Copyright E. A. Benjamins aka Jaņdžs
NOT-VIOLENT TERROR
26 The Whence of Zion

The story of Zionist Israel is a copy of the history that ground down the Jews in the past, an event that had its inception following the rise of neo-Christianity and the repression of its arch-brethren, the arch-Christians. The latter are still known as the Children of Johns among the Latvians, though the Latvians know nothing about the history of these “children”. Zionist Israel is real for sure, but the history that legitimizes it is no more valid than the one created for themselves by the Latvians sans the Children of Johns.

Here is one of the problems to the problem: while the word “Zion” echoes to Ion, Yon, John, i.e., Zion=Y(i)on, the Jews pay it no attention. Instead, we hear of archeological digs that discover old walls, but a potential archeological find of John as a statue a thousand feet long buried under the ground at Bamiyan ( John or Yan of Bami) or nearby in Afghanistan, is paid no attention to—either by Israelis or Latvians.
http://tinyurl.com/m2arvr

Whatever one wishes to believe about the existence of an ancient Israel in Palestine some twenty-eight centuries BE, it would make greater sense to seek the origin of Jews among gift collectors (later tax collectors) in the service of the temple and sacred kings. As servants of the kings and princes, the Jews enjoyed the protection of their sponsors (at a later time such protection became devious and exploitative). The relatively recent emergence of Jews as a people has more to do with the emergence of neo-Christianity (serving promiscuous secular power bent on eliminating opposition from arch-Christians) than it has to do with the lands or beliefs of the Semites. This is made clear by the fact that neo-Christians did not intervene in any self-sacrificial manner when the killing of arch-Christians began. Not surprisingly, neither did such intervention occur when the target became the Jews.

As argued throughout these blogs, Jews and neo-Christians, emerged from an arch-Christian foundation that has left traces of itself on all continents. Alas, these traces are simply ignored. It is worth remembering that the word “Christian” consists of two segments: cross + yan, and that Christ is a mythological meaning grafted to the word “cross”, leaving “yan” to become its “live” modifier. In other words, Christian derives from Cross+Yan or Krishyan [another possible spelling: Crnichan]. In 14th century Bosnia the name of an arch-Christian leader, Krishyan, is a personal name in some European countries to this day.

At the same time, the arch-Christians of Bosnia in the middle ages are themselves but a branch of the Johns, whose origins are to be traced to the “gans” (yans—herders) of animals in prehistoric times. The appearance of the Johns as Jews (or Hebrews) has more likely to do with the time when they were engaged in the transport of embalmed corpses from Europe and Asia for burial in the sands of Egypt. As gift collectors, the Yevreys (Jews in Russian) were most likely entrusted with the items that were to be buried with the corpses in Egypt. It is likely that they also became knowledgeable embalmers themselves. The transportation of the dead put the Jews in position of becoming knowledgeable in the ways of the body, not only embalming, but the art of healing as well. Their earnings (an excessive accumulation of gifts) enabled the Jews to enjoy a spiritual overflow (or esoterica of the mind that comes with leisure) that resulted in the Torah, the Bible, and other mimesis of “holy” writ.

The Jews—a caste within the arch-Christian tradition—became Judaized only after their arch-Christian base was repressed. It was only after the Jews, protected by the king let us remember, experienced a numerical surge due to the flight of arch-Christians seeking refuge from neo-Christians, that they became a political threat. The neo-Christians resented the sudden numerical advantage gained by the Jews, which caused them to attacks Jews also. The path of resistance by the Jews (really the Jews + the Children of Johns) resulted in the Judaization of arch-Christendom in the sense that “judaization” is a synonym for demonization of arch-Christianity. When the demonizing ceased, Judaism (the refuge of Children of Johns) became a catch-all for neo-Christianity’s ills: it forgot its John-Jewish roots, became a heretic hunter, and made violence rather than self-sacrifice (equally for all human kind) a trait of its political culture.

When the neo-Christian kings rewrote the story of John-Basil and made its hero Jesus, they simultaneously began a “holy” war against the Johns and their followers. The Albigensian Crusade (1234) is one such war. The crusades against the Slavs and Balts are other such. While there remain legends and poems of the Albigensian troubadours, all that remains of the Balts and their Children of Johns are some songs and—among the Latvians—the name, re: the Children of Johns (Jāņu bērni). The fruits of the neo-Christian victory over the Balts and arch-Christianity continue to be exploited by the neo-Christian Church even today. For example, neo-Christians in Latvia continue speak of the Johns Festival as St. John the Baptist’s Festival (which would be fine if Johns were to be understood as the college of sacred wanderers of whom Jesus was but one) or neutralize Johns Day by calling it “Summer Solstice Festival”. The Children of Johns chose the midsummer solstice as their high holy day, because the Johns were indeed not only the sons of the Sun, but the remnant of those wanderers who after their wanderings returned home.

With all the instruments of repression working against them, how did the name of the Children of Johns survive?

1) The Balts and Slavs were for the most part people of the forest. Forests and swamps covered their vast real estate. The Catholic neo-Christian Crusaders had a hard time penetrating all the nooks and crannies of this vast forested country. The “Day of Johns” continues to be celebrated by Latvians, who once upon a time on this day understood themselves part of a Children of Johns community. Unfortunately, the mind locks of the 20th century silenced the sacred in favor of a family picnic and/or sousing one’s self on beer.

2) The elimination of Johns Children by neo-Christians among the Balts was not as immediately fatal as it was among the Cathars of Albigensia. The Children of Johns in Latvia apparently survived for a while, perhaps along the lines of the Bosnian Church, which had its own hierarchy, and whose leader swore an oath to none. When neo-Christians began to persecute Johns Children as social deviants and anti-Christs, heretics all, and invented or, better, overemphasized ancient pagan mythology to replace arch-Christianity, the natives escaped death by hiding among a sect that was part of the greater Children of John community, the Ivreys, who were were the king’s tax collectors, which was why the king protected them. The Children of Johns began to call themselves Ivrejs or Jews. Since it was the tax collectors who invented writing (by way of keeping records), the other (exiled) Children of John picked up the art of writ of the Ivreys by osmosis and necessity. This was, psychologically speaking, a mind-locking, tongue-biting, and depressing time in the life of all who belonged to the Johns community. Eventually, the community, lacking written resources, succumbed to the neo-Christian ethos, and left the survival of its truths to the human psyche to sort out.

While at its foundation, 80% of Israelis were Ashkenazi Jews from Slavic and Baltic lands, few question how they got to those lands from far-away Palestine. The truth is that they were the inhabitants of the Slav- and Baltic lands all the time. The same goes for the Sephardic Jews. Their origin is the same as that of the Children of Johns among Latvians, but they come by way of North Africa and Spain.

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

NOT-VIOLENT TERROR
20 Prisoners of the Law

It is not difficult to get a perspective of what smoke and nicotine does to one’s body and to begin doing right by it. This is why telling a smoker to “break the habit” often works. However, sometimes a habit is difficult to get a perspective on. Two habits difficult to deal with are neo-Christianity and death. Both for their own reasons so saturate our consciousness that try as we may, some of us cannot look at them with a fresh eye.

Following of the imposition of Christianity and peace through violence and terror (“just war”?), the populace found it expedient to submit to Truth as it was told it from Above. The “Truth” of course is nothing more than the Word (edict, law, order) under the control of a bureaucracy that interprets the Word according to the wishes of the powerful princes and their courts. After being taught for several hundred years running that Christianity is love and to associate this love with Jesus Christ in Heaven, the populace is now unbelieving if told that Jesus in Heaven cancels out love. Likewise, after being told for centuries that death is for God and the secular authorities alone to decide upon, people are shocked if told that life as well as death is their own, and that a voluntary and a self-willed death is the goal of consciousness.

However, as my Blog 18 explains, before incest was tabooed and the taboo became engraved in stone as “law”, the laws of the mind prevailed. In the dream, the counter of the bar is made do as the altar, and the barmaid becomes “mother” with male genitals. The dream denies the values of our society, which are not only neo-Christian, but essentially fascistic, that is, they are superficial, positivist, and directed from Above at the public as advertisements (propaganda in an earlier day).

What hides behind the conflict between “natural” law and man-created law? The Greek playwright Sophocles in his play “Oedipus the King” explains this. http://tinyurl.com/c2lr8d The story tells of how a prince marries his mother (as if he did not know who the Queen of Thebes was), how the citizens of Thebes discover the lie, and why as a result Thebes faces social collapse. Unless the king resigns or is cast out, Thebans believe that their city will suffer a fatal demise.

Nevertheless, there is another possible interpretation of the story. It appears in my rewrite of the Oedipus story. See “Tiresias’ Revenge”. [February, 2009 http://esoschronicles.blogspot.com/ ]

My interpretation argues that in order for Oedipus to earn the right to become King of Thebes, he has to suffer the risk of exposure on a mountaintop. If he (as an infant) survives one night on the mountain, it will mean that the Gods look at him with favor. However, Oedipus’ mother does not want her son exposed to such a risk. The queen offers to sleep with the goatherd who is standing watch if he will let her steal away her son. Another baby, quite dead, is to be put in Oedipus’ place.

The problem this “saving” of Oedipus from the risk of death creates is that by gaining a life not risked, he loses a kingdom. He loses the kingship in two ways: a) the other infant’s corpse (drama demands that this baby is murdered) tells everyone that the Gods did not favor him; and 2) Oedipus did not face the test demanded by the society of Thebes through its sacred by-laws.

The mother of Oedipus, Iocaste, however has a solution. When her son becomes old enough to become king, she will have her husband and Oedipus’ father, the king, killed. Following Laius’ murder, she will marry Oedipus, who through her will become king.

The story told by Sophocles follows this latter line, which shifts the guilt of what plagues Thebes onto the incest taboo. The taboo serves the as a sacred by-law as much as the test of the King’s son over his suitability to become king.

If the drama escapes the notice of modern critics and lends itself to the Freudian interpretation, i.e., son desires to sleep with his mother, it is because we desire to escape the kind of maturity that asks us to accept death and go into that good night with understanding. This neo-Christian doctrine, introduced by priests serving secular princes on the make, had its critics, but—as the erasure by Oedipus’ mother of the need for sacrifice and the violent way that neo-Christianity came to power shows—the critics were killed and the incest taboo was accepted as the very truth of God and Nature.

The denial of the need for self-sacrifice and its substitution with state murder (only the state has the right to kill) is the dogma of our day. The dogma that tells us that the individual has no right to take charge of his-her own life-death, penetrates even the circle of so-called revolutionaries. While not averse to war, they have a nihilistic concept regarding self-sacrifice, i.e., one kills one’s self (a better word is one “explodes” as a “suicide terrorist”) to kill as many bystanders as possible. In effect, the resistance of intelligence to neo-Christian dogma and its violence wrought modern state has been cleansed of the arch-Christian concept of death as a responsibility of a mature mind.

The absence of death from the lives of modern individuals has resulted in unsustainable numbers of people populating our planet. Because of habits long preached and enforced by the modern state in alliance (a charade) with state-created neo-Christian religion, one unexpected result is a exponential increase of human births.

The 6.8 billion people on Earth today are far beyond the 2 billion that our planet can support and sustain indefinitely. The established mindset believes that war and pestilence will eventually take care of the surplus billions. At the same time, death of 4.8 or more billion people begs the mind to perform murder on such a scale, that it cannot face it. Nor can it think of a solution. After all, it has condemned the acts of Hitler and Stalin as atrocities. What is to be done?

At the present (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlgtbEdqVsk ), we imagine the problem as an invasion of aliens. Since we cannot think of killing them as Hitler would have, we imagine death as a kind of perpetual concentration camp. Still, as the film illustrates, our mindset is not free of fascist solutions.

P.S. A philosopher from the left, Slavoj Žižek, opposes self-sacrifice and taking charge of one’s own death. Žižek, a Slovenian Marxist philosopher, who is now international director of the Birbeck Institute for the Humanities at London University (Financial Times, 3/6/2009) is against individual sacrifice. While in one sense Žižek fresh air in a rancid political environment, the air is so much under the control of inertia that it keeps even Žizak from breaking away from the neo-Christian shadow.

In his book called “Interrogating the real” (2005), Žižek discusses a film called “The Life of David Gale” (2003). According to Žižek, the film supports “[sacrifice] right up to suicidal sacrifice, as the only proper ethical virtue.” Writes Žižek “…the film fails: it endorses an ethics of radical self-sacrifice for the good of others; it is for this reason that the hero sends the full version of the tape [the evidence]… because he ultimately needs the symbolic recognition of his act. No matter how radical the hero’s self-sacrifice, the big Other is still there.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzp_b8qvTRo&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4cb1MS9q7Q For Žižek the big Other continues to be big enough to check the will to self-sacrifice.

On the other hand, what if the big Other auto-projects through an act of mimesis? The question that arises is what are we to do with it then, when it is, thus, real?