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 http://www.rttnews.com/2093380/stephen-hawking-pushes-for-space-exploration-to-ensure-the-survival-of-humans.aspx?type=gn&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=sitemap .

Of course, this is easier said than done; and as my favorite philosopher Slavoy Žižek explains it: “Don’t Act. Just Think.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ 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? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-we0nkja-DM 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’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 20^th 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’ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/opinion/16tierney.html?_r=0 . 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  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jouissance , 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.