Thursday, May 16, 2013

Eso’s Chronicles 167
Forbidden Death (10/1)
© Eso A.B.

How dare the Dalai Lama let the Tibetans immolate themselves, when he like the Pope goes from conference to conference telling everyone that he has abandoned the idea of a free Tibet, and will be satisfied with Tibet as an autonomous territory?

Washington Post writer Sally Quinn rightly chastises the Dalai Lama for not telling the Tibetans to stop their nonsense of self-sacrificing their lives for a free Tibet ruled by their own sacred King. After all, the Dalai Lama says he will be satisfied with autonomy within China. Or is he secretly hoping that there will be so many Tibetans who immolate themselves that China will change her mind and that then he will be able to once more be a king with the privileges of a Western dictator?

Ideas such as self-immolation and self-sacrifice have long been abandoned by an ‘enlightened’ West. Ever since the beginning of the 20th century (perhaps even longer), Washington, DC has been exporting a superior culture covered with the shiny shellac of freedom. It is not surprising that the American ideology of freedom on behalf of greed has at last come to criminal institutions “too big to be prosecuted”.

However, the leadership in Washington has many centuries of precedence in the Pope of Rome, who has been a point man for capitalist tactics for almost a thousand years. It began with ideas of St. Paul that he as a convert to neo-Christianity could live outside the laws of the Old Testament . The argument centers on whether certain Gentiles who converted to neo-Christianity needed to observe the Jewish dietary laws and circumcision for males .

As the last link to Galatians indicates, there were neo-Christians who believed that the Christians did not have to observe the Jewish Bible, but should write their own Testament. This became known as “legalism” or legalistic Christianity .

While the argument of the meaning of the latter interpretation continues to this day, the very fact that it exists weakens the argument on behalf ot the ultimate prevalence (rights of the subjective) mind.

The following quote from the last link above:

“The words 'legalism' or 'legalist' do not occur in the Old or New Testaments. Legalism's root word, "law" (Greek nomos), occurs frequently in the New Testament, and sometimes connotes legalism. In 1921, Ernest De Witt Burton stated that in Gal. 2:16, "nomou is here evidently used ... in its legalistic sense, denoting divine law viewed as a purely legalistic system made up of statutes, on the basis of obedience or disobedience to which individuals are approved or condemned as a matter of debt without grace. This is divine law as the legalist defined it."

The reason why ‘writing’ a new text of laws is important is because it sets a precedent for Law as a product that may be manipulated according to circumstances. In short, Paul’s argument is an argument for a “faith” determined by a changing word (Prince of Mafia as Chief Judge), rather than an Act of self-sacrifice that never changes and is determined by a “faith” in one’s inner subjective faith; or what this writer has called “law of not-violent terror”, in effect the law as inspired by God.

In other words, for Paul the Word, while beginning with such lovely words as ‘love’, ‘peace’, and ‘grace’ may end up with a law in which these words are replaced by the word of a ‘mafia prince’ turning the law to his interests. In imagistic terms, the ancient ritual of ‘circumcision’, which likely originated when man wore no clothes and a circumcised man was readily observed, has been replaced by a man where circumcision is permanently hid from view and no longer has social significance.

Today God (embodied in Chance) has arranged social circumstance in a particularly curious way. He-She has created an unprecedented ‘potential’ for unprecedented acts.

For the second time in the history of the Catholic Church, due to the retirement of Pope Benedict, there are two Popes in Rome. I say two, because the first bishop and Pope is said to have been St. Peter, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus, who is also God. The mythology of the Catholic Church asserts this to be so. Having once been embodied in a mythical office, can it be unbodied with ‘retirement’? If it can, then does that not amount to betrayal of office that is believed to be more than office?

While no Pope has ever immolated or self-sacrificed his life while in office, the very possibility that it is never an impossibility, raises interesting questions.

Let us imagine that Pope Francis immolates himself on behalf of humanity, because he is inspired by a vision brought by Jesus, in which Jesus tells him that he agrees with scientists that science has gone ‘too far’ and that in cooperation with the banks it is destroying planet Earth’s environment beyond repair . As the link informs us, neither human kind or any Pope has taken the warning issued in 1992 seriously, and it is now forty-five (45) years since the original warning was issued by the Club of Rome in 1968.

In any case, I believe that the sudden and unexpected self-immolation of Pope Francis would cause quite a sensation, and for at least a month headline writers could go without their thinking hats. Indeed, the sensation would be even greater if Pope Francis first told of his vision to retired Pope Emeritus Benedict, and it was Bishop Ratzinger who then immolated himself on the steps of St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican Plaza. I wonder what Sally Quinn of the WP would write then?

It is for certain that Pope Francis (the replacement for the retiree, the Pope imitating the betraying apostle Peter) has begun his term in office badly. What man, but one obsessed by “legalisms” would more than five hundred (500) years after the fact canonize 800 Christians beheaded in 1480 by Muslim soldiers of the Ottoman Empire . It is not only a pathological act by a neo-Christian, but one that potentiates violent reaction. It is Catholic hubris gone nuts and celebrating (a toh to Max Keiser) the turning of humanity into a brainless chicken at last:

The question now facing everyone (Sally Quinn including) is whether the retired Pope, who like Peter has betrayed Jesus the Bogomil/Christ at the cock’s crow once, will awaken to his act and celebrate his 97th birthday by putting a match to the superego of the West and his alleged successor from Argentina, who would, I am reasonably sure, be happy to ‘disappear’ Bishop Ratzinger if he could .

No comments:

Post a Comment