europe and beyond. However, one of the specific communities of this arch-Christian sect may be discerned in the 12th and 13th centuries in a kingdom known as Jersika. Jersika was then under the rule of a king named Visvaldis. Not much is known about this community and its geographical outlines are vague.

Be that as it may, out of the proto-Latvian mindset—after those who harbored it were defeated and their King Visvaldis was humiliated (by neo-Christian Bishop Albert of Riga)—there arose a zionationalism peculiar to Latvians.
Asterisk & Notes of Interest:
It is obvious that the mindset among the Latvian political elite at this time is not only gridlocked, but has turned to stone. These blogs are, for one, an attempt to loosen the rusted in screws with some naval jelly. Click here  to discover the meaning of the Overton Window, and here to see what purpose it serves.
On material depravation in Latvia.
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  

No comments:

Post a Comment