Eso’s Chronicles 161
 ‘Survivors’ of Government Games (6)
© Eso A.B.

When children become ‘survivors’ whether as dead bodies (via our memories of Waco http://politix.topix.com/img/OFEI74R1PB2VRJSD-rszw514  or Beslan http://www.ajuaa.com/news/files.php?file=belsan__9__579804876.jpg ) or live adults enduring flashbacks of government originated violence, and when nearly all inhabitants of our planet may identify as children who ‘survived’, cider turns into blood running over the edges of a cider press.

Ours is a time when Eve gives birth with sadistic pleasure as she quickly ties the umbilical cord, then stuffs an apple in the mouths of all her crying ones, exulting in the knowledge that all her Adams came wearing a military uniform, and were sent by Commanders in Chief such as Obama, Bush, Blair, Cameron, Hollande (put your favourite name here ….).

A millenium after being chased from our safe democracy, the wood, where we had nature’s goods without cost, and after enduring centuries in the desert of the city, humankind (forced by VIPs to become citizens of VIP-made desert) has become a slurry of blood flavoured with chunky bits of pineapple by government controlled cooks of history, the (privately owned) media and designers (‘look! how creative we are!’).

Though one may appreciate the dilemma of government strung out to the point of disaster (an unintended consequence of institutionalized urban democracy), to this time no ‘survivor’ has declared himself ready to be in sympathy with the ‘disaster’. This is not surprising, because no one really remembers that the catastrophe is the consequence of a series of  deliberate  False Flag events such as ‘the Resurrection’, incinerations beyond counting, ‘9/11’, ‘Boston Marathon’, all ‘inspired’ by self-made mental disasters (murderous daydreams) among the leadership and those compulsively and ‘faithfully’ creative under their command.

What if those who staged the False Flag event at the Boston Marathon had not been ‘cogs’ in a bureaucratic wheel? What if the butchering of the two Chechen youths had not been carried out with the inevitability of a machine skipping a ‘yes, no’ of a digital switch? What if President Obama had done some thinking on his own and not put his seal of approval on the Boston Marathon as the successor event to ‘9/11’?

If a “survivor” of Stalin’s gulags had been informed that Stalin had died by his own hand and left a note saying: “I took my life as a token payback for the pain that I caused with my attempts to serve both the Russian and the world community….”, the “survivor” and his-her descendants would likely have borne their personal burdens as a “chosen people” for many generations. However, such an attitude of hope for recovery is not possible in an era, where governments are proxies of banks.

I may be wrong, and instead of a golden calf, I ought to be speaking of a gold fleeced lamb, an even meeker creature than a calf, and for this reason formerly used as a sacrifice the world over. For this cause, the lamb is a sacrificial symbol also among Christians http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2224/2393174660_5d1a7cd388_b.jpg . Unfortunately no Christian banker or government official has in our time offered to sacrifice his-her career on behalf of a nation or community, Perhaps we ought to seek such a sacrifice to come from the leadership of the Christian community?

Almost unbelievably (God given opportunity), such a sacrifice is available at the highest level of the Catholic Church, in the Pope emeritus, Joseph Ratzinger. As most readers know, the current Pope Francis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis  came to office as a result of the previous Pope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI offering an unprecedented resignation (2013). The resignation is the second one in the history of the Catholic Church. The previous resignation was that of Pope Gregory XII http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-gregory-xii-pope-resign-article-1.1260755 , and happened in the year 1415, the year the famous Christian radical and heretic theologian, Jan Hus, was burnt in Constance, Germany. One of Hus’s heresies was to stand for education for children.

Those who read the link to Jan Hus to the end know the meaning of the saying “Holy simplicity”. The sentence's Czech equivalent ("svatá prostota!") is still used to comment upon a stupid-uneducated action. All things considered  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases , Benedict XVI is guilty of the ‘svatá prostata!’ not because of his resignation as Pope, but because one of the reasons for his resignation is the embarrassment to the institutional superego caused by the sexual behaviour of paedophile priests.

Why has sexual violence, including paedophilia, become such a potent issue in our time?

Is it perhaps because sex is no longer an act of nature, but an act out of the realm of the virtual?

If we look into the past, paedophilia (accepted as normal, even expected behaviour for men in ancient Greek society) has drawn increasingly negative reactions since the advent of the industrial age and the emergence of the Feminist Rights Movement, especially in its later stages. The condemnation centres on men, while the touching of children’s genitalia by mother is judged acceptable.

It is interesting to note that paedophilia seems to have drawn heightened condemnation from the societal superego with its increased acceptance of homosexuality. In other words, the campaign against paedophilia may be a compensatory activity by the superego in reaction of homosexual campaign against homophobia. Why such compensation is necessary is a subject for curiosity, but may have something to do with, both, loss of authority by religion, the arrival of an abusive (and overconfidently self-righteous) age of secularism rooted in virtual reality, and the tabu against nakedness. Apparently, such practices are ‘normal’ in a civilization that has turned wood and field into a desert, and has made its home in the camouflaged desert of the city.

It remains to note that long ago, when religion was as much part of society as nature (and biological mindset was ascendant and observing the practice of self-sacrifice, which included life sacrifice), sexuality played a profound role in the life of the community.

A self-sacrificial persona (we call it ‘victima’ today), the sacred king of a given community, would receive sexual gratification as a reward for his self-sacrifice (the sacrificer commonly was a male). There is no record of sexual exploitation of children, because the community likely interpreted such sex a paradox of sacrifice, an act analogous to child sacrifice.

The children of a community often were the offspring of the same father. In days when self-sacrifice was esteemed and in demand, women gave themselves to the sacrificial-king in the belief that the children conceived of such a union would be blessed by the Gods. The tracing of paternity of a woman’s children, was not—as it is popular to assert in our day—traceable to a collective of men (who knows who is father of which child!), but to the sacred king and the orgiastic festivals of Saturnalia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia and Ludi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludi.

Given the post-modern concept that ‘immoral but legal government’ is ‘okay’ and that modern leaders seldom offer themselves in self-sacrifice to the community, the public may wonder whether the ex-Pope (mentioned above), having once stood in the shoes of ‘the vicar of Christ’ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vicar+of+christ , has given theological thought to the notion that the point of Christianity is not to Redeem the sins of government elites, but to lead society by example and denounce governments which repress the children of the ‘ludi’ to the point that they grow up to think of themselves as “survivors” of gross violence. Is it not time to demand that the Pope Emeritus takes on the cause of children and go take baptism in the river of Lethe? A public self-sacrifice by a Christian leader without, for once, resorting to violence will surely bring attention to the fact that humankind has successfully ‘survived’ governments by violence and a new age is at hand.

Basil the Bogomil, aka Jesus, called a child to him, and placed the child among the grownups. He said to his audience: “I tell you truly, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever is like this child is among the great. And whoever welcomes a child in my name welcomes love and refuses violence. (After NIV, Mat. 18)

What must a child of our time have seen to call him- and herself a “survivor” when grown to adulthood? Is not the nation he is born into led by cowards? Are the children of our age not worthy of redemption by Pope Emeritus?

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?’