Tuesday, April 27, 2010

© Eso Antons Benjamins, aka Jaņdžs

POSTSCRIPT 4 / Summary 2
101 The Sail

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(s) and the blog hereafter. http://esoschronicles.blogspot.com/

Partial entries of my blogs may be found at LatviansOnline + Forum Home + Open Forum –ONLATVIANPOPULISM vs LATVIJASLABEJIE.

The blow-up within the West is the end result of what the former President of the United States, Bush, described as the "crusade" . While for Bush the “crusade” meant war on terrorism, which he claimed was begun on-the-cusp of the 21st century by a Saudi Arabian Muslim prince named Bin Laden, curiously enough, the “crusade” actually began with the so-called Fourth Crusade (according to A. Fomenko actually the First Crusade) of 1204.

The First Crusade followed the death of Jesus, the itinerant story teller, who a decade or two earlier (? 1184) was thrown into a pit of fire (no, he was not crucified; crucifixion is a neo-Christian invention to throw the listener off the scent of what really happened) in Constantinople by Alexis I, a Byzantine king, one of the first such to overturn the sacred nature of his office in order to exploit wealth and power for the sake of—as Taussig tells it about the colonizers—“[the] gratuitous, end in itself”.

As I have often stated in earlier blogs, the chronology of history as presented by the West is unreliable for the reason that is was established as a result of the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which selected one Joseph Justus Scaligeri to set straight a chronology that did not favour the Catholic Church. The Council of Trent was the main event of the Counter Reformation. While Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and the Reformation movement hardly sympathized with the Catholic Counter Reformation, the Council’s historical revisionism suited well enough all neo-Christian sects. At the same time, many scholars have questioned the veracity of the chronology, among which doubters were Isaac Newton (1643-1727) and is Anatoly Fomenko (1945- ).
The “crusades” by the West that followed the First Crusade (1204) were the result of the rapid spread (by way of mimesis) of the desire by secular princes to expand their wealth and power. This rise of the importance of power became a scramble. The scramble took place not only among kings and princes, but at the same time involved attempts to discover ways to eliminate the arch-competitor—Constantinople, the seat of arch-Christianity some 900 years ago. This was accomplished by letting Constantinople fall (in 1453) to the Turks.

The First Crusade was made possible by rousing the “Children of Johns” (I prefer to put all arch-Christians under this description, because the name “John” is ubiquitous in all European and many more languages) against those said to have slain Jesus, the Children of Johns believing Jesus to have been one of their own. The outrage of the arch-Christians was then redirected by the secular princes against the Kingdom of Israel, which at that time was not located where a nation called Israel is located in our time, but the Israel of Byzantium as Byzantium was then known among the Children of Johns. Following the plunder of Constantinople (1204) by the West, the Children of Johns were turned against themselves by introducing a new sect, re: Catholics or neo-Christians, who distinguished themselves from arch-Christians (who referred to the Divine by touching the Earth) by claiming—in the beginning almost beyond anyone’s belief—that their “John” was not mortal and lived in Heaven. By 1209, the Western princes had sufficient violent force and could use the written word in a sufficiently sophisticated a manner to confuse the population of Europe (the Children of Johns were largely of an oral tradition) to such a degree that credibility accrued to those who practiced violence, that is, to neo-Christians.

It follows from the above that arch-Europeans and their religion were repressed and the European people were turned against themselves—as they had first been turned against Constantinople. The new world order of secular kings and princes rode on the backs of the European people. The only sect of arch-Christians or Children of Johns who survived was the Jews. The reason the sect was not destroyed has to do with their service to kings and princes—most likely as tax collectors. The ability of the sect to survive against the onslaught of Catholicism attracted to them many Children of Johns making an escape from the Inquisition. Most of this happened post-?1184. Unlike the flight of the Waldensians to Bohemia and the freedoms of the Hussites (15th century and earlier), the flight of the Children of Johns by ritualistic or self-confessional conversion to Judaism remains repressed information.

Let us return to Michael Taussig, our authority on memesis and alterity, and repeat the quote that I already gave in Blog 99. Taussig writes (pgs. 70,71): “As the nature that culture uses to make second nature, mimesis cannot be outside of history, just as history cannot lie outside of the mimetic faculty…. As the nature that culture uses to create second nature, mimesis chaotically jostles for elbow room in this force field of necessary contradiction and illusion, providing the glimpse of the opportunity to dismantle that second nature and reconstruct other worlds—so long as we reach a critical level of understanding of the play of primitivism within the mimetic faculty itself.”

Let us now think of the Latvian Children of Johns back in 1209, when Bishop Albert of Riga in tandem with Pope Innocent III in southern France, Languedoc, and the Albigensian Crusade there, attacked Jersika (a local name for Jerusalem), up river from Riga on the shores of Daugava (Dvina), and put an end to arch-Christianity in the territory that became known as Livonia, and later yet as Latvia.

And now let us think of the anti-Semitism, not admitted to, but lingering on among the materially and educationally repressed Latvians. [For proof of material and educational repression, all one has to do is visit the more popular internet sites for the flavor of their content and take a look at the children’s teeth in the countryside to see the material need.] Even so, I believe that more than half a century after Hitler and the Nazis, the time has come for the “opportunity to dismantle that second nature and reconstruct other worlds”, i.e., an updated mimesis of the Children of Johns of old. It could begin in Latvia.

How is this to be accomplished?

I will quote Taussig once again. In his book "Mimesis and Alterity", the anthropologist and doctor writes (2): “…[Let us] see anew the spell of the natural where the reproduction of life merges with the recapture of the soul”. Nice sentiment, right? Then Taussig tosses us a brick: “But just as we might garner courage to reinvent a new world and live new fictions… so a new devouring force comes at us from another direction, seducing us by playing on our yearning for the true real.”

And what might the “true real” be?

It is fascism, the make-believe of neo-Christianity falling apart, yet held together by the force of violence. And violence—as Latvians of any ethnic origin ought to know—causes long-time terror. The terror lasts not just for one life time, but it lasts for many lifetimes—if possible with but occasional refreshers by way reminders. This is a perfect way to intimidate people and affect their behaviour. The terror of violence seeps into the bones of the violated ones by way of a negative mimesis and represses human nature. The entire world is infected by this mimesis of terror in our day. It is rather disingenuous of academic historians to adhere to the Scaligeri chronology when the chronology of Anatoly Fomenko fits the shoe better. Moreover, government and academia disingenuosity denies the people their right to shed the terrors of violence.

And just how does one shed the terrors of violence and the PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) not only of soldiers back from war today, but the population at large, the one that has violence imposed on it for a thousand years?

For the answer, I invite the reader to Blog 1 and the beginning of my long series of blogs under the title “Not-Violent Terror”. However, the little dirty secret (and you may imagine it right after you read this) is “Not-Vote”. The act is not-violent terror. Not-violent terror to whom? Hint: to the enemies of not-voters.

No comments:

Post a Comment