Sunday, August 10, 2014

Eso’s Chronicles 394
War Against Byzantium
© Eso A.B.
All comments appearing within brackets [ ] are editorial in origin.

1 Of King’s of Jews and/or Luhds?

The discovery of the origins of the Jewry in Khazaria brings to head another mystery. Why should John or Jesus become kings of lowlife?

Answer: Because ‘lowlife’ is consequent to the creation of the ‘elite’, which is the result of the taxation of the ludi, who were the people of the wood and who earned their keep as herders of reindeer. When the original tax, the skin and fur of reindeer, and a little later, the fur of almost any wildlife animal, made a select bunch Vikings and their imitators wealthy (which set them apart from the egalitarian people of the wood), these proto-oligarchs or oligarchs obscenus—not unlike the oligarchs of today—created a union of their own or, better, the oligarch obscenus created about him a court of people, who due to their privileges were not herders, but idlers.

It was these idlers who had the exquisite sense that their positions were insecure indeed, which is why they promoted the idea that the oligarchs were more entitled to be kings than the kings of old. This relationship between the oligarch and his court, the latter which (both) came known as the a mutual admiration society. This society is not all that different from the relationship of a government bureaucracy of today to the top elites of government (presidents, generals, ministers, senators of the supreme court, department heads, etc.). While theoretically a member of a government bureaucracy may vote for whoever he she wishes, come election time, it is unimaginable that he she would not vote for the incumbent, because if this were to be, then—off with his her head, i.e., a cushy government job is exchanged for the status of one a homeless.

Thus, slowly at first, but at an increasing pace, the secular king (the oligarch) began to dismiss the ‘sacred king’ (rex sacer) and push him to the sidelines, where he (generally a male of our species) gradually became identified with a mere homo sacer—a sacred but bare and discredited human being.

The destruction, indeed elimination, of Rex Sacer (by the grace of God) by the oligarch, aka Pontius (the torturer in Slavic languages) gradually brings great changes in society. One of the major changes by Rex Obscaenus (the King of Filth) is the creation of ‘democracy’, which though seemingly an equalizer of status, actually favors the ‘free market’ and ‘globalist’ ideology, which serves the oligarchs by making the common man, the ludi, a co-participant in the destruction of the community. The latter done by reducing his her status to that of a consumer of products fabricated by oligarch cartels.

None of the above happened without resistance by the Ludi. Nevertheless, the Ludi are the losers, because with the loss of Rex Sacer, they have lost their former authority and power to dismiss taxation as a hoax pulled on them by the secular rulers.

Moreover, even if the ludi wished to return to the wood (as they did in Eastern Europe as recently as WW2), this cannot be done easily, because over the course of many centuries, even since the early Middle Ages, the ruling secular elite has deliberately destroyed the wood (claiming this to be necessary for the welfare of the People—lest they freeze, or go without a roof over their heads, or be ‘terrorized’ by the Wolves—the Resistance—taking refuge in the Wood), and in one way or another  stuffed the people into cities. These of course are but abstracted deserts, where creativity has become destructive and is being used solely to make the creators, the creative ones, whether artists or inventors, more Money.

The struggle of the Ludi against Rex Obscenus did not go unnoted in literature. We all know the reflection of the story in the story of Jesus Christ (though in corrupted form), though we know almost nothing of the story of John Basil (King) of the Ludi. Yet another famous version is the story of King Oedipus, which Freud, the famous psychologist, and his school of thought corrupted so thoroughly by their interpretation that the story conveys a story of incest, that it has become almost beyond recovery.

Still, if the reader wishes to understand that the story (and play) is actually a story of the story of the murder of Rex Sacer (Laius) by Homo Sacer (Oedipus), I encourage a read of my version at

No comments:

Post a Comment