Saturday, December 6, 2014

EC 456 GoveRment is an aLien People
© Eso A.B.
The Ought of Revolution: To The End of Reconstitution of Viable Community
© Translation Eso A.B.

A chorus is a group of singers or speakers, which the longer the group exists becomes ever more like that of a single body or a community.

This was something well known by my forebears who reconstructed the war torn social fabric of what was once known as Livonia. Indeed, their restitution and healing was so successful that out of their effort, there emerged in the course of time two separate countries: Estonia and Latvia.

Today, however, the two states are falling apart and crumbling, and no one seems to be able to put Humpty Dumpty together again. Why? What has changed? The 18th and 19th centuries were after all still horse and buggy days, whereas today we live not only in the machine age, but the machine rules almost over everything, and is being superseded by the electron and talk goes of a coming age of quantum computers.

The answer is a simple one: Today the states are so centralized and powerful that they cannot envisage ‘running’ a country any other than from the top or from the top down as we say.

If so, did not the Herrnhuters (my forebears) do something wrong? Well, yes, they did. They passed their power and authority to the Lutherans, a ‘reformed’ branch of globalizing Catholic theology. Because they did not believe in violent opposition, but were willing to submit like lambs. The latter according to the teaching of Matthew 10:16 : “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves….” When the Lutheran clergy pressed the Herrnhuters to vacate their places for the orthodox church, the Herrnhuters withdrew. Of course, some did act shrewdly. My grandfather was one of them. He withdrew from teaching and went into newspapering and hit it big. By way of England, America, and then Russia, they brought to Latvia the penny newspaper concept, which necessarily made the newspaper the vehicle of advertising.

But such individual successes did not manage to keep the values of my grandfather’s predecessors intact. In a few words, the old values argued that there should not stand some other between man, woman and God. An absolute and non-thinking dogma of non-violence retreated meekly when it should have found ways to repell the orthodox attacks. Unfortunately, the means were not discovered.

Yet such means of non=violence exist, as I have argued some hundred blogs or more in the past, where I translate ‘non-violence’ to really carry the meaning of ‘not-violence’. What distinguishes the two words is that ‘not-violence’ defines violence as non-violence against others, but reserves it for itself as a tool of self-sacrifice on behalf of one’s own. Indeed, one Latvian historian, Kaspars Klavins has argued in his book “apSTĀVĒŠANA” that the descendants of Latvian Herrnhuters were noted for their ability to sacrifice themselves for their fellows, when they participated in rebellions against their German overlords.

The concept of not-violence was removed from the values of the Catholic Christian Church, probably due to pressures from secular rulers, just as same had forced some early Eastern  Christians to reject community practices when coming face to face with taxation.  This resulted in power and authority passing to secular parties, who then founded a separate Western tax supporting Church.

Examples of not-violent Gods begin with the Christian God Jesus (and/or John Basil) and reach far far back in time, among the latter which is the Aztec God Nanahuatzin (see previous blog), who due to his self-sacrifice not only came from the ranks of the humblest of gods to become the Sun Itself. In any case, while the doctrine of not-violence existed implicitly in the Herrnhuter teachings, they failed to remember the act of their founders (John and/or Jesus) as they died in a fire pit or on the cross.

The Catholic and Globalist teachings against violence are a matter of dogma today, and are reflected in most Western liberal countries rejecting the death sentence. Given that the elites and government leaders today do not sacrifice themselves, but have been effectively removed from the ranks of common soldiers who must die on orders of their orders, I concur with reservations. That reservation states that it is the leadership that must exercise obligatory self-sacrifice if humankind is to achieve for non-violence a place in the Sun.

My reversal of government imposed values follows ancient theology found in many myths, where it is not only the King who dies, but also where God sacrifices Himself, when he rejects his own prayer by responding to it with an autodictat: "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass me by. Nevertheless, let it be as you, not I, would have it."

No comments:

Post a Comment