Eso’s Chronicles 303 / 2  
A Suicidal Civilization
© Eso A.B.
All comments appearing within brackets [ ] are editorial in origin. This series begins with 288.

CAN FASCISM BE CHANGED?

When the boyars and princes first levied the tax, they not only turned theft into a rational and periodic act, but created a civilization off the raw backs of animals skinned naked to dress naked hominids in ermine and sable http://www.bookdrum.com/books/the-bloody-chamber/105150/bookmark/133717.html . The best and softest of furs went, of course, to the Kings first, then the nobles.

The earliest ‘art’ of curing animal skins on a grand scale for wear was probably developed in the north. No doubt, the skins of cheetahs, lions, and tigers for the pharaohs, were from equatorial animals. However, in the hot climate zones, animals were not butchered for the sake of taxes, which is where the sacrifice of life becomes butchery of life, which as a film of cataracts glazes hence over the eyes of hominids for thousands of years to come.

It is a tragedy for government that the Viking rabble did naked robbery only the first time around, but by the second time they came down the rivers, they had terrorized the local kings sufficiently to have them hand the yatsak (early name for tax, a word meaning literally ‘jacket’ of animals) ready http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhqQhIir5m0 upon demand. Since that ‘first’ time thousands of years have gone by and millions of lives have looked back on life like the skinned and dying dog does in the first link above.

It is but a small step from tearing the skin off a still live animal to doing pretty much the same thing to a hominid. In fact, in some places, like Aztec Mexico, the flaying of human beings was preferred to the flaying of animals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xipe_Totec . The reason for the switch from animal skins to human skins is that the latter deed is longer remembered—it leaves a more lasting image in the mind. It also provides the King-Priest of the country with greater respect and power.

If the King-Priest (occasionally also a Queen) has greater power, he-she also has a greater kingdom, and there is less resistance to him-her imposing their wills on the subject populace, the tax payers, who before the institutionalization of the tax brought ‘gifts’ in place of taxes.

Nevertheless, in spite of the wide-spread use of animal and human sacrifices (we cannot be sure which started first), the hominids evolved in such a way that overt violence—other than a short burst of anger—was noticed and was slowly built resistance against.

As we come to our own time, most of us know that repression of lower strata of society by the elite strata eventually results in an uprising and an overthrow of the preexisting government. Unfortunately, such an overthrow of government does not guarantee replacement of cruelty. Often the repression of the common people has lasted for so long (many centuries, perhaps even a thousand years) that the powers who replace the former government know of no better way to behave than violently. Indeed, it may even behave more cruelly and exact more deaths.

The experience of our so-called Christian Era consists of an unending stream of repressions and cruelties, and one wonders why this is so—even as Christianity is supposed to be teaching non-violent resistance, which is supposed to become ever more effective through the organization of society into ever greater numbers of people who share the same vision and conviction.

It takes little time to reflect (if that dull cataract gaze of the butcher does not cover our eyes and mind) that such a ‘Christian Era’ never came, never was, and whatever talk there was about it—it never was real either in the past or now.

But since the limiting and elimination of violence seems such a good idea, why does it never get ahead and become adopted for real? Does not the New Testament, said to be a ‘holy book’, actually say something about human beings learning to love one another?

“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. ³⁵ By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” —John 13:33-35 (KJV) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Commandment

The ignoring of this commandment by Jesus is a curious fact. If its overlooking does not at the same time negate the commandment, it cannot but make one wonder why this should be so. This is when we come in contact with the character of our age and William Blake’s Urizen.

The commandment in Romans 13:6 about paying taxes is as well known as it is famous for demanding of Christians submission to authorities: “Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.” http://biblehub.com/romans/13-6.htm

It goes without saying that the commandment of Jesus ought to be the one listened to and obeyed, but as ‘the material girl’ might sing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNSUOFgj97M , we not only live in a material world, we also live in a world of law and lawyers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY6w4-2jIvA . And it is these folks who make money in disobeying the commandments of Jesus, because his word has been contradicted (possibly by Apostle Paul), and all a lawyer cares about is precedent—it does not make any difference who says it whether God or Satan. A lawyer will even point out that the commandments appear in the Book of John and Matthew, thus guaranteeing cross referencing, and neither of them pays their salaries.

Today the collecting of taxes has become such a natural part of everyone’s life that not only people do not know of the origin of taxes, but have no idea that the first money ever made was not by trading in salt, but by relieving of their skin reindeer, horses, wild pigs, water buffalo, and whatever other animals possessed a herding instinct and lent themselves to herding, which implies a trusting nature.

But, you may respond, what is wrong if violence contributes toward increasing the bonds among members of a nation and makes them swear ever greater fealty to its leader? Is that not what Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and quite a few other modern leaders desired and got?