Eso’s Chronicles 267 / 7

The King & I

© Eso A.B.

All comments appearing within brackets [ ] are editorial in origin. This blog series begins at 264.

 

NEITHER GOD, NOR NOMOS, BUT KING

 

Having begun this series on the ‘King’ with Slavoy Žižek’s mischievous conjoining of the King with bureaucracy (The King and his Bureaucracy, Ch6, ‘Interrogating the Real’), it is only proper to conclude with the no less mischievous comparison that the pop philosopher makes of subjectivity with “dangerous hubris”, insisting that the claim to “authentic essence of humanity” lies “outside the domain of subjectivity”. Žižek posits the subject of authentic essence in Antigone and its human counterpoint in her sister Ismene.

 

I would call the other name of the “subject” that Žižek imagines—a “mask”. However, Žižek quickly becomes inconsistent and contradicts himself, when he decides to dedicate his book to an old Slovene communist, who in 1943 led an uprising of some 2000 starved Yugoslav prisoners against 2200 Italian soldiers who are their guards.

 

The Slovene prisoners succeed in disarming the Italian soldiers. After the war, the Slovene communist is arrested (no reason given why--by the succeeding communist-Stalinist government) and ten years later, he is forced to participate in the building of a monument that celebrates the uprising he led.

 

It is an ironic story, surely.

 

Knowingly or unknowingly, Žižek then tops off the irony by putting Stalin into role of the ‘King’, while the role of the ‘bureaucracy’ passes to Stalinist  communists, those who are enforcing Stalin’s ‘will to power’.

 

This leaves the reader confused as to why Žižek holds an old communist in such high esteem, for obviously the man revolted against the guards of the prison on the basis of his subjective feelings and decisions. The problem resolves itself only if one assumes that Žižek contradicts himself or Stalinists are the new Catholics.

 

I agree that the monument, the ‘subject’ of the ‘’monumental building project, stands for the ‘mask’ of the old communist and his rebellious comrades, who, I assume, are meant to stand for the ‘authentic essence’ of humanity.

 

But why should one believe that the monument stands also for ‘dangerous hubris’? Is that not like a Catholic priest demanding a pagan to renounce his old Gods (who up to the moment are a part of the man’s subjectivity) for the authentic subject of an ‘outside’ God, aka Nomos https://www.google.lv/#q=meaning+of+Nomos ? And is not Nomos synonymous with such repressive organizations of pacification as the Inquisition, the Gestapo, the KGB, and the CIA/NSA? Is not dismissing subjectivity as ‘hubris’ a matter of continued repression and denial of privacy? Therefore, is the monument not a monument to Homo Sacer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sacer --the man who cannot be murdered, sacrificed, but only killed, because all he is is naked?

 

This brings us to “god” with a small ‘g’, because Catholicity (and Christianity derived from globalist Catholicism) surely discredited god when written with a capital G, and here Žižek and Schmitt discredit him with a small g. So, why not replace the missing figure of Trust with the long neglected figure of King?

 

Would not a King serve the 900,000 Latvians forced into economic exile as de facto ‘homo sacer’ better than the bureaucratic totalitarian democracy, which with the backing of the totalitarian democracy of the EU takes upon itself the authority to make them de facto homo sacer or, in other words, homeless?

 

There will be those who will claim that I would reinstall subjectivity in place of an objective (rational law) government that a Hegelian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegelianism bureaucracy presumes itself to represent. As Schmitt asserted: “all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts”. Here we may remember that Catholic Christianity spent many centuries violently persecuting and inquisitorially repressing an earlier Christianity now identified with Bogomils, Cathars, and Krist-Yans.

 

The repression was necessary because like Žižek (a Hegelist), Catholicism believes human subjectivity to be a hubristic element rather than an inherent element of being human. In short, we have biocentered human beings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(ethics) opposed by virtual or ‘man-made’ human beings, who are created by words imbued with violent attributes gained through innumerable acts (? 900,000) of de facto (unacknowledged de jure) murders.

 

To discuss the means by which the King may return is a task beyond these blogs, which are meant to argue against the totalitarianism of liberal democracy in an attempt to overturn its dictatorial order that has taken the helm in Latvia. Even so, we may say—in agreement with Carl Schmitt—that the nature of democracy is to behold the rights of the rulers and the ruled as one. In other words, this is what makes democracy a charismatic force, whereas today it has become an alien and an enemy.

 

I have argued for the return of humankind to the wood and leaving urbanism as a minimal element, an element to be determined by none other than the post-urbanist age itself (certainly not by a carbon tax).

 

I am arguing that Latvians make a serious attempt to recapture for their political estate the King. In a preceding State (1918-1939), though not the post-Soviet Latvia, Latvians did indeed experiment with the notion of the ‘king’s’ return, even though the word was seldom used. This experiment was enjoined by one of the founders of the national community, Karlis Ulmanis, who became President of the country as a result of a coup d'état in 1933.

 

Ulmanis was condemned as a dictator, and many hold him such to this day. I argue, however, that Ulmanis was ahead of his time, and that political science had not yet made such strides as it has made by our time. Be that as it may, a great many Latvians praise Ulmanis’ leadership, but suffer not expressing the praise because they find themselves under a totalitarian liberal democratic regime, which in turn is under the umbrella of a liberal totalitarian ‘democratic’ regime in European Union.

 

Eso’s Chronicles 251/ 37
Addend 11—Kleptocrat Democracies
© Eso A.B.

I have never been comfortable with the term ‘democracy’ as it is used today, let alone with the assertion that it began in Athens of classical Greece, which probably never was except as the ‘dream-land’ of the princely dictators of the West. For the life of me, I cannot imagine a ‘democracy’ beginning in a city, every one of which has a slaughterhouse for animals and several ‘special’ houses for ‘special’ people. Thus, to be sure, this ‘democracy’ does not include animal rights or allow human communities to develop as biocentric political democracies. Instead, we have a ‘humanist’ institution, though that term did not arise until some centuries later during the so-called Age of Enlightenment.

It happens that I feel more comfortable with ‘democracy’ as an institution when we human beings still lived in the wood and there was no priesthood which could insist (it needs an enforcer) that there is only one God and that religion is an institution for disembodied monotheists (for whom circumcision is their 2^nd birth). They say, that Judaism is founded on “monotheism” and—wouldn’t you know it—the institution of law that assures that there is no other God before Thee but One; Who detaches one from one’s mother’s breast by the meme gene brought to us as an unforgettable dream through circumcision*.

So, this is how we came to the uniquely modern One institution known as ‘democratic’ dictatorship, the unelected European government known as the Parliament of the European Union sitting in Strasburg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament and a U.S. Congress detached from the American people by AIPAC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee . While these ‘kleptocracies’ of ‘democracy’ claim to be among the largest democratic institutions of the world (read the link), in fact, they are such only by presuming for themselves the right to declare themselves such when out of reach of a direct vote by the people. In other words, the EU Parliament, the U.S. government, and the Israeli Zionist led government consist of political delegates elected by parties rather than by the people from a Populist midst.

Let us see how this ‘democracy’ came to be. In an interesting but outdated book called “The Cathars”, author Malcolm Lambert, writes in the first paragraph of the Introduction:

“The rise and fall of the Cathar heresy from the twelfth to the early fourteenth century was a major event in Western European history. The reaction which Catharism provoked led directly to the Albigensian Crusade, to the ending of the possibility of a trans-Pyrenean Occitanian state http://www.midi-france.info/1905_occitania.htm and the effective incorporation of the South under a dynamic French monarchy. Catharism rose just as other heresies did in the twelfth century….”

What is out of date about this assertion is that what happened between the 12^th and 14^th centuries in Western Europe (not only in Occitania) was the destruction not of heresy, but early Christianity which preceded Catholic (Globalizing) Christianity. What happened in those centuries was the murder of an earlier European democratic civilization, which was still largely domiciled in the wood.

This civilization of the wood, where human dwellings were but small cleared lots that included beside the dwelling a garden and an orchard,  held our planet as a Commons. It was the civilization of Abel, who was slain (12^th - 14^th centuries) by Cain. Incidentally Abel is a name derived from the name for ‘apple tree’ (apple=abol=Abel=abolish), and we should not be surprised that one of Anton Chekov’s most famous plays is called the The Cherry Orchard, the cherry being a twin of the apple tree in the garden of and in the wood http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLPqISJFK-E&list=PL8A96EE7248015A3B . The ‘dynamic French’, too, were—before they turned French==known as Franks, who before that were known as Vikings, who about that time were kicked out of what today is Romania and resettled in the northwest of Europe to begin a tirelessly violent effort to deliver our planet of dawn or, if you will, the East**.

What we have today is little more than a repetition of that awful past, except that what is happening today is a lot more awful than it was a millennium ago and not-violent nature is beginning to fight back because it has been destroyed by turning the wood into the deserts of the city.

The West is a graveyard, and it blames the murder of Cain on Abel. Do you need proof that the city is a synonym for violence and that it has run out of graveyard space and needs to vacate the homeless from caves? http://rt.com/news/spain-granada-caves-eviction-204/ and, soon, subway tunnels?

*An essential element of the rite of circumcision is the presence of a ‘mohel’ (originally meaning mother), who licks the blood off the wound. The ‘dream image’ meme or ‘knowledge’ ensures that the child will for ever after subliminally visualize the mouth as the birthplace, thus giving the word or law preeminence over the womb.

 

**It is possible that the Aztecs, forebears of Mexico, originated from out of the refugees from Occitania; and their famous ‘sunrise’ ritual reflects a reassertion of the catastrophe taking place in Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanahuatzin .