Eso’s Chronicles 328 / 4
Odds and Ends
© Eso A.B.
All comments appearing within brackets [ ] are editorial in origin.

THE TRAGEDY OF JOHN AND IESU (3 of 4)

In some ways John the Baptist or Christener and Jesus Christ may be one and the same person, and their basic message of love may be the same.

Still, there are some important differences between the two.

Even while the New Testament admits that John precedes Jesus and that he Baptized or Christened Jesus, there are some substantial differences. A careful reader will have noted that my two previous blogs, 326 & 327, dwell on how deliberate and politically motivated changes in the meaning of names set the stage for the Big Lie.

We discovered that the word pagan, really means pa-Yan, a word that stands for a ‘belittled’ reindeer (or other forest animals) herder in the Eurasian woods. A neighbor of mine, who was born in Siberia, reminded me that the word ‘pa-gan’ also rhymes with the Russian word for the fly-agaric (aka amanita muscaria), the famous red mushroom capped by white dots, frequently used by native shamans of the wood https://www.google.lv/#q=images+of+fly+agaric . Its Russian name spells ‘pa-gan-ka’.

It is easy to imagine how a townie alienated from nature, would in later years condescendingly call a dweller of the wood a Paganka. This name calling does not differ much from today’s city or government elite calling a marihuana smoker a ‘pothead’.

Nevertheless, John Allegro wrote a controversial book, which he called “The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross”, in which there are a number of images from ancient art showing the use of the mushroom for visionary purposes http://psypressuk.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/mushroom-in-christian-art.jpg . Since we live in a cultural atmosphere that accepts that the thinking process is a matter of digitization, the chemical process as a facilitator of visions has been viciously denied and repressed by do-gooder political organizations and religious organizations lobbied by secular governments. The “yes-no” process of “yes-no”, “yes-no” ad infinitum has unfortunately brought our urban desert civilization to the state of near idiocy.

The fact that both John and Jesus were men of the wood and not from Nazareth or the river Jordan, is hid by contrary statements, such as Matthew 3:4, calls the wood ‘wilderness’ and describes John wearing “a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist””; while Jesus is popularly believed to have been either a carpenter or the son of a carpenter, a belief derived from Matthew 13:55: “"Is not this the carpenter's son?”

Who but men living in the wild of nature (if not the wood) wear a garment of camel’s hair and are expert handlers of wood, that is to say, are  carpenters? While most hominids of the times of John and Jesus were not urbanites as today’s popular prejudice of churchmen encourages us to believe, they all surely knew that the wolf could imagine having eaten Little Red Ridinghood only if he had eaten a fly agaric.

And why would a wolf eat a fly agaric? Probably because he mistook it for menstrual blood. As the color red is associated with the color of blood and hence is a sacred color, and the muscaria amanita is known to lower blood pressure, it may have been used by women during their menstrual periods. Whether it was used externally, I do not know, but Red Ridinghood is not a name of an ‘innocent’ little girl wearing a red hat in the days when color red could be afforded only by royalty.

Yet, while John and Jesus both stood for enduring suffering and pain in the name of love as a human condition, there was also a distinct difference between them.

John was clearly a man of the wood. His color was green, that of vegetation coming back to life in the spring. In northern climes his month was April-May, the Beltaine Festival of Ireland (remember the clover leaf as its symbol) and Scotland come to mind http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/60147/Beltane . It was a fire festival, because it is in these months that leaf and grass as if catches fire and bursts from sleepy earth. Beltaine is also a word that consists of two words: Belt + aine. While the meaning of ‘belt’ may derive from ‘vert’, green or ‘velt’ to swell, ‘aine’ clearly rhymes with yaine or ian. In other parts of Europe this festival is celebrated in June on the Summer solstice and is known as Johns Festival. It, too, is associated with the color green and fire; it is a day when everyone in Latvia of old and of the wood wore a green-leafed wreath http://www.kasjauns.lv/Otkrito_Foto/22.06.2010/1_Glavnaja-big.jpg  or when it comes to today, wears a green spray attached to his-her garments.

As the summer solstice is the day of the Goddess Sun, the celebrants in Latvia are called “children of Johns”, however, the word ‘children’ may be a religio-political substitute for the word ‘llaudis’ (Jāņu ļaudis), People. As I pointed out in blog 326, “…the acronym INRI (Latin: Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdaeōrum) should be substituted with the letter L [in place of I], in which case the acronym reads ‘Lūdaeōrum’, which means ‘King of the People’ not of Jews.” Indeed, in Latvian folk belief the Kings of the People are all named John.

Still, when Catholic Christianity arrived to substitute the Christianity that arose of itself in the wood and of ‘Lūdaeōrum’, the word was substituted by “Iūdaeōrum” or Jews (a people compelled to become tax collectors), not only was there begun a tradition of prejudice by the elite against human beings living in nature, but the nature of Christianity itself was changed for a faith imposed on the People by princes and barons. In short, the name of John was changed to Iesu, and this Iesu had no objections to either tax collectors or tax collecting.

Eso’s Chronicles 214/ 6  
St. Francis’  Prayer for.. (6)
© Eso A.B.

..WAR. Who is St. Francis? At the present he is Pope Francis , the first Pope in a long time who has exhibited activity as envisioned by the original Christians. The Pope did this when he recently asked Christians of whom he presumes himself to be the leader to fast for peace to avert an attack by the West on Syria by America and its violent proxy Al-Qaida.

There is a contradiction in Pope Francis’ mission. While today St. Francis is held to be a patron of ecology, the Pope himself is a Jesuit, of a militant, not to say a military order (‘soldiers of God’). Rule 13 of Ignatius Loyola's Rules for Thinking with the Church said: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity [...], if [the Church] shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."^[2] of the Catholic Church. It could well be the motto of the CIA or NSA.

The paradoxical nature of Christianity has long been observed and held against it. This blogger belongs among its critics, and believes that what he holds to be the neo-Christian Church (black), was established on the cremated bones of an earlier Christianity (white), which emerged out of ancient languages as ‘the Law’.

When original Christianity was turned into ‘Law’, the ancient language of ‘religion’ was turned into ‘the Word’, which are now the first words of the NT John 1:1 , but also refer to Genesis 1:1 of the Bible. The changeover from ‘language’ to ‘Word’ was a violent one, because the change was made in order to legitimize taxation on behalf of the elites and ruling classes. This anarchic ‘order’ is being enforced to this day by ‘the law’, though the ‘law’ was preceded by a ‘language’, which implicitly taught attitude and behavior that arose out of the very nature of human being, because it is out of human being that language comes.

By equating itself with language, ‘the word’ has attempted to transform itself into ‘the law’. As a consequence, we get such perversions as the following (13 Romans 13 ):

“Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God [why not substitute ‘government’ for ‘God’?], and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.

Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.”

As we can infer from Pope Francis’ call for a public fast, he implicitly challenges ‘the law’ (unto itself), which underlies the call by Oscar Obama, President of the U.S., for a war against Syria.

Indeed, today ‘the law’ has come, so to speak, full circle by proving its illegitimacy. Today (their) illegitimacy is profoundly felt by the former elites, the men and women of government who call the turn of events as a return to ‘anarchy ’. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader (see the preceding link), beside ‘anarchy’ also speaks of ‘filibusters’. I would like to see in these ‘filibusters’ the beginnings of a return to ‘language’ and—over the long term--a turning away from ‘the law’.

Note, that “…Pay your taxes… to those who collect them” is a reference to tax collectors, which in the ‘Roman’ days (the 1^st Rome was in Byzantium, not Italy) were the Jews of the Empire of Khazaria , who lived a hop skip and a jump across the Black Sea to the northeast of the Empire of Byzantium. Even an elementary knowledge of history informs one that ‘bankers’ are never popular with ordinary citizens, who, when all is said and done, had it much better when they lived in the wood as reindeer herders, milked reindeer cows, and did not have to slaughter their animals (slaughter of domesticated animals is an abomination to those who raise them by non-factory methods) to pay taxes in pelts.

The issue of animal slaughter is also likely behind the Muslim prohibition against eating pork, because wild pigs were once a commonly herded animal.

 

Eso’s Chronicles 160

 “Escaping the Death Camp of Post-Modernity” (5)
© Eso A.B.

They call us “survivors”. I put myself among the “survivors” who were never in a “death camp” of the Nazis or the Bolsheviks. I realize that there is a dispute over who may apply that term to him or herself. http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/26071/row-over-definition-holocaust-survivor Nevertheless, the term applies to a much broader segment of humankind than the Zionist Federation through conceit for Jews suffering more than others denies others a share in.

In my own country of Latvia, where many people are survivors of Stalin’s ‘gulags’, the term ‘survivor’ has been replaced by the term ‘the repressed’. This change may have been done partially to avoid an unseemly clash between two groups of people disputing who suffered most. Clearly the word “survivor” cannot be appropriated by either myself or anyone else. It is a classic subjective word that will not surrender to Zionist superego no matter how forcefully asserted.

The decision by Latvians to designate their survivors as “the repressed”, nevertheless, indicates that fractal differences exist between the two groups of sufferers. However reluctantly one may accept the designation of “the repressed”, its acceptance suggests awareness of an irrefutable legalistic intercession on behalf of the repressor.

While Jewish “survivors” may claim that they were designated to suffer death sooner or later, “the repressed” are aware that while their repressors exercised no mercies that would or could save them from death, they were placed in the gulags as enemies of the Bolshevik led Soviet Socialist order. While millions died in the Gulags under most miserable and merciless circumstances (over 790,000 people were tried in 1937, of which over 353,000 were shot, and over 430,000 were sent to prison or gulags), the surviving ‘repressed’ cannot claim that if they had the stamina or fortune to survive, they would have ended in a sealed trailer exposed to Zircon gas.

Whatever the arguments over the choice of words, the Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) were undeniably unilaterally and violently occupied by the Soviet Union, and the subsequent executions and deportations were perpetrated on populations of countries which the Soviet Union had renounced as part of its territories by treaty. Thus, the dead as well as the deported and enslaved may defend themselves as a having suffered arbitrary exposure to sham trials, physical violence and death, and those who did not succumb are “survivors”. The only way the occupier of the Baltics could have hoped to escape being called ‘the repressor-occupier’ was to see itself in the position of the repressor for eternity—which repressor obviously did not succeed in.

Just like the ‘survivors’, ‘the repressed’ (a word selected by the superego, i.e., ego of law) have turned their horrific experiences in an inward suffering, and many have found solace in being able to gather as a solidarity that shares in a common experience. As such, the groups may manifest political power either on their own behalf or on behalf of the larger community about them, which in and of itself may knows little or nothing about the experiences of concentration camps and gulags. The larger community may learn about the gulags best from one who survived them: the Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn , who wrote several books which record his experiences in Soviet labor camps, including “The Gulag Archipelago”. [Excerpts: http://www.colegiobolivar.edu.co/high_school/Academics_11/11_Data/11_Data_econ_poli/THE%20GULAG.doc ]

The above “survivors” and “the repressed” belong to the time and events that happened during the first half of the 20^th century. I took part in this period as a child, during its last 17 years (1933-1950), and I claim my “survivorship” from the point of view of a child and youth (I am writing this in April, 2013).

The first defense of my claim is an unwanted and coerced participation (unerwuenchte beteiligung) in violent times and their traumatic after effects. It may surprise the reader that such an ‘unerwuenchte beteiligung’ / coerced participation is the experience of most of the children who lived or live through wars and other violent events, including extreme poverty and neglect of education. The children of our forebears, no matter how difficult their physical environment, seldom if ever experienced or had to survive such physical and psychological  neglect when making their home in the wood where they survived in as animal herders.

Today the coerced ‘beteiligung’ of children in violence brings to mind the children of Afghanistan and Pakistan (exposed to U.S. drone attacks), Palestine (subject to IDF rubber bullets and seizure of their parental homelands), and such who visit trashcans and trash heap anywhere on our planet. All such children will, if not today, then at a later and more reflective point in their life, think of themselves as “survivors” regardless of what the superego of the Zionist Federation says they may think.

When we broaden the scope and the numbers of people who may describe themselves as “survivors”, such people may soon, if not already, represent the majority of our planet’s inhabitants. When among the “survivors” are included children, and the state of “survivorship” is perceived from such a broadened perspective, it changes utterly the way society may view modern politics and its leadership.

The prevailing attitude of government ‘law makers’ in ruling and lording over society is: “It may be immoral, but it is not illegal”, i.e. immorality by way of our ‘law-makers’ achieves legalized status. Even if the superego of these ‘law-makers’ is without fault, it presents the gene of altruism with direct challenge from a sadistic superego. This means that government governs with the help of the barrel of a gun, and that such a government must be short circuited and discredited by all means at hand which do not use violence.

This is the time when the genes of altruism give a “survivor” a nudge to react to the repression with an act of resistance. Perhaps even more unbelievable is the fact that no “survivor” knows when he-she will react. Yet we may be sure that a “survivor” has the subjective tools by way of experience to react sooner or later. We may also be sure that the “survivor’s” subjective experience dictates to him-her to resist without use of violence.

Though it is less than a decade before the centennial anniversary of the establishment of the first gulag (1919) and two decades before the establishment of the first concentration camp (1933), there has not as of yet emerged a clear philosophy of action for those who survived the conditions and times of these institutions. The exceptions, emergences that are with us for all their contradictions, are two fundamentalist orientations—that of the Jews and Muslims. The Jewish reaction may be summed up in the words “never again”, backed by a determination to react with extreme violence to any threat to its community. The Muslim reaction sums up the reaction of Islamists in the cry 'Allah ek akbar'. ('God is great'),  and going on the attack strapped in a vest filled with dynamite and blowing one’s self up at a military gate or doorway or after gaining entrance into as crowded a place as possible.

The fundamentalist oriented individuals of both mentioned communities show great selflessness in their willingness for self-sacrifice, except that in both instances self-sacrifice is neither ‘pure’ nor ‘without fault’. The self-sacrifices of both groups slaughter and shed blood of innocents and leave themselves open to the criticism of being ‘cowards’, that is, “suicidal terrorists” (the Muslims on an individual basis, the Jews as a cmmunithy), both exhibiting inability to self-sacrifice themselves in or through an act of ‘pure’ protest that does not kill people by sneaking up to them from behind and killing them unaware. Why is this?

Is it some king of a merciful act of highly developed civlization to ‘kill people dead before they know it?’

 

© Eso Antons Benjamins, aka Jaņdžs

POSTSCRIPT 4 / Summary 2
101 The Sail

These blogs tend to be a continuum of an idea or thought, which is why—if you are interested in what you read—you are encouraged to consider reading the previous blog(s) and the blog hereafter. http://esoschronicles.blogspot.com/


Partial entries of my blogs may be found at LatviansOnline + Forum Home + Open Forum –ONLATVIANPOPULISM vs LATVIJASLABEJIE.

The blow-up within the West is the end result of what the former President of the United States, Bush, described as the "crusade" . While for Bush the “crusade” meant war on terrorism, which he claimed was begun on-the-cusp of the 21st century by a Saudi Arabian Muslim prince named Bin Laden, curiously enough, the “crusade” actually began with the so-called Fourth Crusade (according to A. Fomenko actually the First Crusade) of 1204.

The First Crusade followed the death of Jesus, the itinerant story teller, who a decade or two earlier (? 1184) was thrown into a pit of fire (no, he was not crucified; crucifixion is a neo-Christian invention to throw the listener off the scent of what really happened) in Constantinople by Alexis I, a Byzantine king, one of the first such to overturn the sacred nature of his office in order to exploit wealth and power for the sake of—as Taussig tells it about the colonizers—“[the] gratuitous, end in itself”.

As I have often stated in earlier blogs, the chronology of history as presented by the West is unreliable for the reason that is was established as a result of the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which selected one Joseph Justus Scaligeri to set straight a chronology that did not favour the Catholic Church. The Council of Trent was the main event of the Counter Reformation. While Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and the Reformation movement hardly sympathized with the Catholic Counter Reformation, the Council’s historical revisionism suited well enough all neo-Christian sects. At the same time, many scholars have questioned the veracity of the chronology, among which doubters were Isaac Newton (1643-1727) and is Anatoly Fomenko (1945- ).

The “crusades” by the West that followed the First Crusade (1204) were the result of the rapid spread (by way of mimesis) of the desire by secular princes to expand their wealth and power. This rise of the importance of power became a scramble. The scramble took place not only among kings and princes, but at the same time involved attempts to discover ways to eliminate the arch-competitor—Constantinople, the seat of arch-Christianity some 900 years ago. This was accomplished by letting Constantinople fall (in 1453) to the Turks.

The First Crusade was made possible by rousing the “Children of Johns” (I prefer to put all arch-Christians under this description, because the name “John” is ubiquitous in all European and many more languages) against those said to have slain Jesus, the Children of Johns believing Jesus to have been one of their own. The outrage of the arch-Christians was then redirected by the secular princes against the Kingdom of Israel, which at that time was not located where a nation called Israel is located in our time, but the Israel of Byzantium as Byzantium was then known among the Children of Johns. Following the plunder of Constantinople (1204) by the West, the Children of Johns were turned against themselves by introducing a new sect, re: Catholics or neo-Christians, who distinguished themselves from arch-Christians (who referred to the Divine by touching the Earth) by claiming—in the beginning almost beyond anyone’s belief—that their “John” was not mortal and lived in Heaven. By 1209, the Western princes had sufficient violent force and could use the written word in a sufficiently sophisticated a manner to confuse the population of Europe (the Children of Johns were largely of an oral tradition) to such a degree that credibility accrued to those who practiced violence, that is, to neo-Christians.

It follows from the above that arch-Europeans and their religion were repressed and the European people were turned against themselves—as they had first been turned against Constantinople. The new world order of secular kings and princes rode on the backs of the European people. The only sect of arch-Christians or Children of Johns who survived was the Jews. The reason the sect was not destroyed has to do with their service to kings and princes—most likely as tax collectors. The ability of the sect to survive against the onslaught of Catholicism attracted to them many Children of Johns making an escape from the Inquisition. Most of this happened post-?1184. Unlike the flight of the Waldensians to Bohemia and the freedoms of the Hussites (15th century and earlier), the flight of the Children of Johns by ritualistic or self-confessional conversion to Judaism remains repressed information.

Let us return to Michael Taussig, our authority on memesis and alterity, and repeat the quote that I already gave in Blog 99. Taussig writes (pgs. 70,71): “As the nature that culture uses to make second nature, mimesis cannot be outside of history, just as history cannot lie outside of the mimetic faculty…. As the nature that culture uses to create second nature, mimesis chaotically jostles for elbow room in this force field of necessary contradiction and illusion, providing the glimpse of the opportunity to dismantle that second nature and reconstruct other worlds—so long as we reach a critical level of understanding of the play of primitivism within the mimetic faculty itself.”

Let us now think of the Latvian Children of Johns back in 1209, when Bishop Albert of Riga in tandem with Pope Innocent III in southern France, Languedoc, and the Albigensian Crusade there, attacked Jersika (a local name for Jerusalem), up river from Riga on the shores of Daugava (Dvina), and put an end to arch-Christianity in the territory that became known as Livonia, and later yet as Latvia.

And now let us think of the anti-Semitism, not admitted to, but lingering on among the materially and educationally repressed Latvians. [For proof of material and educational repression, all one has to do is visit the more popular internet sites for the flavor of their content and take a look at the children’s teeth in the countryside to see the material need.] Even so, I believe that more than half a century after Hitler and the Nazis, the time has come for the “opportunity to dismantle that second nature and reconstruct other worlds”, i.e., an updated mimesis of the Children of Johns of old. It could begin in Latvia.

How is this to be accomplished?

I will quote Taussig once again. In his book "Mimesis and Alterity", the anthropologist and doctor writes (2): “…[Let us] see anew the spell of the natural where the reproduction of life merges with the recapture of the soul”. Nice sentiment, right? Then Taussig tosses us a brick: “But just as we might garner courage to reinvent a new world and live new fictions… so a new devouring force comes at us from another direction, seducing us by playing on our yearning for the true real.”

And what might the “true real” be?

It is fascism, the make-believe of neo-Christianity falling apart, yet held together by the force of violence. And violence—as Latvians of any ethnic origin ought to know—causes long-time terror. The terror lasts not just for one life time, but it lasts for many lifetimes—if possible with but occasional refreshers by way reminders. This is a perfect way to intimidate people and affect their behaviour. The terror of violence seeps into the bones of the violated ones by way of a negative mimesis and represses human nature. The entire world is infected by this mimesis of terror in our day. It is rather disingenuous of academic historians to adhere to the Scaligeri chronology when the chronology of Anatoly Fomenko fits the shoe better. Moreover, government and academia disingenuosity denies the people their right to shed the terrors of violence.

And just how does one shed the terrors of violence and the PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) not only of soldiers back from war today, but the population at large, the one that has violence imposed on it for a thousand years?

For the answer, I invite the reader to Blog 1 and the beginning of my long series of blogs under the title “Not-Violent Terror”. However, the little dirty secret (and you may imagine it right after you read this) is “Not-Vote”. The act is not-violent terror. Not-violent terror to whom? Hint: to the enemies of not-voters.

© Eso Antons Benjamins, aka Jaņdžs

The small secret
(which you may learn as soon as you read this)
at http://esoschronicles.blogspot.com/ is
“Not-Vote!”
It will be an act of not-violent terror. To whom?
To the enemies of the “not-voters”.

POSTSCRIPT 3 / Summary 1
100 The Enemies of the “West”

Photos: The beginnings of mimesis: Life mimics life: Frogs eggs

These blogs tend to be a continuum of an idea or thought, which is why—if you are interested in what you read—you are encouraged to consider reading the previous blog(s) and the blog hereafter. http://esoschronicles.blogspot.com/
To say that political thought and engineering in the West is simplistic is to understate the problem. A better word to describe it is “sick”. Like many illnesses, sick politics took time for a human agency to set up. It then incubated, to infect further, and then reached its virulent stage in the 20th century.

Many of my preceding blogs touch on the schism in Christianity, that is, between arch- and neo-Christians. Such a dual Christianity is not acknowledged by either the intelligentsia or historians of the West (or East), yet someday it will be obvious to anyone who understands that the rise of Catholicism was accompanied by short- and long-term repressive violence. As a consequence of the violence, of the arch-Christian sects (the Cathars, Bogomils, Waldensians, Johns Children, etc.) only the Jews remain, however and alas! no longer recognizable as their former selves.

Among the Latvians, it is the Children of Johns, the once arch-Christian sect, who are no longer remembered for who they were. All that remains of the Children of Johns is the Midsummer’s Solstice celebration at which time the celebrants may occasionally refer to the event as “Johns Eve” and even with lesser occasion refer to themselves as the Children of Johns. More specific interest in the Children of Johns it is apparent no longer exists.

To explain the simplistic political thinking in the West (of which Latvian politicians believe themselves to be a part), I will return once more to Michael Taussig and his anthropological studies. I believe Taussig to be right-on in his explanation concerning anti-Semitism (see quote below), nevertheless, I would like to take anti-Semitism a step further and include among its transgressions anti-self-ism or anti-European-ism. By extending the reach of the anti-Semitic meme, we arrive at the insight that anti-Europeanism among Europeans (in effect, anti-Latvianism among Latvians), too, remain as much a force of fascism as ever, especially because the Latvian people (and of course the Europeans as a whole) never really understood fascism. The repression of the European people by the European elite has lasted for so long as to cause both the people and the elite to forget their history and allow it to be replaced by an artifice or as Taussing describes it—“history… outside the mimetic faculty….”. In other words, history is no longer a written history making an effort to come alive, but an artificial history written by scholars whose experience of history is as much bookishly self-referentialist as it is experientially nonexistent.

The path from colonialism to fascism is illustrated in Taussig’s book, “Mimesis and Alterity”. Though Taussig is writing of the Indians living in the Putumayo in South America, we may learn much by substituting another group of people (through a wilful act on my part) for the Indians, re the arch-Christian/Europeans. Here iTaussig (65):

“…the imaginative range essential to the execution of colonial violence in the Putumayo at the turn of the century was an imagining drawn from that which the civilized imputed to the Indians, to their cannibalism especially, and then mimicked. It should also be pointed out that while this violence was doubtlessly motivated by economic pressures and the need to create labour discipline, it was also… very much a passionate and gratuitous end in itself.

“This mimicry by the colonizer of the savagery imputed to the savage is what I call the colonial mirror of production and it is… identical to the mimetic structure of attribution and counter-attribution that Horkheimer and Adorno single out when they discuss (in “The Dialectic of Enlightenment”) not the violence of the twentieth-century colonial frontier but the blow-up within modern European civilization itself, as orchestrated by anti-Semitism.”

Taussing then quotes Horkheimer and Adorno: “There is no anti-Semite who does not basically want to imitate his mental image of a Jew, which is composed of mimetic ciphers: the argumentative movement of a hand, the musical voice painting a vivid picture of things and feelings irrespective of real content of what is said, and the nose—the physiognomic principum individuationis, symbol of the specific character of an individual, described between the lines of his countenance.”

There are several things in the above quotes which I would like to point out further and add to my own observations.

Let us turn to what Taussig describes as “the blow-up within modern European civilization”. It is my perception that the blow-up is not over. It continues in the effort of NATO to try maintaining pre-eminence of the West through the war in Afghanistan (Latvian military forces including). It also continues by means of the economic catastrophe that now spans the globe. The catastrophe was temporarily averted as a result of a temporarily successful diversion of social tensions caused by secular princes (nee neo-Christians) to Conspicuous Consumption. The mechanism through which Conspicuous Consumption was accomplished was to loosen—following WW1—the gold standard, and then replace it by fiat money in the latter half of the 20th century. The world is familiar with the consequences of fiat money through the parliamentary democracy and inflation in the Weimar Republic of Germany in the 1920s and more recently in Zimbabwe, Africa.

Though Taussig does not connect the repressions of arch-Christianity with colonialism or colonialism with fascism, he comes close enough for my purposes. Writes Taussig: “Fascism… is an accentuated form of modern civilization which is itself to be read as the history of repression of mimesis—the ban on graven images, gypsies, actors; the love-hate relationship with the body; the cessation of Carnival; and finally the kind of teaching which does not allow children to be children. But above all, fascism is more than outright repression of the mimetic; it is a return of the repressed, based on the ‘organized control of mimesis’. Thus fascism, through the mimesis of mimesis, ‘seeks to make the rebellion of the suppressed nature against dominion directly useful to dominion’”.

Even if fascism ceased being virulent as the result of physical exhaustion of societies due to WW2 and a subsequent release of tensions by taking advantage of a combination of machine production and fiat money to squelch unresolved tensions and aggressiveness, it did so also by absolving the carnal sins of sin, now identified as Conspicuous Consumption. However, fascism did not disappear (even if it sometimes so appeared), because “organized control of mimesis” (through apparent release of control over Conspicuous Consumption) cannot be sustained over the long-term.
This is why I agree with Taussig that we need to seize “…the opportunity to dismantle… second nature and reconstruct the worlds”.

This is a time when a small nation like Latvia has the opportunity to be shrewd and set its sail toward the future “within the buffeting of history” (Taussig). However, before the vessel called “Latvia” can take advantage of its small size and sail past the sinking ocean liners, it needs to deconstruct its parliamentary democracy and the Constitution which are tied by hidden ties to fascism. The most obvious way this can be accomplished is to encourage the people of Latvia to “not-vote”, dismiss the parliamentary partidocracy, and then reconfigure the future in a manner that will encourage mimesis not only among their own, but throughout the world.

The setting of the sails into the winds of history requires a radical jibe, that jibe being the “not-vote”.

Copyright E. A. Benjamins aka Jaņdžs
NOT-VIOLENT TERROR
27 The Children of Johns

The sentiment against Johann, Hans, Wohn and like cognates of Jānis (John) is so grafted to the consciousness of the descendants of Europe’s Johns [once Europe’s wandering priests and teachers (think of the Wandering Jew)], that the event of the graft-birth—birth by sword or cauterization by fire—has been forgotten. The trauma to the psyche has been so great that it is as if the trauma never was and Johns never lived.

This is why Hitler, a descendant of a people who took the graft of neo-Christianity, had no inkling that such a graft had been performed on his forebears. This is why he, an heir to “Operation Spiritual ‘Final Solution’”, was readily recruited to the cause of another “final solution”. Alas, the consequences of a spiritual graft commit the grafted to a mindset from which it is almost impossible to break away. The results of meditative thought—think what you may—it always leads you to think in a self-referential (within neo-Christian parameters) way. For example, beginning with the concept of “blood libel” directed at arch-Christians (their self-sacrificial ways are interpreted as the sacrifice of babies), the neo-Christians—their God removed to the never land of Heaven—were readily able to perceive their opponents as vermin and suicide terrorists. [“Our, Fedre, hu he eart in Heofnum…”, You stay where You are, and we will do whatever we do here on Earth in your name!] “Blood libel” is the victor’s curse on the defeated enemy in order to silence also the loser’s descendants. Hope that they will never remember!

While the curse of blood libel is no longer issued except for the neo-Jews and neo-muslims, probably to provide no excuse whatsoever to recall their past, neo-Christian princes and lords manage to instill in the populace a prejudice against the “pagans” nevertheless. The prejudice maintains its effect by shifting the defeated enemy’s sense of guilt (as enemies of Christ) unto a caste among the losers who survived the defeat of their faction intact. Incidentally, the reason the caste survived is that its members were the collectors of gifts [the Latvian word for gift is called “dahvana” [dahv or diev (a God) + y(j?)ana—a gift to the Gods] for the temple and the sacred king.

The victors exploited the said caste’s experience as collectors of gifts by turning them into tax collectors. To the West, thus, this arch-Christian caste of tax collectors is known as Jews, Juden, now comes softened as Hebrew. This is very good, except that by getting away from Jew and Juden one is liable to lose all connection with history.

What the meaning of the name and its origin is is difficult now to tell, but the word “yule”, the sacred log of the winter solstice—a log once burned in honor of the Sun—may provide a link. In a number of traditions, the yule log—the rump of an oak—was covered with a blanket before it was brought into the house or to the pit for burning. Since trees were once believed to house Gods, the log may have been thought of as a gift of warmth. Another possible source for the name may be the Baltic word “juhgs”, a yoke, a word that means a burden; and taxes surely are a burden. There is also a relationship between Hannukah—a Jewish holy day celebrated about the time of winter solstice—and that same word, but beginning with the letter J(Y), re: Yannukah, an event of J(Y)ohns, perhaps the lost name of the arch-Christian winter solstice festival. In Latvia the Children of Johns would have known their winter solstice festival as Yahndahlins (Jandahlins), a name now signifying the noise that describes the energy found on a dance floor.

Once the Jews switched from gift collecting to tax collecting, they could be manipulated by blackmail. Blackmail occurred whenever the Lord of the manor felt that the Jews had become too independent of the views of the Lord’s court. On the occasions when blackmail was exercised, the Jews were reminded of their origins among the “pagans” or of becoming “pagans” as a result of their betrayal of Jesus Christ.

The blackmail was made credible through the exercise of a “pogrom”, an onomatopoetic word (po+grom) for the strike of lightning and sound of thunder. The anger of the defeated arch-Christians (lingering and real, but without memory of its defeat), given a provocation and alcohol, enabled them to enter the quarters of the Jews—the one’s who the neo-Christian priests had called “killers of Christ”—and do their will until the lord’s bodyguards arrived to put a stop to the violence. Such blackmail against the Jews (and the arch-Christians) has never been confessed (except by Hitler), nor has anyone ever truly withdrawn it. No longer known as “blood libel”, the libel against the Children of Johns took the form of anti-semitism now in the process of forgetting itself and mutating into a mindset that dismisses the self-conscious mindset of Central Europe East as entirely of inconsequence.

Interestingly, a fragment of this arch-Christianity has survived among the Latvians, who remember their arch-Christian priests as Johns and the followers of these priests as the Children of Johns. The Johns Eve and Johns Day Festival take place at summer solstice, which—like it or not—recalls a time when the Johns were under the umbrage of Saule, the Sun as either God or Goddess. If today the words of a folk song, edited by neo-Christians, speak of “Ai, Jānīti, Dieva dēls” (Oh Johnny, Son of God), the more ancient version of it sang “Oh Johnny, Son of the Sun”.

The curse against the Children of Johns (John and all being one Children of the Sun), decimated their numbers by murder (martyrdom) in significant numbers starting as early as the 9th-11th centuries, but gaining significant ground with the 16th and the European Religious Wars. This is the time of the greatest numbers of cross-overs. This is when many of the Children of John(s) crossed over to a fellow caste known as Jews. Under the king’s and princes’ protection, but with no apparent binding agreement or oath that would disallow the Jews to open their ranks to their endangered brethren. This democratic kink, such apparent link to their connection to the Children of John, caused the ranks of the Jews to swell many times their original numbers.

The consequences of the neo-Christian attacks on arch-Christians and victory over the latter to the extent that the former have no recognition of themselves and are allowed no suggestion of any such recognition of themselves—have been many; which is not to get into the problems between neo-Christians and the Muslims.

For one, even as neo-Christian violence caused the Children of Johns to become demoralized and forget their origins, their loss of collective memory (such a memory in modern society enduring for about two generations) caused them to accept a neo-Christian interpretation of history and become haters of Jews, i.e., anti-Semitic and deniers that they might be their own.

Because of the murder and mayhem against the Children of Johns, Johns Eve today has lost almost all of its links to a once very sacred ritual. With ever more renaming of the festival (re: summer solstice, picnic, day off, long-weekend, etc.), ever greater distancing occurs and removes the Johns Eve festival of its charisma and decreases its function as a community-binding celebration.

P.S. I highly recommend “Pan Tadeusz” by Adam Mickiewicz (b. 1798), translated by Kenneth R. Mackenzie, Hippocrene Books. There may be other editions. This is an epic poem that tells of Polish life in the 18th century. It is a long read, but worth it, because it gives evidence of the times of transition from the arch-Christian Children of Johns to Hebrews so zionized that they have become settlers of Z(Y)ion almost beyond recognition.

If you copy this blog or otherwise mention the content of it, please credit the author and http://esoschronicles.blogspot.com/

NOT-VIOLENT TERROR
14 The Unmaking of Jesus (cont.)

The once upon a time the sacred king became a mere king. Some call this mere king a “naked king”. Whatever, this “new” king had two fronts to fight on.

The first front was against the people whom the king had abandoned. No longer bound by the charisma of self-sacrifice, the people fragmented into groups, some of which came to believe that the community was an unnecessary bother, except of course as a military group or mafia that has the power to exploit others. To one such group belonged the “new” king, who maintained peace through force of arms.

The king’s bookkeepers and tax collectors, the Jews, were in the forefront of the second front. This front had the advantage in that it not only helped the secular king rule, but allowed him to “divide and rule”. The king was able to deflect the anger of the people from himself to his tax collectors. This is why, when the king’s position became weak for lack of charisma, the king did not stand in the way of the people venting their anger against the Jews.

Nevertheless, no “pogrom ” happened without the king having a hand on the bridle. To escape the people’s wrath, the Jews hid among the wandering Johns, the group that they themselves had once emerged from. The more successful among the latter, having lost their status as perpetual pilgrims and wandering monks, had settled down as innkeepers. The less fortunate had become mercenary soldiers or beggars. Whatever their personal fortunes, the Johns-Jews knew whence their origin. The bond between the John and Jew held for a long time—until the Johns were demoralized to a degree that lost them their self-awareness, and they became converted to neo-Christianity and joined the mob of those demoralized by the secular kings.

Because the Jews knew how to write, they were able to use writing to defend themselves against both the secular king and the people he had demoralized. The Jews began to collect and record customs of the community. The mere recording of them encouraged the observance of respectful conduct. The Jews called the recorded customs “laws”. However, if in the beginning, the “laws” were much like bookkeeping, merely recorded customs, later, these “laws” became refined through a process known as critique. Obviously, some “laws” were critiqued as being more sophisticated than others and were, thus, made amenable to a greater variety of interpretations than other laws.

This is how books came about—the Codex Hanmurabi, for example http://tinyurl.com/led9ez , which displeased the king and his court in the extreme. Given that the king had given up self-sacrifice and by so doing had also given up his exceptional status (his status above the law), the writing of laws into codices meant that he became subject to law as everyone else. Which is why, to maintain his privileged position, the king needed the support of arms, but arms needed the “moral” support of a story different than that of Iananna and Basil. Even so, the new story, while repeating many of the elements present in its old story, needed a notably different ending: it would end not with self-sacrifice, but the end of self-sacrifice—forever if possible.

[John] Basil was thrown into the pit of fire in 1084 or 1185. The latter is the preferable date, because then the raison de etre for the Crusade against Constantinople is better explained. It clears away the lies that claim that the Turks destroyed the city in 1453. Indeed, the crusade of 1204 and destruction of Constantinople at that time cleared the stage and put an end to arch-Christianity. This, in turn, enabled the introduction of a very different, a self-sacrifice denying, theology.

The next two hundred years that followed 1204, were consumed with wars of repression or neo-Christianization: the Albigensian Crusade, Crusade against the Balts, Crusades on other continents, indeed with the brutal persecution of everyone who was associated with arch-Christianity. This period proved violence and brutality to be such successful tools with regard to repression that even dictators of the 20th century continued to exercise it. This is why the terror of Hitlerite, Stalinist, and Maoist states vied with each other in as near a “total” slaughter of their (state created virtual) “enemies”.

However, the logistics, especially the speed of communications, had so changed society, that violence, though not ended, was shown to be failed policy.

In the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries, state violence was a marvel to behold. Arch-Christendom was eliminated beyond recalling, except as a theoretical shadow in a mathematician’s (Anatoly Fomenko) calculations. The followers of the Sun and her priests, the Johns, were no longer. While for a time the numbers of Jews increased due to the swelling of their ranks by the Johns and their “children” fleeing from neo-Christian attempts to remove them from society and put them into insane asylums, the pogroms caught up with the Jews in the 20th century. With neither kings, dictators, nor democracies needing them as their tax collectors any longer, secularism turned on Jews with such ferocity that only a perverted religion could muster. Of course, by that time the Jews—deprived of history except as myth—had changed their story of origin completely. In fact, those who survived the holocaust adopted a mythical story as objective history, turned to violence to enforce the perception of the myth as reality, and abandoned the universalism of their forebears.

As for neo-Christianity, its leader, the Pope, became all pomp, ceremony, and forgetfulness of self-sacrifice. Most neo-Christian popes die in bed of natural causes. Moreover, Jesus, become John Basil crucified rather than burnt, sits safely in heaven and pontificates over a planet Earth in shambles.