Saturday, April 27, 2013

Eso’s Chronicles 162
Pope Emeritus and Christian Drones (7-1)
© Eso A.B.

This ‘cluster of thoughts’ has brought me to a difficult, and for some an unpleasant subject. The subject is difficult not only as a theme for me to write about, but to suggest as an act for others to consider as realizable.

Nevertheless, I believe there are good reasons for raising the subject.

In the previous blog (161), I suggested that Pope emeritus Cardinal Ratzinger (96 yo), reconsider as a theologian the position of the Catholic Christian superego, which was and remains the reason why princely private interest was placed before the interests of the community and thence developed in the rule of Capitalism we suffer under today.

I also suggested for the Pope emeritus to begin a rebalance of societal interests by taking a militant stance on behalf of children, who for a great number of centuries have been growing to adulthood only to realize—come age and experience—they are “survivors” of exploitation, often by means of violence. I suggested that Cardinal Ratzinger consider self-sacrifice of his life as a means to bring to the issue the attention it needs.

The superego which is cultivated today by the secular state and its institutions values the spirit only to the extent that it is a ‘virtual’ spirit, i.e., a lifeless artifice. The artifice or secularist virtual reality in our capitalist times has no relationship to “the artifice of eternity” so sweetly and lively described by Irish poet W.B. Yeats in his poem “Sailing to Bizantium” . 
I have in mind God as Act, not Word, the Act being an event in which man participates through the act of taking. As Yeats tells it:
Once out of nature I shall never take
My bodily form from any natural thing,
But (take to) such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
Or set upon a golden bough to sing
To lords and ladies of Byzantium
Of what is past, or passing, or to come.”
[My apologies to Yeats for making obvious (bolded type) changes and emphases to his poem.]
As an advocate for replacing the secular superego, with a superego inspired by the divine, I have been following the Acts of God by taking interest in the Acts of immolation by the ludi* (people) of Tibet.

As the following link from the BBC tells: over 100 Tibetans have immolated themselves (doused themselves with a flammable liquid and then lit a match) in protest over the occupation of their country by the Chinese government.

Self-immolation is an Act of ‘not-violent terror’ par excellence, a theme I discuss somewhere among the first 100 blogs of these chronicles. A gruesome, extremely painful, crippling if survived, not-violent terror is one of the last desperate acts of human subjectivity in an attempt to assert its sovereignty over the superego of the State and religion seized by secularism.

[Incidentally, I do not recommend painful forms of death to anyone. Such a death, I believe, is forced on populations by governments which forbid the sale of pain-killing drugs. This intimidates actions by people and seizes God-like powers for themselves.]

If Pope emeritus, Cardinal Ratzinger, were to commend the Tibetans for their brave deeds, he will be no more than commending the stories told about the resistance of early Christians to the Caesars of Roman Empire for their self-sacrifice rather than honour Caesar by calling him ‘God’. At the same time, the Cardinal will be taking a stand as a citizen of the state of Vatican against secular superego of China, which recently (this past January) issued a decree that stipulates:

that anyone aiding immolations will be charged with murder. (next to last paragraph)

Of course, ‘aiding’ is not the same thing as ‘commending’. Nevertheless, it is possible that China’s Supreme Court  will choose to interpret ‘commending’ as being a synonym of ‘aiding’ (another name in the game of God as Word). In this eventuality, the Pope emeritus may point out that the Papal Ring was once believed to be a ‘mystical’ form of the foreskin of Jesus. At least this is the status that St. Catherine of Siena, a Doctor of the Church, claimed for the ring she wore as a sign of her betrothal to Jesus.** The foreskin or Holy Prepuce, saved  from God’s circumcision by Catholic Christians, is the only part of Jesus acknowledged by the Church to never have ascended to heaven, but remained on Earth.

The superego of the Chinese leadership—only virtually alive—will give a laugh over such Western superstitions. However, since the prepuce of Jesus, no matter how mystical, real or unreal, now remains as the only symbol of non-supernatural divinity on Earth. It is—for that reason —the only symbol under which one may oppose the attempts of the superego of government to reduce all real life to virtual life.

Even more intimidating for Muslims and Christians is the fact that most governments of our planet support Maoist Chinese, Stalinist Soviet, and U.S. and E.U. neo-Christian  forms of Secularism. Worse than intimidating is that neo-Christianity, the mother of all Western False Flags, has infiltrated American military forces as a “religion” and is fundamentalist secularist rather than pietist in orientation. While accusing Muslims of ‘terrorism’, the real terrorists are the European and American neo-Christians (whether secularists or misguided religious) now under the elitist secular flags of the Pentagon and NATO.

In sum: the secular elites of the above mentioned allegiances having successfully perpetrated a spiritual False Flag operation on their own and other territories are now perpetrating a military occupation of same by way of military drones .

A war of an entirely new dimension has begun.

* “Ludi” –an interesting word , though easily passed over. The once well known English Luddites , the ones who smashed the frames of weaving machines, are—irrespective of the fact that the first Luddite was one Ned Ludd --closely bound with the ancient origin of the word. The word for ‘people’ in German is ‘Leute’. In my native Latvian language ‘ludi’ is echoed in the name for people, re: llaudis; as well as in the word for permissiveness: llyaut or at-llyaut; in English it also leaves traces in the word ‘lewd’.
** David M. Friedman, “A Mind of Its Own”, A Cultural History of the Penis, Robert Hale, London, 2003, p. 41.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Eso’s Chronicles 161
 ‘Survivors’ of Government Games (6)
© Eso A.B.

When children become ‘survivors’ whether as dead bodies (via our memories of Waco  or Beslan ) or live adults enduring flashbacks of government originated violence, and when nearly all inhabitants of our planet may identify as children who ‘survived’, cider turns into blood running over the edges of a cider press.

Ours is a time when Eve gives birth with sadistic pleasure as she quickly ties the umbilical cord, then stuffs an apple in the mouths of all her crying ones, exulting in the knowledge that all her Adams came wearing a military uniform, and were sent by Commanders in Chief such as Obama, Bush, Blair, Cameron, Hollande (put your favourite name here ….).

A millenium after being chased from our safe democracy, the wood, where we had nature’s goods without cost, and after enduring centuries in the desert of the city, humankind (forced by VIPs to become citizens of VIP-made desert) has become a slurry of blood flavoured with chunky bits of pineapple by government controlled cooks of history, the (privately owned) media and designers (‘look! how creative we are!’).

Though one may appreciate the dilemma of government strung out to the point of disaster (an unintended consequence of institutionalized urban democracy), to this time no ‘survivor’ has declared himself ready to be in sympathy with the ‘disaster’. This is not surprising, because no one really remembers that the catastrophe is the consequence of a series of  deliberate  False Flag events such as ‘the Resurrection’, incinerations beyond counting, ‘9/11’, ‘Boston Marathon’, all ‘inspired’ by self-made mental disasters (murderous daydreams) among the leadership and those compulsively and ‘faithfully’ creative under their command.

What if those who staged the False Flag event at the Boston Marathon had not been ‘cogs’ in a bureaucratic wheel? What if the butchering of the two Chechen youths had not been carried out with the inevitability of a machine skipping a ‘yes, no’ of a digital switch? What if President Obama had done some thinking on his own and not put his seal of approval on the Boston Marathon as the successor event to ‘9/11’?

If a “survivor” of Stalin’s gulags had been informed that Stalin had died by his own hand and left a note saying: “I took my life as a token payback for the pain that I caused with my attempts to serve both the Russian and the world community….”, the “survivor” and his-her descendants would likely have borne their personal burdens as a “chosen people” for many generations. However, such an attitude of hope for recovery is not possible in an era, where governments are proxies of banks.

I may be wrong, and instead of a golden calf, I ought to be speaking of a gold fleeced lamb, an even meeker creature than a calf, and for this reason formerly used as a sacrifice the world over. For this cause, the lamb is a sacrificial symbol also among Christians . Unfortunately no Christian banker or government official has in our time offered to sacrifice his-her career on behalf of a nation or community, Perhaps we ought to seek such a sacrifice to come from the leadership of the Christian community?

Almost unbelievably (God given opportunity), such a sacrifice is available at the highest level of the Catholic Church, in the Pope emeritus, Joseph Ratzinger. As most readers know, the current Pope Francis  came to office as a result of the previous Pope offering an unprecedented resignation (2013). The resignation is the second one in the history of the Catholic Church. The previous resignation was that of Pope Gregory XII , and happened in the year 1415, the year the famous Christian radical and heretic theologian, Jan Hus, was burnt in Constance, Germany. One of Hus’s heresies was to stand for education for children.

Those who read the link to Jan Hus to the end know the meaning of the saying “Holy simplicity”. The sentence's Czech equivalent ("svatá prostota!") is still used to comment upon a stupid-uneducated action. All things considered , Benedict XVI is guilty of the ‘svatá prostata!’ not because of his resignation as Pope, but because one of the reasons for his resignation is the embarrassment to the institutional superego caused by the sexual behaviour of paedophile priests.

Why has sexual violence, including paedophilia, become such a potent issue in our time?

Is it perhaps because sex is no longer an act of nature, but an act out of the realm of the virtual?

If we look into the past, paedophilia (accepted as normal, even expected behaviour for men in ancient Greek society) has drawn increasingly negative reactions since the advent of the industrial age and the emergence of the Feminist Rights Movement, especially in its later stages. The condemnation centres on men, while the touching of children’s genitalia by mother is judged acceptable.

It is interesting to note that paedophilia seems to have drawn heightened condemnation from the societal superego with its increased acceptance of homosexuality. In other words, the campaign against paedophilia may be a compensatory activity by the superego in reaction of homosexual campaign against homophobia. Why such compensation is necessary is a subject for curiosity, but may have something to do with, both, loss of authority by religion, the arrival of an abusive (and overconfidently self-righteous) age of secularism rooted in virtual reality, and the tabu against nakedness. Apparently, such practices are ‘normal’ in a civilization that has turned wood and field into a desert, and has made its home in the camouflaged desert of the city.

It remains to note that long ago, when religion was as much part of society as nature (and biological mindset was ascendant and observing the practice of self-sacrifice, which included life sacrifice), sexuality played a profound role in the life of the community.

A self-sacrificial persona (we call it ‘victima’ today), the sacred king of a given community, would receive sexual gratification as a reward for his self-sacrifice (the sacrificer commonly was a male). There is no record of sexual exploitation of children, because the community likely interpreted such sex a paradox of sacrifice, an act analogous to child sacrifice.

The children of a community often were the offspring of the same father. In days when self-sacrifice was esteemed and in demand, women gave themselves to the sacrificial-king in the belief that the children conceived of such a union would be blessed by the Gods. The tracing of paternity of a woman’s children, was not—as it is popular to assert in our day—traceable to a collective of men (who knows who is father of which child!), but to the sacred king and the orgiastic festivals of Saturnalia and Ludi

Given the post-modern concept that ‘immoral but legal government’ is ‘okay’ and that modern leaders seldom offer themselves in self-sacrifice to the community, the public may wonder whether the ex-Pope (mentioned above), having once stood in the shoes of ‘the vicar of Christ’ , has given theological thought to the notion that the point of Christianity is not to Redeem the sins of government elites, but to lead society by example and denounce governments which repress the children of the ‘ludi’ to the point that they grow up to think of themselves as “survivors” of gross violence. Is it not time to demand that the Pope Emeritus takes on the cause of children and go take baptism in the river of Lethe? A public self-sacrifice by a Christian leader without, for once, resorting to violence will surely bring attention to the fact that humankind has successfully ‘survived’ governments by violence and a new age is at hand.

Basil the Bogomil, aka Jesus, called a child to him, and placed the child among the grownups. He said to his audience: “I tell you truly, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever is like this child is among the great. And whoever welcomes a child in my name welcomes love and refuses violence. (After NIV, Mat. 18)

What must a child of our time have seen to call him- and herself a “survivor” when grown to adulthood? Is not the nation he is born into led by cowards? Are the children of our age not worthy of redemption by Pope Emeritus?

Monday, April 22, 2013

Eso’s Chronicles 160
 “Escaping the Death Camp of Post-Modernity” (5)
© Eso A.B.

They call us “survivors”. I put myself among the “survivors” who were never in a “death camp” of the Nazis or the Bolsheviks. I realize that there is a dispute over who may apply that term to him or herself. Nevertheless, the term applies to a much broader segment of humankind than the Zionist Federation through conceit for Jews suffering more than others denies others a share in.

In my own country of Latvia, where many people are survivors of Stalin’s ‘gulags’, the term ‘survivor’ has been replaced by the term ‘the repressed’. This change may have been done partially to avoid an unseemly clash between two groups of people disputing who suffered most. Clearly the word “survivor” cannot be appropriated by either myself or anyone else. It is a classic subjective word that will not surrender to Zionist superego no matter how forcefully asserted.

The decision by Latvians to designate their survivors as “the repressed”, nevertheless, indicates that fractal differences exist between the two groups of sufferers. However reluctantly one may accept the designation of “the repressed”, its acceptance suggests awareness of an irrefutable legalistic intercession on behalf of the repressor.

While Jewish “survivors” may claim that they were designated to suffer death sooner or later, “the repressed” are aware that while their repressors exercised no mercies that would or could save them from death, they were placed in the gulags as enemies of the Bolshevik led Soviet Socialist order. While millions died in the Gulags under most miserable and merciless circumstances (over 790,000 people were tried in 1937, of which over 353,000 were shot, and over 430,000 were sent to prison or gulags), the surviving ‘repressed’ cannot claim that if they had the stamina or fortune to survive, they would have ended in a sealed trailer exposed to Zircon gas.

Whatever the arguments over the choice of words, the Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) were undeniably unilaterally and violently occupied by the Soviet Union, and the subsequent executions and deportations were perpetrated on populations of countries which the Soviet Union had renounced as part of its territories by treaty. Thus, the dead as well as the deported and enslaved may defend themselves as a having suffered arbitrary exposure to sham trials, physical violence and death, and those who did not succumb are “survivors”. The only way the occupier of the Baltics could have hoped to escape being called ‘the repressor-occupier’ was to see itself in the position of the repressor for eternity—which repressor obviously did not succeed in.

Just like the ‘survivors’, ‘the repressed’ (a word selected by the superego, i.e., ego of law) have turned their horrific experiences in an inward suffering, and many have found solace in being able to gather as a solidarity that shares in a common experience. As such, the groups may manifest political power either on their own behalf or on behalf of the larger community about them, which in and of itself may knows little or nothing about the experiences of concentration camps and gulags. The larger community may learn about the gulags best from one who survived them: the Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn , who wrote several books which record his experiences in Soviet labor camps, including “The Gulag Archipelago”. [Excerpts: ]

The above “survivors” and “the repressed” belong to the time and events that happened during the first half of the 20th century. I took part in this period as a child, during its last 17 years (1933-1950), and I claim my “survivorship” from the point of view of a child and youth (I am writing this in April, 2013).

The first defense of my claim is an unwanted and coerced participation (unerwuenchte beteiligung) in violent times and their traumatic after effects. It may surprise the reader that such an ‘unerwuenchte beteiligung’ / coerced participation is the experience of most of the children who lived or live through wars and other violent events, including extreme poverty and neglect of education. The children of our forebears, no matter how difficult their physical environment, seldom if ever experienced or had to survive such physical and psychological  neglect when making their home in the wood where they survived in as animal herders.

Today the coerced ‘beteiligung’ of children in violence brings to mind the children of Afghanistan and Pakistan (exposed to U.S. drone attacks), Palestine (subject to IDF rubber bullets and seizure of their parental homelands), and such who visit trashcans and trash heap anywhere on our planet. All such children will, if not today, then at a later and more reflective point in their life, think of themselves as “survivors” regardless of what the superego of the Zionist Federation says they may think.

When we broaden the scope and the numbers of people who may describe themselves as “survivors”, such people may soon, if not already, represent the majority of our planet’s inhabitants. When among the “survivors” are included children, and the state of “survivorship” is perceived from such a broadened perspective, it changes utterly the way society may view modern politics and its leadership.

The prevailing attitude of government ‘law makers’ in ruling and lording over society is: “It may be immoral, but it is not illegal”, i.e. immorality by way of our ‘law-makers’ achieves legalized status. Even if the superego of these ‘law-makers’ is without fault, it presents the gene of altruism with direct challenge from a sadistic superego. This means that government governs with the help of the barrel of a gun, and that such a government must be short circuited and discredited by all means at hand which do not use violence.

This is the time when the genes of altruism give a “survivor” a nudge to react to the repression with an act of resistance. Perhaps even more unbelievable is the fact that no “survivor” knows when he-she will react. Yet we may be sure that a “survivor” has the subjective tools by way of experience to react sooner or later. We may also be sure that the “survivor’s” subjective experience dictates to him-her to resist without use of violence.

Though it is less than a decade before the centennial anniversary of the establishment of the first gulag (1919) and two decades before the establishment of the first concentration camp (1933), there has not as of yet emerged a clear philosophy of action for those who survived the conditions and times of these institutions. The exceptions, emergences that are with us for all their contradictions, are two fundamentalist orientations—that of the Jews and Muslims. The Jewish reaction may be summed up in the words “never again”, backed by a determination to react with extreme violence to any threat to its community. The Muslim reaction sums up the reaction of Islamists in the cry 'Allah ek akbar'. ('God is great'),  and going on the attack strapped in a vest filled with dynamite and blowing one’s self up at a military gate or doorway or after gaining entrance into as crowded a place as possible.

The fundamentalist oriented individuals of both mentioned communities show great selflessness in their willingness for self-sacrifice, except that in both instances self-sacrifice is neither ‘pure’ nor ‘without fault’. The self-sacrifices of both groups slaughter and shed blood of innocents and leave themselves open to the criticism of being ‘cowards’, that is, “suicidal terrorists” (the Muslims on an individual basis, the Jews as a cmmunithy), both exhibiting inability to self-sacrifice themselves in or through an act of ‘pure’ protest that does not kill people by sneaking up to them from behind and killing them unaware. Why is this?

Is it some king of a merciful act of highly developed civlization to ‘kill people dead before they know it?’

Friday, April 19, 2013

Eso’s Chronicles 159
“The Capitalist ‘For Life’ Politburo” (4)
© Eso A.B.

The European elites, having formed a European Union along the lines of the English Magna Charta on behalf of English Lords and Princes, have been creepily crawling in their long tradition of unilataralist ways over the people and nations of Europe for many years, even centuries.

One does not have to look far to see how the cream has been skimmed off the top of the labours of the people of Europe, at the same time as the Europeans have been exposed to a steady stream of neo-liberalist adverts of how “good” the skim milk that the political centrifuge sends to the jar for lesser gravity products is .

The model of ‘parliamentary democracy’ has served the European elites well in spite of the French, Russian, and German Revolutions signalling warnings that the model(s) on which European society was being formed suffered from great shortcomings.
One of the reasons why the ‘model’ of parliamentary democracy has served the elites so well is because in spite of a number of deadly political upheavals, even in the face of seeming populist victories, the ultimate victor has remained the elite. In war the political elites almost never die. Why is this?

I have argued that the reasons are social separation as strict and severe as in the Indian caste system. The separation, preceded by biology driven altruism, may have evolved step by step and not necessarily in the same sequence in all species.

A. The earliest step toward inequality is theft. Theft is one of the most common traits among adult animals, say, birds, who have no compunctions about picking off the seed right in front of the beak of their neighbours. Of course, the birds do not call this ‘theft’, but merely ‘taking what the other has not yet taken’. The first sign of altruism and differentiating between theft and giving probably begins with the ‘gift’, observed in birds feeding their young. Among animals, the mother offers the young suck of her very body by way of transforming designated parts of the body into milk producing glands. At a later stage, the father may also join in feeding the young by sharing with the mother and the young in a recently killed gazelle. Later yet, comes the mating ritual, in which the male partner may court the female with a gift of food. The question of who gives the ‘gift’ first, the male or female, is a tricky one. While the above suggests it is the female, the behaviour of some spiders suggests otherwise .

B. The second step is a conscious attempt to reverse biology initiated altruism. Such is the institution of taxation. Taxation began with the imposition of a tax system on the European nomads, the Evenks of Tartaria. The early tax was in animal pelts. The taxes probably began as a result of the Viking invaders threatening and pressuring local rulers along the river basins of the Volga, Don, Dniepr, and other rivers. The rulers were then forced to pressure and repress the people of the societies they led in their capacity as ‘sacred’ (self-sacrificing; God ordained) kings.

Taxation resulted in a top-down rule even in societies where such a rule did not exist previously and was fiercely resisted. For reasons of obvious advantages it brought to the elites, the system spread quickly and introduced altogether different societal and political parameters.

C. In order to decrease the inborn (biological and genetic)—and permanent (until perhaps genetic engineering in the offing today)—opposition to taxation, the elites needed to change the religion that underlay the egalitarian social ways that prevailed among the people of the wood and the savannah.

D.Religion’ of the people of the pre-taxation days had little resemblance to the ‘religion’ of our time. The ‘religion’ of the Evenks was only incidentally imbedded with moral teachings or illustrated by some particular story of origin, but came with the mother’s “coo” and lullaby. In short, religion was imbedded in the language of the people, not in the names of Gods and tribal totems. These latter may be anthropological fixtures, but have little to do with ‘religion’ in a theological sense.

E. While I have no knowledge of the Evenk language, it appears to have left its influence far and wide. Many words that suggest movement, such as avant (garde), avec, advance, and personal and place names such as Ivan, Vanka, Lithuv(enian)anka, Latv(ian)anka, etc. are derived from the name of this Tartary tribe. Of course, over time, local idiom blended the pronunciation of the word to its own ways. 

The ‘religion’ of these ancient people is closely related to what our dictionaries today pejoratively define as the ‘diminutive Wilfully associated by grammarians with ‘small’ and ‘tiny’—as a result of the above mentioned change of memes in religion and theology—the ‘good news’ of the new civilization (neo-Christian) arising under the tutelage of taxation was the arrival of our present mesmerizing capitalist economic system.

Neo-Christianity through its emphasis on bodily resurrection (as opposed to the earlier meme   that emphasized spiritually and psychically transmitted transmigration of souls), brought with it a heretofore unknown acknowledgement (by the superego,_ego_and_super-ego ) of the fear of death. This fear in due course closed off access to leadership by example, the example including self-sacrifice unto death in the creation, forming, and maintenance of a cultural community.

By closing off thought about self-sacrifice unto death by the leadership, we close off thought about any ‘the third way’ solution to our current political impasse.

Informative link: Capitalism hits the fan by Richard Wolff


Monday, April 15, 2013

Eso’s Chronicles 158
The Perpetual “ ‘In Life’ Politburo” (3)
© Eso A.B.

I sat up and listened, took note, and pulled the siggee at the foot of the video back 3 x (to 4:27) to hear the former Reagan administration budget director David Stockman say: “[The Fed is] the Monetary Politburo of the Western World” . Unfortunately, the phrase was soon edited out. Still, the censors kept in enough phrases to make it worth listening to, such as “This [the budget] is a Giant Ponzi Scheme (of the Federal Reserve)….(at 2:27)”, and “the Fed is injecting the heroin….” (at 4:37) , and….

So, who am I to say that the Western scheme (they call it ‘civilization’) is imploding and the sound of a major ‘thud’ is but moments away, when I really think that the scheme is imploding; yet, in spite of what I think, I am not sure that I think so?

“Ah…”, you may reply, “I understand your gobbledygook, because, look! …how normal everything appears. Not a leaf or blade of grass is stirring. The air smells as fresh as if a cloud of O3 just went by.”

I, too, understand what you mean. I am, afterall, conversing with myself. Indeed, ‘normality’ reminds me of a German folksong my nanny taught me when I was a small boy, had hurt myself, and was crying.

The nanny sang: “Kommt ein Vogel geflogen, setzt Sich nieder auf mein Fuss, hat ein Zetterl im Schnabel von der Mutter ein Gruss!” (A little bird comes flying and alights on my foot; it has a letter in its beak with greetings from mother.)

After the song, I had a few hiccups and ran on. I knew that by Friday father would be home with a pay check, and he would take me to the toy store and buy me the ball that I had seen in the window when passing by.

Today, however, I hear behind me the footsteps of the Bilderberg Group , and see them carrying sacks filled with trillions of dollars in off shore money. If the sacks contain money worth real assets, the Bilderbergs will not catch up with me. However, because the trillions are in fiat currency, and within the next few steps is likely to go “Poof!”, they are likely to overtake me.

Since in my youth I lived for a time on a farm, and got to like the idea of being able to harvest my own potatoes, in my fantasy, I was always able to escape the Bilderbergs and run for my potato patch, where the stems and leaves of the plants were thick enough to cover and hide me if I lay between the furrows. However, with the trillions of the Bilderberg money turning into thin air, they may overtake me yet and rush by me with a funerary dirge on their lips.

I am saved from a premature death by the insights of my favourite on-the- cusp-of-centuries philosopher, Slavoy Žižek. Well grounded in the history of philosophy and an enviable memory, Žižek writes of the profound humiliation suffered by post-enlightenment humankind when it was overtaken and humiliated by the cognitive sciences . Explains Žižek: “Strictly correlative to the humiliation of ‘man’ is the exponential growth of humankind’s technological domination over nature in modernity.”

What Žižek means by ‘humiliation’ is the discovery that the human mind and body conforms to the rules of technology (the body performs much like a machine and thinks much like a digital computer) and we cannot escape as in former days into believing ourselves to be supernatural beings, say, an icon on the walls of a countryside basilica; or as W.B. Yeats said it in his poem “Sailing to Byzantium” : “Once out of nature I shall never take / My bodily form from any natural thing, / But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make / Of hammered gold and gold enamelling….

To be ‘in nature’ or ‘out of nature’ is such a common experience in our time that our world comes bifurcated, and it does not appear that we know how to bring the two forks of the one road together again.

Those of us who feel particularly ‘humiliated’ have attached ourselves to the ‘in nature’ or cognitive sciences (led by the Word) as the way of escaping shame and recovering our pride. It is this element of the psyche, which beginning with the steam engine created industrial society and all that comes with it. This development was natural, once the ‘out of nature’ psyche (the irretrievable Act) was not only repressed and humiliated in turn, but was, in fact, ‘successfully’ killed. The ‘success’ of the murder is, however, based on the presumption that being ‘in nature’ means life in nature only—as if only the self-consciousness of the living (in leadership circles) matters. This exclusivity of life ‘in life’ enabled Stalin and Hitler to kill without guilt all those who were of ‘in life’, and were deemed harmful by them. They kept alive only those creatures, which they held necessary as servants.

The iconic God of ‘in life’ leadership and humankind is perfectly illustrated by Stanley Kubric’s  movie “2001 Space Odyssey” (1968) .

Today’s leaders (Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, Nixon, Bush, Obama, Putin, etc.) are very much in the image of the ape smashing the dried bones and skull of a hippopotamus, the latter standing for that part of humankind which may not be of one mind with its gone ape leadership.

The humans living ‘in life’ claim that the ‘out of life’ God does not exist, even while ‘in life’ philosophers continue to distinguish between an ‘in life’ Real and an ‘out of life’ Another. The difficulty that blocks the road  to the rejoining of thought apparently is Death.

Nevertheless, if we can prove for ourselves that there are two realities, an inner and outer, an ‘in’ and an ‘out’, and both are real enough ‘singularities’, then why not an ‘out of life (and body)’ experience for an ‘out of body’ reality, i.e., ? What if phenomenology as fuel for life is only an ‘in life’ phenomenon, but that the ‘out of life’ fuel for life is Mind? Are not atomic and subatomic particles clear evidence that construction of reality continues after death—which is why reality may not yet be fully constructed?

If there is any truth to the above, it remains an open question whether the bifurcation caused by our ‘humiliation’ holds for all time?  At this moment in time however most of those with a ‘higher education’ appear to consider the question as closed and react to their own positivist answer in a sadistic-masochistic manner that causes incalculable harm to nature and the rest of humankind.

To an outside (of ‘in’) observer fantasizing him- or her-self to be less compulsively motivated than Žižek’s ‘man’, the ‘humiliated one’ is charging towards “autistic masturbatory ‘asocial’ joisance”*. The freshmen college anecdote about the monkey pushing the button that causes him an orgasm until he dies from too many convulsions are a social reality, except that for the monkey’s hand levered button, we push the lever just thinking about it .

At the point (in a hypothetical time) where Žižek’s post-modern hyper-man meets with our Great Ancestor (still practicing subsistence economy), there may occur an interesting confrontation.

Our ‘out of nature’ ancestors raise a question which the ‘humiliated’ one may consider yet another humiliation. The question is: “Why are you jerking off so much?”

To which the ‘in nature’ response may go: “Why are you so slow, so unmotivated, and so backward?”

To which the reindeer herders, the Avenks, the travelling Johns reply: “What we took ten billion years to create (yes, we continue to create even when we are so-called dead), you want to do in two centuries. All the living creatures which co-evolved with us, you turn into bones in two decades.”

“Yes, but we can renew our body parts and clone ourselves to live in perpetuity.”

“True, but you have turned our community festivals into Fuck Carnivals, and all the wild animals in the wood are dead because your hunters get an orgasm from each kill.”

 *Slavoy Žižek, “The Universal Conception”, Continuum, pp. 308.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Eso’s Chronicles 157
I Don’t Know What to Thimk (2)
© Eso A.B.

When ‘WORD’ prevails over ‘ACT’, it always leads to excess. Take sex, for example. When words, which speak of ‘sex’ suggest a sexual act, the ‘word’—as poets well know—always gets a double orgasm (“I would like to touch you all over”) and like a bottle of champagne pops the cork.

The reason this is is because words that mention ‘sex’ arise from unfulfilled desire, which desire is a plain, naked, and shivering thing, like an empty pocket reaching down between our legs, waiting to be used as a handkerchief.

Our shivering desire motivates us to fill our pockets in the shortest possible time and in the easiest possible way. The easiest and least obscene way is to go and BUY something. In short, the ‘word’ motivates us to perform a pseudo act, i.e. not to have SEX, but to have a BUY, on the cheap, at a SALE, as a double orgasm, one for the saleslady, the other for the advertiser, with enough SEX left over to stimulate yet further BUYS, maybe a new bra for Victoria.

If one’s subconscious is untutored and perceives that to BUY means to have something like real SEX, then on the subconscious level the shopping mall becomes a capitalist cathedral, where sex is a non-stop masturbatory orgy. Such an orgy was last had as recently as moments before the 2008 global financial collapse, when, suddenly (though not unexpectedly), all Wall Street money pumps went dry and began ejaculating convulsively. Money, which heretofore had filled the vacuum left by the excess of words talking up capitalism, could no longer perform the function of masking the fact it lacked value. Meaningless existence suddenly became unsustainable and could no longer be perceived as an asset, revealed how already for some time planet Earth had been turned into a desert, and the sand had come, at last, to bury my house as well.

My blogs have been arguing that with the collapse of the ‘Word’, time has come to Act, preferably by abandoning cities—our perfect machines for producing desertification. Though transition to a subsistence economy and getting used to living in the wood again may not come without pain and containment of orgiastic technology, an orderly retreat will surely be succeeded by survival and renewal, rather than a flight from our planet as suggested by astronomer Stephen Hawking .

Of course, this is easier said than done; and as my favorite philosopher Slavoy Žižek explains it: “Don’t Act. Just Think.” To which I do not quite know how to respond—given that I have been advocating that we think of God as an Act over God as Word. That is, does Žižek not know that the story of Western Christianity is a False Flag, and that the story of Jesus is but a prototype for Baron Munchausen? All who have read “The Adventures of Baron Munchausen” know that it is a story in which words are bricks that turn into canon balls of fantasy, whereas “The Adventures of Jesus” is a staged spectacle sans sex (which any good story would not be without).

Maybe this is what Žižek means when commenting on ‘Occupy Wall Street’ (a major protest movements that followed the many other protest movements that arose after the 2008 financial collapse) he says : “….There is something fundamentally wrong with the system [Capitalism]; and the existing forms of institutionalized democracy are not strong enough to deal with the problems. Beyond this we don’t have an answer…. For me ‘Occupy Wall Street’ is just a signal…. It is time to start thinking….”

Žižek goes on to explain that 20th century opposition to Capitalism (including that of the Soviet Union) ended in brutal repression because “…we tried to interpret the world too quickly, the time is to interpret it again, to start thinking…. We should be careful what we do…. ” Etc., etc. Žižek shifts gears and starts talking about ‘socialism’ within the capitalist system. What Žižek ends up saying is that capitalism is quite alright (even indestructible), but as other capitalist propagandists have already said: capitalism ought to have a ‘heart’ . Alas, the philosopher sounds like one who likes to chew on frogs already ten times chewed; he not only thinks, but has thought for so long that to think has become to thimk; the Bolshevic has become a Bolshemic.

What Žižek, the opponent of capitalism, misses (he does not miss it in some of his other statements and writings) is that ‘capitalism’ is (what he himself says) a form of joisance , where the ‘pleasure principle’ (a la Lacan) in an effort to exceed itself causes not only excess, but which excess results in suffering, both of the sadistic and masochistic kind.

Surely Žižek’s problem is that he fails to note that capitalism is the result of repressed Christianity, which repression is the result of living by a False Flag history. In other words, what Western Christianity (Catholicism, the Mother Church) did is reset the self-sacrifice that is the heart of Arch-Christianity* with repressions no less bloody and cruel than Stalin’s. The aim of the repressions was to eliminate self-sacrifice by scaring people to death of death, i.e., by making ‘resurrection’ desirable—consequent to life made miserable by our work ethic.

The answer to Žižek’s problem is simple: a reinvention of death, which will reinvent the charisma of not-violent terror.

The quickest way to put an end to capitalism is to demand that the political elite, in return for its privileges, sacrifice life. I have pointed out in earlier blogs that if such a sacrifice had been forthcoming from Stalin and Hitler, and if they had known that it was required of them, their mode of governing and legacy would have brought about a very different history from the one we have to live with today.

*Ur-Christianity possibly descended from the Siberian Avenks (the name of John(s), the name a likely cognate by way of the Russian Ivan, Vanka, etc., where the ‘v’ is replaced by ‘y’), who in turn may have been heirs to the traditions of the herders who came out of Africa.


Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Eso’s Chronicles 156
I Don’t Know What to Think (1)
© Eso A.B.

In Blog 154, I mention that ever since God became the 'Word' and lost his 'Act'-ive Self, human beings have become passive and the norm of human life is best described as vegetative (that includes vegees bungee jumping). The fundamental problem appears to be that the ‘Word’ (capped W) always manages to inject itself between me (if presume myself as part of the public) and whatever I want to do. This ‘Word’ generally is the word of Another, who always manages to ‘suppress’ and make my word insignificant.

I trace the phenomenon to the rise of the Catholic Christian Church and the imposition of its ‘Word’ [with the help of military violence and inquisitorial torture] on behalf of a ruling elite over a civilization that has nothing to do with theirs, but which does have the means of military might and the experience of a butcher. Of course, like with most everything, there are exceptions.

One exception is the, so called, “liberation theology”, which originated in South America. It perceived the perverse doctrine of the Mother Church with a critical eye and attempted to return the Church to God as an Act. As MIT professor Noam Chomsky explains it , the critics ended up dead. Had the liberation theology Activists submitted to the American led Evangelical (Wordy) theology, they would still be talking today and waiting for rapture.

While the reasons that are said to have caused the various doctrinal divergences within the Christian Church (such as trinitarianism or Arianism , for example), the main split is between God as Act and God as Word. Today God as Word is the clear winner and controls ALL governments. All governments impose the Word on their subjects, and what the Word imposes at the most basic level is to tell the public “do not Act”, i.e., do not teach ‘liberation theology’, because it energizes the students to take remedial action. Since this split was begun by Western Christianity, it is justified in claiming to have brought the Bible (in so far as it is claimed by Western Christianity) to the world.
At the same time, it ought to be of a great wonder that near simultaneously with the ‘victory’ of Western or ‘Wordy’ Christianity comes its defeat not in the abstract, but real sense.

While the West has cast the entire planet into a crisis (economical, international relations, environmental, communal), the one with the most Revolutionary potential is that of the elite class. For the first time in its over a thousand year long history, the leadership of the world (China’s including) has been exposed as naked, moronic, murderous, unprincipled, and, therefore, unnecessary. There are many events that illustrate this.

Almost a fourth of Britons believe that Tony Blair should be arrested for war crimes; even as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange speaking from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London releases the so-called ‘Project K’, which consists of 1.7 million files composed of US Department of State diplomatic communications; even as this writer presents (via these blogs) the oldest known (to this time) falsified literary document, Sophocles’ “Oedipus Rex (Rewritten)” .

The literary falsification, behind which hides an attempt to release the ruling elites from responsibilities (mortal sins actually) incurred during their rule, does not come alone. As the reader knows, the New Testament, too, was written less to present the world with the teachings of Jesus, than to present a different account of what happened to the spiritual leader of Eastern Christianity, Basil (King) The Avenk, whom I present as ‘BasilTheBogomil’ in a series of blogs by that name.

Needless to say, I am aware that the reader is likely saying to him- or her-self that all these words seem confusing; one no longer knows what or whom to believe, what is or is not ‘real’ history. At the same time, this is precisely what I mean by writing (above) “a great wonder” at the coincidence of seeming Western ‘victory’ with the ‘rebirth’ of the Morning Star in the Eastern sky.

Even as the government of the United States of America is presumptuously exporting its fake democracy to fake dictatorships and is killing hundreds of thousands of people who have no idea why they are being killed, the killing done by the U.S. military is nevertheless Real and without meaning. How does one tell a young Iraqi that his-her life expectancy today is only about 30 years

Regarding the subject of what is Real, but at the same time has no meaning, the philosopher Alain Badiou has a wonderfully succinct explanation.  Badiou states (‘A Conversation with Alain Badiou’, lacanian ink 23, 2004, pp. 100-1; toh to Žižek):

“The simplest definition of God and of religion lies in the idea that truth and meaning are one and the same thing. The death of God is the end of the idea that posits truth and meaning as the same thing….” To wit: truth and meaning become unglued; meaning without truth is the empty holy word of today’s Catholicism.

Given the crime committed by the U.S. government in its attempt to play God, and at the same time export to Iraq an incomprehensible and meaningless death, there necessarily arises a gut call for a Second Nuremberg War Crimes Trial . Given the definitive separation of ‘God’ and ‘meaning’ that has occurred between 1945 and 2013, the ostensible God (the government of the U.S.) having rendered ‘meaning’ meaningless, the criminals should not be sentenced to death by hanging as before, but each given a capsule of an extremely  powerful painkiller, they must administer to themselves to achieve an unfelt death.

The effect of such medicine may not be a reassertion of meaning, but a doubling of the reality of Real, or as philosopher Žižek puts it: “…when the impossibility of the conjunction of meaning and truth is imposed on us: either we endorse the ‘postmodern’ stance and denounce the dimension of truth… or we engage in the effort to discern a dimension of truth outside meaning—i.e… the dimension of truth as Real.”

Impossible though it may seem to some, we may discover that this ‘truth’ was well known by the forebears of our present civilization, the so-called ‘primitive’ Adam and Eve.


Saturday, April 6, 2013

Eso’s Chronicles 155
Joan of Arc, God As Act (4)
© Eso A.B.

The ideology of words and the results it leads to is rather well illustrated by the following clip (if you have the patience to see it through to the end) . Unfortunately, the subject: “Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon” is not persuasive, if only for the reason that the professor does not appear to have ever stepped very far beyond the faculty room.  As the title of the lecture advises us, the professor’s aim is to break the spell over whomever religion has enveloped in its fog and who ever thought or believed that religion is a natural phenomenon. A few minutes into the lecture, he already intimates the hope (expressed in terms of ‘likelihood’) that science will soon dispel any such notion.

Interestingly, ‘scientism’ (if not science) originated with the rigorous (and cruel) interpretation of ecclesiastical law. Joan was burnt by the Burgundians because she wore male clothes, and strict and dogmatic interpretation of ‘the science of law’ had to be applied to make prevail the ends of materialism. The object-law in the Petri dish on the table for dissection was Deuteronomy 22:25: “A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.” A legion of scholastics put their noses to the dish and pronounced that the smell was a natural phenomenon, it smelled of the roast-of-Joan.

If it were only as simple as the professor and the faculty room environment believes. I do not dispute that such a belief is their desert. After all, the thesis of my blogs is that the present-day collapse of ‘virtually everything’ is a triumph of their making. One of the faculty room (Francis Fukuyama), recently went so far as to suggest that among the victories of capitalism was the capture of the future, and that the blood clotted False Flag was hence to flutter the words: “The End of History”.

For a while it may have seemed so. More than one academic, with no better idea about religion than getting his-her hair wet by having a priest’s hen lay a water filled word on it, suggested that religions would soon meld into each other. Nevertheless, there were a few exceptions, who understood that the word was preceded by an act: . As the foregoing remarks by Noam Chomsky’s make clear, not even a linguist can dismiss the fact that the Act is as positive matter to the anti-matter of the Word.

Today hardly anyone has heard that religion originated as a consequence to the creation of communities, and that the reason why religion continues to this day is because while violence may create empires, which are awesome and persuasive models of ‘the deserts of the real’, they do not create viable communities. In ‘the dessert of the real’ all that is is made of words and derives from words seizing violence. Youngsters today imagine war as entertainment; while the video screens portray the community as populist ‘excrement’ of Earth.

As most of us know, Joan of Arc, once she had initiated a turn for the better for the kingdom of France, was soon betrayed by the same Catholic authorities that used her to save themselves and the kingdom they had trashed. While such accusations were to be expected from the Angles and Burgundians, the same arguments were soon (if not earlier) used by the University of Paris. What especially bothers the elites and the academic ecclesia is that Joan is venerated by the public as a saint even before she has been burnt, and that the public is not much bothered by her male clothes, because it knows that without them, the Maid will be raped.
It is difficult, even impossible, to persuade a successful (well to do) neo-liberal community that its members under stressful economic conditions are sure to behave aggressively toward other communities. Indeed, it is the well off neo-liberal community that believes that it is created by God and that God created it to be peace loving. The police are there only to restrain those who suffer from some pathology—like boredom that needs to be overcome by alcohol, indecent exposure, wife swapping, or not paying back money borrowed to pay a bill.
How does one become a ‘successful’ neo-liberal community? By not having to suffer from no want. And how does one avoid suffering from want? By becoming a leader of the community and demanding to be paid well.
And how does one do that?
By threat, power, and violence.
How does one do that?
By cutting down the forest, creating a desert, leaving no place for one to hide, leaving no fish in the sea, creating a police, and leaving others helpless.
It is not that human beings did not try other solutions. After all, the inability of people to get along is legendary. There is an anecdote (I do not remember where I read it) of a meeting of two separate groups of gorillas or chimpanzees. The groups came together without violence, but the males eyed each other apprehensively. There was tension in the air. As humans would say, there was no one around to crack a joke. Instead of a joke two females, one from each group came out into the space that still separated the two groups. As everyone watched, the two began to play with each other, that is, they felt each other up sexually. The males could not be but disarmed. Everyone relaxed, and the two groups blended into each other, and there was peace among them while they remained in each other’s proximity.
We may take the above scene a step further. Say, a male from each group began to dispute, because one of the females of an elder gave signs of moving to stay with a younger male of the other group. Male pride was wounded, and a fight began. Elders from each side had to intervene and break up the conflict. Nevertheless, neither of the males immediately involved would calm down, and the elders decided to let them fight it out between themselves. Whatever the outcome, even if one was killed, the other would respect the result.
But when one of the opponents was in fact killed, the atmosphere became very tense, and the tension was great enough to suspect that a general conflict might soon break out. This is when one of the elders stepped out of the wood with a mushroom, a green fly agaric , in one of his paws. Everyone knew that the mushroom was deadly.
The elder calmly broke the mushroom in pieces and began to eat it. To save the elder from death by poisoning, both of the ‘lezzy’ females offered to have sex with him. The male did not refuse their offers, but continued to eat the mushroom until he went into convulsions and died.
Then an amazing thing happened: both of the groups of gorillas (or chipanzees) continued together, and thereafter become one community.