Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Eso’s Chronicles 178
How War Ends (2)
© Eso A.B.

A major right wing ‘Revolutions in Reverse’ occurred during the 12th-14th centuries. This is when former sacred king’s of Europe and leaders of the ‘wandering tribes’ realized that their coming up against the Atlantic Ocean and the lack of transport to cross it, meant the end to nomadic life and the arrival of the age of forced sedentirization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedentism . After they no longer could move about freely, people felt insecure and believed themselves to be living within the nexus of an Apocalypse. The latter half of the 15th century was full of expectations about its arrival http://www.ptm.org/99PT/JanFeb/Apocalypse1500.htm .

At about the 14th and 15th centuries the Europeans did, of course, get to cross the ocean and bring havoc to the people on the other side of it. They destroyed the Indian nomads completely (they now blame it on the ‘Americans’, but the Americans of those days were the spitting image of ‘Europeans’). The Europeans brought even greater havoc to those American tribes whose early experiments with sedentism, though abandoning teomiqui, or ‘dying like a god dies’, was nevertheless closely bound with the concept of self-sacrifice, with which Catholicism was not at all bound.

In short, had the latent and apparently newer completely quiescent Revolutionary fires against the Aztec elites by the peoples of Mexico (they constituted most of the troops of Cortez’s army) not been so culturally naïve as to believe that the European mindset was like their own, the Revolutionary fires released by Cortez’s arrival may well have reinstituted teomiqui (possible cognates: teomike, teomort, teomir) as a principle of leadership.

Instead, Cortez subverted the victorious Revolutionaries and poisoned native notions of justice by exposing them to the advantages of  ‘accusational violence’ developed by the Inquisition. In  the name of a religion of ‘love’ that had already brought death to so many European ‘heretics’, the uniquely European verbal combination of a ‘love-lie’ took advantage of Aztec perversion of human sacrifice and annihilated the native Indian theology in toto. Had the native Mexican Revolutionaries been left to their own traditions, the nature of ‘religion’ today could be very different indeed.

In Europe a similar pattern of revolt had occurred, but with tribal movements arrested and no previous experience with sedentism, the tribes soon became aggressive, when the sacred king’s former barons, grabbed land wherever it was unsecured or where occupation by violence was not yet all that costly in human lives. The Scandinavian Vikings were especially prone to learn and adopt the customs of European princes. Given the custom of the subculture of European elites, re ‘every man is a thief’ (just where and how such behavior got its toehold requires greater and more concentrated study by anthropologists), the Vikings disseminated this sub-culture over the entire face of Europe. The result was that the office of self-sacrificial sacred king lost its bonding charisma and to a culture of cynics became absurd.

The later evolving ‘democratic’ government, though a concession to peace seeking human nature, took the shape of a pyramid in the abstract, while in the concrete it became a proto-democratic vassalage http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vassal . This was an unstable political structure, because the foundation, though extensive in breadth, stood over a psychological zone prone to frequent earthquakes.

As sacred kings lost their charisma and found they were no longer not only NOT sacred, but despised, the charisma that had once existed as a bonding force over a society they had led—expired. Right along with the disappearance of self-sacrifice, kings began to be thought of as autocrats and dictators. The more powerful councilors of the king’s Council began to conspire for power that was at least equal to what they imagined as the king’s own. These former councilors never gave a thought to having to offer themselves in self-sacrifice for the community.

It took a poor shepherd girl, Joan of Arc to know and show what France had lost. As kings contested for power among themselves and the piles of human sacrifices on the battle field grew ever larger, the councilors sought ever more power for themselves. It did not take long to discover that the form of government that best suited the elite collective of princes and barons, short of total power by coup d’état, was parliamentary democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament. The principles of this ‘democracy’ were best expressed by Machiavelli’s book, full of distrust and contempt for humans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IGBKu6qM7Y, “The Prince”.

The social order, which emerged from top echelon parliamentarianism and coexists with it to this day emerged from the discreditation of sacred kingship—and continued to evolve until it emerged as our acquisitive neo-capitalist ‘democracy’. The final impetus for the evolution of this ‘democracy’ was given by the Industrial Age.

The Industrial Age is of course itself an outgrowth of government created by politicians who arrive at their decisions by consensus, which unfailingly promises the electorate more than it can deliver (which is why a transparent government is a self-contradiction and impossibility), then pretends to deliver by plundering our planet of its organic and inorganic resources.

Though our planet is over four billion years old, its plunder was done and finished in two hundred years. All that remains is fiat currency, which after one final use is being flushed down the toilet. This extravagant desire to consume and gorge is what we know as the environmental catastrophe. If anyone survives it, it will leave behind it a Tibetan style temple on an icy mountain with a peripheral peasantry practicing subsistence economy. The good thing is that the wood is likely to revive as it has at quarantined Chernobyl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVv1vsZxV00.

This is not to say that people have stopped seeking a ‘pure democracy’ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pure%20democracy , a form of government in which leadership is expressed directly through the opinion and will of the people. Indeed, the quest for such a ‘democracy’ is on the increase, because instant communication through links made available by the internet makes it imaginable and possible. Unfortunately, the internet is devoid of any possibility that the results of the vote will make better critical judgment than the politicians of parliamentary ‘democracy’.

Given the absence of the wood and its replacement with the desert of the city, the impossibility of ‘pure democracy’ in the latter environment is, nevertheless, reflected in what we call ‘individualism’, ‘human rights’, and ‘consumerism’. These three hubristic possibilities realize ‘pure democracy’ as a ruling principle in that all three reflect the complete breakdown of community, responsibility, and generosity toward the spontaneous gifts of nature.

As our ‘democratic’ civilization slides toward extinction, the ever good news of ‘democratic’ politics is replaced by another ‘unspeakable’ truth. One thoughtful man defines it as: “an evil whose depth and deceit seem to go beyond the capacity of words to describe.”   http://www.infowars.com/why-was-jfk-murdered/

So, where does the evil hide? As all things well hidden, it hides before our eyes. Which is to say, the ‘unspeakable’ is listened to with unbelievable intensity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKCkWUOm-b0, and the violence of the “unspeakable”, too, is on open display, because it is not murderous violence as that of a terrorist destroying himself and as many as round about by a cataclysmic explosion, but by what historian David Nirenberg calls “accusational and judicial violence” http://www.studymode.com/essays/Communities-Of-Violence-428868.html . If ‘unspeakable’ violence went for the jugular of the late President Kennedy a mere fifty years ago, the ‘accusational’ violence of today is going after every inhabitant of our planet.

Today’s governments are very much like those in the Middle Ages, when the neo-Christian Inquisition (a judicial power) used ‘accusational violence’ against everyone it decides is a ‘heretic’, i.e., a ‘terrorist’.

In the Middle Ages the ‘heretics’ [such as Jan Hus (burnt 1415), Joan of Arc (burnt 1431)] were able to fight the accusations brought against them only by surrendering themselves non-violently to state terror and use the horrors of state terror to encourage the renewal of not-violent terror once used by sacred kings toward the rebirth of an organic God and community.

No comments:

Post a Comment