Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Eso’s Chronicles 142
The Earthquake of San Francisco as A Political Act (1)
© Eso A.B
Shades in the mirror of a liberal political universe
There will be those who insist that what I call the ‘slide of San Francisco into the Pacific’ falls under the category of ‘an Act of God’ and will NOT BE a political act.

Though the event (whenever it happens) will be dramatic enough to be called an ‘Act of God’, I insist that it will be a uniquely American “political act” that—now that it has begun with a vaguely intuited ‘happening’ somewhere ‘out there’—it will reverberate to the farthest reaches of our planet and maybe even kill us.

Like all expectations which anticipate the End of the World, the slide of San Francisco into the ocean has taken a long time to develop and has a long history.

The earliest recorded event of ‘the End’ is that of “the worship of the golden calf”  and, the best I know where to place it,  is in the ancient Jewish empire of Khazaria, aka the Khazarian Khaganate, an empire that stretched from the east coast of the Black Sea to the West coast of the Aral Sea, and about equal distance from Kiev in the north to the borders of Armenia.

Because the modern state of Israel has political reasons to identify with a fictitious land, the so-called ‘Ancient Israel’ located north of Ancient Egypt, and similar political reasons for identifying with the area apply to the nations of the West, this ancient empire (of a Turkic people) is today casually passed over, if not outright ignored.

However, being ignored does not mean eliminated. Rather, being ignored causes the object to become an “unknown known”, as Donald Rumsfeld, the former American Secretary of Defense, tried to explain the attack on WTC towers, when explaining to news media why President Bush declared a ‘Crusade’ against terrorism.

Because ‘unknown’ Khazaria continues to remind itself to us through the ‘holy writ’ known as the Bible and the mysterious writers who presumed themselves to be wise, and whose presumption inspired the emergence the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), it ought not be surprising that the Khazars also brought into being a  nonviolent civilization. The full meaning of “Thou shalt not kill”, however, emerges only in Matthew 5:21: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, ‘Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment’.” Today this is interpreted as a blanket condemnation of taking human life.

A more critical reflection on “Thou shalt not kill”, however, reveals it to be a Commandment that applies only to those who have no authority to kill, but does not apply to those who have the authority and who have the courage to stand judgment. These latter were once upon a time known as the holy kings, those who paid for their authority with self-sacrificial death (but failing it were garroted ).

The holy kings accepted their role as transgressors of the Commandment and did not fear death for themselves, because they were convinced that the death they realized on themselves and meted out to others  was justified by the fact that it created and maintained a community. The basis for their conviction was the perception that a community was an exceptional institution and would not exist without such a sacrifice.

It was the universalization of the Commandment through the written law (entertained by Western boyars and princes), that destroyed the tradition of Eastern Christianity and instituted what we know as Western neo-liberalism, i.e.: a force majeure that is as ‘natural’ as an Act of God, but invariably favors the ruling party or the party that unseats it from power by means of a civil war. Universalization of force majeure as a ‘natural’ Act is the essence of neo-Christianity, also known as Catholicism, because it can be instituted (over a holy king) only by a pretense to religion. This necessarily makes neo-Christianity a False Flag event.

The universalizers carry forth their pretense under a umbra of absolute nonviolence and by insisting ‘blood guilt’ to be unredeemable under any circumstances. It is, thus, that modern government has made itself the killer of ALL life, human and animal, excluding the wealthy and the ruling elite who remain the universalizers and False Flag carriers.

Yet Numbers 35:33 explains: “So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.

If we take and put the writings mentioned above end to end, we arrive at the conclusion that it is wrong to kill, and why those who kill must be killed in return, and why those who follow in yet another turn of killing must also be killed. In other words, the killing can stop only if one takes it upon himself to kill himself. Because taking one’s life is such an awesome act, it used to be called a ‘sacrificial’ act.

In order to deny a sacrificial act its effectiveness, the governments of today call it ‘a suicide’, and elevate “human rights” above all other rights, and make murder, too, a human right—especially when it concerns those sitting in government.

Such simplistic or closed circuit reasoning constitutes the rule of law in our day, and is the reason why communities are collapsing the world over. It exempts murderous statesmen from the death penalty—unless even more violent statesmen can gather political points with an desensitized public by killing murderous statesmen in a phony self-righteous act, because the latter have less military power than they do. The most recent examples of such murders of murderers are the attacks and murders executed by U.S. Presidents and leaders of NATO nations on Iraq and Libya, and celebrating their military victories by murdering the captured leaders guilty of unredeemed murders of their own.

By these lights, the leaders of the West and the leaders under their sway, have discarded and trampled into the mud the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. Now, go blow your whistles, boys, all you want; we will simply shut down the speakers and whisper “terrorists” in mikes of our own!

One ‘boy’ piped: “Unfortunately, all our efforts to explain to the Americans that European missile shield in its current form is aimed against Russia, its nuclear capabilities and undermines world’s nuclear balance have been in vain. Our arguments have been heard neither in America nor in NATO,” Medvedev said.

Go, whistle some more, Medved!

Once exceptionalism is exercised only in matters relevant to government and its small circle of oligarch supporters, but not to society as a whole, irresponsibility become a matter of course in a long string of cases. Without a doubt, community will break down. This is where the Civil War stage begins. As noted in my blogs 20 and 21 (“The Despair of Stalin”) at , the Civil War did once already begin under the guise of the Russian Revolution (1917), but miscarried, because Lenin and Stalin for all their unhappiness failed to destroy the force majeure instituted by the neo-Christian False Flag Act of 1118, but remained under it. Indeed, the bureaucracy organized by the Bolsheviks was essentially imitative of that of the West.

As far as the humankind of billions is concerned, it is powerless to effectively change governments and their preoccupations, because it does not have enough power in its hands to kill the universalizing governors. Even if every inhabitant of the planet were armed, the absence of a sense of community (due to the removal of bonding charisma by governments many centuries ago) prevents humankind from organizing into disciplined unit or a solidarity such as government has organized its bureaucracy into.

This is where the earthquake of San Francisco enters into the picture. 

Given that the public is unable to introduce major changes in ‘modern democratic’ government, which has declared itself and its oligarch controlled financial institutions as “too big to fail” , an outside event must insert itself and is eagerly and with endless patience awaited to do so.

In cultural terms the waiting is nothing new, and was expressed long ago by Samuel Beckett’s play “Waiting for Godot” (1948), described by some as the 20th century’s best known play. While Vladimir or Estragon, the play’s main protagonists, wait and while their time by looking into an empty shoe and a hat, the play ‘plays’. At last, they are visited by Pozzo, an oligarch, who drives a slave named Lucky, but neither turns out to be Godot or God (with or as) a dot—as this member of the audience once believed.

No doubt, Beckett’s play and the failure of the “too important to fail” is tedium arriving with the regularity of unrequested ‘spam’ from the internet. The correctness of this analysis was recently ‘proven’ by the welcome the Russian people extended to exploding meteriorite , and with what patience the inhabitants of Tokyo sit on top of a volcano, and the San Franciscans twiddle their thumbs sitting over the San Andreas fault in California.


Saturday, February 23, 2013

Eso's Chronicles resumes

Eso’s Chronicles 141
Latvian as ‘rough speak’ and ‘tough love’
The natural environment of Democracy is the wood,
all other democracies are mke-believe
One of the most pleasant word in Latvian today is “čaviņa” (chavinya), an endearment derived from the Italian word “ciao”. Many of young Latvians use the word when chatting on the internet or mobile telephone.

The attached link, in which economics Professor Keith Chen from Yale University points out the subtle differences between the English language that has no future tense and languages that do have it, and which differences may or may not make you wealthier than your neighbor, is well worth for a Latvian to read and reflect on.

Here is why. Prof Chen divides the world's languages into two groups, depending on how they treat the concept of time. Chen argues that if one’s language separates the future and the present in its grammar and leads the user to slightly disassociate the future from the present, the “…speakers of languages which only use the present tense when dealing with the future are likely to save more money than those who speak languages which require the use a future tense, he argues….”

Of course, the Professor has many critics, and some of this is reflected in the BBC article. I will leave it to some Latvian grammarian to explain the nuances of the Latvian language with regard to future and present tenses. What concerns me, is a theme that I have often referred to: the NEAR TOTAL LOSS of the endearing word in Latvian, and the ‘stiffening’, nay even tendency to brutalize the Latvian psyche as a consequence.

I am referring to the facility of the Latvian language of another day to ubiquitously use terms of endearment for even the most roughest and sometimes most unpleasant of words, such as ‘akmentinjsh’ (akmentiņš--stone), ‘suhdinjsh’ (sūdiņš—excrement), etc. Indeed, the Latvian language can endear every word. The use of the endearment in places that culturally may be deemed inappropriate places is therefore interpreted as potentially of a sarcastic or ironic inflection.

The endearing word was a feature of Latvian as an oral language, and went pretty much out of use with the arrival of the written word, especially with news reporting, where ‘realism’ is deemed paramount and subjective thought almost indecent.

One may further argue, that, well, that is ‘too bad’, but that is how things are and one must accept this. Maybe so. Nevertheless, it may also be argued that ‘realism’ that excludes endearing sentiments is a cancerous growth. We can observe this ‘cancer’ in the politician activated disputes over the use of Latvian at the exclusion of other languages as somehow a matter of a ‘superior patriotism’, when in fact it exhibits woeful knowledge about the nature of the culture among the forebears of the Latvian people as recently as a hundred years and less ago. In other words, culturally speaking, the Latvian politicians betray their culture and forebears.

At the very least, the same politicians could allocate greater funds to the study of the Latvian language at the appropriate institutions. Else, as we see, a Professor of Chinese descent at Yale University in America indirectly knows more about the Latvian language than a self-enclosed group of Latvian ‘realists’, known as the ‘Saeima’, arguably a fascist collective of politicians, do. Do these politicians really believe that their ‘realism’ will really make Latvians materially better off and more survival prone?