Eso’s Chronicles 327 / 3
Odds and Ends
© Eso A.B.
All comments appearing within brackets [ ] are editorial in origin.

HOW DOES ‘GENU’ BECOME ‘IESU’? (2 of 4)

With a small clue, such as discovering that the word ‘pagan’ does not mean ‘heathen’, but consists of two parts, ‘pa’ and ‘gan’, we can make long strides such as daddy longlegs, a member of the arachnids called an  Opilione makes, whence it is also known as a Harvest Spider or Harvestman or Shepherd.

That’s pure gobbledygook, no? Not so fast.

Again, let us note that the word ‘opilione’ consists of two parts: Opil + ione. ‘Opil’ derives from ‘opal’ or color (https://www.google.lv/?gws_rd=cr&ei=BytJU6jYHaOGywOq6IGoAg#q=meaning+of+opalescent ) and stands for daddy longlegs many eyes, while ‘ione’ is easily read as ‘ian’, whence the English name for John. In this case, the word ‘harvestman’ derives from the word shepherd, which itself originally meant herder and was pronounced as Ian, or Yan, Ivan, Ion, Johann, Jan, Xian, x 100. Since herders were replaced by agriculturalists, the name was transferred to the latter; thus, also John, Ian, Xian, Janis, Jean, Zhan, etc., become peasants.

As for ‘pa + gan’, the ‘gan’ word also spells Jan, because the letter G may be easily pronounced as J in John or J in gendarme.

So, the many eyed ‘opilione’ stalks on and comes to a stop at the Italian name for ‘peasant’ or ‘paisan’. Is this word not the same as the ‘pagan’ of the Balts? The word, too, consists of two parts: ‘pa’ + ‘isan’. Interestingly, we note that ‘gan’ (or yan) is now spelled ‘isan’. A long time ago, I had a dear friend of Italian extraction, whom I often greeted by addressing him as “Paisan!” meaning not peasant or heathen, but ‘friend’.

Thus, it goes with words and names; and we can now return to the word ‘Genu’ in the title of these blogs and see more easily how it is connected to the ancient herders or Ians, and how Ians was also a name commonly held by kings—such as King John, Ivan the Terrible, Ghegis Khan, Prester John—all because the people who used these names saw a connection between herders of sheep, or goats, or reindeer, or pigs, or cows with a person who was responsible for keeping track of a herd or a community.

Perhaps we can also see how ‘’pa-gan’ becomes ‘pa-isan’ or the other way around, though we cannot necessarily explain how the letter G becomes IS or IS becomes G. Yet we cannot now deny giving consideration to the possibility that John or Ian came to be known as IESU, especially since one John the Baptist (known as John the Christener in other languages) is said to be his forerunner.

Seeing that Easter is soon upon us, we can go on to speculate of how the word ‘Christ’ derives from the word ‘skusts’, after the latter  metamorphosed into the word ‘krusts’ or ‘cross’.

In the Latvian language, the word ‘skusts’ comes from when a woman puts her four cornered shawl across her shoulders, then crosses the two loose ends across her breast and tucks them into her belt or knots them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quechua_Woman_in_Peru.JPG . The pattern that the wearer of the skusts then carries on her body is clearly a ‘cross’. If we now return to our favorite act of ‘pareidolia’, we may note that ‘skusts’ also echoes in such words as ‘skuhpsts’ (kiss) in Latvian, and the word ‘skull’, which we generally see with two shinbones crossed behind it.

If we wish, we may use our pareidolia also to touch the famous Latin American shawl known as a ‘ruana’. It is pictured in the link above. While the origin of the word according to the Chibcha people is derived from the word meaning ‘land of blankets’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruana , I will still dare to link the word to the time when the consonant L changed its pronunciation and became an R. Thus originally, a Ruana may have read Luana, a blanket of the people made of the wool of Llamas https://www.google.lv/#q=image+of+llama .

( To be continued.)

Eso’s Chronicles 241/ 27

Addendum 4—Ecce Russia  II!

© Eso A.B.

 

For anyone looking for Predictions for 2014, I recommend the following insightful observations http://capitalistexploits.at/

 

So, yes, how do we wage a war without committing suicide? As Paul Virilio points out in his book “Pure War 25 Years Later”, the current drive to centralize governments encourages not only ‘nondevelopment’ of a civil society (perceived by less perspicacious observers as a decline of the middle class) on a global scale, but ends with the elimination of ‘man’ (and woman), and human beings as we are accustomed to know them; we are ‘the suicide State’. We meet the  ‘leftovers’ or what can be aptly described as ‘feral men’, who may or may not live in high-rise apartment blocks in the city, but who in the event of an extended or permanent power loss, will not only leave their excrement in the hallways http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25126333 , but their rotting bodies as well.

 

Readers who have read my previous blog know that I believe the cause for this liberalist drive must be sought in the time-continuum of the descendants of the Vikings (the waders—perhaps ‘drifters’--down rivers), who by gutting early history—perhaps because when we lived in the wood there was the fairy tale, but no history—and replaced it with a story of their own that leads humankind by a ring in its nose.

 

This is one of the reasons why I believe that President Putin of Russia is more of a Russian city punk than a Russian in the traditional sense, one with his boots in Russian soil and wood. I rather see him as flying on the carpet that hangs on the wall of a city apartment. This is not to say that at the same time, I do not consider him a leader of significant talent. Nevertheless, when war is being pressed on Russia by, both, the U.S. and NATO military, and when war has to be fought against these powers and that war must be won, and when the only way to win the war is by righting history, then I would go with President Putin only if he has the perception and will to take on the intellectual challenge the war demands.

 

One of the tragedies of the East-West or Communist-Capitalist Cold War conflict was that no historian seriously exposed the longue durée cultural orientation that underlay Stalin’s merciless holy war against all Russians who were in any way contaminated by Western ideas of liberalism and capitalism. Perhaps historians were and remain such milquetoasts, because they were too much under the pressure of the State during the Communist era (and compromised all too much to the Catholic era). Still, it was an Eastern Christian sense of communism, which grounded Stalin as a killer and found him psychological support in the early Christianity of the Slav natives, which did not suffer because Stalin was a Georgian and that the Russian Orthodox Church of the time had long substituted John Basil with Jesus Christ as the God-Man of our planet. Distasteful as it may be for some, Stalin’s authority comes from the longue durée black oak that lay submerged by Western Christianity’s imposition of history as a false flag event meant to smother the perception of earlier times about the nature of humankind.

 

We should not doubt that the theology of Western Christianity (which was imbued with liberalist ideas on their own behalf by Gothic Princes) had long been internalized by ‘civil society’ as we see from numerous examples of that ‘civil’ society (having adopted the ideology of the princes) exterminating ‘early man’ wherever colonists went. The community grounded on militarism vs community grounded in The Great Spirit makes itself felt from the conquistadores in Mexico http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=wars&FileName=wars_aztecs.php , to U.S. 7^th Cavalry Regiment in South Dakota  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre , to the British East India Company http://history1800s.about.com/od/thebritishempire/tp/indiatimeline01.htm , to the conference in Lithuania today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25154618 ,

 

I suspect that neither Lenin nor Stalin knew that they drew support from the Russian people, because these held a resentment of a longue durée nature. I suspect that President Putin is as unschooled in the history of his nation as the people of the West are in theirs, and as the EU prefers it to remain. As a Latvian, I am quite sure, that few Latvians suspect that their spiritual history, too, goes back to early Eastern Christianity rather than ‘pagan’ peasants. Evidences for this are many: the ubiquitous presence of the Sun in their folksongs and the Sun at the basis of the Cathar cross; the very name ‘pagan’ is a corruption of ‘pa-Yan’ (John nobody); ķecer/ clown (Cathar); pastar bērns (orphan) for Cathar monk, from early ‘pastarene’, a synonym for Cathar. There is also a connection with a unique way of choir singing in Lanquedoc, southern France, and a similar style (now lost) in northeast Lithuanian/ southwest Latvian regions.

 

In any event, if we assume that this early cultural history was deliberately repressed by the Gothic-Catholic theology that served Princes and still serves Bankster Capitalists in the EU, we can begin to understand the repressed fury that found its outlet in Stalin’s bloodbaths. Though such bloodbaths are, rightly, deplorable, there are plenty of reasons http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-29/there-are-199235-ultra-high-net-worth-people-world-over-30-million-assets why the furies that justify it may soon be on the loose again.

 

Why is any of this important? Let us return to the question of history. If we write a fictitious story (biography) of history in red, because color red is most obvious, dramatic, and attention getting, but write the story of real events by dipping our pen in milk, then the first will be visible from some distance, while the latter will be visible only when the sheet of paper is exposed to the heat of a flame and the milk turns brown. In short, the real version of history is likely to be bypassed until the story written in red (possibly blood) leads us into situations that threaten society with extinction.

 

More in the next blog.

 

Eso’s Chronicles 163
The Forgotten Christians of Tibet (7-2)
© Eso A.B.

I know of course that Christianity is supposed to have originated with the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. For a long time, I, too, held to that belief, but the paradox of Christianity: that it acted more like a secular religion than a spiritual religion took its toll. It made no sense why religion should be so empty of ideas and will to resist the rampage of capitalism. I began to investigate the sources of Christian beginnings.

First of all, were historical sources of Christianity itself, and those who disputed these sources. In due course, I realized that the story of Christianity that is being propagated in our day and for some centuries in the past, may be a false Flag story, perhaps even a False Flag.

The first solid touchstone for the story of Jesus as a False Flag was my discovery of an alternate version for the story of King Oedipus by the Greek writer Sophocles. Rather than go along with tradition and Freud and see the play as a story of mother and son incest, I discovered—through my long time curiosity about the whyfores of ancient human sacrifice—that the story could even better be interpreted as a story of betrayal of religion http://oedipusrexrewritten.blogspot.com and community.

The second step, the discovery of the real story about Jesus, came quickly soon thereafter. Having read Anna Comnena’s “The Alexiad” and coming across the story of the Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna in Bart Ehrman’s fabulous book “Lost Christianities”, I realized that the story of Polycarp is a twin to the story of Basil the Bogomil in “The Alexiad”. True, the available stories tell us that Polycarp merely imitated Jesus; however, it is just as believable that Jesus’s name was replaced by that of Polycarp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp . The meaning of the name ‘rich in fruit’ http://www.behindthename.com/name/polycarp is consistent with that of praise for a king, Basil, or, for that matter, Jesus. Besides, the name ‘karpos’, fruit, has an easy pareidolic association with ‘carp’, a fish. In days past, carp was the main ingredient in a dish of the poor, re gefilte fish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gefilte_fish .

Once I got that far into the labyrinth, I began to suspect that the assignation of religion to a specific originator was a story not likely to be true either.

The evidence for this came from my ethnic inheritance, the Latvian language. It happens that in Latvian the most needed teaching for the solidarity of a community is passed from parents, especially the mother, to children by way of the Latvian language itself. This is not by do or don’t directives, but by word inflections imbedded in the language, the inflection that makes a word an endearment. The Latvian language is capable of endearing every word that touches object and subject, including verb. Therefore, if a child is taught to use endearments, a Latvian was/is able to endear (no doubt, with irony) even his-her enemy. Unfortunately, due to the close interlink, neither the pedagogic or political systems are interested to pass this inheritance along.

For this linguistic phenomenon to occur and maintain its potential (though ignored) to our day, not only must a language be extremely old and untouched by a superego dictating laws from above, it likely enjoyed many centuries of freedom and experienced itself as being a worthwhile and practical tool of social intercourse.

Such discoveries as above, also led me to see the name of ‘John’, which has many cognates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_(given_name) (and the link gives only an inept sketch of the extensive use the name has been put to), in a new light. The name obviously reaches thousands of years into the past. One of the common links between the many cognates is that they denote travel, moving, roads, guardianship (jandarme), animal herding, kingship (Gengis), and sacred office. Of the latter, I especially note that the name of Mohammed, also lends itself to the pronunciation of Yohammed or Johan(m), i.e., John. It led me to see that the cognates were not limited to the consonant j or g as the first letter of a name, but that numerous consonants, such as b, d, g, h, j, p, v, w, and all the vowels were put to use as well.

One of the tools that I use to make my discoveries is pareidolia. A widely and deliberately overlooked method in scholarly circles, pareidolia is a device used by ‘the poet within’ every one of us. While our conscious self may pay no attention to parallel meanings or sounds, ‘the poet within’ may pick up on it without much effort or guilt. This often happens through words in a song, especially rhymes, either at the end of lines or imbedded in the text.

One word that could long ago have been put to better and more accurate use is ‘pagan’, but because of rigid academism never was. The word is far more telling when pronounced ‘pa-yan’, because then we clearly see that the prefix ‘pa-’ is meant as a put-down to the name of ‘Yan’. A full explanation will take more space than I have here, but  the pronunciation ‘pagan’ is trying to eliminate the association of ‘pa-yan’ with an archaic form of Christianity better pronounced as ‘cross-yan’ (X-yan), The prefix ‘pa’ erases the ‘X’ by reducing it to ‘pa’. X is of course nothing but a mark for a cross road , which is a place to gather and confer.

An entirely different story may be accessed through the name of ‘uriankkai’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uriankhai , a forest dwelling people closely associated with the Evenks (see below). The Uriankha may have contributed to such modern names as Juri (a cognate of George), and by way of Korean to ‘orangutan’ (yorang…).

Having reached this level of familiarity and confidence, I began to look for patterns that might indicate the use of language as a tool to pass along communal values. Another language (aside from Latvian) that I read had the ability was the above mentioned Evenks (also known as Tungus) http://www.hunmagyar.org/turan/evenk/ , a herding people, who once used to follow reindeer herds with the seasons. I noted that if ‘evenk’ were to derive from the verb ‘to herd’, the verb of Jahnis (John) in Latvian would have been ‘to yanc’, which may have led to the verb ‘to dance’, originally meaning to milling around. When looking for information about the Evenk language, found little of the kind of information I was looking for. Academics appear mainly interested in grammar, not what a language aside from subject and object communicates or that it transforms itself with the help of pareidolia.

This is a long way about to come to the Tibetan people of whose efforts to resist their cultural elimination by the Chinese government through self-immolation is in current news. This Wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Tibet mentions that Christianity has been noted in Tibet in the early 5^th and 6^th centuries. Along with my theory that communal-moral-religious values were passed on through language, I suggest that indeed Tibetan Christianity preceded Western Christianity. If Bön, said to be a shamanistic Tibetan religion, may also be pronounced as Yon, then we have a link not through any specific historical name, but a transmission of religious values by their imbedment in sound http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_K_mMhZrPs  and languages.

Incidentally, Islam and early Christianity have the same roots, rather than the divisive separation created by secularist extremists on either extreme.

 

© Eso Anton Benjamins


NOT-VIOLENT TERROR
1 What is terrorism?

The term “terrorism” originated with the Jacobins  during the “Reign of Terror” of the French Revolution. “Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible,” said Robespierre, Jacobin leader.


The word “terror” comes from (see Wikipedia) Proto-Indo-European tre-, meaning to shake, tremble, which reached Latin as terrorem (fright, fear).


However, fear and trembling are not synonyms for terror in all languages. In Finnish and Chinese, it is kauhu and kongbu respectively, which is closer to the English word combat. Since one often fights for one’s rights—rights that one believes to be one’s just claim—Robespierre’s definition is closer to the original meaning of the word than Latin. Of course, this is not to deny that the death sentences ordered by the Revolutionary Tribunal under Robespierre’s direction not only made thousands tremble, but the phrase “reign of terror” did indeed come to signify fright, fear, and a settling of accounts with but cursory procedures and verbally vague charges. To repeat Robespierre: “…promt, severe, inflexible”, a decision by man not inspired by presumed laws of God, but by man in full bloom of subjectivity polished by rhetoric.


Today, however, the word “terror”—familiar to society as a result of frequent wars, literary references, and more recently through the phrase “war on terror”—reflects back on many “legitimate” governments as being institutions in the “business” of sowing paranoiac fear among the public to increase their power beyond the limits of any Constitution. President Bush’s statement that the Geneva Convention did not protect “enemy combatants” at the Guantanamo Base detention camp, made it apparent that the United States wished to legitimize terror as a tool of government. http://tinyurl.com/ddacl4 In this sense, the Bush administration was a Jacobin as they come.


The threat of terror has served as a scare tactic for a long time. The Catholic Inquisition (beginning about 1184) used terror to persuade so-called “pagans” to convert to the Catholic version of Christianity, what this writer calls neo-Christianity. If one assumes (the whyfores anon) that “pagans” had a religion of greater virtue than the kind brought to them by the Inquisitors, then it makes good sense that only tactics of fear and persistent intimidation may break the hold (for dear life!) arch-Christians had on their virtues. Which raises the question, why—inspite centuries of reassurances to the contrary—would the Catholic Inquisition represent neo-Christianity and not its predecessors, the more virtuous arch-Christians?


The answer may beg belief for some, but is rather plain. “Pagan” religion never was just about fertility gods, thunder gods, dragons, the goddess of fate, and their like. That is a fiction created by the neo-Christian Church.


From the beginning, societies that were larger than life—that is, groups of people larger than a family of a mother and her children and perhaps a father or two—were obliged for their cohesion to self-sacrifice. While self-sacrifice may be said to be an every day experience (often imbedded in some tradition, as when, for example, the Chinese give the best morsel in their soup to their guest), the ultimate sacrifice was always necessary. It seared self-sacrifice as a value and virtue into the society’s mind. It was obvious to arch-Christians that their leaders must lead by example, and the example of ultimate self-sacrifice leaves no doubt that the sacrifice (necessarily by a leader of the community) puts the community’s interests above his own.


While neo-Christianity has its explanation of how Christendom or Christian society came into being, we should note that it has never been at peace with itself. It is of course wrong to argue that aboriginal societies practicing self-sacrifice are without problems, nevertheless, the “Christian sphere” has consistently found it necessary to resort to physical coercion and violence to assure hegemony.


This is why it is necessary to look behind the neo-Christian façade maintained with the support of violence, and pose the question whether neo-Christianity was preceded by what we may call arch-Christianity. Arguably, arch-Christianity would have shared its creation myth with—and, thus, been linked with—its aboriginal past.


What is arch-Christianity, the thing hid in the cellars of neo-Christianity?


Arch-Christianity would not have found it possible to imagine that it could send its founder to an imaginary Heaven to lose himself, and that the “people” could do without being a frequent witness to self-sacrifice or live within the psychic consequences of it. Arch-Christian leadership in and of itself could not have imagined that it could exist as a body outside the body of the people. The leadership of an arch-Christendom would necessarily have led a largely non-violent society by having it and themselves join frequent witness to self-sacrificial acts.


It has not been easy however to look behind the façade of “modern” (and post-modern) times, because, for one thing, it looks upon ultimate self-sacrifice—other than an exception in which case it is “good”—as sacrilege. Why is this? The answer is clear. The charisma that emanates from self-sacrifice comes with a command: Thou shalt love Thy community with thy life. Indeed, the charisma that attaches itself to the sacrifice both before and after death, threatens any power that rules by means that, as one American president had it, “speak softly but carry a big stick behind your back”. It is in this sense that we may begin to see the advantages of a society that does not carry either a stick or a gun, but governs through the not-violent terror of self-sacrifice.


Of course, today human sacrifice (by one’s self or others) has become a topic almost exclusively associated with “primitive” tribes. Ultimate self-sacrifice is not discussed unless it has some connection with the ultimate sacrifice made by a soldier in the nation’s military. For the neo-Christian man or woman, the topic appears only in the context of ancient or medieval times, and then only as a revolt against the king’s once sacred authority. [A sideline: No doubt the Catholic clergy wept when the French Revolution took not only the head of the last sacred king (presumed), but confiscated most of its real estate holdings. Well it might weep, because its long service to secular governments ended with the implicit replacement of neo-Christian disbelief with belief in what we today know as neo-liberalist economic solution.] It is not surprising that large segments of society in our day feel that the king was more often than not a traitor.



Asterisk & Notes of Interest:


1. This writer agrees, more or less, with the new chronology of history as proposed by Anatoly Fomenko.


2. A once common way of self-sacrifice. Look for the word “endura ”.


3. There are other ways to explain “Christianity” than the explanations given by orthodox authorities. For the latter explanation, see Acts 11-26, where we find the supposed first mention of “Christians”. However, the word has no certain chronology and words such as “very old” and “ancient” are appropriate. The word “Christianity” may be read as consisting of two parts: cross + yan; perhaps “cross” standing for here, this place, this individual; and J(Y)an standing as a name of an individual or the name of a place. Thus, the name Krishyan—still common in central Europe—used to stand for the name of a priest, i.e., Krish (likely a variation on the word “cross”, but Yan (likely derived from “gans”, herder, perhaps of geese) the Priest.


The second part of Krish-yan was deliberately obscured by neo-Christians (of the English-speaking variety in the English variant of the word) by replacing “Yan”with “ian” in order to cause the public to forget “Yan”. The name was likely associated with self-sacrifice. Similarly constructed words: Rama-yana; Mande-yana; Krish-yana.